RagtagJack
No bio...
User ID: 1300
RagtagJack
2yr ago
Evidence is unambiguous that political opinion is significantly genetic, which would imply there are innate attractions to a general political aesthetic. We're in the very early days of understanding what those attractions are, so it's unsurprising there are many false starts.
Regarding plausibility of the specific idea, there is very direct path to grounding the concept. With a initial premise that public opinion is shaped by elite discourse it's a relatively straightforward conclusion, once you recognize an institution can disproportionally raise the status of some over others, that a long-lasting powerful institution could leave a mark on our social fabric.
I can't really see how Conscientiousness and Conformism form two ends of some kind of axis.
Given two points in a n-dimensional plane you can reduce everything to the relative proximity to each point. Conformist and conscientious behaviours aren't some inherent axis, they're just the two dominant behaviours that were advantaged by the introduction of organized religion.
RagtagJack
2yr ago
Not sure I follow the lineage you trace back to the birth of Abrahamic religion,
Yeah its clear I need to clean up my explanation. My original point with it is that Abrahamic religion provided a societal structure that significantly advantaged 'The Religious Type' (of which Conformists and the Conscientious are the two major components), who then built institutions according to their dispositions; the church, the legal system and education being heavily Conscientious, academia and the media being heavily Conformist. But I got distracted going over the history, and left out the explanation of its importance.
I think the modern blue tribe has its roots in the church and its role as counterweight to kings.
It's hard for me to say just because I don't know as much about the church in its role as counterweight, I know much more about the enlightenment era, but opposing a heavily conscientious institution in the monarchy would certainly fit the pattern.
The manufacturing of ideas and control of the spotlight can act as a counterweight to power by coordinating action amongst the masses.
While I agree that Blue Tribe served as a very significant counterweight between the 16th and 20th centuries, I would disagree that being a counterweight is inherent to their structure, despite their constant efforts to frame themselves as such. While they certainly acted as a counterweight when one was needed, the media and academia both hold significant amounts of inherent power and today they are the thing that must be counterweighed.
However, they do not make high incomes because there’s no way for them to monopolize or own their influence
True, partially, yes, with the exception of academics. The capture of rents from "science" and upper-education constitutes a sizable jobs program.
RagtagJack
2yr ago
"centring your religious behaviour around Scripture alone" is Conscientious
Yes, this is what I would define. In that the Conscientious follow the specific prescriptions of the bible, whereas the 'Conformists' would use the bible as a higher-order reasoning device from which to infer social principles. Both would have used the Bible, hence why they gained status relative to other groups, but would use the Bible in noticeably different ways. My train of thought on this is "ingroup conformity as a consequence of debate and disagreement," which I have slightly elaborated on elsewhere in this thread, but it's clearly confusing people and I need to explain it better or ditch it. Your criticism that the label of "Conformist" doesn't really work is taken, and I'll have to figure out how to define the cluster in a more appropriate way.
And they certainly were not liberals as you say "Conformists favour abolition and liberalism", as may be seen when the fringe movements of Dissenters etc. come into conflict with the new Protestant major denominations. Lutherans weren't any more soft on Anabaptists than the Calvinists.
If I understand what you're saying, I disagree. Hating the outgroup isn't incompatible with being liberal.
(2) rich noble women, a strange mixture.
Women grade measurably higher in agreeableness and conscientiousness, and as far as I'm aware have always been considerably more religious than men. Strange a priori I'd agree, but given what we know of the last 2000 years it's relatively unsurprising.
and the Red Tribe burned over district tendency in contradistinction
Just reading more about the Burned Over District, as I'm unfamiliar with it, but I would consider the Burned Over District to be heavily conformist (blue tribe). The sexual experimentation feels like a a pretty clear giveaway, especially relative to the heavily Presbytarian (red tribe) regions of New England that many of the immigrants to the Burned Over District originated from. One of my points, which I've poorly expressed, is that Conformists and the Conscientious represent two psychological dispositions that frequently splinter off each other. Even if heavy self-selection occurs, families will produce kids across a new continuum, and across generations families will once again self-select.
And would you define, say, Joe Biden as Blue Tribe or Red Tribe? Democrat - Blue Tribe; Catholic - Red Tribe (or Conscientious in your formulation); claims to working-class background - Red Tribe. But while he may mention his rosary beads, he's fully in line with the values on gay marriage, contraception, abortion, etc. So - Conformist or Conscientious? Red Tribe or Blue Tribe?
Blueish-Purple. Political leaders are often chosen for electability, so they frequently converge towards the mean of the electoral base.
And how about someone from Red Tribe background and family, with Blue Tribe cultural tastes?
I would consider them to be Purple. To the extent that they represent the Blue end of the continuum of traits that can be produced by Red Tribe parents, and will likely self-select into a more neutral environment.
I appreciate your comment, it's helped me identify some of the thoughts I need to clean up.
RagtagJack
2yr ago
This is not a good description of the reformation though? Far from being libertine and concerned with equality , early Protestants were often puritanical and had fewer qualms about slavery than Catholics.
I am aware, which is why I don’t call the two sides liberal and conservative. I only intended to speak to the last few hundred years in that particular point, but the wording was poor and I need to revise that.
Regarding infighting among Protestants, the point isn’t Protestants are Conformist and Catholics are Conscientious, but rather when people had the opportunity to self-select, they would do so in a way that fit their disposition. Within the Northern nations the self-selection occurred among Protestant sects, as Catholicism was not an option.
Thank you, I appreciate the kind words.
The conformists seem to be the ones who keep “not-conforming” to the the structures of their day?
Yeah, I see I’m playing a dangerous game with the names. In my mind there’s a clear distinction between rule-following and social conformity. In that one is a convergence of actions (you must obey, even if you disagree) and the other a convergence of beliefs (you must agree, even if you disobey). But the two frequently overlap.
I’ll need to pick different names.
Then once they do create an alternative belief structure, historically those beliefs tend to splinter into a million different factions and flavors
Yes, I tried to touch on it briefly in the final note, but this is one of the great absurdities of the situation. Intense disagreement is frequent. The process of debate seems to cause divergence at the first level, on whatever is being argued about, but causes an unconscious convergence of values and higher-order beliefs.
Fair enough, I’ll have to spend more time explaining the broad structural forces rather than specific instances.
2000 years is an astonishingly brief period of time, and I don’t think it’s outlandish to suggest that a particular strong societal institution could favour certain subgroups.
The idea that the Protestant Reformation was somehow the same movement as the modern movement that supports same-sex marriage and gender theory as core values is so absurd that I'm not even sure how to respond.
Not the same movement, but caused by similar structural forces.
RagtagJack
2yr ago
There's an idea that I've been considering for a while, a partial explanation of the origins of Blue-Tribe and Red-Tribe as political forces, and I'd appreciate thoughts.
tl;dr: Blue-Tribe gains status with better communication tools, Red-Tribe gains status with hierarchical structure and industrialization. These groups have relatively consistent social and political beliefs, and attempt to use their status to structure society according to their predispositions.
Moderately expanded:
-
Abrahamic religion comes along ~2000 years ago and upends the social landscape. Importantly, the new religion provides new benchmarks for which to assess individuals, and therefore disproportionally raises the status of individuals with behaviours that best fit the religious structure. Specifically, individuals high in conformism and/or rule-abiding behaviour. These become the new elite.
-
As Rome declines and the Catholic Church gains prominence there is again a redirection in the social landscape, this type disproportionally benefitting rule-abiding and hierarchical neurotypes above that of other religious types. We'll call this group the Conscientious, which roughly maps to the modern Red-Tribe. The religious subtype that is now playing a distant second fiddle, with an inability to enforce power across large geographical distances, we'll call the Conformists, roughly mapping to the modern Blue-Tribe.
-
Western society trods along for around 1000 years with the Conscientious as the clear dominant neurotype. But the printing press is then introduced, a technology that overwhelmingly facilitates Conformist power above that of the Conscientious. Significant upheaval occurs as the two groups become roughly balanced in power.
-
The Conformist vs Conscientious struggle at this point is widely prevalent, becoming a primary axis for conflict. First it's Protestantism (Conformist) vs Catholicism (Conscientious), but then as Protestantism takes hold within Northern European nations and schisms occur people begin to self-select into denominations that favour their predispositions (e.g. Lutheranism overwhelmingly Conformist, Calvinism overwhelmingly Conscientious). Even as the explicit religions change, the general political and social tendencies remain consistent. Conformists favour abolition and liberalism, the Conscientious favour stringent sexual morality, and so on.
-
The printing press facilitates books, universities and the media, all heavily advantaging Conformists. But economic expansion also creates industrialization, which advantages the social status of the Conscientious. While other neurotypes continue to exist, the power of Conformist and Conscientious circles is so far above that of everyone else that even minor shifts in the balance of power have social ramifications. But for the most part the trend is clear, communication tools advance year over year, advantaging Conformists, with only relatively minor reversions due to periods of industrialization.
-
While Conformists attempted to maintain Conformity centered around the Bible, this increasingly became absurd as contradictions and inconsistencies are made apparent. A shift towards conforming around "reason" and scientific knowledge occurred, as the contradictions can be buried at a much deeper level. Conformists eventually become the modern agnostics and separate from Christianity. Protestant sects that remain are overwhelmingly Conscientious.
-
Over the last 50 years we have the trifecta of rapid advancement in communication tools, deindustrialization of the West, and (possibly as a consequence of the first two) a decline in religiosity. The decline in Conscientious power is so extensive that, as of the last few years, they no longer hold sufficient power and status to constitute a bloc in their own right, with a broad coalition of Anti-Conformism taking up the mantle as designated opposition.
And two final notes:
-
I recognize the label of "Conformist" is relatively derogatory, but for now it feels the most appropriate. I do not believe that a desire to conform is necessarily inherent within the broad collection of people that can be called 'Conformist' (although it certainly applies to a subset, there are factions even with Conformists), but rather the general appreciation for debate and argument forces individuals to use a common set of axioms, which as a byproduct causes thoughts and beliefs to converge. (I could write quite a bit on the irony of debate causing a convergence of axiomatic beliefs, but I'm unsure if its been done)
-
Even to the extent this whole concept may be true, it is only one axis among many.
This is first time I've attempted to organize my thoughts on this, so I apologize if it's rough or if the formatting is a pain.
Definitely, yes.
I think what I’m realizing is that my initial choice of terminology unintentionally framed this as two continuous factions that have “survived,” rather than the consequence of self-organization and a constant structural force.
Nonetheless, you’re correct the terminology is messy, compounding on an already messy concept.
Thank you for all the feedback.
More options
Context Copy link