Inside the Cold, Calculating Libertarian Mind

[winnied]

From WSJ:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016291138331904.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

An individual's personality shapes his or her political ideology at least as much as circumstances, background and influences. That is the gist of a recent strand of psychological research identified especially with the work of Jonathan Haidt. The baffling (to liberals) fact that a large minority of working-class white people vote for conservative candidates is explained by psychological dispositions that override their narrow economic interests.

Enlarge Image

Leo Acadia
In tests, libertarians displayed less emotion, empathy and disgust than conservatives or liberals.

In his recent book "The Righteous Mind," Dr. Haidt confronted liberal bafflement and made the case that conservatives are motivated by morality just as liberals are, but also by a larger set of moral "tastes"—loyalty, authority and sanctity, in addition to the liberal tastes for compassion and fairness. Studies show that conservatives are more conscientious and sensitive to disgust but less tolerant of change; liberals are more empathic and open to new experiences.

But ideology does not have to be bipolar. It need not fall on a line from conservative to liberal. In a recently published paper, Ravi Iyer from the University of Southern California, together with Dr. Haidt and other researchers at the data-collection platform YourMorals.org, dissect the personalities of those who describe themselves as libertarian.

These are people who often call themselves economically conservative but socially liberal. They like free societies as well as free markets, and they want the government to get out of the bedroom as well as the boardroom. They don't see why, in order to get a small-government president, they have to vote for somebody who is keen on military spending and religion; or to get a tolerant and compassionate society they have to vote for a large and intrusive state.

The study collated the results of 16 personality surveys and experiments completed by nearly 12,000 self-identified libertarians who visited YourMorals.org. The researchers compared the libertarians to tens of thousands of self-identified liberals and conservatives. It was hardly surprising that the team found that libertarians strongly value liberty, especially the "negative liberty" of freedom from interference by others. Given the philosophy of their heroes, from John Locke and John Stuart Mill to Ayn Rand and Ron Paul, it also comes as no surprise that libertarians are also individualistic, stressing the right and the need for people to stand on their own two feet, rather than the duty of others, or government, to care for people.

Perhaps more intriguingly, when libertarians reacted to moral dilemmas and in other tests, they displayed less emotion, less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals. They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed "effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks" more than others do.

The researchers found that libertarians had the most "masculine" psychological profile, while liberals had the most feminine, and these results held up even when they examined each gender separately, which "may explain why libertarianism appeals to men more than women."

All Americans value liberty, but libertarians seem to value it more. For social conservatives, liberty is often a means to the end of rolling back the welfare state, with its lax morals and redistributive taxation, so liberty can be infringed in the bedroom. For liberals, liberty is a way to extend rights to groups perceived to be oppressed, so liberty can be infringed in the boardroom. But for libertarians, liberty is an end in itself, trumping all other moral values.

Dr. Iyer's conclusion is that libertarians are a distinct species—psychologically as well as politically.

[wrathofkuus]

I'm going to have to post this on Wedding Woes, since they have a habit of calling me RoboKuus.

[IIOY]

Oct 4, 2012 15:00:08 GMT -5 winnied said:

Perhaps more intriguingly, when libertarians reacted to moral dilemmas and in other tests, they displayed less emotion, less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals. They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed "effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks" more than others do.

When this was first published, I meant to post it here. Parts of this definitely describe me, but the above in particular was spot on. I'm very cold and calculating, which probably explains my fixation with pure dollar-in/dollar-out issues and why I harp on about death panels in a manner that is only slightly TIC. I try hard to take into account vague concepts such as "societal value" but I struggle to do so when I see something bleeding money and struggling to find a way to pay for it. My instinct isn't to find more money to feed the (possibly worthy) beast, it's to staunch the bleeding by reducing the size of the beast because clearly a bleeding beast is flawed in design.

I'm going to change my SN to ColdNCalculating. ;D

[winnied]

Oct 4, 2012 15:10:20 GMT -5 IIOY said:

When this was first published, I meant to post it here. Parts of this definitely describe me, but the above in particular was spot on. I'm very cold and calculating, which probably explains my fixation with pure dollar-in/dollar-out issues and why I harp on about death panels in a manner that is only slightly TIC. I try hard to take into account vague concepts such as "societal value" but I struggle to do so when I see something bleeding money and struggling to find a way to pay for it. My instinct isn't to find more money to feed the (possibly worthy) beast, it's to staunch the bleeding by reducing the size of the beast because clearly a bleeding beast is flawed in design.

I'm going to change my SN to ColdNCalculating. ;D

Indeed! That is a point that actually makes sense to socially liberal people and it gets them thinking. They may still disagree overall but it's a good argument.

This describes H and I very well. Our friends and family look at us like we're crazy all the time because of how we consider things.

[eclaires]

LOL... my husband is the perfect Libertarian. His mind just works that way. It's slightly fascinating, and I tend that way in some ways, so it doesn't bother me much.

[winnied]

H and I also get so frustrated when talking with non-libertarians and they all think with their *gasp* feelings. As if that's such an awful thing lol. If everyone could stop having a soul that would be fantastic. Kthx.

[IIOY]

Oct 4, 2012 15:25:04 GMT -5 winnied said:

H and I also get so frustrated when talking with non-libertarians and they all think with their *gasp* feelings. As if that's such an awful thing lol. If everyone could stop having a soul that would be fantastic. Kthx.

Bwahahaha! Seriously! I can't tell you how many times I've read threads on here and thought, "Fuck the goodwill, what about the MATH, man?!?"

[meshaliuknits]

Oct 4, 2012 15:26:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Bwahahaha! Seriously! I can't tell you how many times I've read threads on here and thought, "Fuck the goodwill, what about the MATH, man?!?"

That needs to be in your sig.

[wrathofkuus]

Oct 4, 2012 15:10:20 GMT -5 IIOY said:

I try hard to take into account vague concepts such as "societal value" but I struggle to do so when I see something bleeding money and struggling to find a way to pay for it. My instinct isn't to find more money to feed the (possibly worthy) beast, it's to staunch the bleeding by reducing the size of the beast because clearly a bleeding beast is flawed in design.

I am so with you on this.

[pescalita]

Oct 4, 2012 15:26:43 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Oct 4, 2012 15:25:04 GMT -5 winnied said:

H and I also get so frustrated when talking with non-libertarians and they all think with their *gasp* feelings. As if that's such an awful thing lol. If everyone could stop having a soul that would be fantastic. Kthx.

Bwahahaha! Seriously! I can't tell you how many times I've read threads on here and thought, "Fuck the goodwill, what about the MATH, man?!?"

My political positions make so much more sense to me now.

What I've thought about the last week here makes more sense to me now.

[basilosaurus]

I'm totally cold and calculating in general, but I'm still a progressive liberal. And I think I justify it b/c the math can be unclear. If I take a bleeding heart POV about education, and think about poverty, kids' homes, etc, and what can fix that, what costs we incur if we don't, I can also convince myself that in the long run, it saves money to address root causes.

Does anyone have numbers on that? I doubt it. So I feel I still take a very utilitarian view that doesn't really involve my emotions.

[IIOY]

Sibil, I agree and often make the long-term economics argument for spending money now. For example this is why I'm not only OK with spending on education but think it ought to be a national priority. Now, I don't want to throw money into an inefficient machine, but I'm much quicker to advocate spending on schools than on something like Medicare where some phenomenally high percentage of medical expenditure is incurred in the final months of the typical person's life, meaning that the return on investment is basically nil if not a net loss.

[wawa]

Oct 4, 2012 16:28:05 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Sibil, I agree and often make the long-term economics argument for spending money now. For example this is why I'm not only OK with spending on education but think it ought to be a national priority. Now, I don't want to throw money into an inefficient machine, but I'm much quicker to advocate spending on schools than on something like Medicare where some phenomenally high percentage of medical expenditure is incurred in the final months of the typical person's life, meaning that the return on investment is basically nil if not a net loss.

MH also thinks this way. He's kinda dead inside, but he can still see the value in education. He's also a fan of extremely generous childcare voucher programs. And school lunches.

ETA: because IIOY and sibil are here I'm gonna go ahead and tell a related but still pointless story - MH is so freakin' emotionless. It's mostly funny to me at this point, but it took some getting used to. The night before our wedding day somebody asked him if he was excited or nervous. And he just kinda shrugged and said, "eh, neither?" and when his friend just stared at him in confusion he elaborated, in total and complete deadpan, "I'm just dead inside." I laughed and laughed.

Funny cause it's true...

[basilosaurus]

Oh, you won't get any argument from me about supporting death panels!

But, strangely, that's the area where I feel one of the strongest emotional arguments. But it's still a calculation, that it's better to have a short life with quality than an extended one without. Cost is my secondary consideration.

[IIOY]

Wawa, I am dying at "dead inside." Please check in with the Dare You Not To Cry thread. A bunch of us are comparing husbands who are dead on the inside.

Another example of my cold and calculating self: voter ID laws. I am spitting fire that PA tried to make this happen, jumped through the hoops to produce "free" IDs for residents, got sued, and defended itself. Everyone else is screaming about disenfranchisement while I'm screaming about taxpayer money being wasted on a problem that doesn't exist. To my mind the potential disenfranchisement is secondary to the fact that we never had a problem to begin with and PA politicians are dicking around with my money trying to make life hard for people who just want to exercise their right to vote. Don't get me wrong - the potential disenfranchisement is a massive problem for me. However, when all of this blew up, my mind went immediately to the colossal waste of taxpayer money involved.

[pescalita]

I need to check the dare you thread.

Wawa, we have a standing joke because before the wedding I would ask MrP if he was excited and he would say "lookin' forward to it" like it was a corn dog at the state fair. Now whenever something life altering comes up he gives the same answer.

[druidp]

This is my favorite thread this week... in light of its competition, it's not that big of a stretch.

I may change my SN to DeadInside. ;D

[doctorwho]

Oct 4, 2012 16:34:49 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Oh, you won't get any argument from me about supporting death panels!

But, strangely, that's the area where I feel one of the strongest emotional arguments. But it's still a calculation, that it's better to have a short life with quality than an extended one without. Cost is my secondary consideration.

That's not a calculation, it's an opinion.

[EllieArroway]

See, I think this is why I can't be Libertarian. My dad is, and this article describes him perfectly. I can listen to his points and they all make perfect logical sense. But I just can't take the emotion out of it like he does, which is why I'm a bleeding heart.

[heliocentric]

This is fascinating and I think I have many libertarian traits. Honestly, this board has been helpful for me to see outside of my very black & white view of the world and become more compassionate.

I am also curious how many libertarians hold themselves to very strict rules/standards. This is totally anecdotal, but my impression is that because they are so aware of how others might be infringing on their rights they are also super aware of not doing it to others. I think that clouds their judgment in a way. They may assume that because they wouldn't be an ass, that others won't either and so society can work well (and would work better) if people had less regulation and followed their own rules. In reality, that only works for people like libertarians who hold themselves to those super high standards.

I have no idea if what I'm writing makes sense. I haven't had enough tea yet this morning.

[brit1017]

Thanks for posting- I've been identifying with the libertarian viewpoint more and more, and this article makes a lot of sense as to why.

[winnied]

Oct 5, 2012 7:56:57 GMT -5 heliocentric said:

This is fascinating and I think I have many libertarian traits. Honestly, this board has been helpful for me to see outside of my very black & white view of the world and become more compassionate.

I am also curious how many libertarians hold themselves to very strict rules/standards. This is totally anecdotal, but my impression is that because they are so aware of how others might be infringing on their rights they are also super aware of not doing it to others. I think that clouds their judgment in a way. They may assume that because they wouldn't be an ass, that others won't either and so society can work well (and would work better) if people had less regulation and followed their own rules. In reality, that only works for people like libertarians who hold themselves to those super high standards.

I have no idea if what I'm writing makes sense. I haven't had enough tea yet this morning.

That's an interesting theory. With my experience I suppose you could say they have a high standard for rules, standards, even morality but again, they generally aren't compassionate. For example, in the work place, they're more likely to fire over poor performance than most (maybe) because they calculate the cost of you. They won't take into account your personal life or how much they like you as a person.

Now, that's a huge generalization based on story time so take it for what it's worth.

[feedthecrocs]

Oct 5, 2012 7:56:57 GMT -5 heliocentric said:

I am also curious how many libertarians hold themselves to very strict rules/standards. This is totally anecdotal, but my impression is that because they are so aware of how others might be infringing on their rights they are also super aware of not doing it to others. I think that clouds their judgment in a way. They may assume that because they wouldn't be an ass, that others won't either and so society can work well (and would work better) if people had less regulation and followed their own rules. In reality, that only works for people like libertarians who hold themselves to those super high standards.

You just blew my mind! This is my husband to a T. And ditto to whoever said debates are a futile effort filled with scornful glares.

[sydney02]

I guess I'm more libertarian than I thought. I'm such a Libra with issues though. I do get bleeding heart-like over issues but I don't get very far when the reality kicks in. Reality usually comes in the form of money most of the time. Things that sound nice when in reality nobody, not cons or libs want to pay for it.

[eclaires]

I refer to my husband as the emotional robot. He even does this funny robot voice when I'm making fun of him for being emotionless.

Also, he has very high standards and is a major rule follower. I always joke that because of this I know he would never cheat. Life is very simple to him - he is a father and that means that he is an involved parent, THE END, in his mind. He's a husband, which means he doesn't check out other females, THE END. He's also very budget minded, and I guarantee if we were over on our budget (even with our usual savings and stuff), he'd be like, "well... I think we should skip Christmas this year..." (I'm only sort of kidding here - emotions/sentiment/etc. just aren't persuasive to him - ROBOT)

[Deleted]

This is really interesting research. I tend to skew towards the logical, but still feel food and medical care are higher than freedom on the chart of basic rights.

The low disgust factor makes a lot of sense for being a D vs R for me. My mom and I have very similar personalities, but Loire experiences have made her a moderate R and me a moderate D.

[curmudgeon]

Oct 5, 2012 7:56:57 GMT -5 heliocentric said:

This is fascinating and I think I have many libertarian traits. Honestly, this board has been helpful for me to see outside of my very black & white view of the world and become more compassionate.

I am also curious how many libertarians hold themselves to very strict rules/standards. This is totally anecdotal, but my impression is that because they are so aware of how others might be infringing on their rights they are also super aware of not doing it to others. I think that clouds their judgment in a way. They may assume that because they wouldn't be an ass, that others won't either and so society can work well (and would work better) if people had less regulation and followed their own rules. In reality, that only works for people like libertarians who hold themselves to those super high standards.

I have no idea if what I'm writing makes sense. I haven't had enough tea yet this morning.

This makes perfect sense, it exactly describes me.

Also, I do get very emotional thank you very much, particularly when other people can't see the very clear and right answer - not hard people, it's the only thing that makes sense forchristsake.