Data Science & Psychology Data Science applied to Values, Morals, Politics, & things that matter.

1. 

   konstantin augemberg
   January 17th, 2008 - 14:58

   This does not surprise me. In fact, Schwartz’s Values Typology allows for differentiation between the social and fiscal conservatives (with former scoring higher on CONFORMITY-TRADITION-SECURITY dimension, and latter ranking higher POWER-ACHIEVEMENT values), and can bring out interesting division between 2 types of liberals: “hippies” (HEDONISM, STIMULATION, SELF-DIRECTION) and more regular liberals (ranking higher Self-Direction and Universalism). Benevolence always clang better with traditional values, both in multi-dimensional space and common sense, but in general it always has bee a very vague construct (although idea to differentiate between caring for all people, universalism, and caring for only those you know, benevolence, is absolutely great).
2. 

   Rusty
   February 8th, 2012 - 07:37

   I agree Konstantin, but I would also note that there is a big difference between caring about everyone and being willing to sacrifice for everyone. Some people prefer to give charity to those they know, based on whether they see value in that person. For instance, if my neighbor is a good person who fell on hard times, I would be more willing to sacrifice to help him out than if I know him to be using drugs, cheating on his wife, wasting what little money has by going to the bar, etc…

   However, I see Liberal charity as not providing negative feedback to those who fail. I am in favor of safety nets, but I also subscribe to the Benjamin Franklin idea that the best way to help somebody out of poverty is to make that poverty as uncomfortable as possible. I personally know liberals who think it is the government/people’s responsibility to make sure that all people are comfortable. I can’t even explain how absurd that is. Think about this. You have two adult children. You tell one child that you will provide them with everything that they need to be comfortable. The get to live in the main house, have A/C, eat very good food, hot showers, big plush bed, cable TV, internet, nice clothes, etc… The other has to live in the garage. You provide him with plain but nutritional food. No A/C or heat, no cable TV, no extras. In short you help him sustain life, b providing basic food and shelter but that is it.

   Which one is going to be more motivated to succeed and which is more likely to not succeed? I use this example because if we were to use two different parents, one rich and able to provide extras and one poor and not able to, some would interject that the rich spoiled kid would be more likely to succeed, but many would mistake why. It would be because daddy has connections and runs in circles where people have money. Think Kim Kardaschian or Paris Hilton. Obviously neither of these girls would be near as successful today if not for their wealthy parents. Even where there parents didn’t help, the simple fact is it opened doors for those kids.

   My example makes you confront the reality of normal people. If you aren’t willing to work, you shouldn’t succeed. The more you provide for some people, they less they are motivated to provide it for themselves.

   When I took economics, I was surprised to learn how social programs always have consequences in the economy, and often make things worse for the average person. Here’s a good example. A price ceiling on rent. Sounds great, right? Wrong. It reduces the quality and amount of housing because you reduce the supply. Who is going to provide housing if they are losing money? This is just scratching the surface.

   OK, I’m rambling so I’ll stop there.

Leave a comment