I've moved over time from a mainly libertarian to a mainly conservative stance on most or many issues. There wasn't a step change but that has correlated highly with becoming a parent!
Our political debate on these axes seem to focus a lot on welfare as defined as financial/physical comfort (noting you also addressed equality issues for marginalised groups), and very little on what I will reluctantly term 'the soul'. By that I don't mean something separate from the body or immortal, but as a shorthand for something like the fundamental core of one's being as a human. Using the Haidt-Cowen axis you mention, Tyler thinks it will be good for aggregate human welfare (which he would define monetarily) to get those robots three years earlier whereas Haidt is saying 'what kind of life are these social-media addicted kids having'? The negative effects of social media won't show up in GDP so Cowen will discount them hugely, but it will profoundly affect the mental and social development of those young human beings. Where might this concern for 'the soul' fit into your taxonomy?
Nice analysis - keep up the good work. I was raised by conservatives, exposed to racial issues at an early stage, followed that with a full-course meal of blue-collar experiences, and got grades enough to eventually get a BA from a selective public school. I’ve spent 35 years teaching and am about to ride off into the sunset. Your broad sympathies are most appreciated. One note from the boondocks though, if I may. The progressives willing to allow free rein to developments that seem promising in the long term while imposing short term costs on the rest of us schleps often suffer from blinkered vision when it comes to selling their POV, and part of the rub with their tendency toward hubristic presentism is a pervasive ahistorical attitude. Fixing that might be possible, but the tempting career incentives that come with the package are a major stumbling block, at least in education.
Thank you, Tim! I do personally believe in some balance between these perspectives, even when I can't construct a rigorous argument for how to do so. On the social media debate I'm pretty sympathetic to Jonathan Haidt's view, but largely because I think Tyler is overestimating the benefits of social media when he's really talking about the benefits of the internet in general. And on economic issues I'm pro redistribution, albeit at lower levels than we see in much of Europe and certainly lower than most lefties would like, and I lean towards giving people cash over expensive and complex systems. Anyhow, thanks for your comment!
Mainstream Conservatives are primarily interested in society working "for the family."
Whenever you show voting patterns, the only group that isn't voting GOP is single women, and by an overwhelming margin.
On the low end this mostly takes the form of women marrying the state. Middle class families pay taxes to subsidize baby mamas (and other groups, lets not forget our forgiven student loans, which are primarily loans to women).
On the high end this takes the form of delayed (sometimes indefinitely) marriage and sub replacement fertility. Differential fertility by ideology increases with IQ, to the point where the top 20% of smarts conservatives have replacement fertility and "very liberal" is 0.6 per woman.
Families need functional public institutions. Functional schools. Functional public order. Etc. Single adults can largely live a curated "bubble" existence.
The low end simply doesn't care, they exist in a kind of animal existence and anyway they are the negative externalities most seek to avoid.
The very high end tries to buy its way out of dysfunctional public institutions. Either by being so rich they can privatize everything (very small % of the population) or by drastically limiting their fertility to be able to do so.
I don't think this high-low alliance is primarily about empathy for the downtrodden. Rather, getting things done requires 51% of votes and lower end votes are cheaper to but then middle class votes. The progressive class needs say black single moms to forgive their student loans in exchange for Medicaid.
The result is the following:
Fertility is high amongst the underclass and households with $500k+ of income a year. It's negatively correlated between these extremes. High and low against the middle.
Seems like a useful framing. One of the issues I see is that people do not understand where they are on the appropriate spectrum and often assume exceptionalism. Both ends of the intelligence spectrum get very little from high school. I would posit that if we provided opt out because high school is a waste of time for the extremes, a number of people that would actually benefit from highschool would opt out. Because the exceptional extreme is relatively narrow, mandatory high school attendance is good not only for the median, but the substantial majority of the population.
In the sexual realm, I'd argue that many people may self identify as having exceptional experience which are in fact fairly normal. Treat this like a Bayesian problem where culture effects priors for a classifier. People's long run happiness is the result of correctly classifying at a point of definitive action and the person gets a few noisy signals. If culture creates a prior which excludes the minority type, then you'll have misclassification of the minority type in all cases and correct classification. If the prior is equal weighting the types, you'll get many more misclassifications of majority type as minority type. The optimal classification is to the extent possible match the baysian priors with the share in the population: intuitively I think you remain bias towards classifying minority type as majority type (math needed to verify). If people receive from culture that a sexual state of being is rare, they are more likely to interpret their experience through that lens. We do significant damage by both normalizing the exceptional or understating the prevalence of diverse experiences.
The median experience sort of captures this, but I think it's more subtle.
Maybe it's a slant present in the article itself or I may just be reading my bias into it, but the free market progressives seem straightforwardly correct if we are just looking at a comparison of the summaries.
I'm sure I am biased! I think that is generally the right focus, although as I said in another comment responding to Tim, I do in practice think we need to balance these.
This is an extremely useful framing, and it’s a shame it isn’t more common in discourse. Obviously people’s moral and political priorities map onto which segments of society they identify and sympathize with. They’re also incredibly reluctant to admit that these preferences have trade-offs, maybe because it would undermine the rhetorical strength of their preference to admit a subjective priority that needs to defend itself against other valid priorities, is less obligatory than the assertion of a moral truth. It’s also more convenient, and satisfying to dismiss those who disagree with you as being bad people rather than having different priorities with their own merits.
One could say that priorities reflect moral character, but for some reason we never quite get there.
Who is society for? Whose needs should be primary? The middle of the bell curve, or the tails? Any arrangement where only a small minority thrive while the vast majority struggle or suffer seems perverse, even if a smart person can rationalize it.
Elites are very good at justifying inequalities and unfair rules that benefit them. Always have been. It’s probably wise to be default skeptical of such justifications.
How can we as a society help these outlier women have it all?How do we get Marie buried to have multiple children like Elon and also get the 2 Nobel prizes? Can we promote a eugenic nitzean feminist movement that would currently give the ick to both political tribes? People that love both masculinity and women are rare , I will eventually right an article about it but I wonder what are your thoughts
Very interesting. I think no one or group is smart enough to effect any change that may be desirable. The individual is the key and moral behavior will be the driving force of any change for the good. Individuals must be free to make decisions unobstructed by government. This is the only way to ensure a lasting society. Much more to say. But for another day.
In a western world where DEI ESG crt affirmative action and intersectionality are all in play any white female advocating societal adjustments (slight ones of course)really fall into the JK Rowling subset where they've been on board with the whole agenda until something emerges that may cost them financially or offends their identity.
The median vs outliers thing relates to my feelings toward the LDS church.
In short, I think the LDS church is a high-control religion (in the American context) that promotes behaviors that promote the welfare the median person and most of those more small-c conservative than the median. It’s very alienating to some outliers on either end, though.
As far an I am concerned, that’s a fine place for a religion (so long as the members don’t slip into a high control group with damaging norms, like a lot of cults.)
I too am mainly concerned with median welfare, but think we are so far from the Growth-Equity Frontier as not to worry much about exactly where it is. I can have arguments with all three that their actual objectives could be improved at little cost.
Democracy naturally maximises for the welfare for the median voter or more accurately the preferences of the median voter. Of course in a liberal democracy the institutionalisation of individual rights also gives a leg up to the outliers.
I've moved over time from a mainly libertarian to a mainly conservative stance on most or many issues. There wasn't a step change but that has correlated highly with becoming a parent!
Our political debate on these axes seem to focus a lot on welfare as defined as financial/physical comfort (noting you also addressed equality issues for marginalised groups), and very little on what I will reluctantly term 'the soul'. By that I don't mean something separate from the body or immortal, but as a shorthand for something like the fundamental core of one's being as a human. Using the Haidt-Cowen axis you mention, Tyler thinks it will be good for aggregate human welfare (which he would define monetarily) to get those robots three years earlier whereas Haidt is saying 'what kind of life are these social-media addicted kids having'? The negative effects of social media won't show up in GDP so Cowen will discount them hugely, but it will profoundly affect the mental and social development of those young human beings. Where might this concern for 'the soul' fit into your taxonomy?
Nice analysis. This classification is helpful
Thanks, Alex!
Nice analysis - keep up the good work. I was raised by conservatives, exposed to racial issues at an early stage, followed that with a full-course meal of blue-collar experiences, and got grades enough to eventually get a BA from a selective public school. I’ve spent 35 years teaching and am about to ride off into the sunset. Your broad sympathies are most appreciated. One note from the boondocks though, if I may. The progressives willing to allow free rein to developments that seem promising in the long term while imposing short term costs on the rest of us schleps often suffer from blinkered vision when it comes to selling their POV, and part of the rub with their tendency toward hubristic presentism is a pervasive ahistorical attitude. Fixing that might be possible, but the tempting career incentives that come with the package are a major stumbling block, at least in education.
Thank you, Tim! I do personally believe in some balance between these perspectives, even when I can't construct a rigorous argument for how to do so. On the social media debate I'm pretty sympathetic to Jonathan Haidt's view, but largely because I think Tyler is overestimating the benefits of social media when he's really talking about the benefits of the internet in general. And on economic issues I'm pro redistribution, albeit at lower levels than we see in much of Europe and certainly lower than most lefties would like, and I lean towards giving people cash over expensive and complex systems. Anyhow, thanks for your comment!
Mainstream Conservatives are primarily interested in society working "for the family."
Whenever you show voting patterns, the only group that isn't voting GOP is single women, and by an overwhelming margin.
On the low end this mostly takes the form of women marrying the state. Middle class families pay taxes to subsidize baby mamas (and other groups, lets not forget our forgiven student loans, which are primarily loans to women).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/13/opinion/politics/student-loan-payments-resume.html
On the high end this takes the form of delayed (sometimes indefinitely) marriage and sub replacement fertility. Differential fertility by ideology increases with IQ, to the point where the top 20% of smarts conservatives have replacement fertility and "very liberal" is 0.6 per woman.
Families need functional public institutions. Functional schools. Functional public order. Etc. Single adults can largely live a curated "bubble" existence.
The low end simply doesn't care, they exist in a kind of animal existence and anyway they are the negative externalities most seek to avoid.
The very high end tries to buy its way out of dysfunctional public institutions. Either by being so rich they can privatize everything (very small % of the population) or by drastically limiting their fertility to be able to do so.
I don't think this high-low alliance is primarily about empathy for the downtrodden. Rather, getting things done requires 51% of votes and lower end votes are cheaper to but then middle class votes. The progressive class needs say black single moms to forgive their student loans in exchange for Medicaid.
The result is the following:
Fertility is high amongst the underclass and households with $500k+ of income a year. It's negatively correlated between these extremes. High and low against the middle.
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:625/1*2oBiD8sb2P1Ra3i3vjcBug.png
Seems like a useful framing. One of the issues I see is that people do not understand where they are on the appropriate spectrum and often assume exceptionalism. Both ends of the intelligence spectrum get very little from high school. I would posit that if we provided opt out because high school is a waste of time for the extremes, a number of people that would actually benefit from highschool would opt out. Because the exceptional extreme is relatively narrow, mandatory high school attendance is good not only for the median, but the substantial majority of the population.
In the sexual realm, I'd argue that many people may self identify as having exceptional experience which are in fact fairly normal. Treat this like a Bayesian problem where culture effects priors for a classifier. People's long run happiness is the result of correctly classifying at a point of definitive action and the person gets a few noisy signals. If culture creates a prior which excludes the minority type, then you'll have misclassification of the minority type in all cases and correct classification. If the prior is equal weighting the types, you'll get many more misclassifications of majority type as minority type. The optimal classification is to the extent possible match the baysian priors with the share in the population: intuitively I think you remain bias towards classifying minority type as majority type (math needed to verify). If people receive from culture that a sexual state of being is rare, they are more likely to interpret their experience through that lens. We do significant damage by both normalizing the exceptional or understating the prevalence of diverse experiences.
The median experience sort of captures this, but I think it's more subtle.
Maybe it's a slant present in the article itself or I may just be reading my bias into it, but the free market progressives seem straightforwardly correct if we are just looking at a comparison of the summaries.
I'm sure I am biased! I think that is generally the right focus, although as I said in another comment responding to Tim, I do in practice think we need to balance these.
This is an extremely useful framing, and it’s a shame it isn’t more common in discourse. Obviously people’s moral and political priorities map onto which segments of society they identify and sympathize with. They’re also incredibly reluctant to admit that these preferences have trade-offs, maybe because it would undermine the rhetorical strength of their preference to admit a subjective priority that needs to defend itself against other valid priorities, is less obligatory than the assertion of a moral truth. It’s also more convenient, and satisfying to dismiss those who disagree with you as being bad people rather than having different priorities with their own merits.
One could say that priorities reflect moral character, but for some reason we never quite get there.
Who is society for? Whose needs should be primary? The middle of the bell curve, or the tails? Any arrangement where only a small minority thrive while the vast majority struggle or suffer seems perverse, even if a smart person can rationalize it.
Elites are very good at justifying inequalities and unfair rules that benefit them. Always have been. It’s probably wise to be default skeptical of such justifications.
How can we as a society help these outlier women have it all?How do we get Marie buried to have multiple children like Elon and also get the 2 Nobel prizes? Can we promote a eugenic nitzean feminist movement that would currently give the ick to both political tribes? People that love both masculinity and women are rare , I will eventually right an article about it but I wonder what are your thoughts
Very interesting. I think no one or group is smart enough to effect any change that may be desirable. The individual is the key and moral behavior will be the driving force of any change for the good. Individuals must be free to make decisions unobstructed by government. This is the only way to ensure a lasting society. Much more to say. But for another day.
In a western world where DEI ESG crt affirmative action and intersectionality are all in play any white female advocating societal adjustments (slight ones of course)really fall into the JK Rowling subset where they've been on board with the whole agenda until something emerges that may cost them financially or offends their identity.
So everyone is bad but lefties really are latent mass murderers 😆
The median vs outliers thing relates to my feelings toward the LDS church.
In short, I think the LDS church is a high-control religion (in the American context) that promotes behaviors that promote the welfare the median person and most of those more small-c conservative than the median. It’s very alienating to some outliers on either end, though.
As far an I am concerned, that’s a fine place for a religion (so long as the members don’t slip into a high control group with damaging norms, like a lot of cults.)
You are a genius.
I too am mainly concerned with median welfare, but think we are so far from the Growth-Equity Frontier as not to worry much about exactly where it is. I can have arguments with all three that their actual objectives could be improved at little cost.
Democracy naturally maximises for the welfare for the median voter or more accurately the preferences of the median voter. Of course in a liberal democracy the institutionalisation of individual rights also gives a leg up to the outliers.