Background in clinical psych, here. As a rather balanced INFJ who also values the utility of order and some consistency, I penetrate to reality, and this article is exposing the reality that not all of us are equally qualified in all areas.
Research has documented that people who identify as "conservative" have a significantly greater physiological reaction when confronted with a fear stimulus than do people who identify as "liberal." The meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" are in upheaval, and it could be useful here to utilize concepts from the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality.
Regardless, there are patterns in society that are consistent with the research findings, such as "conservatives" being decidedly more pro-gun, more hostile/fearful towards immigration, more susceptible to conspiracy theories, more resistant to Covid vaccination and, thus, providing the reservoir for the virus to continue spreading and mutating, which is, interestingly, inconsistent with their emphasis on patriotism. Consistent with the research findings, essentially, "conservatives" are, on average, more susceptible to fear. And the military-industrial complex, of which the corporate media/propaganda machine is an extension, is determined to keep people in fear. Perhaps we could substitute "reactive," "fearful" or "conventionally moral" for "conservative" or "liberal."
During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his first inaugural address, said, "All we have to fear is fear, itself."
I am 65. Until the advent of the Reagan era, when a handful of corporations connected with the defense industry took over the media, FDR's statement was regularly cited in the media. His statement was a kind of mantra or motto for maintaining a rational, functional society. I haven't heard nor seen that statement in corporate media/propaganda in decades. They want us to be afraid and incompetent. They're selling fear, and the average Sensor is probably their target.
Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development is useful in understanding these issues. His theory – not a hypothesis, but a theory repeatedly validated by research findings – divided moral and ethical development into stages. We all start at the first stage, but we don't necessarily all progress through the subsequent stages. The research documents that 2/3 of society never achieves the capacity for ethical reasoning. But they can vote!
Ethical awareness begins when one begins questioning beliefs and starts moving out of Kohlberg's fourth stage, which he labeled the True Believer. That fourth stage, the True Believer, is the stage of adherence to moral convention, to unquestioned belief. Morality is about convention, conforming to cultural norms, which is comfortable for Sensors.
道德reasoni道德推理是不一样的ng. Ethics, instead, is about ethos, based in one's character, one's searching, being willing to question, to step into the void rather than blindly adhere to custom, faith, convention or comfort. Slavery would still be legal, women would not have the vote, and gay people would still be labeled "insane" and would not be able to marry if we adhered to custom. If we adhered to custom, we'd all still be subjects of the British crown! At least we'd now share equal access to quality healthcare, but that, too, happened when ethics triumphed over convention. If we want to have the best world possible, ethics must triumph.
我们的宪法是based in and depends on adherence to utilitarian ethics, the most good and the least harm for the most people. Yet about 2/3 of voters are incapable of ethical reasoning, and corporations, because they are not human and are devoid of character and individual responsibility, are also incapable of ethical awareness. Further, corporations control the government, now, and corporate propaganda controls the minds of the voters. Moneyed interests serve power, and power attracts psychopaths. And there is the question of which MBTI types are more common among psychopaths . . .
We cannot have a funtional democracy in these circumstances.
The first step to finding an answer is recognizing there's a problem.
Big Sky (not verified)says...
Background in clinical psych, here. As a rather balanced INFJ who also values the utility of order and some consistency, I penetrate to reality, and this article is exposing the reality that not all of us are equally qualified in all areas.
Research has documented that people who identify as "conservative" have a significantly greater physiological reaction when confronted with a fear stimulus than do people who identify as "liberal." The meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" are in upheaval, and it could be useful here to utilize concepts from the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality.
Regardless, there are patterns in society that are consistent with the research findings, such as "conservatives" being decidedly more pro-gun, more hostile/fearful towards immigration, more susceptible to conspiracy theories, more resistant to Covid vaccination and, thus, providing the reservoir for the virus to continue spreading and mutating, which is, interestingly, inconsistent with their emphasis on patriotism. Consistent with the research findings, essentially, "conservatives" are, on average, more susceptible to fear. And the military-industrial complex, of which the corporate media/propaganda machine is an extension, is determined to keep people in fear. Perhaps we could substitute "reactive," "fearful" or "conventionally moral" for "conservative" or "liberal."
During the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his first inaugural address, said, "All we have to fear is fear, itself."
I am 65. Until the advent of the Reagan era, when a handful of corporations connected with the defense industry took over the media, FDR's statement was regularly cited in the media. His statement was a kind of mantra or motto for maintaining a rational, functional society. I haven't heard nor seen that statement in corporate media/propaganda in decades. They want us to be afraid and incompetent. They're selling fear, and the average Sensor is probably their target.
Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development is useful in understanding these issues. His theory – not a hypothesis, but a theory repeatedly validated by research findings – divided moral and ethical development into stages. We all start at the first stage, but we don't necessarily all progress through the subsequent stages. The research documents that 2/3 of society never achieves the capacity for ethical reasoning. But they can vote!
Ethical awareness begins when one begins questioning beliefs and starts moving out of Kohlberg's fourth stage, which he labeled the True Believer. That fourth stage, the True Believer, is the stage of adherence to moral convention, to unquestioned belief. Morality is about convention, conforming to cultural norms, which is comfortable for Sensors.
道德reasoni道德推理是不一样的ng. Ethics, instead, is about ethos, based in one's character, one's searching, being willing to question, to step into the void rather than blindly adhere to custom, faith, convention or comfort. Slavery would still be legal, women would not have the vote, and gay people would still be labeled "insane" and would not be able to marry if we adhered to custom. If we adhered to custom, we'd all still be subjects of the British crown! At least we'd now share equal access to quality healthcare, but that, too, happened when ethics triumphed over convention. If we want to have the best world possible, ethics must triumph.
我们的宪法是based in and depends on adherence to utilitarian ethics, the most good and the least harm for the most people. Yet about 2/3 of voters are incapable of ethical reasoning, and corporations, because they are not human and are devoid of character and individual responsibility, are also incapable of ethical awareness. Further, corporations control the government, now, and corporate propaganda controls the minds of the voters. Moneyed interests serve power, and power attracts psychopaths. And there is the question of which MBTI types are more common among psychopaths . . .
We cannot have a funtional democracy in these circumstances.
The first step to finding an answer is recognizing there's a problem.