Measures of ideology of the sort that I have used here have not – as far as I know; please do tell me if I’m wrong: the pleasure of learning something new will more than compensate me for the embarrassment of being shown to be ignorant — been validated as predictors of “different conceptions of human nature.” Indeed, I think the idea that ordinary members of the public have “conceptions of human nature” is extravagant—the sort of thing only someone who has never ventured outside a university campus would likely believe.
If members of the public do not have conceptions of human nature, then what makes you think they have ideology? Of course, they can answer survey questions on issues, and their answers can be highly correlated with one another in a way that looks like ideology. That is what I believe is shown by the empirical analysis Kahan provides in his post.
By the same token, my guess is that by asking the right sorts of survey questions one could uncover empirical measures of the conceptions of human nature just as interesting as the empirical measures of ideology. In fact, George Lakoff may already have done this. He talks about conservatives believing in “strict father morality” that is based on a much darker view of human nature than the “nurturant parent” morality of liberals. However, I do not remember whether any of Lakoff’s analysis is empirical rather than merely conjectural.
Suppose that we set aside the issue of whether ordinary people think like academics. Take the set of people who you believe have an ideology and have a conception of human nature. Are ideology and conceptions of human nature related? I believe so.
I think that conservatives tend to hold the most pessimistic view of human nature. That is, they think that everyone is prone to barbarism in the absence of the constraints provided by the civilizing forces of family, religion, civil society, and government.
I think that progressives hold a more optimistic view of human nature. Most people are good, but some people are bad. The bad people are oppressors, and the challenge of political life is for the good people to overcome the bad people.
I think that libertarians hold the most optimistic view of all. For example, embedded in Michael Huemer’s new book advocating anarcho-capitalism is a view of human nature that is “basically rational.” In particular, if left to themselves, most people are able to calculate that initiating violence is a bad idea. My concern is that too much of his argument depends on this concept of human nature, and this will prove to be a stumbling block in reaching conservatives and progressives with his vision.
I think a real problem with any axis is the ongoing error of ignoring human limits. Cognitive limits. Time and resource limiits. And deep drives driven by evolved forces.
Regardless of your mix of axes, it’s widely agreed that crime doesn’t pay, or pays very poorly at best. Conservative, Progressive, Libertarian, and generally any other line of thought all conclude that (1) theft and battery are “bad”, and (2) they don’t work out well anyway.
Yet theft and violence are very much part of human life, in every society of any size.
So perhaps it would be informative to analyze how conservatism, liberalism/progressivism, libertarianism, and others, interact with forces of human nature such as poor prediction of outcomes, the need for standing/prestige, impulse, sexual drive, exposure to local patterns of behavoir (specialized and sustainable or not), and so on.
“the crooked timber of humanity”
— Is this not mostly a progressives blog?
On anarcho-capitalism the argument should not be that individuals but groups of freely associating individuals are able to calculate that initiating violence is a bad idea.
In an anarchic society individuals still need to form and be part associations if they want to live nice lives.
“I think that libertarians hold the most optimistic view of all.”
I don’t think so. I think libertarians see behavior as largely driven by the incentives one faces, and they think markets offer good incentives and governments offer bad incentives. Hence, the libertarian is rarely surprised when the most horrific atrocity is committed, provided it is done by agents of government.
How do you think people would behave in the absence of strong external constraints, primarily from government, but also from other social institutions?
The conservative’s answer is “Lord of the Flies scenario.” Descent into barbarism.
The progressive’s answer is “winner take most scenario.” The skillful and the ruthless will win, and the weak will lose.
The libertarian’s answer is “utopian scenario.” People will flourish if left to make their own choices.
The terms “optimistic view of human nature” and “pessimistic view of human nature” may not be well defined, and perhaps I should back away from them. But you can see where I would consider the libertarian view more optimistic than the progressive view, which in turn is more optimistic than the conservative view.
True, Arnold, but this is a matter of emergent order, not of being more optimistic about human nature than conservatives. I think libertarians would agree that if emergent institutions are quashed (say, by roving bandits) then we do indeed get Lord of the Flies.
The terms “optimistic view of human nature” and “pessimistic view of human nature” are well defined by Thomas Sowell in “A Conflict of Visions”. He calls the pessimistic view the “constrained vision” and the optimistic view the “unconstrained vision”. Steven Pinker, who has called Sowell’s book the “most sweeping attempt” to explain our left-right political axis, prefers the terms Tragic Vision and Utopian Vision in “The Blank Slate”. Neither author differentiates between liberals and progressives when describing the two visions.
I believe both side are right be you a liberal or a conservative most people will help others, but their over riding goal will be because they are trying to get to heaven or the GOOD work they do will bring them power and presetige and it will not father their forward movement.
We all talk about helping others and we all will help, but our belief as people of color is not to trust a non-color man to far and a non-color man is sure all people of color are less than them; so when I say Human Nature says we will help just as long as it helps them.