What explains the liberal-conservative happiness gap?(natesilver.net)
natesilver.net
What explains the liberal-conservative happiness gap?
https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-explains-the-liberal-conservative
14 comments
Could it be that one group is more likely to be worried about issues like climate change and human rights, while the other group seems gleefully unconcerned?
This possibility is addressed in the article:
> There are ways to frame these findings sympathetically to liberals: for instance, that liberals are more conscientious about the suffering of other people or the conditions of the world, whereas conservatives are happy but selfish.
> There are ways to frame these findings sympathetically to liberals: for instance, that liberals are more conscientious about the suffering of other people or the conditions of the world, whereas conservatives are happy but selfish.
A more charitable take might be that conservatives tend to be community focused, active with their school boards and asking their State lawmakers to address issues, whereas liberal politics focus on nearly all issues being Federal issues for some reason.
The locus of control imbalance causes a tremendous amount of suffering.
The locus of control imbalance causes a tremendous amount of suffering.
That makes a lot of assumptions about the state.
One word: "self-reported"
Ask me about my incredible biceps, triceps, abs and buns of steel. :-)
And that I.Q. ...
Ask me about my incredible biceps, triceps, abs and buns of steel. :-)
And that I.Q. ...
Perhaps what they really measured was honesty.
This is kind of my gut instinct, too, but I don't think it is intentional lying.
The question asked the respondent to evaluate their "mental health". This is oversimplifying, but the conservative view is often that worrying about mental health makes you 'soft', and that people complaining about their mental health are whiners who need to toughen up.
If this view is accurate, it would make sense that conservatives would not state that they have poor mental health, because they believe they should just toughen up and deal with it.
Now, whether this means that conservatives are actually more happy or not is not clear, but an alternative explanation would be that conservatives are in denial about their mental health issues, and will describe themselves as not having any, and instead cope in unhealthy ways (drinking, getting angry at minorities and immigrants, abusing their spouses/kids, etc)
Of course, the alternative alternative explanation is that conservatives are right, and liberals are just whiny naval-gazers who will complain about everything even though their lives are objectively better than previous generations.
The question asked the respondent to evaluate their "mental health". This is oversimplifying, but the conservative view is often that worrying about mental health makes you 'soft', and that people complaining about their mental health are whiners who need to toughen up.
If this view is accurate, it would make sense that conservatives would not state that they have poor mental health, because they believe they should just toughen up and deal with it.
Now, whether this means that conservatives are actually more happy or not is not clear, but an alternative explanation would be that conservatives are in denial about their mental health issues, and will describe themselves as not having any, and instead cope in unhealthy ways (drinking, getting angry at minorities and immigrants, abusing their spouses/kids, etc)
Of course, the alternative alternative explanation is that conservatives are right, and liberals are just whiny naval-gazers who will complain about everything even though their lives are objectively better than previous generations.
I don't know how old folks are here, but when I was young, ANY mental problem had a real stigma associated with it. I imagine there was a lot of denial. And there's a whole lot of denial going on these days, even with our higher awareness, and a lot of machismo, much of which is projection. "I'm fine. The other {person, group} is not right"
Projection is pretty rampant.
Projection is pretty rampant.
> "I'm fine. The other {person, group} is not right"
> Projection is pretty rampant.
This reminds me exactly of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). The accusation is offered in lieu of a good argument because it helps the accuser avoid noticing the “derangement” in their own thinking.
It’s also telling that it is given the moniker “syndrome”. It is called such in order to discredit the accused; such a “syndrome” is a reason not to take someone seriously, regardless of the actual content of their speech.
Actually, now that I’m writing this, I recall there’s often talk of Liberal “hysteria”. No talk of what others are hysterically saying, nor the meaning behind it, just the “hysteria”. Perhaps not seeming as a projection but certainly as another excuse to dismiss a perspective they don’t want to think about or discuss.
Mental health issues are an excuse to dismiss any individual or their beliefs in American Conservatism, so naturally American Conservatives have no self-reported mental health issues because they don’t want themselves or their beliefs to be be dismissed.
> Projection is pretty rampant.
This reminds me exactly of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). The accusation is offered in lieu of a good argument because it helps the accuser avoid noticing the “derangement” in their own thinking.
It’s also telling that it is given the moniker “syndrome”. It is called such in order to discredit the accused; such a “syndrome” is a reason not to take someone seriously, regardless of the actual content of their speech.
Actually, now that I’m writing this, I recall there’s often talk of Liberal “hysteria”. No talk of what others are hysterically saying, nor the meaning behind it, just the “hysteria”. Perhaps not seeming as a projection but certainly as another excuse to dismiss a perspective they don’t want to think about or discuss.
Mental health issues are an excuse to dismiss any individual or their beliefs in American Conservatism, so naturally American Conservatives have no self-reported mental health issues because they don’t want themselves or their beliefs to be be dismissed.
> even though their lives are objectively better than previous generations
Which also might not even be true either anymore.
> Americans are less likely to earn more than their parents
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/social-mobility-upwa...
Which also might not even be true either anymore.
> Americans are less likely to earn more than their parents
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/social-mobility-upwa...
Anecdotally, there's a lot more people who "don't have mental health issues" and instead act them out on others through verbal or physical abuse on the right side. I know more people with abusive parents than otherwise, and most of them were right-leaning.
And the most likely explanation is that the liberal-conservative divide has nothing to do with it. Rather, we find correlation simply because conservatives are more likely to live in rural areas, which is where we find happier people according to other studies.
Ignorance is bliss, right? :)
It's pretty easy for this sort of thing to devolve into political argument, so I'm going to try to approach it from a neutral standpoint that both political groups would agree with: broad generalization, but liberals are living in the "future" while conservatives are living in the "past." One thing that both sides generally agree on is that our current social ills are a modern phenomenon. Liberals and conservatives alike will tell you that it's important to live near the outdoors, near family [1], have a tight social network and groups you belong to. Meanwhile, conservatives are significantly more likely to have of those things.
Does that explain everything? No, not by a long shot. But I think it has a significant effect.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-3-po...
Does that explain everything? No, not by a long shot. But I think it has a significant effect.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-3-po...
I think the issue ultimately comes down to what Ian Danskin described, paraphrased: that liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed, whereas conservatives see those faults as facts of life (reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yts2F44RqFw). Wouldn't you also be less happy if you viewed society's faults as fixable, where you rally, vote, and protest for them to be fixed, and yet they almost never are?
> where you rally, vote, and protest for them to be fixed, and yet they almost never are?
I find it very interesting that you indicate that the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them. How far do you see that extrapolating? It is certainly the case that the data suggests that liberals are more likely to outsource work to other people even for simple daily tasks like food preparation, and in popular culture the "liberal-educated elite" are surely portrayed as seeing many jobs as being beneath them.
Which, perhaps, leads us into the topic of elite overproduction. There is a strong case to be made that the US suffers from it, and what you describe very well could be a manifestation of it. Everyone wants to be the boss, but nobody wants to do the manual labor. When one is certain they should be the manager, so to speak, but fails to achieve that position, I can see how that would turn one towards unhappiness. It can be a bit demoralizing to realize that you aren't as great/able/etc. as you thought you were.
I find it very interesting that you indicate that the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them. How far do you see that extrapolating? It is certainly the case that the data suggests that liberals are more likely to outsource work to other people even for simple daily tasks like food preparation, and in popular culture the "liberal-educated elite" are surely portrayed as seeing many jobs as being beneath them.
Which, perhaps, leads us into the topic of elite overproduction. There is a strong case to be made that the US suffers from it, and what you describe very well could be a manifestation of it. Everyone wants to be the boss, but nobody wants to do the manual labor. When one is certain they should be the manager, so to speak, but fails to achieve that position, I can see how that would turn one towards unhappiness. It can be a bit demoralizing to realize that you aren't as great/able/etc. as you thought you were.
While there are certainly nuggets of truth in what you say, your "the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them" is nonetheless an exceptionally uncharitable way to re-frame people trying to get their government to enact change. It reminds me of that infamous Pride and Prejudice review: "Just a bunch of people going to each other's houses."
There are a multitude of issues that can only be solved systemically, like abortion rights, or the housing crisis, or homelessness, or wage theft, or "delay, deny, defend", school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence, etc. Like, believe it or not, but there are many issues that are not fixable by just fixing it like it's a squeaky door hinge or a neighbour's overgrown lawn. And even with issues like homelessness, if you wanted to do your bit by providing food, you can get arrested and fined for that, depending on the jurisdiction.
Like, yes, liberals tend to have certain amount of defeatism where they wont attempt to help anyone if they can't help everyone. And yes, there are issues with "liberal" intellectualism, particularly within the middle class. But some of the charges you make are misattributed: there is literally a meme ("Who Wants Change? Who Wants To Change?") which my game-dev community has a version of ("Who wants to make a game? Who wants to code that game?"). You could make a similar one about story-ideas and actual authors. This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. It's just kind of human nature. But I feel like this accusation, for many, comes from a Fox-and-the-Grapes style resentment towards the middle class, which tends to lean more liberal. And like... this is just bog-standard class warfare, not actual ideological difference.
There are a multitude of issues that can only be solved systemically, like abortion rights, or the housing crisis, or homelessness, or wage theft, or "delay, deny, defend", school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence, etc. Like, believe it or not, but there are many issues that are not fixable by just fixing it like it's a squeaky door hinge or a neighbour's overgrown lawn. And even with issues like homelessness, if you wanted to do your bit by providing food, you can get arrested and fined for that, depending on the jurisdiction.
Like, yes, liberals tend to have certain amount of defeatism where they wont attempt to help anyone if they can't help everyone. And yes, there are issues with "liberal" intellectualism, particularly within the middle class. But some of the charges you make are misattributed: there is literally a meme ("Who Wants Change? Who Wants To Change?") which my game-dev community has a version of ("Who wants to make a game? Who wants to code that game?"). You could make a similar one about story-ideas and actual authors. This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. It's just kind of human nature. But I feel like this accusation, for many, comes from a Fox-and-the-Grapes style resentment towards the middle class, which tends to lean more liberal. And like... this is just bog-standard class warfare, not actual ideological difference.
> the housing crisis
What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed.
> homelessness
What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own.
> wage theft
What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that.
> "delay, deny, defend"
The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen.
> abortion rights
Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires.
> school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence
You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?
> This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals.
Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment.
> It's just kind of human nature.
To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard?
[1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.
What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed.
> homelessness
What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own.
> wage theft
What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that.
> "delay, deny, defend"
The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen.
> abortion rights
Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires.
> school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence
You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?
> This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals.
Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment.
> It's just kind of human nature.
To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard?
[1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.
> [the housing crisis] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need...
There are a multitude of things that could be done: public housing; rent caps; better zoning; ignoring nimby-ism; subisiding new and denser construction; subsidising first-time buyers; etc.
> [homelessness] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need...
Pass laws preventing (and undoing) hostile architecture; repeal vagrancy laws; open facilities for the safe consumption of drugs; more shelters; allow them to register a place (eg: a post office) as a permanent address to receive mail; subsidise places that open their toilets/showers to the homeless; repeal laws criminalising feeding the homeless; etc.
> [wage theft] What is the system going to do other than...
Make wage theft a crime instead of a civil wrong? And yes, one of the best ways is to join a union, so while we're here: repeal all union-busting laws; laws that prevent unions from striking; and laws that let employers retaliate against union action; laws that let employers hire temporary replacement staff during a strike; etc.
> ["delay, deny, defend"] The Amish...
It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward. Like, yes, the Amish generally have day-to-day better health outcomes due to the manual labour and better diet... but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period.
> [abortion rights] but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement...
It's kind of odd that you bring up cannabis here since this is in large part a liberal success of getting governments to listen to them and pass state-legislation to legalise cannabis. This is also an exceptionally odd take with regard to abortions: you are effectively saying that hospitals and medical professionals will be willing to risk their careers, licences, fines, and jail time, if not execution, if enough people want them to? What? Do you happen to be an anarchist?
> [school shootings...] What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?
This is tricky because solutions that have worked in other countries likely wouldn't in the US because of its obsession with guns. Some people say that it's not a gun crisis but a mental-health crisis... okay then, then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy? Ultimately, the best way to reduce gun crime is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. That could mean gun buybacks; banning bump-stocks; making gun companies liable for crimes committed with their guns; force guns to require insurance; background checks; reverse the Supreme Court decision to separate federal gun rights from well-regulated militias; etc.
---
There's a pattern here in your responses where you question the existence of systemic solutions to societal problems, and I have to ask: do you consider other countries at all? Obviously, like I've already mentioned, it's not always possible to simply adopt another country's policies 1:1 and have them work. But different countries have different rates of these issues: do you think that countries with less just have a more charitable populous or something? I mean, there may be some truth to that, but all your responses here are essentially rejecting the notion of systemic solutions at all in favour of just being charitable.
Liberals are more likely to think in terms of systems, and I may concede that many liberals are stuck in systemic thinking. But all this is ultimately missing this point of my original comment: we're quibbling here over how to solve societal problems... conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.
There are a multitude of things that could be done: public housing; rent caps; better zoning; ignoring nimby-ism; subisiding new and denser construction; subsidising first-time buyers; etc.
> [homelessness] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need...
Pass laws preventing (and undoing) hostile architecture; repeal vagrancy laws; open facilities for the safe consumption of drugs; more shelters; allow them to register a place (eg: a post office) as a permanent address to receive mail; subsidise places that open their toilets/showers to the homeless; repeal laws criminalising feeding the homeless; etc.
> [wage theft] What is the system going to do other than...
Make wage theft a crime instead of a civil wrong? And yes, one of the best ways is to join a union, so while we're here: repeal all union-busting laws; laws that prevent unions from striking; and laws that let employers retaliate against union action; laws that let employers hire temporary replacement staff during a strike; etc.
> ["delay, deny, defend"] The Amish...
It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward. Like, yes, the Amish generally have day-to-day better health outcomes due to the manual labour and better diet... but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period.
> [abortion rights] but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement...
It's kind of odd that you bring up cannabis here since this is in large part a liberal success of getting governments to listen to them and pass state-legislation to legalise cannabis. This is also an exceptionally odd take with regard to abortions: you are effectively saying that hospitals and medical professionals will be willing to risk their careers, licences, fines, and jail time, if not execution, if enough people want them to? What? Do you happen to be an anarchist?
> [school shootings...] What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?
This is tricky because solutions that have worked in other countries likely wouldn't in the US because of its obsession with guns. Some people say that it's not a gun crisis but a mental-health crisis... okay then, then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy? Ultimately, the best way to reduce gun crime is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. That could mean gun buybacks; banning bump-stocks; making gun companies liable for crimes committed with their guns; force guns to require insurance; background checks; reverse the Supreme Court decision to separate federal gun rights from well-regulated militias; etc.
---
There's a pattern here in your responses where you question the existence of systemic solutions to societal problems, and I have to ask: do you consider other countries at all? Obviously, like I've already mentioned, it's not always possible to simply adopt another country's policies 1:1 and have them work. But different countries have different rates of these issues: do you think that countries with less just have a more charitable populous or something? I mean, there may be some truth to that, but all your responses here are essentially rejecting the notion of systemic solutions at all in favour of just being charitable.
Liberals are more likely to think in terms of systems, and I may concede that many liberals are stuck in systemic thinking. But all this is ultimately missing this point of my original comment: we're quibbling here over how to solve societal problems... conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.
there is much to desire for cities in america. there was a push for a 15 minute walkable city, towards long term sustainable models. i feel something like a 15 minute electric bike city would provide a retail shed model that surpasses the automobile
> public housing
Not without people. You already can't get a house built now unless you're willing to wait years. But what good is a house years in the future if you need shelter now? That's not to say stop building, but it remains that more people are needed to have any hope of catching up to what is actually needed.
A great way to attract more people is to pay more, of course, but guess what that does? It increases the cost of housing even more! The only way out of this is to see people start voluntarily (possibly with a token payment, but certainly not the market rate) offering their services to build houses.
> rent caps
The formal definition of storage is: A situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising. Do you think introducing a housing shortage is the best idea here? In any other world a shortage is considered a crisis in its own right.
> subisiding new and denser construction
You can open your wallet instead of volunteering, I suppose, as that's ultimately the same thing at the end of the day. But you don't need the system to open your wallet for you. Just do it!
> It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward.
That's a bit of a strange characterization. They reject any technology that they fear will impact the family unit (which is why you see strange things in certain churches like brand new tractors with metal wheels; with the thinking being that rubber tires would make it easy to leave the family behind), but healthcare is definitely not that. Health is essential to maintaining the family unit!
> but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period.
Yes, exactly. Insurance isn't limited to healthcare, but in the case of healthcare that's exactly what the Amish in the USA have: Universal healthcare (where universal is with respect to those within their community). Were you under the impression that they reject healthcare or something? They don't, actually. Their system is self-administered, operated by the people of the Amish community. As before, it is recognized you need to have a community to make that work, but they prove you don't need the nebulous system to provide it. Just do it! If a community of liberals want this, there is nothing to stop it but themselves.
> then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy?
By funding, you mean pay people to do work? Why not just step up do the work yourself? Or, failing that, pony up and pay someone else to do the work? You don't need the system here, just do it!
Look, I fully understand the appeal of hoping someone else will do it. I don't want to do any of these things either. But if I'm not going to do, why would anyone else? Why would I expect it of someone else? That is strangely irrational.
> do you consider other countries at all?
Certainly my own. Last time I checked I live in a country that is not the one in subject. But the topic has been about one particular country since the onset, so one cannot detour too far into what goes on in other countries without straying beyond what the discussion is about. For the sake of good faith participation, it is best to stay on-topic as much as possible.
> conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.
Right, the idea given at the onset was that conservatives recognize that if they're too lazy to do something, everyone else will be too. In contrast, liberals seem to think that everyone but themselves sit around bored all day just waiting for instructions, then act surprised when that isn't the case. I asked earlier if you felt that was an unfair characterization, but I didn't pick up on your answer (if you gave it).
Not without people. You already can't get a house built now unless you're willing to wait years. But what good is a house years in the future if you need shelter now? That's not to say stop building, but it remains that more people are needed to have any hope of catching up to what is actually needed.
A great way to attract more people is to pay more, of course, but guess what that does? It increases the cost of housing even more! The only way out of this is to see people start voluntarily (possibly with a token payment, but certainly not the market rate) offering their services to build houses.
> rent caps
The formal definition of storage is: A situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising. Do you think introducing a housing shortage is the best idea here? In any other world a shortage is considered a crisis in its own right.
> subisiding new and denser construction
You can open your wallet instead of volunteering, I suppose, as that's ultimately the same thing at the end of the day. But you don't need the system to open your wallet for you. Just do it!
> It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward.
That's a bit of a strange characterization. They reject any technology that they fear will impact the family unit (which is why you see strange things in certain churches like brand new tractors with metal wheels; with the thinking being that rubber tires would make it easy to leave the family behind), but healthcare is definitely not that. Health is essential to maintaining the family unit!
> but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period.
Yes, exactly. Insurance isn't limited to healthcare, but in the case of healthcare that's exactly what the Amish in the USA have: Universal healthcare (where universal is with respect to those within their community). Were you under the impression that they reject healthcare or something? They don't, actually. Their system is self-administered, operated by the people of the Amish community. As before, it is recognized you need to have a community to make that work, but they prove you don't need the nebulous system to provide it. Just do it! If a community of liberals want this, there is nothing to stop it but themselves.
> then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy?
By funding, you mean pay people to do work? Why not just step up do the work yourself? Or, failing that, pony up and pay someone else to do the work? You don't need the system here, just do it!
Look, I fully understand the appeal of hoping someone else will do it. I don't want to do any of these things either. But if I'm not going to do, why would anyone else? Why would I expect it of someone else? That is strangely irrational.
> do you consider other countries at all?
Certainly my own. Last time I checked I live in a country that is not the one in subject. But the topic has been about one particular country since the onset, so one cannot detour too far into what goes on in other countries without straying beyond what the discussion is about. For the sake of good faith participation, it is best to stay on-topic as much as possible.
> conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.
Right, the idea given at the onset was that conservatives recognize that if they're too lazy to do something, everyone else will be too. In contrast, liberals seem to think that everyone but themselves sit around bored all day just waiting for instructions, then act surprised when that isn't the case. I asked earlier if you felt that was an unfair characterization, but I didn't pick up on your answer (if you gave it).
Honestly, reading through all that, it sounds like you yourself are just as defeatist as liberals, if not more so: every possible systemic solution which has been shown to work[1], is to you like wishing on a Monkey's Paw. And yes, there's some truth to that: there's a saying that there are no solutions, only trade offs. But good grief, this level of defeatism is insane... why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good? So again, I must ask, am I arguing with an anarchist?
[1] "Hav[ing] been shown to work" meaning measurably solving the issue, not necessarily utter eradication of the issue. We needn't let the perfect get in the way of the good.
[1] "Hav[ing] been shown to work" meaning measurably solving the issue, not necessarily utter eradication of the issue. We needn't let the perfect get in the way of the good.
> yourself are just as defeatist as liberals
I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal.
> why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good?
Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.
I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal.
> why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good?
Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.
> The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good"
The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway.
> you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would
I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real?
> It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses
Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman.
---
You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that.
But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".
The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway.
> you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would
I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real?
> It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses
Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman.
---
You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that.
But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".
> No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do.
But what else are you going to ask the government to do except clean up the outliers (or whatever phrasing you find more palatable, as if that somehow matters)? Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord.
Since you wanted to talk about other countries, consider a mandate in my country: All new cars must be electric in 2030. What purpose does that serve? Think about it. If the people want to own electric cars within that timeframe (and we know they do, else why would they ask the government to deal with it?), they can just buy electric cars. You don't need someone else to tell you to do what you were already going to do anyway! That would be just plain stupid.
Of course, the real reason for the mandate is because some outliers will still try to buy ICE vehicles, contrary to wishes of the population at large. The government's job is to clean them up to ensure that everyone buys electric vehicles (or no vehicle, perhaps) by the time we get there. If every single person was on the same page, though, government really would be pointless. Of course, in reality, you'll never have a situation where everyone agrees. Hence the role of government to deal with those who are dissenters.
> Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses?
What on earth are you talking about? When I said it wasn't the government's job, I meant it.
> You certainly not making liberal arguments
Well, I mean, it would be rather pointless to argue from the liberal point of view if I am a liberal, no? What are you going to learn by reiterating what you think you already know? Argument is only a useful device if you use it to explore different ideas that are not your own. Methinks you have not thought this through.
But what else are you going to ask the government to do except clean up the outliers (or whatever phrasing you find more palatable, as if that somehow matters)? Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord.
Since you wanted to talk about other countries, consider a mandate in my country: All new cars must be electric in 2030. What purpose does that serve? Think about it. If the people want to own electric cars within that timeframe (and we know they do, else why would they ask the government to deal with it?), they can just buy electric cars. You don't need someone else to tell you to do what you were already going to do anyway! That would be just plain stupid.
Of course, the real reason for the mandate is because some outliers will still try to buy ICE vehicles, contrary to wishes of the population at large. The government's job is to clean them up to ensure that everyone buys electric vehicles (or no vehicle, perhaps) by the time we get there. If every single person was on the same page, though, government really would be pointless. Of course, in reality, you'll never have a situation where everyone agrees. Hence the role of government to deal with those who are dissenters.
> Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses?
What on earth are you talking about? When I said it wasn't the government's job, I meant it.
> You certainly not making liberal arguments
Well, I mean, it would be rather pointless to argue from the liberal point of view if I am a liberal, no? What are you going to learn by reiterating what you think you already know? Argument is only a useful device if you use it to explore different ideas that are not your own. Methinks you have not thought this through.
> Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord.
This is where I'm going to exit this discussion: this statement (which is the fundamental assumption of every argument you've presented) is so exasperatingly naive that it would require disproportionate effort on my part to rebut it, and we're already very deep into a thread that I've feebly attempted twice now to get back on-track to the happiness question. And I'm honestly not that willing to put that much effort into an internet discussion just to teach someone why a democratic government would do something for the public good and why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord". I don't have the patience, the expertise, the rhetoric, or the time. Have a nice day.
This is where I'm going to exit this discussion: this statement (which is the fundamental assumption of every argument you've presented) is so exasperatingly naive that it would require disproportionate effort on my part to rebut it, and we're already very deep into a thread that I've feebly attempted twice now to get back on-track to the happiness question. And I'm honestly not that willing to put that much effort into an internet discussion just to teach someone why a democratic government would do something for the public good and why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord". I don't have the patience, the expertise, the rhetoric, or the time. Have a nice day.
> And I'm honestly not that willing to put that much effort into an internet discussion just to teach someone
How conservative of you, being unwilling to teach yourself something new. Learning shouldn't come with that much difficulty, though. What is at the heart of your struggle?
> why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord"
This "the government is made up of magical fairies" idea that you keep presenting simply doesn't work. Government is not of magical fairies at all, just people. If people can't do things on their own accord, government can't either, fundamentally. People and government are the exact same thing!
How conservative of you, being unwilling to teach yourself something new. Learning shouldn't come with that much difficulty, though. What is at the heart of your struggle?
> why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord"
This "the government is made up of magical fairies" idea that you keep presenting simply doesn't work. Government is not of magical fairies at all, just people. If people can't do things on their own accord, government can't either, fundamentally. People and government are the exact same thing!
I get that quote, but there's an aspect to that that has change over the last ~20 years or so and that is the key pivotal point.
> liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed
The change in my opinion is that the faults in society is a perfect excuse for extreme rage and extreme anger.
Sometimes talking to some left-wing extremists really sounds like talking to somebody that's been brainwashed.
> liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed
The change in my opinion is that the faults in society is a perfect excuse for extreme rage and extreme anger.
Sometimes talking to some left-wing extremists really sounds like talking to somebody that's been brainwashed.
I think belonging is one of the most important contributors to mental health, and anecdotally, fewer liberals and leftists "belong" to a group.
There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations. Evangelical conservative megachurches are designed to foster a sense of belonging and community for those who can believe their teachings. Progressive churches celebrate the questioning mind and search for meaning, which actively does not create a culture of conformity, and hence raises the barrier to allow people to feel like they belong.
We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting. Leftists also have a problem with gatekeeping, contrast this with evangelicals who design easy paths in to their churches for folks who "haven't done the required reading"
Additionally, the active suppression of liberal/leftist and queer groups (e.g. McCarthyism), the AIDS crisis, leftist infighting, and leftist distrust of authority mean a lot of young progressives are starting from scratch or facing large headwinds in finding any sort of social group. The Internet is helping combat this, but the lack of elders, advisors, and established routes to leadership mean that there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Contrast this with conservative groups which have generations of experience, leadership routes, training, etc. Individual evangelical colleges matriculate thousands of students while progressive religious programs are lucky to number in the 30-50 range.
Source: anecdotes and personal experience, as someone with leadership experience in a progressive religion :)
There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations. Evangelical conservative megachurches are designed to foster a sense of belonging and community for those who can believe their teachings. Progressive churches celebrate the questioning mind and search for meaning, which actively does not create a culture of conformity, and hence raises the barrier to allow people to feel like they belong.
We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting. Leftists also have a problem with gatekeeping, contrast this with evangelicals who design easy paths in to their churches for folks who "haven't done the required reading"
Additionally, the active suppression of liberal/leftist and queer groups (e.g. McCarthyism), the AIDS crisis, leftist infighting, and leftist distrust of authority mean a lot of young progressives are starting from scratch or facing large headwinds in finding any sort of social group. The Internet is helping combat this, but the lack of elders, advisors, and established routes to leadership mean that there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Contrast this with conservative groups which have generations of experience, leadership routes, training, etc. Individual evangelical colleges matriculate thousands of students while progressive religious programs are lucky to number in the 30-50 range.
Source: anecdotes and personal experience, as someone with leadership experience in a progressive religion :)
> I think belonging is one of the most important contributors to mental health, and anecdotally, fewer liberals and leftists "belong" to a group.
> There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations.
You don't need a church to have something to belong to. I'm not going to believe in gods just so I can sing kumbaya with others. The whole point of belonging is that you can be yourself and be accepted as you are. That's key. If you're going to pretend you're just fooling yourself.
Also, churches tell you how to feel, what to do, what to think. Another thing that doesn't go down very well with most progressives. I don't think that this causes an extra barrier to belong though. The key part is finding a group that suits you.
Or do you mean these 'churches' are more like enlightenment classes of self discovery? In that case I wouldn't call it a church due to all the negative associations that brings.
> We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting
As a neurodivergent kinda queer leftist, I absolutely hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority. But it's not like I'm desperately trying to find a group to belong to. A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around. They're easier to find than you think. Just chat to someone wearing a rainbow band and they'll tell you what's good in the area. Or someone with blue hair or extravagant clothing. Our communities aren't strictly organised and regulated or formalized but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
In fact that's something that conservatives tend to project on us. They think there's an LGBT or 'woke' 'agenda'. They project their own need for leadership and organisation on us. In reality this isn't the case at all. Everyone makes up their own goals. And that's great. Progressiveness is all about embracing different.
For me I have found such places such as makerspaces and more spicy places, all of which ended up being full of neurodivergents like me :) And definitely all progressive. But they share no elements of churches other than being a community.
I do think neurodivergents are often less happy because we have more difficulty in life where most others are neurotypical.
> there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Most makerspaces are really badly run :) But it doesn't matter. It's not about being successful. It's about making cool stuff with others.
> There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations.
You don't need a church to have something to belong to. I'm not going to believe in gods just so I can sing kumbaya with others. The whole point of belonging is that you can be yourself and be accepted as you are. That's key. If you're going to pretend you're just fooling yourself.
Also, churches tell you how to feel, what to do, what to think. Another thing that doesn't go down very well with most progressives. I don't think that this causes an extra barrier to belong though. The key part is finding a group that suits you.
Or do you mean these 'churches' are more like enlightenment classes of self discovery? In that case I wouldn't call it a church due to all the negative associations that brings.
> We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting
As a neurodivergent kinda queer leftist, I absolutely hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority. But it's not like I'm desperately trying to find a group to belong to. A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around. They're easier to find than you think. Just chat to someone wearing a rainbow band and they'll tell you what's good in the area. Or someone with blue hair or extravagant clothing. Our communities aren't strictly organised and regulated or formalized but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
In fact that's something that conservatives tend to project on us. They think there's an LGBT or 'woke' 'agenda'. They project their own need for leadership and organisation on us. In reality this isn't the case at all. Everyone makes up their own goals. And that's great. Progressiveness is all about embracing different.
For me I have found such places such as makerspaces and more spicy places, all of which ended up being full of neurodivergents like me :) And definitely all progressive. But they share no elements of churches other than being a community.
I do think neurodivergents are often less happy because we have more difficulty in life where most others are neurotypical.
> there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Most makerspaces are really badly run :) But it doesn't matter. It's not about being successful. It's about making cool stuff with others.
I appreciate the response! I really enjoy talking about this stuff so please take my long response as just me thinking out loud.
I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
> A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around
I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
I'm not saying you have to go to church, or that a makerspace or spicy setting can't be a community. And I do think a lot of them can foster relationships that turn into real community. But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully. Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
I too hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority, although I'm starting to soften on that last one (authority), as I find progressive spaces that vet and hold accountable their leadership. Without a web of trust and accountability we are all just off on our own, pulling in many different directions at the same time, while conservatives have figured out how to get everyone working on the same few problems, regardless of minor differences.
I'm obviously exaggerating and using metaphor, but what else makes a good story :)
I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
> A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around
I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
I'm not saying you have to go to church, or that a makerspace or spicy setting can't be a community. And I do think a lot of them can foster relationships that turn into real community. But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully. Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
I too hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority, although I'm starting to soften on that last one (authority), as I find progressive spaces that vet and hold accountable their leadership. Without a web of trust and accountability we are all just off on our own, pulling in many different directions at the same time, while conservatives have figured out how to get everyone working on the same few problems, regardless of minor differences.
I'm obviously exaggerating and using metaphor, but what else makes a good story :)
I also find this an interesting discussion.
> I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
Ah I see. I'm open to spiritualism. But calling something a church leads to an insta-pass from me. Which is a kinda personal hangup. But yes definining something yourself is a very typical progressive point. Try that in a conservative church, there you really have to stick with established dogma, colour within the lines. But anyway you said the same thing in different words I think.
> I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
> Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
Ok this is a point where we really differ in opinion :) I feel the complete opposite. A community where I have to change isn't really 'real' to me. Because it's not really me that is a member, it's a twisted role I'm playing. It just becomes a mindless ritual then, not something worth anything to me. I don't feel invested because I'm just playing some role.
I used to live in a pretty conservative place and it was hard to find a place to belong, but now I live in a big city and my life has become so much more full. My connection to friends is much deeper. We talk about deep personal problems and insecurities, about sex, about traumas. We really open up and show our real selves (and often bodies). I've never really had that before. Things are more fluid yes, sometimes I'm really close to one friend or group and sometimes to another, but it doesn't matter. We're all on our own journey but we travel together with the people that align with us at the time. I feel I'm really progressing in my life now and living it more fully. In the conservative place I couldn't do that because so many things were taboos or just frowned upon.
And yes we help each other too. If someone is moving house we all show up to help, if a friend has a computer problem they tend to come to me. And the others help me with things I can't do on my own. <3
Talking about some shared ideology that is set in stone (tablets :) ) or books would never bring that to me. Because I change over time too, even if I align at one point I will not later. And the world changes too.
> But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully.
I have deep connections with people ranging from 18 to their 70s. Embrace different includes not allowing ageism.
> Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
See, this is the part that does not matter to us at all. Doing stuff some leader wants done is not something we care about at all. We don't have a shared agenda and we don't want one. Some organisations do, but they tend to be made up of different people over time, that align with the mission at that point in life. It's rare for them to stay in there for their whole life.
The shared goal thing is definitely a huge difference between conservative and progressive communities, as you mention. But my point is the lack of that doesn't matter. I do think it is one of the reasons that conservatism is so succesful in the world. Because they do have an agenda and the means (also financial) to push it through. Our communities are always struggling with money, but it's also because that's not a thing we find really important.
> I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
Ah I see. I'm open to spiritualism. But calling something a church leads to an insta-pass from me. Which is a kinda personal hangup. But yes definining something yourself is a very typical progressive point. Try that in a conservative church, there you really have to stick with established dogma, colour within the lines. But anyway you said the same thing in different words I think.
> I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
> Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
Ok this is a point where we really differ in opinion :) I feel the complete opposite. A community where I have to change isn't really 'real' to me. Because it's not really me that is a member, it's a twisted role I'm playing. It just becomes a mindless ritual then, not something worth anything to me. I don't feel invested because I'm just playing some role.
I used to live in a pretty conservative place and it was hard to find a place to belong, but now I live in a big city and my life has become so much more full. My connection to friends is much deeper. We talk about deep personal problems and insecurities, about sex, about traumas. We really open up and show our real selves (and often bodies). I've never really had that before. Things are more fluid yes, sometimes I'm really close to one friend or group and sometimes to another, but it doesn't matter. We're all on our own journey but we travel together with the people that align with us at the time. I feel I'm really progressing in my life now and living it more fully. In the conservative place I couldn't do that because so many things were taboos or just frowned upon.
And yes we help each other too. If someone is moving house we all show up to help, if a friend has a computer problem they tend to come to me. And the others help me with things I can't do on my own. <3
Talking about some shared ideology that is set in stone (tablets :) ) or books would never bring that to me. Because I change over time too, even if I align at one point I will not later. And the world changes too.
> But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully.
I have deep connections with people ranging from 18 to their 70s. Embrace different includes not allowing ageism.
> Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
See, this is the part that does not matter to us at all. Doing stuff some leader wants done is not something we care about at all. We don't have a shared agenda and we don't want one. Some organisations do, but they tend to be made up of different people over time, that align with the mission at that point in life. It's rare for them to stay in there for their whole life.
The shared goal thing is definitely a huge difference between conservative and progressive communities, as you mention. But my point is the lack of that doesn't matter. I do think it is one of the reasons that conservatism is so succesful in the world. Because they do have an agenda and the means (also financial) to push it through. Our communities are always struggling with money, but it's also because that's not a thing we find really important.
I think the simplest explanation would be simply that people align with ideology that serves them best, e.g. people who are less fortunate(in terms of health, life circumstances, etc) tend to align with left-wing equity and welfare messages, whereas it's no big secret that the right wing generally seeks just to preserve status quo, discrimination and inequality included, and that's much more likely to attract people who are happy with their lot in life.
Furthermore, the very act of caring about state- and world- level issues, of believing that climate change, sexism, racism, and other discriminations are rampant and big issues - is stressful. This would additionally explain why women are most affected - because misogyny directly affects them as a group.
As someone else pointed, the "self-reported" part is important too. Liberals are much more likely to talk about and admit to mental health struggles, while conservatives are more likely to tough it out and save face - because, somehow, even mental health has become politicised in the US.
Furthermore, the very act of caring about state- and world- level issues, of believing that climate change, sexism, racism, and other discriminations are rampant and big issues - is stressful. This would additionally explain why women are most affected - because misogyny directly affects them as a group.
As someone else pointed, the "self-reported" part is important too. Liberals are much more likely to talk about and admit to mental health struggles, while conservatives are more likely to tough it out and save face - because, somehow, even mental health has become politicised in the US.
> people who are less fortunate(in terms of health, life circumstances, etc) tend to align with left-wing
Typically that is the case in large cities, but the opposite is generally true elsewhere. The least fortunate communities in the US are by and large hardcore right-leaning.
But perhaps you accidentally stumbled upon the real significant factor? We do, after all, know that rural/small town dwellers are happier than large urban dwellers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/17/peopl... Their philosophical leanings may have nothing to do with it; just mere correlation.
Typically that is the case in large cities, but the opposite is generally true elsewhere. The least fortunate communities in the US are by and large hardcore right-leaning.
But perhaps you accidentally stumbled upon the real significant factor? We do, after all, know that rural/small town dwellers are happier than large urban dwellers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/17/peopl... Their philosophical leanings may have nothing to do with it; just mere correlation.
> Typically that is the case in large cities, but the opposite is generally true elsewhere. The least fortunate communities in the US are by and large hardcore right-leaning.
As somebody that moved from a small community to a large city, the point that's missing here is that being "poor" in the big city is much much different from being poor in the small community.
Except from complete homeless people, people living in the big city and considering themselves poor are usually way richer (in terms of yearly earnings) than the average small community dwellers.
It's largely a matter of perception.
That's been my experience.
As somebody that moved from a small community to a large city, the point that's missing here is that being "poor" in the big city is much much different from being poor in the small community.
Except from complete homeless people, people living in the big city and considering themselves poor are usually way richer (in terms of yearly earnings) than the average small community dwellers.
It's largely a matter of perception.
That's been my experience.
> people living in the big city and considering themselves poor are usually way richer
There are always outliers, but it is unlikely that there is really anyone more poor than students subsisting on student debt. Those in other financial hardship situations aren't usually granted ability to go so far into the red. Schools in rural areas aren't entirely unheard of, but rare. The vast majority of these people are going to be found in cities. And these people tend to be left-leaning.
> It's largely a matter of perception.
Quite true. Those students usually don't think of themselves as being poor. There is probably something to be said about city folk in general seeing themselves as being much better off than they actually are (cities are known to offer hope and optimism), and thus align with the "well off" leanings even when they aren't. Whereas the poor in rural areas know that they are poor, so they have no illusions about aligning with the leanings that caters to the poor.
> in terms of yearly earnings
I've studied the income data pretty closely and the median income is quite often significantly lower in cities. Granted, this may be because of the aforementioned students occupying the population with little-to-no-income, but either way that doesn't really hold in the general case. There are definitely specific rural areas that are exceptionally hard up, but not as a rule. More often, cities are places of extremes – where you find exceptionally rich people, and exceptionally poor people, while in rural areas people fall into being much more equal.
Which makes sense. That's what cities are for: To be able to concentrate capital so that a few winners can take all. Something that is generally not possible in rural areas where the capital is necessarily spread out (becoming less true with the rise of information capital, but historically so at least).
There are always outliers, but it is unlikely that there is really anyone more poor than students subsisting on student debt. Those in other financial hardship situations aren't usually granted ability to go so far into the red. Schools in rural areas aren't entirely unheard of, but rare. The vast majority of these people are going to be found in cities. And these people tend to be left-leaning.
> It's largely a matter of perception.
Quite true. Those students usually don't think of themselves as being poor. There is probably something to be said about city folk in general seeing themselves as being much better off than they actually are (cities are known to offer hope and optimism), and thus align with the "well off" leanings even when they aren't. Whereas the poor in rural areas know that they are poor, so they have no illusions about aligning with the leanings that caters to the poor.
> in terms of yearly earnings
I've studied the income data pretty closely and the median income is quite often significantly lower in cities. Granted, this may be because of the aforementioned students occupying the population with little-to-no-income, but either way that doesn't really hold in the general case. There are definitely specific rural areas that are exceptionally hard up, but not as a rule. More often, cities are places of extremes – where you find exceptionally rich people, and exceptionally poor people, while in rural areas people fall into being much more equal.
Which makes sense. That's what cities are for: To be able to concentrate capital so that a few winners can take all. Something that is generally not possible in rural areas where the capital is necessarily spread out (becoming less true with the rise of information capital, but historically so at least).
I bet the answer rhymes with "honey".
[deleted]
Conservatives don’t seem happier than liberals.
I’m quite confident the conservatives I know are fairly unhappy and unstable people, so is there a population of well-adjusted conservatives I never meet, or is this self-report bias?
I’m waiting until I get some concrete examples of what this happiness gap looks like in practice before I take these results too seriously.
I’m quite confident the conservatives I know are fairly unhappy and unstable people, so is there a population of well-adjusted conservatives I never meet, or is this self-report bias?
I’m waiting until I get some concrete examples of what this happiness gap looks like in practice before I take these results too seriously.
[deleted]
kazinator(1)
Likely stronger connections to the family, and both sexes generally report greater happiness in traditional gender roles.