Neo

The Mullahs will answer that question. Let's watch.

Sounds like an economic stimulus campaign promise! I didn't. I did.

Fabulously ...

Me!

SCOTUS decided a constitutional matter around a single issue at a single point of time in the United States. Haidt addresses fundamental characteristics of human beings going back to their beginning. He urges understanding. Fourteen or so thousand years ago, a 23 year old hunter gatherer first said to elders that he wasn't going to pray for bounty and join the hunt. Instead, he said, he was going to fiddle with seeds, rows and water. No SCOTUS, but Haidt's five fundamental values were in play. I am officially finished with marriage and courts. The tree obfuscates the forrest. I am represrenting a social psychologist when his actual words are a click or two away. I'm trying to find mine.

Constituent Cartoon Crusades! Presented for absurd balance. I think demeaning supporters we don't likely understand, don't take the time to understand, and don't feel the burning need to understand, is a shame. I don't blame 2016 on the candidates. I blame it on us.

Smiley face or not, I'm not saying that at all.I am imagining a gnat, held close to the eye, and obliterating the view of the sun. The word marriage has obliterated the view of a social psychologist.

No. By design. SCOTUS did something different. You have fundamentally similar and moral human beings even when and where you don't have a Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUS doesn't apply in Iraq, nor did it during the Inquisition or during the Enlightenment.

I'd venture it gives better odds.

You're addressing the issue of marriage. I'm addressing the construct of debate regardless of the issue. "Marriage" is the key to your posts. Haidt is the key to mine. Change marriage to the draft, medical marijuana, the blues, suits for church ... almost anything people can be for or against and my posts would be nearly identical. I'm not voting the particular issue. I'm informed by Haidt regarding the prioritization of common human values brought to debate. I have now written more words about a book I've never read than I ever have before, Cliff Note book reports in high school excluded.

You may very well be right. History is full of examples were traditional thinking was challenged and a new, better, thinking advanced. I'll let someone passionate about the idea respond.

Marriage? Candidly, it doesn't concern me too much as a debate issue. I'm a terrible conservative. I'd say, though, that it's a traditional institution to be preserved by those who have higher Haidt Ingroup/Authority/Purity scores (our Group 2). I'd also say it's a traditional institution to be challenged and re-defined by those with lower Haidt Ingroup/Authority/Purity scores (our Group 1). Have you watched the video?

My specificity is likely to be, well, rather general. I'll try. Group 1: those in politics and life open minded and seeking new ideas and experiences. Those who find comfort in those situations. Group 2: those in politics and life who recognize the established, the proven, the dependable. Those who find comfort in those situations. He advocates stepping out of the "moral matrix" and recognizing much of human accomplishment is attributable to the successful instincts of both groups. My words: the worst place to be is in one place, only, and arguing against the other. I think Haidt would say that the structure and discipline of traditional marriage has contributed much to human achievement recognizing the cost to those it excludes. He'd go on to say that, like so many things, being open to alternatives may advance us further. Moral minds are found on both sides of the issue. ALL my understanding. I'm precariously speaking for one of the learned in his absence. I want him to grade me.

Group 1: The liberal; prioritzes Haidt's Harm and Fairness distinctively higher than Haidt's Ingroup, Authority and Purity. Group 2: The conservative; prioritizes all five Haidt values highly, nearly equally. I had to cheat and look to use his terms correctly. Interesting to me. To get to level, the conservative has all values "high". To get to un-level, the liberal has two high and three low. That's the "slope" he refers to.

I have no comment on his point. Neither does Haidt. My interest, here, is only in the moral foundation of the two groups having the discussion. I think you're both right. Ok, I just commented. I'm not taking an opposing view. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en It's awesome. Watch it twice.

Explain that to the group that values tradition. They do claim the word. I'm not arguing the claim. I'm pointing out there are differences in the mindset of good people as they approach the issue. Haidt has no policy answers that I am aware of. He's asking us to recognize who we're debating policy with. They're good people who prioritize differently. I hear he's a liberal. He reads even handed to all. His advice to HRC is insightful. Yuuuuge acknowledgment: I am on the thinnest of ices.

To Dark: Neo speaking for Haidt .. "This is a classic example of the dialogue challenge". He'd answer your question thusly .... "It's harming those who value authority, tradition, and purity as much as they value fairness, justice and equality". A conservative values those often competing concepts generally equally. Your question, I think, is an example of Haidt's liberal mindset (which is wonderful, by the way). Let me see if i can re-phrase you ... "If we get the justice correct, that is legal unions for all genders, then what do we care if it upsets those to whom the word's important?" Claude! Rescue or correct me! I do not. I'd still call it civil union, though. There are those to whom the word's important. It has a real history that's beautiful. We've recognized a new union, just as beautiful .... i'll call it a civil union. This was never an issue important to me, personally.

I looked at it completely out of the context of religion and solely in the context of the government's involvement. A traditionalist, I left the word "marriage" to the generations who've used it as they did. My argument was to have the government use the phrase "CIVIL UNION", leaving marriage to human beings, groups, traditionalists, new wavers, whomever ... I don't think the government would be able to object to you calling yourself married, or calling yourself cabbage! I don't think we're re-having the debate. I think we're giving examples of Haidt's construct.

Your post is very interesting to me. I'm obviously conservative, and I see me as taking it ALL into account and finding a middle ground. Insert the "danger of self perception" warning here. Because you wrote this last post, an example jumped to my mind. You and I had a back and forth during the SCOTUS - same sex marriage debate. I was all for civil unions acknowledging all rights and responsibilities to couples who came together legally, regardless of gender. Now, I'm doing this from memory, but i think one of our last exchanges went something along these lines. Was this you and me? Me: I think it's a great idea, but i'd call it a civil union. Leave the word marriage to people who've had a tradition with the word for generations. You: I think it's all marriage and if two same sex people want to call it marriage, let them. I came away thinking my approach gave the harm/care/fairness/reciprocity crowd everything it wanted while retaining that which was important to the authority/respect/purity/sanctity crowd. I further came away feeling you thought "too bad about the traditionalists, let 'em deal with it". Obvious disclaimer .. my "liberal" view had to do with the humanity ... I had much more traditionally conservative views about whether the issue belonged in the Supreme Court, or not. Second obvious disclaimer ... my memory may not match yours, at all! I am loath to put words into your mouth. I remember thinking, after reading the article, "if only Progressives didn't throw babies away with the bath water ... maybe, just maybe ....". Nothing here challenges or corrects ... my impressions, only, for the interested.

You know I am!

The slope across the top of the values ... a lightbulb moment for me. Equality of value importance vs greater emphasis around one or two .. I'll add .. I learned as much about how my words are viewed as I did about how I view those of others.

I took the challenge. I answered correctly. I found the article to be a collection of spliced paragraphs, each fine. I'm not an editor. Writer's have tough jobs. I read Sully as darker, to coin a phrase I've read here or at TBD, but there's a flow to his articles. He builds. I find every day with Bucky to be a new day. Is he less thematic? Sully is a craftsman, whether you like the finished product or not. He'll occasionally reach conclusions that go one or two steps further than mine. Bucky hits deadlines. No criticism either way. My experience, solely. I read them both regularly. Their critique of my writing would be uncomfortable! I have themes, I splice, I flail about from different angles.

I am adding Hedy to my Wall of Fame and asking Ingrid Bergman to scootch over.

Claude and BagBoy read the book. I only read the online articles and took the self assessment tests. I found Haidt helps me build bridges, not dig divides. I'll let CV and BB tell me if I got the gist.

I was the last hold out. "Ransom" got me.