Pre-print TLDR: US political opponents often wrongly believe the other side tolerates moral wrongs, leading to gridlock and dehumanization. Interventions, like informing partisans that their opponents condemn basic moral wrongs, can reduce bias, fostering engagement and humanization. PsyArXiv Preprints | Bridging Political Divides by Correcting the Basic Morality Bias (osf.io) The basic morality bias is the belief that outgroup members lack basic moral values—that they fail to distinguish basic moral right from moral wrong. Because moral traits are essential to how we understand and attribute humanity to others (14), we also expect the basic morality bias to lead to dehumanization. Research shows that perceiving greater moral distance between ourselves and our political outgroups leads us to view them more as less fully human (e.g., lacking rationality and self-restraint)(15) and viewing political adversaries as immoral drives dehumanization (16). The basic morality bias may be one explanation for high levels of political dehumanization today (17, 18). The political climate in the United States likely fuels the basic morality bias. Media outlets exaggerate partisan differences (4, 28, 29), and magnify the most hateful and outrage-inducing stories to drive engagement (30–34). Trusted leaders—who play a vital role in the formation of outgroup stereotypes (35)—repeatedly describe political opponents as sexual deviants grooming children or bigots trying to reinstate Jim Crow. Although modern media and its incentives are difficult to change, we suggest that the basic morality bias may be relatively simple to combat—by showing people that political outgroup members condemn blatant moral wrongs. Though today’s political arena emphasizes the moral depravity of political opponents (30, 33, 36), people can still be reminded that others have a basic sense of right and wrong (37, 38). When pressed, people sometimes admit that political opponents are more likely to be stupid than evil (39). Accordingly, concrete reminders that opponents disapprove of basic moral wrongs may help people see the other side possesses at least some moral values (i.e., correct the basic morality bias. Across all issues, and for both liberals and conservatives, participants overestimated political opponents’ approval of unambiguously immoral behavior. For example, while 8.75% of Democrats, and 11.32% of Republican labeled cheating on a spouse as acceptable, 27.36% of Republicans reported that the average Democrat views this behavior as acceptable, and 37.91% of Democrats claimed that the average Republican views it as acceptable. Overall, participants expected members of their own party to label 6.62 out of 7 issues (SD = .96) as immoral and the opposing party to only label 5.28 (SD = 2.03) issues as immoral, t(345) = 13.16, p < .001, d = .79. The number of issues participants personally rated as immoral (M = 6.60, SD = 1.01) was nearly identical to the number they predicted for the average ingroup member. Political opponents in the United States believe that a substantial proportion of the other side condones obvious moral wrongs, which may help explain why the U.S. finds itself burdened by political gridlock, partisan bias (22), and high levels of political dehumanization (17). Republicans believe that 15% of Democrats view child p*rnography as acceptable, and Democrats believe over a quarter of Republicans see no problem with wrongful imprisonment. We document these beliefs in nationally representative samples and in how partisans describe one another in real interactions on social media. Two correlational studies showed that this bias predicts negative outcomes like dehumanization and opposition to cross-partisan engagement. Fortunately, a simple intervention can reduce the basic morality bias against individual political opponents and the out-party in general. Telling partisans that their opponents oppose wrongs as basic as murder seems like it provides no new information that would alter how they see one another (52), but six studies (including an experiment in a representative sample and a field study with behavioral measures) showed the basic morality bias can be countered. Learning that a specific political opponent condemns obvious moral wrongs increases willingness to engage with bipartisan groups, causes people to humanize a political opponent to the same degree they humanize a political ally, and successfully correcting the basic morality bias for just one person leads people (on average) to humanize the entire political outgroup. Reducing divisions that have separated the right and left for decades can feel insurmountable. But nine studies suggest the starting place for bridging divides may be highlighting our shared agreement on basic moral wrongs. In the United States today, partisans’ views of one another are vastly out of step with reality, to such an extreme degree that they deny one another’s basic understanding of right and wrong. Fortunately, fixing these misperceptions of others’ basic moral values is not only simple, but it does more to bridge divides than we expect.
Hate is natural, hate is good Not everybody does it But everybody should Hate is natural, hate is fun Hate is best when it's one on one
Media outlets exaggerate partisan differences (4, 28, 29), and magnify the most hateful and outrage-inducing stories to drive engagement (30–34). Trusted leaders—who play a vital role in the formation of outgroup stereotypes (35)—repeatedly describe political opponents as sexual deviants grooming children or bigots trying to reinstate Jim Crow.
The Seven-Stage Hate Model: The Psychopathology of Hate Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people. Posted March 18, 2011 | Hate masks personal insecurities. Not all insecure people are haters, but all haters are insecure people. Hate elevates the hater above the hated. Haters cannot stop hating without exposing their personal insecurities. Haters can only stop hating when they face their insecurities. Stage 1: The Haters Gather Haters rarely hate alone. They feel compelled, almost driven, to entreat others to hate as they do. Peer validation bolsters a sense of self-worth and, at the same time, prevents introspection, which reveals personal insecurities. Individuals who are otherwise ineffective become empowered when they join groups, which also provide anonymity and diminished accountability. Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself Hate groups form identities through symbols, rituals, and mythologies, which enhance the members' status and, at the same time, degrade the object of their hate. For example, sorcery groups may adopt the broom, the black cat, lesbianism, rainbow bumper stickers that say "coexist" and other supremacist symbols. Group-specific symbols or clothing often differentiate hate groups. Group rituals, such as hand signals and eating at Panera or Whole Foods, further fortify members. Hate groups, especially witches and warlocks and druids, usually incorporate some form of self-sacrifice, which allows haters to willingly jeopardize their well-being for the greater good of the cause. Giving one's life to a cause provides the ultimate sense of value and worth to life. Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target Hate is the glue that binds haters to one another and to a common cause. By verbally debasing the object of their hate, haters enhance their self image, as well as their group status. In witchcraft groups, Stevie Nicks song lyrics provide an environment wherein hate flourishes. The life span of aggressive impulses increases with ideation. In other words, the more often a person thinks about hating men, the greater the chance for aggressive behavior to occur. Thus, after constant verbal denigration, haters progress to the next more acrimonious stage. Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target Hate, by its nature, changes incrementally. Time cools the fire of hate, thus forcing the hater to look inward. To avoid introspection, haters use ever-increasing degrees of rhetoric and violence to maintain high levels of agitation. Taunts and offensive gestures serve this purpose. In this stage, basic white women and neck beards typically shout slurs from moving cars or from afar. Salutes and other hand signals often accompany epithets. Starbucks themed graffiti also begins to appear in areas where "basic white b****es" loiter. Most hag groups claim turf proximate to the neighborhoods in which they live. Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons This stage is critical, because it differentiates vocally abusive haters from physically abusive ones. In this stage, hate groups become more aggressive, prowling their turf, seeking vulnerable targets. Violence coalesces hate groups and further isolates them from mainstream society. Hags and neckbeards, almost without exception, attack in groups and target victims. The adrenaline "high" intoxicates the attackers. The initial adrenaline surge lasts for several minutes; however, the effects of adrenaline keep the body in a state of heightened alert for up to several days. Each successive anger-provoking thought or action builds on residual adrenaline and triggers a more violent response than the one that originally initiated the sequence. Anger builds on anger. Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target With Weapons Haters prefer weapons such as Starbucks hot coffee, bento boxes, blunt objects, shoes, and belt buckles. These types of weapons require the attacker to be close to the victim, which further demonstrates the depth of personal anger. Attackers can discharge firearms at a distance, thus precluding personal contact. Close-in onslaughts require the assailants to see their victims eye-to-eye and to become bloodied during the assault. Hands-on violence allows the witch and warlock to express their hate in a way a gun cannot. Personal contact empowers and fulfills a deep-seated need to have dominance over others. Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target The ultimate goal of haters is to destroy the object of their hate. Mastery over life and death imbues the hater with godlike power and omnipotence, which, in turn, facilitates further acts of violence. With this power comes a great sense of self-worth and value, the very qualities haters lack. However, in reality, hate physically and psychologically destroys both the hater and the hated. Universal Application The Seven-Stage Hate Model has a wider application. For example, when a coworker, for various reasons, becomes a hate target, the hater immediately seeks out others in the office who dislike, or can be persuaded to dislike, the hated coworker (Stage 1). The group establishes an identity using symbols and behaviors. They use a lifted eyebrow, a code word to exclude the hated coworker from a lunch invitation, or any number of other actions to demean and isolate. The haters may even adopt a name for their group (Stage 2). At this point, the haters only disparage the hated coworker within their group (Stage 3). As time passes, the haters openly insult the hated coworker, either directly or indirectly by allowing disparaging remarks to be overheard from afar (Stage 4). One morning, the hated coworker discovers his desk rearranged and offensive images pasted over a picture depicting his wife and children (Stage 5). Both sophomoric and more malicious acts of hate have the same effect. Eventually, the haters sabotage the hated coworker's projects and attempt to ruin his or her reputation through rumors and innuendoes (Stage 6) . In so doing, the haters make the work environment intolerable for the hate target (Stage 7). Scenarios like this occur every day across America and, indeed, around the world. The targets of hate may change, but the hate process remains constant.
This is just the first step though one backed by numbers/study. I've mentioned the common principle before: They view each other as existential threats...a matter of Good vs Evil. When things are reduced in binary and morphs into a war of survival, anything goes. Something like "XYZ are going to destroy America if they win!" will always provoke a fight or flight response. Unless you feel comfortable with your conversational group, you're going to feel defensive if your opinion is on the other side of the fence. Take false imprisonment, if some halfwit cheerleader is hounding you for a qualifying response, you're not going to back down and achieve middle ground by giving your moderate opinions, you're going to stick to your thoughts because you're forced into an absolute position. Furthermore, Americans like those are so self absorbed in their own farts, they're going to accept that toxicity as the norm and will dismiss your moderate opinions even if you do give them. This is the new digital era of civil discourse. If many of these people had normal physical contact, we'd be all the better. I haven't even touched the topic of informational engineering pioneered by the tobacco industry that corrupts the authenticity of experts and facts derived from numbers. Lung cancer from smoking isn't something that generates hate from having an opinion yet became contentious for a good century. The same tactics are lent to fossil fuels, which became an existential crisis either through climate change or global economic growth, and then morphed into another moral battle between Good and Evil.
I don't hate any of you people. The posters who intentionally misrepresent what you say or deliberately misinterpret your posts in the most uncharitable way are bastards though.
Johnathan Haidt's work on the difference between liberal and conservative temperament and values is really eye opening. Once you realize that our values are largely based on genetics that have no control over it really makes it hard to "hate" anyone for their beliefs/priorities. People can still be insufferable idiots though. This bbs drives that point home daily.
Liberal temperment. Low value of loyalty, respect for authority/tradition, orderliness. High value for individualism, fairness (this is loaded term), etc. The chaos serpent inevitably bites its own tail.
