The Right Has More Diversity of Thought Than the Left

[carterfelder]

Thoughts?

https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665

 

[Joshe]

That screenshot is not from the study and the study makes no such claim. Do you have a ChatGPT subscription? Ask it if the claim in your screenshot comports with the actual study. You can use ChatGPT as a tool to make sure you’re not believing in false shit. 

If you don’t have it, here’s what it says:

"More diversity" in this context means less internal coherence in how attitudes cluster, not necessarily that conservatives hold a wider range of views.

It might reflect multiple subtypes within the conservative coalition (e.g. libertarians, populists, traditionalists), or less agreement on which attitudes define conservative identity.

But it does not mean that conservatives are more open-minded or tolerant of opposing views.

[Basman]

I found this Reddit comment insightful:

Quote

If you define open mindedness simply by openness to new ideas and concepts, then you're right and there is actually no arguing it. There is a lot of empirical evidence to support it, most notably by Jonathan Haidt who's ted talk you cite.

However, Haidt also points out that conservatives are open minded about certain things that liberals aren't. In his book "The Righteous Mind", Haidt breaks down our political and moral judgements into 6 dichotomies: Care/Harm Fairness/Cheating Loyalty/Betrayal Authority/Subversion Sanctity/Degradation Liberty/Oppression

Of those dichotomies, or moral foundations, liberals strongly emphasis care/harm, liberty/oppression, and fairness/cheating. Conservatives, on the other hand, place a fairly even emphasis on all six. From the perspective of moral judgements, conservatives are often more well rounded and open minded. Liberals tend to write off things that they can't immediately explain through logic and observation, thus they focus exclusively on the three foundations that have the most easily explained and observable consequences. Conservatives, however, are open to certain moral concepts who's value may not be immediately apparent, such as respecting elders or avoiding sexual promiscuity. While liberals may be closed minded to these concepts and view them as irrelevant to morality because their value cannot be ascertained through logic, conservatives are wary of discarding them simply because we may not fully understand or see their value.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c1fo3/i_believe_that_liberals_tend_to_be_more/

 

[BlueOak]

You've never seriously seen a left debate if you are giving me this information. Its insane the amount of things they will argue over and the insane and often infuriating minutiae that will divide them. It's also their greatest strength in bringing new perspectives.

I think they mean liberal centrist status quo vs a right debate.

Because as a rule, the actual left never conforms to anything, let alone themselves, they have a bias to be contrarian in my experience. 

BUT the further right we go, perhaps there is some truth to say, that the obvious things become ever more pronounced to anyone left of the fascist mindset, and thus they are broadly aligned. That and i've seen maga (and reform) operating like I used to see the more dramatic versions of the left operating, and just rambling over incoherent streams of consciousness that are not grounded in reality in the slightest.

Edited Friday at 09:08 PM by BlueOak

[carterfelder]

@Basman Thanks for that. I asked Grok for a summary about it:

"In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explores the differences in moral psychology between liberals and conservatives, particularly through the lens of his Moral Foundations Theory, which significantly shapes their respective capacities for open-mindedness. Haidt proposes that human morality rests on six innate foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression. These foundations act as intuitive lenses through which people evaluate moral issues, and Haidt argues that liberals and conservatives prioritize these foundations differently, influencing how open-minded they are to opposing viewpoints.

Haidt suggests that conservatives tend to engage all six moral foundations more equally. They value Care (empathy and harm prevention) and Fairness (justice and proportionality), but they also place significant weight on Loyalty (commitment to group or tribe), Authority (respect for hierarchy and tradition), Sanctity (purity and moral cleanliness), and Liberty (freedom from overreach, often tied to individual or group autonomy). This broader moral palette means conservatives can resonate with a wider array of moral arguments. For example, they might support a policy not only because it reduces harm (a Care-based argument) but also because it upholds tradition (Authority), strengthens community bonds (Loyalty), or aligns with religious values (Sanctity). This versatility, Haidt argues, can make conservatives more open-minded to liberal arguments, as they can at least understand appeals to Care or Fairness, even if they weigh other foundations more heavily in their final judgment.

Liberals, by contrast, tend to prioritize three foundations: Care, Fairness, and Liberty. They are particularly sensitive to issues of harm (e.g., protecting the vulnerable), justice (e.g., equality and combating discrimination), and freedom from oppression (e.g., individual autonomy). However, they place less emphasis on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, often viewing appeals to these foundations with skepticism or even disdain. For instance, a liberal might dismiss an argument based on tradition (Authority) as outdated or an appeal to group cohesion (Loyalty) as tribalism. Haidt argues this narrower focus can make liberals less open-minded to conservative perspectives, as they struggle to intuitively grasp or value arguments rooted in the foundations conservatives hold dear. He illustrates this with studies showing that conservatives are better at predicting liberal responses to moral dilemmas than liberals are at predicting conservative responses, suggesting conservatives have a more intuitive understanding of the liberal moral worldview.

Haidt emphasizes that this dynamic does not mean conservatives are inherently more open-minded in all contexts. Both groups exhibit moral blind spots and can become dogmatic when their core foundations are challenged. For conservatives, threats to Authority or Sanctity (e.g., questioning religious values or traditional institutions) can provoke rigidity, while liberals may shut down when their commitment to Care or Fairness (e.g., policies promoting equality) is questioned. However, because conservatives operate across a broader moral spectrum, they may appear more open-minded in debates where multiple moral foundations are at play, as they can engage with a wider range of moral reasoning.

Haidt also notes that these differences stem from evolutionary and cultural factors. Conservatives’ emphasis on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity may reflect adaptations for group survival and cohesion, while liberals’ focus on Care, Fairness, and Liberty aligns with individualism and universalist ideals. This divergence can lead to mutual misunderstanding: liberals may see conservatives as rigid or morally outdated, while conservatives may view liberals as naive or dismissive of social order. Haidt argues that true open-mindedness requires both sides to recognize the validity of each other’s moral foundations, even if they prioritize them differently. He advocates for intellectual humility, urging liberals to appreciate the role of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity in maintaining social stability, and conservatives to acknowledge the importance of Care, Fairness, and Liberty in addressing individual suffering and injustice.

In summary, Haidt’s analysis in The Righteous Mind suggests that conservatives’ broader engagement with all six moral foundations can make them more open-minded to certain types of moral arguments, particularly those rooted in liberal priorities like Care and Fairness. Liberals, with a narrower focus on Care, Fairness, and Liberty, may find it harder to engage with conservative arguments that emphasize Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity. However, both groups face challenges in maintaining open-mindedness when their moral intuitions are threatened, highlighting the need for mutual understanding to bridge the ideological divide."

- Grok

[Leo Gura]

Liberals are more openminded than conservatives.

[Fluran]

there are 100 reasons for going "Right", if Left does not exist, Right will just go internal warfare, that's irony huh-

 

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Liberals are more openminded than conservatives.

liberals, are more open minded than conservatives, however there is "leftism" 
just like right is currently 100 different tribes coming together.

Right is what not Left is.

 

Leftism has not been "openminded" to diverse thoughts, went on societal scale censorship.
(by Leftism, I refer ted kaczynski's term)

on Right, some can be extremely open minded as Liberal/left

but some are literal conspiracy repiltian brainrot, and demented old people

some are ex-democrats, follower of tulsi gabbard or JFK

some are just anti-establishment

Edited Friday at 10:19 PM by Fluran

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Liberals are more openminded than conservatives.

In my eyes liberals are center left and conservatives are center to center right! They are both great! I love talking to a real conservative, myself being quite liberal! The issue is that in 2025, real conservatives are very hard to find! Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Richard Nixon types! Both the far left and far right are totally off the rails, on the one hand you have freaks that want totally open borders, while on the other hand you have freaks that want an isolated Christian ethno-state with concentration camps for migrants! Both extremes are equally as bad! In my mind tier 2 politics means a combined mind of a liberal and conservative!

[SOUL]

I read it and the basis of their research seems pretty flawed. I don't want to go into a full explanation of what I find flawed but how they came to their conclusions is derived from a misinterpretation of distorted results from a flawed survey practice.

I will point to one aspect that seems fundamentally flawed, though. This was a survey of Europeans who self identify with American political parties. Americans don't even really understand what the political parties represent, let alone Europeans, who only hear through social media or mass media.

If they didn't add that aspect and just centered it around the 'attitudes' towards the topics and the networks connecting them without trying to 'identify' them with political parties, they might have been able to draw a more clear conclusion about diversity of thought.

The truth is 'liberalism' encompasses much of the political spectrum in the west but what people call conservative and liberal is a shallow bastardization of the meaning of the words which in practice is more based on social, cultural and geographical differences.

To be fair, though, many are moving towards a more traditionally conservative view point. They endorse more authoritarian control from an elite class with less freedom of expression from a set ideology. Although, they differ on who should control and what is that ideology, but it still is moving that way.

Most seem to think their ideology should be the one for everyone and the people on 'their team' should control. The people who don't think this are a minority that are trapped in a partisan fight. They may 'identify' with one or another but are forced to accept things they don't agree with in the process.

In conclusion....not a conclusive research study, they did a poor job of it in my opinion.

Oh...and there is no actual 'left' party in America...both parties are 'right' and what they call 'left' in the US are hardly leftists. They really don't exist, they are the smallest percentage of people.

Edited Friday at 11:39 PM by SOUL

[Leo Gura]

When I say liberal, I mean anyone left of center.

Diversity is a value of the left, not the right. Leftists want more diversity, rightists want less.

Do right-wingers want diversity of sex, race, religion, gender? No!

They are psychologically incapable of handling diversity.

Jordan Peterson still struggles to handle the idea of women working.

Edited Saturday at 10:25 PM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

The Right since the rise of Trumpism has only presented itself as being more inclusive on the surface through their messaging and media strategy. However, they are fundamentally against diversity and more about cohesion and homogeneity.

[Alexop]

 

The mature left is clearly more open minded. the core of choosing right is for wanting less diversity and flexibility. but...

 

Most of young  woke left is Stage Blue masquerading as Stage Green. 

Edited Saturday at 04:48 PM by Alexop