To one poster of a comment, I posted a comment replying to him. It seems that his and my dialogue could continue to go back and forth, but I don't want to see the Comment feature used in that way.
I do, however, want to write about one or two of his ideas. First, he says that the fact that I got some free work done by the painter whom I mentioned shows that conservatives can be "compassionate." Well, two things in reply to that, if indeed this example supports any generality: First, the freebie thing can't be taken too far. Yes, he did one thing for me and refused compensation. Another thing that he offered to do for me, he did not follow through on. He never called to arrange a return visit—but I'm okay with that; it's reasonable and natural and even almost expected.
But also, I think that a point I made is still supported: I mentioned that conservatives might be nice (whether "compassionate" is the appropriate word, I'm not at all sure) when they know the person involved. So they're nice to family, friends, neighbors, fellow church members, customers. But I still say that it's very different when we're talking about people who they don't know, who are distant, different, etc.--for example, the poor or people of another race or ethnicity.
I said that I feel this is like people in small towns who might be thought to be warm, neighborly, the salt of the earth, and all that. Yet they're suspicious and even hostile toward strangers or any "outsiders."
I said also that this is a matter of "we" versus "they." And I believe even more strongly that I was right about that, in view of something I saw on TV a couple days ago. There was a PBS program called "The Human Spark," hosted by Alan Alda, who first became known to many from starring in the TV show M*A*S*H. (This program was originally shown last January, and anyone reading this may view the program on the PBS web site, pbs.org.)
This program showed some experiments with very young children. In one, it was first established which of two foods the child preferred, between some "slimy" green beans or graham crackers. Then two puppets were shown to the child; one puppet was presented as liking and disliking the same food choices as the child (liking the crackers, disliking the beans; and then vice versa for the other puppet). Then the child was offered the choice of which puppet he wanted to play with, and nearly all the children picked the puppet who had the same food preferences as himself.
This is what is to be inferred: We like, and presumably identify with, those (puppets and presumably people) who we think have the same preferences as ourselves, who are like us. The experimenter (Karen Wynn of Yale) infers, this shows we have an instinct to affiliate with those who are like ourselves. Paul Bloom* phrased it only slightly differently: we have "an inclination to bond with others who are like us."
This is a very close paraphrase of some of what Bloom said:
At every point we're splitting the world into those who are allies and those who are enemies.. . .People have an inclination to bond with others who are like us. . . .
People unite with others like themselves, e.g. with the same religion, and help each other. . . .they may wear the same clothes and eat the same foods. That means being united against those who are "over there" or who practice different beliefs.
As yet another scholar said, this is why we have holy wars like the Crusades.
_______________
* Paul Bloom is the spouse and collaborator of Karen Wynn, who is also quoted here.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
No comments:
Post a Comment