« In case you were sleeping | Main | Hedge funds in everything »
Questions for liberals (and some libertarians)
Robin Hanson, citing the work of Arthur Brooks, asks:
- Would you or I be happier if we let ourselves think more conservatively, such as by attending church more and believing we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps?
- Would society be happier if we encouraged more conservative thoughts?
Robin answers that he would rather "believe whatever is true even if that makes me unhappy." But there is always adjustment on some truthful margin that can be made. Robin could play up the relatively conservative thoughts he already believes in and do more of the church-like activities he already partakes in, even if he does not go to church per se. So these results probably should influence our behavior even though of course we should reject the deliberate pursuit of untruth.
Here are Bryan Caplan's thoughts on the Brooks book.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM in Religion | Permalink
Comments
Or, would you jump in the experience machine knowing it was false, even though you know you'd be happier within it?
You haven't answered Robin's response, merely suggested there are certain behaviors Robin could perform that might make him happier--but Robin's point is about belief, not behavior. It's not clear what "play up conservative beliefs" means--act more conservatively? Or believe more conservatively? But Robin's already said he doesn't want the latter, and the former skirts his point.
A better response would point out that we make tradeoffs between truth and happiness all the time--at any moment you have a choice between, say, reading a book on theoretical physics or going out and playing pool. Clearly we give things besides truth weight, and Robin does the same. He presumably chooses happiness over truth from time to time, and if he does it sometimes, why not in the present instance?
At any rate, just to be helpful, I'll offer a libertarian data point:
Assuming we can choose to believe what we believe are falsehoods--which seems likely, though confusing--yes, we'd be happier if we believed conservatively.
Of course, happiness is far from a sufficient reason for an action.
Posted by: Scott Scheule at May 12, 2008 11:59:59 AM
Regarding the title of this post:
I would like to point out that the defining characteristic of a libertarian isn't conservatism nor is it liberalism. It is about advocating, or at least agreeing to, that we don't use the coercive force of government to force others to adhere to our conservative or liberal views on either economic or "civil" issues, or on their hybrids (e.g. are drugs an economic liberties issue or a civil liberties issue? How about porn or prostitution?).
Libertarians run the gamut of hardcore conservative to hardcore liberal, with most of us some mixture of both conservative and liberal (with conservative and liberal as popularly defined).
Framed differently, if you are some variety of small government conservative and small government liberal, you are more or less a libertarian. If you are some form of big government conservative or big government liberal, you are more or less a totalitarian. Whether it is "more" or "less" depends on the degree with which you believe that government should force others do your bidding.
To make a long story short, the parentheses section of your (T.C.) post is redundant.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at May 12, 2008 12:03:43 PM
Couple things ...
1. It's pretty funny how nobody sees the breathtaking arrogance in this discussion. But anyway ...
2. "Happiness" is a rather nebulous concept. It's not synonymous with "pleasure moment to moment".
Posted by: holmegm at May 12, 2008 12:07:25 PM
From the same site, here's a very worthwhile read on the topic. It starts:
When I met the futurist Greg Stock some years ago, he argued that the joy of scientific discovery would soon be replaced by pills that could simulate the joy of scientific discovery. I approached him after his talk and said, "I agree that such pills are probably possible, but I wouldn't voluntarily take them." ...
Posted by: Person at May 12, 2008 12:10:31 PM
These are almost non-questions. I'm not subscribing to fatalism here, but I don't think it is really possible to wholesale change thought processes like this. There are examples of conversions in the pundit class, Hitchens and Horowitz come to mind, but I don't see those as REAL switches. I think Hitchens comes close but Horowitz doesn't (Although I'm open to the argument that Hitchens has always been bombastic about thinks in a binary fashion, all or nothing vitriol directed at an opponent du jure).
I can't see myself shifting over philosophically. I've shifted, in my life, about the military, taxation and gun rights (all to the right, so to speak), but I find myself secure in a "liberal" frame of mind (Liberal as Eric Alterman has defined it in his book). I don't see things as black and white. I recoiled from the Bush administration's claim that the terrorists "hate us for our freedom". I can't accept a simplistic viewpoint of things in that respect. That eliminates some clarity, for sure. For example, I'm unhappy with the text of the 2nd amendment but I'm well aware of what the text actually says. That leaves me with the ambiguous position of limply defending gun rights while maintaining an awareness of the lethal consequences of those rights. In a sense this kind of position is non-negotiable, because I don't know how to go about changing it. I couldn't just go to church and be cured. I couldn't even come around to MARXISM, fer god's sake.
It isn't really the pursuit of truth that drives this ambivalence. I'm not so vain as to believe that I have a monopoly on truth (but, c'mon! we've got a commanding share of the market:)...). I'm literally just wired that way. Structuralist arguments about social/racial outcomes make more sense to me on face, just as cultural/personal arguments would make more sense to a conservative. I can tell you 100 reasons why he/she would be wrong about those arguments but that wouldn't make them come around. I can't even bring myself to behave like Hitchens does around theists, even though I know what he says is largely true (wrt God). Part of it is social niceties and part of it is the recognition that the functionalist part of religion is still very important and very powerful, like it or not.
Would I be happier if I flipped a switch and believed all this? Maybe. I might be happier if I believed that my stature in life had nothing to do with an accident of birth. I might be happier if I new that at the end of my life I would life forever with someone's god. I might be happier if I understood foreign policy as us (good) versus them (axis of evil). True or not true, I would probably be much happier. But I can't flip a switch like that.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at May 12, 2008 12:20:41 PM
Addendum. I would also be happier if I could avoid common spelling and transposition errors. :)
Posted by: Adam Hyland at May 12, 2008 12:26:11 PM
This makes no sense to me. In what world are "by attending church more and believing we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps?" conservative thoughts? Plenty of liberals attend church (Obama might be in better shape had he not). Also there's nothing particularly conservative about believing one can pull one's self up by one's bootstraps. There are plenty of liberal entrepreneurs and self-made people and plenty of whiny conservatives who think the world is conspiring against them. The difference is that liberal economic losers think the government owes them something, conservative economic losers think the government or some racial group is stealing from them, but both groups tend to adopt a self-fulfilling "I can't win" mindset.
Posted by: vanya at May 12, 2008 12:32:21 PM
Vanya: It seems clearly and demonstrably conservative to me. The fact that both liberals and conservatives go to church is irrelevant. The locus of movement conservatism and evangelical preaching in America are the same place. This also doesn't mean that liberals can't be self made people. The distinction is kind of Randian. Conservatives feel that they deserve their success and that others commensurately deserve their failure. Liberals (hopefully) believe that while they deserve some credit for their success, their lives would be very different if they started out in another position.
Sure, the conservative "X racial group is stealing your jobz" complaint might fall into the "i can't win" mindset, but it often doesn't. It occupies the same place for conservatives as complaints about businesses occupy for liberals: it is conservative populism versus liberal populism. I'll not delve into my thoughts on their relative accuracy, but that is the split.
So don't assume that ideologies are the same because superficial exposure is the same. This is the same problem w/ the capital gain tax. I paid capital gains tax last year, about 110 dollars. That doesn't really mean that raising the marginal capital gains tax rate for the top 1% of income earners is really a tax increase directed at me. same deal there.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at May 12, 2008 12:46:48 PM
..Robin says he would rather "believe whatever is true even if that makes me unhappy."
Did he say this because it is true, or because it makes him happy to believe such a noble thing about himself?
Posted by: protrude at May 12, 2008 2:42:50 PM
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Is Hanson (Brooks?) saying that you acquire a great deal of your worldview subconsciously from your surroundings, and that surrounding yourself with a "positive" environment (i.e. church) will improve your outlook on life in general, even if you don't explicitly attempt to accept or believe what it's telling you?
It seems a little silly (not to mention condescending) to try to "think more like a conservative," without acting or being more like one, in order to be as "happy" as they supposedly are.
Cliche as it sounds, I think a lot of the discussion hinges on what the study means by "happy," and how measurable a thing it is. Is it measured by the flow of certain chemicals associated with pleasure in your brain? Is measured by survey questions? On the one hand, I do feel better (happier, even) about life in general while attending church than I do while listening to NPR. On the other hand I do both of these things fairly often, and on purpose. Some part of my happiness function involves shouting at my radio.
Posted by: d.cous. at May 12, 2008 2:56:10 PM
This question makes a rather reckless assumption and it's incredibly leading -- that, somehow, conservatism guarantees more of a venture to the path of happiness that liberalism or other schools of thought. I would imagine that conservatives who genuinely believe their principles are happy to abide by them. Those that do not, cannot. I'm of the latter persuasion.
Let me extend a bit. I suppose that I have made some conservative (re: conservation) choices in my life. I dress a certain way, keep a fairly tight leash of my money (since I need to relocate soon). Those individual choices make me happy. I can live with liberal political thoughts because I believe in them; in being authentic and practicing those choices, reading about them, staying interested in those causes, etc., I am happy.
Perhaps it's mentally easier by a show of metaphorical numbers to be a conservative or a libertarian. If you're only concerned with your own backyard or the health and well-being of your immediate family, AND you're that much less displaced in concern for people beyond that (fellow city dwellers, your county, or even the broad social justice swath), then, accounting-speaking, it's easier to handle. That many fewer to worry about. But again, it all goes back to how authentically one believes in their political and philosophical choices, left or right wing. If you do what you do and believe in it and care for it, that will make you happy.
Posted by: Dee at May 12, 2008 3:09:54 PM
I don't think going to church would make me happy.
I do occasionally go to synagogue with friends, when invited.
Posted by: liberty at May 12, 2008 3:24:24 PM
The terms "conservative" and "liberal" have been rendered completely meaningless. What we have in modern times is really two different forms of popular fascism. The only difference is that "Conservatives" exploit culture-conflict, "Liberals" exploit class-conflict.
"Conservatives" are happier than "Liberals" because cultural identity is more personally fulfilling than class identity.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at May 12, 2008 3:38:16 PM
All right, I will spew.
We are driven by two instincts, asexual and sexual. We still reproduce asexually, evolution did not dispense with the activity, evolution simply added sexual reproduction on top.
Our first goal in life is to maintain the environment for asexual reproduction, but that instinct is not allowed to exit the body for sexual reproduction would never work if we disgorged our bodies destructively for asexual release.
The second instinct, sexual reproduction requires close cooperation with fellow humans.
The two are in contradiction, asexual reproduction being repressed and limited to the environment we control, our bodies.
Happiness is the state in which both of these instincts are satisfied. We would like to build a surplus to preserve our asexual environment, and simultaneously we want consumption to promote sexual mating. Happiness should occur when we have balance consumption and production, just like the economists say.
Posted by: Matt at May 12, 2008 3:41:35 PM
@ Matt. wut?
Posted by: Adam Hyland at May 12, 2008 3:47:53 PM
I have long said that Atheists and agnostics need to start clubs that are like churches.
Posted by: Floccina at May 12, 2008 4:04:27 PM
I'd say no to the first question.
I'd speculate that most people's beliefs are the ones that make them happiest. For example, it's always the loser who thinks the game was rigged and the winner who thinks it was fair.
Posted by: allen at May 12, 2008 4:08:40 PM
Conservatives believe in reason. Liberals believe in fantasy. Spirituality is conducive to reason as it contemplates the meaning of life. Atheism is closer to fantasy and believes in whatever.
Posted by: jorod at May 12, 2008 4:23:11 PM
If conservatives are more likely to believe that people control their own lives and are largely responsible for their own success or failure, it may explain why liberals always seem to take election results more personally than conservatives.
Posted by: 8 at May 12, 2008 4:25:37 PM
Sorry folks, but I think the happiness literature is a crock of bull; how can you measure what you can't even define?
Posted by: enrique at May 12, 2008 4:55:15 PM
@8
I'm going to have to disagree forcefully here. We cannot extrapolate general claims about people based on the last 16 years of politics. I could point to you plenty of conservatives furious about the 1960 election in their day. Likewise furious about the 1992 election. Or the 1988 choice of G.H.W. Bush as nominee. Or Johnson's victory in 1964.
The last 16 years (or really, 30 years) have seen in full force the backlash from the early 1970's (honestly, the sixties, as they started politically in 1968) and Watergate. To judge the character of the country based only on this recent and transitory swing is temporocentric and wrong.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at May 12, 2008 5:00:13 PM
Perhaps he would be happier if he just moved to a smaller town. Fewer aggravations.
Posted by: Lord at May 12, 2008 5:22:50 PM
Republicans are happier because they go to church and own guns (yes, I know this is a generalization). Rather than waste time trying to assign political beliefs to mental illness or whatever, think about useful analogues for these things. If it is your political beliefs and not your life situation that are causing you genuine existential angst...well, they make a pill for that.
Going to church makes you feel like part of a group and, by volunteering in church activities, that you're making a difference in the world. Owning a gun makes you feel safer at night. There's nothing stopping John Q Democrat from joining a social organization, volunteering for a worthy cause, and living somewhere safe, it's just that Democrats tend instead to go it alone, work for non-profits, and live in major cities (where you're never completely sure who's lurking behind that bush).
Posted by: Sean at May 12, 2008 5:38:52 PM
If conservatives are more likely to believe that people control their own lives and are largely responsible for their own success or failure, it may explain why liberals always seem to take election results more personally than conservatives.
Do you know any conservatives?
Posted by: perianwyr at May 12, 2008 6:02:29 PM
Conservatives believe in reason. Liberals believe in fantasy. Spirituality is conducive to reason as it contemplates the meaning of life. Atheism is closer to fantasy and believes in whatever.
Please put a little more effort into your trolling attemts. This forum deserves better than this C- try.
Posted by: bartman at May 12, 2008 6:30:04 PM
What do you mean, bartman, C-? I say F.
And I'm usually a kind and warm person.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at May 12, 2008 6:38:18 PM
I'm not sure how you can "play up" certain thoughts without having your ming then give those thoughts more weight.
Posted by: Robin Hanson at May 12, 2008 7:19:52 PM
There is a difference between correlation and causation, at least for those not enamored of Hume. Setting aside the problem of explaining how someone who has different beliefs could be the same person, how would holding the identified beliefs cause a particular person to be happier?
Posted by: T. Gracchus at May 12, 2008 7:23:31 PM
I don't know. I can think of some "liberal" things that make me happy...
Posted by: Andrew Edwards at May 13, 2008 7:39:04 AM
"If conservatives are more likely to believe that people control their own lives and are largely responsible for their own success or failure, it may explain why liberals always seem to take election results more personally than conservatives.
Do you know any conservatives?"
This comment actually seemed closest to being true. I think the conservatives, while clearly not happy when we lose, get over it much quicker and move on with our lives. This may be due to the belief that we are in control of our lives and an election is not going to change this.
Our belief that we are in control of our lives may be the root of our happiness as well as the root of our belief they people can 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'
In some respect this is why we think liberals are elitist. Conservatives think that there is nothing special about us; we worked hard and have done reasonably well. There is no one keeping anyone down.
The elitist view is that 'while I've done well, others couldn't possibly achieve this - so they need help.'
Just two different points of view of whether the the world controls you, or you or in control of your world.
Posted by: Tom at May 13, 2008 9:01:12 AM
What is happiness? There's the rub. If it's to be defined by a feel-good sensation that is characterized by its fleeting nature, it is likely that Robin could, briefly, increase his happiness if he were to engage in a few more church-like activities or increase his conservative beliefs a little more. However, if happiness is, as it was for centuries before sometime in the 1900s defined as fulfillment, we would be happier only if, by believing in our ability for self improvement we could progress and by doing more church-like (presumably good deeds toward others type stuff) activities we could be more fulfilled as a human person. Hm. Just got reasoned back into being conservative. Thank Goodness. Thanks for the juice.
Posted by: Curiouser Cat at May 13, 2008 9:48:41 AM
Perhaps its my youthful optimism betraying me, but I identify as liberal and feel rather confused by the statement that conservatives believe in "up by the bootstraps", and that this is contrary to liberal belief. I feel very liberal thinking that anyone is capable of anything, and that my life and place in the world is not dictated by the whims of a higher power.
Posted by: Irene at May 13, 2008 3:50:23 PM
Problem with attending church more often, you could be seduced by the redistributionary logic of Jesus. A fine "conservative" you'd be then!
Posted by: Ralph Hitchens at May 13, 2008 4:00:07 PM
gee Tom, for someone who obviously doesn't like the elitist view, your post is very elitist.
personally i've noticed that arrogant people tend to be happier. they think they're right all the time so their happiness doesn't get dinged by self doubt or introspection. They also tend to only care about themselves so their happiness doesn't get dinged by worrying about others or about the validity of their stereotypes. perhaps this explains why conservatives are happier. it certainly would explain a few of the above commenters.
Posted by: billy bob at May 13, 2008 8:28:51 PM
Billy Bob,
Not elitist at all. I believe I'm the most qualified to make my decisions, and you're the most qualified to make yours.
Ralph - "Problem with attending church more often, you could be seduced by the redistributionary logic of Jesus. A fine "conservative" you'd be then!"
Conservatives already give more to charity than liberals.
Posted by: Tom at May 14, 2008 9:25:49 AM
Tom,
What you seem to forget is that people have the ability to decide not to make a decision for themselves. they can choose to designate someone else to make certain decisions for them. The fact that you think you preferred decision making beliefs are what everyone should follow is elitist.
Also, in regards to this statement we worked hard and have done reasonably well. There is no one keeping anyone down.
I suggest you look at any conservative blog discussing the "liberal bias" in academia. i've yet to see someone say "conservatives aren't academia because we just aren't smart enough" but i see a lot of people say "the liberals are conspiring to keep us out".
Posted by: billy bob at May 14, 2008 12:55:48 PM
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2008/05/the-kudlow-conu.html
Peter is a libertarian who supported Ron Paul in the recent Republican primary. We had some fun discussing why it is that supply-siders and libertarians tend to be optimistic types. How odd it is, Peter mused, that the U.S. is moving sharply away from libertarianism and toward statism, yet the most optimistic investors tend to be supply-siders and libertarians! It’s the Kudlow Conundrum, we agreed, named after that indefatigable optimist Larry Kudlow.
That's it in a nutshell.
Posted by: 8 at May 14, 2008 4:13:38 PM
"I suggest you look at any conservative blog discussing the "liberal bias" in academia."
When surveys show >80% of academia considers itself liberal, is there really a question about liberal bias?
Even so, academia is a very, very small portion of our population. The fact that this is the only example you can come up with is quite telling in itself.
Posted by: Tom at May 15, 2008 10:02:52 AM
Even so, academia is a very, very small portion of our population. The fact that this is the only example you can come up with is quite telling in itself.
one example is all that is needed to disprove your claim. conservatives as a whole obviously don't think the way you say they do...although they do like to say they think that way.
Posted by: billy bob at May 15, 2008 9:20:41 PM
"conservatives as a whole obviously don't think the way you say they do"
As A Whole - from one small exception?
Since you found only one small exception, I would say, as a whole, conservatives think the way I think they do.
"one example is all that is needed to disprove your claim" Only if I claimed ever single conservative acts as I say - without exception. That would be a crazy claim. I'm only making a generalization - one that I still claim is mostly true.
It seems that with every post you prove my point. Thank you.
Posted by: Tom at May 16, 2008 10:02:00 AM
Nietzsche's words from the beginning of Beyond Good & Evil come to mind:
Granted that we want the truth: why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us - or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem? Which of us is the Oedipus here? Which the Sphinx? It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation. And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before, as if we were the first to discern it, get a sight of it, and risk raising it? For there is risk in raising it, perhaps there is no greater risk.
Posted by: Alex at May 19, 2008 5:49:31 AM
