from the title-field-should-have-the-right-to-more-characters.-on-second-thought,-no-it-doesn't...or-does-it? dept.
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
Many commentators considered President Obama’s reversal on same-sex marriage an act of courage. But this isn’t how the public usually perceives moral mind-changers, according to a team led by Tamar Kreps at the University of Utah. Their findings0 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggest that leaders who shift from a moral stance don’t appear brave – they just look like hypocrites.
The researchers conducted 15 studies, of which I’ll focus on one example that illustrates the core approach. Nearly 800 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk read scenarios where a member of the US Congress took a stance on either the death penalty or same-sex marriage. In some cases, their stance was pragmatic, indicated in their statement through phrases like “it’s a matter of not having to invest in the cost of changing government systems”. In other cases the justification for the stance was moral – “it’s a matter of justice.”
Participants rated their initial feelings about the politician and then learned that he or she had since changed their tune, again making a statement based on either pragmatic or moral reasons. For example, a statement might read “It’s still a moral issue for me…I’ve realized, though, that we can never be 100 per cent certain that the convicted party is guilty, and truly defending justice means never taking the risk of killing an innocent victim.” Finally, participants rated the politicians again.
When their initial stance was moral rather than pragmatic, the political leaders suffered costs and gained no benefits after changing their moral mind. Participants rated them as less effective, less worthy of support and more hypocritical, with the intensity of hypocrisy driving the other two negative judgments. Even those participants who agreed with moral mind-changers’ new position saw them as hypocritical, although slightly less so than other participants. At the same time, moral mind changers were seen as no more courageous, effective, or worthy of support, compared to the congress men and women who changed their initial pragmatically grounded position.
0Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous evolution? When leaders change their moral minds. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000103)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 01 2018, @06:45PM (14 children)
When Obama "evolved" his views on gay marriage, it just happened to coincide with the first presidential election where the national popularity of gay marriage was above 50%.
When youtube decided to stop financially incentiveizing nazis it just happened to coincide with advertisers withdrawing money after seeing their ads on videos like "Why white genocide is real".
I don't doubt that leaders are actually human, and do occasionally update their views by way of being convinced, but, in general, cynicism in American politics is 300% warranted.
(Score: 4, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday August 01 2018, @06:52PM (7 children)
So if Obama’s stance on gay marriage was politically convenient, which stance reflected his personal conviction? The before or after? Thinking someone a hypocrite for changing their stance assumes that their earlier stance was what they believed in. Based on your argument (with which I happen to agree), there’s no reason to believe either stance was genuine.
But I already knew I am in the minority’s of people that consider all politicians equally hypocrital whether or not they stick to their “convictions”.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday August 01 2018, @06:54PM
Damn, missed a bad autocorrect.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:04PM (3 children)
It feels almost irrelevant to conjecture on an answer as to true beliefs about it.
"All politicians are equally bad and hypocritical" is exactly how you end up with concentration camps with children dying of trivial infections because no one is caring for them, though. Just because cynicism is constantly warranted and it fucking wears every one of us who pays attention to the godddamn bone, doesn't mean that all things are equal.
I wouldn't even call Obama a pure opportunist. Just not someone who actually was willing to stand against the tide for what was right.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:09PM
The British Crown put a price on the head of the author of "A Modest Proposal", but Jonathan Swift lived to a ripe old age because he published it anonymously
While I often use pseudonyms I'm never really anonymous because taking the blame for my essays lends weight to their arguments
I wrote Child Pornography on the Internet as Jonathan Swift but gave my real name in its conclusion where I end with:
"Perhaps if I work very, very hard to perfect my craft as a writer, I too might get a price put on my own head.
One Can Only Hope."
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)
Except that he also actively defended egregious violations of the Constitution such as the NSA's mass surveillance. He not only did not stand up to evil, but he did evil himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:05AM
That's the problem with finding the middle ground, which was Obama's speciality.
The right just lurched further right and dragged the middle to something unpalatable to liberals. Obama, in his typical compromise position, would then adopt the formerly right wing stance and take heat for being SOCIALIST!1!111 and also fail to deliver any liberal policies. It was always too difficult, too far, too divisive and we got stuck with mushy nothing.
Enter the Republicans... there's no pretense at compromise. No pretense at balancing budgets. No pretense at working for the people. Just attack teh SOCIALISTS!!! and ruin lives.
Let's hope the Democrats can learn from this debacle..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 01 2018, @09:26PM (1 child)
I'd agree with the answer of "He didn't have any personal convictions about it". Either that or "His personal convictions on the issue have been so well hidden that they never made it into any public record anywhere".
This afflicts the Democrats in general: Most of them (particularly Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and Schumer) give every impression that they don't have any actual personal convictions about any controversial issue whatsoever, which they think makes them appear to be magnanimous and appealing to the broadest possible demographic, when in fact it makes them appear as though they stand for nothing but their own ambition. This affliction is so great that as best as I can tell they genuinely cannot understand either politicians or voters with convictions that affect how they vote, and think that neither policy nor principles actually matter in any significant way.
You can hear that in how their strategists talk and write: "We plan to win over $DEMOGRAPHIC_GROUP voters with our messaging about $ISSUE", rather than "When it comes to $ISSUE, I believe $PRINCIPLE" or "I support $POLICY to solve $ISSUE".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:12AM
It always seemed to me they are embarassed about their atheism and embarrassed that they don't oppose gay rights.
If Trump taught us anything, it's that "values voters" have absolutely no values whatsoever. They vote for the biggest a-hole. Period. Dress it up in abortion blah blah and small govt blah blah... why don't you STFU already? These fucks will vote for atheism, they'll vote for abortions, whatever gets them bragging rights to say they fucked over someone else.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by unauthorized on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:26PM
Revisionist history. The adpocalypse was a response to manufactured moral panic in response over a comedy video from YouTube commedian PewDiePie in which he satirized nazis in such blatantly obvious way that only perpetually butthurt moral crusaders on a quest to find something to be outraged over would find offensive. It was never about the "nazis" because Google actually does censor hate speech, through they use a sane definition so the "white genocide" crowd doesn't get censored since claiming that a white genocide is occurring is not actually a call for violence.
I loathe to side with Google, but they did made it abundantly clear that the policy changes were in response to advertiser pressure, they made no attempt to deceive us into thinking it was some kind of political stance as you seem to be implying.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:34PM (3 children)
If I were ever on a Presidential track, my priorities would be 1) what matters to me and 2) what matters to the public. Let the pollsters and speech writers manage 2) while not interfering with 1), say whatever needs to be said to satisfy 2) and 1) can happen. Without satisfying the public, you won't get the chance to do what matters.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:23AM
I doubt your awesome values would last a month under bombardment from the world's best propagandists.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 02 2018, @06:09PM (1 child)
I challenge your list of priorities a bit, because you're putting "What I care about" first, and "What I care about" if I'm a politician usually involves first and foremost either getting re-elected to the office you currently hold, or getting elected to a higher office. And barring that, it usually involves some sort of way of paying my salary, which means not pissing off those with a big enough bank account to hire me after the people fire me. And that's all you need to become a typical corrupt politician serving the whims of your biggest donors rather than the real needs of your constituents.
What we actually need in the US are politicians who are willing to sacrifice their political careers and even their future livelihoods to do what is best for their constituents in the long term, rather than what they want or even what their constituents want in the short term. Those are rare finds under any circumstances: One I can think of that I've actually met is Dennis Kucinich, who as mayor of Cleveland refused to sell the municipal power company to the company that controlled electrical power for most of the state, and as a result had a mob hit put on him and the banks holding municipal bonds intentionally put the city into bankruptcy and ended his time as mayor ... and in the long run saved city residents millions in electric bills while giving them consistently better service (e.g. the company he refused to sell to caused the 2003 northeast blackout [wikipedia.org]).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 02 2018, @08:28PM
Do you want a leader, or a mish-mash of public opinion driving the nation? Should we listen to public opinion monthly, weekly, hourly? I thought the founding fathers established an interval of executive public opinion polling at once every 4 years.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @07:47AM
1. In a course of 20 years a quarter of Americans changed their views on gay marriage without such incentives.
2. Obama never had a moral position on gay marriage since he's a closet atheist like 99% of American politicians. Democratic voters usually understand this. Republican voters don't. Usually because the guy explaining this isn't standing in church on a podium so they're not listening anyhow.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Wednesday August 01 2018, @06:51PM (2 children)
How about "capable of learning". I know it's rare, but stil.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)
Seems a little late (and coincidental) to be learning about some major issues. A competent person would go into these things fairly versed in all sides, the pros and cons of any stance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:27AM
And yet, at that level, you're basically talking 50-50 on every issue. There's no slam dunks because someone else already would have done them.
I'd suggest we as a nation could save $400k EVERY SINGLE YEAR by replacing the President with the flip of a coin. It almost seems like we're there already ;)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:04PM
One is based on what's practical, the other is based on what is morally right. You can't be wishy washy on issues of morality. You change your mind on a moral issue, it better be for a real good reason. Where as someone who's doing the practical thing can change their mind, if they perceive the thing is more practical. Changing your views to support what's practical is what's expected when you're talking about someone taking a pragmatic stance. Changing your mind when you've taken a moral stance, is more or less the essence of hypocrisy. Your morals should be solid foundations that you stand on. While you can change your morals, you really need a good reason to be changing them. Not, copping out and saying, it's still a moral issue for me, but random blah, blah, blah.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:16PM (10 children)
Picking Obama's "flip" on marriage redefinition is a bad example. He paid no price for that flip because nobody believed his first stated position, in opposition. The letter salad crowd understood he was lying and didn't punish him for opposing their #1 agenda item, in fact they all endorsed him. Few opponents were even deceived by his lie, it wasn't all that persuasive. The only purpose was to provide a fig leaf for some vulnerable Dems to endorse him and feign shock later. Obama is a wicked man but he is no Bill Clinton. Sen. Kerrey was right about President Clinton's lying skills. Anyway, when Obama "came out" / "flipped" / "forced by Biden" nobody was shocked.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mobydisk on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:57PM (6 children)
I also wonder if his stance on telecom immunity was earnest. He was vehemently against it until he suddenly voted the other way and justified it using the same feeble excuses he had spent months attacking, that it was some kind of balance between security and liberty. I think it was clear that any candidate who opposed the NSA was nonviable as a presidential candidate. The trouble here is that once he was elected he did nothing about it, so I'm not sure what he really believed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:00PM
I guess he believed he'd be nonviable, if he opposed the NSA in office.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:32PM (3 children)
Let me ask you the big questions. Does it matter what Obama (or any other elected official) "really" believes? Is what they say even all that important to you? Is not what they DO the thing that matters? Which is why Trump's base will not abandon him no matter how much the media try. We don't care what the media says about him, we don't care what be believes, we don't care who he screws, we don't care what he tweets to troll people, we like what he is DOING and since he isn't likely to suddenly stop doing those things he has a secure base of support. The left (and obsolete Conservatives and NeoCons) seem to care far more about optics than results.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @09:17PM (2 children)
No. Trump's supporters won't abandon him because of sunk cost fallacy, plus some confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
Case in point, rewind 4 years. How did you react when President Obama...
1) Bowed to foreign leaders, such as the King of Saudi Arabia
2) Increase the US deficit by $1-trillion
3) Played something like 10-hours of golf each week
4) Appointed industry CEOs as regulators for their overseers
5) Refused to take questions from Fox news
6) Took money foreign governments in return for of special treatment
7) Had a policy of forcibly separating children from their families
8) Refused to divest himself of his private fortune, or reveal his financial entanglements or interests
Oh... wait... most of those are President Trump. So that makes it okay, doesn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:15PM
9) Continued the 7+ military interventions overseas
10) Continued the TSA
11) Continued the drug war
12) Continued the NSA's unconstitutional mass surveillance
etc.
Remember, it's not just what new things a president does that matters, but what practices they continue.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @12:11AM
I only voted for Trump to stop Hillary from continuing her felonies. I figured Trump would be useless, ineffective, and quite possibly as liberal as Hillary. Boy was I wrong! Trump turned out to be wonderful. He's in the running for best president ever. He clearly beats everybody since 1900 except possibly Ford, Reagan, and Theodore Roosevelt. Obama and Hillary make Nixon look saintly. Addressing your list:
1. Obama bowed to foreign leaders. So far, I am unaware of Trump having done so. On several comparable occasions, he notably did not.
2. The deficit... is complicated. It's a hazard.
3. Golf is fine. If you are golfing with China's Xi, as Trump did, it is probably good. Trump owns the course anyway, so he is just enjoying his yard.
4. Industry CEOs can be the best or worst, entirely depending on if they are willing to sever any connections that would be a conflict of interest. Both Trump and Obama did this, and there is no reason to complain.
5. Obama did refuse to take questions from Fox News. CNN gets all bent out of shape when Trump sometimes chooses others over them. CNN is abusive to Trump; they don't deserve a press pass.
6. Taking money from foreign governments... say what? That was Clinton era.
7. Obama continued to enforce a pre-existing law that required children to be separated, as did Trump, but then Trump got around it by speeding up the processing to beat the deadline imposed by the law.
8. Trump has the larger private fortune here, but it is shrinking as it ought to. Obama somehow got rich on a salary that would be rejected by any normal CEO in America. Of course, the one with the really disturbing financial secrets lost an election to Trump.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday August 02 2018, @04:30AM
"He is whatever he needs to be." -- Malik Obama, on Barack's beliefs
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:02PM (2 children)
By some definitions of wicked, it is impossible to reach national level politics and succeed without a degree of wickedness.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 02 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)
Or in the words of Joss Whedon: "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another."
I think there are degrees of wickedness, though: Generally speaking, the standard I use is "How much harm to other people has/will this person cause in order to further their own ambitions?" Very few leaders both now and historically look good by that standard.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 02 2018, @08:34PM
"Own ambitions" is a slippery term - the worst of them believe that their "own ambitions" are what is best for the nation.
Even if you get all objective about what's "good for the country" - are you measuring GDP, or mean income, or median, or wealth disparity, or percent in poverty, or mean life expectancy, or maximum life expectancy for the wealthiest, security from foreign invasion, security of domestic interests abroad... the dimensions of "objective measurement of progress" are endless.
Then you've got my favorite Senator to bash this decade: Marco Rubio, who is so blatantly eager to line his own pockets that you don't even have to wrestle with concepts like "is he actually good for us?" No, he simply is not.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:18PM (1 child)
To me it would depend on the timeframe.
Change your stance before you start campaigning, or near the end of your term and no longer affecting policy: Just means you changed your mind, for whatever reason, and you'll be running on a new platform different from the old. That is fine and healthy.
Change your stance one day after getting into office: I'll call you a hypocrite and a liar and a fraud who should be removed from his seat for subverting the democratic process.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:56PM
Just after Congress adjourns for the holidays is the traditional time for Presidents to pardon notorious criminals
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by danmars on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:19PM (2 children)
If we ensure that political decisions are justified based on what makes logical sense, instead of moralizing, then people aren't going to call/rate you a hypocrite if new facts come out that lead to new, better paths. I don't know why we have so few politicians that justify decisions based on what will actually lead to a positive outcome. (Well, I do understand, but I don't like it.)
(Score: 2, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:53PM
The formal practice of ethics uses logic to arrive at moral stances
That I took intro to ethics from a UCSC philosophy prof resulted in my deep insight into Minimally Sufficient Samaritans.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @05:37AM
There have been no new facts, Sir, since the New Testament.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 01 2018, @07:50PM
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:08PM (2 children)
This type of fake science where they extrapolate to real life from a survey of mechanical turk users really disgusts me, not sure why.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 01 2018, @08:15PM (1 child)
Because the survey participants weren't randomly selected
The best The could have claimed was that mechanical Turks are judgmental not the general public
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:33PM
Thats one of the problems but not the only one. There is also how poorly the survey answers reflect real opinion, etc. But even thats not what makes it disgusting. Its just the whole package of pure BS being passed as science.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday August 01 2018, @09:52PM (1 child)
If a politician changes their view to your POV, then they are Brave.
If they change their view to The Other POV, then they are a Hypocrite.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @10:24PM
It's not that simple. I want to have genuine allies on my side, not people who seem to have changed their view for political expediency. Oftentimes, they just do this so they can win an election, and once they do, they actively work against you. Not always, but usually. Be very skeptical of any corporate politicians who suddenly 'comes around' and is against corporations funding their campaigns, because usually they are liars and using trickery to hide where the money comes from.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GlennC on Wednesday August 01 2018, @11:55PM
At least in the United States, we're so used to politicians being lying, self-serving corporate whores that when one does come to a change of heart we simply assume that they're merely pandering for votes.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday August 02 2018, @04:10PM (1 child)
Does the same effect apply to scientists then? As Carl Sagan once said:
If so, scientists must then look like damn wishy-washy hypocrites to ordinary folks, when what they actually do is change their minds in response to new evidence that contradicts or refines their understanding. Science was wrong before is what people always say, but then again science is always wrong, it only gets less wrong over time.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday August 02 2018, @06:30PM
A lot of political matters aren't a matter of rational argument.
Take, for instance, abortion: There's no evidence-based argument that will convince either the pro-life folks or the pro-choice folks to change their mind, because this isn't an evidence-based issue in any way, shape, or form.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.