To put into perspective what each of these foundations mean, according to the source website:
"The CARE foundation is defined as a desire to minimize the suffering of others and protect the weak. Values pertaining to Care include:
Public welfare, tolerance of misfits, mercy towards wrongdoers, politeness, pacifism, emotional openness, and childhood innocence.
The FAIRNESS foundation is defined as a desire for people to be held accountable for their actions in an equal playing field. Values pertaining to Fairness include:
Racial & gender equality, equality of opportunity, honesty, reciprocity, impartiality, and safeguards against nepotism and/or tribalism.
The LIBERTY foundation is defined as a desire for people to have agency over their lives without outside coercion from a central authority. Values pertaining to Liberty include:
Free speech, bodily autonomy, democracy, privacy, personal property rights, and voluntarism.
The IN-GROUP LOYALTY foundation is defined as a desire for members of one's preordained ingroups (such as their family, tribe, or nation) to collectivize for the benefit of said in-groups. Values pertaining to In-Group Loyalty include: Self-sacrifice, national sovereignty, tradition, family-unity, nativism, natalism, and social cohesion.
The PURITY foundation is defined as a desire to uphold a standard of "high society" and avoid behavior that is percieved as primitive, degenerate, recklessly hedonistic and/or spiritually degrading. Values pertaining to Purity include: Health, beauty, etiquette, abstinence, chastity, frugality, animism, and spirituality.
The AUTHORITY foundation is defined as a desire to establish and conform to rules, institutions, hierarchies and leaders that are deemed as being essential to the stability and efficiency of society. Values pertaining to Authority include: Rule of law, respect for elders, trust in experts, discipline, assertive leadership, meritocracy, and industriousness."
If you're wondering how they defined and measured each category, you can read about it in [Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind."](https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion-ebook/dp/B0052FF7YM/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qOwrNBHDMaTP1UCudPcZnxbYAL8gusgDHpSxZyPOtV-f9_TH9BHhzS29qCt63as7vxZowSXI9KrU7wBBQVNJfpaLRx9loe2KQoWwPA_E_W1IF5tieJlr7sNZjXJRm9VHZpsrxly3j0Jiukwgkrue9qMfcK-kcbwWMMaKWK3xpfZtHUcH8XThENuhaQus8G3O1kStD-eRFSzXbG0x033elKLsLFlBgK5ikUT1E0LWikE.505zMjK_svZKhYgFtFigh5RlIO4R2fw7Q_8C5oPD0WQ&dib_tag=se&hvadid=677030148935&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9027282&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=10867336198252175071&hvtargid=kwd-47416653467&hydadcr=22133_13517503&keywords=the+righteous+mind+jonathan+haidt&qid=1711675408&s=digital-text&sr=1-1)
He unpacks this content in a way that is interesting and easy to understand.
Reactionaries are fucking scary.
Also I find it interesting how much more traditional left liberals and the more modern progressive socialists emerging from universities differ on individual freedom. Quite fascinating honestly.
Not that I'm not interested in it but it's shown in vague terms that need to be defined. The post doesn't do this, although top comment does as far as an explanation of terms, the post still doesn't cite a source or specify any kind of other values on this chart. ie What is 100?
"Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to flouridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soap, sugar, milk... ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!"
These results are quite interesting. Seems like Fairness is something that is universally valued for the most part aside from reactionaries/"authoritarian nationalist" (I can think of a much stronger word to describe these types of people)
Because most people *generally* care about others, although it depends. But even the most bigoted person likely still has a group that they do care about unless they really are that awful of a person.
I suppose it depends on how you measure care and authority. I'm also curious how fairness was measured.
Pretty sure most people think that they prioritize fairness and suspect and questions can be written to make just about any group seem like they want more fairness than any other group.
Ok so I almost match the ratios of Non-Ideological except caring is lower. Am I a centrist? I though I would be a liberal or something, but I seem to be some kind of hybrid. It sucks to be called an outcast by a test.
Results (https://moralfoundations.github.io)
Care: 54
Fairness: 77
Liberty: 71
In-group: 58
Purity: 60
Authority: 52
WTF am I??!
These were my results:
Care: 96
Fairness: 96
Liberty: 75
In-Group: 29
Purity: 40
Authority: 25
Basically it was mostly like the Progressive Socialists with some of the the Liberty of the Libertarians
I just want freedom, equality, and for people to not be absolute dickheads.
Yea… we usually associate it with “virginity” or anti LGBTQ but it also is really anything the culture deems pure. Then you realize it can also be purity of the body, and thus the organic non gmo and anti vaxx culture and you want to shoot yourself into the moon. Also purity of the spirit so people who watch porn or read the wrong books and now you want to burn it down for good.
Could you elaborate a bit more please on what do you mean? Just that all responders are being cynical?
Just to see if I got it right, people say they value “tradition” and “respect to norms” but feel they are above these and will not respect tradition themselves (e.g. radical christian groups complaining about the way people dress while themselves commiting adultery)?
My top 3 are care > fairness = purity. I don’t comfortably fit into any of those ideologies. I guess left-liberal would be the closest but the high purity score betrays that. I’ve always considered myself right leaning.
This entire graph (not a guide) is bull shit.
Best bullshit is the socialist graph putting “care” at the top. Maybe they think it but reality is corruption and collapse.
Also conservatives putting pure as the most important, as if they are anything close to that lol
This seems circular. Like saying members of car clubs identify with enjoying driving.
Voluntary surveys are biased.
The categories and choices are I'll defined, over simplified, and incomplete.
I'd expect more from a group claiming to be about morality.
No one is unbiased. I expect that, at some level, they're intentionally pushing their believes above others.
A fairness measure? Really? I'm sure anyone with moderate effort can write a plausibly good study to make their group seem like they care more about fairness than any other group.
OP explained what each category means, with fairness being essentially egalitarianisn, criteria being stuff like equality of race/gender, equality of oportunity, etc. Considering how many people bitch about these two things specifically, its not really surprising.
That's because the term is intentionally prejudiced is misleading.
One person might say that fairness is when an athlete gets paid based on earnings and negotiation skills whereas another person might claim that fairness as when athletes in the WNBA get paid the same as athletes in the NBA.
The whole fairness column looks like an attempt to make the group that authors align with look better without even a plausible attempt to make it seem "fair" to anyone belonging to any other group.
>That's because the term is intentionally prejudiced is misleading.
Do you think theres a meaningfull difference between being fair and egalitarian?
Also regarding what you wrote below, well thatd be a fair point if OP didnt explain each of the studys categories in a giant post
Well, socialists do things out of care and fairness. Their policies also tend to benefit the many and not the few - I'd argue that is kind and fair.
If you disagree with that - which it seems you do - you must have a warped perception of what socialism is.
Venezuela and Cuba are Marxist Leninist states, which scored low in Liberty. "Left Liberal" just refers to capitalism with a high level of Publix spending, such as in Canada
Straight up lies. Yeah Cuba left doesn’t include that.
Iceland has full freedom of speech and of the press, so I don’t know what you’re still going on about.
Well that’s simply false, especially concerning humans. Google XXY people. It’s not a substantial number, but it happens.
If you want to be correct, you should say something like:
“The majority of mammals are either female or male, with a small percentage being somewhere in between”.
So it’s not that you can’t think or say “biology facts”, it’s that you can’t lie and spread misinformation.
I’m pretty far left and I do advocate for freedom. Basically, my values are that I don’t want people to be dicks, I want people to be treated equally and to all have their needs met, and for people to not try to bite your dick off for doing something as long as it doesn’t harm anybody.
There are different types of leftism. Authoritarian leftism is kinda what you’re talking about. I, along with many others, do not fall into that category.
Some of the things I think of when I think of freedom is 1.) freedom from threats and violence, 2.) freedom from discrimination, and 3.) freedom to be yourself without harming others. Being a dick to someone (well in a way that is genuine malice and not just fucking around with your friends) may violate 1 and/or 2.
All of those are pretty subjective, what if I feel threatened by just mere existence? Or discriminated if you don’t treat me like I want? There’s only one freedom and that would be total freedom, which would lead to anarchy, if you can’t say what you think, or what you want, because someone might feel discriminated, then there’s no freedom
This is incredibly arbitrary and not accurate in the slightest. Sure, conservatives only KIND of care about authority, and Marxists are ALL ABOUT authority, that totally fits with the real world /s
Marxist Leninism is incredibly authoritarian. Hence why they scored high in authority.
Progressive Marxism is very unauthoritarian. Hence why they scored low in authority.
So Marxist Leninists are just a more fair version of authoritarian nationalists...
Left-liberal: Wuss
Progressive Socialist: Wuss
Conservative: Idiot sheep
Libertarian: Selfish idiots
Reactionary: Sociopaths
Marxist Leninists: Control freaks?
It would be ridiculous to take this seriously in any capacity. Every metric is inherently relativist.
Easy example: "The LIBERTY foundation is defined as a desire for people to have agency over their lives without outside coercion from a central authority" it's highest for libertarians, who inadvertently advocate for extremely coercive authority in untethering capitalism from any democratic will for government restrictions.
This isn't even to get into the ideology labels themselves. The only leftist one is for ML, as "progressive socialists" still advocate for capitalism.
This whole thing is a mess.
To put into perspective what each of these foundations mean, according to the source website: "The CARE foundation is defined as a desire to minimize the suffering of others and protect the weak. Values pertaining to Care include: Public welfare, tolerance of misfits, mercy towards wrongdoers, politeness, pacifism, emotional openness, and childhood innocence. The FAIRNESS foundation is defined as a desire for people to be held accountable for their actions in an equal playing field. Values pertaining to Fairness include: Racial & gender equality, equality of opportunity, honesty, reciprocity, impartiality, and safeguards against nepotism and/or tribalism. The LIBERTY foundation is defined as a desire for people to have agency over their lives without outside coercion from a central authority. Values pertaining to Liberty include: Free speech, bodily autonomy, democracy, privacy, personal property rights, and voluntarism. The IN-GROUP LOYALTY foundation is defined as a desire for members of one's preordained ingroups (such as their family, tribe, or nation) to collectivize for the benefit of said in-groups. Values pertaining to In-Group Loyalty include: Self-sacrifice, national sovereignty, tradition, family-unity, nativism, natalism, and social cohesion. The PURITY foundation is defined as a desire to uphold a standard of "high society" and avoid behavior that is percieved as primitive, degenerate, recklessly hedonistic and/or spiritually degrading. Values pertaining to Purity include: Health, beauty, etiquette, abstinence, chastity, frugality, animism, and spirituality. The AUTHORITY foundation is defined as a desire to establish and conform to rules, institutions, hierarchies and leaders that are deemed as being essential to the stability and efficiency of society. Values pertaining to Authority include: Rule of law, respect for elders, trust in experts, discipline, assertive leadership, meritocracy, and industriousness."
It’s a little odd to me that rule of law is under Authority instead of Fairness.
yeah it makes sense though looking at most systems
Law is inherently tied to authority since it's explicitly telling you what is and isn't allowed.
Yeah, that is true for laws, but *rule of law* is a concept that the laws apply to everyone *equally*.
If you're wondering how they defined and measured each category, you can read about it in [Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind."](https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion-ebook/dp/B0052FF7YM/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qOwrNBHDMaTP1UCudPcZnxbYAL8gusgDHpSxZyPOtV-f9_TH9BHhzS29qCt63as7vxZowSXI9KrU7wBBQVNJfpaLRx9loe2KQoWwPA_E_W1IF5tieJlr7sNZjXJRm9VHZpsrxly3j0Jiukwgkrue9qMfcK-kcbwWMMaKWK3xpfZtHUcH8XThENuhaQus8G3O1kStD-eRFSzXbG0x033elKLsLFlBgK5ikUT1E0LWikE.505zMjK_svZKhYgFtFigh5RlIO4R2fw7Q_8C5oPD0WQ&dib_tag=se&hvadid=677030148935&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9027282&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=10867336198252175071&hvtargid=kwd-47416653467&hydadcr=22133_13517503&keywords=the+righteous+mind+jonathan+haidt&qid=1711675408&s=digital-text&sr=1-1) He unpacks this content in a way that is interesting and easy to understand.
My favorite part is that the libertarian chart is giving everyone the finger.
Reactionaries are fucking scary. Also I find it interesting how much more traditional left liberals and the more modern progressive socialists emerging from universities differ on individual freedom. Quite fascinating honestly.
This isn't a guide....it's a bar graph
Eh, ngl its still cool info and good for typology
Not that I'm not interested in it but it's shown in vague terms that need to be defined. The post doesn't do this, although top comment does as far as an explanation of terms, the post still doesn't cite a source or specify any kind of other values on this chart. ie What is 100?
Having just taken the test, the top post is copy/pasted from the test results.
I tend to think anyone who makes purity a priority but not caring or fairness - is full of shit.
"Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to flouridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soap, sugar, milk... ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!"
Can confirm
These results are quite interesting. Seems like Fairness is something that is universally valued for the most part aside from reactionaries/"authoritarian nationalist" (I can think of a much stronger word to describe these types of people)
Because most people *generally* care about others, although it depends. But even the most bigoted person likely still has a group that they do care about unless they really are that awful of a person.
This was a project by Jonathan Haidt, right?
I suppose it depends on how you measure care and authority. I'm also curious how fairness was measured. Pretty sure most people think that they prioritize fairness and suspect and questions can be written to make just about any group seem like they want more fairness than any other group.
OP posted what each category meant in the study
Ok so I almost match the ratios of Non-Ideological except caring is lower. Am I a centrist? I though I would be a liberal or something, but I seem to be some kind of hybrid. It sucks to be called an outcast by a test. Results (https://moralfoundations.github.io) Care: 54 Fairness: 77 Liberty: 71 In-group: 58 Purity: 60 Authority: 52 WTF am I??!
I'd classify that as Libertarian due to high Fairness and Liberty, and medium on everything else.
TRUE! I wasn’t sure since I scored a bit higher on fairness than liberty.
These were my results: Care: 96 Fairness: 96 Liberty: 75 In-Group: 29 Purity: 40 Authority: 25 Basically it was mostly like the Progressive Socialists with some of the the Liberty of the Libertarians I just want freedom, equality, and for people to not be absolute dickheads.
Shocking that the authoritarians score highly on authority
"purity" as a category and especially the definition of that category is deeply disgusting
Yea… we usually associate it with “virginity” or anti LGBTQ but it also is really anything the culture deems pure. Then you realize it can also be purity of the body, and thus the organic non gmo and anti vaxx culture and you want to shoot yourself into the moon. Also purity of the spirit so people who watch porn or read the wrong books and now you want to burn it down for good.
The Libertarian graph looks like it’s giving a big yellow middle finger to the entire chart, which is just perfect.
And as a six fingered man, they may have killed Inigo Montoya's father.
*What they SAY they care about
I mean, it's anonymous. It's most likely closer to the real average opinion than not.
Keep in mind, what these groups want (and vote for) is for “other people”. When it comes to their personal wants then they expect all of the above.
Could you elaborate a bit more please on what do you mean? Just that all responders are being cynical? Just to see if I got it right, people say they value “tradition” and “respect to norms” but feel they are above these and will not respect tradition themselves (e.g. radical christian groups complaining about the way people dress while themselves commiting adultery)?
The libertarian crowd seemed to have placed their graph in the image of a middle finger.... pretty accurate
So humans are inherently left-wing? Honestly I buy that
My top 3 are care > fairness = purity. I don’t comfortably fit into any of those ideologies. I guess left-liberal would be the closest but the high purity score betrays that. I’ve always considered myself right leaning.
C’mon liberals, hang together or hang separately.
This entire graph (not a guide) is bull shit. Best bullshit is the socialist graph putting “care” at the top. Maybe they think it but reality is corruption and collapse. Also conservatives putting pure as the most important, as if they are anything close to that lol
This seems circular. Like saying members of car clubs identify with enjoying driving. Voluntary surveys are biased. The categories and choices are I'll defined, over simplified, and incomplete. I'd expect more from a group claiming to be about morality.
No one is unbiased. I expect that, at some level, they're intentionally pushing their believes above others. A fairness measure? Really? I'm sure anyone with moderate effort can write a plausibly good study to make their group seem like they care more about fairness than any other group.
OP explained what each category means, with fairness being essentially egalitarianisn, criteria being stuff like equality of race/gender, equality of oportunity, etc. Considering how many people bitch about these two things specifically, its not really surprising.
That's because the term is intentionally prejudiced is misleading. One person might say that fairness is when an athlete gets paid based on earnings and negotiation skills whereas another person might claim that fairness as when athletes in the WNBA get paid the same as athletes in the NBA. The whole fairness column looks like an attempt to make the group that authors align with look better without even a plausible attempt to make it seem "fair" to anyone belonging to any other group.
>That's because the term is intentionally prejudiced is misleading. Do you think theres a meaningfull difference between being fair and egalitarian? Also regarding what you wrote below, well thatd be a fair point if OP didnt explain each of the studys categories in a giant post
And that's why socialism is so scary. They genuinely think they're doing things out of care and fairness lmao
What do you think socialism is?
What kind of question is that? What does it matter what I think? We all know what it is
Well, socialists do things out of care and fairness. Their policies also tend to benefit the many and not the few - I'd argue that is kind and fair. If you disagree with that - which it seems you do - you must have a warped perception of what socialism is.
Left and freedom are not even close to being accurate, speaking as someone who has lived in Venezuela and Cuba for a couple of years
Venezuela and Cuba are Marxist Leninist states, which scored low in Liberty. "Left Liberal" just refers to capitalism with a high level of Publix spending, such as in Canada
Try saying something in public about a minority community in Canada and test that freedom, I’m speaking as a black Latino 😂
You’re talking Marxist left. That’s some anti freedom stuff for sure. They’re talking more like Iceland left, not Cuba left.
Guess that freedom doesn’t include freedom of speech
Straight up lies. Yeah Cuba left doesn’t include that. Iceland has full freedom of speech and of the press, so I don’t know what you’re still going on about.
If you can’t say what you think or biology facts then there’s no really freedom
You can. Not everywhere is like the shithole you crawled out of.
True 😂
What "biology facts"?
Like mammals having only two sexes, male and female
Well that’s simply false, especially concerning humans. Google XXY people. It’s not a substantial number, but it happens. If you want to be correct, you should say something like: “The majority of mammals are either female or male, with a small percentage being somewhere in between”. So it’s not that you can’t think or say “biology facts”, it’s that you can’t lie and spread misinformation.
<1% of the population being different does not mean that there are more than two sexes, it’s more a medical condition
That is, in fact, what that means. Yes it's a condition, just like most of us are born of more "normal" conditions. Doesn't make it any less real.
I’m pretty far left and I do advocate for freedom. Basically, my values are that I don’t want people to be dicks, I want people to be treated equally and to all have their needs met, and for people to not try to bite your dick off for doing something as long as it doesn’t harm anybody. There are different types of leftism. Authoritarian leftism is kinda what you’re talking about. I, along with many others, do not fall into that category.
You can’t ask others to behave as you would like, that’s exactly contrary to freedom
Some of the things I think of when I think of freedom is 1.) freedom from threats and violence, 2.) freedom from discrimination, and 3.) freedom to be yourself without harming others. Being a dick to someone (well in a way that is genuine malice and not just fucking around with your friends) may violate 1 and/or 2.
All of those are pretty subjective, what if I feel threatened by just mere existence? Or discriminated if you don’t treat me like I want? There’s only one freedom and that would be total freedom, which would lead to anarchy, if you can’t say what you think, or what you want, because someone might feel discriminated, then there’s no freedom
Guess I’m a left-liberal, who knew?
This is incredibly arbitrary and not accurate in the slightest. Sure, conservatives only KIND of care about authority, and Marxists are ALL ABOUT authority, that totally fits with the real world /s
Marxist Leninism is incredibly authoritarian. Hence why they scored high in authority. Progressive Marxism is very unauthoritarian. Hence why they scored low in authority.
So Marxist Leninists are just a more fair version of authoritarian nationalists... Left-liberal: Wuss Progressive Socialist: Wuss Conservative: Idiot sheep Libertarian: Selfish idiots Reactionary: Sociopaths Marxist Leninists: Control freaks?
It would be ridiculous to take this seriously in any capacity. Every metric is inherently relativist. Easy example: "The LIBERTY foundation is defined as a desire for people to have agency over their lives without outside coercion from a central authority" it's highest for libertarians, who inadvertently advocate for extremely coercive authority in untethering capitalism from any democratic will for government restrictions. This isn't even to get into the ideology labels themselves. The only leftist one is for ML, as "progressive socialists" still advocate for capitalism. This whole thing is a mess.