How did you come up with your lists that describe world-views? To me, they look like an exercise of writing down stereotypes about a world-view and not one of deep understanding. I think you would end up with a more useful list if you would write the list as a result of having a huge questionaire instead of writing down stereotypes.
When it comes to intrinsic values, “values that people consider valuable signals” and “values that people pursue when nobody is looking” are often two different things.
If you take for example what you wrote about Social Justice Advocates, you might ask yourself: “Why don’t they oppose Washington requiring a bachelor’s degree for childcare?” If you use a bit of critical race theory, it’s not hard to see that in the eyes of critical race theory that policy is about preventing Black people without college degrees to engage in childcare. It’s textbook structural racism, where when you can’t prevent Black people from doing the childcare directly, you can use a proxy.
If you instead see the position of Social Justice Advocates as “My Black classmates shouldn’t be discriminated against and deserve the same outcomes as my White classmates” it’s easier to predict actions. It also makes it less mystical that San Fransico with its liberal thought doesn’t build enough housing to house all the homeless.
Loyalty seems to be a pretty big value in the Social Justice Advocate worldview.
When talking about policy in Wikimedia there was the question “Should a language version of Wikipedia in an African language be run according to the values of the speaker of those languages or should the global community override the values of that local language community when it doesn’t like them.”
If you think about all the talk about the evils of colonialism you might think, that the Social Justice Advocate position would be that the speaker of the African language should be able to run their Wikipedia according to their values. But that’s not their position because loyalty is a bigger value and they care that those Wikipedias are loyal.
Contrapoints which you list as one of the primes Social Justice Advocates being canceled for associating with a transperson who self-identifies in a way that the trans-community dislikes is another good example of how central the value of loyalty is to the worldview.
Many hundreds of people read this piece, and whenever we received feedback from people who identified with one of the worldviews, if they believed their views were being misrepresented, we made adjustments in line with their feedback when we felt that the case they made was convincing (but like we acknowledged in the piece, we’re not going to be covering everyone’s perspective here). Your characterization of what the world looks like from the point of view of a Social Justice Advocate seems like something that a Social Justice Advocate would genuinely disagree with.
That process gives you what people believe they should believe and not what they actually believe. The sequences have a lot about the problems of belief in belief.
If faith, piety, humility, and self-sacrifice were the driving values for American Christian Conservatives you wouldn’t see them driving big pickup trucks. Being gun-owning wouldn’t be central either, if those would be the values that people actually used to make decisions.
If you believe that those are the actual values, then you would predict that American Christian Conservatives have a problem with Trump, but they don’t.
If you doubt the importance of loyalty, you can ask Social Justice Advocate “How important do you think it is for white men to be allies?” Allyship is about loyalty and the answer you will get is that it’s very important.
How did you come up with your lists that describe world-views? To me, they look like an exercise of writing down stereotypes about a world-view and not one of deep understanding. I think you would end up with a more useful list if you would write the list as a result of having a huge questionaire instead of writing down stereotypes.
When it comes to intrinsic values, “values that people consider valuable signals” and “values that people pursue when nobody is looking” are often two different things.
If you take for example what you wrote about Social Justice Advocates, you might ask yourself: “Why don’t they oppose Washington requiring a bachelor’s degree for childcare?” If you use a bit of critical race theory, it’s not hard to see that in the eyes of critical race theory that policy is about preventing Black people without college degrees to engage in childcare. It’s textbook structural racism, where when you can’t prevent Black people from doing the childcare directly, you can use a proxy.
If you instead see the position of Social Justice Advocates as “My Black classmates shouldn’t be discriminated against and deserve the same outcomes as my White classmates” it’s easier to predict actions. It also makes it less mystical that San Fransico with its liberal thought doesn’t build enough housing to house all the homeless.
Loyalty seems to be a pretty big value in the Social Justice Advocate worldview.
When talking about policy in Wikimedia there was the question “Should a language version of Wikipedia in an African language be run according to the values of the speaker of those languages or should the global community override the values of that local language community when it doesn’t like them.”
If you think about all the talk about the evils of colonialism you might think, that the Social Justice Advocate position would be that the speaker of the African language should be able to run their Wikipedia according to their values. But that’s not their position because loyalty is a bigger value and they care that those Wikipedias are loyal.
Contrapoints which you list as one of the primes Social Justice Advocates being canceled for associating with a transperson who self-identifies in a way that the trans-community dislikes is another good example of how central the value of loyalty is to the worldview.
Many hundreds of people read this piece, and whenever we received feedback from people who identified with one of the worldviews, if they believed their views were being misrepresented, we made adjustments in line with their feedback when we felt that the case they made was convincing (but like we acknowledged in the piece, we’re not going to be covering everyone’s perspective here). Your characterization of what the world looks like from the point of view of a Social Justice Advocate seems like something that a Social Justice Advocate would genuinely disagree with.
That process gives you what people believe they should believe and not what they actually believe. The sequences have a lot about the problems of belief in belief.
If faith, piety, humility, and self-sacrifice were the driving values for American Christian Conservatives you wouldn’t see them driving big pickup trucks. Being gun-owning wouldn’t be central either, if those would be the values that people actually used to make decisions.
If you believe that those are the actual values, then you would predict that American Christian Conservatives have a problem with Trump, but they don’t.
If you doubt the importance of loyalty, you can ask Social Justice Advocate “How important do you think it is for white men to be allies?” Allyship is about loyalty and the answer you will get is that it’s very important.