Suchergebnisse

"When it comes to politics, we often perceive our own beliefs as fair and socially beneficial, while seeing opposing views as merely self-serving. But in fact most political views are governed by self-interest, even if we usually don't realize it. Challenging our fiercely held notions about what motivates us politically, this book explores how self-interest divides the public on a host of hot-button issues, from abortion and the legalization of marijuana to same-sex marriage, immigration, affirmative action, and income redistribution.Expanding the notion of interests beyond simple economics, Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban look at how people's interests clash when it comes to their sex lives, social status, family, and friends. Drawing on a wealth of data, they demonstrate how different groups form distinctive bundles of political positions that often stray far from what we typically think of as liberal or conservative. They show how we engage in unconscious rationalization to justify our political positions, portraying our own views as wise, benevolent, and principled while casting our opponents' views as thoughtless and greedy.While many books on politics seek to provide partisans with new ways to feel good about their own side, The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind illuminates the hidden drivers of our politics, even if it's a picture neither side will find flattering"--

"When it comes to politics, we often perceive our own beliefs as fair and socially beneficial, while seeing opposing views as merely self-serving. But in fact most political views are governed by self-interest, even if we usually don't realize it. Challenging our fiercely held notions about what motivates us politically, this book explores how self-interest divides the public on a host of hot-button issues, from abortion and the legalization of marijuana to same-sex marriage, immigration, affirmative action, and income redistribution. Expanding the notion of interests beyond simple economics, Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban look at how people's interests clash when it comes to their sex lives, social status, family, and friends. Drawing on a wealth of data, they demonstrate how different groups form distinctive bundles of political positions that often stray far from what we typically think of as liberal or conservative. They show how we engage in unconscious rationalization to justify our political positions, portraying our own views as wise, benevolent, and principled while casting our opponents' views as thoughtless and greedy. While many books on politics seek to provide partisans with new ways to feel good about their own side, The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind illuminates the hidden drivers of our politics, even if it's a picture neither side will find flattering"--

Reviewing political opinion patterns in the 1950s, The American Voter concluded that self‐interest played a key role in the public's views on social welfare policy. Since then, however, many researchers have argued that self‐interest has very little effect on issue opinions. We argue that the principal reason for this shift lies not in self‐interest coming to matter less, but, instead, because some scholars—by narrowing the definition of self‐interest, declaring ordinary demographic effects uninterpretable, and assuming that group interest is distinct from self‐interest—essentially defined out the possibility of self‐interest being a major determinant of political views. Yet even with these limiting moves, the general denial of self‐interest has come to include a long and growing list of exceptions. In addition, we find that many of the specific claims grounding the general denial are problematic. Thus, we argue that self‐interest remains a potent factor in the context of a number of issue opinions. Further, taking a broader view of human interests, we see self‐interest effects not only in economic opinions, but also in various cultural/social domains. For example, when it comes to individuals' opinions on issues relating to meritocracy and discrimination, we find that levels of meritocratic competence are typically a key factor, along with racial, religious, and other relevant categories. Also, there are solid links among individuals' sexual lifestyles, religiosity, and views on issues such as abortion and marijuana legalization. Not only are such domain‐specific relationships "major," but self‐interest variables typically have more secure claims than individuals' ideology, party, and values to being unambiguous "determinants" of issue opinions.

AbstractBecause researchers are making increasing use of data gleaned from Internet dating sites, it is important to know if the preferences people specify in Internet advertisements predict the choices that they actually make. HurryDate, a commercial speed‐dating firm, collected data from over 10,000 people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s who participated in speed‐dating events in cities across the United States. The present analysis compared these speed daters' advertised preferences with their decisions to attend particular events and their choices of potential partners at the events they attended. Findings indicated that speed daters' advertisements reflect frequently replicated sex differences and assortative patterns and that these advertised mate preferences predicted their decisions to attend particular events. Advertised preferences did not, in contrast, substantially predict decisions within events. These results support the conclusion that advertised preferences predict behavior in the mating domain in some contexts but not others.

Humans, unlike most other species, show intense interest in the activities of conspecifics, even when the activities in question pose no obvious fitness threat or opportunity. Here, we investigate one content domain in which people show substantial interest, the use of drugs for non-medical purposes. Drawing from two subject populations—one undergraduate and one Internet-based—we look at the relationships among (i) abstract political commitments; (ii) attitudes about sexuality; and (iii) views surrounding recreational drugs. Whereas some theories suggest that drug views are best understood as the result of abstract political ideology, we suggest that these views can be better understood in the context of reproductive strategy. We show that, as predicted by a strategic construal, drug attitudes are best predicted by sexual items rather than abstract political commitments and, further, that the relationship between factors such as political ideology and drugs, while positive, are reduced to zero or nearly zero when items assessing sexuality are controlled for. We conclude that considering morality from the standpoint of strategic interests is a potentially useful way to understand why humans care about third party behaviour.