The familiar is sooo much more comfortable than something new. *sigh* I think this partly explains why it's hard for people to jump out of the rut of childhood religious upbringing.
"Our findings imply a deep irony," wrote the authors,... "Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary."
Ruth, which shall I value more, Riane Eisler's work or my experience?
Heisenberg brought uncertainty to physics; Godel brought it to mathematics. Need anyone bring it to statistics?
Happy people ask, "Why change, and perhaps make my children unhappy?"
Unhappy people demand change. Liberal folk are often not progressive. I was able to count on their funding only some of my causes.
I will check the public library for Eisler's publications.
I too once did not understand, even after I'd run for a state legislature in an Arizona district most of whose voters were more conservative than I.
I began to understand when I became active in a progressive cause in SF and later chaired a Congressional District unit of Common Cause in SF. I'm not the first to say liberal folk tend to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative.
You're correct in saying not all liberals are the same. You would be correct if you were to say the same of progressives and conservatives.
Some progressives are more so than others; ditto for some conservatives.
A line representing the political spectrum may clarify:
Progressives (lefties) - - Liberals (moderates) - - Conservatives (righties).
Put Tea Party conservatives out to the right of mainstream Repubs.
Does the above clarify?
PS. I found Eisler's Chalice/Blade book and requested it.
I've heard liberal folk classified thusly: checkbook liberals (who donate money but none of their time), NIMBY liberals (open your halfway house or whatever but not in my back yard), and limousine liberals (I won't know who these folk are until I either google the term or ask the person who used it).
While in a campaign soon after I moved to SF, I saw a button that said "Eschew Liberalism" and asked its wearer what it meant. He explained it in words I don't recall but I soon told a liberal woman I'd met "I don't have enough money to be a liberal; I'm a progressive." She chuckled.
Another woman once asked if I'm a socialist. I told her I'm a collective capitalist; I want employees to own the companies they work for. I once saw a directory of employee-owned companies; there were more than I would have guessed, including a few large companies. Soon after the Soviet Union crashed, my kid sister (then in her 40s) visited Moscow. She told me of people there sharing in ways that led me to conclude they can do democracy better than Americans can.
We seem to mean different things by "Happy People," "progressive," and "change" in this discussion. I can see your point about people demanding change when they're starving, etc.
It's not a question of valuing Eisler's Cultural Transformation Theory over your experience. I'm only suggesting you take her information about culture into account when you ponder and compare various interpretations of what's going on.
Doesn't statistics include quantifying uncertainty?
Ruth, did Eisler use statistics to derive her Cultural Transformation Theory?
When you refer to "quantifying uncertainty" do you mean getting a number that's called "margin of error"?
Reply affirmatively to the latter question and I might conclude that you intend a career in academia. You of course might deny any such intention.
Years ago I started reading a book by the English academic Germaine Greer and soon felt an overpowering need for a dictionary. I concluded that she did not intend her book for non-academics.
While that may apply to some people, I don't buy it as an all-inclusive idea. Tom's assessment mirrors my own personal situation and the probability that it's just a handful of people who feel and act similarly, is not likely.