【推文】Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost - The 'heatmap meme' compares how conservatives & liberals distribute ...

連結

• 原推文1 - x.com/ne_pas_couvrir...

• 原推文2 - x.com/Ne_pas_couvrir...

原文及個人翻譯

推文1

The 'heatmap meme' compares how conservatives & liberals distribute their moral concern outward from themselves to the broader world.

Each side (left & right) has moral circles. The center (circle 1) is your immediate family. Each outward ring expands who you morally care about: extended family, friends, your country, the whole planet, then all animals, even inanimate things. People in the study selected the ring that best described their strongest moral concern. These choices were layered into heatmaps: red means lots of people picked that ring, blue means few.

「熱圖迷因」比較保守派和自由派如何將他們的道德關切從自己延伸到更廣泛的世界。

左右兩方都有道德圓圈。中心（圓圈 1）是你的直系家屬。每個外層圓圈擴大了你道德上關心的範圍：親戚、朋友、你的國家、整個地球，然後是所有動物，甚至是無生命的事物。研究中的人們選擇了最能描述他們最強烈道德關切的圓圈。這些選擇被層疊成熱圖：紅色表示很多人選擇了該圓圈，藍色表示少數人。

Image 1 (Conservatives): Their hotspot clusters tightly in rings 1–8. That covers family, friends, acquaintances & people in their country. Concern rarely expands beyond humans.

Image 2 (Liberals): Their hotspot shifts outward. It still includes the inner rings, but peaks further out, often including animals, plants & even all things in existence. Their moral concern is more universal.

圖像 1（保守派）：他們的熱點緊密地聚集在 1-8 個圓圈中。這涵蓋了家庭、朋友、熟人和他們國家的人們。關切很少超越人類。

圖像 2（自由派）：他們的熱點向外移動。它仍然包括內層圓圈，但峰值出現在更外層，通常包括動物、植物，甚至是所有存在的事物。他們的道德關切更加普遍。

So, plainly put, conservatives concentrate moral concern locally & relationally, liberals spread it globally & abstractly.

This meme misses an important dynamic - the growing faultline in left-wing coalitions

The left heatmap looks universal, but it masks internal contradictions. White liberals are the moral universalists. They show less in-group warmth than out-group warmth (see the in-group bias chart). In contrast, POC groups generally show normal in-group preference. They are actually moral collectivists, not universalists. In short, they are conservative about the things they care about, and universalists about the west.

所以，簡單來說，保守派將道德關切集中在當地和人際關係上，自由派則將其擴散到全球和抽象層面。

這個迷因錯過了一個重要的動態——左翼聯盟中日益增長的斷層線。

左翼的熱圖看起來是普遍的，但它掩蓋了內部矛盾。白人自由派是道德普遍主義者。他們表現出比外群體更少的內群體溫暖（見內群體偏見圖表）。相比之下，有色人種群體通常表現出正常的內群體偏好。他們實際上是一種道德集體主義者，而不是普遍主義者。總之，他們對他們關心的東西持保守態度，對西方持普遍主義態度。

This dynamic creates a structural tension within 'the left.' The white left expands its concern to others. POC blocs tend to prioritize their own ethnos. As universalist whites shrink demographically, the left’s cohesion will erode. What will remain is a set of competing identity factions. Think of each group with its own ethnocentric heatmap. The left thinks they can theory their way out of this problem. lol.

This growing rift w/in the left is already visible: universalists like Selena Gomez cry when her ethnos is impacted because she prioritizes her own ethnos. The fracturing will deepen as the white universalists die off.

這種動態在「左翼」內部創造了結構性緊張。白人左派擴大了他們對他人的關切。有色人種群體傾向於優先考慮自己的民族。隨著普遍主義白人的人口減少，左翼的凝聚力將被侵蝕。剩下的將是一系列競爭的認同派別。想像每個群體都有自己的民族中心熱圖。左翼認為他們可以通過理論來解決這個問題。哈哈。

左翼內部日益增長的裂痕已經顯現：像塞琳娜·戈梅茲這樣的普遍主義者當她的民族受到影響時就會哭泣，因為她優先考慮自己的民族。隨著白種普遍主義者的消亡，分裂將加深。

推文2

The moral circle heatmap for leftists primarily maps the universalist tendencies of white leftists, but they are in decline, being replaced by a diverse coalition of many collectivist groups who have strong ingroup preferences and their own non-universalist moral allocations.

左翼的道德圓圈熱圖主要反映了白人左翼的普遍主義傾向，但他們正在衰落，被一個由許多集體主義群體組成的多元聯盟所取代，這些群體具有強烈的內群體偏好，並有自己非普遍主義的道德分配。

The heatmap for leftists illustrates a universalist moral perspective, meaning they extend their moral concern to distant groups, global causes, animals, and even non-living entities. However this leftist heatmap tracks with white leftists, who are dying off, not people of color (POC)

This means this universalist moral approach is shrinking as the demographic of white liberals shrinks. POC comparatively exhibit far higher in-group preferences and more collectivist behaviors, and they are replacing the white universalist leftists. These groups tend to maintain tighter and more clearly defined moral circles centered heavily around their own ethnic or identity groups.

左翼的熱圖展示了一種普遍主義的道德觀點，這意味著他們將道德關切延伸到遙遠的群體、全球性事業、動物，甚至非生命體。然而，這張左翼熱圖與白人左翼相關，而他們正在消亡，而不是有色人種（POC）。

這意味著隨著白人自由派人口縮減，這種普遍主義道德方法也在縮減。有色人種相對表現出更強的內群體偏好和更集體主義的行為，他們正在取代白人普遍主義左翼。這些群體傾向於維持更緊密且更明確定義的道德圓圈，這些圓圈主要圍繞著他們自己的民族或認同群體。

This means that this demographic shift is reshaping the US public sphere into a more competitive, collective environment overall. These environments are characterized by lower trust and heightened group conflict. Within this context, loyalty, obligation, and trust predominantly flow within one's own group, while outsiders are viewed with increased suspicion or rivalry.

Individuals lacking strong group affiliation become vulnerable, as collective behavior confers advantages. These advantages incentivizes people to prioritize group identity to compete and for protection.

這意味著人口結構的轉變正在重塑美國公共領域，使其成為一個更具競爭力和集體性的環境。這些環境的特點是信任度低，群體衝突加劇。在這種情況下，忠誠、義務和信任主要流向自己的群體，而外人則被越來越多地視為可疑或競爭對手。

沒有強大群體歸屬感的個人變得脆弱，因為集體行為帶來優勢。這些優勢鼓勵人們優先考慮群體認同，以競爭和尋求保護。

This dynamic then creates an escalating cycle, or "arms race," of tribalism. To illustrate using an extreme example, imagine environments like prisons where affiliation with a group is critical for survival. You can’t lone wolf it there; it’s too dangerous.

In such an evolving landscape, cooperation among different groups becomes difficult without intervention from a strong mediating force such as a dominant state, shared religion, or a unifying societal goal (telos).

這種動態然後創造了一個升級的循環，或「部落主義軍備競賽」。以極端例子來說，想像像監獄這樣的環境，在這種環境中，與群體的聯繫對生存至關重要。在那裡，你不能獨來獨往；太危險了。

在這樣的演變景觀中，如果沒有強大的調解力量，如佔主導地位的國家、共同的宗教或統一社會目標（終極目標），不同群體之間的合作將變得困難。