Why liberals should not be allowed to run the state.

The division into conservatives and liberals can be carried out according to the alpha value – the level of statistical significance. Accepting your level of significance when making a decision determines how much you are averse to risk and how much you desire victory. The result of the decision may be successful or erroneous. Everyone hopes for success, but the decision itself is made taking into account a possible error. Conservatives are more prone to type I errors – the correct null hypothesis (false positive, erroneous rejection) is rejected, that is, the null hypothesis of success under known external conditions must be extremely reliable. It’s better not to do it than to make a mistake. Liberals do not see a big problem in failure and are prone to type II errors – the wrong null hypothesis is accepted (false negative, erroneous acceptance). Emotionally and rationally, we perceive people as conservative or liberal precisely by their decisions. Parents are often conservative, as they do not allow children to make mistakes. Liberal people advise you to live your life and make your mistakes, even if such mistakes may be irreparable. 

What type of mistakes people try to avoid and at what level the balance of benefit and risk is determined for each person by innate properties and early development. Among people, there is a certain distribution according to these parameters and therefore there are no pure conservatives and liberals (you can see this on the graphs in the book by J. Haidt “The righteous mind”). Different levels of statistical significance are accepted by people on specific occasions.

Liberalism is better in private life, as the losses are private and have no multiplier effect. Scientists adhere to the trial and error method – the repetition of experiments and measurements in different conditions. Testing many hypotheses, including statistically unreliable ones, makes it possible to find new areas of research and even discover new branches of science. Therefore, their approach is extremely liberal, as long as it does not concern megaprojects.

Conservatism has advantages at a high level of organization, from the firm to the state, as it minimizes the likelihood of catastrophic losses, such as when making investment decisions. The collapse of the securities market is the result of an extremely conservative approach to money. Delegating small research projects to a low level – a start-up – is a way of mutually reinforcing the liberal and conservative approaches.

The use of liberal methodology at the state level increases the likelihood of a catastrophe. Therefore, the number of conservative states is a survival statistic. Practically all countries are conservative: governments with large budgets, army, intelligence, homeland security, police, courts, prosecution, etc., and often use liberalism as a weapon against more conservative countries. A liberal state can make many good decisions, but one bad one kills it. The conservative may not grow as fast, but will not be hampered by dangerous decisions. Conservatism and liberalism is your assessment of risk and reward (risk and reward are difficult to measure in real life) when making a decision. Haidt points to the possibility that this is a fundamental property of decision-making on an emotional rather than a rational level. Without liberals looking for something new, mankind would most likely live on the trees and hide from the tigers. Without conservatives guarding achievements and traditions, sometimes wrong, mankind would hardly have survived to this day. Everyone is needed, but everyone should understand where he is more useful. I would not trust liberals with the highest state power. By definition, their decisions are riskier.