PDA

View Full Version : The Conservative and Liberal Brain



Lemur
01-09-2007, 15:35
Another psychological study of the characteristics of lefties versus righties. Remember, there are two kinds of people in this world: people who believe in two kinds of people and people who don't.

The lemur knows very few people who fit neatly into the left-right divide, so I wonder how useful this sort of study is. In truth, the few hard-core lefties and righties I've known seem to be ... how to put it ... they seem to be repeating a lot. As in, they don't seem to have political thoughts of their own, but rather passages they regurgitate from Rush Limbaugh or Noam Chomsky. Normal human beings, who've put real thought into issues, don't seem to slide into the left-right malarkey as a matter of course.

Anyway, here's (http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&print=1) the full article. (Among the many things I would contest in this piece: Studying abroad made me appreciate America with more intensity. Does that mean it made me more liberal? A pox on the left-right lie!)

The Ideological Animal

We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect.
By:Jay Dixit

Cinnamon Stillwell never thought she'd be the founder of a political organization. She certainly never expected to start a group for conservatives, most of whom became conservatives on the same day—September 11, 2001. She organized the group, the 911 Neocons, as a haven for people like her—"former lefties" who did political 180s after 9/11.

Stillwell, now a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, had been a liberal her whole life, writing off all Republicans as "ignorant, intolerant yahoos." Yet on 9/11, everything changed for her, as it did for so many. In the days after the attacks, the world seemed "topsy-turvy." On the political left, she wrote, "There was little sympathy for the victims," and it seemed to her that progressives were "consumed with hatred for this country" and had "extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists."

Disgusted, she looked elsewhere. She found solace among conservative talk-show hosts and columnists. At first, she felt resonance with the right about the war on terror. But soon she found herself concurring about "smaller government, traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, national unity over identity politics." She embraced gun rights for the first time, drawn to "the idea of self-preservation in perilous times." Her marriage broke up due in part to political differences. In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, she began going to pro-war rallies.

In 2005, she wrote a column called "The Making of a 9/11 Republican." Over the year that followed, she received thousands of e-mails from people who'd had similar experiences. There were so many of them that she decided to form a group. And so the 911 Neocons were born.

We tend to believe our political views have evolved by a process of rational thought, as we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we're not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear. How the United States should confront the threat of terrorism remains a subject of endless political debate. But Americans' response to threats of attack is now more clear-cut than ever. The fear of death alone is surprisingly effective in shaping our political decisions—more powerful, often, than thought itself.

Abstract Art vs. Talk Radio: The Political Personality Standoff

Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberals—not just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament. Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."

Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false.

Yet critics retort that the research draws negative conclusions about conservatives while the researchers themselves are liberal. And it's true that over the decades, a disproportionate amount of the research has focused on figuring out what's behind conservative behavior. Right shift is likewise more studied than left shift, largely because most of that research has been since 9/11, and aimed at trying to explain the conservative conversions of people like Cinnamon Stillwell.

Even with impeccable methodology, bias may creep into the choice of which phenomena to study. "There is a bias among social scientists," admits Glaser. "They look for the variables that are unflattering. There probably are other nice personality traits associated with conservatism, but they haven't shown up in the research because it's not as well studied."

"There are differences between liberals and conservatives, and people can value them however they like," Jost points out. "There is nothing inherently good or bad about being high or low on the need for closure or structure. Some may see religiosity as a positive, whereas others may see it more neutrally, and so on."

Red Shift

By 2004, as the presidential election drew near, researchers saw a chance to study the Jost results against the backdrop of unfolding events. Psychologists Mark Landau of the University of Arizona and Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore sought to explain how President Bush's approval rating went from around 51 percent before 9/11 to 90 percent immediately afterward. In one study, they exposed some participants to the letters WTC or the numbers 9/11 in an image flashed too quickly to register at the conscious level. They exposed other participants to familiar but random combinations of letters and numbers, such as area codes. Then they gave them words like coff__, sk_ll, and gr_ve, and asked them to fill in the blanks. People who'd seen random combinations were more likely to fill in coffee, skill, and grove. But people exposed to subliminal terrorism primes more often filled in coffin, skull, and grave. "The mere mention of September 11 or WTC is the same as reminding Americans of death," explains Solomon.

As a follow-up, Solomon primed one group of subjects to think about death, a state of mind called "mortality salience." A second group was primed to think about 9/11. And a third was induced to think about pain—something unpleasant but non-deadly. When people were in a benign state of mind, they tended to oppose Bush and his policies in Iraq. But after thinking about either death or 9/11, they tended to favor him. Such findings were further corroborated by Cornell sociologist Robert Willer, who found that whenever the color-coded terror alert level was raised, support for Bush increased significantly, not only on domestic security but also in unrelated domains, such as the economy.

University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg argues that some ideological shifts can be explained by terror management theory (TMT), which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views. TMT predicts that images like the destruction of the World Trade Center should make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. "In the United States, political conservatism does seem to be the preferred ideology when people are feeling insecure," concedes Greenberg. "But in China or another communist country, reminding people of their own mortality would lead them to cling more tightly to communism."

Jost believes it's more complex. After all, Cinnamon Stillwell and others in the 911 Neocons didn't become more liberal. Like so many other Democrats after 9/11, they made a hard right turn. The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it's more certain about the answers it provides—right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them—and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what's familiar and known. "Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat."

To test the theory, Jost prompted people to think about either pain—by looking at things like an ambulance, a dentist's chair, and a bee sting—or death, by looking at things like a funeral hearse, the grim reaper, and a dead-end sign. Across the political spectrum, people who had been primed to think about death were more conservative on issues like immigration, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage than those who had merely thought about pain, although the effect size was relatively small. The implication is clear: For liberals, conservatives, and independents alike, thinking about death actually makes people more conservative—at least temporarily.

Fear and Voting In America

Campaign strategists in both parties have never hesitated to use scare tactics. In 1964, a Lyndon Johnson commercial called "Daisy" juxtaposed footage of a little girl plucking a flower with footage of an atomic blast. In 1984, Ronald Reagan ran a spot that played on Cold War panic, in which the Soviet threat was symbolized by a grizzly lumbering across a stark landscape as a human heart pounds faster and faster and an off-screen voice warns, "There is a bear in the woods!" In 2004, Bush sparked furor for running a fear-mongering ad that used wolves gathering in the woods as symbols for terrorists plotting against America. And last fall, Congressional Republicans drew fire with an ad that featured bin Laden and other terrorists threatening Americans; over the sound of a ticking clock, a voice warned, "These are the stakes."

"At least some of the President's support is the result of constant and relentless reminders of death, some of which is just what's happening in the world, but much of which is carefully cultivated and calculated as an electoral strategy," says Solomon. "In politics these days, there's a dose of reason, and there's a dose of irrationality driven by psychological terror that may very well be swinging elections."

Solomon demonstrated that thinking about 9/11 made people go from preferring Kerry to preferring Bush. "Very subtle manipulations of psychological conditions profoundly affect political preferences," Solomon concludes. "In difficult moments, people don't want complex, nuanced, John Kerry-like waffling or sophisticated cogitation. They want somebody charismatic to step up and say, 'I know where our problem is and God has given me the clout to kick those people's asses.'"

Into The Blue

Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home.

People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:

Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.

That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well. And if the November election was any indicator, the pendulum that swung so forcefully to the right after 9/11 may be swinging back.


Tipping The Balance

Political conversions that are emotionally induced can be very subtle: A shift in support for a given issue or politician is not the same as a radical conversion or deep philosophical change. While views may be manipulated, the impact may or may not translate in the voting booth. Following 9/11, most lifelong liberals did not go through outright conversion or shift their preferred candidate. Yet many liberals who didn't become all-out conservatives found themselves nonetheless sympathizing more with conservative positions, craving the comfort of a strong leader, or feeling the need to punish or avenge. Many in the political center moved to the right, too. In aggregate, over an electorate of millions—a large proportion of whom were swing voters waiting to be swayed one way or the other—even a subtle shift was enough to tip the balance of the Presidential election, and the direction the country took for years. "Without 9/11 we would have a different president," says Solomon. "I would even say that the Osama bin Laden tape that was released the Thursday before the election was sufficient to swing the election. It was basically a giant mortality salience induction."

If we are so suggestible that thoughts of death make us uncomfortable defaming the American flag and cause us to sit farther away from foreigners, is there any way we can overcome our easily manipulated fears and become the informed and rational thinkers democracy demands?

To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death. Preliminary research shows that reminding people that as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences—what psychologists call a "common humanity prime"—has the same effect.

"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."

The solution, then, is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

English assassin
01-09-2007, 15:43
Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

Its true too. Consider Monica Lewinsky and the presidential oboe ... :eyebrows:

yesdachi
01-09-2007, 17:06
Great Study Lemur, thanks for sharing. I find much of what was said to be true (or at least easily believable) The 911 conversion, the liberal and conservative likes and dislikes, education creating more liberalism to a point, fear voting and being made to think irrationally then when we use our heads we snap back to our core beliefs (Interestingly they only talk about a liberal to conservative conversion then back to rational liberal). The only part I really question is the kid to adult personality stuff.

The part that I found most interesting was this part…

People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:

Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.

That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well.
With that in mind we should make sure our kids get a good education, read, travel and become passionate about life and develop good liberal attitudes about people, culture and art but their (although reinforcing the things learned at school) home life should reflect the conservative side where they can feel safe, understand financial responsibility and develop family values. I think ones home life is a larger contributor to their liberal or conservative attitude development (a conservative heavy balance 70/30 would be my preference) than anything else, education would be a close second.

The saying about being a liberal while young then growing up to become a conservative makes sense, when you are young you have nothing to conserve (hopefully your parents or someone is already doing that part for you) but as you grow up and acquire things, skills, family you should grow more conservative traits.

Xiahou
01-09-2007, 17:40
So, if you're conservative, you're uneducated, fearful, intolerant, and don't like books. If you're liberal, you're educated, tolerant, a rational thinker and all-round great guy. Got it. ~:thumb:

"There is a bias among social scientists," admits Glaser. "They look for the variables that are unflattering.https://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6972/orlycthuluwo5.th.jpg (https://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orlycthuluwo5.jpg)
O'RLY? :laugh4:

Lemur
01-09-2007, 17:46
So, if you're conservative, you're uneducated, fearful, intolerant, and don't like books.
Look on the bright side: At least you can read a message board. Book-hater.

Big_John
01-09-2007, 17:50
so this explains "git-r-dun"?

Crazed Rabbit
01-09-2007, 17:53
Hi-larious.

Thanks Lemur.

CR

Spino
01-09-2007, 20:01
Look on the bright side: At least you can read a message board. Book-hater.

Why do you hate freedom Cliff Notes? :book:

Vladimir
01-09-2007, 20:49
If you're not a liberal by 20 you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by 40 you don't have a brain. :2thumbsup:

Xiahou
01-09-2007, 22:04
If you're not a liberal by 20 you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by 40 you don't have a brain. :2thumbsup:
That's not the first time I've been called heartless. :beam:

AntiochusIII
01-09-2007, 23:26
If you're not a liberal by 20 you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative by 40 you don't have a brain. :2thumbsup:I'm brainless and heartless. What does that make me?

I don't trust this study, quite frankly. It sounds like a collection of cliches (Classical vs Country? Oh come on!). For one, my room is neater than 90% of teenagers in this country, I have no doubt. From the study I'm supposed to break down at the mention of Rush Limbaugh, praise his name to the LORD and then turn back and attempt to assassinate Al Gore.

Kanamori
01-10-2007, 03:49
Considering how most people come to their ideologies, it only makes sense that personal tastes and behaviors would follow.

Navaros
01-10-2007, 05:35
Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better

The article very wrongly makes the implication that education leads to tolerance because tolerance is how an enlightened person should behave. That sentiment is fundamentally incorrect.

"Education" goes hand-in-hand with "tolerance" because most of the educational institutions in the world are little more than soapboxes for liberal/secular humanist propaganda.

This speaks to a deep-seeded problem with the education system that promotes propaganda rather than truly educates. It does not speak to education leading to tolerance because an enlightened person is supposed to be tolerant. He's not.

IrishArmenian
01-10-2007, 06:20
Not really. Education does lead to a higher degree of tolerance whether you know it or not. Say you are educated on how the life of a Muslim is, and you get their perspective. You realise what their world is like and understand a little more.
I have no clue what your problem with tolerance is, Navaros.

Lemur
01-10-2007, 06:33
I really doubt that the problem with liberals and academia is a recent event. Betcha the Ptolemeys were irritated at the stuff coming from the Academy in their day. Centers for education have always been centers of dissident thinking. No need to look for a secular humanist conspiracy.

English assassin
01-10-2007, 14:17
The article very wrongly makes the implication that education leads to tolerance because tolerance is how an enlightened person should behave. That sentiment is fundamentally incorrect.

"Education" goes hand-in-hand with "tolerance" because most of the educational institutions in the world are little more than soapboxes for liberal/secular humanist propaganda.

This speaks to a deep-seeded problem with the education system that promotes propaganda rather than truly educates. It does not speak to education leading to tolerance because an enlightened person is supposed to be tolerant. He's not.

Absolutely. I distinctly remember thinking, when I read that Jesus said "Love thy neighbour" that he OBVIOUSLY meant "unless your neighbour is black, or gay, or has sex before marriage, etc etc, for a full list of exclusions see the Book of Navaros Chpt 94"

How ridiculous to think that the message of Christianity has anything to do with toleration.

BDC
01-10-2007, 15:23
I really doubt that the problem with liberals and academia is a recent event. Betcha the Ptolemeys were irritated at the stuff coming from the Academy in their day. Centers for education have always been centers of dissident thinking. No need to look for a secular humanist conspiracy.
It's a really long-term conspiracy...?

Navaros
01-10-2007, 15:52
How ridiculous to think that the message of Christianity has anything to do with toleration.


Insanely ridiculous.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism all have the message that immorality is not to be tolerated. By the way I'm not sure why you mentioned being Black, there is nothing wrong with being Black.

IrishArmenian
01-10-2007, 15:59
He meant the majority of Evangelical Christians in the U.S.A. are probably incredibly racist, gay-bashing, convert-or-die extreme (in beliefs) zealot.

Banquo's Ghost
01-10-2007, 16:05
He meant the majority of Evangelical Christians in the U.S.A. are probably incredibly racist, gay-bashing, convert-or-die extreme (in beliefs) zealot.

Let's be careful not to generalise and start bashing religious communities.

It's as unfair to do it to Evangelicals (who have many streams of thought and belief) as with Muslims or pirates.

:bow:

English assassin
01-10-2007, 16:13
He meant the majority of Evangelical Christians in the U.S.A. are probably incredibly racist, gay-bashing, convert-or-die extreme (in beliefs) zealot.

No I meant that Navaros's views are "incredibly etc etc etc" (although I accept he is not racist).

In order that the post may be constructive, I was also hoping that Nav might take it as a gentle reminder maybe actually to read ALL of the words of Jesus and to reflect on the overall meaning of his life and message. I just find it rather odd that we are regularly treated to Jesus's alleged views on the inevitable damnation of homosexuals, abortionists, etc etc, and we don't get equal airtime to Jesus's message of forgiveness and love?

Maybe Navaros could give us a post on the meaning of, shall we say, "let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone" before we get the next instalment on homosexuals? Then perhaps we could have a post on "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again " and after that back to the usual observations on fornicators. And so on.

A bit of variety, that's all I'm asking for.

Fragony
01-10-2007, 16:34
Remember, there are two kinds of people in this world: people who believe in two kinds of people and people who don't.


I'd sig that if I wasn't guilty

Ironside
01-10-2007, 16:44
I'm brainless and heartless. What does that make me?

I don't trust this study, quite frankly. It sounds like a collection of cliches (Classical vs Country? Oh come on!). For one, my room is neater than 90% of teenagers in this country, I have no doubt. From the study I'm supposed to break down at the mention of Rush Limbaugh, praise his name to the LORD and then turn back and attempt to assassinate Al Gore.

It has more to do with the presentation than with the study material. The statistical differances can be very minor and barely noticable (or bigger on some issues) and can in some cases have no causation, but only correlation.

Point is that they present it as adding all the differences together, making a huge difference when there's very small ones. You can do simular stuff when compairing women to men. Doing this will give you a very steriotyphical persons that very few people can identify themself fully with.

Rameusb5
01-10-2007, 18:26
I agree that the fact that (for the most part) education leads to liberalism has more to do with our higher education system than anything else.

In conservative countries like Afganistan, the Taliban (which I believe means "the students" in their language) was started by students and religious teachers. All quite well educated in their own way.

Personally, I agree with Lemur's statements that most of us are more or less the same (moderates), it's the people on the far left and far right that not only seem to be the most irritating, but they also seem to be the same people who AREN'T thinking for themselves and simply spouting off what their favorite radio/television show tells them (Daily Show or Fox News).

The study seems to be rather vague and I'm not sure what the point is other than to tick people off. You might as well do a study to see if blond people hate astronomy. I'm sure you'll see some startling results there too. Purely random, but still something you can make wild generalizations over.

Goofball
01-10-2007, 18:54
Let's be careful not to generalise and start bashing religious communities.

It's as unfair to do it to Evangelicals (who have many streams of thought and belief) as with Muslims or pirates.

:bow:

Or ninjas...

PanzerJaeger
01-10-2007, 22:13
On the political left, she wrote, "There was little sympathy for the victims," and it seemed to her that progressives were "consumed with hatred for this country" and had "extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists."

:yes:

Don Corleone
01-11-2007, 02:43
Okay Lemur, let me just make certain I have you and your little hack job down correctly here...

You and your lefty ilk... well spoken, well educated, well liked.

Those of us who don't believe in socialism.... ignorant, hateful, knuckle-dragging stooges.

Alright, I think I have got it straight. Is there anything else you have to say on the matter before I add you to my ignore list?

AntiochusIII
01-11-2007, 03:02
It has more to do with the presentation than with the study material. The statistical differances can be very minor and barely noticable (or bigger on some issues) and can in some cases have no causation, but only correlation.

Point is that they present it as adding all the differences together, making a huge difference when there's very small ones. You can do simular stuff when compairing women to men. Doing this will give you a very steriotyphical persons that very few people can identify themself fully with.I used a rather bad example, being that it is an example of "effects" (me liking neat things) rather than "cause" (liberalism vs conservatism). But one thing the study is severely missing is where they define liberalism vs conservatism. One big, big hole there.

You're right, though, straw polls or mass studies, analyzed in averages, can give you some very stereotypical pictures. But for some reason I doubt it's this stereotypical picture.

And while the study about changes of attitudes caused by 9/11 is not downright generalizing like the other part of the study, I rather doubt its usefulness. After all, just about everybody can easily see that the attack provokes outrage, outpouring of sympathy and unification attitudes (thus nationalism), setting asides of petty differences, and calls for the heads of those responsible, ignoring, almost by necessity, certain reservations that might have been made in less troubled times. It's only natural. That they interpret it as conservative, I take that as humanity's general reaction in crisis.

Alright, I think I have got it straight. Is there anything else you have to say on the matter before I add you to my ignore list?Not to break in, but...

Lemur clearly says he rather disagrees with the study. In fact, that's the sentiment most people upholds for the whole thread, left and right.

I understand your frustration/anger at the "study" (again, come on, Mozart vs Redneck? The Scream vs American Idol? That's some sad stereotyping interpretations there; not sure where they get their "info" -- they're calling you hillbilly and I imagine I'd be angry too), but to attack Lemur the poster is a lil' off target.

Or...I'm just humor-deficient and missed the satire/joke somewhere. That's not the first time it happens. Or second. Or 13853th. But I'm used to embarrassing myself, so it's okay.

Don Corleone
01-11-2007, 03:07
Well, Antiochus, perhaps you have a point. Personally, I've always had an issue with the "I don't agree with this, of course, but here it is... <insert disparaging article here>" style of posting that occurs from time to time in the Backroom.

Lemur normally posts at a much higher quality, and my comments of course were not meant to be taken literally. But if I came in and posted something ridiculous like....

"Well, of course, I don't support this 100%. There's some truths, but I find it stereotypes too much to be true. Even so, for discussions sake <link to article claiming that Sherpas are in fact a sub-human race>"...

Don't you think Nepalese backroom visitors might take issue not only with the article, but with me personally? Do you think my milque-toast disavowal prior to the link would soften the sting to them?

Holy cow! A conservative that knows that Sherpas live in Nepal.... call the museum, there's a rare specimen to be gathered... (and one that knows what museums are! Who'd have thought it?!)

AntiochusIII
01-11-2007, 03:17
I personally interpret Lemur's post and intention differently -- he could find it interesting in some ways (like the passage about 9/11 and its effect in changing attitudes) or just find it funny, or just want to provoke discussion, or anything else. But I'm not him and I think it'd be best if he himself is the one to answer what he finds in the article to be of notice and such.

:bow:

Lemur
01-11-2007, 03:51
Okay Lemur, let me just make certain I have you and your little hack job down correctly here... [snip] Is there anything else you have to say on the matter before I add you to my ignore list?
Hi Don, you're certainly free to put me on ignore, but I'd hate to think you did it because you're under the impression I agree with the article. I think I used the phrase "among the many things I would contest" when I originally posted. Sorry I didn't go into more detail; I obviously left myself open for misunderstanding.

There's some interesting stuff buried in there, which is why I bothered to repost the article, but I don't agree in the slightest with the blanket generalizations and crass pigeonholing.

I guess I was being a little bit naughty, too, since I knew it would rile up the rightists on the board. Bad lemur! Bad, naughty lemur!

IrishArmenian
01-11-2007, 03:56
If you haven't noticed, its not all that true. My wife (along with myself) is left leaning, but everything she owns is regularly cleaned (possibly daily, I loose track).
By this study, most oldest brother should've been a leftist. Turns out, he's a conservative (and that says something, as the rest of my family is rather leftist).
Lemur posts is because it is an interesting topic and it does raise questions. The idea is good, but the research seems to be coincidental.

Fisherking
01-11-2007, 10:38
Just forget it! This is just another study that construed its data to find what it wanted.

Generalising in this was is stupid and intolerant and looking for a reason to dislike those it opposes.

Just for the record I am a messy, artistic, book-loving, educated individual living abroad who frequently listens to Classical Music. That said, I am currently a bit more conservative than progressive. I would, however, say that I am very liberal in the original sense of the word.

I think that religious fundamentalism is misguided and that people of that bent can be easily manipulated by some self-serving individuals.

I truly believe that the only people more misguide that the Right-wingers are the Left-wingers. They both have issues with TOLORENCE in varying degrees. They both have TRUST ISSUES. They both believe that they know what is best for everyone. They both want POWER.

:book: The whole thing is cyclical. We are always swinging like a pendulum from right to left and back again.

:whip: The left thinks those on the right are bad heartless knuckle draggers. Wrong!

:wall: The right thinks that the left is full of misguided bleeding hearts who feel but don't think. Wrong!

:idea2: Both think that if they are in power they can fix everything. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Government is not going to solve anything, and usually only makes things worse. More laws only make more rich lawyers.:inquisitive:

My favourite misguided fix is: raising the minimum wage. This inflates the economy and makes things toughest for those just above minimum but everyone actually suffers a little bit, without helping what so ever those at the bottom. The only result is that the government has more money from taxes though the money is less valuable.

Another would be taxing bussnises rather than the individual. Well you just raised prices didn't you? The effect was the same…less money for the individual.:dizzy2:

In fairness the left is easier to attack than the right because they try to legislate social fixes a bit more. It is very difficult to put a limit on greed or define how much is enough?

Individual rights and liberties need to be maximised without making it impossible for business to operate. The environment needs to be protected without making ownership a burden.

Corporations and Companies need to be held accountable for the treatment and wellbeing of their employees and the treatment of the environment as much as their stockholders. This is the only fundamental way that I see in redressing the current inequities and allowing people the fruit of their labours. That however is something you are very unlikely to get passed in any first world nation and any despot who tried it is going to find his economy in ruins as everyone packs up to leave.

Communism didn't work because of corruption and being socialist; Socialism doesn't work because it takes incentive from the individual to produce; Capitalism is mostly about greed but it works somewhat better than the first two.
:focus:
So back to the study…. It is a generalised load of BS which only means you can find what you want to find if you make it up and call it a study. The reason that academia is left leaning is because it has become culturally instituted. If you go out to a union jobsite and start polling all those knuckle draggers at the construction site you might be surprised at how many Democrats you have. If you go to the welfare office with all the uneducated poor, guess what you find. Are these generalisations? Yes they are. Are they wrong? No! Not as wrong as those in the study.

Is the left well-meaning? You bet they are!

Is the right well-meaning? Sure!

Is either one of them going to save us? I have serious doubts!:no:

The trouble is that neither side exchanges views but just spouts rhetoric without listening or bothering to think. "That is an overgeneralization". The thing is that everyone is right from their point of view. ROFLMAO:beam: :laugh4:

:2cents:

doc_bean
01-11-2007, 18:17
Education is the pursuit of knowledge, in order to gain knowledge is often needed to see 'the other side' of things, in order to understand it, if you then understand the other side, you are more likely to sympathize with them, which would make educated people more 'liberal'.

Education in countries like Afghanistan is solely based on 'understanding' a single paradigm and therefor do not lead to 'liberalism'.

That said, the very public liberals are often a bad example of what it's all about, just like a lot of public conservatives aren't representative either. One of the big problems of shifting paradigms is that some people start believing in moral relativism, which might have some value, in some cases, but it is counter to the idea of education as a 'synthesis' of knowledge, of course, that's a whole other debate and I won't continue along that path here.

Another problem is that a lot of 'liberals' are just as guilty as hard line conservatives of being stuck in a single paradigm. Environmentalists and animal rights activists (the extreme cases) tend to be good examples of this.