HaloScan.com - Comments

Only one comment to this:

Duh!
Pete | 04.21.07 - 12:11 pm | #

John Deans- "Conservatives without Conscience"

You won't agree with everything John Dean writes -- and he wouldn't want you too. Because he cherishes the energetic debate guaranteed in our Constitution -- and that comes with democracy.

On his book tour (and in his book), Dean noted a study that estimated that at least 23% of Americans (mostly white male Republicans we assume) would follow an authoritarian leader no matter what the impact on our freedoms and our Constitution. That's nearly a quarter of the American population who are, basically, brown shirts. These people, plus an additional number of fundamentalists (and there is presumably a large cross over) form what is assumed to be around a 30 -- 32% "base" for Bush. These are the people who would support him for president if he were mummified and had horns on his head.

In "Conservatives Without Conscience," John Dean takes us on a tour into a world of authoritarian GOP "leaders" (best exemplified by Cheney) who have no compassion, but are driven by a thirst for authoritarian power. They believe in the "Stern Daddy State" -- and when you sit down to their dinner table, they make the laws and mete them out. You challenge them at grave peril

These are the "Conservatives Without Conscience" -- and right now they have the keys to our nation. Their only rule of government is that they are the rule of law and subject to no external accountability.
ren | 04.21.07 - 12:17 pm | #

The insecure kids soiled their diapers more often, too. As they grew older, they felt it was alright to soil the rest of the planet with their waste.
c. atrox | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:21 pm | #

"Conservative" is archaic.

There is nothing "conservative" about today's cons. They are radical, fiscally irresponsible, unethical, fond of election fraud...the list goes on and one and on.
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 12:22 pm | #

You can't demonize people because they are right wing politically. This is really a very biased and simplistic way of looking at people.

Some people on the right are just like the cliches this study speaks of. Some people are walking, talking cliches. But most are not. Never forget that.
Chimay | 04.21.07 - 12:24 pm | #

Good point Anon, the party of Barry Goldwater has been mutated into a malignant, unrecognizable form of the authentic conservative model.
bmw 528 | 04.21.07 - 12:25 pm | #

That Block study must be almost 20 years old, then, right? Have they done any follow up since 1989? It's a fascinating idea. It's similar to the Jost et. al. article from I think 2003 that finds that conservatives are more fearful of death and insecure.
shazam | 04.21.07 - 12:25 pm | #

The repugs consider all science a "cheap shot against republicans" so I wouldn't worry about it.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:27 pm | #

"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

-- Tom Robbins
kablooie | 04.21.07 - 12:27 pm | #

"... against conservatives"
sorry . My error.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:28 pm | #

what i keep hoping is that, subpoenas or not, several truly damning revelations (there would have to be more than one) backed by hard evidence come into the possession of one or more house or senate investigative committees that will blow the whole bushco criminal enterprise wide open... this business of working piece-meal with condi, gonzo, rove, et al, may be good for chipping away at the power base of these arrogant criminals, but, by the time such efforts bring down any walls, 20 january 2009 will be upon us, and the damage done between now and then may very well be irreversible...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
profmarcus | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:28 pm | #

But seriously, look at these guys, Bush, Cheney, Delay, Gonzo, Frist, the list goes on...they're just wussies. They're intellectually and physically inferior to the people underneath them. God, to have to take orders from the likes of these gits. I'll bet the Secret Service has some stories to tell.
Strawberry | 04.21.07 - 12:29 pm | #

That breakdown makes perfect sense to me. But what does one do with it? Where does it take one? It appears, in other words, as if we as a people will never rise above the level aspired to by those whose lives are filled with the most fear.

Perhaps we should stop FIGHTING and ridiculing conservatives. After all, being attacked only legitimizes their isolation. Maybe all we need to do is build the kind of lives we want -- stop blaming others from keeping us from doing this -- and let the others do what they will. I suspect they'd become a lot more reasonable over time and maybe even join us.
John H. Farr | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:29 pm | #

The next question is, why do those differences exist? How much is based on innate personality, and how much on the way the child was raised? Authoritarian parents withold love and approval unless the child is obedient and self-effacing. Only the parents' needs are important in the family. Children who are allowed to express their emotions and develop a sense of inner value are much more free and less fearful, since they have nothing to fear from the most important people in their lives. The symptoms reveal the problem, they are not the problem (at first).

Conservatives, at their core, believe that one must trade unquestioning loyalty (also know as "faith") for love and acceptance. They become extremely fearful if they don't know how to please authority; they need rigid rules to follow, and gain self-esteem by how strong is their faith in their authority. The greater the chance to show irrational faith, the better a conservative one is. They are easily offended and victimized because their conservative parents have defined themselves as perpetual victims, due to the treatment they themselves have received as children. This victim mentality needs an enemy to survive, hence their irrational hatred of anyone who doesn't fit into their self-defined group.
Susan of Texas | 04.21.07 - 12:31 pm | #

"Good point Anon, the party of Barry Goldwater has been mutated into a malignant, unrecognizable form of the authentic conservative model."

Fer cryin' out loud...at BEST Barry Goldwater was a mixed bag of nuttiness. Without him, there probably wouldn't have been a Reagan....without Reagan, no Bush. Goldwater started the "mutation" by helping shift economic conservatism into social conservatism. Toward the end of his life, Goldwater became a bit more sensible....but those early days....yeeesh!
c. atrox | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:33 pm | #

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 12:37 pm | #

And if you're not Liberal at 65, you have no sanity?
Cesar | 04.21.07 - 12:40 pm | #

Actually, Goldwater was much more of a libertarian than a conservative by today's standards. He believed in rights of the individual to be the highest good of the state & DESPISED communism because the rights of the state were the highest good.

He would likely be a democrat today.
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 12:40 pm | #

A good qualifier is asking questions to understand a principle. Libs explain and answer all questions. Cons answer with: that's the way it is or don't question/challenge authority. When you are doing a job and cons are in charge the situation is always FUBAR and BOHICA.
Chris | 04.21.07 - 12:42 pm | #

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 12:37 pm | #

I'm liberal/progressive and 53 and have no vagina.
cheesesauce | 04.21.07 - 12:43 pm | #

Actually, Nichole, I don't find this to be a cheap shot. I find it interesting. I can buy that there might be a correlation here. (Cause and effect are a different matter.) I myself had a not so good childhood, and that might explain in part my political leanings.

The one caveat I would offer to my friends on the left is that, even if there is a tendency here (and the research of Altemeyer as outlined in John Dean's book certainly supports this), you guys are not immune from ideologues, narrow minded partisanship and cults-of-personality. I see some of that here from time to time (everyday).

And the greatest example of all is both the Russian and Chinese versions of Communism, especially under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 12:44 pm | #

So according to this study it would be imperative to encourage children to have "close relationships with peers" and to raise the feeling of security with sensitive children to produce more liberals.

Hmmm....

So what's stopping us?
ticktock | 04.21.07 - 12:46 pm | #

The repugs consider all science a "cheap shot against republicans" so I wouldn't worry about it.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:27 pm |

That is a cheap shot. Also, being conservative at 23 is different than being conservative at 43. When you have a family you want to protect you may have less patience with giving people second chances after they've been in prison for instance. Not that it is right or wrong.

I believe there is something to this hypothesis but demonizing everyone in on other side as mentally or emotionally handicapped is a tactic used by extremists throughout the world.
srgtick | 04.21.07 - 12:46 pm | #

Susan of Texas | 04.21.07 - 12:31 pm | #

It's simply the power of power, and the power that money gives you. Pay attention to the all so called "right wingers" associated with the media.
The stupid things and the venom they spew, they don't believe them themselves, but at ten millions dollars a pop, like O'reilly, Coulter and the likes, I'll be right in there if I could.

When you have that kind of money, you belong to a circle where all the members all they want is make sure that this circle not only gets bigger, but also more powerful. In other words, more ways to acquire more money. America? Poor people?
They just bothersome, and
yey don't give a shit about our country. It's a brotherhood. It's called: The Republicans. How many of them are in jail already?
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 12:46 pm | #

I'm looking at the article right now, in case anyone wants to know:

Block, Jack & Block, Jeanne. Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later.
Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 734-739.

Very entertaining!
P Dizzle | 04.21.07 - 12:48 pm | #

I'll add this to my collection. Another study found that conservatives have more nightmares. http://mentalhealth.about.com/ cs...onservative.htm
lefty | 04.21.07 - 12:49 pm | #

I don't see how it's a cheap shot. Conservatives are cowards and that's what drives them - fear.
CafeenMan | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:50 pm | #

I've known this for years...

Isn't finally time to do brain scan research on conservatives? I'm throughly convinced we will find that their scans will show a closer resemblance to psychotics than the rest of the the population.

It's time to begin study in the positive potential of medicating the social disease of conservatism or at least early therapy and prevention.
► Cowicide | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:47 pm |

That is absolutely disgusting. And "a closer resemblence to psychotics" is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I've ever heard. Your entering Malkin land.
srgtick | 04.21.07 - 12:50 pm | #

"Perhaps we should stop FIGHTING and ridiculing conservatives. After all, being attacked only legitimizes their isolation. Maybe all we need to do is build the kind of lives we want -- stop blaming others from keeping us from doing this -- and let the others do what they will. I suspect they'd become a lot more reasonable over time and maybe even join us."

John, ideally it sounds proper. We on the left would like to "get along". The reality is that the neo-cons have been gutting every good thing about this country in favor of profit and religious belief. The inherent selfishness of Republican politics is quickly undermining our ability to create a better, more equitable, just, and environmentally sound world. I hate to be a pissant about it (and it may be due to the fact I've had only one cup of coffee this morning) but I think there has never been a better time in our history when we must not only repudiate the politics of exclusion and acquisition, we must work to (dare I say?) destroy it. The American Left has historically been splintered into various groups and ideals. This is the time to unify. Can we do it? I doubt it. But, as always, I hope we can.
The "conservatives" are the enemy as far as I'm concerned. Almost 50 years of history backs me up.
c. atrox | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:50 pm | #

I believe there is something to this hypothesis but demonizing everyone in on other side as mentally or emotionally handicapped is a tactic used by extremists throughout the world.
srgtick

I think the time honored phrase is "Pot calling the kettle black".
marcos | 04.21.07 - 12:50 pm | #

That is a cheap shot.
srgtick | 04.21.07 - 12:46 pm | #
------------------------------------
And yet it doesn't change the fact that it currently appears to be true.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:50 pm |

Um, painting every conservative as being a certain way at any age is the cheap shot.

I'm liberal but I'm also a scientist.

Drawing conclusions from a hypothesis
and dismissing all points of view from the other side as being those of mental illness is sad.

Your celebration of yourself is similar to bill o'reilly.
srgtick | 04.21.07 - 12:53 pm | #

LOL! You're cute when you're self righteous.

Hey is there a 'godwin's law' for bringing up O'rly ?
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:57 pm | #

I can only second all the comments about power. Who has heard a Republican campaign on fiscal conservatism or small government in the last few years?

If there are two people, one with power, one without, the Republicans will tend to find a way to diminish the position of the one without power and agree with the one with power.

Corporations: Leave them alone.

Government: Do not question it.

President: Do not question Him.

Torture victims: They must have done something wrong.

Gun victims: Weaklings who should have fought back.

Christians: Oppressed! (even though they make the vast majority of the population)
Like it is | 04.21.07 - 12:57 pm | #

For a different take on the psychological profiles of conservatives and liberals, see this analysis of the Pew Center's survey, "Are We Happy Yet?"

"The Republican Mind: Don't Worry, Be Happy."
AngryOne | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 12:58 pm | #

If you are living in America and its 2007 and you still believe in republicans, you deserve to lobotomized.
LuvAmerica | 04.21.07 - 12:59 pm | #

Two things i know for sure. Conservatives are gullible suckers and have no concept of hypocrisy.
Col Kilgore | 04.21.07 - 1:00 pm | #

Why do all the repugs want us to stop celebrating ourselves? (wierd)

We don't want to be like you. It's a shallow existance. You want money and power, we want relationships. (that must be wierd to you)
PhejOmatic | 04.21.07 - 1:01 pm | #

"I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!"

-- Iolanthe, Gilbert & Sullivan
MadLad | 04.21.07 - 1:02 pm | #

I'm liberal/progressive and 53 and have no vagina.
cheesesauce | 04.21.07 - 12:43 pm | #

I'm a liberal/progressive at 54 and also have no vagina. (that was funny cheese)
PhejOmatic | 04.21.07 - 1:05 pm | #

Almost nobody gets out of childhood unscathed. But there is a fairly simple, albeit emotionally complicated, method of dealing with the pain caused by abusive, neglectful, selfish parents. The child (or adult) must acknowledge that they were harmed by their parents' actions, accept that nothing can change the past and let go of the hope of being loved as they should have been, and let themselves feel the pain and other emotions they repressed most of their lives.

When people deny their own pain they become indifferent to the pain of others, and we end up with people performing all sorts of cruel, ironically unChristian, acts towards others. Look at how Bush's parents repressed their pain at their daughter's death and the effect on him at age 6, Cheney's utter lack of empathy, Gonzalez's slavish and mind-bogglingly self-effacing attitude towards the president, Harriet Meirs' little suck-up notes to the president, Rumsfield's indifference to the difficulties experienced by his troups, Rice's shoe shopping during Katrina, and on and on ad infinitum.

People like Alice Miller and Arnold Milgrim have long sought how to understand why so many people went along with the government in Germany before and during WWII. Miller states the cruel, authoritarian and Bible--based child-raising methods clearly created a group of people who were obedient and lacked any meanigful empathy for others.
Susan of Texas | 04.21.07 - 1:06 pm | #

this study is severely flawed in that it takes out socio economic and familial factors from the mix
Uncle Joe Mccarthy | 04.21.07 - 1:08 pm | #

Elections in France. If Segolene Royal wins, and Hillary is elected in 2008, the world will entered into a new era of peace and prosperity.
Let's see!
garcia | 04.21.07 - 1:11 pm | #

srgtick,

I think you're making valid comparisons, but just as with O'Reilly, Malkin, and their ilk, it's the LOUD whacko minority on the extremes. Most of my liberal friends here are not prone to making such bigoted generalizations. It's a relative minority that march in lockstep with their us-vs-them ideology. A potentially dangerous minority, to be sure, but a minority just the same.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 1:11 pm | #

i will apologize in advance for this... but i couldn't resist...

my little (just turned 3 year old) boy was at the library a few weeks ago...

everyone had little toy frogs and playing leapfrog... it was time to put the little frogs away... and so they were...

but a little boy began to cry... my little guy ran across the floor, tripped, got up and went to the toybox and got one of the little frogs...

ran over to the little boy who was crying and gave it to him... he stopped crying...

i could not be more proud...

my own little liberal...
Peter Hollman | 04.21.07 - 1:12 pm | #

Hey, garcia. Did you know that Hil was once a Goldwater Republican? So according to this study, she might be a closet authoritarian. Food for thought.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 1:13 pm | #

PhejOmatic | 04.21.07 - 1:05 pm | #

Thanks PhejOmatic! You lay down some good ones too!
cheesesauce | 04.21.07 - 1:17 pm | #

It's not "us-vs-them," it's them-vs-themselves, hurting others in the process. Lables like conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist, and so on mask the real dilemma, which is internal and so emotionally threatening that it is disguised behind as many levels of separation as some people can manage. The internal turmoil is then projected onto this safer level.

Raise a child to have regard for himself and others and it won't matter what he calls himself, he will act with respect and kindness towards others in most circumstances. The problem with conservatism is that it is designed to give authoritarian people what they need to control their inner demons. It is inherently flawed because it is designed to fulfill the worst instincts of some humans--a need to control others, repress one's self, and perpetually fear victimization.

Cruelty in conservatism is not a bug, it is a feature. If that is an unpleasant fact, change conservatism.
Susan of Texas | 04.21.07 - 1:20 pm | #

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

I always thought statements like that were wierd. There are people who were conservatives at 25 and liberals at 35, and who have both hearts and brains.

There are libertarians at 30 who have both. There are socialists at 55 who have both. People have all kinds of different paths through ideology. Yes, there are certain tendencies, as the study shows. But the tendencies only apply on the average, not the same way to everyone.
atheist | 04.21.07 - 1:22 pm | #

I can't wait to hear what the conservative pundits will say about this. O'Reilly will probably devote a week of shows to it. If O'Reilly can call liberals secular-progressives, I propose a new name for conservatives: radical-authoritarians.
coleshack | 04.21.07 - 1:23 pm | #

According to the study i should be a conservative. Is it too late for me to get in on the rape of the planet?
xoites defends Constitution | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:23 pm | #

This also might explain why a lot of these type of people end up secretly frequenting S&M clubs.

//just sayin'
pain | 04.21.07 - 1:26 pm | #

So because I make a caustic observation and laugh about it I'm dismissed an an orly clone ? Never mind that conservodroids want us to go back to the dark ages and worship gord in all we do, I'm the bad guy for saying it outloud.

I don't assume anyone here is attacking EVERY conservative or EVERy repug when they talk about them in general. I would have hoped others were capable of doing the same.

I'm beginning to see what people mean when they say nasty things about liberals.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:26 pm | #

What i find interesting, is the rationalizing that both wings do.
The first born has different traits than the second.
Both wings have sychophant followers, who do not question. There are insecure people on both wings. There are confident and over confident people on both wings. There are selfish people on both wings and selfless people on both wings.

Both wings want to "take back America", as if America was their private property.

Gingrich said We're here now and Speaker Pelosi is doing the same thing, as if the conservatives or the liberals were the only people that voted them into power.

Democratic Speakers of the House were caught up in ethics scandals, followed by the republicans, with Gingrich receiving the largest fine, ever. I am looking at my watch, waiting for the next Speaker ethics scandal.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Ron.j | 04.21.07 - 1:27 pm | #

I was picked on mercilessly through-out my school years for being too honest and too smart. Am I a conservative or a liberal?
coleshack | 04.21.07 - 1:30 pm | #

I'm beginning to see what people mean when they say nasty things about liberals.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:26 pm | #

What? Did you get your feelings hurt?
xoites defends Constitution | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:31 pm | #

Nope. But thank you for your concern.
MargeAggedon | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:32 pm | #

this study is severely flawed in that it takes out socio economic and familial factors from the mix
Uncle Joe Mccarthy | 04.21.07 - 1:08 pm | #

You mean it takes excuses out of the mix? That's a good thing.
CafeenMan | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:33 pm | #

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 12:37 pm | #

And if you're still a conservative by the time you're 45, you have no soul.
Straight Shooter | 04.21.07 - 1:38 pm | #

This study really just opens up a world of possibilities for more research. There are so many other possible explanations. Among 23 year olds, there are more Republicans who are college graduates. Maybe in addition to coming from wealthier families, their upbringing to obey authority helped them get through the socialization process of school, which let them come out on top and make more money and continue the cycle with their own kids...

Basically, this study seems to include the bias of the 3 year olds' teachers and makes it sound as if liberals have better character traits than conservatives. But this isn't necessarily true when conservatives do better in life. Some recent study also said that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, but I wonder if that's just because of the fact that they have all the power and are sending the country to hell in a handbasket.

I would turn this around to say that a lot of liberals have such unbridled personalities that they have a legitimate problem with authority, are hard to socialize, and have a difficult time participating in society except as outsiders trying to break down its walls. Maybe that's because we have a very conservative society. I don't know. But if liberals are going to accomplish anything more than to hold rallies and gripe about the government, they have to learn how to function a little better in a place where there will always be brown-shirts, fundamentalists, and those in authority who may or may not be competent.
bbk | 04.21.07 - 1:39 pm | #

Sorry, this study makes little sense to me. This presupposes people never change and their circumstances remain static. Also consider the source: Psycobable Today.
xoites defends Constitution | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:39 pm | #

"...if liberals are going to accomplish anything more than to hold rallies and gripe about the government..."
bbk | 04.21.07 - 1:39 pm | #

Oh! So that's all i ever do. No wonder time crawls.
xoites defends Constitution | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:42 pm | #

Does this study take "converts" into account? There are plenty of neo cons today who were left leaning "yippies" in their day. I myself, was a very conservative Republican all through my youth and young adult years. Somewhere around age 35, I started to turn more progressive in my thoughts, mostly because of economic issues. And though I am still fairly conservative on some matters, I am sure that the younger me probably would want to punch the older me in the face. I eagerly and proudly voted for Reagan in both his elections (my first presidential elections). Today, I consider him to be one of the most destructive presidents in U.S. history.
Rob | 04.21.07 - 1:44 pm | #

Oh! So that's all i ever do. No wonder time crawls.
xoites defends Constitution | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:42 pm | #

Sorry to break it to you... but those anti-war rallies with millions of people? Remember the ones that never made it onto the news? Yeah they didn't stop the war. The dissenting retired generals did more to raise anti-war sentiment than the protests ever did. Just a thought.
bbk | 04.21.07 - 1:44 pm | #

Also in Dean's book Conservatives without Conscience are several references to various studies done over the last 40 some years, check out all these references and you will find more than one study that shows the same thing pointed out in the original post. The entire field of study of Authoritarianism is really quite fascinating, and unfortunatly, quite applicable to the rep. party of today. Some studies followed people for 20-30 years, these studies and the results that were found should be read and understood by everyone who wants to understand the politics of the US today.
timr | 04.21.07 - 1:51 pm | #

Peter Hollman | 04.21.07 - 1:12 pm | #

Ahh, you should be the proud papa.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 1:58 pm | #

I think the study also shows narrow mindedness. On one hand,kids likely to be bullied. Other kids socially adaptable and self reliant. So the other kids have already got facile minds, so they grow up with an empathy and awareness that predisposes them to be Liberal/progressive.

The likely to be victimized and easily offended often turn into bullies themselves. Known bullies? Pretty simple minded revenge oriented guys. Pretending they have power when really they just learned from those who bullied them how to look scary to people smaller than you.

I'm going to draw on personal experience because I was bullied and prone to cry because something or other didn't turn out they way I wanted to. When I was bullied, I knew what it felt like to be a victim. I also seemed to have an ingrained empathy that told me making other people feel victimized is terrible because I thought about I feel when I was victimized. My parents had a lot of trouble raising me and my siblings to put it nicely. But my dad told me the coolest thing you can say to a kid who is impressionable and picked on a lot. He said "It doesn't matter if everyone tells you you're wrong. If you know your right, inside your head, then you are right"

So, any time my dad would pick on me or berate me, I would always think "If I know I'm right, then inside my head, I'm right and not even, you, dad can take that away".

I really think, the way kids start out has to with parenting. My parents as imperfect as they were loved and cared deeply for me and my siblings. They also were flexible about rules. They tried so hard to be Authoritarian but in the end they made concessions. We were such willful children and they helped to create that willfulness and empathy.
Oh'Really | 04.21.07 - 2:00 pm | #

I was picked on mercilessly through-out my school years for being too honest and too smart. Am I a conservative or a liberal?
coleshack | 04.21.07 - 1:30 pm | #

So was I. I was also picked on because I was taller than everyone else (being a girl and all) and wore coke bottle thick glasses. Oh, and for being to opinionated. I actually had a sister-in-law tell me that I was to opinionated and to self confident for not only my own good, but for the good of the family as well.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 2:02 pm | #

Regarding this study, I'm not to sure how it sets with me. My oldest son took to religion big time. I mean in a serious way. Even going so far as asking for my permission to vote as a republican (shudder). He is 23 years old.

My youngest son on the other hand (he'll be 21 one soon) wouldn't bother to ask my opinion on anything and do what he feels is best for himself and suffer the consequences later if there were any to be had.

What does that say?
IgnoranceIsNotBliss | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 2:08 pm | #

Today's republicans seem to be in their majority those stuck in the 'society network' that began with the Victorian era, depending on interconnections for gain and bowing to 'higher social authority' if it does their network 'good'. 'Good' for the network is not neccessarily good for others.

Democrats represent those who have moved past that to an independant rationality - everyone's actions individually must be judged for the actions themselves.

Or, in short, Republicans are a thing of the past. Unfortunately they seem to want to drag the rest of the world back in time with them. All to keep the economy 'trickling down' from the same fortuned pockets that have thrived since the Victorian era...
ThePromenader | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 2:11 pm | #

Weird, as a 3 to 8 year child I would have fit exactly this description of the kids who tend to end up as conservatives... no bullshit, to a tee.
However at eighteen (nearly 35 years ago) I registered as a Dem. and have never once voted for a Repuke, (plus I believe I'm less inclined to do so now than ever).
Boy sure hope all this means is I'm an exception, I'd just as soon swallow poison as discover myself to be a closet wingnut! ; )
greeseyparrot | 04.21.07 - 2:11 pm | #

I actually had a sister-in-law tell me that I was to opinionated and to self confident for not only my own good, but for the good of the family as well.

Geez, that's harsh. I hope you didn't listen.
atheist | 04.21.07 - 2:13 pm | #

I would have told the sis in law to shut her fucking pie hole but thats just me.
Col Kilgore | 04.21.07 - 2:14 pm | #

IgnoranceIsNotBliss
Tell him he'll go straight to hell if he votes for the Thugs.

Sorry a bad joke.

By the way, according to this study, I should be a Thug. I have been a life long socialist leaning type, on my own.
I was teased and humiliated by my peers throughout my school years; a loner, a druggie, a brilliant kid, and a poor student. Absentee parental units.

But my brother-very popular, a Thug. A 30%er.
Go figure
miss_kitty | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 2:15 pm | #

I was an insecure child, picked on, etc. etc. etc. and I am certainly no conservative. I don't let anyone hold the brain for me.

I am sure that is true of some, but I don't much care for the "statistics" game. You lose the people in the numbers.

What do you suggest we do with these statistics? Personalities are like short and tall genes. You have what you are born with and you learn to deal with it.

So what was the purpose of this "study"? A meaningless endeavor to once again try to divide people.
foolme1ns | 04.21.07 - 2:15 pm | #

Being conservative is just not wanting change. If things are going well for the majority then it is rational to be conservative. But fear of change and denying it leads to "the intuitive gut-level thought mode" mentioned in the article. Or, as I view it, irrational conservatism, thinking with the monkey brain.

Problem is change happens. I'm more interested in the psychology behind being able to accept change. How do you teach that? The ability to say "I may have been right before. But now I'm wrong."

From the end of the Psychology Today article: The solution, then, is remarkably simple... by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

So it would seem the best thing to teach children is how to think critically. Then when they get older you won't be insulting when you ask them to use their head.
Thing Fish | 04.21.07 - 2:17 pm | #

Boy sure hope all this means is I'm an exception, I'd just as soon swallow poison as discover myself to be a closet wingnut! ; )

Ya know, psychology is a great thing, and a very valueable science. But, we have to take it with a grain of salt, always.

In short, I wouldn't worry about finding a 'closet wingnut' inside yourself. The theory describes reality, it doesn't cause reality.
atheist | 04.21.07 - 2:18 pm | #

And another thing. What about children from other countries? Or are you suggesting that Americans are a unique species? There are no Democrats or Republicans in China, England, Russia, or Mexico.

This was an incredibly stupid study and a waste of time.
foolme1ns | 04.21.07 - 2:18 pm | #

Greesyparrot, people can and do change. Some people try very hard to be obedient, but for some reason finally let go of that need, or at least let through enough emotions to understand why they do what they do, and not be controlled by their needs.

Being insecure and picked on doesn't make one a republican--giving into the mindset that says one must obey authoritarians, not question them, does.
Susan of Texas | 04.21.07 - 2:19 pm | #

this study is interesting, but I'd like to make the argument that one's childhood does not necessarily determine their future. People can grow.
that | 04.21.07 - 2:19 pm | #

This was an incredibly stupid study and a waste of time.
foolme1ns | 04.21.07 - 2:18 pm | #

Yes there are! They just don't use that denomination. El Partido Liberal, Social Democrats in Germany or CDU (Christlische Demokrat Union) equivalent to the Republicas and comprised of Nazis mostly. Do some reading!
garcia | 04.21.07 - 2:22 pm | #

Huh! I had my own observation about the differences in temperment between Democrats and Republicans, and this almost seems to support what I came up with off the top of my head:

http://www.spinnwebe.com/wp/2006...-what-im-sayin/
spinn | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 2:27 pm | #

So it would seem the best thing to teach children is how to think critically. Then when they get older you won't be insulting when you ask them to use their head.
Thing Fish

Good point, Thing Fish. For me, conservatism is about being skeptical. It's not about turning back the clock to a past that never really existed, nor is it about shrinking the government (although it might sometimes be about limiting its growth). I accept a certain amount of established entitlement programs as necessary, and I can accept that others will be necessary in the future. But I would apply skepticism and critical thinking to how we decide which programs to implement and how we implement them.

I accept progressive income tax, capital gains tax, and estate taxes., but not blindly. A balance must be struck between providing for the general welfare and encouraging the individual and fostering enterprise. This gets to the heart of the matter: there is often a tension between individual liberty and the good of society. The difficult challenge is to find the balance. I'd prefer to err on the side of the individual, but I don't deny the claims of society nor the obligation to society. A successful individual didn't become successful in a vacuum. He or she built their success on the platform society provided.

At the same time, there is always the danger of limiting the individual too much, and this is why, in the give and take between society and the individual, I favor the individual and individual liberties.

Does this make sense to anyone? Do you see how I can be a conservative and not be the evil caricature that you make out all conservatives to be? Do you see how I see some of you (admittedly a minority) as really no better than the right wing nut jobs?
marcos | 04.21.07 - 2:34 pm | #

So you mean duh Liberals are more likely to have better sex lives, open minded and have self assurance while Cons. are pussies that need their mommies to hold their hands and scare of sex. I get it....
IN THE COLD | 04.21.07 - 2:38 pm | #

This was an incredibly stupid study and a waste of time.
foolme1ns, | 04.21.07 - 2:18 pm

Did you bother to read the article? I don't think so. It is a little more than comparing political party affiliation. Or a variant of "You may be a red-neck if..."

FTA 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.

I found the article (the study was just one part of it) interesting because it showed how getting people to stop thinking is a way to get their acquiescence. And that this is easier to do with conservatives by appealing to their desire that everything can be kept as it was (when in fact no such control exists).
Thing Fish | 04.21.07 - 2:38 pm | #

"That is absolutely disgusting. And "a closer resemblence to psychotics" is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I've ever heard. Your entering Malkin land.
srgtick | 04.21.07 - 12:50 pm | # "

I couldn't agree with you more.
They certainly aren't all psychotic, sociopath is much closer to the mark.
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 2:50 pm | #

I personally think that insecurity is a major contributor to people's words and actions. We all have insecurities to one degree or another, and better people acknowledge them and don't try to defend them. The intractable problem, however, is pointing this out to truly insecure people because it's not only 'impolite' in modern society, but because they refuse to acknowledge the issue *due to those very insecurities*!

Use this as an honest measure on yourself and others. Observe public figures in action and ask why they behave in certain ways, and try your best to be objective. I would bet that most public people who make harmful decisions do so because of their own insecurities. This should be part of the public discourse, since it actually affects our lives.

If you run for public office, you should be willing to have your perceived insecurities called out, and address them to public satisfaction. This shouldn't be a witch-hunt; it should be one measure for evaluating a candidate.

[sorry if this is a duplicate post... HaloScan issues today]
Duncan D'nuts | 04.21.07 - 3:03 pm | #

Geez, that's harsh. I hope you didn't listen.
atheist | 04.21.07 - 2:13 pm | #

Nope, I told her to go to hell. If she didn't like it, to bad.

IgnoranceIsNotBliss
Tell him he'll go straight to hell if he votes for the Thugs.

Sorry a bad joke.
miss_kitty | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 2:15 pm | #

Stopped myself short of doing just that and told him to do some research before he made his decision.

Religion has seriously messed with his head.

I did the same thing my own mother did when I was growing up and exposed both my sons to all aspects of life, including religion. The bottom line is that one son thinks that God will take care of his needs and the other thinks, bullshit, I'll take care of my own needs.

These two are night and day.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 3:07 pm | #

It is very much a cheap shot. And out of context as well. And to be expected from someone who looks for those cheap shots as a matter of course. Scientific research done by liberals to point out conservative faults is hardly evidence of anything other than the political bias that is originally there.
Gilbert Davis | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 3:13 pm | #

Does this make sense to anyone? Do you see how I can be a conservative and not be the evil caricature that you make out all conservatives to be? Do you see how I see some of you (admittedly a minority) as really no better than the right wing nut jobs?
marcos | 04.21.07 - 2:34 pm | #
-----------------
*With a smile* "Yes, marcos, it's ok for you to need external validation for your beliefs..."

I'm just messin' with you, marcos. It's just that I saw an episode of "Dharma and Greg" yesterday in which Dharma said this to Greg, and this discussion brought it back to me. I think that particular sitcom is an exaggerated version of what the study concludes, and what most of us know intuitively anyway.
Terri | 04.21.07 - 3:33 pm | #

Virginia Tech being used and abused by the faithheads. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o...h? v=o9uNtvFSxYM

No comments, no video responses!!!!

A few of us co-operated online to make the following response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N...h? v=N_z9WgV5jkQ

If you think it is a good one,
please help to promote it in whatever other fora you frequent.
We should not have to sit idly by, while this juvenile drivel is spouted as truth.
Brian Coughlan | 04.21.07 - 3:36 pm | #

Bush supporters are obviously defective in some manner. Maybe somebody dropped them on their head as an infant?

Really though, to turn a blind eye to all the lies and corruption and say, "God bless Resident Bush" you have to be twisted somehow.
Capability Jones | 04.21.07 - 3:40 pm | #

Ever notice that in the first six years of President Katrina's regime, with conservatives ruling the White House, the senate and the supreme court, right-wing pundits on Faux News were always angry?
moniker

If you commies and dirty hippies would stop attacking Christmas and Marriage Between A Man and A Woman, maybe we wouldn't all be so angry!

*With a smile* "Yes, marcos, it's ok for you to need external validation for your beliefs..."

I'm just messin' with you, marcos. It's just that I saw an episode of "Dharma and Greg" yesterday in which Dharma said this to Greg, and this discussion brought it back to me. I think that particular sitcom is an exaggerated version of what the study concludes, and what most of us know intuitively anyway.
Terri

Actually, thanks for the validation. I know you were partially joking, or at least gracefully enveloping it in a joke, but even a hard-bitten hard hearted scrooge like myself needs a little validation once in a while.

But even short of validation, it's difficult to explain, or at least for others to understand, where I am coming from. The Bush zombies certainly don't get it. I think certain libertarians sort of get it, but most of them have a mental block against anything but the most minimal of government services. And there is a definite libertarian streak in my philosophy. The individual is the highest expression of society, not the state. However, the individual is never entirely separate from society, nor is the individual like a god.

I could go on . . .
marcos | 04.21.07 - 3:45 pm | #

Does this make sense to anyone? Do you see how I can be a conservative and not be the evil caricature that you make out all conservatives to be? Do you see how I see some of you (admittedly a minority) as really no better than the right wing nut jobs?
marcos | 04.21.07 - 2:34 pm | #
---------------------------------
Your problem is that you think you are a conservative, but you are not. You don't seem to fit in with the Kool Aid drinkers that lick Shrub's boots and worship his every idiotic utterance.

Modern Conservatives are not skeptical. They are gullible as a 2 year old child. So, if you are a skeptic, quit pretending to be a Winger.
Capability Jones | 04.21.07 - 3:46 pm | #

Again, Jones, I think that is where you are wrong. Has conservatism been hijacked? Undoubtedly. But it won't ever get unhijacked if conservatives like myself don't stand up for what we believe, which is what conservatism was originally about.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 3:49 pm | #

Also, I've never claimed, beyond joking, to be a winger. The right wing has drifted far enough to the right to be correctly be called fascism. Drifted or plunged off a cliff.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 3:51 pm | #

But it won't ever get unhijacked if conservatives like myself don't stand up for what we believe, which is what conservatism was originally about.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 3:49 pm | #
----------------------------------
Is that how Bush got elected? Conservatives held their noses and voted for him? Well, those votes count just as much as those from Winger Kool Aid addicts.

Old time conservatives have no representation in the current Repuglican party. They should vote Democratic until the Neo-Cons, Crooks and religious nut jobs have lost their hold, or abandon the Repugs and start another party. But, voting Repug just strengthens the hold of the Crooks and Liars.
Capability Jones | 04.21.07 - 4:00 pm | #

Does this make sense to anyone?
marcos | 04.21.07 - 2:34 pm

Yes. Though I stopped calling myself conservative because I felt it lost its meaning. And is now just a label / expletive. Just as how the word liberal has been abused.

When dealing with change one's tendency may be liberal or conservative. It is just one facet in a person's decision making. My own inclination is to be conservative, worried about making things worse. A liberal may be more hopeful that it will be a change for the better.

But without reason and reflection both tendencies, liberal hope (wishful thinking) or conservative fear, are easy to manipulate.
Thing Fish | 04.21.07 - 4:18 pm | #

Jones, I've done just that in the last two Presidential elections. I held my nose and voted for Gore. In the case of Kerry, I wasn't impressed, but by then it was clear that Bush was the worst President we've ever had, so I voted for him willingly. No nose pinching required.

Even among conservatives that voted for Bush the first time around, there were a number that voted Libertarian, some that even voted Democrat, and plenty that didn't vote at all.

I've never voted along party lines. I've always voted based on the candidate and the issues. I have a major issue with the GOP as currently constituted, so I will continue to vote Democratic for the most part, at least at the National level. (Although I don't think I can hold my nose and vote for Hillary. I'd vote for Bill again, in a heart beat.) Anyway, if the GOP can ever rid itself of the criminals, I will happily vote GOP again, when the candidate merits it.

Now, I must say that your confusion is not your fault. We can blame the GOP for creating the coalition with the so-called "social conservatives" who espouse "traditional values". Really, they aren't and they don't. They're theocratic busybodies that would and have sacrificed our real traditional values for their dubious moral code. This coalition has its roots in Nixon's Southern Strategy, was accelerated under Reagan (one of his big mistakes), and we see the result today.

Yet to a certain extent, you are also correct. I call myself a conservative because it is a convenient label. It fits best within our limited political vocabulary. Andrew Sullivan, another conservative who seeks to reclaim conservatism from the Bush zombies, has called me an old school English Whig in the mold of Burke. But try to explain that one on message boards and at cocktail parties!
marcos | 04.21.07 - 4:23 pm | #

Wow! That is fascinating to me and concurs with my own experiences. I always feel it's a sad thing when people don't want to think for themselves and prefer to have someone they think they can trust tell them how it is and what to do. Fear... the very thing that stops us from being our greatest!
right on! | 04.21.07 - 4:41 pm | #

a couple things...

Psychology is an inexact profession (NOT a science), but can raise interesting relationships and data. So can polling/demographics. Rove came from the bulk-mail world where one studies data and demographics to determine how best to reach one's intended audience. I believe Rove has done well for his party in learning the kinds of things discussed here and applying them to political gain. Too many examples to list here!

Many here have posted that they fit the stated preconditions and didn't turn out politically the way the study would predict. I would say that this is one of the faults of psychology and those who don't understand its limitations. It is not a science and not an exact predictor. The human brain and human life just has too many variables to be easily predicted, much like weather patterns.

I believe the salient point isn't about conservatives or liberals as much as it is about authoritarians and their followers. Religious folks have learned somewhere along the way to have faith in (certain) things that cannot be empirically proven. Then they are more likely to trust authority, even if given information to the contrary. Those who have learned somewhere along the way to question authority are oppositely inclined.

The Republicans have used faith and authority to their advantage. They structure their message, direct it to their bandwagon leaders (rush, fox, etc.) and are (mostly) unified in staying on message.

The Democrats tend to question authority more, hence have a difficult time speaking with a single voice and staying on a small set of messages.

In keeping with the conclusion of the article, if Dems want more power they must appeal to voter's rational thought. In the last election this was done passively--after so many lives and money have been spent on Iraq it is natural to rationally question it.

If the Dems want to win in the next election they must be more active in asking voter's to think rationally. I believe if a Dem Pres. candidate would speak loudly and clearly along these lines, especially pointing out how the Reps have used emotion to sway voters (esp. personal attacks), and using rational arguments to point out how our country has wasted precious resources, then that candidate would win and would carry even larger Congressional margins in the election.
Paul | 04.21.07 - 4:41 pm | #

conservative fear is also (wishful thinking)
apeman | 04.21.07 - 4:56 pm | #

Professional con men, grifters, and flimflam artists always found the conservatives and religious the absolute best source of income. The victims are blindly willing to believe in solid confident people, follow authority, and rarely even consider questioning a religious figure. You really can fool some of the people all the time. The really good part is that a large number of those get taken will deny a crime actually happened.
"quod erat demonstrandum"
Anonymous | 04.21.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Huh. Odd.

See - I would have been a conservative if that were completely accurate. I was insecure, worried sick, and it didn't help that people chose me as the class punching bag all the way up through highschool. I definitely didn't have a close relationship with anyone.

Does this mean I'm the odd man out? I know I can specifically point to a period in my life when my politics shifted dramatically thanks to a teacher of mine, could this be one of those things where nurture can beat nature, but someone has to bother to do it?

*Shrug*
JJohnson | 04.21.07 - 5:29 pm | #

Sure we can say stuff like this. Still feel like you're being picked on? A little insecure maybe: where's the authority figure to protect me? Guess it IS true!!!

I see how easily the right wing labels gays as one big evil stew. Even trying to pass amendments to the Constitution. Get used to it.

(From a gay man.)
Edwin | 04.21.07 - 6:04 pm | #

Several years ago I saw a flip chart designed from Blooms Taxonomy that broke down in a dichotomous key the different levels of cognition that the brain uses to process knowledge.
It was simple and brilliant. I would suggest to the DNC to reproduce that flip chart and make it available to students throughout the US school systems. Teachers use Blooms Taxonomy to design curriculum, however the students are not aware of the Blooms Taxonomy usage.
I am not a teacher, but I believe middle school students could use such information to help them understand the teachers expectations.
I believe that the Student would better develop critical thinking skills that would better prepare them for H.S. and college.
Thinking is cognition-Rote is memorization.
I'm just saying that if the DNC could give a gift that all students could use to synthisize the info. that is thrown at them from the right, this would be a way to do so.
Radically Moderate | 04.21.07 - 6:04 pm | #

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."
-Anonymous

And if you're not Liberal again when you're 65 I guess you'll be sending back those Social Security checks, right?
.
David B. | 04.21.07 - 6:09 pm | #

I've joking said that one of the reasons I'm a conservative is because I'm still rebelling against my father, a staunch liberal. (He even ran for Congress in the late 50s and was very active in fundraising in the 60s and 70s. Tom Bradley, the long time mayor of Los Angeles, had been to our house a few times.)

My actual turn towards conservatism came during college after much thinking, but also in reaction to the prevailing leftist campus politics. The College Republicans were even more vacuous than the lefties (and at times, repugnant), however, so I didn't find any comfort there.

Oh, the one big Republican in the family was my Grandmother. She never forgave Roosevelt or the Democrats for Executive Order 9066, although she loved Eleanor, having met her in camp. Grandma introduced me to the writings of Solzhenitsyn.
marcos | 04.21.07 - 6:17 pm | #

I've said it before: "Conservatives" need parents to do their thinking and decision-making, as well as providing them with security, validation, and a sense of belonging. These peple need parents. Bad parents will do, but parents nonetheless.
smafdy | 04.21.07 - 6:20 pm | #

Marcos:

Are you of Japanese descent, or was your Grandma just of unusually high conscience? Seems, during that ime, you'd have to be one or the other.

Also, Roosevelt may have had his shortcomings, but no one else did near as much to create America's middle class (a demographic that sets upart from the rest of the world), as he did. He certainly left a huge footprint.

"America" cannot exist with progressive ideology.
smafdy | 04.21.07 - 6:25 pm | #

The term "conservative" has so many different meanings as to no longer mean anything concrete. Just like "liberal" no longer means what it meant in the 18th C. as this country was founded by liberals. Today, conservatives and progressives appeal to Authority, and thus are both authortarian. The historical conservative appeals to "history, tradition, and institutions." The modern progressive appeals to some ideology or another, usually neo-Marxist or post-modern or some hybrid.

Liberals once espoused "liberty" in all its manifestations, accompanied by equality, autonomy, justice, diffusion of power, freedom of exchange, speech, assembly, association, due process, etc.

Neo-liberals espouse various forms of Statism, except in the bedroom. The State should control unapproved speech, unapproved assemblies, unapproved economics, unapproved . . .

Labels, therefore, are rather useless.
The Gay Species | Homepage | 04.21.07 - 6:37 pm | #

While an interesting study, it doesn't seem to hold up over time. The study is almost 20 years old. The meaning of Democrat and Republican is nothing like what it used to be. Everyone seems to have taken a step to the right and the old terms no longer hold true.

Democrats, while being called liberal, are generally the Conservatives of twenty years ago. They are now more Republican than Republicans in their thinking. Conservatives today are nothing like what they were before. The majority of conservatives are not conservative and merely use the word as a cover.

To understand the current mindset, there are very few liberals, many people in the middle including most Democrats and Independents and then the far right. While you constantly hear about left versus right, there is really very few that are far left anymore. This is something that the self-proclaimed "conservatives" fail to understand and what led to their defeat in the last election.

The personality traits do seem to be accurate. If you think of the typical neo-con, I have to agree that they are scared, insecure and isolated. Sadly, most didn't advance much past the age of three so I don't see the importance of checking up on them twenty years later. They were probably just taller.
ashton | 04.21.07 - 6:57 pm | #

I'm for the party of me. (wink)
Edwin | 04.21.07 - 6:57 pm | #

Odd that Marcos the old time "conservative" voted for Gore and Kerry but can't fathom voting for Hilliary.
HRC is loathed by the far left because of her conservative views.
So, opinions vary about Hill's positions I guess.
Capability Jones | 04.21.07 - 7:55 pm | #

[[marcos | 04.21.07 - 6:17 pm |]]
I think marcos' sentiment about going "conservative" as a way of rebelling against staunch familial liberalism or a prevailing liberal subculture is much more at play here than many realize.

I have no doubt that many, many people voted for Bush for no other reason than to "annoy libs". In fact, you hear that as the clarion call to arms from Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest all the time.

For many people, "annoying libs" is the whole point of their political decision-making and it doesn't matter that the kind of "libs" they think they're combating barely exist as a political entity anymore...not with 65-70% of America coming in against most things Bush/GOP, it isn't.

And it also doesn't matter how damaging this drive to "annoy libs" has been to our country. Even to themselves.

This, I believe, is the result of the Right working much harder and much earlier to demonize their fabricated boogy-man "libs" than the other way around. And this psychological research seems to support just why that would be so.
David B. | 04.21.07 - 8:12 pm | #

One evident conclusion, since those who would later become liberals easily relate to other people, that makes liberals better at leadership over conservatives.
AR | 04.21.07 - 8:20 pm | #

JLee | 04.21.07 - 3:46 pm | #

thanks...
Peter Hollman | 04.21.07 - 8:37 pm | #

Republicans didn't get laid in high school; big surprise!
GonzoD | 04.21.07 - 9:31 pm | #

Please excuse if posted twice.

Ah, the bias of the observer. If the study had been done in a conservative area of the country, not Berkley, here might be the results, translated. "As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient." Translation: liberals had developed dependent/enabling relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-centered, lacking self control, not thoughtful before acting, slow learners continuing to repeat the same action expecting a different result.

"...conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." Translation: Trusting, caring about others, thoughtful before acting, careful, principled, exhibiting self-control and identifies with and listens to others.

Perspective- is that a liberal or conservative trait?
Islandman | 04.21.07 - 10:25 pm | #

When I was a very young kid my favorite show was Robin Hood - a half hour British TV show. Recently I found some old episodes on DVD. Aside from the fact that some now famous British actors show up, what I found most interesting was the very anti-authortarian viewpoint. The Normans are nasty, the English are noble. I wonder if watching that show helped form my world view, or if it just reinforced my natural inclination.

Then again, I also wanted to be Lois Lane or Annie Oakley - and shocked Sister Marie in 2nd grade when I said I didn't want to be a nun, I wanted to live in New York City, and be a writer.
powkat | 04.22.07 - 12:01 am | #

Although I don't work in any field related to the the area the article is referring too...I have always watched peoples behaviour, and have always tried to find out why and what drives certain thoughts and behaviour.

And surprise surprise, I agree with the Hypothesis.

I'd also like to expand on the behaviour common amongst those likely to Vote or support Repugs., and that is, that they are far more likely NOT to try and understand other peoples situation.
Katrina? Iraq?

I don't believe that many Repugs would give much thought as to the absolute Hell that the US (and other culpable nations like the UK and Australia) have brought upon the people of Iraq.
So many deaths, so many displaced, so many young children who have lost a Father/Brother/Uncle that will grow up hating the West for what they needlessly did to their Nation/Family/Life.

Literaly Millions of people now have a very REAL reason to hate America.
Wess | 04.22.07 - 12:20 am | #

smafdy,

My mother and her parents were Japanese Americans. Grandmother came here in 1902. She was the first woman in the family to graduate from College (Go Trojans!) and she put three of her four sisters thru college.

My grandfather was born on Hawaii in the Waipio Valley, when it was still a territory. He was brought to California by a missionary couple. He served as their houseboy while he went to college (Go Oxy!).

There is this myth on the left in which Roosevelt cured the depression with his economic policies. In fact, it was WWII that pulled America (and much of the world) out of economic depression. What Roosevelt did do is provide leadership that pulled America thru the depression and the war.

This is not to say that he didn't alleviate suffering here and there with his policies. Nor would I deny that there are no benefits to the Welfare State he created. As a conservative, as a person who prefers economic stability, I agree with the need for safety nets. (I don't think they should be sacrosanct. I'm a great admirer of Clinton for the work he did for welfare reform.)

Labels, therefore, are rather useless.
The Gay Species

Not completely useless, but certainly very limited in their usefulness. And not always easy to tell who is who as language shifts, groups move about the intellectual landscape, alliances form and dissolve, and certain labels become pejorative.

Neoliberals are not statist nor purely libertarian either. They are believers in the positive transformative powers of free markets and free trade.

The Neocons descended from the Neoliberals, but are radically different. In addition to their idolatry of (or perhaps lip service to) free markets, they are for a strong state imposing its will on the world.
---

Jones,

I feel about Hillary much as I do about McCain, only more so. She'll do or say anything to get elected. She's a product being manufactured for us to purchase on November 2008.

I suspect she is a neocon. Don't laugh! Perhaps what is scariest is that she might be much more competent and effective than the doofus neocons that control the administration currently.
marcos | 04.22.07 - 2:42 am | #

You can't demonize people because they are right wing politically. - Chimay

Aha, but why bother "demonizing" demons? We all know what they are.

And since the Republican party has the values and goals of demons - what kind of people would support it? And...please don't give me that crap that they are not bad people - that they are just ignorant, etc. After all that has happened and all that is happening - you are indeed a rare animal, if you are unaware of what the Republican party is all about. And...if you happen to be one of this rare animals, all you have to do is go to my site and watch one of my unique historical documentaries and wallah - you'll get your stubborn and weak eyes pried opened.
rcg | Homepage | 04.22.07 - 4:00 am | #

"open"

oops...
rcg | Homepage | 04.22.07 - 4:01 am | #

Liberal or conservative. Democrat or Republican. It seems everyone is dead set on being part of one of two opposing groups. I'm neither and both, and I know this is true for many others. Categories do not define everyone. I'm really starting to get sick to my stomach at the fact that people can't seem to break out of this box.
samhadr | 04.22.07 - 8:23 am | #

Ah, but these things can be deceiving, and lead one into making over-broad generalizations--essentially what this whole thread has been. Consider, for example, me. I fit the conservative-child profile pretty accurately: I didn't have friends, I was fearful, I was vulnerable. I got picked on relentlessly and never stood up to my attackers, so clearly I lacked self-reliance.

Of course, there's another word for that personality type--the geek, which I was. I read constantly, I slept through math class and still did better than anyone else, and I was terribly, terribly socially awkward, pretty much all through my primary and secondary education.

And yet I never had the urge toward authoritarianism that's described here. I never considered myself a Republican; I never thought of church as anything but faintly silly.

Sure, I read "Ender's Game" (which draws on an oppressed-dork tradition going back at least to "Slan") and "Atlas Shrugged" when I was a teenager, but I grew out of my whole "angry at a world that never loved me and now they'll pay" phase by the time I was halfway through college.

On the other hand, I don't like people. Oh, I'll support policies which help people, and I feel a burning sense of indignation when I read about the scourge of poverty, but I could never be in one of the helping professions, a doctor or a social worker, because I can't care personally about everyone who walks in the door.

I'm well aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I wanted to provide an illustrative counterexample to the idea (which, to be fair, doesn't appear in the paper) that everyone who was picked on in high school grew up to be a soulless authoritarian monster.

This may be my oversensitivity, but it reeks of "nerds all grow up to be Jonah Goldberg!", or, more to the point, "let's pick on the nerds!". Of course, others have pointed out the thread of frequently-ignorant libertarianism that runs through (or ran through) Silicon Valley prior to the dot-com bust. And, of course, geek luminaries such as open source evangelist Eric Raymond and SF author Dan Simmons do fit the profile.

But it's a stereotype to paint all geeks with that brush. The readership of Slashdot tends to lean left, for instance, and judging by the comment in the post-Columbine "Hellmouth" series (google for "Voices from the Hellmouth"), they're as dorky as anyone.

I suppose I can sum it up by asking people not to make nerds' lives any more difficult in their formative years. We don't all grow up to be monsters, and there are good reasons why things suck for us--and it's not because we're full of evil, or because we're asking for it. We're capable of growing up into sane, well-adjusted citizens, even if it doesn't happen to all of us.
grendelkhan | Homepage | 04.22.07 - 10:22 am | #

So what explains Conservatives when they're 63? Oh yeah, most are insecure need the reassurance of tradition and authority. Once a whining little brat always a whining little brat.
Fred | 04.22.07 - 10:27 am | #

That hypothesis is sheer psychobabble. I'm enough of a realist to admit that I am an insecure, cynical, anxiety-ridden, reclusive type, with few friends (good ones, though) - but my politics are completely progressive. I have few illusions about humanity and its inherent generosity - most people seem to want as much as they can get for themselves, feel that they are eminently Deserving, and don't really feel that Other People (people who are not like them) should get an even break. Those who feel this way most fervently are neo-Conservatives who support Bush/Cheney and their New World Order horror show. That doesn't mean I think we should give up trying to bring about a fair and compassionate system that will give EVERYONE on the planet access to their birthright as humans: clean water to drink, enough food to eat, decent shelter and clothing, and the dignity of their innate humanity.
Guinnevere | 04.22.07 - 10:46 am | #

Grendel and Guinnevere,
You both mean that what you can RECALL of your respective childhoods reflects the Block et. al. study findings of the personality traits of early conservative tendency.

Please keep in mind, however, that Block et. al. took the assessed inventories based on the personality at age 3, not age 12 or even 7. If exposed to bullying (the mark of a child ingrained with fear and powerlessness, BTW) or experiencing prejudice due to being different from one's peers (encouraging of eventual self-reliance, BTW), the outgoing, self-reliant, engaged three year old can and will withdraw from peer groups out of a lack of trust.

It's not likely that either of you can recall your respective personalities and related emotions from the time you were three.

Between the ages of 4 and 12, I also experienced a great deal of peer isolation and bullying due to religious prejudice, which would eventually lead me as a teen and adult to embrace concepts of social justice. That same sectarian clash led to social judgment on my single parent family, which led me to embrace feminism at an early age.

Did it make me rather distrustful of peers and into a withdrawn child? Of course it did. But according to my mother and older sisters, at least, my personality at age three was much different than it was at age twelve.

By age 23, however, those very same experiences led me to be self-reliant, outgoing, LESS fearful and more assertive of my own worldview - and very, very, VERY liberal.

Liberals and progressives do not tend to be fearful individuals, since implied in the ideology is an embrace of future potential and of the untried in terms of social justice. What bolder social move IS there than reaching out to those different from yourself for greater understanding and social balance?
The Mean Ol' Liberal | 04.22.07 - 2:05 pm | #

Unfortunately, the words "liberal" and "conservative" are both meaningless today. We need a total political realignment to make any sense of core values. Like Hilary, I became a Goldwaterite in 1964 precisely because I admired his individuality. Yet over time I came to see the authoratarianism inherent in so-called conservatism, and it's conformist and subservient nature, so I went the other way, which worked for a while but now I find the PC on the left, not to mention the anti-semitism, particularly hard to swallow. So where I sit is more on the libertarian side of left, where I find myself sitting next to more and more conservatives unwilling to swallow Bush/Cheney's laced Kool-Aid. The GOP is corrupt and fraudulent. The Democrats are soft and hypocritical. We need a new party made up of people who value both individual rights and the collective good because the "liberal" and "conservative" make about as much sense as the word "drugs" or the "drug war" for that matter.
Michael Fremer | Homepage | 04.22.07 - 2:55 pm | #

I no longer have any desire to try and "understand" what makes Conservatives tick. They crossed the line a long time ago in my opinion. I now only view them as the enemy. I'm tired of overthinking it.
Daisy Zimmerly | 04.22.07 - 4:23 pm | #

I view politics not as conservative / liberal. Or democrats / republicans (that can change over time). Or left / right (now those are just directions!)

I prefer to view politics as either you're for an open society or not. I am. And if you're not then I'm against you.
Thing Fish | 04.22.07 - 5:07 pm | #

"I view politics not as conservative / liberal. Or democrats / republicans (that can change over time). Or left / right (now those are just directions!)

I prefer to view politics as either you're for an open society or not. I am. And if you're not then I'm against you.
Thing Fish | 04.22.07 - 5:07 pm |"

Are you certain you are for an open society; one that would be open to include those not for an open society?
Islandman | 04.22.07 - 5:28 pm | #

Islandman,

For me open society = freedom of conscience & freedom of communication. You tell me.
Thing Fish | 04.22.07 - 6:17 pm | #

Conservatives are nutjobs, plain and simple. Driven by fear and greed. That explains why the more power they accumulate in government and media, the crappier things get for those that aren't on their "A" list.
PassedPawn | 04.22.07 - 6:19 pm | #

Thing Fish,

Thank you for your response. I asked a yes or no question for brevity and clarity. Also, thanks for the mind reading assumption compliment, but I assure you that is far beyond my capabilities. I appreciate your invitation but I would not presume to tell you what you think.
Islandman | 04.22.07 - 8:16 pm | #

Don't push your middle of the road, even headed bullshit on us! Pick a side, pussy!
Андр&# | Homepage | 04.23.07 - 7:17 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan