I started inserting different groups into the arguments of Feminists, leftists et al many years ago. Try it for the justification for abortion and notice how well it would fit for a racist or any other hate group.
I, personally, was horrified by the implications in most of these justifications. That was when I began to question being a liberal, as currently defined, and gradually moved towards being a conservative.
It is one thing to stand up against those who would destroy you and the society that you are a part, but another with those who are not threat to your own existence.
There is an interesting phenomenom that those who need to have constant re-inforcement to prove to themselves that they are better, smarter, et al are insecure and are not what they wish they were. It comes under the heading of those who are do, those who are not talk or become the "firemen" who try to put out the fire in those who would succeed at life. That is one of the reasons for constantly moving the "goalposts" for to admit the success of others is to recognize one's own failures.
It is also why one sees or reads poorly reasoned arguments from those on the left and a propensity to revert to name calling instead of reasoned debate.
Dennis | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 9:20 am | #

Is there such a thing as being taught how to be a unyeilding, lockstep non-conformist? Hmmmmmmm.

Doc, as a woodworking artisan, i probably encounter similar situations to you in that i'm in a field thats fully infested with these rigid "non-conformist".

You wanna see this nauseating rigidity in all its glory, just pick up a copy of Architectural Digest and READ the articles. I think i'll puke if i see one more article on how a 10,000 sq ft house is planned around "eco friendliness", or promotes "sustainability" and "environmental awareness".

Yeahhhhh...Uhhh huhhhh.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 9:44 am | #

What's the term for people who always have to "prove" that they're superior? Compensation issues, anyone?

Last week it was Pat Schroeder preening over a survey that claimed liberals read more books than conservatives (9-8 for anyone keeping score, or some such nonsense). Last year, another "scientific" study "proved" that conservative adults were uptight and rigid as children, whereas liberal adults were the very essence of open, pure-hearted goodness as children, or some such self-serving nonsense.

Here's a study that deserves a grant: Is Liberalism a Symptom of Arrested Development, or Is Arrested Development a Symptom of Liberalism?
JEK | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 9:56 am | #

Another 'craptacular' study! Liberals are open minded and conservatives are rigid - yeah, but so what? Does open-mindedness lead to a happier more successful life? Does rigidity have any benefits? Might as well study flipping a coin.
PWT | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 10:12 am | #

Rhetorical question: Could it be that some of the goofy manifestations of liberalism we see nowadays are the result of an inability to move beyond immaturity?
snoring citizen | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 10:40 am | #

For them, the process is complete. Snow is black.
Grimmy | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 10:53 am | #

Healthcare has become crap-tacularly bad.

See http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com for some of the reasons why.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 12:16 pm | #

i thought the experiment concluded that liberals were better at tapping on que...sort of like being more trainable as a performing monkey.
vinny | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 12:16 pm | #

I don't know why people are surprised by such scientific findings.

This was predicted as a probable outcome from the closing of the Department of Phrenology.

The pseudos had to go somewhere.
Grimmy | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 12:39 pm | #

The despicable shackles imposed by objective reality.

Only if you let them.

PWT,
if you start trying to find "benefits for rigidity", you already semi-buy into the framework liberals set up. Don't give an inch.

vinny,
that's why liberals are perfect subjects for their overlords. Those pesky conservatives that have brains and know how to use them will give the Hillary-Chavez of the world headaches.
always right | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 12:52 pm | #

This study probably best provides insight into which group is more prone to take meaningless test with inconsequential results as an important task to take seriously.

You change the arbirary pecking of keys to real world task, like paying ones sub prime mortgage on time, or successfully punching a voting booth chad only once, and you'll get real world results.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 2:27 pm | #

basically I echoed pat's critique: how in the world does better key tapping translate into better "ambiguous problem solver"? This definition of ambiguous problem solving skill is really really poor, or too ambiguous to be of any use.

The study basically reminds me of a monty python skit involving the trial of a woman for being a witch by comparing her weight to a duck. Amazing how well the liberal mindset was demonstrated in that skit. This also explains the whole truffer phenomenon.

BTW, my conclusions are not being drawn fromm the results of that study but more from the way that study was organized and the discussion that followed.
vinny | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 2:28 pm | #

dammit, it is difficult to make an original comment these days...steveh beat said it better.
vinny | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 2:32 pm | #

BEND YOUR MIND, TURN YOUR STOMACH

http:// corner.nationalreview.com...ThjYTM2ZjkwOGI=

MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW MWMWMWMWMWMWMW
ytba | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 3:16 pm | #

"That is one of the reasons for constantly moving the "goalposts" for to admit the success of others is to recognize one's own failures.
It is also why one sees or reads poorly reasoned arguments from those on the left and a propensity to revert to name calling instead of reasoned debate."
Well said, Dennis!

Word of the Day: DemoBrats!
xqqme | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 3:48 pm | #

And for a non hysterical take on what the research actually says, you can check out Dave and Greta Munger's review on Science Blogs.

To whit, you'll find that:

...In other words, liberals are more likely than conservatives to have a strong response in the area of the brain used to inhibit responses at the time when they are supposed to inhibit response. So is this why Bush invaded Iraq and Kerry flip-flopped? Actually, Frank Sulloway, who made that claim, wasn't involved in the project. When the L.A. Times reporter finally interviewed Amodio [author of the study], his response was much more guarded.

According to the article, he "cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better."blockquote>

and...

The study results are actually quite modest -- the researchers claim to be the first to find a relationship between political differences and "a basic neuro-cognitive mechanism for self-regulation."

However, these results are supported by a wide range of behavioral data which does support the idea that conservatives are less willing to accept complex arguments or shades of meaning compared to liberals.

Does this mean that liberals are "hard wired" to be different from conservatives? This data alone certainly doesn't support that claim.

This study is just another in a long list to note the physiological correlates of thoughts and beliefs.

The Times article is another example of poor science writing -- and so too is Dr. Santy's post.
Jody | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 5:38 pm | #

---

Jody, that is my point exactly. Not the science per se, but the pseudoscientists who use it to promote their agenda. I happen to have a degree in biochemisty, so it is no surprise to me that there are biological correlates to every thought in the brain. It is the politicized science that comes through, not only in the LA Times article, but in every other one I read. I am certain the original article in the peer-reviewed journal doesn't come to any such conclusions; however, I have to question the methodology of using college student brains.

As for my own writing. Take it or leave it--I don't particularly care what your opionion of it happens to be.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 5:44 pm | #

From the article that Jody linked to:

In other words, liberals are more likely than conservatives to have a strong response in the area of the brain used to inhibit responses at the time when they are supposed to inhibit response.

Doc, the science of the article is accurate. It's the reporting on the science that is wrong, or just way, way, too simplified. Thinking that it's all part of a vast plot is inaccurate too. Science is typically reported poorly in the mainstream press, but in a country where most people believe the Earth is a few thousand years old and space aliens regularly abduct sleepers, travelers, and cows, it's par for the course.

There's no methodological flaw in using college students. Again, their brain differences relative to other possible cohorts isn't as grand as the popular press makes out. (Scientific American had a good special issue about that over the summer.) Even granting your point, that really would only mean that the study is generalizable to college students and not the wider population.

Lastly, one writer to another, of course you care what I think. It may not bother you what I say, but you know as well as I do that writers don't write for just shits and giggles. We're needy pricks, especially those of us with letters after our names.
Jody | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 6:41 pm | #

Jody, if us common workin folk didn't come off as gullible, we'd appear way to suspicious when we purposely overcharge neurotic elitist with letters after their name.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 7:44 pm | #

jody, most studies have design flaws. As an example: "it was shown that people with big feet are much better spellers. In a sample of students from a k5 school, the students with largest feet did much better than kids with the smallest feet." The study being discussed in this trend is horribly designed to support any of the conclusions reported in la times, and from my perspective it was a waste of time and money. Please reconsider your statement: "the science of the article is accurate." What part of that article was accurate? Perhaps the date of the publishing and the spelling of the author's name. Everything else is propaganda. BTW, propaganda is by nature meant to deceive and confuse its intended audience.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 9:50 pm | #

This study does jive with Paul Deignan’s (the anti-abortion conservative) little scientific study, though. He found a similar axis as well.

http://info-theory.blogspot.com/...- political.html
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 2:02 am | #

To quote P. J. O'Rourke:
"The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things-war and hunger and date rape-liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal."

P. J. O'Rourke, U.S. journalist. "Give War a Chance, Introduction" (1992).

Or in geek-speak: "Garbage (liberal academics) in, garbage (craptacular "studies") out."

Dr. Lysenko would have been sooo proud.
Georgej | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 3:26 am | #

This is nothing new in the history of totalitarian ideologies.

An elite ruling class, lacking moral authority for their oppressive ideology, produces bogus scientific studies purporting to show that a certain target-group is physiologically defective & inferior.

Disseminating this kind of propaganda gives the totalitarians a useful narrative when it comes time to defend some radical and blatantly anti-democratic measure. Imagine a future President issuing an executive order to double the size of the Supreme Court and stack it with radical leftists. Seen as a travesty of process, shouts of protest will come, but they thugs will whip out the old "well, you know these extra-chromosome right wing opponents are physiologically different than you and I. They have a problem with progress, and so we must leave them behind and do the right thing for the Children, etc. etc."

Keep a close eye on the radical left. They're laying down a narrative that's been layed down before.
bulbasaur | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 9:00 am | #

I wonder how they would account for people like me who started out as liberals, were liberals well past adolescence, and became neo- or regular conservatives as a result of experience and observation?

Did the liberal half of my brain have a fight with the conservative half--or is their study hogwash? I report, you decide.
Alex Bensky | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 9:47 am | #

I believe the 'leftists' have been allowed to classify us 'classic liberals' as evil neo-conservatives simply to dismiss us.
There is no room for me in their 'collectivist' realm.
This is simply, as stated before, another 'scientific study' to add a label to the opposition. How tolerant of them!
xqqme | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 10:58 am | #

Back in early 1980's when I was a young college-aged Liberal, like many of my peers I too consumed a fair amount of LSD, hooch, cocaine, speed and various other 'mind-expanding' stuff so I am guessing this is what these psychopathic doctors are referencing in this study about open-minded Liberals.

Of course some twenty years later I was mugged by reality six years and a day ago and am proud to say I have gone through recovery; proud to be a neo-con!
syn | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 1:10 pm | #

Suek reminds me of this quote I once read:

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

- Winston Churchill

See Suek, you have nothing to be ashamed of.
xman | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 3:51 pm | #

oops, I meant syn. sorry.
xman | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 3:52 pm | #

It is refreshing to see so many "classical liberals" who have trod the same path away from the dark side that degraded liberalism. There should be a gradual movement from liberalism as one grows more aware of the possible, begins to asks questions such as who, what where, when and how will a problem be solved with the best possible outcome given the ramifications of any decision made and has a better understanding of human nature. Probably there are a number of us who were part of the democratic party when it actually contained Democrats like "Scoop" Jackson and JFK. Can you imagine any one of these two men being able to identify with that thing that calls itself the democratic party? I think not!
Now having the democratic label is nothing more than a hiding place for socialists, anarchists et al who cannot afford to have the general public know who they really are.
Dennis | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 3:59 pm | #

I can't help but think that if you became a "neo-con" then you weren't truly a liberal in the first place.

All the true liberals I've met couldn't change their point of view without large doses of Clozapine.
Hard Right | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 7:05 pm | #

My life’s journey has taken me from liberal/conservative apathetic to conservative/liberal cynic.

I guess reality just mugs different people in different ways.
americafirst | Email | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 7:27 pm | #

Note that I said classical liberal. What is defined as liberal today has little to do with true liberalism. The neocon label is applied primarily because those on the left, in an effort to seem middle of the road, pushed all definitions to the left therefore pushing many liberals into the definition of neocon.
And as I said there is a natural progression from various points of view as one matures. I can well imagine that many leftists would not change their views as that requires growing up and dealing with reality as it is, not feelings.
Dennis | Email | Homepage | 09.13.07 - 9:27 am | #