Fear brings people closer to conservatism
Deuteros
Psychology Today. It was about political stances, and how most people's
politics have little to do with reason and more to do with personality
traits and education level, among other things. According to the article,
psychologists have discovered some interesting underlying personality
differences between liberals and conservatives. A few I found to be
somewhat surprising:
"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."
"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."
Getting to the main point of the article, it seems that those who have the
greatest fear of death, a need for an authority figure, and who have a
one-dimensional view of the world are more likely to be conservative. On a
side note, this would help explain why the vast majority of those in the
military tend to vote Republican.
http://fraudwasteabuse.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/fear-brings-people-closer-to-conservatism/
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <esan80$hhg$1...@news.onet.pl>
Orwell knew this only too well.
--
osprey
The entire study, if you want to call it that, is a total sham and
completely biased.
Notice, no references and no way to verify the "opinion" study.
I am conservative on many issues, more liberal on some. I like many
forms of entertainment, and I don't really care for talk radio except
for comedy. I don't have a fear of death. I am a musician, I like
all types of music, I like romantic comedies as well as all types of
comedy. My wife is conservative, she loves books, she has a diary, she
loves romantic comedies, ect...
Myself and my wife, both being more conservative than liberal don't
fit your biased study. In fact, most of our friends we have who are
conservative don't fit it at all.
Maybe you liberals need to believe this nonsense in order to feel
somewhat superior, since for the most part liberals are a minority and
not really liked by the mainstream.
The study is a biased piece of crap, not even worth the paper it would
be typed on.
It's nothing more than a stereotype.
David W. Barnes
osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
You denying the truth doesnıt make something untrue.
> Notice, no references and no way to verify the "opinion" study.
It is about peopleıs opinions, you idiot. And Psychology Today does
not engage in unverified, biased articles.
>
> I am conservative on many issues, more liberal on some. I like many
> forms of entertainment, and I don't really care for talk radio except
> for comedy. I don't have a fear of death. I am a musician, I like
> all types of music, I like romantic comedies as well as all types of
> comedy. My wife is conservative, she loves books, she has a diary, she
> loves romantic comedies, ect...
The Right Wing is driven by fear. You are the worst.
>
> Myself and my wife, both being more conservative than liberal don't
> fit your biased study. In fact, most of our friends we have who are
> conservative don't fit it at all.
That is called anecdotal evidence, and it is useless.
>
> Maybe you liberals need to believe this nonsense in order to feel
> somewhat superior, since for the most part liberals are a minority and
> not really liked by the mainstream.
Or maybe we care about the truth.
>
> The study is a biased piece of crap, not even worth the paper it would
> be typed on.
> It's nothing more than a stereotype.
Or maybe you are in denial.
David W. Barnes
osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
Notice how Osprey claims this is łbiased˛ and a łsham˛ without any
offer of proof whatsoever.
This demonstrates what I and others have been saying for years about
Osprey. When confronted with an inconvenient truth, he simply claims
it is a łlie˛ with nothing to substantiate that stupid claim.
Ray Fischer
Accoridng to some dishonest moron who thinks that wishes count for
more than reality
>Notice, no references and no way to verify the "opinion" study.
Notice that Asshole is too stupid to find the actual journal article.
Rather than try to refute the actual research he whines about the
story.
>I am conservative on many issues, more liberal on some.
You're a moron on all issues.
> I like many
>forms of entertainment,
Except the printed word.
> and I don't really care for talk radio except
>for comedy. I don't have a fear of death.
Why do you have to lie so stupidly?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james g. keegan jr.
really?
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
james g. keegan jr.
one of heishman's most visible problems is that there is no way for
him to prove that any of his lies are true.
that is probably why he runs away when challenged.
bval...@aol.com
Know the study well. This is what they did - a bunch of leftie
professors with an ax to grind studied children in Berkley, CA, the
most liberal section of the country. What they found out is that
conservative children who are raised in an area where their beliefs
are ridiculed tend to be insecure. I suppose the same could be said
for the one black kid who is raised in a neighborhood of bigots. What
do we find out when we study liberal children who are raised in
conservative towns? Don't know - the truth seeking professors didn't
bother with that study.
David W. Barnes
keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
By the way, this is a great article and well supported. It is at:
<http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20061222-000001.html>
bval...@aol.com
> In article <1172907308.398641.237...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
No more than your insistance that it's true, makes it true.
>
> > Notice, no references and no way to verify the "opinion" study.
>
> It is about people¹s opinions, you idiot. And Psychology Today does
> not engage in unverified, biased articles.>>>>
Sez who? Because it was in Psychology Today, it can not be true?
> > I am conservative on many issues, more liberal on some. I like many
> > forms of entertainment, and I don't really care for talk radio except
> > for comedy. I don't have a fear of death. I am a musician, I like
> > all types of music, I like romantic comedies as well as all types of
> > comedy. My wife is conservative, she loves books, she has a diary, she
> > loves romantic comedies, ect...
>
> The Right Wing is driven by fear. >>>>
How many times have we heard about global warming? Isn't Gore trying
to drive by fear?
>
> > Myself and my wife, both being more conservative than liberal don't
> > fit your biased study. In fact, most of our friends we have who are
> > conservative don't fit it at all.
> That is called anecdotal evidence, and it is useless.>>>
Of course. Who should I believe? Uncited Berkley "Psychologys", or
my lying eyes?
>
>
>
> > Maybe you liberals need to believe this nonsense in order to feel
> > somewhat superior, since for the most part liberals are a minority and
> > not really liked by the mainstream.
>
> Or maybe we care about the truth.>>>
No, that's not it.
> > The study is a biased piece of crap, not even worth the paper it would
> > be typed on.
> > It's nothing more than a stereotype.
>
> Or maybe you are in denial.>>>>
Ah, so the act of denying a lie, proves the lie. Yeah, you care
deeply about the truth.
jem
wrote:
Please tell me what the professors' agenda, or axe to grind was all
about? I am wondering what difference it makes if an area is more
liberal or conservative when it comes to little children. I don't
remember schoolyards with little kids that had a clue what a liberal
or conservative is, and nobody gave a damn what the parents politics
were. "Lefty" would more likely be used if a kid had a broken right
arm or something like that, but politics? No. This is from nursery
school, not college.
Do conservatives teach their little kids to ridicule "lefty" kids? How
do they identify them? Might the lunchbox be too gay?
Did the implications of the study offend you?
Are all professors "lefty" in your mind? Maybe not the bible colleges
eh?
Rich Travsky
Cite ->
james g. keegan jr.
Rich Travsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
you're joking, right?
osprey, to the best of my knowledge has never supported any
allegation he ever posted to the abortion newsgroups when called on
to do so.
Lucy Stone
LOL! That'll be the day, Rich.
Pinch
Really? To be liberal is to think for yourself. Your whole position is
based on what other ding-dongs like you think.
> I am conservative on many issues, more liberal on some. I like many
> forms of entertainment,
But not reading. Except for garabge news.
> and I don't really care for talk radio except
> for comedy.
Some of your posts read like transcribed garbage from some of those
neocon shit talk radio programs, around here. I usually listen to them
-- but with great angst -- because an educated person has to be able
to see things from all sides. That is how I can come to this opinion
of you and the other weirdos who don't know shit.
> I don't have a fear of death.
That's why you're not in Iraq fighting this war in which you
faithfully support?
> I am a musician,
An unsuccessful one.
> I like
> all types of music,
Hindi music? Reggae? Zulu?
> I like romantic comedies as well as all types of
> comedy. My wife is conservative,
She had sex before she married you and had an abortion, too.
> she loves books,
Yeah, the mass-produced cheap Harlequin type.
>she has a diary,
Adults would have a journal.
> she
> loves romantic comedies, ect...
It's what she dreams of having.
> Myself and my wife, both being more conservative than liberal don't
> fit your biased study. In fact, most of our friends we have who are
> conservative don't fit it at all.
If y'all didn't have your state jobs and pensions and government-
supplemented homes and insurance, you'd see things from the viewpoint
of most Americans. You'd change your mind in a New York minute.
> Maybe you liberals need to believe this nonsense in order to feel
> somewhat superior, since for the most part liberals are a minority and
> not really liked by the mainstream.
LOL! WANNA BET, CHUBBY?
> The study is a biased piece of crap, not even worth the paper it would
> be typed on.
Like your WC degree?
> It's nothing more than a stereotype.
But YOU see fit to stereotype others. Why is that, Cornholio?
bowman
>> Notice, no references and no way to verify the "opinion" study.
>
> It is about people¹s opinions, you idiot. And Psychology Today does
> not engage in unverified, biased articles.
You are being ironic, aren't you?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
bval...@aol.com
> On 3 Mar 2007 11:00:11 -0800, "bvall...@aol.com" <bvall...@aol.com>
They were liberals, and they were interested in smearing
conservatives.
>>> I am wondering what difference it makes if an area is more
> liberal or conservative when it comes to little children.>>>
If a child goes to school, and listens to the values he learns at home
ridiculed, that child will be insecure.
Server 13
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173800822.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
So you have a cite for all this, right, serial liar?
bval...@aol.com
> <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Server 13
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173815894.9...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah032206.asp
Complete failure noted. You claimed:
What they found out is that
> >> >conservative children who are raised in an area where their beliefs
> >> >are ridiculed tend to be insecure. I suppose the same could be said
> >> >for the one black kid who is raised in a neighborhood of bigots. What
> >> >do we find out when we study liberal children who are raised in
> >> >conservative towns? Don't know - the truth seeking professors didn't
> >> >bother with that study.
The article says:
"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."
In short, you just tried to lie to us again - as always. roflmao
bval...@aol.com
Here's what I wrote, matched with what you edited out of the article:
"> > >> >conservative children who are raised in an area where their
beliefs
> > >> >are ridiculed tend to be insecure. I suppose the same could be said
> > >> >for the one black kid who is raised in a neighborhood of bigots. "
"Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley - of course -
found that of the roughly 100 kids they tracked for 20 years, starting
in nursery school, the whiny kids were more likely to become
conservatives.
UC Berkeley professor Jack Block's theory, according to the Star, is
that insecure kids look for "reassurance provided by tradition and
authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident
kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find
liberal politics more congenial."
Ah yes, in Berkeley, Calif., nothing is more rebellious to the status
quo than being a liberal. Why, they must be pariahs at the local
organic food co-op. I mean, it's just plain heroic to embrace liberal
politics in a town where residents cast 90 percent of their votes for
John Kerry and only 6.6 percent of their votes for Bush.
But don't nominate these mavericks for a Profiles in Courage award
just yet. If you read down to the 15th paragraph in the story, you'll
discover that there was "a .27 correlation between being self-reliant
in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult." In other words,
self-reliance explains seven percent of the variance between kids who
bravely became liberal and tykes who supinely embraced conservative
politics.
> > >> >What do we find out when we study liberal children who are raised in
> > >> >conservative towns? Don't know - the truth seeking professors didn't
> > >> >bother with that study.
One obvious problem with this sort of analysis is that the single best
predictor of partisan affiliation is the political orientation of your
parents. In Berkeley, the most liberal majority-white city in America,
most kids are going to be liberal because their parents are liberal.
If one or two of the whinier kids turn out to be conservative, it
might have more to do with the fact that their parents are whiny
conservatives. Heck, if I lived in Berkeley, I might be whiny too.
To call these sorts of studies entirely useless is probably unfair. No
doubt Block has more or less accurately charted the path of his
subjects. And even he concedes that the study tells us little about
the rest of the country. But it's also pretty clear that Block wants
to find psychologically satisfying explanations for what makes people
conservatives. It's not hard to imagine that if the whiny, sniveling
brats turned out to be liberals, he would explain this as proof that
liberals are born more emotionally sensitive and with a greater acuity
for spotting injustice.
Perhaps the more revealing psychological insight can be found in the
fact that so many liberals think disagreeing with them is a form of
psychosis