Asymmetrical Information

I think he forgot:

- Conservatives are made of snakes, snails, and puppy-dog tails.

Jeesh, is this what passes for policy analysis now?

Conservatives are more likely to have been insecure as kids, whereas liberals are more likely to have been confident as kids.

Just as I thought. Liberals were bullies as kids, and now that the the other kids are big enough to fight back, they need the power of the state to continue their bullying.

That, or "the other" in a Berkeley daycare center in the 60s was conservative rather than liberal.

Is it conservative to keep writing the same "conservatism as psychological disorder" articles decade after decade?

Is it conservative to keep writing the same "conservatism as psychological disorder" articles decade after decade?

No, just completely talentless and arrogant. Either that or they're hoping that if they keep spouting the same unsupported assertions backed by, at best, third rate political analysis, people will start believing them.

At least they edited out the sections describing how conservatives were more likely to be bedwetters and serial killers.

I believe it is highly unlikely that you are a liberal, except perhaps in the classical sense. I also believe it is highly unlikely you are a duck, even if...

At least they edited out the sections describing how conservatives were more likely to be bedwetters and serial killers.

I thought that was Trekkies? At least in Canada. I swear, there was an article . . .

I've always known I was a liberal and often wonder why anyone thinks other-wise. I also don't quite understand why most conservatives call themselves liberals nowadays.

"How do we count people who keep things tidy under (psychological) protest?"

People employed by anal-retentive bosses, in your case; or, people married to anal-retentive spouses, in my case.

Baloney - my room was always messy and my desk at work!

No way, shape or form was I ever a liberal/progressive/socialist.

Plus, I love color, and green is and has always been my fav.

As to insecure kids, are libs or conservatives more likely to be a product of divorce?

The above-comments remind me of an article on Pat Buchanan for the New Republic (Jan. 22, 1996) by Charles Lane and Jennifer Bradley.

To discredit Buchanan, Lane and Bradley cited "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950), a book by Thedor Adorno and others on what types of people are likely to become Nazis and fascists. (I don't think they examined the types of people likely to become communists. They always mean well.)

In section II, making their case against Buchanan, Lane and Bradley write, "After all, in the words of the Adorno group, in the authoritarian personality, there is no place for ambivalence or ambiguities. Every attempt is made to eliminate them, but they remain as potentials which might interfere at any time."

In Section IV, the authors attempt to show that Buchanan is a hypcrite. They note his opinion on Nixon's trip to China: "You know, I'm ambivalent about that."

What's funny is that none of the editors who proofed the article caught that. (Then again, the New Republic's editors missed a lot in those days.)

(In case anyone is interested, I supported Steve Forbes in the Republican primary in 1996.)

The "Psychology Today" assertions are utterly false and full of crap. By their definition, Hillary Clinton would be to the right of Pat Buchanan.

"Psychology Today" is as phony and useless a publication as "The Futurist," which has no clue about how the "future" is likely to turn out.

Maybe I'll mimic Psychology Today's methologies to perform a study on the relative intelligence of the political wings. The really tricky part is figuring out how to identify conservatives and liberal. Oooh. I've got it. Conservatives are people with IQs above 100. Liberals are people with IQs below 100. I wonder how the study will turn out?

Jeesh, is this what passes for policy analysis now?

At the risk of having someone invoke Godwin’s Law I do remember an interesting article on how both Nazis and communists were constantly trying to find a “psychological” explanation for their opponent’s views.

Who was it that said, a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged?

Conservatives have a greater fear of death. That's why the military and police and fire departments are full of liberals.

Does anybody believe this?

It's just like the placemat at the Chinese restaurant said! It must be true.

AT- That was pedophilia, IIRC, and it was limited to TOS, not to the much cooler TNG & Voyager series.

Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers

John Kerry was "portrayed" as a flip-flopper for repeatedly changing his stated views, not for "seeing many sides to every issue".

The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false.

... unless you know something about what passes for empiricism and scientific rigor in the social sciences. :)

Didn't this come from some "study" that purported to show that conservatives had these properties as kids -- based on notes from a single nursery school -- in Berkeley -- probably that place in the country where a conservative most legitimately feels beleagured?

-dk

IMHO, conservatives (at least the religious ones) are less afraid of death, because we don't believe this is all there is.

But really, Cowen's report isn't meant to be taken seriously, is it?

IMHO, conservatives (at least the religious ones) are less afraid of death, because we don't believe this is all there is.

That's why they wanted Bush and Congress to intervene to save a life of a person in permanent vegetative state? And is that why they are against assisted suicide for terminally ill patients?

I know Irving Kristol, an ex-Marxist and now a leading neo-conservative, once said, "A neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

There is also the reversal: A liberal is a conservative who just got arrested. (No idea who first said it.)

I lean conservative (though also in a wider, cultural Peter Viereck sort of way). I have a lot of books (which I still have to read straight through), and my room is a mess.

Were the popular kids and the not-so-popular kids (of whom I was one) in grammar school and high school more likely to become conservative or liberal?

Funny how all you guys attack this study without even considering the possibility that it is accurate, ON AVERAGE. I can't say that this study is accurate, but one thing I can guarantee, your personal anecdotes are not science. Plus your knee-jerk reactions seem to indicate that you see some truth to it.

As an example, maybe it's NOT that conservatives are religious, and therefore don't fear death. Maybe the study is correct, and since conservatives do tend to fear death they tend to become more religious as a source of comfort.

I am told that there is also some evidence to suggest that liberals always were much harder to wake up as teen agers and were very unwilling to pay attention in class,much preferring to read and otherwise annoy teachers. It is also said that liberals never wrote home from summer camps and otherwise really drove their parental units to distraction.

AT- That was pedophilia, IIRC, and it was limited to TOS, not to the much cooler TNG & Voyager series.

Hmm, as I get older, I like TOS more and more and TNG less and less. Does that mean I should stay away from Chuck E Cheese?

Funny how all you guys attack this study without even considering the possibility that it is accurate, ON AVERAGE. I can't say that this study is accurate, but one thing I can guarantee, your personal anecdotes are not science. Plus your knee-jerk reactions seem to indicate that you see some truth to it.

Let's Fisk it.

Liberals are messier than conservatives. Their rooms have more clutter, more color. Conservatives’ rooms are better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books and their books are on a greater variety of topics.

Conservatives are more disciplined thinkers, better able to focus their efforts on a goal. Liberals tend to be dilettantes who are easily distracted and give up sooner.

Compared to liberals, conservatives are less tolerant of ambiguity, a trait researchers say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider."

Compared to conservatives, liberals are less able to make decisions based on limited information and complicate things unnecessarily. They are able to rationalize their own inconsistencies better.

Conservatives have a greater fear of death.

Liberals have a greater focus on the short term.

Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

Conservatives are less easily swayed by others. They appreciate inherent quality more and are less entertained by novelty for its own sake.

Conservatives are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, rule-following, duty, and orderliness.

Liberals are lower on respect for others and self-disclipline.

Conservatives have a greater need to reach a decision quickly and stick to it.

Liberals take longer to make up their minds and often second-guess themselves, and are less able to justify their actions.

When people are prompted to think about death—a state of mind psychologists call mortality salience—they actually become more conservative.

Liberals are less concerned with posterity and less likely to struggle with giving meaning to their lives.

Conservatives are more likely to have been insecure as kids, whereas liberals are more likely to have been confident as kids.

Conservatives are more likely to have been thoughtful, sensitive, and well-behaved as kids, while liberals are more likely to have been selfish, obstinate, and abusive.

Liberals insist that CFL bulbs are objectively disgusting products that nobody should buy, while conservatives are more likely to tolerate differences in illumination preferences.

I like doggies.

"To discredit Buchanan, Lane and Bradley cited "The Authoritarian Personality" (1950), a book by Thedor Adorno and others on what types of people are likely to become Nazis and fascists. (I don't think they examined the types of people likely to become communists. They always mean well.)"

I prefer Eric Hoffer's analysis: the same type of people become Communists and fascists/Nazis. He cited many who'd switched between those ideologies, as well as earlier examples such as Saul/Paul's conversion from persecuting Christians to leading the early Church. IMO, Buchanan fits the profile - but he's not at all a typical conservative.

How completely silly.

I hate these generality studies. Like, "Women are less likely to be good a math and science." and "Black men are more likely to end up in jail."

Well, yes, it may be technically true, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some reason for it to be true aside from the nature argument implied. And even if it is true, it's not true for everyone.

I was a well behaved child. I don't like ambiguity. I'm quite risk-averse. I was a very insecure child. I like reaching decisions quickly and sticking to them, even when I discover that I'm wrong. I'm also a self-proclaimed liberal.

This is useless information and should be viewed at as silly and ineffective data. I'm not even sure why this post generated so many comments except to point out the fallacy of the article.

"Funny how all you guys attack this study without even considering the possibility that it is accurate, ON AVERAGE."

And women are less likely than men to excel in math on the average. And major university presidents and HR departments of software development firms get excoriated at best for even mentioning that fact.

-dk

and furthermore, it's those "tolerant" liberals who do the excoriating.

-dk

I'm sick of the term "liberal". The term is fundamentally a lie. "Liberals" are always telling us that "we" should do something about everything that strikes them as wrong. They should call themselves "illiberals".

As for you, Jane, you voted for the socialists. We need to hold your feet to the fire.

When the choice is between two flavors of socialists, other parameters have got to come into play. "Kick out the incumbent" is not a bad heuristic. So far it seems to be working -- look at Reid & Durbin vs. Pelosi et.al. The only thing I actively regret is impending phaseout of the tax cuts. Maybe they'll at least remember to make the IRA contribution limits bigger...

AT,

You have convinced me that the study was, indeed, completely accurate. Kudos on a job well done!

The only trait that I've seen posessed by 100% of Liberals (in the modern Orwellian sense of the word) is the belief that everyone else is an idiot and needs to be coerced into doing what's right.

You have convinced me that the study was, indeed, completely accurate. Kudos on a job well done!

Actually, what AT did, in stunningly capable fashion, was prove just how much the presentation of such studies (regardless of the merits of mthodology) depends upon who gets to spin the results. "Creative and broadly-interested X vs. stuffy and boring Y" just as quickly becomes "Irresponsible and unfocused X vs. careful and conscientious Y" without harming the evidence in the slightest.

In fact, both sets of traits (creativity and broad interests, careful and conscientious behavior) have beneficial applications, and many successful people temper one with some of the other. So the study, able only to present its findings with language such as "more likely to...", may be unintentionally highlighting the extremes, and minimizing the wide range of blending that can be found closer to the middle.

Woodstock,

Your point regarding anecdotal evidence is well taken. That isn't science. Criticism of methodology, however, is. The studies the Psychology Today article relies on have a consistent problem. They consistently beg all questions through their definitions of ideologies. As a result, we get the absurdities of Stalin as a right-winger or Bush and Havel having totally opposite ideologies. Also, as a result, you get things like conservatives (those with tendency to rely on authority) tend to be insecure. Well, the doctrine works because the authors predefine conservatism in a very specific, non-standard, way. But, when the actual metric being studied, reliance on authority is stated in the conclusion, the results become the essentially trivial: those with tendency to rely on authority) tend to be insecure.

--As an example, maybe it's NOT that conservatives are religious, and therefore don't fear death. Maybe the study is correct, and since conservatives do tend to fear death they tend to become more religious as a source of comfort.--

Well, the progressive/liberal wing isn't called "the death cult" for nothing.

For everyone else, except for themselves, those boomers are hanging on w/everything they've got.

Bill, I'm not arguing that this is a groundbreaking study. But science is never trivial IF it is accurate science. I don't know that their methodology was flawed. From the article in Psychology Today, the methodology seemed sound as long as the Berkeley study used a sufficiently random sample of teachers (it doesn't say) But as you have reasoned out, many of the conclusions do make sense. And political ideology as a dependent variable is not a bad idea, because at least it is consistent. Also, whether these are good or bad traits is a value judgement, and it could only be viewed as a criticism of conservative ideology to the extent that conservatives think these are bad traits to have.

By the way, I am fully in favor of ALL of these kinds of studies. Just because something is only true on average doesn't mean it should be censored or criticized. There is a lot of hypocrisy by those who would criticize this study but supported the study claiming that there is a genetic explanation for women being underrepresented in top positions in math and science. For the record, I had Mr. Summers' back on that one, and I will support this study all day long until there is evidence that the methodology was flawed.

Woodstock,

But I think you're missing my point here. Their claim of using ideology as a dependent variable is simply not accurate. To see why this is the case, I'll repeat my earlier post:

I'll mimic Psychology Today's methologies to perform a study on the relative intelligence of the political wings. The really tricky part is figuring out how to identify conservatives and liberal. Oooh. I've got it. Conservatives are people with IQs above 100. Liberals are people with IQs below 100.

If that were the study, that would be stupid. But I guarantee that's not what the authors of the study did in this case. Not everyone would agree with the definition of the ideologies, but not everyone who votes Republican is conservative and not everyone who votes Democrat is liberal. So just going by self identification is not a reliable indicator of ideology. Thus, it made sense for them to ask questions about ideology to determine people's ideology.

The interesting thing about the study is not that people who respect authority and tradition are insecure with conflicting ideas, since that is almost by definition. What is interesting is how other less obvious personality traits seem to be linked with political ideology. And I bet Rove is not surprised by these results.

If you disagree with their definition of ideology, that is fine. But defining ideology is not an easy task. One of my biggest criticisms of Bush, for example, is that he often acts too much like a liberal on several key issues, even though he would probably describe himself as a conservative.

Let's not forget to point out the obvious: that the European right/left continuum where we place the usual evil 20th century fascist dictators cannot be compared to the American political spectrum. American conservatives aren't like European right-wingers (although we do have a few European-style right-wingers here). But you knew this.

"IMHO, conservatives (at least the religious ones) are less afraid of death, because we don't believe this is all there is."

Does one have to be religious in order to be a "conservative"? Yes or no?

If people can't even agree on what a conservative is, it's kind of pointless to pin down the personality type.

When I read the article, I had the distinct impression that "conservative" meant "whatever we, the author and researchers, are not." Connotatively negative language to describe "conservative" traits throughout, versus connotatively positive language to describe "liberal" traits; "fear of death" almost a fugue phrase throughout rather than, say, "attachment to" or "conviction of the value of" or "love of life"; dire statements about electoral politics followed by the simple solution to our political ills (as strongly implied) - just think rationally! If we'd all just think before we vote, why, we'd all be liberals.

The author stops short of that statement, but certainly draws us along until we'd infer it. So my argument isn't against the study necessarily (though it does seem mighty dicey to use loaded political language such as "liberal" and "conservative" to sum up patterns of behavior that may or may not conform to political identification) but against its presentation. It's as if the author wasn't even trying to maintain an appearance of neutrality. Or as if he knows his audience.

I find it really hard to believe that "afraid of death" is a characteristic of conservatives. Unless you take it to the trivial - don't jump out of perfectly good airplanes or do other stupid things that are likely to result in bodily damage or death.

It's not being "afraid" of death, it's having a respect for your own body and the obvious consequences of reckless actions. In other words, conservatives leave being "invulnerable" to the teenagers who don't know any better, whereas liberals carry that immaturity into their adult lives. And then demand that the government support them and heal the pain that they wouldn't have gotten into if they'd used their brains.

On average, of course. Good fisking, by the way.

Woodstock,

A couple of the studies have made the internet rounds, and, yes, that is exactly what they did. They didn't go on ideology. They went on what the authors judged as indicative of "outlook".

Oh, Bill Dalasio, that can't be true, because they it wouldn't be science, but merely opinion dressed up in a white lab coat. That would be dishonest, like creating a computer simulation where global temperatures increase even when fed with Monte Carlo pseudorandom numbers...which, of course, no one would ever do.

You must be mistaken...

Hmm, as I get older, I like TOS more and more and TNG less and less. Does that mean I should stay away from Chuck E Cheese?

Any adult who is not hearing and taste-bud impaired should stay away from Chuck E. Cheese, regardless of what there perverted fixations might be.

I'm a leftie, and the observations do work for me, except that I was fairly insecure as a kid.

This happens all the time - academics from a liberal institution use a study to attribute negatively-coded traits to conservatives. They've done it with Milgram, with Adorno, that 2003 study (also from Berkeley, what are the odds?) that claimed conservatives couldn't handle "cognitive complexity", etc. and now this.

They try this about once a decade or so. Nothing to see here. Move along.

My question is, if liberals tend to lean to more "openness" and "confidence", why do they feel the need to generate all these studies to define their opponents as psychologically deviant?

Maybe someone should do a study. :)

I:

- Am neat to a fault.

- Had a lot of self-esteem as a child (maybe too much).

- Don't fear death, but always had a knowledge of it (both my parents are doctors).

- Have over 3000 books in my collection (and 2000 movies).

- Whilst I am not an artist, I am a writer, dabble in oils, and love the world of theatre and film, contributing to both.

- I have been a volunteer for charitable causes since I was a child, once chairing the Youth Red Cross ball in Palm Beach. Recently, I volunteered for Turkey Duty at our homeless shelter this past Christmas.

So, weighing all these details, it is obvious that I would turn out a:

Two-fer Conservative (Social/Economic)

...right?

Right.

Cheers,
Victoria

Son of a bitch. I'm a communist. Well, my weekend is ruined.

From the summary of the study included in the post, it seems that the authors have identified SJ Myers-Briggs personality types as being conservative. Perhaps this is, on the balance true? From what I recall of SJs, they do tend to be more "conservative" in the literal sense (e.g. risk-adverse, prefer the status quo) than other personality types. Additionally, their definition of "liberal" is much inline with P personality types and would therefore be at least somewhat complementary.

Myself, I'm an ENTP and a libertarian. Most (but not all) libertarians that I've known have been NTs. Furthermore, I would say that I'm "conservative" in many aspects, so as a P, but more so an ENTP...I probably throw a monkey wrench into their generalizations.

I suspect that quite a few of the posters at this site are INTPs and ENTPs. (How many of you would identify yourselves as libertarians?) That may explain why so many here think this study is bogus.

Someone once gave me a copy of Myers-Briggs to take, but I never got around to doing so and eventually lost it. What type does that make me?

Comments are Closed.