Seems to me that sanity is best defined as dedication to reality. It fits with the comments of Schultz. Conservatives think all people are as messed up as themselves. They assume that anyone who wants to help anyone else be it blacks, Hispanics, poor, etc. must be doing it just to get ahead, and not for altruistic motives. This is why they hate the Clintons so much. Anyone who has been on the right side of our racial problems like the Clintons have, to a conservative, must be, by definition, complete fakes and liars. They have no reference point inside to realize that someone who, even though they make mistakes, can get the big issues right most of the time.

I was reminded of this exchange while watching the stupendously ruthless Republican National Convention over the last several days. Is there anything that conservatives do not hate? Maybe drilling. In fact, they appear utterly phallically obsessed with drilling (a practice that, in about 10 years or so, might reduce gas prices by 2 or 3 cents per gallon). But otherwise, what we learned from the recent hatefest is that Republicans hate community organizers, liberals (surprise!), Madonna, the “east coast elite,” the “angry left” media, trial lawyers, people who are too smart, people who are “cosmopolitan”—the list goes on into eternity.
Listening to this litany on Wednesday night in particular reminded me of a research article that came out roughly 5 years ago on political conservatism and motivated social cognition (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin). In a nutshell, the article—by Stanford and UC Berkeley researchers—seems to suggest that conservatism is a mild form of insanity.
Here are the facts. A meta-analysis culled from 88 samples in 12 countries, and with an N of 22,818, revealed that “several psychological variables predicted political conservatism.” Which variables exactly? In order of predictive power: Death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem. The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.”
The above list of variables is more than a little unsavory. We are talking about someone full of fear, with a poor sense of self, and a lack of mental dexterity. I always tell my students that tolerance of ambiguity is one especially excellent mark of psychological maturity. It isn’t a black and white world. According to the research, conservatives possess precisely the opposite: an intolerance of ambiguity and an inability to deal with complexity. Maybe that’s one reason why Obama seems so distasteful to them: he is a nuanced, multi-faceted thinker who can see things from several different perspectives simultaneously. And he isn’t preaching fear, either.
Michael Savage openly states
Michael Savage openly states that liberalism is a disorder. I think people tend to say that conservatives or liberals are insane due to their own political thoughts. You will never hear a conservative say that conservatives are insane or a liberal say that liberals are insane-- and if you do it is because they want to stand out over their own herd, so to speak.
If you are going to say that Republicans have some form of insanity you must take into account the growth of the Democrat party since the time that many of the state wards were closed. Perhaps both sides are wacko?
I'm not just stating my
I'm not just stating my opinion. I'm describing scientific research.
Opinions are good
I don't think science even begins to have an idea how complex the universe is. Ordinary people often know the obvious, while scientists take forever. I think your opinion is equally relevant. On the other hand, all the break throughs in every field don't get out to the public for years, decades and in the past even hundreds of years. What a shame, since we now have all the information we need to handle this century, but it's not in the right hands, or heads, lol. I'd like to see some articles on intuition, it's so often mentioned in scientific literature, but never writen about, at least in English (that you can understand).
See Bob Altemeyer
if you want decades of support for this theory
Sorry, man--the concept that
Sorry, man--the concept that you understand the complexity of the universe better than do scientists shows two things: (a) you know nothing at all about scientific research; and (b) your "beliefs" are self-serving, unconcerned with fact, coming out of a dark place.
Very scientific indeed...
You blindly quote from flawed and biased "scientific research" that basically says that half the US population is less worthy than the other half. For a detailed and intelligent response to the Jost "study" please see:
http://www.ironshrink.com/articles.php?artID=070116_jost_conservative_study_methodology
huh?
i don't blindly do anything...
Yes, blindly.
I stand by my assertion; any Psychologist worth his salt would question the methodology behind this study. I believe that you are letting your intense dislike (even hatred perhaps?) of conservatives get in the way of your objectivity. I would love to see your response to the IronShrink article, did you read it? Do you disagree that the study is flawed?
I think it is very, very dangerous when one group of people uses "science" to malign another group of people.
ok
I'll read the info on the link you provide when I get the time to do so (I'm writing 2 different books right now). I'm actually curious to see what the critique consists of... But why do you think I "intensely dislike" or even "hate" conservatives? What's the intent behind making such accusations? Do you feel as if you need to malign me for some reason?
Seems obvious to me..
Any rational person would conclude after reading your blog post that you hold conservatives in very low regard. If this isn't apparent to you... I'm not really sure what to say; it's like someone trying to convince you that when they called you a bonehead, they actually meant it in a good way.
Quote from your blog regarding conservatives:
"Republicans hate community organizers, liberals (surprise!), Madonna, the “east coast elite,” the “angry left” media, trial lawyers, people who are too smart, people who are “cosmopolitan”—the list goes on into eternity."
Quote from your blog regarding Obama:
"he is a nuanced, multi-faceted thinker who can see things from several different perspectives simultaneously. And he isn’t preaching fear, either."
So what I take from this is that you think Republicans are fear-mongering haters, Democrats are nuanced, multi-faceted thinkers.
Just for the record, although I am coming to the defense of conservatives here, I don't consider myself part of their group; I'm a Libertarian. It's possible that I might even be a nuanced and multi-faceted thinker.
Republicans
I can tell you that Shultz's opinions of Republicans that you quote are shared by most conservatives in my country as we cast our eyes at your political landscape. It's not hatred, it's just gathering data.
Republicans
You just proved that your contempt for conservatives is not based on anything rational. You claim to be "just gathering data" - because you cannot make a rational argument.
Why are liberals so afraid of
Why are liberals so afraid of another viewpoint? It seem to me that socialism/liberalism is extremely oppressive. They do everything possible to shut off opposing views. (sic. Fox news). If these views are wrong, it will soon be shown. For heavens sake, allow the differences. Stop trying to make our country like Cuba, where anyone opposing Castro is jailed.
Wow!
Your comment is so utterly erroneous that its hard to even know where to start. First, liberals are far more open-minded and accepting of others viewpoints than conservatives are or have ever been. That's one of the defining characteristics of being a liberal (being open-minded) and why most liberals dislike conservatives with their attacks on any other ideas that don't mesh with their own. And for your information the reason that liberals don't like Fox News is because Fox states that they are "Fair and Balanced" when actually what they report is extremely skewed towards conservative positions and is anything but fair and balanced. In essence Fox news is lying about what they are doing and no one likes being lied to.
Finally, Cuba is a Communist dictatorship, which is only one kind of leftist government. Social Democracy (aka France and others in Europe and elsewhere) are a very different approach to leftist governance. Your statement proves the point of the author exactly because your intention with bringing up Cuba is to strike fear and prejudice against a position that you disagree with. If your argument had power to sway based on its own strength then you wouldn't have chosen the most obvious fear-inducing example. This is what conservatives regularly do. They use fear and prejudice to persuade others rather than use a 'fair and balanced' truth. If you educated yourself regarding the political and social systems of the world, especially outside of the caricature that is our U.S., then you would realize how foolish your statement is. But you won't. Conservatives rarely do.
ridiculous study
ATRey wrote:First, liberals are far more open-minded and accepting of others viewpoints than conservatives are or have ever been.
Obama to Eric Cantor: "There are consequenses to elections... and I won."
Must make Obama a conservative. /sarc
I'm just wondering how the study on the democratic socialists faired. Was probably a rave review.
Dude, you can't even spell
Dude, you can't even spell properly. Just what sort of education do you have? Did your parents follow the Rick Santorum school of 'thought'; as in: 'Don't send your kids to college, or you'll turn out like Obama' hahahaha
Obama is a conservative
He is a neoliberal to the right of Bill Clinton. He is economically very conservative... reaganesque really. He's just not insane, and of course he's black and so conservatives despise him more than Putin. But he is not liberal on most issues ( civil liberties, healthcare, war/ drones he wasn't even particularly progressive on the most benign social issue gay marriage), and certainly nowhere near liberal on the big economic ideas that matter.
France and Europe, eh?
And France and Europe's "social democracy" is working so well. France had a bill in the works that would have instilled a 75% millionaire's tax. Fortunately it got defeated, but stuff like that shouldn't even be in the works. The problem with social democracy is that eventually you run out of other people's money. And because of their social democracies, they have HUGE illegal immigration issues from Asia and Europe. Even the UK does, just watch UK Border Patrol and see how many people try to illegally enter.
higher in the USA
The effective tax rate here in the USA was even higher than the 75% that you see as proof of a communist dictatorship. And d you know when that was? During the decades following WW2 when the American middle class experienced its greatest growth and prosperity.
But being the authoritarian followers that conservatives are, the factory owners and corporate execs peddled them a line conflating union membership with communism and plots to derail America's economy; that legislated minimum wages were bad for hiring rates/jobs; that lower corporate tax rates meant they would hire more often; etc.
After faithfully cutting your own noses off to spite liberal calls for egality, they decided to go right for the jugular since you'd apparently buy anything that your "superiors" were telling/selling you on. They fired y'all claiming Americans just wanted too high of wages to keep the company viable and profitable so they were "forced" to move overseas where the army kept mies!@" (union organizers really) away so wages were low enough to make their "struggling business viable!" And DESPITE clear record trails showing them to have been at their most profitable before the move, you fucking bought it!! They tell you tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie to the world hoping to cash in on the solar panel craze....or some fucking thing... AND YOU BOUGHT IT!! It gets harder and harder to feel any sympathy with people so willfully ignorant they destroy the very thing they claim to defend simply to spite Obama...or unions....or "liberal university professors"....journalists...eye witnesses and professional scribes...anything that makes it look like maybe a liberal was right about something...anything at all!
High taxes are good
The best time in this nations economic history came when the top tax rate was well over 70%. In fact in our 'golden age' the US tax rate was well over 90%. Go read a book. This is the problem with this country... Ignorance.
I know this comment is five
I know this comment is five years old, but it's just so fucking stupid I have to comment.
You do know how the economy works, right? Maybe you should do some research, because god damn that opinion is shameful.
Re: wow
Thank you for putting into words what I think. I really appreciate the structure of your points.
The main point I want to make is I never found conservatives anything but mildly repugnant. Let them talk for a few minutes and then bug out of there. I was educated by my various schools to always reconsider another's point of view to look for undue bias on my part, so I did, but never found the merit in what I considered rather harsh words about other people.
Moving on, I have heard such disgusting, malicious things coming form the oral and written communications of conservatives I would be hard put to disagree that they are mentally ill. I have yet to hear anything indicate that they love anything, including themselves. I will continue to look for that evidence of love. But not too hard because it is like looking into the abyss. Paying too much attention to conservatives is very harmful to my blood pressure and peace of mind. Sorry, that is just the way it is.
ATRey said nothing but the
ATRey said nothing but the truth!
ATRey said nothing but the
ATRey said nothing but the truth!
Simplistic thinking
Now let;s just examine that statement shall we?
"liberalism is oppressive"
Is that like "oppression is liberating"? Or "freedom is confining" ?
And yet all the research on differences between psychological motivations, traits, beliefs found among self-described liberals and conservatives show a very strong correlation between (psychological) authoritarianism and conservatism (r = .73), with no correlative value between liberals and authoritarian deference and other such traits. As Altemeyer once said "authoritarian deference among liberals, although it does happen, still was as rare as hen's teeth".
"Neither conceptually nor empirically does there appear to be any grounds for distinguishing authoritarianism and conservative personality - except that the former may be regarded as a somewhat more particular case of the latter." (Wilson, G. 1973. The Psychology of Conservatism. New York: Academic Press.)
"It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development" (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexual aggression. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in the traditional conservative personality than others." - (Introductory Psychology: Crooks & Stein).
"Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent." (McClosky, H. (1958). Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45
Today's conservative is still engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy - the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Similarly, libertarianism is just fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with fascism.
This rational person
would conclude that you have projected your dislike/hatred for the insane onto the author.
The problem is that such
The problem is that such conservatives as have voices in the GOP are have little use for nuance and multi-faceted thought or for cosmopolitan culture. Such surely stifles innovation except (for a short time) technology.
Jost never said you were inferior; that was your voice
Throughout this entire field of research, NOBODY except conservative subjects and conservative readers (and maybe a few liberal readers) has claimed these results in any way disparage conservatives. That is a concept conservatives like Grafx infer from the studies, that's all.
Libertarians are extremely conservative
Though I believe it's more accurate to look at the political spectrum like a compass ala political compass, on a left right continuum libertarian is nearly all the way to the right. So yeah you are conservative. Furthermore this board is making me sad. This is why we are a stupi messed up country, because when you make the obvious claim that conservatives in America are intolerant, stupid, and wrong on nearly issue you get pushback. And never intelligent pushback with merit or ideas, but the same tires and wrong claims.
Iron Shrink - eh
I gave it a look - a bit desperate and over-reaching. One daft point this critic raises is the claim that Hitler was a leftist because he included "socialist" in the name of his movement.
Hitler called his movement "socialist" for the same reason Confederate slave-owners called themselves "socialists." They did. See their favorite philosopher and social commentator George Fitzhugh.
The term "socialist" at those times had a highly favorable public image. Like authoritarian movements generally, the Confederates and the Nazis used language in a Manichaean manner, employing language for its emotional power without clearly defining these terms. See SI Hayakawa's work on totalitarian propaganda.
Neither movement actually fit the term. They just appropriated it because it sounded good.
Now that the American right regards "socialism" as a pejorative they are using this change of nuance to completely bowdlerize history. The Hitler-as-leftist meme gives us the 'social justice and compassion caused the Holocaust" argument.
"The Hitler-as-leftist meme
"The Hitler-as-leftist meme gives us the 'social justice and compassion caused the Holocaust" argument."
Logic ain't their strong suit.
Hitler was indeed a socialist.
1. Look up the term "socialist". 2. Read up a bit on Hitler. You will discover that Hitler indeed had socialist beliefs and that socialism was central to National Socialism ideology.
Hitler was a thief -- not a socialist
norman wrote:1. Look up the term "socialist". 2. Read up a bit on Hitler. You will discover that Hitler indeed had socialist beliefs and that socialism was central to National Socialism ideology.
The only 'socialist' attribute of Hitler was that he stole from the Jews. Hitler was about as socialist as Henry Hill, the late gangster.
The word "socialist" was a reference more to the State as determiner of who prospered and who failed than to any social justice. Workers lost their rights to strike and even to change jobs under Hitler.
Socialism generally IS thievery
Communist China does not allow workers to strike. But China is still socialist. Presumably, communist workers don’t need to strike because they already live in the workers’ paradise. Similarly, national socialist workers did not need to strike, because they were all working for the greater good of the German folk. Socialism does not mean that workers have rights. Only that the means of production are collectively owned. “Social justice” was indeed enacted against the bourgeois Chinese upper class and bourgeois German Jews respectively. What “social justice” are you looking for?
adamantly opposed
Hitlkert was admantly opposed to socialism, actively murdering them with the same zeal as if they were Jews (whom he frequently blamed for inventing the concept of a more egalitarian distribution of the product of workers labor.
The East German communists who followed the fall of nazism called their state the German Democratic Republic. The brutal dictatorship that has long savaged the people of the Congo call themselves Democratic East Congo. As did white South Afrikans if asked whether true democracy existed in S. Afrika.
Were they all democracies simply because that's what they named it? So why would fascism, an ideology that Mussolini is credited with developing into a full-fledged political framework that the right-wing of the day was desperate to find as a counter to the growing attraction that working class Europeans had for the message of egalitarian wealth distribution...a natural development considering how they had been systematically used then discarded like trash when too old to produce for the landowners.
You will not find a single historian with articles appearing in scholarly journals who claims the Nazis were leftists. (Hint: Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz or Robert Spencer are NOT credible historians)
You know what socialism is right?
State control of the means of production. Hitler had control of the means of production and the Wermacht centrally planned the economy of Germany to achieve their Nationalist ends of European hegemony. Ergo National Socialism.
Right. Not blindly, just
Right. Not blindly, just intentionally dishonest.
a challenge
William... I challenge you to answer GrafxTracy's question.
I wrote the methodology critique to which she referred on Ironshrink.com. I would like to see you defend the egregious methodology of "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition."
In February, 2007, each of the authors was invited to defend their methodology in a debate with me on Colorado's 850 KOA - a respectable forum on a respectable 50,000 watt radio station. ALL of the authors, including Jost himself, refused to defend their study. Can you do it?
ok
As I replied to the other commenter, I'll read the critique when I can carve out some time to do so. I'm open-minded, so I'm curious what the critique consists of....
But I guess your assertion, beyond questioning the authors of the study itself, is that all the other psychologists who peer reviewed it, for a reputable, mainstream psychological journal, are also incompetent scientists, yes? I mean, it isn't as if the article appeared in some bizarre, fringe quarterly.
Or, maybe as the other commenter suggested, you believe the reviewers "hate" conservatives as much as the authors of the study, and that therefore they were willing to sacrifice their scientific standards just to publish something that casts a negative light on conservatives?
Now, of course I acknowledge that bad research does get published from time to time, even in peer-reviewed venues. Still, I'd be surprised if, after looking over your critique, I end up finding the article as worthless as you do. But we'll see. As I said, I'll read the critique.
re: OK
William - I don't believe that all of the reviewers were incompetent, nor do I believe that the authors were incompetent. I believe that Jost et al. are such devout ideologues that they are willing to set aside scientific integrity if it will help advance their political goals. I believe that Jost, in particular, knows exactly what he is doing as he denigrates ideological opponents under the banner of "research."
I also think that the authors surmised, correctly, that virtually none of their colleagues would take them to task on methodology. I suspect that most of the reviewers are basically good people who agreed with the outcome and so didn't challenge the means.
Psychology - particularly in academia - is absolutely dominated by liberals. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does breed groupthink. It also breeds intolerance, which is sadly ironic given the amount of heavy-handed preaching about tolerance and diversity issued by our colleagues. Jost's article certainly isn't tolerant. It is downright maligning.
Looking forward to reading your critique of my critique. -Shawn
thanks
What you say here sounds reasonable. I agree with a number of your sentiments--for instance, it's obvious that academia is dominated by liberals. I also agree that that can cause groupthink... Anyway, I think critique is healthy and helpful so I do look forward to getting the chance to review your analysis of Jost et al...
I have to say that I
I have to say that I thouroughly enjoyed this piece, and I think you've done a fabulous job. I will, however express my distaste at the criticism you've received due to what some commenters have referred to as your "hatred" of conservatives. As an educated man, to imply that you would fall prey to the same ignorance as other political haters (who are incapable of seeing anything poistive in any opposing party simply because of thier personal feeling toward said party) is absolutely absurd.
A scientist with your education credentials would NEVER be so, shall we say, intellectually limited as to allow your personal feelings cloud a scientic peice of research (thats what makes you a scientist!), and it offends me to no end that anyone would imply such.
Great Job!
I have to say that I
In reading the various post I find yours the most disturbing. There is no one so enlightened, so educated that they are beyond having their own blind spots, their own unrecognized prejudice. None of us are beyond being deceived either by others or ourselves. Science is not pure, education is not pure, religion is not pure. That is what disturbs me the most about the liberal mindset, its inability to see itself for what it is. I believe it is called delusional. Any study which promotes what this study promotes automatically raises a red flag because of its very nature. If a similar study said this about women or blacks or Muslims it would be treated like it came from the National Enquirer, but Conservatives, Christians, hmmm. it could be true about them. Then the dear author does not have time now to read an in depth rebuttal because he's to busy writing his books. Sounds lame to me.
Psychology - particularly in academia - is absolutely dominated by liberals.
"Psychology - particularly in academia - is absolutely dominated by liberals."
And to further the point, I think it is fair to say that all academia is dominated by liberals. Do you agree, Shawn?
This is in itself an interesting point. Correlation certainly does not equal causality, but it just may be fair to say that education has much to do with making someone a 'liberal'.
Personally, I think education is a good thing...
Liberal takeover of academia
It would be more accurate to say that humanities departments were taken over by political leftists claiming to be ‘liberals’. Leftists such as the egocentric author of this ridiculous article are tarnishing the liberal arts that once had a great reputation.
Sorry, but it would not be
Sorry, but it would not be more accurate to say that at all - It would simply be wrong. The humanities have always been dominated by 'liberals', and always will be - just like an economics class will always be dominated by conservatives. It has to do with what you believe in, and what your priorities are. Liberals tend (as a general rule) to value knowledge, while conservatives (again, as a generalization) place much more value on money and having power over others. As an example to illustrate my point, I would suggest that this is why members of your group (conservatives) are willing to sacrifice the environment to squeeze a few more dollars into your bank account, and my group (liberals) wants to save it despite lost revenue.
It's funny how conservatives use 'liberal' as a dirty word though.
The Western Tradition versus the left
I disagree. Both conservatives and progressives are heir to the great classical liberal values and institutions that comprise the Western tradition. This tradition’s contributors include Judeo-Christian religious moralists; secular humanists; classical Greek/Roman philosophers; medieval thinkers; Renaissance artists; French humanists; English/Scottish/American individual rights theorists; German psychologists; etc.
We conservatives advocate conserving the Western tradition, i.e. constitutional guarantees of individual freedoms/rights to life, liberty, property, political speech, and self-defense; enumerated powers of limited government; Christian-inspired charitable institutions such as the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, and Catholic hospitals; social integration such as e pluribus unum, a single official language of government, and legal immigration; the preservation of the single man-single woman marriage custom as the ideal social example to protect young women and children.
By contrast, the political left seems apparently determined to deconstruct and destroy values and institutions that make free and prosperous society possible. For example, the increase of the size and power of massive debt-ridden tax-heavy government programs that common people are forced to participate in (while exempting politically connected unions). For example, official multiculturalist claims that Western traditions are inherently NO better than Islamic traditions. For example, oppression and victimhood rhetoric directed towards minorities meant to drum up race-hatred and class-hatred rather than focusing on individual self-improvement and social integration. For example, government giveaway programs that discourage personal responsibility and debases common people (e.g. the Atlanta housing voucher mob incident). For example, empowering federal/state government departments to impose their own regulations, fees, and increase their mandate without legislative approval (e.g. the FCC increased its powers to regulate the Internet). For example, local governments are taking property from individuals in the name of increasing property taxes (e.g. the Kelo Supreme Court case). For example, judicial activists creatively discovered inalienable rights to abortion, sodomy, and same-sex marriage licenses in the “living” Constitution. However you might feel about these issues– there is nothing about them in the Constitution.
I certainly agree that the left are advocates of environmental purism. In fact, environmental fanaticism fundamentally exposes the left at its heart – i.e. deep resentment of strong happy free prosperous independent people who do not sufficiently appreciate the left’s utopian visions for transforming/saving the world. Hence, the left hopes to ultimately confine humanity to tiny population centers so that the forests are not troubled by ATVs, industry, or children.
Yes, lastly, conservatives want business and industry to thrive – which enables common people to become economically independent – who are thus in a position to afford reasonable environmental protections balanced with human needs.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next