Ah yes. Another "I'm more evolved and smarter than you" article. Ho hum.
Didn't you just love the hysterical reaction of the left on election night. Didn't they prove how much more evolved they were, and how they had no fear. Yeah... right.
Our eyes, gestures, and tone bring us together in a more profound way than words alone. It’s why we look hopefully toward the return of in-person, face-to-face connection.
Verified by Psychology Today

Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are generally more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer.
This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias.” If you think about it, this makes sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. To many conservatives, the world may look like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in fear—fear of the president, immigrants, vaccinations, etc.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.
A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those who scare more easily tend to support conservative views?
One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.
3. Conservatives fear new experiences.
A 2008 study cataloged items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies.
This suggests that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, may prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they can be resistant to change and progressive policies.
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.
Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and it's especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. Maybe if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times, it wouldn’t matter whether they existed or not.
Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas by using tactics like fear-mongering.
Furthermore, knowing why someone is the way they are can help us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe.
This article was originally published on Raw Story.
Ah yes. Another "I'm more evolved and smarter than you" article. Ho hum.
Didn't you just love the hysterical reaction of the left on election night. Didn't they prove how much more evolved they were, and how they had no fear. Yeah... right.
Not just hysterical, saltily entertaining when they cried, freaked out and had to retreat to their safe spaces. They should play more of it on TV.
Well, sure. No participation trophies, no bulldozer mommies and daddies to make all their problems go away, no coping skills beyond your basic adult temper tantrum.
Isn't it funny how those who preach tolerance and acceptance usually tolerate and accept NOTHING outside of what they want? And when you call them out on their bulls*** it's like they can't even hear you. Blank stares or quiet keyboards. Just once I would love to hear a liberal admit that the whole lot of them handled this election like a bunch of crybabies. Ain't never gonna happen.
Now you have. I’m a liberal, and I’m still crying. Every dumb thing Trump does makes me cry harder.
Interesting how Trumpsters are filled with hatred beyond anything, pleasantly partaking in schadenfreude in any given time they feel, or wants to think they are, in a superior situation.
I know you are incapable of replying to this in a calm and relevant manor, without starting to project and reflect - But still, how about that?
In my recent article for Quartz, "If you want to save democracy, think like a scientist," I argue that we should all be empiricists and not ideologues, as ideologues often ignore evidence while empiricists require it. It is wrong to assume that I am an extreme liberal because I'm critical of Trump and point out conservatives' hypersensitivities and negativity biases. I have been critical of the left in other articles. As a scientist, I'm naturally a progressive, but unfortunately some progressives have become regressive due to failing to stay within the "common sense zone." However, there is no doubt that overall, with a huge emphasis on the word "overall", the left values rational thought and logic more than the right, as the the (new) right is fundamentally opposed to science and evidence, in many regards.
"It is wrong to assume that I am an extreme liberal because I'm critical of Trump" Are you implying that conservatives are not critical of Trump as well? As far as I could remember it was the right that slammed Bush first for his fiscal policies, and I haven't heard much from the left on Obama's failed ones.
"the left values rational thought and logic more than the right, as the the (new) right is fundamentally opposed to science and evidence, in many regards."
There's a difference when it comes to being critical of claims of scientists vs opposed to evidence be it on evolution or global warming.... oops forgot that it's now called climate change.
And it certainly is annoying on how the left emphasizes on identity politics and are so eager to attack a candidate's narcissistic character rather than his fiscal and social policies. I wonder when will the left understand that narcissism in a candidate's attitude does not matter much.
The terms global warming and climate change describe different things. One has not been changed into the other. Both terms are contemporaneous and the term climate change dates back to the mid 1950’s. See; “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” by Gilbert N. Pass.
As your comment demonstrates, those on the right are hardly critical. What they tend to do is propagate misinformation and thought-terminating clichés.
That's not how evolution works...no one species is "more evolved" than any other. Everything is as evolved as it can be at any given time in any given context. Plus, there are entire books of data that support the biology of political affiliation based on neurology and endocrinology...and they all align with this article, so ho hum all day long.
you elected a guy who speaks at a 4th grade level and supposedly is there to save you from those damn Mexicans who brings all sorts of things. Yes, it does kind of prove the point, language always gives the game away, comment sections are filled with rightwingers who are afraid of some immigrants or some other imagined threat. In my own country it is quite widely thought that a system collapse is just around the corner. This is always connected with badly researched material that is just about always repeated over and over again without any real examination.
Intelligence was not mentioned in this article, Student.
The author completely misses the logical conclusion that, in terms of natural selection, conservatives are the 'fitter' individuals in the species as the noted traits will insure survival in greater numbers.
This student is correct. Hillary led the pack in a melt down. This is just the attempt by the left to cover up their "Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Hello Bobby
I was fascinated by your latest post and experienced it as completely different to your previous post inasmuch as the current post felt more researched-based - you were quoting studies and findings.
I have read and re-read it several times, trying to wear different hats as I read in order to be mindful of my own implicit biases.
I want to ask several questions around some of your points, all in the hope of refining my grasp of reality.
You write: " ... think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many conservatives the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc.".
From this standpoint, the point you make is clear - and makes sense. But I wonder how you might respond to a different version which I offer for your rebuttal. I cannot rebut what follows.
Re-word: " ... think about it, this makes a lot of sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. Essentially, to many democrats (liberals/leftists - not sure of your country's opposite) the world looks like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major democratic viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president (Bush or Trump), fear of people who fear an untrammelled influx immigrants, fear of people who fear radical Islamic terrorism, 'inorganic' food, etc.".
I am trying to differentiate conservative and democratic fears, since both fears, aha fears, lead to hyper vigilance.
You write further:
"A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views?"
Re-worded alteration:
Despite a finding in a 2008 study published in the journal Science which found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images, no study has been reported on democrats' physiological responses to graphic images of homophobic incidents, racist incidents and sexist incidents. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But asking why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views begs the question since democrats/leftists etc display acute hypersensitivity to microaggressions, triggers not forewarned with trigger warnings, supposed racial slights and a whole raft of other 'threats' completely unseen by conservatives.
You write: "Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals.This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli."
I cannot gainsay this since it showed what it shows.
But I question the next part of your wording, particularly since it is unclear whether it forms part of the quote, or whether it is your surmising.
Thus I read: "It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example ... "
What strikes me here is the habitual overreaction by the left to anything the right might question, or, the habitual overreaction to perceived microaggressions, microinvalidations, 'inappropriateness' or 'offensiveness'. This conservatives fear a whole raft of things that do not worry democrats, but the reverse is also true.
You write: " ... They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not". Say racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, fascist etc etc enough times that it wouldn't matter whether these traits really existed or not.
You also write:
"Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas, using tactics like fear mongering".
Does this apply to the other side too? There is a lot of fear mongering going on against Trump. Is this, too for those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas?
I take care to try to catch my implicit biases and I read left-wing and right-wing publications as a matter of course so please accept that my querying is quite bona fide (unless I truly haven't been mindful enough).
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I recognize the point you are making—about liberals having the same sensitivities—but as you pointed out yourself, the evidence shows what it shows. They tested liberals and conservatives in these studies in carefully controlled conditions, and found these significant statistical differences, so it doesn't make much sense to just swap the two because it sounds logical when the groups are exchanged. In some instances this might work, but not all.
I think liberals have a different set of problems, and you mentioned many of them. I think right now we are seeing a barrage of "boy who cried racist" or "boy who cried sexist" incidents, where PC has run amok. It is a real problem, because when you call Trump a bigot, then call Ellen DeGeneres a racist for tweeting a silly photo with Usain Bolt, then your statement about Trump is no longer taken seriously. Also, as we all know, pseudoscience is a big problem with the left too (anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc.) I am by no means saying the left is perfect, and it is unfortunate that when those on the right read my articles they automatically assume I'm some ultra-liberal. In my recent piece for Quartz, "If you want to save democracy, learn to think like a scientist," I emphasize that we should all be empiricists and not ideologues. Ideologues ignore evidence, while empiricists require it.
I talk about these issues with the left in other articles that can be found on the web. This article was focused on explaining the fear-driven attitudes of conservatives.
As to your point about liberals being overly fearful about Trump—this is not equivalent to how conservatives felt about Obama. Objectively speaking, Obama is very middle of the road, and is very logical in how he operates and communicates. "Professorial" as they say. "No-Drama Obama" is a bipartisan phrase.
Trump is like nothing we've ever seen. He's objectively bombastic and unhinged. Even his own party is scared to death at what shocking thing he may do next. Do not fall in to the trap of making a false equivalence.
The liberal equivalent of Trump would be scary, indeed. Anyone that extreme to either side is potentially dangerous.
Bobby hello again.
Thank you for your response.
One point interests me further.
Towards the end of your reply to me you wrote:
"As to your point about liberals being overly fearful about Trump—this is not equivalent to how conservatives felt about Obama. Objectively speaking, Obama is very middle of the road, and is very logical in how he operates and communicates. "Professorial" as they say. "No-Drama Obama" is a bipartisan phrase.
Trump is like nothing we've ever seen. He's objectively bombastic and unhinged. Even his own party is scared to death at what shocking thing he may do next. Do not fall in to the trap of making a false equivalence".
I baulk here. Where I will now argue, will indicate an unsophisticated intellect (a very real possibility); an incomplete understanding of the issues (a very real possibility); or a point which is valid (a very real possibility I hope).
Here goes - I will go through your words adding what I think is salient.
"As to your point about liberals being overly fearful about Trump—this is not equivalent to how conservatives felt about Obama"
I'm not sure how you make this statement and from my viewpoint, I wonder whether your (or my) implicit biases and possible misattribution errors get caught up here because as fearful as liberals are about Trump, so many conservatives are equally fearful of Obama and his policies, whether untrammelled migration, failure to speak out on the international stage, or 'fecklessness' (which they fear he is).
When talking about fear, it is always subjective and conservative fears are equally fearful to conservatives, as are liberal fears to liberals.
I worry about your seeming disdain of what you later call equivalence because in the above scenario, equivalence is very much apposite.
You write: "Objectively speaking, Obama is very middle of the road, and is very logical in how he operates and communicates. "Professorial" as they say. "No-Drama Obama" is a bipartisan phrase".
I am not sufficiently well-versed in American politics to know "No-Drama Obama", but I'm not sure how you can speak of 'objectively speaking' when conservatives, speaking 'objectively' in their view, are appalled at what has happened in the last 8 years.
"Trump is like nothing we've ever seen. He's objectively bombastic and unhinged. Even his own party is scared to death at what shocking thing he may do next. Do not fall in to the trap of making a false equivalence"..
I believe that Trump is like nothing we've ever seen. Objectively he certainly seems bombastic but I don't see him as unhinged (I guess you may judge me as unhinged for my judgement here).
I am a product of my life. At age 70, I have lived in 3 cultures, of which one felt to me like living on planet Zoobery-Toobery. What I learned from that was that people behave vastly differently from culture to culture and often the 'other culture' is bizarre and very very strange.
My sense of Trump is that he is very very smart and very very street-savvy. He came in from the cold and won. He is reputedly a self-made success and his real forte is getting things done. In many ways he appals, but, somehow I have more faith in him on the international scene. I may sound like a 'cowboy' (with apologies to cowboys) but nobody, but nobody will mess with Trump.
So we feel very differently about Trump.
In about 9 months time things may become clearer. I'm hoping sooner.
Im sorry but at 70 you have lived through all Trumps shennaigans. If you still think he is smart after decades of his behaviour twhich has been extensively covered in articles, newsreports and most importantly, personal interviews since the 80's, then Im sorry you have either been living in a pressurised cell or you really havent been paying attention. And with your years, thats a real worry.
Dr. Azarian,
As I read the response to the tests by conservatives, I wondered if the reason they dwelled on the threats is from a sense of having to "do something about it." You will dwell longer if you are trying to figure out a strategy to make the threat go away - like getting the spider off the person's face, etc. There may be more than one explanation for the fear. And equally, the liberals who looked away faster at the flowers, etc., might have to do with not seeing threats that should be seen. It might just be a matter of perspective.
The Washington Post story this week on the promising discovery that a compound in marijuana, cannabidiol (CBD), seems to be dramatically useful in treating epilepsy anxiety, schizophrenia, heart disease and cancer comes with a dose of high irony. Even though CBD lacks the most famous property associated with marijuana—it doesn't get you high—the Drug Enforcement Agency is insisting on listing it on Schedule I, the list of the most restricted and allegedly most dangerous drugs with no medical value. Schedule I listing makes doing research with the compound absurdly difficult. Imagine having to install a safe bolted to the floor with an elaborate alarm system to store a drug whose most notable effect on the human brain seems to be the drastic reduction of epileptic seizures and chronic anxiety. This is just another example of the DEA's abuse of a classification system that is never supposed to restrict access to drugs with medical use. LSD, MDMA, psilocybin and all other psychedelics—increasingly found to be a powerful force for healing in conjunction with medically supervised therapy—are also stuck on the Schedule I list. Somebody is stuck in the Sixties, and it's not the scientists and clinicians working with these drugs, it's the bureaucrats regulating them.
togel sgp
The parent-of-origin-dependent manner in which this subset of genes is expressed is tightly regulated through epigenetic processes, including DNA methylation at differentially methylated regions (DMRs), which directly affects the genes’ expression. The ways in which imprinted gene regulation might affect brain development could be either by disrupting regulation of nutrient acquisition, hormones, or fetal growth, or, more directly, by influencing neuronal growth and pruning, or axonal sprouting and interconnections. IGF2, eg, plays a major role in balancing nutrients for growth across the placental membranes, and altered regulation may indirectly affect brain development by influencing the supply of nutrients during critical stages of development. Other imprinted genes, such as neuronatin (NNAT), may play a more direct role, as this imprinted gene has been implicated in regulation of ion channels during brain development.
togel sgp
Conservatives do seem to be more fearful of crime and foreigners than liberals are. However, liberals seem to be more afraid of environmental degradation and unscrupulous business practices than conservatives are. So, its really hard for me to tell who is the most fearful in their politics just from my own experience.
Envirornmental degradation is not a fear factor. Rather it’s a responsibility as humans. Conservatives in the US, for some reason do not understand that we’re not the only generation to live on earth. Unscrupulous business practices are well.. immoral by nature.
This exact same sentiment has been expressed by leftists trying to "interpret" studies into political ammo for years now, and the same flaws are always there. They don't even evolve the argument to deal with criticism; it's just the same stuff, rehashed at best. An examination of the actual studies in question, as always, shows that the broad statement that the study shows conservatives are "driven by fear" or "overly focused on the negative" is as true as claiming the study shows leftists are "blind themselves to danger" or "ignore the negative" (or LESS true, in some cases).
Meanwhile, other studies (and sometimes the very same studies cited by the left) show results that run contrary to the narrative. What's especially telling is how one of the studies I can cite to prove my point... was written about by this same author!
I can't post the URL, but entering this into a search engine should find it: thedailybeast liberals-and-conservatives-solve-problems-differently
A fair reading of the data he cites there (the study itself, not the article which is full of spin and stereotypical leftist attacks which he puts out there without even an attempt at backing it up, apparently with the assumption that his audience will simply nod their nods without any critical analysis, which is probably what usually happens, given the site it's on) leads to the conclusion that conservatives are MORE ANALYTICAL and liberals MORE EMOTIONAL when it comes to decision-making. The author (again, same guy who wrote this article) practically says so himself... but of course, that doesn't fit the narrative, so he goes on to spin it as just "differences" -- we just think about problems differently.
And how does he jump off what the data actually tells us to just paint it as "differences", one's not better than the other? Well, he can't use the study itself, so he inserts the narrative: Falsehoods about who the racists are, who the anti-science people are, etc. -- talking points not supported which ignore even some other leftists' objections (see Neil deGrasse Tyson's video "Who's More Pro-Science", for example, which has its own flaws but is enough to illustrate my point). Thus, even though the study shows conservatives are more analytical, and we'll admit that this is what the study shows, he'll at the same time NOT admit the necessary corollary: Liberals are LESS analytical... and what that naturally means. The author can't have that; the conclusion has to be that the conservatives are the only ones who are dumb and bad.
Now take what we've learned about the author from this and apply it to where we are now. To say this article should be taken with a grain of salt is an extreme understatement. Even if this author were a fair person, the piece itself was debunked before it was published. One of his own articles undermines it, let alone others' pieces and the scientific data.
Let me hammer this home: It's just "differences" when the left might look bad and proof that conservatives are messed up when you've found a way to cherry-pick it into telling the story you WANT to tell.
Anonymous wrote:This exact same sentiment has been expressed by leftists trying to "interpret" studies into political ammo for years now, and the same flaws are always there. They don't even evolve the argument to deal with criticism; it's just the same stuff, rehashed at best. An examination of the actual studies in question, as always, shows that the broad statement that the study shows conservatives are "driven by fear" or "overly focused on the negative" is as true as claiming the study shows leftists are "blind themselves to danger" or "ignore the negative" (or LESS true, in some cases).
Meanwhile, other studies (and sometimes the very same studies cited by the left) show results that run contrary to the narrative. What's especially telling is how one of the studies I can cite to prove my point... was written about by this same author!
I can't post the URL, but entering this into a search engine should find it: thedailybeast liberals-and-conservatives-solve-problems-differently
A fair reading of the data he cites there (the study itself, not the article which is full of spin and stereotypical leftist attacks which he puts out there without even an attempt at backing it up, apparently with the assumption that his audience will simply nod their nods without any critical analysis, which is probably what usually happens, given the site it's on) leads to the conclusion that conservatives are MORE ANALYTICAL and liberals MORE EMOTIONAL when it comes to decision-making. The author (again, same guy who wrote this article) practically says so himself... but of course, that doesn't fit the narrative, so he goes on to spin it as just "differences" -- we just think about problems differently.
And how does he jump off what the data actually tells us to just paint it as "differences", one's not better than the other? Well, he can't use the study itself, so he inserts the narrative: Falsehoods about who the racists are, who the anti-science people are, etc. -- talking points not supported which ignore even some other leftists' objections (see Neil deGrasse Tyson's video "Who's More Pro-Science", for example, which has its own flaws but is enough to illustrate my point). Thus, even though the study shows conservatives are more analytical, and we'll admit that this is what the study shows, he'll at the same time NOT admit the necessary corollary: Liberals are LESS analytical... and what that naturally means. The author can't have that; the conclusion has to be that the conservatives are the only ones who are dumb and bad.
Now take what we've learned about the author from this and apply it to where we are now. To say this article should be taken with a grain of salt is an extreme understatement. Even if this author were a fair person, the piece itself was debunked before it was published. One of his own articles undermines it, let alone others' pieces and the scientific data.
Let me hammer this home: It's just "differences" when the left might look bad and proof that conservatives are messed up when you've found a way to cherry-pick it into telling the story you WANT to tell.
"They also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice."
The mind-body problem hasn't been solved yet, we cannot claim that the brain causes these changes as you are implying (rule number 1: correlation does not equal causation). Much like we cannot say depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, because it can just as well be the case that depression results in a chemical imbalance (more plausible, in fact, as there is no evidence of the former although it is touted as fact). Let's not argue from a materialist standpoint and imply that these things are biological and written in stone.
It seems every few months another study is published showing that conservatives have some sort of mental illness, or that they are not as smart as liberals etc.
However, it seems that these studies are based on caricatures of conservative thought. First, a "fear of vaccines" is hardly a conservative view, that is a thoroughly bipartisan conspiracy, with people on the far left also "fearing" vaccines.
I would also say that seeing our immigration system is not working is hardly saying that there is a fear of immigrants, which is also playing with definitions since by and large, conservatives are concerned with illegal aliens, hardly the same issue as immigration as a whole. I don't know if a physical border wall is the right solution, but I can say that however you look at it, every country controlls their borders and who enters legally.
I will say that people, not just conservatives, are bad at estimating risk. That is why liberals demand gun control, yet if they choose not to own a firearm, 2/3 of firearm deaths are suicides, they can mitigate their risk there, and of the homicides, disproportionate numbers of homicides are criminals killing other criminals. Yet, every noteworthy shooting brings more calls for gun control. Is this not an irrational fear as well?
Or how about the comments that Republicans want to make old people eat cat food? Or as Joe Biden said to a group of African Americans, "they gonna put you all back in chains?"
I see no lack of irrational fears on the left, and my opinion is that the fears the left has are far more irrational than almost anything on the right.
Complete BS ... people are more complex than the author understands ... it's just one other Liberals are the high road and Conservatives are the low road opinion.
Search for "Right is Right" It will clear all this up.
IMHO, this article seems to be just more Leftist projection...
Fascinating, especially as it is published by Psychology Today, which makes it even more fascinating - Psychology Today is turning into (has turned into?) a 'hall of mirrors" (i.e. a "passageway full of distorted-glass mirrors"; no matter where you turn are unable to discern a real, true image. You just keep coming up against distortions of the truth).
We are all willfully blind on this matter. Conservatives are fear based because most of them were beaten as children. The more right-wing, the more religiously fundamental, the more corporal punishment - often with belts, wooden paddles, switches, etc - is used on them at younger and younger ages. Study after study shows beating children lowers IQ, creates deep-seated fear and anxiety and results in authoritarian personalities. (And I refuse to use that cutesy word "spanking" because it is a euphemism to hide what is really going on.) Yet, the country goes right on not "sparing the rod." This is why the United States spends all its discretionary money on defense and why so many back a crazy, would-be king for president. Child abuse is THE root cause of conservative "values." The more brutal the parent, the more right-wing the children.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.