• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How to spot a baby conservative

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot


Partisan hackery or a insight into our society? the conservatives here have shown time and time again to be the ones to go to mods to complain of bias
If I was the complain to the mods type, I would PM them and say that this thread should be locked for trolling. But I'm not, I post in the open. So if any mods feel like locking it for trolling, feel free.

If the reverse study were posted by a conservative, you'd probably have about 15 liberals calling for a ban (and not a lock). Waah Riprorin bothers me ban him! Waah Zendari bothers me ban him! Ad naseum...

So basically as Muege said, a waste of money study, partisan hackery at it's finest. It's amazing how close minded our "open minded" liberal education system is.

There's no relation between how emotionally needy a child is, and what political party they grow up to embrace. How shameful to play politics with children.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: slatr
The military is the biggest tax sucking welfare handout out there is for the poor, oops

**********
How can you go to sleep at night and have a clear conscience by saying someone who may die for this country is on welfare?
Well, it is in reality, What else would you call it but a big tax subsidized socialized work program?
Well, it's welfare for those willing to be good citizens. And, of course, the military preys upon the poor. How many recruiting stations are setup in the rich parts of town?

I dont know since I live near Washington DC. We have recruiting offices every 10 feet or so, in every part of of the city and suburbs...

I've served with both the rich and the poor; with most of the servicemen and women I've served with coming from middle-income families.

That said, I try not to take much offense to anything on the internet, but you guys describing the military as a form of welfare is beyond insulting. Unlike those who really are on welfare, we fvcking work hard for our money, and please dont ever forget that. thanks.


The amount of work is not the issue, most welfare programs have workfare nowdays also from what I have seen.
Regardless the military does not produce a tangiable product for the market (exempting imperialist conquest and R&D) and supported by the tax base, since the concept of unemployment and wars have been around there have been standing armies to subsidize a economy. Thus a military is in effect a usually nessasary socialized workforce, just with a higher hazard rate and considered more prestigious (in the middle lower classes at least)
 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
link

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings ? the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the 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.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

`I found (the Jack Block study) to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best'

Jeff Greenberg

University of Arizona

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.




Partisan hackery or a insight into our society? the conservatives here have shown time and time again to be the ones to go to mods to complain of bias and how the society and media is "out to get them" and try to project themselves as underdogs even though their party dominates politics.

Hmmm...
So now we know. Your parents were conservative republicans!

 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: slatr
The military is the biggest tax sucking welfare handout out there is for the poor, oops

**********
How can you go to sleep at night and have a clear conscience by saying someone who may die for this country is on welfare?
Well, it is in reality, What else would you call it but a big tax subsidized socialized work program?
Well, it's welfare for those willing to be good citizens. And, of course, the military preys upon the poor. How many recruiting stations are setup in the rich parts of town?

I dont know since I live near Washington DC. We have recruiting offices every 10 feet or so, in every part of of the city and suburbs...

I've served with both the rich and the poor; with most of the servicemen and women I've served with coming from middle-income families.

That said, I try not to take much offense to anything on the internet, but you guys describing the military as a form of welfare is beyond insulting. Unlike those who really are on welfare, we fvcking work hard for our money, and please dont ever forget that. thanks.


The amount of work is not the issue, most welfare programs have workfare nowdays also from what I have seen.
Regardless the military does not produce a tangiable product for the market (exempting imperialist conquest and R&D) and supported by the tax base, since the concept of unemployment and wars have been around there have been standing armies to subsidize a economy. Thus a military is in effect a usually nessasary socialized workforce, just with a higher hazard rate and considered more prestigious (in the middle lower classes at least)
Ok, from the purely economic standpoint, perhaps your assessment of the "expense" of standing up a military is accurate.

it's your derogatory tone and presentation that bothers me...
 
I think a more interesting study would be:

Who's been banned on P&N, how many times and for what offense. Leave the complainers anyonmous, but assign a number to them. Just to see if it is the same people complaining.

A simlar survey of locked threads would be interesting too. Who started it, why was it locked, and who/what post caused the lock - outside of dups - it could shed light on some things.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74

it's your derogatory tone and presentation that bothers me...

Like I said, then maybe you need to rethink your narrow view of a welfare state and welfare itself, it is the right wing pundits who promote the view of welfare being negative but preach large standing armies.
 
Originally posted by: shrumpage
I think a more interesting study would be:

Who's been banned on P&N, how many times and for what offense. Leave the complainers anyonmous, but assign a number to them. Just to see if it is the same people complaining.

A simlar survey of locked threads would be interesting too. Who started it, why was it locked, and who/what post caused the lock - outside of dups - it could shed light on some things.

I think those statistics should be displayed as everyone's signature:

[Nick]
Banned: X times, for a total of X day
Topics Closed: X
 
Like I said, then maybe you need to rethink your narrow view of a welfare state and welfare itself, it is the right wing pundits who promote the view of welfare being negative but preach large standing armies.

****
You are comparing apples to oranges. The military does produce a benefit, however intagible it is in your opinion, for the entire country.
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: shrumpage
I think a more interesting study would be:

Who's been banned on P&N, how many times and for what offense. Leave the complainers anyonmous, but assign a number to them. Just to see if it is the same people complaining.

A simlar survey of locked threads would be interesting too. Who started it, why was it locked, and who/what post caused the lock - outside of dups - it could shed light on some things.

I think those statistics should be displayed as everyone's signature:

[Nick]
Banned: X times, for a total of X day
Topics Closed: X

LOL - you do that and it all the sudden is going to become a new "badge" to be worn by many 😀
 
Originally posted by: shrumpage
I think a more interesting study would be:

Who's been banned on P&N, how many times and for what offense. Leave the complainers anyonmous, but assign a number to them. Just to see if it is the same people complaining.

A simlar survey of locked threads would be interesting too. Who started it, why was it locked, and who/what post caused the lock - outside of dups - it could shed light on some things.
I've been given vacations but none of them have been P&N related.
 
So conservatives have values and stand for something, while liberals have no values and stand for nothing. How is that an improvement?
 
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
link
You know, there is a lab in our building, run by a Dr. Susan Smith, who's been making quite important headway in the field of cell mortality (read: basic science of cancer) and in the past couple of years has published in Science, Cell, Molecular Cell, Genes & Development... and other of the top journals. And yet this year, her NIH funding got seriously cut... for no particular reason, and in spite of the high volume of good science that she's published. Bob Schneider, who runs one of the biggest labs here, has gotten his funding cut too... and he has a anti-cancer drug in clinical trials!

So reading this piece of sh!t study makes me really happy to know that the available grant money is being put to good use. :roll:

Dude, the entire duration of Block's study (which appears to be TWO data collection periods) probably wouldn't fund more than a couple of months work in a typical basic sciences lab and even less for clinical research. My group does pediatric psychopharmacology (schizophrenia, bipolar, autism). The average per patient per year costs for our schizophrenia project was $41k. That study closes this year b/c NIH said it was too expensive AND why study drugs in kids since they are just small versions of adults. Now it's that kind of sh!t that should make you upset.

Even worse is the randomized trial of helical CT scans for lung cancer. Over $200m dollars to compare biennial helical CT to standard chest xray for the early detection, treatment, and survival of lung cancer. A retarded way to spend money. Why not invest that money in testing smoking cessation programs? The best programs would not only reduce long term cancer mortality but would also reduce other forms of morbidity and mortality associated with smoking (heart disease, stroke, emphysema, etc).
 
Good, that means I have 4 Conservatives growing up in my household. It makes the whining that much easier to deal with.
 
Back
Top