Insight into what our conservative friends are thinking...

[sMiLeYz]

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Source

 

[alchemize]

Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

LOL Bezerkly.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

Than again, Berkeley is a world renowned research institute that has no partisan agenda.

If it makes you feel better they say bad things about liberals too.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: alchemize
Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

Than again, Berkeley is a world renowned research institute that has no partisan agenda.

If it makes you feel better they say bad things about liberals too.

Give me a break. Bezerkly is even reviled by most Californian Democrats as being on the Lunatc Fringe. In Ca it is known as the Peoples Republic of Bezerkly.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: alchemize
Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

Than again, Berkeley is a world renowned research institute that has no partisan agenda.

If it makes you feel better they say bad things about liberals too.

Give me a break. Bezerkly is even reviled by most Californian Democrats as being on the Lunatc Fringe. In Ca it is known as the Peoples Republic of Bezerkly.

Maybe you would perfer to convince me the research is faulty rather than trying to discredit the institute?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

conservatism
Conservatism FAQs
Enjoy

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: alchemize
Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

Than again, Berkeley is a world renowned research institute that has no partisan agenda.

If it makes you feel better they say bad things about liberals too.

Give me a break. Bezerkly is even reviled by most Californian Democrats as being on the Lunatc Fringe. In Ca it is known as the Peoples Republic of Bezerkly.

Maybe you would perfer to convince me the research is faulty rather than trying to discredit the institute?

No I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: alchemize
Berkeley, the unbiased centrist source

Than again, Berkeley is a world renowned research institute that has no partisan agenda.

If it makes you feel better they say bad things about liberals too.

Give me a break. Bezerkly is even reviled by most Californian Democrats as being on the Lunatc Fringe. In Ca it is known as the Peoples Republic of Bezerkly.

Maybe you would perfer to convince me the research is faulty rather than trying to discredit the institute?

Well, since there is nothing in the article that describes what the research is, other than:

"The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said."

Wow what a scientific approach. 4 Guys pick out 88 samples of speeches, and try to find whatever nasty quotes they can to support their research.

But ok, let's analyze each point:

Fear and Aggression: If I'm afraid of something, I can either Flee or Fight right? So liberals run, while conservatives fight
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity: Using the word dogmatism invalidates the research anyhow, since it is basically an insult. But intolerance of ambiguity to me means things need to be clear and defined. OK fine.
Uncertainty Avoidance: See intolerance of ambiguity
Need for cognitive closure: Yes, I believe that if you are going to have an opinion, you certainly should have logical, factual reasons behind it
Terror Management: Here is where they show their true colors and the agenda:
"The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote."
Shun? Punish? Cherished world views? I thought this ranged over 50 years of literature and 12 countries?

And I'm just curious, where is the corresponding study on liberal agendas? I'd love to see their points on that.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Source

Why don't I just quote some of Ann Coulter's book and say that all liberals are traitors. That'd be about as unbiased.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Source

Why don't I just quote some of Ann Coulter's book and say that all liberals are traitors. That'd be about as unbiased.

Ann Coulter isn't the premier research institute on the West Coast is she?

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California , Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

Like it or not the conclusions are drawn from scientific analysis and research; through conservative literature, history and books.
This was a joint university study, by the some of the minds from East and west coast.

I trust the scientific method more than I trust what I read from journalists, writers, politicians. However, reading this article I do understand why people are so defensive on this thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Source

Why don't I just quote some of Ann Coulter's book and say that all liberals are traitors. That'd be about as unbiased.

Ann Coulter isn't the premier research institute on the West Coast is she?

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California , Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

Like it or not the conclusions are drawn from scientific analysis and research; through conservative literature, history and books.
This was a joint university study, by the some of the minds from East and west coast.

I trust the scientific method more than I trust what I read from journalists, writers, politicians. However, reading this article I do understand why people are so defensive on this thread.

Because it makes assumptions? yes. You could find similar nose picking styles out of 22,818 participants if you want. It is all what you are looking for and how you frame the "research".
Bezerkley, while a respected institution of higher learning, is known for it's activism.
Read my links for what conservatives value and ideals are. Yes they are "bias" but this is what conservatives stand for (in general).

CkG

 

[sMiLeYz]

Actually I've read the Conservatism FAQ before.

The research explains the psychological motivations behind conservatives, not what conservatism stands for.

I suggest someone actually reading it with an open mind .

 

[drewshin]

what people don't realize is that berkeley does have its "activist" research, that may account for maybe 1% or less of research that it does put out. it's just that that 1% gets all the attention.

but it's also an easy way for any conservative to discredit anything they disagree with that comes from there, now matter how true it may be.

i would prefer a liberal dreamland like berkeley, than a conservative college that looked down on interracial dating.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Actually I've read the Conservatism FAQ before.

The research explains the psychological motivations behind conservatives, not what conservatism stands for.

I suggest someone actually reading it with an open mind .

I read it, twice, with an open mind I think it is biased, and they even added a little blurb to say "but look we aren't biased":

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

There is a strong correlation with aging and conservatism (i.e. more risk averse, less accepting of change). Where is that discussed as a factor in the psychological motivation?

 

[Vadatajs]

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Don't get your panties in a bunch...

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Don't get your panties in a bunch...

It's like saying "You are an Ahole. Here's 1,000 reasons you are an Ahole. Here's an entire study on your Ahole-edness. Footnote: hey, don't feel bad, there are other aholes too".

Again, extremely biased and negative.

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

Which would you associate with negativity or bias? Let's see. Fear. Aggression. Dogmatism. Intolerance. Uncertainty. Avoidance. Need. Terror.

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Source

It looks like 5 motives for anyone's actions not just conservatives... How is this new? I have read 100 year old psychology books saying the same thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

I liked this part:

"Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Naturally it doesn't mean that they're not either.
---------------------
I have, of course been saying this same thing for years. You don't need research to see it. All you have to do is analyze your own more conservative motivations. Unfortunately though, I guess, the capacity to dispassionately dissect one?s self mercilessly and without compromise is not a universal instinct. Too bad too because it leads to the destruction of everything you ever thought was true.

That brings us to a deeper level, I think, than what our Berkeley friends know. The essence of liberal and conservative have to do with the tolerance level people have for feeling how bad they feel. The greater the level of denial the less intuitive feel, the greater the rigidity, the need for certainty, the fear of fear and on and on and on. A liberal is a person who has suffered emotionally so deeply he can feel what others feel. The ability to face and deal with pain makes for a sympathetic soul. A liberal is he who strives to lessen pain. The Cowboy, the emotionally cut of type, is an opposite syndrome and a typically conservative thing. He sees black and white and himself as white because he cannot feel pain. He is in a state of denial and rejection of his inner self. It's what makes conservatives less human and lame. They lack inner dimension.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I liked this part:

"Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Naturally it doesn't mean that they're not either.
---------------------
I have, of course been saying this same thing for years. You don't need research to see it. All you have to do is analyze your own more conservative motivations. Unfortunately though, I guess, the capacity to dispassionately dissect one?s self mercilessly and without compromise is not a universal instinct. Too bad too because it leads to the destruction of everything you ever thought was true.

That brings us to a deeper level, I think, than what our Berkeley friends know. The essence of liberal and conservative have to do with the tolerance level people have for feeling how bad they feel. The greater the level of denial the less intuitive feel, the greater the rigidity, the need for certainty, the fear of fear and on and on and on. A liberal is a person who has suffered emotionally so deeply he can feel what others feel. The ability to face and deal with pain makes for a sympathetic soul. A liberal is he who strives to lessen pain. The Cowboy, the emotionally cut of type, is an opposite syndrome and a typically conservative thing. He sees black and white and himself as white because he cannot feel pain. He is in a state of denial and rejection of his inner self. It's what makes conservatives less human and lame. They lack inner dimension.

How *not* suprising that you bought it hook, line and sinker. Did you graduate from Berkeley? Were you that naked guy that walked around on campus?

 

[Corn]

How *not* suprising that you bought it hook, line and sinker.

Moonie does have a tendency for one dimensional thinking. Lately he's taken to repeating as fact lies he's heard on late night talk radio. Critical thinking not required. As far as Moonie is concerned, all humanity really needs is more "yes men".

 

[Moonbeam]

How *not* suprising that you bought it hook, line and sinker. Did you graduate from Berkeley? Were you that naked guy that walked around on campus?
--------------------------------
How not surprising that in your haste to get off a shot you forgot to think. I bought nothing hook line and sinker. I've know that elemental crap for years and years and years, and am currently several light years down the road. Sorry, but now you can have fun with this.

I'm on record as having stated I was expelled from Berkeley because I was too liberal. And buy the way, you could have gathered, had you had your thinking cap on, that you could never become as liberal as I without tremendous pain. That should have clued you in to the possibility you would come off to me only as a pin shy of a pin prick.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How *not* suprising that you bought it hook, line and sinker. Did you graduate from Berkeley? Were you that naked guy that walked around on campus?
--------------------------------
How not surprising that in your haste to get off a shot you forgot to think. I bought nothing hook line and sinker. I've know that elemental crap for years and years and years, and am currently several light years down the road. Sorry, but now you can have fun with this.

I'm on record as having stated I was expelled from Berkeley because I was too liberal. And buy the way, you could have gathered, had you had your thinking cap on, that you could never become as liberal as I without tremendous pain. That should have clued you in to the possibility you would come off to me only as a pin shy of a pin prick.

Tell us about your pain Moonbeam. I'm curious what torture and sufferring you've been through to decide you want to share it with our forum...

 

[jjones]

On a lighter note, they did admit that at the core political liberalism is the fear of individual responsibility.

 

[Corn]

I'm on record as having stated I was expelled from Berkeley because I was too liberal.

RealityTranslator?: "I got booted because I was a slacker."


This taught him nothing, except that he found comfort in the idea that because he's a slacker, the competitive spirit is something to be reviled.

In Moonie's perfect world, everyone would be lobotomized.