Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

  1. #1

    Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

    [B][SIZE="4"]Researchers help define what makes a political conservative [/SIZE][/B]

    By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations

    [url]http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml[/url]

    BERKELEY – 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.

    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.

    The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

    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.

    Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

    Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

    This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

    The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

    While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

    As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

    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."

    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.

    This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

    The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

    "For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

    Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

    The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

    Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

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

    Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

    [B]He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."[/B]

  2. #2
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    861
    i want the draft to happen so i can stop looking at these retarded pointless threads

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=CTJetFan92;2476118]i want the draft to happen so i can stop looking at these retarded pointless threads[/QUOTE]

    I am not saying I agree with all of this. But to dismiss it out of hand when the psychologists make some interesting observations is short-sided. I can't wait for the draft either but you are in the political forum......

  4. #4
    I think this is about as unbiased a study as I would expect coming out of UC Berkeley.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    "Fear and aggression

    Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

    Uncertainty avoidance

    Need for cognitive closure

    Terror management"

    Sounds like those two hillbillies in Deliverance. Or just a plain ol' redneck.

    :eek:

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2476157]I think this is about as unbiased a study as I would expect coming out of UC Berkeley.[/QUOTE]

    does this surprise you???

    you gotta remember...[B]ignorantjetsfan[/B] is the same braindead dope who claims sources like these a-holes and places like thinkprogress, (exposed for the horsehs!t they are) are legitimate sources....

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2476295]does this surprise you???

    you gotta remember...[B]ignorantjetsfan[/B] is the same braindead dope who claims sources like these a-holes and places like thinkprogress, (exposed for the horsehs!t they are) are legitimate sources....[/QUOTE]

    and this is the same neanderthal that uses "fair and balanced" sources such as the weekly standard to start threads. :zzz::zzz::zzz: I guess that does not matter to quasimoto
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-11-2008 at 07:49 PM.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    This is one of the most moronic things you have ever posted. It's OK, they used "meta-analytic" calculations and hey, Stalin and Castro are conservative! And liberals hate inequality - that's why they favor affirmative action and progressive tax structures. And liberals just love "change"; just look at issues like education and social security - the liberals advocate sweeping changes like privatisation and vouchers, while those crazy conservatives advocate just more of the same-old, same-old.

    This is nothing but well-funded strawman nonsense that I am embarassed you take seriously, as the authors and you obviously have no concept about what conservatism is or any appreciation of the irony of the fact that today's conservatives are really the classical liberals of a few hundred years ago and today's liberals are really the pseudo-socialist progressives of yesteryear. The fact that you educate children frightens me. Honestly. I thought your utter lack of knowledge of the law and constitution was cute in a way, but this scares me a bit.

    This sentence is a complete and utter joke: [I]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.[/I] Yes, very scientific, that. "Many" people "appear" to "shun." Good, empirical, vetted stuff, that. And hey, if Strom Thurmond can be extrapolated to represent an entire philosophical structure, why can't Robert Byrd?? I'd love to see the "meta-analytic" calcs for his KKK stint, wouldn't you? Meta is such a sciency-sounding word, you know?

    Seriously dude, you continue to embarass yourself here. I'd think twice before starting another thread, and I write that with love, seriously. I am not even trying to be a jerk here, but you are coming off as an unhinged, stupid sheep. And I think you're better than that. Underneath your reflexive, yea-team ignorance is some genuine passion. Just try to think a bit more. Just sayin....
    Last edited by jets5ever; 04-11-2008 at 09:30 PM.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2476467]This is one of the most moronic things you have ever posted. It's OK, they used "meta-analytic" calculations and hey, Stalin and Castro are conservative! And liberals hate inequality - that's why they favor affirmative action and progressive tax structures. And liberals just love "change"; just look at issues like education and social security - the liberals advocate sweeping changes like privatisation and vouchers, while those crazy conservatives advocate just more of the same-old, same-old.

    This is nothing but well-funded strawman nonsesne that I am embarassed that you take seriously, as the authors and you obviously have no concept about what conservatism is or any appreciation of the irony of the fact that today's conservatives are really the classical liberals of a few hundred years ago and today's liberals are really the pseudo-socialist progressives of yesteryear. The fact that you educate children frightens me. Honestly. I thought your utter lack of knowledge of the law and constitution was cute in a way, but this scares me a bit.

    This sentence is a complete and utter joke: [I]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.[/I] Yes, very scientific, that. "Many" people "appear" to "shun." Good, empirical, vetted stuff, that. And hey, if Strom Thurmond can be extrapolated to represent an entire philosophical structure, why can't Robert Byrd?? I'd love to see the "meta-analytic" calcs for his KKK stint, wouldn't you? Meta is such a sciency-sounding word, you know?

    Seriously dude, you continue to embarass yourself here. I'd think twice before starting another thread. You're too funny. Honestly.[/QUOTE]


    I don't even think you needed to dignify this thread with a response like this. I thought it was obviously and blatantly ridiculous.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2476306]and this is the same neanderthal that uses "fair and balanced" sources such as the weekly standard to start threads. :zzz::zzz::zzz: I guess that does not matter to quasimoto[/QUOTE]you are the boringest poster in the history of postings,with all due respect.i mean who takes a guy whos's moniker is"intelligent jetsfan" seriously.the most pretentious name i have ever heard.you invite ridicle, irregardless of you leanings.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2476467]This is one of the most moronic things you have ever posted. It's OK, they used "meta-analytic" calculations and hey, Stalin and Castro are conservative! And liberals hate inequality - that's why they favor affirmative action and progressive tax structures. And liberals just love "change"; just look at issues like education and social security - the liberals advocate sweeping changes like privatisation and vouchers, while those crazy conservatives advocate just more of the same-old, same-old.

    This is nothing but well-funded strawman nonsesne that I am embarassed that you take seriously, as the authors and you obviously have no concept about what conservatism is or any appreciation of the irony of the fact that today's conservatives are really the classical liberals of a few hundred years ago and today's liberals are really the pseudo-socialist progressives of yesteryear. The fact that you educate children frightens me. Honestly. I thought your utter lack of knowledge of the law and constitution was cute in a way, but this scares me a bit.

    This sentence is a complete and utter joke: [I]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.[/I] Yes, very scientific, that. "Many" people "appear" to "shun." Good, empirical, vetted stuff, that. And hey, if Strom Thurmond can be extrapolated to represent an entire philosophical structure, why can't Robert Byrd?? I'd love to see the "meta-analytic" calcs for his KKK stint, wouldn't you? Meta is such a sciency-sounding word, you know?

    Seriously dude, you continue to embarass yourself here. I'd think twice before starting another thread. You're too funny. Honestly.[/QUOTE]

    The depth of your arrogance is bottomless. It fascinates me to see how you are now a psychologist, sociologist, as well as an environmentalist and a lawyer. I can understand disagreeing with a particular point of view. If you read the responses you would have seen where I stated not agreeing with everything in this article. But you believe you are qualified to categorically dismiss an entire report done by psychologists who studied 50 years worth of information and years of research. You are so talented that you can dismiss the entire body of work in mere minutes :zzz::zzz:

    But what else is to be expected from someone who driveled statements in other threads that protesting is useless and a waste of time. That its foolish and stupid to organize and protest. I guess you did not have to take history classes during your time in college. Go tell that to the British after Gandhi kicked them out of India. Explain your drivel to the people who helped Dr. King organize his marches for civil rights.

    Believe me, as scared as you are with my "lack of knowledge", I assure you I was just as frightened at your ignorance when you made those statements. Anyway, I may post a thread about John Glenn and his journey to the moon. Feel free to correct him on his experiences and research about outerspace :zzz::zzz:
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-11-2008 at 09:58 PM.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2476513]The depth of your arrogance is bottomless. It fascinates me to see how you are now a psychologist, sociologist, as well as an environmentalist and a lawyer. I can understand disagreeing with a particular point of view. If you read the responses you would have seen where I stated not agreeing with everything in this article. But you believe you are qualified to categorically dismiss an entire report done by psychologists who studied 50 years worth of information and years of research. You are so talented that you can dismiss the entire body of work in mere minutes :zzz::zzz:

    But what else is to be expected from someone who driveled statements in other threads that protesting is useless and a waste of time. That its foolish and stupid to organize and protest. I guess you did not have to take history classes during your time in college. Go tell that to the British after Gandhi kicked them out of India. Explain your drivel to the people who helped Dr. King organize his marches for civil rights.

    Believe me, as scared as you are with my "lack of knowledge", I assure you I was just as frightened at your ignorance when you made those statements. Anyway, I may post a thread about a story concerning Albert Einstein. Feel free to correct him on his theories as well :zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    Uh, I have a degree in history, thanks. If you take this BS seriously, you are beyond help. I am qualified to dismiss this sh*t because I am not a drooling idiot who falls for non-scientific editorials wrapped as scientific research papers, nor am I fooled by words like "meta-analytic" or people's fancy degrees or their solemn oaths that they are unbiased. I have fancy degrees from fancy schools and because of that I know for a fact that they don't mean jack-sh*t. I know math and statisical analysis and the law and what does and does not constitute empirical analysis and evidence and you learn far more about human behavior studying economics than you do listening to some douche from Berkeley talk about how Castro is a conservative.

    It's not that I am that talented, it is that this thread and this subject are that stupid. You are a cartoon character with no apparent ability to think critically. You lap up whatever lefty sh*t crosses your field of vision with the gleeful and unquestioning enthusiasm of a kitten accepting a bowl of milk. You are a child and I weep for your students.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2476557]Uh, I have a degree in history, thanks. If you take this BS seriously, you are beyond help. I am qualified to dismiss this sh*t because I am not a drooling idiot who falls for non-scientific editorials wrapped as scientific research papers, nor am I fooled by words like "meta-analytic" or people's fancy degrees or their solemn oaths that they are unbiased. I have fancy degrees from fancy schools and because of that I know for a fact that they don't mean jack-sh*t. I know math and statisical analysis and the law and what does and does not constitute empirical analysis and evidence and you learn far more about human behavior studying economics than you do listening to some douche from Berkeley talk about how Castro is a conservative.

    It's not that I am that talented, it is that this thread and this subject are that stupid. You are a cartoon character with no apparent ability to think critically. You lap up whatever lefty sh*t crosses your field of vision with the gleeful and unquestioning enthusiasm of a kitten accepting a bowl of milk. You are a child and I weep for your students.[/QUOTE]

    Also said with "love," right? :cool:

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2476719]Also said with "love," right? :cool:[/QUOTE]

    Yes, actually. Tough love, so to speak. When people act like fools it is our duty to let them know about it, so they can avoid it in the future. I like IJF, even though his username is ironic. I really do.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    [QUOTE]This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition[/QUOTE]

    Well all-righty-then.

    This article is pretty gay. But it's just as gay as a Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter "I HATE LIBERALS" book/comic strip/column...

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2476753]Yes, actually. Tough love, so to speak. When people act like fools it is our duty to let them know about it, so they can avoid it in the future. I like IJF, even though his username is ironic. I really do.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the tough love....But for your wisdom, you simply do not understand what I do at this site.

    I enjoy posting on this forum for a multitude of reasons. This is a football site first, foremost and always. I do not approach topics and issues here like I do when I am teaching or attending meetings and workshops (at least the workshops I can stay awake for;) ) The political portion of this football site is like a big comic strip, and I say this with complete affection. You have a lot of characters here who post in a "over-the-top" manner, including myself. If some of us interacted with people in our professions the way we do with each other here, we would be unemployed. Just take a look at the Obama threads that have been started over the past few months, and the responses, they are ridiculous(and some are very funny, too)!

    I enjoy "ripping it" with the cartoon characters in this forum like [B]Come Back to Earth[/B] and DeanPats Fan. I have a good time acting goofy with them but its all done, from my perspective, with a wink and a nod. With all that said, I was wrong about the first amendment issue in that thread. I started that thread to ruffle some feathers and it was poorly researched on my part.

    But, and I mean this with respect, I could care less what your opinion is of my intellect. Your not a collogue of mine, nor do you write my evaluations. Your not around when parents come in to thank me for treating their kids with respect and teaching them to think for themselves. You were also not one of the members who accepted me into graduate school. We could get into a diploma pissing contest and compare GPAs if you like :zzz::zzz: But, in fact, it shows a lack of intelligence to make blanket statements about people that post political comments anonymously on a football forum site! You may be the most humble and down to earth person in the real world.

    And a word about my screen name; the reason I chose it was because, foolishly, I wanted to grab a name that stood out. Something that was over the top and different from the usual. It was not meant to show arrogance. I give that nut job, [B]Come Back to Earth[/B], credit for coming up with such a unique name that truly fits him.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-12-2008 at 10:59 AM.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2476825]And a word about my screen name; the reason I chose it was because, foolishly, I wanted to grab a name that stood out. [/QUOTE]

    The award for the most attention grabbing name on JI goes to:


    <<drum roll>>



    [B][SIZE="5"]baldnuts1[/SIZE][/B]

    (granted...it doesn't stand out as much since he dropped the lifesaver stocking cameltoe girl avatar)

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2476123]I am not saying I agree with all of this. But to dismiss it out of hand when the psychologists make some interesting observations is short-sided. I can't wait for the draft either but you are in the political forum......[/QUOTE]

    If you were an intelilgent and fair Jets fan, you weould see that the source of this is Berkely and know it is beyong biased. Maybe we should see what underlies liberalism by asking ultraconservatives.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2476467]This is one of the most moronic things you have ever posted. It's OK, they used "meta-analytic" calculations and hey, Stalin and Castro are conservative! And liberals hate inequality - that's why they favor affirmative action and progressive tax structures. And liberals just love "change"; just look at issues like education and social security - the liberals advocate sweeping changes like privatisation and vouchers, while those crazy conservatives advocate just more of the same-old, same-old.

    This is nothing but well-funded strawman nonsense that I am embarassed you take seriously, as the authors and you obviously have no concept about what conservatism is or any appreciation of the irony of the fact that today's conservatives are really the classical liberals of a few hundred years ago and today's liberals are really the pseudo-socialist progressives of yesteryear. The fact that you [b][SIZE="5"]indoctrinate[/SIZE][/b] children frightens me. Honestly. I thought your utter lack of knowledge of the law and constitution was cute in a way, but this scares me a bit.

    This sentence is a complete and utter joke: [I]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.[/I] Yes, very scientific, that. "Many" people "appear" to "shun." Good, empirical, vetted stuff, that. And hey, if Strom Thurmond can be extrapolated to represent an entire philosophical structure, why can't Robert Byrd?? I'd love to see the "meta-analytic" calcs for his KKK stint, wouldn't you? Meta is such a sciency-sounding word, you know?

    Seriously dude, you continue to embarass yourself here. I'd think twice before starting another thread, and I write that with love, seriously. I am not even trying to be a jerk here, but you are coming off as an unhinged, stupid sheep. And I think you're better than that. Underneath your reflexive, yea-team ignorance is some genuine passion. Just try to think a bit more. Just sayin....[/QUOTE]

    Fixed

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2476897]If you were an intelilgent and fair Jets fan, you weould see that the source of this is Berkely and know it is beyong biased. Maybe we should see what underlies liberalism by asking ultraconservatives.[/QUOTE]

    Most major universities would be considered "liberal" by far right evangelical standards. Berkeley was also the home of Jensen and Shockley, so I don't think it's exclusively tree-hugging liberal.... anyway, the whole premise of this study was pretty silly. It's right up there with that Harvard study that determined that free speech in America was influencing how Al Qaeda fight in Iraq. Somebody has got to do some better review of these grant proposals...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us