What would drive a psychiatrist to isolate a political ideology and do a report on it? And, further, not do one about con men?
What a transparent report, and a 1-star steaming turd of a thread. Telling that our resident "bomb 'em all" crowd would take his "scientific" study by the Ann Coulter of psychiatry as medical gospel. Rinse-repeat.
Here's another study, this one funded by the U.S. government:
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".
Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"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 authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Somehow, I doubt either one are very accurate regarding some genetic root of political ideology. Yours, or ours. But it is rather funny to see the sharks flock to the red-meat topic. Reactionary much?