Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative

a reply to: Char-Lee

For example . . . when I was still teaching at the UNIV,

I initially treat everyone on an at face value basis--I relate to them however they present themselves and try to do unto others as I'd prefer done unto me . . . virtually regardless.

However, there's one . . . . bw**ch of a sociologist there who turned out to be an absolutely constantly on fire napalm flaming liberal of the worst sort . . . and rather mindlessly so.

I on occasion would try and make some conciliatory comment to her--a bit more thoughtful and elaborate than

"Howdy, I hope you have a productive blessed day." but of that ilk.

EVERY BLESSED TIME SHE ABSOLUTELY WENT BERZERK MORE OR LESS CUSSING ME OUT for some word choice that was absolutely innocent and well meant.

For example, she might have said to the above greeting:

"Stop your ignorant s***t propagandizing about capitalist productiveness, you capitalist pig. And stop blessing me with your idiot religious c**p you neanderthal."

Needless to say . . . even I eventually learned that she's a dyed-in-the-wool extremely absurd and clueless liberal idiot without a microgram of grace or civility to her . . . UNLESS you can march lock-step to the Communist/globalist Stomp arm in arm with her.

No thanks.

All of which to say . . . it saves valuable time to categorize folks, issues, factors, life.

a reply to: BO XIAN

But, I suspect you'd rather be called a "human" than an "animal" or an "organism."

And, I suspect you'd rather be treated like a "human" than like a plant organism.

I am so not in any way understanding you. I could care less what someone wants to call me I am me... animal, plant...organism lol fine! Just treat me with respect, learn what I personally FEEL about EACH issue that comes up before putting all the EXTREME energy into feelings that have no point! Anger? Hate?

You seem so intelligent and yet lost in so much pointless emotion that is harmful to you. Emotions toward people you don't KNOW can't possibly know. If I were to decide to label myself conservative you would instantly feel anger and hate even though I have in no way changed.

The political labels are so stupid and can never match any REAL person! It only causes perceived division so that nothing can ever be accomplished!

a reply to: Char-Lee

Sorry. I don't think I can put it any better.

Yeah, I'm passionate about foundational and eternal priorities.

God even said in the NT that He'd rather folks were hot or cold than luke-warm.

Some things simply matter a lot more than other things.

Emotion is not to be substituted for reason but both are important.

I'm conservative, BTW. Fiercely so. I thought everyone on ATS knew that. LOL.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I have long ago learned that most (not all) "studies" are ...subjective (to be nice).

Humans are many things... literally, in a meta sense ... and reducing them to one or the other will fail at some point.

Your point about conservatives being more apt to survive seemed right at first, but the more I pondered it (heh, see... you were right again about over thinking) the more I wondered.

Being "nice" and selfless and supporting your community is a darned good survival model... with the benefit of less chaos, murder and death by neglect.

Newer economic models (not from U of Chicago) postulate cooperative systems might be better on paper, too.

I became "progressive" by growing up upper middle class and then living as ... well, scary poor. And I've been mugged and had my house broken into... and it just left me with the desire to eradicate unfairness... especially and most importantly, economic unfairness.

People at the margins of survival are not good citizens ...or any kind of neighbor someone would want.

I've also seen that we do not live in a completely merit based society... in fact I would argue that it is mostly based on nepotism.

I have seen deserving, intelligent, saint-like people die for lack of enough money... more times than I care to think about.

I also know that some people working dull, thankless, underpaid jobs would have been at home in any number of swanky offices and perfectly capable of operating in that environment if they had the opportunity (or in some cases, desire).

I just think that with the level of interdependence we already have, why not grow up and chip in for health care, food, clothing and shelter for all?

Some people have no family, no opportunities, no health and no frat brother to set them up with a cushy means of life support. Instead of ignoring those folks, or painting them as a scary "others," I think we should accept that they could be any one of us.

I don't want a society of equal drones... I just want one that cares for everyone. I haven't heard a good argument against that notion of how we could live. The resources certainly exist... the will to implement it is lacking.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I'm conservative, BTW. Fiercely so. I thought everyone on ATS knew that. LOL.

These titles mean so little to me I can't say what your label of yourself really is supposed to mean.

Is this who you are as a human being? I can say to anything I look up, well yes sometimes but in some cases no that would not be good. There simply is no one shoe fits all.

Economic liberty and the central role of free enterprise in American society
A small, non-invasive government
A strong national defense focused on protection and the fight against terrorism
The most influential national political organization for conservatives in the US is the Republican party, although the recent Tea Party phenomenon is perhaps the most tightly aligned with the ideologies mentioned above.

a reply to: Char-Lee

Sorry . . . your seemingly near total aversion to labels . . . while understandable . . . makes discussion far toooo unwieldly for my time and energy at the moment.

You are welcome to consider "conservative" and "conservatism" a secret identity, if you prefer.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Just one question do you feel that everything listed if you look up the word "conservative" fits your belief system completely? 100%? Is there never something that is is said to stand for that you don't?

a reply to: Char-Lee

Of course generalizations do not fit 100% individual specifics.

That's the NATURE of generalizations and individual specifics.

Do you generally stop at red lights or specifically stop at each one?

Sigh.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Do you generally stop at red lights or specifically stop at each one?

Actually I specifically stop at each one.

If you don't fit the label completely you don't fit the label...imo.
Sigh. Sigh.

originally posted by: BlueMule
So in a nutshell, fear leads to anger which leads to hate which leads to the dark side of the Force which leads to conservative voting.

Pleased, Yoda would be.

Do not underestimate the propaganda powers of the Emperor

a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

just another liberal biased study in proving that "those" people have a "condition" that needs to be treated.

and where is the corresponding study on liberal behavior? there isn't one since the researchers call that the baseline condition to be measured against.

a reply to: Bluesma

I respect your position. But I continue to feel that each way of looking at things can go to an extreme that ceases to be constructive.

Oh, of course. I think everything in life is about balance and I don't even personally like "describing myself" as liberal or conservative. It's a self limiting term. It conveys a group of ideas that may have nothing to do with my own "political structure" of mind.

That said, you should be open, continuously open, to the "what if". For example, science into neuroplasticity in my mind has shown that change in a real thing: not some "idea" floating about unanchored to anything physical. No. It is a biological expression of will. When we fix our thoughts and take advantage of critical knowledge - like how each of us is dialectically "packaged" with other minds, and that our mental states are being continuously influenced by back and forth implicit, affective information....With this knowledge, we can manually "program" our consciousness knowing that it is being reified biologically as more synapses - spaces between dendrites and axon terminals - and more myelination. So more proteins and more lipids corresponding to the change in consciousness. Something physically real. There's power knowing that my effort will not always be "this hard". There's a fundamental certainty in knowing that no thought or experience is doomed to torment you forever. The simple knowledge that the physical brain, at the molecular and cellular level, is in continual change. And nothing - no gene or anything else - can prevent the conscious decision to change.

Change is a superordinate phenomenon. Something that is inherently "system wide", involving and relating all components in their present reality. In laymens terms, if we can 'increase' the quality of something by increasing our quantitative output to a point where more and more people become exposed to a particular way of seeing the world, so that they themselves become 'conduits' for this perspective. Exerting and exposing others to this way of seeing.

Its like a wave, in a sense.

I'm sorry. This whole parenthesis was for the purpose of showing that psychological change is not only possible, but demonstrable. So, how can a conservative or republican hold to certain moral views - for example, homosexuality, that assumes that deep down human nature can't be controlled? Take Muslims. They force the burka and hijab on their females because of the austere notion that man wont be able to control themselves if they see their exposed skin or exposed hair. Is this true? I think many people, including myself, demonstrate that a man and a woman can have a relationship where the former doesn't get caught up in thoughts about sexual matters. It may occur to them - as it does to me. But do we dwell on it? No. It goes away. And the sheer thought of hurting her - and a potential relationship she is in, that is, the relationship she has with her husband or boyfriend, abhors me. So there you go. An inability to control your thoughts is essentially related to an unimaginative and superficial understanding of the processes which occur within and between human minds.

And thats also important. Morality. If you stare at a woman who has a wedding ring, is it not fair to say that you lack compassion for that girl and for the relationship she is in? Who are you to intrude upon it and fester it with your own careless narcissism? To 'take" the girl because she attracts you. Come on! Seriously. That human beings in our society still feel this way simply goes to show how unrefined their consciousness is. But, like I've been stressing: the brain can change. It just needs the appropriate context and people. Once something can feel like it is "mine", that I have built it and learned it and have come to see it as my "own", then the dissociated block which prevents further growth (this being what conservatives get distracted with when they broach their views on the psychology of humans) can dissipate. It's a wonderfully mysterious process.

On the other hand, liberals who take it to the extreme i.e naturism, etc, don't pay attention to those other aspects of human nature which need to be respected, such as the stages of development. We also need to bring into proper balance individualism vis a vis the whole of society.

The individualistic dogma was a mistake. It was recalcitrant from the get go. It wanted to cast off the legitimately regarded oppressiveness of protestant and traditional ethics, but it went to a bloody extreme; it forgot about how particulars are influenced by the whole. That what a particular person does affects the whole. If this is how the world is organized, down-up, from person to society, and up-down, from society to the person, this basically means we are co-dependent on one another. That everything we say or do if not concordant with the balance or 'quality' of the whole would necessarily be immoral.

But we didn't have this understanding when our present society was organized. And we still in this society, still suffer from it's effects, its mechanistic understanding of things, its obsessiveness with the particular - reductionism in science and individualism in society - but the world IS going through a change. It almost seems unstoppable. Just thinking, global warming is a consequence of this mechanistic and particularistic view. What "I" do doesn't matter. Just "live and let live", so that "I" do this and you do that and all of the time were not thinking systematically about the relationship between what we do and the rest of reality. As if such a relationship didnt exist.

All of the sciences are pressing us into this systems view of life. Neuroscientists have gone from going from smaller and smaller to a larger system wide perspective. And good lord, it is complex. The amount of variables to consider, how this chemical becomes affected when interacting with that chemical. It's essentially mathematically impossible at this point to predict with any linear certainty. Because the world isn't linear, but non-linear. Nature. Organisms.

So from this SCIENTIFIC perspective, there is just one "right" perspective of the world. Although, technically speaking, this "right" mentalistic framework can be dynamically found in all the major religions and many different philosophies, but we can basically call it humanism. The human being without all the other "stuff". Just learn it, analyze, it's history, its psychology, it's relationship with other organisms, with one another, with the universe.

When you drop the fictions of the past and look at the world square on, a singular approach does emerge. Tolerance and respect for others. But importantly, a view of life that takes into account dynamic relationships between part and whole. Self and society. Self and Nature. etc.

I think it is inevitable that something like this will emerge. It almost seems like the paradoxical intention of the universe. That a part of itself become conscious of itself. And in the process, we find love, compassion, joy.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: xuenchen
Are there any real examples of this ?

Why yes, your thread on the refusal of INSURANCE payed contraception points EXACTLY that.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "problem" I see with "Liberals" is the fact that a lot of authoritarian/totalitarian policies are necessary to make it work.

Where you see authoritarian I see optimal for the community. Not that you would care.

originally posted by: xuenchenAnd then it always fails anyway.

Of course, we always have conservatives crying egoistically for their own little selfish personnal freedom.

Boohoo

oh wow, might as well change your name after that!

the problem is that humans aren't bees or ants or termites.

real humans, that is.

conservatives sacrifice a lot to help others, they have no problem doing that but it's a big difference when it is mandatory by government decree.

what do you think is worse/damaging, political ideology or religious ideology?

shouldn't scientists be finding out why gays are gay instead?

a reply to: BO XIAN

You are causing the observer effect around yourself. Your beliefs are reflecting your reality.

You should know. You studied science.

just another liberal biased study in proving that "those" people have a "condition" that needs to be treated.

Always attacking the messenger. As I pointed out earlier this study shows real, quantifiable physiological differences- that's not bias it's reality.

a reply to: Not Authorized

That sounds like your particular brand of mysticism, to me.

I'm sure many on here would doubt I could be the least bit objective etc.

Time will tell.

originally posted by: robobbob
a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

just another liberal biased study in proving that "those" people have a "condition" that needs to be treated.

and where is the corresponding study on liberal behavior? there isn't one since the researchers call that the baseline condition to be measured against.

The emotions behind this sort of reaction is exactly as the correlations predict.

More concretely, I see conservatives and conservatism as most likely to respond to threats from and suspicion of people and assume biased motives, especially the more strange and distant, and liberals more likely to respond to threats from more abstract principles or phenomena.

There is some evolutionary bias---in the ancestral environment, the primary threat was from other humans once large predators were reasonably subdued by tribes and spears. Other threats like climate and microbes were invisible and not understood and not evolutionarily important so they don't induce the same universal instinctive responses.

a reply to: Astrocyte
I am with you on the changeability of mind- and behaviour. I want to make clear first that I personally feel quite similarly. My view is that all is relative- including morality- and that we are perfectly capable of adapting to different things, different ideas.

I make that clear first because I will then play “devils advocate”… I can’t help but try to highlight the “other side” of the argument, that I can see the reason in too.

I have heard extreme conservatives say things like “He is so liberal, it is scary”, or “if you stand for nothing, you’ll stand for anything”, or “if you are too open minded, your brains will fall out.”

I think this expresses that somewhere, they too, are aware that they could wrap their heads around many different ideas, and get used to them. Only, they see that as a threat, something that is “not good”.

Again, I jump back in my own shoes- I went from getting used to not wearing a top at beaches in Europe, to frequenting nude beaches, and have now even gone to a swingers club twice. (since you approached the nudity taboos). I never thought I’d do any of that, before.

What I learned is that our imagination will always fill in the blanks of unknown with the most negative potentials it can come up with- that usually turn out to be wrong.

But on the other hand, the people I know who feel such things, on further listening, I find their ultimate concern seems to be group solidarity. Keeping people together. Let’s face it, moral rules, the collectively held ideas (that determine collective behaviour) are the cement of a group!

There is TRUTH to the fact that an individual has a higher chance at survival if part of a group- and the more that that group is solidly “glued”, the chances increase. They are not wrong on that point.

These people are aware they could adapt, and the limitations they place on thought and behaviour through belief in universal morals or ethics, are there to protect them from threat individually and as a group.

My other point is that from what I have seen, morals and ideas tend to be self- fulfilling prophecies. If you believe that your emotions or drives would be capable of overcoming your conscious will in a certain situation, then that will tend to happen. Your mind will bend to the “rules” of the reality it perceives.

If you try to change the rules one day, the mind will need to time to adapt to the new perspective and behaviors- it might continue with the old reflexes for quite a while.

Perhaps you are right and the world is changing, we are opening our minds, but I suspect that if so, we will go through much conflict before it becomes better.
If you believe that you shouldn’t do something because others would be overcome with the drive to invade you, then that geos both ways- if someone else does that thing (opens their boundries in a specific way) then your mind will simply carry out the expected drives it believes you should, being in the position of “other”.

I find that the subconscious doesn’t distinguish self and other very well- it grasps patterns, but the “I” can end up in any point of that pattern- it remains the same.

I have found that believing people have destructive motives inside makes you have destructive motives inside then. What you imagine about others, you create for yourself.

Change is sticky business, that needs to be undertaken in gradual steps, in some cases, and using an alert mind that spends the energy on discerning.

Nudism isn’t about running around with no regard for others around- the biggest surprise I got from adventuring into a swingers club? That the people are MORE respectful than in a normal dance club! No strangers grinding up against you in the crowded dance floor, or “accidently” bumping their arm into your breast repeatedly, or insisting on the pick up attempts even after you’ve made it clear you aren’t interested.
A simple no thank you means he gets the hell away and stays away - with no hard feelings.

Somehow the vulnerability gives rise to more respect, more consciousness of each others individual boundries and rights. I didn’t get into any “action” of such a place- for the moment, that is too much for me. But that discovery I found fascinating and unexpected. Frankly, I think I would rather go back into a club like that just to dance with my husband, then a “normal” club!

But let’s get back to the point that- this sort of thing is easier digested by the collective in the country I am in. Already, people are more used to nudity, and swingers don’t hide the fact that they are swingers- it is a lifestyle choice that may not be main stream, but people know it is an option.

Nobody here notices a woman topless on a normal beach, but you should see how the American people we bring there react- just as they expected- unable to not look, and the men having to stay laying on their stomach.

But I think also- people enjoy the power of mystery. The experience of transgressing taboos is exciting. Taboo is sometimes worth creating just for that.

The release of repressed energy is a rush- I don't think many people would admit it even to themselves, but our body adores overtaking the will from time to time as much as it loves feeling "contained", controlled, and protected by it the rest of the time.

If one wants to champion our individual rights to experience, they'd have to respect that one as well- that people have the right to creating the "conserved energy" experience as well!

(I apologize for the length, redundancy, and perhaps pedantic tone of my post- I work out my reflections as I go along, and lack the necessary traditional education to call upon terminology or phrases which can vehicle ideas more efficiently . I am probably explaining things to myself more than anyone else...)

a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

I was a psychology major, and I've met a lot of different people in my life. I would say definitely true - but I'm surprised someone researched it. I'm guessing there are a lot of differences, some positive and negative for both sides.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

17,081 participants and 59 samples to make the case of a population of 350 million. They should have had a large base in which to study, this is such a tiny segment. I love the fact it is written by two authors from Berkeley, one from Stanford, and one from University of Maryland. Schools in no way slanted.

Mathematically, you don't actually need that large of a sample size to determine the statistics for even a rather large population accurately. I don't remember the formulas off the top of my head, but I learned them in a statistics class.

To be approved by the APA (American Psychological Association) a study has to go through a series of checks and balances, and then it is peer-reviewed after as well. Of course, the scientists could still be biased, especially in things like what they choose to study.