Psychological elements of the conservative

US Berkley had conducted a study of the psychological patterns of the conservative, using 50 years fo data. Their reuslts are telling and will be published in the APA Psycholgical Bulletin.

The found that 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

Conservatives are rather simple people who move towards ideas that lack complexity. As an example of this, when 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."

www.berkeley.edu...

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Colonel]

A nice repost, Colonel.

It's like, many conservatives here could say "Well, yeah, Colonel, and one of the personality traits of the bleeding heart liberal is to keep dredging up stuff we have gone through and dismissed over and over."

Thus demonstrating fear, intolerance, uncertainty avoidance and delusional cognitive closure. And also little desire to listen.

its so nice to see people beating the dead horse.

poor dead horse, i'm feeling sorry for it now!




give it a break already. agree to disagree, try to work together or STFU.

Originally posted by Colonel
intolerance of ambiguity
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

I resembled these remarks...and I see nothing wrong with it...but, the rest is poppycock. Have a good day liberal.

This articule is quite interesting.. here is a footnote from it. If there is any interest I'll probably quote some more a bit later tonight, once I've finished it:

11. In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, theNew York Times has reported significant increases in right-wing populism in the following countries, among others: Belgium, Holland, France, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and Portugal (Cowell, 2002; Gordon, 2002; Judt, 2002; Krugman, 2002). Conservative or right-wing parties were already on the rise in Italy, Austria, and the United States.

Unable to link source as it is protected by copyright laws.

I posted it for its scientific value and to let the people know what is the core of the conservative. It is quite evident that most of the problems of today can be traced back to this conservative ideology.

Colonel

Q. What do you say to a Bu#e with two black eyes?

A. Nothing, they've already been told twice.


That somehow seemed to fit this.

[Edited on 13-8-2003 by cassini]

Originally posted by Colonel
I posted it for its scientific value and to let the people know what is the core of the conservative. It is quite evident that most of the problems of today can be traced back to this conservative ideology.

Um... no.

I've seen similar studies that point to "political extremism" as a core problem, giving equal weight to the extreme ideology of both left and right as root causes for societal problems. There was even amazing correlation through history of societies that, during times of intense societal stress (like now), periods of extreme division were tracked leading up to the stress. It's not hard to spot, and is happening now.

The genesis point of the division is the most intresting nugget - because it was artificial.
Conditions during the late 90's were, for anyone with the initiative, excellent and profitable. Yet, there was a marketing effort to depict it otherwise, finding fertile soil in the conservatives moral hypocrisy. The same marketing tool that paints the opposition as being all fluff and no substance and fiil of whine, are the same that yelled it to the rafters in the late 90's, creating a never before seen cottage industry: the radical right pundit. Bob Novack has been around as long as, well, air, but the mutation into propaganda spinning right wingers like Ann Coulter & Sean Hannity is an outcrop of that marketing plan. As is the rise of the religious right.

Anything ruled by the polar extremes is a bastard. Everyone who can count themselves among the working/educated/contributing to society numbers is a Moderate or Centrist - they just get thrown off by the advertising.

I'm happy my post is back and good to hear from you, Bout Time.

Like I said was when Bout Time originally posted this: Is Berkeley trying to 'profile' conservatives

And, I am glad 'they' can figure out conservatives. Next step is to figure out how to win elections. (or is that after they try to figure out their liberal radio network - least they can do is come up with a candidate)

Thanks Col. & Bob

It's just hilarious sometimes: outside of the kids who think everything in life is about absolutes ( conservative , liberal, left, right, America, Anti-America), how can it be such a lost realization that we're just shades of gray?

Candidate? Please dear Beejeebus, pick anyone of the Democrats on the daise to debate Bush...PLEASE!

indeed, BT, shades a gray. (after all, my avatar is that of a democrat )

I fail to see the difference between a libby or a conservative. the description seems to fit both sides to me.

Libs intolerant of anyone who doesnt swallow thier line of BS. Conservatives intolerant of anyone who doesnt believe thier superstitions.

Liberals are dogmatic fanatics following thier agendas. Sounds about right. So do conservatives. Whats the difference?

Thats why I simply cannot understand libs or cons, they both seem cut from the same mold to me, they simply market and package the same product differently.

Oh, in case people didnt know, the town of Berkley is an ultra left wing commie town that basically does to conservatives there what conservatives in small hick towns do to liberals, so I take this, um.scientific evidence with a grain of salt, lol.

Colonel tries to hard to tout how great libs are, and what a bunch of fuknuts conservatives are, yet he still hasnt shown me anything that would prove either side is different.

they are both the same pack of liars, thieves, and potential dictators.

That would bbe because I am not a liberal extremeist. I don't even know some of the tenets of liberalism b/c I don't care. Gay marriages? I'm against it. Why? Because it doesn't propogate the family (children). Of course, an extreme liberal could point to hetero marriages that don't do the same but, those are the exception not the rule.

I noticed that Cassini deleted this thread immediately after I made an inappropriate joke about telling Conservatives something twice.

It was in reference to the fact this topic anout a genuine scientific study is a repost, and that most people still would not see it with the validity that is inherent in it.

So I made a bad joke.

To everyone (except the idiot that complained to Cassini), I apologize.

It is inappropriate to make jokes about violence or the blackening of any human being's eyes simply on the basis of their political persuasion.

SMACK!

The authors of this study are now getting death threats which basically proves the study's worth.

Over time, I've made numerous ref's to the sickening parallel with today's form of republicanism to the Brown Shirt movement of Weimar Germany that spawned nazism......please folks, if you don't already know, read a book. The death threat thing against anyone who rightly voices dissent against this illegal cabal running the US into the ground has become the norm, not a sickening exception as it should be.

Thus, I am disposed to hate all of them b/c they represent evil.