Psychology Study: Fear Leads to Conservatism

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


You know, Phage's quote actully reinforces the data. Let's look:

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.
- Winston Churchill

A young person has a whole life ahead of them and can feel fearless, whereas a old person at the end of their life fears death, finds God, and wants things the way they used to be.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Tell me again how your post is in some way a coherent response to anything I've said? Really, that made no sense.

and is CT'er an abbreviation of conspiracy theorist?

edit to add.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by joechip]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


Very interesting.

It's funny, but when I was talking to my brother in Texas during the re-election of President Bush to a second term he agreed with me that his first term was pretty lackluster but added that if 9/11 hadn't happened he probably wouldn't have voted for him again. He went on to say he felt Bush was the only person suitable to protect the country which he worried would end up being another Israel in terms of terror attacks.

I then asked, "so you voted for him out of fear"?

Boy he went off at the very notion! He started yelling at me for not respecting his political opinions and hung up on me. Growing up where I did the people in my family who did vote always voted to the Right so I had no choice but to respect their opinions. That of course wasn't why he was angry.

I knew why he voted for Bush a second time and I also believe many others did so for the very same reason. 9/11 and the Bin-Laden Boogeyman.

Meanwhile I was stuck with John Kerry or Ralph Nader.



- Lee



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CREAM
 


There are many generalizations listed in that study. The generalization that "liberals are messier than conservatives" does not hold true in my own personal experience of it, as I am very conservative politically speaking and far messier than any liberal friends I have. I live in Los Angeles so finding like minded conservatives, politically speaking, is hard to do, but I do have a few, and when we all are hanging out together, the few conservatives, with a bunch of liberals, it is our experience that we have to bite our tongues quite often, and in fact, when this Berkeley study, (Hardly a politically neutral institution), claims that; conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3", what is interesting is that myself and my conservative friends observe that our liberal friends today as adults are easily offended, easily victimized, indecisive, fearful, rigid, although not so inhibited, but always vulnerable.

Of course, that too is a generalization, and my "liberal" friends are my friends who possess many attributes and can be every bit as tough and resilient as any conservative I know. Further, when having political debates, it has become an observation of mine, that "liberals", at least the ones who identify themselves as such, are pretty darn dogmatic about their ideology, and are so steadfastly defensive of government programs that have no been in place since The New Deal, that they are clearly arguing for the conservation of these programs, which for all intents and purposes, represent the status quo.

Even further, the friends of whom I call conservative, and identify themselves as such, are so because they take a strict view of the Constitution, and this is what they are conserving. Conservatives, after all, conserve, and as far as Constitutional conservatives go, they are conservative because there are far too many taking a way to liberal view of that Constitution. Thus, when Republicans are often referred to as "conservatives", I and my conservative friends wonder which Republicans they are referring to, outside of Ron Paul?

The biggest problem with this study is that it is defining "conservatism" based upon the bias of those who conducted the study. It is clear that those who have conducted the study readily equate Republican Party members with "conservatism", and as far as generalizations go, I would agree that Republicans are; more likely to be religious, more likely to favor country music, but many of the other findings of this study readily explain why many of my liberal friends have a hard time believing I am a conservative. Out of all my friends, none have more books than I, and the variety of books I have and have read rival both my liberal and conservative friends. My favorite book of all time is Les Miserables which was written by a well known liberal.

While I know a few liberals, including in this site, who are are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, than some conservatives I know, I also know many liberals, including in this site who are nowhere near open to ideas that aren't theirs, and their intellectual curiosity extends as far as loaded questions. The assertion by the study done in 2003 that conservatives ave a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it can only hold true if the decision being made is easily made based upon their understanding of the circumstances, but if any decision must be made regarding circumstances where the outcome is not so easily predicted, by definition, a conservative would be slower to make any decision.

In the end, the conclusions reached in these studies has as much to do with the perception of what liberal and conservative is, and that perception seems to be a fairly limited one, in fact the kind of view or perception one would expect from a Berkeley or New York Liberal, which is just another generalization. Whatever methodology was used to reach the conclusions in this study, that a clear and present bias regarding what a liberal and conservative is, seems obvious. Perhaps these psychologists are highly specialized psychologists are limited in their understanding of political science, and as such, their study becomes suspect. It is one thing to reach conclusions regarding behavior in general, and another thing entirely to generalize behavior based upon political beliefs.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well.


www.psychologytoday.com...


This statement can be rewritten as follows; "Multiple factors influence conversion to conservative ideals.

I think this sums up a simple and clear counterpoint.

We can use any statistics to push our agenda. We just have to word them right.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The generalization that "liberals are messier than conservatives" does not hold true in my own personal experience of it, as I am very conservative politically speaking and far messier than any liberal friends I have.




I guess you'd be wrong for a political version of The Odd Couple.
The tag-line would read:

"One's conservative, the other liberal. Different opinions, same mess".

Hey wait...maybe that describes the two-party system to a tee.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

Yes. CT'er is an abbreviation for conspiracy theorist.
Your post has been modified substantially since I replied.
The point of my post is that it does not seem to be the government which is attempting to instill fear. Unless of course, the conspiracy theories actually originate from the government.


[edit on 7/20/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The study I linked to is more objective scientifically, but comes to the same conclusion.

The soft sciences do tend to be more open to interpretation. I personally prefer the harder sciences for stuff like this.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


My post was actually not modified substantially. If you mean I changed anything. No I was merely trying to get the quote thing right. Or what did you think I said that I'm no longer saying, or vice-versa?

And surely you can't be serious in denying the government, particularly the administration of GWB didn't use fear to advance their agenda. Really now.

I found this comparison interesting.

"Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems. In his September 20, 2001, speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's sense of vulnerability: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.... I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight.... Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat." (Subsequent terror alerts by the FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security have maintained and expanded this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)

Contrast this rhetoric with Franklin Roosevelt's speech delivered the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He said: "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.... There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces--with the unbounding determination of our people--we will gain the inevitable triumph--so help us God." Roosevelt focuses on an optimistic future rather than an ongoing threat to Americans' personal survival."

reclaimdemocracy.org...


Yeah, sorry I can't do the quote thing right.
Anyway, no honest person who was paying any attention at during the last decade would claim the government hasn't been using fear to advance their agendas. Dick Cheney's speeches and offhand comments were even worse. And remain so to this day.

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

Ok. I will revise my statement. Government is not the only source of fear.

My premise holds. It is only through experience that lies of any sort can ultimately be discerned. Lies do not necessarily involve the invocation of fear. Fear is not the source of conservatism. Experience is. It is also the source of skepticism on any and all matters.

It's also sometimes referred to as orneriness.

[edit on 7/20/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
It has become very obvious to some, how the major motivator in republican speeches and/or comments incite fear, and democrats always try and paint a rosy future. Remember "death panels" vs no pre existing conditions?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Your premise is an opinion. Hardly a strong refutation to a group of well-presented, related studies. Like I said before, impugn the methodology. Tell us why the studies don't prove what they assert. Otherwise, the logical conclusions stand. By the way, if experience created conservatism wouldn't all older people be conservative? Or maybe all world-traveling people or people who have had a lot of different jobs, etc. Prove the connection between "experience" and "conservatism." Don't just assert it.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


LoL right and i also remember him talking about not having fed funded abortions either.........he lied about that too, try reading the new bill......


Its not fear, its people seeing him for what he really is and what the Dems are doing, EVERY SINGLE THING THEY SAID THEY WOULDNT DO THEY DID......

Its not fear, its called learning from the PATTERN they are setting......

You come on here and have posted two threads TODAY attacking conservatism, all the while, you are either ignorant to the facts or REFUSE to to concede ANYTHING that the administration is doing to the contrary of what they said they would!

How bout how his campaign was about doing away with racism, yet every chance he get he makes an issue of it?

How bout in one breath condemning and SUING Arizona for POSSIBLE issue with race with their new immigration operations, and on the OTHER side, letting the Black Panthers slide with what is OBVIOUSLY RACISM and bullying at the polls?

Or the NAACP going after the Tea Party calling them racist, with NO proof what so ever, and the administration hasnt said a word

ITS A FARCE, ALL OF IT, and YOU are playing right into it.....

Fear my butt, its called learning from your mistakes



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

My experience is my evidence. I have nothing else to rely upon.

No. Not all old people are conservative. Please refer to my first post.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I had to add this, Look i can do the same thing you just did

Study Says Liberals are racist......




Liberals Are Racist, Study Suggests - II By James Taranto June 23, 2006 Two weeks ago, we noted an article by the Washington Post's Richard Morin, who conducted a study along with Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University that purported to find that Americans' attitudes toward Katrina victims were colored by race, to the disadvantage of blacks. We pointed out that the sample was highly skewed toward liberals and Democrats (as well as toward the well-educated and, to a lesser extent, toward whites), and said, "if this study shows that the participants are racially biased, that doesn't prove that Americans are racially biased. At most it proves that well-educated liberal white Americans are." Now Morin has done a follow-up column, in which he shows that we were right: As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race. Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine. But for Democrats, race mattered--and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues." . . . Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."


Get my drift? youre just doing this to push an agenda......

End rant



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I see that your primary argument is posteriori, or "justified by an appeal to experience." Nice. Kind of ends the discussion, I guess. From your able work debunking ufo's and the like I thought maybe you'd have a little more than that. Not your forte, I suppose. Or maybe you're just tired?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 

Tired...maybe but sometimes I feel like I've been tied. Not by fear, but by lies.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


...What you said.

I was going to write a big post, but I'll use your as a jumping off point, since you said pretty much what I was thinking, and put it more eloquently than I probably could have.

This study further illustrates the need of people to label others and categorize them. I wish liberals would take a moment to try to understand what real conservatives think about things. Although I tend to disagree with liberals more often, it doesn't necessarily make me a conservative, either.

The Tea Party, for example, arose because people of all walks of life are getting tired of high taxes, of government telling them what to do, of freedoms being eroded and so forth. Many liberals will sit there and tell you that the Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of sore-loser racist Republicans, when nothing could be further from the truth.

As a hard-to-label, fairly-conservative-for-the-most-part, yet-somewhat-liberal-in-some-respects citizen, allow me to explain to you how I look at things:

I don't care that you're black. I don't care that you're Mexican. I don't care that you're gay. I don't care that you're female. I don't care that you didn't go to college. I don't care that you're a self-made millionaire. I don't care that you're handicapped. I don't care that you read a lot of books and love abstract art and have a peace sign on your bumper, I don't care that you like country music and love pickup trucks and guns. I don't care about those things that make you who you are. I just want you to be that person.

What I do care about is that you contribute to society if you're able, that you pull your own weight, and if you're an immigrant, you're here legally. I want you to earm my respect as a fellow citizen, not demand it - for any reason. I want you to recognize that the USA is a sovereign nation and has its own culture however varied, and that you at least make an attempt to assimilate if you're new here. I'll appreciate the effort, at least.

I want you to be able to live the American dream like I want to live it. I want you to be able to achieve your greatest potential like I want to achieve mine, and I want there to be no hindrances to that goal, for all of us.

I am going to add: I also don't want you to bitch about being a failure because you decided to get high with your friends instead of going to math class, and decide to drop out of school isntead of going to college. I want you to have the same opportunity to succeed as I do, and that comes with the very same opportunity to fail. And if you fail, I don't want you sticking your palm out at me, because it was your fault, not mine. Own it.

The hindrance to achieving that dream is the government. It is too big. It is too powerful. It tells us how to conduct our affairs in too many ways. it takes too much of our hard work and wastes it on social programs that don't work, on a military that is way too big. I could go on and on here but you get my point.

I don't want the government telling me what to think, how to think. I don't want YOU doing that, either. I don't want you trying to make the government force everyone to think the way that you think, because you think you're right. You're not. And I am talking to EVERYONE.

A true conservative (I believe) wants to be left alone. They want everyone to be able to be who they are, with no interference. In my opinion, liberals would like everyone to think like them, conservatives would like everyone to think for themselves. Of course, like the study I am generalizing to a degree.

They want the government to be what it was originally intended to be, as the constitution mandated. Nothing more, nothing less. The governemt has gotten way too big and wasteful, and no longer represents the people's wishes.

Is that really so hard to understand?




Edit to add paragraph. Not going to fix typos. Too many.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by AwakeinNM]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Liberalism is for dreamers, conservatism for thinkers.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Haha! Your post reads like a Fox News daily honey-do list. Let's see...




LoL right and i also remember him talking about not having fed funded abortions either.........he lied about that too, try reading the new bill......


I have read it. I assume you are talking about The $60 million to Pennsylvania. He has issued a Executive Order on top of existing laws that there will be no Federally funded abortions. Ya know, just like when Brewer said the Arizona law wouldn't discriminate.




Its not fear, its people seeing him for what he really is and what the Dems are doing, EVERY SINGLE THING THEY SAID THEY WOULDNT DO THEY DID......


Every single thing? Let's check Politifact:

Promises Kept = 119
Compromise = 37
Promises Broken = 19
Stalled = 82
In The Works = 245
Not Yet Rated = 33




You come on here and have posted two threads TODAY attacking conservatism, all the while, you are either ignorant to the facts or REFUSE to to concede ANYTHING that the administration is doing to the contrary of what they said they would!


Check again, three threads bashing conservatism. A man's gotta represent. I am not ignorant to anything other than thinking you can be saved from your own ignorance. TOUCHE'




How bout how his campaign was about doing away with racism, yet every chance he get he makes an issue of it? How bout in one breath condemning and SUING Arizona for POSSIBLE issue with race with their new immigration operations, and on the OTHER side, letting the Black Panthers slide with what is OBVIOUSLY RACISM and bullying at the polls?


It is you, again, who is ignorant of the facts. Perhaps you can read up on the Black Panther case and get back with me. You might find it was Bush's DOJ that downgraded the case from criminal to civil, in a case involving 3 black men at a predominately black polling station, where NO person has come forward an testified they were intimidated.




Or the NAACP going after the Tea Party calling them racist, with NO proof what so ever, and the administration hasnt said a word


Obama: "My fellow Americans, Tonight I come to you from the Oval Office to say........the NAACP needs to quit trippin. I mean, just let those crackers have their rootin' tootin' redneck rallies and stay out of their way. Thank you, and God bless the United States of America."




ITS A FARCE, ALL OF IT, and YOU are playing right into it..... Fear my butt, its called learning from your mistakes


You need to concentrate on your own role you are playing, and let me worry about mine. Fear MY butt, buddy. Ha HA! I said butt buddy!





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join