Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Can You Guess a Person's Politics by Their Personality? Psychologist Team Says Yes

By Maria Luisa Tucker, AlterNet. Posted October 29, 2008.


A map illustrating regional personality differences across America is surprisingly similar to the red state/blue state map of the nation.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If your office is a mess, you're known as a chatty Cathy, and you consider yourself hard to scare, then chances are, you will be voting for Obama in six days. But your neighbor, an optimistic clean freak who prides himself on the fact that he has woken up at 5 a.m. every day for the last 10 years, is a likely McCainiac.

It may sound a little like political palm reading, but some social psychologists say personality and biology may form the basis of a person's political leanings. While there's no Republican or Democrat gene, researchers are coming closer to pinpointing fundamental psychological and biological differences between conservatives and liberals.

In fact, professor John T. Jost, a political psychologist at New York University, found that a map illustrating regional personality differences was surprisingly similar to the red state/blue state map of the nation. He says a deeper understanding of the differences between right-wing and left-wing psyches has the "potential not only for predicting electoral outcomes through the development of more sophisticated public opinion polling techniques, but also for figuring out what kinds of political campaigns are most likely to be effective in certain environments and for various constituencies."

Jost and his colleagues have been hard at work putting the American voter on the metaphorical couch. Their conclusions, thus far, have proven both illuminating and entertaining.

Chatty Democrats, Orderly Republicans

Conventional wisdom tells us that states with high population of city dwellers and minorities tend to vote liberal, while small-town white America sways conservative. But Jost and his colleagues, psychologists Peter J. Rentfrow, Jeff Potter and Samuel Gosling, wanted to delve deeper than demographics when investigating the blue state/red state divide. They felt that there was something much more fundamental at play: personality.

To test their hypothesis that regional personality differences account for whether a state bleeds red or blue, they gave online personality tests to almost 500,000 people across the nation. Using a 44-question survey, they were able to measure five key aspects of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. (It's called the "Big Five" personality questionnaire, a test so popular it even has a Facebook application.) For example, respondents were asked to rate how anxious and easily upset they are (an indicator of neuroticism), and whether they consider themselves sympathetic and warm (an indicator of agreeableness), dependable and self-disciplined (a measure of conscientiousness) or open to new experiences and complex (openness).

Sure enough, researchers found significant differences in personality between states that voted Democratic versus Republican in the past three presidential elections. The best predictor of Democratic-voting states was a disproportionately high score on openness, which is associated with creativity, curiosity, intellectualism and tolerance of differences. Conversely, residents of Republican states scored disproportionately low on openness but high on conscientiousness, which is associated with tradition, self-discipline, following rules and being organized, dependable and responsible. The findings held true even after adjusting for sociodemographic differences. The connection between openness and Democratic voting was so strong that a mapped-out illustration of openness looked almost identical to red state/blue state maps illustrating the nation's voting patterns over the past three elections.

As for extroversion, blue-state residents rated themselves as "more talkative, enthusiastic, energetic and sociable and less inhibited, quiet and reserved than people living in red states," according to the study. One odd fact that came out of the study, for which researchers provided no analysis: States that chose Kerry as their man in 2004 scored high on neuroticism. Insert your own John Kerry joke here.

A blue state/red state map of Democrats versus Republicans is strikingly similar to a blue/red map that was done based on regional personality traits.

Jost has also researched what he calls the "behavioral residue" of these liberal and conservative personality traits. A team of three researchers, including Jost, Columbia University professor Dana R. Carney, and Gosling, professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You, found clues to people's political attitudes simply by observing their offices and homes. People who described themselves as political conservatives occupied rooms that were cleaner, more organized and more brightly lit, displaying the Republican trait of conscientiousness. The right-wingers were also found to have more cleaning supplies, calendars, postage stamps and laundry products. The liberal participants of the study, perhaps predictably, had more cluttered offices and bedrooms with more color. They also had a greater number of CDs and DVDs, and more eclectic taste in music and movies.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: voter, biology, psychology, conservative, liberal

Award-winning writer Maria Luisa Tucker has covered crime, courts, politics, mental health and housing for The Village Voice, AlterNet.org, the Santa Fe Reporter and several other publications. Visit her site.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Two questions.
Posted by: Plexius2 on Oct 29, 2008 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there a biological basis for these traits?

Can these traits be extended to entire nations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two questions. Posted by: s.duplantier
» RE: Two questions. Posted by: Bibsisis
» 2 words Bull Shit Posted by: samba
» RE: 2 words Bull Shit Posted by: jennymac
» RE: Two questions. Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Two questions. Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Two questions. Posted by: CorpCrime
Happiness is a silver spoon.
Posted by: Plexius2 on Oct 29, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few hundred years ago, I'm betting the conservative aristocracies of the world were much happier than the liberal peasants. Money CAN buy happiness. Lots of it. A lack of money can buy plenty of misery. Just ask the homeless, the unemployed, and the financially desperate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Liberal peasants" Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: Happiness is a silver spoon. Posted by: archives@uwyo.edu
» The world has never been a better place than today Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» RE: Some people... Posted by: Cybershaman
Ignorance is Bliss, Now Proven
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Oct 29, 2008 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans are happier than Democrats? So I guess it's true that ignorance is bliss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Alex Posted by: helenahanbasquet
Nebraska
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 29, 2008 2:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are lefties doing in Nebraska? I guess that kills the theory that lefties are better at geography and reading maps.

That righties are easily spooked and afraid of scary spiders makes sense. Whenever there's a war, does anybody remember getting stampeded by mobs of wing-nuts on their way to the recruitment office?

The last part of the article makes sense, but it's not much of a sales pitch for empathy and critical thinking, is it? If you're a lefty, and you're depressed, try this exercise: Picture all the poor, starving masses in the world. Then imagine that they're all poor because they're a bunch of godless, homosexual terrorists who didn't work hard enough.

The one that's always puzzled me is that support for Bush goes up when the fear of external attacks is greater. Apparently, having some reckless idiot in charge who likes to piss off other countries makes wing-nuts feel safe. By that logic, the best way to avoid getting your ass kicked is to go into lots of bars, get drunk, and pick as many fights as possible.

Fascinating. Even if the profiling stuff isn't always accurate, it's always fun to read about and discuss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nebraska Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: Nebraska Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Nebraska Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Nebraska Posted by: joe2171
» RE: Nebraska Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: Nebraska Posted by: luzmejor
Knuckledraggers
Posted by: Julian on Oct 29, 2008 3:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One just has to check the knuckles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Knuckledraggers Posted by: luzmejor
This article is utterly stupid
Posted by: Bibsisis on Oct 29, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd rather believe a palm reader! God, is this something else our country has come to, trying to find a genetic or psychological basis for why we are Dems or thugs??

To put it simply, Democrats, and the core principle of the party, is they want government to help people, in every way. Republicans want to help themselves and make and keep their money, whether earned or inherited.

Personality, maybe, but who can define that? Is it nature or nurture? Probably a combination among other things, but we do not know why some people have a nurturing instinct like Dems or a hug it close to your chest before someone gets it like Republicans.

There are NO tests which can show a human being in all his/her aspects. Some can give clues. So please spare me the inane psychobabble--it's as bad as the religious explanation. We are as we are, and there are NO single explanations for it.

If I express an opinion, you can know I've studied it and have seen it, over and over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Questions for Bibsisis Posted by: Genevieve
» RE: Questions for Bibsisis Posted by: DaBear
Everyone is taken aback by the happiness thing, but...
Posted by: igoeja on Oct 29, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The studies point to some fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives - don't confuse this with the Democratic/Republican division, since liberals are often not Democrats - as well as intelligence. The why's of conservative happiness might be simplistic attitudes and a "you get what you deserve" mentality, but I realized several months ago that I spent a good portion of my day hating conservatives for what they've done to this world that it was disturbing my life, which by most measures is quite good.

The original intent of this article was to highlight what seems to be a fundamental difference, in that liberals tend to be open to experience while conservatives tend to strive for normal, mundane lives. Studies looking at individuals to minor differences in conscientiousness, rather than large difference proposed in this other study. Although this might be self-congratulatory, but openness is also associated with higher intelligence in the same studies, and is highly correlated with the N dimension on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

The fundamental difference in outlook points to ways that conservative elements might be influenced, and how liberal candidates can avoid alienating the right. Progressive change is something almost all liberals would agree we need, but the same message is what can scare most conservatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't call me a bleeding heart.
Posted by: Gregory Kruse on Oct 29, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very interesting article. I'm impressed that Maine shows up red and Montana and Arizona are light blue. Peter Michaelson of Michigan has published articles suggesting the same phenomena, but he doesn't get cute about it like this author. On the serious side, these types of studies could help liberals understand conservatives better, but it is far more likely that conservatives will use them to take advantage of liberals somehow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pigeonhole
Posted by: jw56 on Oct 29, 2008 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
other readers might rate my opinion a one, but this article is one more effort to pigeonhole everyone. although it could explain why no matter how hard I try I'm never neat and orderly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOPE VERSES FEAR
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 29, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have heard a lot about hope vs fear in this election and others.

Albert Einsten believed that the single most important decision we ALL make in life is whether we view the world as hostile or nurturing

Guess which party is the party of hope?


GO OBAMA!

Dr. Rick "Hussein" Lippin
Southampton, Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HOPE VERSES FEAR Posted by: Sherry M.
» RE: HOPE VERSES FEAR Posted by: linookser
» RE: HOPE VERSES FEAR Posted by: Lauren
» RE: HOPE VERSUS FEAR Posted by: linookser
» RE: HOPE VERSES FEAR Posted by: NYCartist
HOPE VERSES FEAR
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 29, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have heard a great deal about hope verses fear in this election and others.

Albert Einstein believed that the single most important decision we ALL make in life is whether we bascially view the world as hostile or nurturing

Guess which party is the real party of hope?

GO OBAMA!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've thought this for years!
Posted by: phatkhat on Oct 29, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now my own opinion is somewhat corroborated, LOL. I am quite interested in the Myers-Briggs typology, and I am an INFP, one of the less common types, and also very liberal. The liberal personality also tends to see the big picture, the forest, while the conservative personality focuses on the details, the trees. They seemingly canNOT see the whole forest.

I believe that personality DOES dictate one's politics, and that the more common, more authoritarian types tend to be Republicans/conservatives. Perhaps as we evolve further, the traits for conformity will diminish - we can only hope we get there before we wipe ourselves out.

Interesting website here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Another INFP! Posted by: whit4brains
Inequality or powerlessness?
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Oct 29, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author cites the shift in income inequality between 1974 and 2004 as the cause of a corresponding decline in happiness among liberals.

The redistribution of wealth is not perceptible from within a given individual's social strata, and is only borne out by studies which, while telling, are not likely to have such a powerful effect over time.

I think it is more likely that the decline in liberal happiness is caused by a perception of helplessness. Liberals have (for good reason) felt that they cannot control the avalanche of policy shifts to the right in this country. The occasional article about income inequality would be just one of the many bits of bad news that influence this belief.

Our relative sense of control over our environment and our lives is a much stronger factor in our happiness than the specific issues involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maybe, but... Posted by: igoeja
Nice
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Oct 29, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I say the only one that would vote for McBush is the one that lacks any common sense whatsoever.

Jiff
Online PRivacy when it Counts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ummmm...
Posted by: Cybershaman on Oct 29, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always found that people can be grouped in many different ways but it all comes down to good hearted people versus assholes. Control freaks, people with obsessive/compulsive personality disorders, spoiled brats whose bodies have managed to age, all fall into the 'asshole' catagory.

Maybe liberals are more depressed because we are constantly victimized by these assholes, and our political ideology revolves around trying to protect ourselves from these assholes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ummmm... Posted by: VZEQICVA
A few thoughts
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Oct 29, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lefties can pat themselves on the back now for being more concerned with inequality, but it doesn't mean a whole lot. The fact is when you're struggling in life, most conservatives won't lift a finger to help you, but neither will most liberals/progressives etc. You find out who your true friends are, and the ones who seemed concerned with inequality and talked a good game are just as likely to avoid you as any others.

The sad fact is inequality is mainly a concern for those on the losing end of an unequal system. For the most part, when people are comfortable and happy, they're less concerned with the problems of the world, no matter how severe they are. This is normal, and it applies to conservatives and liberals alike. Many people who care about inequality today would lose interest if they became rich, and the recently rising concern for inequality is probably driven more by the growing fears of the middle class than by compassion for the poor.

If the financial meltdown ceased and things went back to how they were five or ten years ago, when inequality was still godawful, but affluent people generally weren't fearing for their jobs and their investments, then concern for inequality would be like it was five or ten years ago, i.e. almost nonexistent in public debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A few thoughts Posted by: Lauren
» That's the point. Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: That's the point. Posted by: Basenjis
The Otis Test
Posted by: USAFVeteran1966 on Oct 29, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
QUESTION: Who would you rather be trapped with in an elevator? Barack Obama or John McCain?

The answer is so obvious that none is required.

Cased closed on conservative versus liberal personalities.

PS: I doubt that even conservatives would've replied "John McCain."

Vietnam vet/Obama supporter
Eight reasons to vote against John McCain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Otis Test Posted by: Morell
So what about outside the two parties?
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 29, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we say green, orange, yellow, brown, etc ...???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As if
Posted by: kelt65 on Oct 29, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As if it weren't enough to reduce us to the FALSE binary of "democrat/republican" you actually dared to bring genetics and personality into it. This is nonsense of the worst kind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

everything old is new again
Posted by: sfischo on Oct 29, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good study, interesting results, but the only new thing about the study and the results (or, interpretation of the results) is the timing and the methodology. The decades-long research on what was (and still is)the Authoritarian Personality, developed after WWII and the fall of Nazi Germany, was obviously out of the gate well in advance of this study.

The earlier theory and research sought to relate political preferences and susceptibility to bigotry and bigoted, dictatorial leaders. The series of studies also looked at related stands on the powerful and the powerless, often representing majority and minority populations and power groups. So did other research on cognitive complexity and simplicity, another personality trait which correlates with authoritarianism and political conservatism. These and related studies also found so-called Authoritariansm on the left, what became known as Dogmatism, suggesting support for left-wing dictators like Stalin,Mao, and others.

Be that as it may, rediscovering and refining the wheel is always a good thing. Thanks guys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I tried to tell him he was a Republican
Posted by: olympia43 on Oct 29, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My former husband loves to cuss Republicans and claim to be a Democrat. I once told him he was the most Republican person I know. We can't travel in the same car, because he wants to car absolutely immaculate whereas mine is rolling storage. Everything is black or white with him, but I see all the shades of gray. I love to read and think, he only reads manuals on car repair. No mechanic, carpenter or anyone else has ever done a job to his satisfaction. We eventually had to realize that there was NO WAY we could share the same house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is more hollow gospel from the liberal leisure class
Posted by: chlamor on Oct 29, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now I recognize that many people here define themselves as "independents" and therefore, may reject whatever came before... but it is still important to know what that was.

It is also true that "liberals" and "leftists" may find themselves allied on many issues or tactics and may well need each other under those circumstances.

Finally, it is true that "liberal" or "leftist" may refer to "political labels", applied by "the right", by others, or even by oneself, and have no particular relevance to the actual issues which divide "liberals" and "leftists".

Nonetheless... historically, liberals and leftists are not merely different points in a common spectrum but, in the end, they are implacable enemies. And the issue is precisely joined on the issue of class, as has been mentioned before but now seems to have disappeared from the general lexicon.

If the term "left" has any meaning other than a purely relative one, it is as that group of political ideas, parties, movements, and organizations which believes that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndicalists, and nihilists - if these do not agree on anything else, they agree on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.

In contrast, "Liberals" explicitly reject the centrality of social classes. If such exist at all, they are assumed to be trumped by a common interest (national or otherwise) and any division is based only on transitory political opinion or policy. They are united with "Conservatives" in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives (most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest"). Indeed, for them, the current organization of society is the only one conceivable.


To the Liberals, the Left is a competitor for the same political constituency they claim to represent. The Left fosters "national division" and "class hatred" where moderation and "cooler heads" might otherwise prevail. They are often hand-cuffed by the "extreme demands" and "lack of reform mindedness" of the Left. If things come to a head, they can even justify arresting the Left... in the interest of "the greater good", of course (see Palmer, McCarthy, many more...).

The Left returns this attitude with interest... They regard the Liberals as the reform party of the ruling class. From this standpoint, the Liberals most assuredly need the Left. We are the monsters-beneath-the-bed that they invariably point to as a reason for the Conservatives to negotiate "reform"... "If you don't deal with us you may have to tackle the great unwashed". That is what "playing the class card" or "race card" means.

What exactly do we need the Liberals for? If there turns out to have been a misunderstanding of biblical prophesy and all Liberals are suddenly captured by the Rapture and disappear from the face of the earth how much worse off would we be? Would Rove suddenly be "turned loose" ‘cause Joe Biden was no longer there to protect us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not science
Posted by: limburger on Oct 29, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let’s remember Adolph Hitler’s fanatical theory of ‘master race’ supremacy, based on Wagner’s operas, that gave rise to the Reich’s draconian policies of persecution, extermination, and hyper-nationalism.

This red-blue & left-right theory is at best pop-science to amuse and bemuse. Psychology, philosophy, and politics are NOT scientific endeavors and thus could not be used as predictors. It would be folly to use such theories to support public policy, be it in tax laws, immigration laws, census campaigns, or in health and education policy.

These theories are similar to speculating about right-brain v.s. left-brain individuals and their chances of becoming artists or scientists. Fun stuff but not very useful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is not science Posted by: Lauren
The consensus from which liberals and Democrats operate
Posted by: chlamor on Oct 29, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They" are the better people. "They" are smarter, more humane, more compassionate, and better informed. "They" are better citizens more cooperative and realistic. "They" are winners- not losers, and deserve everything they get. "They" are spiritually superior. "They" are centered and balanced, calm and insightful. "They" are on the right side of history. "They" are building a better world.

Now if you will here comes the imperious "liberal" voice:

"The general public does not realize that we are the better people, and the ones who should be making the decisions. Of course the only logical reason for this public oversight is because- “Republicans are able to take advantage of the people's stupidity and ignorance and turn them against us.”

"As Liberals we understand that most of the problems in the world are the result of stupid people running things. If “We the smart people” were in charge, all of the problems could be solved with science and technology and rational social planning."

"Class analysis, and the struggles of working class people against tyranny have no place in modern society. They are obsolete and passé, and only something that we read about or see in movies. Romantic as those stories are, they are no substitute for hardheaded practical reality, whether we like it or not. This is a matter of being a mentally healthy, modern, well-adjusted adult in society. None of the lessons from history apply, because things are different now. Only strange maladjusted people are attracted to obsolete political ideas. They are all obviously losers, and are a great danger, almost as much of a danger as the Republicans are."

"Since politics and economics in the traditional sense are dead, we embrace a new paradigm of self improvement and self-actualization. Anything that interferes with our focus on ourselves and our pursuit of creating ourselves as an actualized being is to be rejected. The way to achieve the perfect society is first to create a perfect self. Meanwhile, so long as the authorities do not interfere with our self-actualization, we must comply in all ways with that authority. This allows us perfect self-expression within perfect social conformity. Anyone who attacks our personal choices is the enemy, and anyone who attacks the social system based on personal choice is also the enemy."

"As fully-realized liberal-progressives we understand that our enlightened self-interest is the ultimate engine of social progress."

"Others, however, who do not share our values are not to be given personal choice, when and as we can prove that their personal choices are wrong, often with our righteous claims that their choice impacts us somehow. We support the police state and massive incarceration of people, so long as they are being harassed and imprisoned for the right reasons. Any variance from our idea as to how people should be is quite naturally the right reason, by definition."

"We believe that we must “be the change we wish to see,” and the change we wish to see is more people like us: polite, talented, beautiful, intelligent, calm, successful, clever, enlightened."

"So we merely need to be ourselves, focus on ourselves, and serve ourselves. Those who cannot or will not become like us need to back down and get out of the way."

"We fully support aristocracy, capitalism, corporate domination, and consumerism, provided that they support our self-actualization and afford us the personal lifestyle choices we prefer."

Now if you will please pardon us as we liberal leisures head off to our local cafe for the 4 dollar cappuccino as we discuss Hope Inc. and identity politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's called projection Posted by: Levon
» To ethical1 Posted by: chlamor
Conservatives and Asperger's Syndrome Link?
Posted by: snax on Oct 29, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to follow the logic of inflexibility and lack of awareness to obvious social circumstances.

Please don't read anything into that with respect to being critical of Asperger personality types. It's merely a possible link to explore. ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY ALSO DON'T GIVE A DAMN
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 29, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Conservative control freak is not concerned with anyone but him/herself. Their basic beliefs are rooted in their ability to be selfish. They present themselves as morally superior and ofter "religious". Human suffering does not exist in their sanitized world. They have an amazing ability to edit what they learn and sort out what might disturb their happy world. They live with a different reality. In defense of the neurotics of the world; they get things done. They are the people who think outside the box. Art, science, medicine, music, are not orderly enough for the conservatives. They have to wait around until some bleeding hear liberal finds a better way. There's a price to pay for unconventional thinking and being creative. But their are rewards. Of course the benfits have to be shared with the very people who oppose everything. I don't see that changing. It's the downside to being decent. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the bottom line
Posted by: astralman on Oct 29, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-wingers don't let the inequality in the world get to them. "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives, apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light." Because conservative politics promote the status quo, it allows conservatives to view the status quo economic inequality as acceptable, they said.

this says it all. right wing neo-cons don't care about the suffering of others and will support legislation and politicians who justify their greedy self centered agendas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the bottom line Posted by: lbrlw13
» RE: the bottom line Posted by: Lauren
» RE: the bottom line Posted by: Cybershaman
Thinking.
Posted by: archives@uwyo.edu on Oct 29, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There must be a lot of statistical deviation. It is probably right in the broadest and most general of terms. I wouldn't take it to the bank when it comes to individuals though. On, the other hand most Republicans I know are either crooks, suckers, or lazy cowards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rfields
Posted by: democraticcritique.us on Oct 29, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a more extensive development of the fear/conservatism association at: www.democraticcritique.us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Further reading....
Posted by: cc on Oct 29, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's more to this than you might think at first glance.
Take a look at these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dominance_Orientation

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little this, a little that
Posted by: Sunfell on Oct 29, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, if my desk is messy, but my kitchen is spotless, and I have a logical mind, am religiously agnostic, prefer brightly lit but slightly cluttered eclectic surroundings, have a high-startle reflex, prefer cats to dogs, hate lattes, love French cooking, shoot straight, drive a Ford and am ambidextrous, what does that make me?

...

An ordinary, somewhat eccentric, definitely independent human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PR
Posted by: ClassAct on Oct 29, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“He says a deeper understanding of the differences between right-wing and left-wing psyches has the ‘potential … for figuring out what kinds of political campaigns are most likely to be effective in certain environments and for various constituencies.’”
One of the issues which promotes unease and therefore unhappiness among liberals and those of academic insight is the concealment of real messages and ideology behind misrepresentations that have been found to work by investigations just such as these. Actual politics is irreretrievably moving outside the realm of public input while the voter is invited merely to select the image and the vocabulary of how the inevitable will be presented.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PR Posted by: astralman
Just more babbling phrenology
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Oct 29, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article extremely funny and foolish.
I'm an older guy who is a clear thinking Obama supporter.
I'm a navy vet.
I have guns.
I help my neighbors and experience things in my life which are more important than making money and/or using others.
I'm in an excellent position financially.
I don't need any more stuff and would rather fish and/or golf than make money.
Parts of my house are cluttered.
I'm happy and laid back.
Yet, I had a loud verbal match with some slutty mcstainer yesterday.
If it wouldn't have cost me in legal and financial ways, I would have defended myself and the woman I was with physically as, this nut actually threatened us.

I AM NOT SCARED!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CaliJim
Posted by: CaliJim on Oct 29, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story supports a couple of other stories I've read in the past. Here's one from 2003.
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian,
Wednesday August 13 2003

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.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CaliJim Posted by: Yesican
You Just can't Generalize People
Posted by: rbehlok on Oct 29, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Guy is full of Pooh!
I am a neat freak and I’m Voting for Obama. Why is it then that 85% of the Post-Graduate (disciplined) intelligent people are Obama’s Supporters. According to a CNN Poll I saw. Like Jon Stewart said in the Kerry election you have to live by water to have a brain. Actually, you will notice that if you lined the Blue areas up with Top Universities you might see a correlation. Julie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real men don't think things through?
Posted by: CaliJim on Oct 29, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was also the article from August of this year by Paul Krugman in the New York Times, titled "GOP Is the Party for Fools", which - if a bit hyperbolic - basically makes the same point. Conservatives like simple, clear cut, unambiguous answers for the most part...whether they are provided by a political leader, religion or a talk show host...while Progressives are more tolerant of differences and ambiguity. It's often referred to as seeing things in black and white vs seeing things as shades of gray. Here's an excerpt from the Krugman piece:
"...Now, I don't mean that G.O.P. politicians are, on average, any dumber than their Democratic counterparts. And I certainly don't mean to question the often frightening smarts of Republican political operatives.

What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism -- the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise -- has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through."...."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just A Study
Posted by: YouReapProsperity on Oct 29, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It comes to me as no surprise that behavior and personality play into one’s belief systems and opinion. It seems kind of obvious that Republicans are more paranoid and stressed out. It’s not to say a Democratic liberal will allow you to run over and kill his dog intentionally or accidently. Depending on where you live in the US, I’ve seen passionate liberals bash people’s heads in. My take is that we all do things both liberally and conservatively. Some spend with reluctance and watch their money tightly, yet they might have left political leanings. Others might spend on impulse and yet be very conservative in ideology and politics. I say it is interesting as a study only, but to further labeling others is what keeps Americans divided.

I can say that Republicans (and some conservatives might argue this), do not believe in public education and the academia in general, if they did, there would have been no George W. presidency. The man has no communication skills and money does all his talking. Working construction, there are always one or more co-workers that proudly hold contempt for educated people and the institutions themselves. These days it seems many blue collar workers have more education and qualifications than their employers whether bar tending, working in a kitchen or labor. Perhaps it is the angst of failing or non-academic skills that harbor the bad aftertaste of education to some. Between the two parties, Democrats seem more inclusive and excited to have you in their party while Republicans might make you feel you have to be “qualified” to join the Republican party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Oct 29, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author doesn't really explain or explore how all the self-reporting in these studies may affect the outcomes. People are likely to view their own tendencies and behaviors in a more positive light than other, more dispassionate observers. Or as Dr. House says, "Everybody lies". Conservatives are people with divided psyches who have been more "successful" at externalizing all the disquiet in their tortured souls. For Conservatives, the "evil" is something outside and we'll all be fine if we can just isolate and conquer the "evil". For the rest of us, evil is the absence of good and something to which we will probably all stoop with our back against the wall. Leonard Cohen may have said it best, "For when all has come to dust, I will kill you if I must. I will love you if I can."

After years of watching all this and falling ever deeper into a kind of chronic loathing of my own people, I have decided that there probably is no reconciling the contradictions in this country. National identity is, in the modern world, a dubious idea to begin with, much like tribal identity. What does it mean when you do not even have a national (racial, ethnic, historic) identity to which you might otherwise desperately cling? What is our purpose as a nation? Our political spectrum contains views that are in stark and irreconciliable conflict. It boiled over in 1860 and after 4 years of destruction and 650,000 dead, it still was not resolved. Liberal and progressive America grudgingly gave reactionary America a chance to rule for 30 years, starting in 1980 and reactionary America ran the country and many parts of the world into the ground. The difference is that militant, reactionary America has no intention whatsoever of giving the Liberals (let alone the progressives) a chance at our own 30 years to see how we do. Liberals and progressives will never get their chance unless they learn that there is no "bi-partisan" third way. There is no reaching across the aisle to solve problems. The reactionaries are not interested. They are disciplined and committed. They don't want compromise. They don't want anything but complete control. They don't even want whatever benefit they believe they might achieve by complete control. The Bush/cheney regime proves that; they made a total mess of everything and they do not care. Their political philosophy was best expressed by Dick Cheney when he told befuddled and powerless Senator Pat Leahy, "Go fuck yourself!".

Neat desks aren't really the indicator; utter ruthlessness is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives often live in denial
Posted by: sean000 on Oct 29, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives. Keep in mind that we are talking about a group of people who have lived in denial about so many things for so many years: The need for energy conservation, the need to protect the environment, the need to focus on tough domestic problems. And here we are facing crises on every front. Liberals have been trying to focus attention on these issues for decades, only to have conservatives laughing at them saying that liberals worry too much and everything will work itself out. Well things didn't work themselves out... they just got worse... because conservatives would rather ignore the tough problems and live in denial, while focusing on imagined threats like Iraq.

For much of my youth I lived among many conservatives, and then spent ten years among mostly liberals. Now I live in a place with a pretty even mix. Yes I believe it is true that liberals tend to let the weight of injustice in the world weigh heavily on their heads, but most of my liberal friends seem quite happy in their personal lives... but not usually blissfully happy. Many liberals who are college educated seem disappointed with their jobs for example... while their conservative coworkers can be totally happy working the same job. Liberals are often looking for more meaning, creative outlet, and a better work/life balance. Conservatives just kind of accept things as they are...and there is a certain zen-like quality to that. On the other hand I've known many conservatives who repressed their true feelings in favor of projecting a positive image. Many conservatives repress any feelings that would put them outside of the norms established by their community. Deep down they may question their faith, happiness in their job, or even their sexuality... but they keep those feelings buried. Being glass half full people they will usually say they are happy even when a storm is brewing inside, while liberals tend to take a glass half empty approach. Liberals look at things that are wrong in our culture and want to change them to make everyone happier. Conservatives just want to be happy with what they've got. It seems many conservatives are also comfortable with the clear roles established in their culture. When you don't question who you are, it's pretty easy to accept who you are and be happy with it.

Maybe conservatives are happier, but you gotta be drinking their kool-aid to join in. If you think too much, you might realize something is wrong... not just with yourself, but with society as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did they ask?
Posted by: Yesican on Oct 29, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main question should have been...have these answers changed in the last eight years?
I was very happy before 2000. Yep. messy desk and all of that, liberal, but my heart wasn't bleeding. I wasn't neurotically fearful I wasn't angry all of the time. I was content.

Now I am all of the above and more, and all for one reason. Neocons!

I still think most blues are happier than most reds because we care more about people. At least people outside of our own approved list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Did they ask? Posted by: sean000
» RE: Did they ask? Posted by: Yesican
Yes jerks are usually Republicans or conservatives
Posted by: nfamous on Oct 29, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can tell many times simply by looking at someone eyes and their demeanor. You don't even really need to know them. People overly concerned about their appearance are usually conservative. People who feel that they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives are usually conservative. People who cut you off in traffic are usually conservative. People who vote against their interests to screw minorities are usually conservative. In other words stupid racist jerks are usually conservative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals are less happy because of conservatives
Posted by: nfamous on Oct 29, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess we don't bother them that much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, the GOP are scared little turdballs?
Posted by: redceres on Oct 29, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that intellectuals do tend to feel more in control within a given environment than do superstitious patsies.

Intellectuals put faith in reason and in reasoning--our reasoning and powers of observation are within our control to develop,we value and develop them, and they are our means of negotiating the world safely. It's not for nothing that so many conservatives are anti-intellectual and primarily seek their own comfort--their material comforts are their wittle binkies, as they've rejected and maligned the other possible tools.

Many conservative types just reek of fear. Look at their policies--someone is always out to get them or steal from them, and by golly, they will do ANYTHING to feel less afraid. And it's not just the rich. Some Repubs are rich, but most are second- and third-tier patsies who want to be protected by the school bully.

They're the kind of people who sell out their friends in order to not get picked on in the lunch line.

They want the rules for individual behavior to be really restrictive because they fear other people.

They want the rules for acquisition to be looser because they perceive that they're only tool for negotiating the world is to have more stuff than others--or at least to try to hang around others who have more stuff than most.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Consider This Posted by: Ethical1
Underlying Psychology of Political Affiliation
Posted by: Elurby on Oct 29, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#######
#######



Study my articles in here:

Underlying Psychology of Political Affiliation
http://underlyingpsychologyofpolitics.blogspot.com/



#######
#######

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Myer-Briggs Type Indicator Shows These Difference, Too
Posted by: Libertine on Oct 29, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you familiar with the MBTI, the sixteen personality types that stem from personality difference combinations in four key areas also show personality differences between liberals and conservatives.

The four continua are Introvert/Extrovert, Intuitive/Sensing, Thinker/Feeler, and Perceiving/Judging.

In my opinion the Intuitive/Sensing continuum and the Perceiving/Judging cotinuum most clearly show these differences, varying somewhat depending on which of the other two continua they are combined with, particularly the Thinking/Feeling continuum. Thinking/Feeling and Extrovert/Introvert, on their own, are pretty well represented on both sides of the aisle, however.

In the Intuitive/Sensing continuum, Intuitives are the introspective people who think in shades of grey. Sensing people are more concrete, take-things-at-face-value, black and white thinkers. Intuitives, then, tend more to be liberal and Sensors tend more to be conservative.

Similarly, on the Perceiving/Judging continuum, Perceivers are the laid-back types, those who do things by the seat of their pants, and tend to be on the disorganized side. Judgers are the organized, fussy listmakers, and in their extreme forms are the bean counters of the world.

Combine the two, and NP will tend to be the most liberal of the four possible combinations of the two continua, and SJ will tend to be the most conservative.

I'm an INTP, by the way.

There's a lot more to it than this, but there's no room for me to write a novel in the comment box here.

Take the Myers-Briggs Test

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Anecdotal observations Posted by: gregii
Regarding happiness, does anyone else wonder...
Posted by: Genevieve on Oct 29, 2008 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if conservatives are more likely to lie about being happy because they are repressed and don't feel comfortable admitting that they don't have it all figured out? I come from a very conservative christian family (minister's daughter) and all of the people i grew up around were always saying how happy they were, praise god, because to admit sadness or frustration was essentially to question god's will, and the status quo. My mother, for example, would put on a happy face and demeanor for others despite struggling with depression her whole life. And it's just not manly to admit sadness. That's whiney. (Just my own experience)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Psychology of a few psychologist isn't legit
Posted by: Pop on Oct 29, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I thought it was mostly "Me-me" vs "us all"; "take all" vs "do our share" There are mixes that cannot be accurately measured, all of everyone has different experiences and exposures at different times in their life circumstances. How one believes or reacts might be altered by chance or by what one was told, while if that same one caught it at a different moment their preference might be different. Psychology is never really reliable, even the head shrinks themselves differ on their poll collections of data. I would accept some want something for "me" while other's might want the same for "us"
But there is a mix in many of both, timing is of essence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conscientiousness makes one unhappy
Posted by: Shankari46 on Oct 29, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess if you believe in fairy tales, you can be happy. If you are upset because thousands are dying in war unnecessarily, then you are more of a realist than one thriving on fantasy. If you see the starving of millions of kids unnecessary when we spend gobs of money on guns and you are unhappy about it, you are a realist as well. I think conservatives live in a made up fantasy land and have little concern for others. They are afraid for themselves. What does that say about them? They are egotistical and create a religious fantasy land to satisfy their ego. The liberals have little fear of others and are open and courageous, generous, but they know the world is not perfect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pyschological differences
Posted by: Archie1954 on Oct 29, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading this article makes me wonder if America has a chance of reconciling. All I know is that the right wingers wouldn't lift a finger to assist the poor in their midst. They believe it is all their own fault that they are in such a position but unfortunately as with the rich who inherited their money and position in society so do the poor on the opposite side. They inherit their lowly position and lack of funds likewise. To have a fair and just society for everyone you have to empathize with the less fortunate and assist them in any way you can. That is what the Bible says and that's what the Christian religion requires. What bothers me most about right wingers is their unbelievable hypocrisy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I do not accept the basic premise&I'm a leftie Dem
Posted by: NYCartist on Oct 29, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of us are a mix of those characteristics. I hate noise, I am very open in some ways (really like people,gregarious), but not in others (artist, value privacy). Very smart and compassionate. Messy in some places in my apartment and neat in others (parts of my studio are very neat). What's wrong with the article will be covered lots of ways in other comments (and may have). My spouse is a "pig"(messy) which may have something to do with gender:males are taught it's macho to be messy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think this is accurate
Posted by: Donnat on Oct 29, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The personalities described in the first paragraph would indicate just the opposite politial tendencies where I live, based on what I know about myself and others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Subjective sciences are JOBS programs.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 29, 2008 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Define "personality".

Define "politics".

Now make up your data.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually it seems this theory
Posted by: noalternative on Oct 29, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
becomes a little muddled in the midwest or Illinois would vote like Texas, and Iowa would vote like Alabama.

I don't believe people are biological republicans and democrats. Sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The price of intelligence
Posted by: gregii on Oct 29, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, here we see the suggestion that being intelligent has a price on it?

Those who are intelligent stand to benefit should they manage their emotions and practice practical mental hygene?

I came to believe that many years ago - and have made considerable effort to avoid the pitfalls of having an intellect without losing the benefits. (Yes, I think I am more intelligent than the average bear - as do some of my friends - unless they are humoring me?)

I consider myself happy. I have redefined "happiness" from my days of childhood for my senior adult use: happiness is being able to cope with upsets without ruining the day (mine or anyone else's), regaining calm and pleasantry as quickly as possible; to enjoy the day's events - including the weather; the people with whom I cross paths; to feel I made peace with those I thoughtlessly (or sometimes deliberately) upset in the course of pursuing my agendas; I enjoy my life partner (she is very special), some of my children and some of my grand children - all of them in small doses; I enjoy making some money, being productive and feeling useful; I enjoy opportunities to be creative - and to learn something new once in a while.

I find a measure of security in understanding that to an important extent, many of my defects and shortcomings have more to do with the reproduction process (DNA) than with self will.

The greatest threat to the success of these strategies has been my understanding of the Republican party and the current resident of the White House and their goals. When I allow it, they can make me miserable.

Just sharing insights acquired during 70+ years of living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone you know?
Posted by: Levon on Oct 29, 2008 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are highly submissive to established authority, aggressive in the name of that authority, and conventional to the point of insisting everyone should behave as their authorities decide. They are fearful and self-righteous and have a lot of hostility in them that they readily direct toward various out-groups. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social
support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.
But they are also Teflon-coated when it comes to guilt. They are blind to
themselves, ethnocentric and prejudiced, and as closed-minded as they are narrowminded.
They can be woefully uninformed about things they oppose, but they prefer
ignorance and want to make others become as ignorant as they. They are also
surprisingly uninformed about the things they say they believe in, and deep, deep,deep down inside many of them have secret doubts about their core belief. But they are very happy, highly giving, and quite zealous. In fact, they are about the only zealous people around nowadays in North America, which explains a lot of their success in their endless (and necessary) pursuit of converts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they are very angry people
Posted by: foreverhope on Oct 29, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was in a small shop Saturday. There were four of us in the store, the owner, and two other customers. First thing someone mentioned the election, I can't remember who brought up the dreaded subject, might have even been me. So the female two of the other customers, turns on me, a bit angry. She wasn't going to vote for a moslem. Never one to avoid a bruhaha, I turned and calmly replied, "what's wrong with being moslem"? That pissed her off big time, her body lanquage increasingly aggressive towards me. "I DON'T CARE IF HE IS MOSLEM BUT HE IS LYING ABOUT IT AND THAT IS WHAT I CAN'T STAND!!! Her eyes were wild. I headed to the back of the shop and became very interested in something-or-other I didn't need. When they left I said in my truest voice, "have a good day!"

;-)

But take these people seriously before confronting them, and don't ever confront them when you are alone. I think the repugs that remain are ONLY from the lunatic fringe. The rest have given up and are scraping their knees to distance themselves from GWB. The repuglican brand is more than tarnished, it is ruined and will take two or three decades to 'fix it'. The democratic party has risen from the ashes of the grueling primary, stronger and better than it's ever been with MILLIONS of newly registered voters! It is thrilling!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about
Posted by: Ahimsa on Oct 29, 2008 2:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about us who would not be republican or democratic if we had more choices?
How about those who changed their minds?
I used to be proud, conservative and pro war. A terrible event changed my view of the world and now I believe in humility and compassion, I am progressive and non-violent.
Do I have genetic conflicts?
It is dangerous to make up patterns. The telescope is useless if you confuse what you are seeing through it.
I am skeptical about this deterministic pseudo-scientific stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THIS IS A STUPID "ASSUMPTION"...UNLESS....
Posted by: One American Lady on Oct 29, 2008 2:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the DIRECT ANCESTORY, BLOODLINEAGE IS RESEARCHED "FIRST" AS THE "BASIS OF PROOF", of
Any Individual.
EVERYTHING IS / HAS A "GENETIC FACTOR", even
to those Individuals, who Do / Do Not, Seek Office at Any Professional Level !!
This is "How Intelligent, someone Is, Who Attends College, Gets A Degree & THINKS THEY *KNOW IT ALL* !!
The True Education, is: "THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO ACTUALLY EXPERIENCES THE ACTION OF ANY GIVEN SITUATION"...& can Say: "I DON'T HAVE TO READ IT IN A TEXTBOOK, ...I'VE LIVED IT !!"
( Unless they have Walked in the Shoes, of Any Individual...THEIR *ASSUMPTION, IS JUST ...THAT... A WILD GUESS*.... for They Don't Know the Truth of the Matter... when there is a Guessing Game.
The Cleanliness of a Private Home / Property, is Not What Determines, a Political Situation...
IT'S HOW MUCH MONEY, SOMEONE HAS "GOTTEN THEIR HANDS ON...SO THEY CAN *AFFORD TO CLEAN / HAVE THEIR PLACE, CLEANED*."
I'm sure glad I didn't attend College & get a
Degree, if this is the Type of Job Situation, there is, in America.
I'd hate to find myself, "looking like I'm the stupidest individual of America" !!
BUT, THEN *IT TAKES ALL KINDS OF.. PERSONALITIES .... TO MAKE A WORLD* !!
One American Lady
(whose lived a few years & can Say This, Rightfully so... for I Have Lived the Experience.. didn't Learn Life, in Between Two Book Covers)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 29, 2008 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using a 44-question survey, they were able to measure five key aspects of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. (It's called the "Big Five" personality questionnaire, a test so popular it even has a Facebook application.) For example, respondents were asked to rate how anxious and easily upset they are (an indicator of neuroticism), and whether they consider themselves sympathetic and warm (an indicator of agreeableness), dependable and self-disciplined (a measure of conscientiousness) or open to new experiences and complex (openness).

I'd like to know how they arrived at these five things as the "key factors" in personality. I suspect the methodology is completely flawed if not highly specious. Most scientific studies use a grid of four components and measure them in continuums within each. Like Myers-Briggs for example.

The fact that these five factors were chosen says a lot about the "test" and also explains why the resulting "data" seems so problematic. Especially when the study and the author of the article begin to swing wildly with subjective assumptive leaps of judgment as to which of those flawed fives are "preferrable" criteria. I smell a Republikaaner bias already.

Far more scientifically, empirically verifiable are four factors:
• Where do we get our energy/motivation from (extraversion to introversion),
• How we take in the world (five senses/external input to intuition/external input mixed with an internal guide),
• How we process information (through feelings to through thinking), and
• How we make decisions (perceiving to judging).

The five flawed factors this study used just begs for abuse and subjective interpretation rather than empirical observation and testibility. Sorry, it's not science and it's horseshit. I can think of five people right of the bat that defy each and every one of those flawed five factors and how the "study" construed them.

That is all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Explain This
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 29, 2008 4:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am pretty liberal. (I am even against torture, I am such a pinko.)
But I am easily scared,... mostly by John McCain and Sarah Palin!

(But, yes, I have an extremely cluttered house.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mind, not brain
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Oct 29, 2008 4:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think this is a brain (biological) condition; I think it's a mind (mental) condition (although, you can always take a picture of what's lit up during different mental stages and states. (Mind transcends and includes brain) That is to say, I believe liberals are more developed intellectually and emotionally (have actualized their mental/emotional potentials more and further along) than have conservatives. It's not a static brain condition that is on one flat plane.

The whole idea of reality as "flatland" (scientific reductionistic monism) is fallacious. (See Ken Wilber and others on this.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Oct 29, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. This answers why our culture has gone to hell in the last decades. Can't find any interesting music, movies, or TV unless you work really hard at it. Artistic imports from overseas - so important to culture..hard to find. Top 40 radio - the rap all sounds the same - the soul - all the same - nothing interesting (where's Eryka Badu now..where's an an Elton John, a band like the Rolling Stones, bands like Traffic) - all gone. Instead, repetitive "I'm gonna seduce you" songs - that's all we get.

Well no wonder - this is really a battle between the sensitive and creative and exciting artists and the boring conservative ideologues who don't think too much and don't get out of the box.

It's just as I thought - Dems are probably more likely to be artistic types and that's what we've been missing in the last decades.

This great article also solves that question I had about how can such inequality and grossly unfair treatment of wages be tolerated in an open society? The right wing is happy over just keeping the boring status quo (this interesting concept has been written about before in other articles). They put the blinders on because nothing is more important than lack of creativity and conformity - to keep the status quo on top. Also, this is why community activism is so frightening to them (why, it's close to terrorism!) - it rocks the boat, it has people thinking and getting mad about what's happening to them instead of them being subjugated and peaceful as the mighty money lords wish for their serfdoms. Democracy - it's a messy business. Plutocracy is boring and uncreative, aside from being intolerable.

This is what happens when your conscience is subjugated to fearful conformity - imbued by religion or imagined societal mores. This fearful take on life is by those who tout "freedom" at every turn and yet live in frighteningly repetitive and boring housing, gated communities with Hitlerian HOAs..and "the right furniture and handbags". That is not freedom. Building your own affordable and interesting house is and not buying for status is real freedom (freedom from the endlessly advertising media).

Thanks for a great, illuminating article. I know if the artists take over again, we can have a better world. Let's just hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For you science illiterates out there
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 30, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know if this study is going to hold up or not, but the results were not based on someone's opinion. The authors were able to get statistically significant correlations with established personality test items. The correlations then matched up significantly with the "red state, blue state" dicotomy.

Whether it holds up or not, the criticism here is mostly ideological blather from folks who seem to understand little or nothing about the scientific method. Personally, I'll take science over unsubstantiated, ideologically based opinion any day-- even social science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ultimately It's Your Core Ethos: Love or Hate
Posted by: lorenbliss on Nov 1, 2008 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, the studies cited in this essay are nothing more than attempts to reinvent the wheel.

Psychologists at one of nation's few real universities -- if I remember correctly it was Stanford -- conducted studies that in 1965 or 1966 predicted the rise of U.S. conservatism, the total destruction of the New Deal and the transformation of the nation into what it is today: an iron-fisted fascist theocracy, albeit one deceptively clad in the velvet gloves of euphemism and censorship.

Based on thousands of hours of research, the psychologists concluded that the core motivations of individual humans ultimately fall into one of two categories: hateful or loving. Moreover, these researchers concluded, the core motivations invariably translate into political expression: the further to the right someone is, the more hateful is that person's core ethos; the further to the left, the more loving.

And -- contrary to one of capitalism's biggest Big Lies -- there is no meeting at the extremes. The atrocities committed by the right -- torture, genocide, enslavement -- are deliberate expressions of hatred, while the atrocities committed by the left express the Ché Guevara stance, that the true revolutionary is motivated by love: the gulag is not to exterminate an ethnicity but an attitude: to protect the masses against the seductive siren-song of capitalist greed.

It is useful, in this context, to remember that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our nation's all-time greatest president, prevented not one revolution but two -- and in so doing also averted a second U.S. civil war.

When FDR took office, the Moscow-supported Communist Party was huge and powerful; though the party itself is long dead, to this day its example remains the ultimate standard of success in U.S. political organizing. But the Berlin-bolstered Nazis were nearly as mighty, and in myriad forms: the Ku Klux Klan in the South, the German-American Bund elsewhere, and -- very often -- as part of the Republican hierarchy at all levels.

Just as U.S. Communists were guided by the Comintern (the Communist International) with the assistance of GRU (Red Army intelligence) and OGPU (the forerunner to the KGB), so were U.S. Nazis commanded by der Führer himself, typically through Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and the German intelligence and secret police apparatus.

While the obvious hate/love extremes of the Depression Era were eventually obscured by the deceptive fog of seemingly general prosperity, the psychologists were nevertheless able to sort the population into the two ultimate factions: love-motivated and hate-motivated.

And what they discovered was horrifying: that the Civil Rights Movement and the 1960s Counterculture were churning up a tsunami of hate and hatefulness that would soon not only become the dominant U.S. ethos but would in all probability purge the U.S. of any promise of genuine liberty -- quite possibly (because history proves that liberties lost are never regained) forever.

Obviously these psychologists were not only years ahead of their colleagues but were absolutely correct in their findings, their work all the more significant because it flew in the face of the era's conventional wisdom: that the huge Goldwater defeat of 1964 proved conservatism was dead forever, and the New Deal was therefore eternal.

(Disclosure/heads-up: I remember the material because I wrote about it, an unusual report for the New York City transport-industry tabloid of which I was associate editor: typically insightful, we probably recognized the material's relevance to the future of mass transit. In any case, it accurately predicted the future of the U.S., which is why it would make a helluva story today if somebody had the resources to find the original work.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shrinks get paid to think
Posted by: yesequals on Nov 3, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YES=
Red states of mind and blue states of mind,sounds like a homeless person wearing a fake rolex.The media does its best to take us away from nature,because we are animals being what we are born to be.Red or Blue what was your costume for Halloween?.Shrinks are paid to think.Palin,Bush,Hitler,and Jaws all have one thing in common (FEAR).Conservatives are people who conserve history of the past,liberals are people who pick up trash.
My vision quest:is to rainbowflage the White House,and then become an Artist/President of earth!!.No taxes,just barter!!.Think about that!??!.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]