Is There a Cure for Liberalism?
Maybe! There’s another of those studies out there, that purports to show a biological difference between liberals and conservatives.
People normally respond to “gaze cues,” or the direction that another person is looking, by glancing to see what caught that person’s attention. The new study, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, finds that liberals respond much more strongly to such cues than conservatives. The finding is the latest in a series of clues that liberals and conservatives may be subtly different on a biological level, said study researcher Michael Dodd, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Liberals will probably take this as a sign of increased empathy and niceness among their kind. But there’s another way to look — see what I did there — I did it again! — at all this. Liberals are liberals because they’re more prone to take stands and state their beliefs as a way of seeking others’ approval, without basing them on any bedrock principles, whereas conservatives tend not to give a rip if their politics make them popular. I’ve certainly seen this in action when I lived up in deep blue Maryland.
“Across a variety of tasks, we are beginning to find a consistent pattern where conservatives are more responsive to threat/disgust, more responsive to angry faces, and less sensitive to gaze cues than liberals,” Dodd wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience. “Liberals, on the other hand, are proving to be more responsive to positive/appetitive stimuli, more responsive to happy faces, and more sensitive to gazes.”
I’m with Ace, basically, that there may well be a heightened tendency among conservatives to perceive and assess threats, whereas liberals just assume everybody’s just got the best of intentions at heart. Which, if it’s true, is among the many reasons liberals should never be elected president. A world full of Kim Jong Ils and Vlad Putins and Osama bin Ladens and ayatollahs, Hugo Chavez’s and Castros and other assorted evils in power and in waiting is no place for a smiley face whose natural tendency is to seek the approval of others. We have that now, and it’s not working out so well. A POTUS needs to be geared to defend to the homeland and citizens against threats, as a default response.
I’m wondering how much will go for the government grant to study this? Betcha it won’t go to a Conservative student.
Is There a Cure for Liberalism?
Why yes, there is. Oblige them to live with the consequences of their very bad ideas. The survivors will have a very different outlook, guaranteed.
It is called California/New York/Michigan/Illinois
Some researchers are very responsive to approving gazes from agency and foundation people with funding potential. These researchers are eager to tailor their research plans, and possibly results, to fit the biases and win the monetary favor of said people.
Those would be the same researchers who think correlation is causation and the source of all behaviour is the gene pool. Reward and punishment? Nah!
I divide the politics thus, where the liberal is a Idiot, the Conservative is a Moron and the Libertarian is a dangerous psychopath.
You Sir have clearly found the answer in a brave new world where everyone is medicated into accord. Well thought out and breath taking in its depth and scope.
:: ))
So if the liberal is an idiot, conservative is a moron and the libertarian a psychopath, who is the “normal” one? To slander, even as a joke is also to infer that their must be a correct ideology, so what is it?
I cut through the fog on this study as well:
“If conservatives are driven to madness by their amygdalas then doesn’t that mean that they are not responsible for their actions (according to the liberal worldview?).”
“Thus, should conservatives and their belief system be part of the left’s protected class system?”
http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/2010/12/liberal-moonbat-meme-of-day.html
That would certainly explain why liberals are better at getting elected to public office that normal people.
There is another explanation. The behavior described is exactly that of prey animals who move in herds. Liberalism is the struggle of self loathing with abject fear. No one can hate their country without also hating themselves. And no one would seek the protection of an all powerful nanny state unless they are too afraid to face the world.
Liberals; the intellectual equivalent of easy meat.
So, Liberals are wildebeests?
I respect Wildebeests too much to make that direct comparison.
They are more like blonde antelopes.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/AEFF258E28DB4FA6861CDFB4BFA12832/the-blonde-antelope.aspx
excellent essay Bryan
don’t sheep do that too ?
love the …..”want to save the world but can’t change a tire” how true.
and liberals are not more empathetic …they are just dishonest to think they are.
“want to save the world but can’t change a tire”
You mean change a wheel? Or actually remove and replace a tire? Because I’m about to go do the first one (or actually, remove it and look for a stone caught between a guard and a brake disk), but I think I’d rather leave the attaching and balancing of tires to a professional. I mean … I understand the process and all, and back when I studied some engineering we learned about static and dynamic balancing and all (I came up with my own way of doing the calculations using complex numbers), but if I’m going around a corner on a highway at 70MPH, I’d like to know my tires were attached by a guy (or girl) who really knows what they’re doing. Theory vs experience.
Do you replace your own tires? I’d be really impressed if you do.
Back when I was in school and working at the local Mobil, a lady drove in with a flat tire on something expensive. I was working forecourt, and I was happy to change it for her. I suggested that it was easy, and I could show her how I did it in case she was ever stuck. She actually got angry and snapped at me – she didn’t need to know that, and would I just get on with it (keep in mind that we’re not charging her or anything – just being friendly). She actually didn’t want to even SEE how it was done. It was the darnedest thing. It had me puzzled for the rest of the day.
lol
you liberals really do have trouble with language and usage of language.
like the term that seems to apply very aptly to you “useful idiot” ..not really useful at all.
Do you ever actually ADD anything to the conversation?
…and yes I do change my own tires. I actually have a BigFour tire machine.
Matthew there are people out in in the world that do actually possess some talents. You wont find too many in liberal circles though.
That is pretty cool.
Matthew,
You know, it’s tedious bordering on being rude to be so pedantic to no purpose. You should learn the difference between technical usage and the vernacular.
Chill.
The term “change a tire” is always used to mean putting on the spare in place of one of the regular tires/wheels on your car. Any replacement of tires is a whole other matter entirely.
You too.
Is There a Cure for Liberalism?
No. You can’t fix stupid, not even with duct tape.
Is there a cure? Not for them personally, but for me yes. Ship them all to places like France, Gernmany or Britain, etc. At least they’ll be out of my hair.
And here’s an experiment from a couple of years ago that shows that liberals are more capable of interpreting new and conflicting information than conservatives:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3580747&page=1
I think there’s nothing wrong with these experiments, but I think the way that people jump on them to grind an axe is extremely silly.
I would suggest that the liberal/conservative divide has less to do with biology than mindset. I grew up painfully conservative (vaguely racist, even), then I swung hard to the left, then – when I’d been thoroughly disillusioned by both sides of politics I settled down as a moderate pragmatist. I doubt very much that my DNA has changed in the meantime.
I’d like to see them test “skeptics” and “pragmatists” sometime and see what they’re supposedly good at.
Matthew, you were never a conservative and I think you will just have to accept that fact. The clue is that, contrary to what you have been led to believe, more conservative does not equal more racist. Try starting with Karl Popper, but don’t stop there. As to this article, loads of crap.
” I grew up painfully conservative (vaguely racist, even), then I swung hard to the left.”
Were you painfully liberal (vaguely racist–against your own kind?) when you “swung hard to the left?” In this discussion, I believe the correct label for you would not be pragmatist but rather elitest/escapist from reality. In the real world, you have to weigh all the facts, then pick a side although it be imperfect. Sitting on a fence and judging everyone else is not lofty–it’s cowardly.
“Were you painfully liberal (vaguely racist–against your own kind?) when you “swung hard to the left?””
Nope. Did I say I was?
“In this discussion, I believe the correct label for you would not be pragmatist but rather elitest/escapist from reality.”
Fair enough. I’m going to just assume that you say things like that about everyone you disagree with. I’ve given up explaining to people on this site why armchair psychiatric diagnoses aren’t sound. “Malignant narcissist” seems to be PJM’s label for “Someone We Don’t Like”. Obama’s a narcissist. Leftists are narcissists. Julian assange is a narcissist. Apparently I’m one as well (from a previous thread).
“In the real world, you have to weigh all the facts, then pick a side although it be imperfect.”
Rubbish. (a) nobody actually does that. At least, not initially. They tend to pick the side then filter their facts to fit. Getting PAST that is what makes a proper skeptic, and for some of us that requires a bit of disillusionment before it can happen. (b) who defines the “sides”? You? Fox news? Why can’t I just be on MY side? Or the side of common sense and reason?
“Sitting on a fence and judging everyone else is not lofty–it’s cowardly.”
I don’t judge everyone. I don’t judge any of you guys. I just disagree with a lot of what you post. If you’re judging me, then that’s your problem. Don’t blame me for not seeing the world as us vs them.
This was an interesting topic, and made me reflect on something I’d set aside some years ago.
I’ve long noted the propensity of the Jewish community to be strongly stratified in political philosophy. The Jewish community has a more narrow genetic band than the rest of the western world populations. Perhaps this is because the Jewish people maintain ultra strong focus on marrying within their own faith. Of the Jewish sects we see today, the Ashkenazi Jews (German Jew) has a genetic lineage running back as much as a 1000 years in the eastern European states.
This Ashkenazi group is by cultural teachings more communal than other Jewish sects. The codified ideals of Marxism sprang from the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe in the late 1800’s. Later, in the early 1900’s the Ashkenazi Jews, were central to much of the intellectual spread of the ideals surrounding communal forms of government. These ideas caused great distress on those around them who did not share their views. This drew the ire of politicians as well as leaders of other religions, and made the Ashkenazi easy targets for scape goating. By the mid 1930′s the ideas of Communism had spread widely in a WW-1 ravaged Europe. During the rise of the despots of Europe in the period leading to WW-2 the Jewish people had been well marked out for exploitation by a larger and more powerful political set of ideologies.
The 1940’s were a tragic result of the clash of political greed and scape-goating that fell upon the Jews of Northern Europe, then the entire continent. We can never know if the embers of socialism fanned by the intellectual Jews of that era took hold from noble causes or not, but the reality was these ideas quickly fell in to the hands of corrupt and evil men. Tragically, the people from which such ideas sprang, became the victims in a most terrible consequence.
In the post WW2 era, the Jewish peoples surviving the Holocaust were transported to Israel. This new population was principally comprised of Ashkenazi Jews and Israel quickly became a socialist state, and largely remains so to this day. Most of it’s leaders to this day are of the Ashkenazi lineage. Israel becoming and remaining a socialistic State can be no surprise. One might wonder is this “Liberalism” in the blood?
Outside of Israel, we again see this communal influence rising from within the Jewish Ashkenazi of Northern Europe and the Northeastern U.S.. This sect of Judaism may have a genetic need to actually form tight communal living groups of Ghetto like living, that becomes expressed in their political actions. It would be a terrific area of genetic study.
Conversely other Jewish sects concentrated over the millennia outside of Eastern Europe, such as the Sephardic Jews from Spain and southern Mediterranean areas, do not share the seemingly deep held need for close communal living held by the Ashkenazi. While these sects have different yet concentrated genetic histories seeming to be more prone to the rejection of political structures of communism and socialism, a full genetic, sociological and anthropological study would be most interesting in the light of this topic.
That is why the Jewish people are of interest here, is their genetic lineage, their long term history of populating tight geographic regions and their cultural heritage in communal (liberal in modern terms) lifestyles.
Take a look at Nicholas Wade’s “The Faith Instinct”, a synthesis and summary of research and findings from anthropology, genetics and archaeology. Here’s a description:
“The book does not challenge the central belief of either atheists or people of faith, since it offers no opinion as to whether or not God exists. It’s about religious behavior and its value to the first human societies and their successors…. The Faith Instinct concludes that religious behavior was favored by natural selection because of the survival advantage it conferred on early human groups.”
I would be interested to know the age group of this study. I’ve found the basic cure for some liberals two fold: College graduation and a job. When it’s their money paying for all the entitlements, it’s not such a great idea anymore.
I have a suggested cure for whiny a$$ liberal college students. Make them claim the tuition mommy and daddy pays as income. If they were given the cash and then forked it over to the uni, they’d have to claim it. And they keep complaining about giving all these tax credits to “the rich.” Hey, in my book, if you can afford to pay for college, you’re rich!
A suggested cure: Prefrontal lobotomy.
I concur.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Nguyen.jpg
Excellent article, Bryan.
There’s another implication hidden in the study: Liberals make more use of Gaze Cues, because they’re always trolling around to be liked. What’s the other guy looking at/thinking? Gee, I’ll do it too, maybe he’ll like me better, ’cause I think/act the same way he does.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are Masters of their own ship. They don’t, as a group, have a pathological urge to be everyone’s best bud.
There is a difference between “foolishness by mistake” and “obsessive commitment to foolishness”. Coz for the former one, there’s a chance of ramification. As a matter of fact, every criminal falls in second category. As soon as he’s caught, he want to portray himself to first category. And there is a lot of second category among the sane people(called liberals), ready and waiting and “obsessively committed” to get every criminal what they call “justice”. This foolish justice of “liberals” backfires to the entire sane community.
Just as liberals reinvent history, they must reinvent something they can blame for their obvious psychosis. (As homosexuals reinvented their deviant behavior to blame it on biology.) All are outrageous lies.
The Liberal Mind: Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Dr. Lyle Rossiter http://bit.ly/a4RTOS
A very good exposé of how the liberal mind works.
Or doesn’t.
I’ve always been bothered by the condescension inherent in modern liberalism, that there are all these people who are victims, of the system, of whitey, of corporatism, the list goes on and on… those “poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized”.
Such a foul and limiting view of the potential of human aspiration, never dampened or amended when someone in their poor or “victim” set breaks out of the barrier of a temporary set of circumstances.
We really don’t want to be these people.
I think presumptions are wrong from the start. I really don’t think most liberals see the best intentions in others, or want the best. I find so many these days are shallow and self-centered relying on image and popular acceptance. Non liberals who don’t parrot the same progressive correctness are looked down upon judged in a negative light. And where’s the liberal self-sacrifice toward those truly in need? It seems most only know how to take from others, whether for themselves or those truly in need. All in all the present day liberal mind is much more predisposed towards judgmentalism, and given the extremes demonization is easier than love.
The liberal brain is stuffed with a set body of assumptions that must be followed to the letter, else you’re not part of the “in” group.
Liberals love socialism so much because all the answers are fixed & in the box, none of that messy and diffuse “liberty” stuff.
You can see in this highly scientific map of the liberal brain how tiny are the loci for common sense, personal responsibility & work ethic, how large (and diffuse) are the guilt glands, as well as many other interesting and revealing features of the liberal brain.
Of course, you’ll need a microscope to find the single, lonely neuron where a sense of humor resides.
The whole thing is dominated by that ridiculous PC lobe
Liberalism is pretty well explained in the pictures attached to this article and the next. Obama enjoying a massive ice cream treat, while Michelle lectures the rest of America about our diet.
Liberals see themselves as our fuedal overlords – given the divine right to rule the ignorant masses with their obviously superior intellects. A little enjoyment is part of the job – even if it is denied to the peasants.
I love it. I mostly discarded my 1st thought, but for a while I mildly wondered whether there was a connection between the ice cream he took his children to eat and the comment during the Arizona immigration law debate that you could be an innocent law-abiding citizen just out to take your kids to the corner ice cream shop and be terrorized by “racist” law enforcement officers (who are slightly above 50% Hispanic-American in that neck of the woods, and 100% of whom are urged if not required to speak Spanish).
I think your point is dead on–where was Michelle? No accident she missed that photo op. I’m still looking for pix of her on the beach in a bathing suit.
So we now have scientific proof that (a) liberals are easily distracted, and (b) they are slow to recognize threats. And how much taxpayer money did Professor Obvious and colleagues receive for these studies?
Never disparage fools. Find a way to sell them something.
There is a long history dating back to the late-1800s of leftists attempting to pathologize non-leftists. The Marxist concept of the “false consciences” is the most widely known example. Later Freudians got into game with very amusing results.
In all cases, the behavior of leftists is characterized as unemotional, objective and altruistic while the behavior of non-leftists is characterized as emotional, subjective and selfish. This study, or at least the political conclusions, fits this historical pattern.
The best explanation is to look at other factors that cause people to be more focused on faces. One of the most common is that the person is young. Children track faces more than adults do and they have more trouble controlling innate impulses. One could spin this study by saying that leftists are simply more behaviorally immature than conservatives and therefore have more childlike responses and that they can’t discipline themselves to ignore faces just as children cannot.
These types of studies all use such a lightweight methodology that the results are largely meaningless. There is no evidence that the behavior described is innate instead of learned or even whether it is a result of individual choice. Heck, even classifying someone as “liberal” or “conservative” is scientifically dubious. I haven’t looked at this study but I did look at the related study which claimed to find that conservatives base their decisions on disgust more than leftists do. The study was actually pretty much gibberish and was published in a “Social Justice” journal which specialized in articles explaining why those moronic conservatives just can’t understand how brilliant and infallible leftists are.
At the risk of rudely threadjacking, anyone interested can read the details at Chicagoboyz. See Disgusted Conservatives and Those Disgusted Conservatives Vs. The Chicken F*ckers
What do you do with an unwanted liberal?
1. recycle them
2. abort them
3. pay for counseling with R. Lee Eremy
4. all of the above
What do you do with an unwanted conservative:
1. tax them out of existence
2. disenfranchise their vote
3. give them an Obamaectomy
4. all of the above
They’re looking at this all wrong if they want to lend any credence to biology and conservatism vs liberalism. Sure, if the brain thing is true is shows something, but not what they think. Conservative brains were around since primitive times, liberal brains were an attempt by evolution to improve, but clearly it was a failure just as there have been myriad failures in the evolutionary chain. If left to themselves, the liberals would kill themselves off because they are pure fail, period. Notice that the liberal brain excels at stupidity, and the conservative brain excels in aligning with morality and survival. Buh bye libs, evolution will have the cure for the likes of you eventually.
The real problem with studies like these is that they encourage both sides to see the other as “defective” and in need of “fixing”.
Differences are not defects.
“Is there a cure for liberalism?”
Nope. Hell hath no fury like a liberal confronted with a fact.
Liberals choose a cause where you are not shouted at , demeaned and even laughed at; but praised because of your great intellectual ivy league background, this club is easy to join and make a name for yourself, come up with some zany program, Al Gore,comes to mind, you may rise to the top. Whereas Conservatives do not need the protection of group, do not fear criticism, will respond intelligently when singled out. They know their idea are right and have no fear of reprisals or hate. Biological tendencies, brings to mind W.F. Buckley’s son, Christopher who went liberal. Enjoyed reading and learning here today.
interesting discussion…everyone is one fourth right and three fourth wrong. On the other hand I think my theory is somewhere in between.
if you draw a line ten inches wide and at one end are the extremely gullible, trusting people who think their life depends on being loved and at the other end are the extremely rational and paranoid people who think their life depends on analysing, trusting no one you have the Liberal and the Conservative personality. On a continuance from one to six you have the Liberal and from six to ten you have the conservative. The Ideal position is between five and seven. That’s were I am….
To answer the question is there a cure..is it genetic?
no….and probably.
In the words of Ron White “You can’t fix stupid.” There are steps that can be taken to prevent it from forming in the first place.
Teaching children to play chess before the third grade seems to help.
Certain books like “The 5000 Year Leap” help
Original historical source material helps. Having books by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill instead of books about them is of great value.
We do need a series of text books but the publishing industry is do corrupt that we could not trust anybody these days to write the Tea Party guide to good Government administration and the original material is sophisticated as a graduate textbook.
People usually take this problem in the wrong way: Socialists (whatever their stripes) and Individualists (whatever their stripes) use different ways when dealing with problems. If you read “The Wisdom of the Crowds” you would understand that both ways are useful in the right setting and damaging in the wrong setting.
Following what other people think is a good strategy when they think individually. Their mistakes will tend to neutralize each other. Following what other think when they are thinking as an herd simply amplify any existing error or bias.
So, socialists will be more productive in an group dominated by individualists. But a group dominated by socialists is easy to control by a group or a single individualist able to manipulate them and their reactions.
This, also, add to a bunch of other traits, like “altruistic punishment” and like.
“Is There a Cure for Liberalism?”
A 5.56 FMJ round will cure most liberals of what ails them.
Napalm is more fun though. I like watching them snap, crackle and pop.
I’m just kidding about shooting liberals or frying them with napalm, of course.
i would never do that…unless I was in a bad mood, or something.
Of course there’s a cure! It’s called: CIVIL WAR!
No cure is needed, just don’t give them power. Keep them all in one party so they can be readily identified.
There has always been a place for the liberal sort in government. No court is complete with out a jester.
Their ability to live in a self imposed make believe world makes them very good at entertaining. The fact that they are grossly overpaid is the fault of we capitalists, the fact that young and gullible minds take them seriously in matters beyond entertainment is the fault of our schools.
I thought penicillin had been found effective in treating syphillis;or have they developed immunity?
It always makes me chuckle to hear “jews” criticize liberalism. I guess you’re out of touch with how many scores of millions of Americans KNOW that you founded liberalism. As well as communism and socialism. Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky were all “jews”. This is historical fact. World, America, read about the “jews” plans for us goyim in THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION. “Jews” say it’s a fake but it’s been uncannily prophetic. In it the “jews” say they’ll engineer world wars, communism, economic catastrophes, and will import minorities to all the Christian nations to undermine their White European majorities. Read it. Also read the talmud, the “jews” “holy book”. You’ll read about a very scornful, superior Master Race who’s bend on subjugating all non-”jews”. In fact, they have to be the people Christ will combat at the Battle of Armageddon. And I believe they’ll sponsor antichrist as the “real messiah”. Do your research.
One thing I wonder.
Most people aren’t truly Conservative or Liberal, and will embrace views that are liberal in one area, and conservative in another.
EG, there are plenty of people against Government regulation of Businesses who are also for Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants. Or, people who are for Same Sex marriage and against increasing corporate Taxation. These issues in all honesty aren’t connected and we see them as part of a conservative or liberal spectrum because of how they developed Culturally in our society.
But many, even most, people aren’t Pure Conservatives or Pure liberals, and hold to a range of views that mix an match the agendas.
How would you explain them?