Conservatives more fearful than liberals

[lpetrich]

At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals. The results say a lot about our political divisions. - The Washington Post

For example, over a decade now of research in political psychology consistently shows that how physically threatened or fearful a person feels is a key factor — although clearly not the only one — in whether he or she holds conservative or liberal attitudes.

Conservatives, it turns out, react more strongly to physical threat than liberals do.

This starts early in life, and is associated with having a larger amygdala, a part of the brain that is involved with fearfulness.

It's possible to make liberals more conservative by putting them under physical threat, though the effect is temporary.

But author John Bargh and his colleagues succeeded in doing the opposite, even if only temporarily. They recruited several people and quizzed them about a variety of issues. Before that, they were to imagine that some genie gave them a superpower. Those who imagined being able to fly did not have any changes of attitude, while those who imagined becoming physically invulnerable became noticeably more liberal.

This is why it makes sense that liberal politicians intuitively portray danger as manageable — recall FDR’s famous Great Depression era reassurance of “nothing to fear but fear itself,” echoed decades later in Barack Obama’s final State of the Union address — and why President Trump and other Republican politicians are instead likely to emphasize the dangers of terrorism and immigration, relying on fear as a motivator to gain votes.

That's why conservatives love military and police force so much, why they love government spending as long as it is punitive towards those that they dislike. They live in fear of criminals and terrorists and hostile nations, and they are willing to believe that certain ethnic and racial groups are nothing but criminals and terrorists.

That's why US conservatives insist on their absolutist interpretations of the Second Amendment -- they claim that they would be helpless without their guns.

I expect that the right wing will have these responses.

1. How dare you put us on the couch!
2. It shows how dangerously complacent liberals are about the dangers of the world.

Looking at the WaPo article's comments, I found abundant evidence of both.

BTW, this research is to be published in the European Journal of Social Psychology.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think fear explains a lot of differences.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think fear explains a lot of differences.

John Haidt opened my eyes to this, and if we define liberal and conservative by these factors then i am as extremely liberal as people come.

And also, the new SJW left taking over college campuses seems more on the right than left by these measures. Very much about purity, group level thinking ((in group) and authority for them. As much so as the far right religious fundamentalists.

I wonder what is going on there and if this could lead to some interesting research and insights. The two groups are ideologically opposite in what they value, but so similar in how they value it.

Another measure I would like to see added to this analysis is reason vs outrage. Though maybe that ties in with purity and group level thought. It is my impression that both of the above groups score heavily on the side of outrage. These are people who won't do a dispassionate analysis, but will instead push that they are "offended" and will virtue signal a lot, expressing outrage over things they are unlikely to truly care that much about. Maybe that's about in group? Purity?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And also, the new SJW left taking over college campuses seems more on the right than left by these measures.

Haw! What was it about fear again and the right wing?

I have been saying for years that the marketing towards conservatives has been based on concentrating on the Id, ie the base instincts.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And also, the new SJW left taking over college campuses seems more on the right than left by these measures.

Haw! What was it about fear again and the right wing?

I have been saying for years that the marketing towards conservatives has been based on concentrating on the Id, ie the base instincts.

That isn't fear. That is fact. The balance of liberal and Conservatives on college campuses has swung dramatically to the liberals in recent decades. This is also covered in John Haidt's book (Righteous Mind).

And the type of lefties I am referring to are not lefties in general but this particular sort that are so high on purity, authority, and group level thinking.

We face many of the same stances from them that we faced with evangelicals decades ago, ranging from opposing free speech to constant virtue signaling to appeals to authority to group level thinking.

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And also, the new SJW left taking over college campuses seems more on the right than left by these measures.

Haw! What was it about fear again and the right wing?

I have been saying for years that the marketing towards conservatives has been based on concentrating on the Id, ie the base instincts.

That isn't fear. That is fact.

The lack of any evidence to support such a claim is noted.

The balance of liberal and Conservatives on college campuses has swung dramatically to the liberals in recent decades. This is also covered in John Haidt's book (Righteous Mind).

Well geesh, if it is in a book!

And the type of lefties I am referring to are not lefties in general but this particular sort that are so high on purity, authority, and group level thinking.

Ahh... so you just gave them a label that was appropriate to fit a bias you wanted to project.

We face many of the same stances from them that we faced with evangelicals decades ago, ranging from opposing free speech to constant virtue signaling to appeals to authority to group level thinking.

You still haven't actually established this is a real problem other than referencing some book.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

That is quite an apt observation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

That is quite an apt observation.

Why is it that right-wingers are more versed in these massively important liberals like Anita Sarkesian (whoever she is)... than liberals?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't know what it has to do with being liberal or conservative specifically but lots of people I know are in tune with how they want to feel, and whatever gives them that feeling is good. They tend to think with their feelings.

Other folks have the same feelings but also possess a cognitive ability that lets them be good observers. Most importantly it tamps down that emotionally reactive side, opposing those emotional desires totally on many occasions. They don't think only with their feelings iow.

I've tended to equate conservatism with thinking emotionally and liberalism with thinking rationally, generally speaking. Loyalty, for example is a conservative trait. It doesn't let things like self government happen. Fear is also a conservative trait in my experience, hence racism.

A conservative is beginning to act liberally when he begins to fear that to which he has always been loyal.

 

[rousseau]

And also, the new SJW left taking over college campuses seems more on the right than left by these measures.

Haw! What was it about fear again and the right wing?

I have been saying for years that the marketing towards conservatives has been based on concentrating on the Id, ie the base instincts.

That isn't fear. That is fact. The balance of liberal and Conservatives on college campuses has swung dramatically to the liberals in recent decades. This is also covered in John Haidt's book (Righteous Mind).

And the type of lefties I am referring to are not lefties in general but this particular sort that are so high on purity, authority, and group level thinking.

We face many of the same stances from them that we faced with evangelicals decades ago, ranging from opposing free speech to constant virtue signaling to appeals to authority to group level thinking.

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

IIRC, the extreme left and extreme right have similar levels of bias, but from different political frameworks, which might be why you see the similarity. The left and right have different outlooks, but it tends to be the people nearer the center who can see value where value actually exists, who are the most unbiased.

And so yea, many analogies can be made between the fringe left and right.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

That is quite an apt observation.

Why is it that right-wingers are more versed in these massively important liberals like Anita Sarkesian (whoever she is)... than liberals?

I don't know. I only know of her because I'm involved in internet culture. People involved in internet culture are more versed in Anita Sarkesian than those who aren't.

If you want the opinion of a right-winger, go ask the seer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is quite an apt observation.

Why is it that right-wingers are more versed in these massively important liberals like Anita Sarkesian (whoever she is)... than liberals?

I don't know.

That might be a problem then. Because it indicates that these uber-gawds that liberals allegedly love according to conservatives, right-wingers, and pedestal partisans, aren't actually that influential among liberals at all.

If you want the opinion of a right-winger, go ask the seer.

Actually seer was another user.

- - - Updated - - -

Haw! What was it about fear again and the right wing?

I have been saying for years that the marketing towards conservatives has been based on concentrating on the Id, ie the base instincts.

That isn't fear. That is fact. The balance of liberal and Conservatives on college campuses has swung dramatically to the liberals in recent decades. This is also covered in John Haidt's book (Righteous Mind).

And the type of lefties I am referring to are not lefties in general but this particular sort that are so high on purity, authority, and group level thinking.

We face many of the same stances from them that we faced with evangelicals decades ago, ranging from opposing free speech to constant virtue signaling to appeals to authority to group level thinking.

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

IIRC, the extreme left and extreme right have similar levels of bias, but from different political frameworks, which might be why you see the similarity. The left and right have different outlooks, but it tends to be the people nearer the center who can see value where value actually exists, who are the most unbiased.

And so yea, many analogies can be made between the fringe left and right.

Except for the minor issue that the uber-left has no clout in policy making in the US. It could be argued that the moderate left has little clout in policy making in the US. Meanwhile, the uber-right has done a great job of getting true believers elected into Congress.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why is it that right-wingers are more versed in these massively important liberals like Anita Sarkesian (whoever she is)... than liberals?

I don't know. I only know of her because I'm involved in internet culture. People involved in internet culture are more versed in Anita Sarkesian than those who aren't

That might be a problem then.

Yes, she is only really internet famous so she doesn't make the best example.

If you want the opinion of a right-winger, go ask the seer.

Actually seer was another user.

Ah. Well, you know to whom I was referring when I mentioned by reference that conservative Republican.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know. I only know of her because I'm involved in internet culture. People involved in internet culture are more versed in Anita Sarkesian than those who aren't

That might be a problem then.

Yes, she is only really internet famous so she doesn't make the best example.

No, I'd say not. So when you said the comparison between her and Jerry Falwell was "very apt"... what you meant to say was "not very good".

If you want the opinion of a right-winger, go ask the seer.

Actually seer was another user.

Ah. Well, you know to whom I was referring when I mentioned by reference that conservative Republican.

Yeah, and it wasn't funny the first hundred times either.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That might be a problem then.

Yes, she is only really internet famous so she doesn't make the best example.

No, I'd say not. So when you said the comparison between her and Jerry Falwell was "very apt"... what you meant to say was "not very good".

In terms of what they stand for it is apt. The way in which it is not apt is the general notoriety.

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I
I've tended to equate conservatism with thinking emotionally and liberalism with thinking rationally, generally speaking. Loyalty, for example is a conservative trait. It doesn't let things like self government happen. Fear is also a conservative trait in my experience, hence racism.

I have thought the same, except for what I see as a very recent upsurge on the left of the same traits. It seems to be coming up with this new generation. My hope is that it will eat itself and implode on itself as so often happens on the righteous right.

Starting to see signs of it already with the trans pushers (note that doesn't necessarily equate to actual trans people) undermining identity politics (group level thinking) and third wave feminism.

I think we need a new word to distinguish this sort of left from the free speech pushing individualistic egalitarianism free love sort of left that came out of the 60s and 70s, personified in somebody less like Sarkesian and more like George Carlin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, she is only really internet famous so she doesn't make the best example.

No, I'd say not. So when you said the comparison between her and Jerry Falwell was "very apt"... what you meant to say was "not very good".

In terms of what they stand for it is apt. The way in which it is not apt is the general notoriety.

You mean, the influence in which their stated opinions actually matter... which really is all that matters.

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

A nice attempt to save face, but you are still in the mud there. Anita's opinions, whatever they are, are quite irrelevant.

I
I've tended to equate conservatism with thinking emotionally and liberalism with thinking rationally, generally speaking. Loyalty, for example is a conservative trait. It doesn't let things like self government happen. Fear is also a conservative trait in my experience, hence racism.

I have thought the same, except for what I see as a very recent upsurge on the left of the same traits. It seems to be coming up with this new generation. My hope is that it will eat itself and implode on itself as so often happens on the righteous right.

You never really seem to have the pulse on any of this stuff with any level of accuracy. Teabaggers were elected into the House of Representatives and the Republicans in the Senate now make Orrin Hatch look moderate. The Republican President couldn't even speak out against the vile of the pro-Nazis without adding reservations. A woman was murdered in part due to the rise of the racist right, and the Republican President still wouldn't speak out unequivocally about it. Oh... but *insert irrelevant far left liberal that most liberals don't know* has radical values so... umm... the left-wing is out of control.

Starting to see signs of it already with the trans pushers (note that doesn't necessarily equate to actual trans people) undermining identity politics (group level thinking) and third wave feminism.

• Trans pushers
• identity politics
• third wave feminism

How many right-wing dog whistles do you plan to use and still try to convince to others you are moderate?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

 

[ronburgundy]

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

It only makes sense to talk about 2 individuals in a discussion about what is generally true of two groups, if those individuals are highly typical of and/or well-regarded by most members of those groups. Thus, the fact that Falwell has been highly influential among Conservatives and similar to most conservative leaders but Sarkesian is completely unknown to 99% of liberals is relevant to showing that your post had no relevance to the discussion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

It only makes sense to talk about 2 individuals in a discussion about what is generally true of two groups, if those individuals are highly typical of and/or well-regarded by most members of those groups. Thus, the fact that Falwell has been highly influential among Conservatives and similar to most conservative leaders but Sarkesian is completely unknown to 99% of liberals is relevant to showing that your post had no relevance to the discussion.

That's just it. I was not talking about what is generally true of liberals. I don't question the chart in the OP, or Haidt's research. I was looking further into it, to disparity within the liberal side and emerging trends and changes there. Haidt has written about this as well. I was explicitly calling for, and again call for, a distinction between the Sarkesian or Buzzfeed or college campus sort of liberal and the sort we saw in free love hippies and in George Carlin. I myself am on the Carlin side and consider purity, authority and in-group of little to no importance. These liberals I am looking for a term for see them as of much higher value, and seem to be up there with conservatives on them.

And this is why I keep saying we need a new term for the Sarkesian, Buzzfeed, college campus type of liberal. They are NOT representative of liberals as a whole, as is evident in the chart in the OP, and the rest of us liberals keep getting lumped in with them by conservatives. Liberals in general are NOT about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings", etc, and do not worry about "mansplaining", "manspreading", etc. Liberals in general do not try to shut down legitimate concerns of video gamers regarding paid off reviews with accusations that gamers are sexists (gamergate).

Liberals in general are for and not against free speech. They don't crybully universities into restricting free speech in classrooms, or seek to compel the use of particular pronouns and put this into law like we recently saw here in Canada. That sort of action is what I would expect of evangelical conservatives.

Liberals in general do not call everyone that disagrees with them a racist, sexist, etc. Calling people evil because they disagree or are different is something that I would expect of evangelical conservatives.

Liberals in general do not sweep actual racism, sexism and homophobia under the rug because the person doing it is of a minority race or is Muslim. Such excuses for bigotry are what I would expect of evangelical conservatives.

Such people described above, like Sarkesian, or like we see with Buzzfeed articles, are a growing force within liberal people, who think more like evangelical conservaitves, but they are still a minority among liberal people, and I would like to keep it that way.

I would be interested in seeing a chart like in the OP that measures the same over time, or better yet, one that measures what people actually value as measured by behaviour instead of what they will say they do on a survey (I suspect these measures will show some disparity, for both conservatives and liberals).