Liberals More Sensitive to Ambiguity than Conservatives, Says Science

Ronald Bailey | September 10, 2007

Psychological researchers from New York University and UCLA are reporting what I am sure was for them a completely unanticipated discovery in Nature Neuroscience. According to the abstract:

Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.

Of course, libertarians enjoy both the informational complexity and novelty of markets and a social world rife with differing lifestyles. 

See my earlier reporting on similar research where I asked, Is conservativism an unfortunate evolutionary holdover, or the product of bad upbringing?

Comments

|9.10.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Well, yes and no.

|9.10.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Actually, I think Ann Althouse has the best interpretation of this. She states.

Which students volunteer to do psychological tests? It may be that liberal students want to help further science and conservative students are showing up for the cash. The conservative finds the most efficient way to get what he wants, which is the cash. Why bother getting the answers right? Also, there is the matter of which students self-identify as "conservative" -- especially among the students who chose to attend New York University and UCLA, where the study was done. These may be very usual people. Meanwhile, most students call themselves "liberal" at these places -- I assume. You may not be comparing the brains of conservatives and liberals, but of oddball outsiders and average kids."

I think both of those points are pretty good. I could definitely see the liberal kids being more earnest and taking the time to do it right, whereas the conservative kids were more cynical and just wanted to press the least buttons and make the least effort to get the cash.

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 12:54PM|#

I'm always amazed by these types of studies. Who, besides fellow true believers, do they think is dumb enough to pay attention to such an incredibly politicized bit of "science"?

Seeing as I could bet, with absolute certainty of a win, on the political viewpoints of the person who performed such a study solely by its results, why even bother?

|9.10.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Or liberal kids labeled themselves as conservative to be picked for the study and then answered the questionaire as they thought a conservative would?

SPD|9.10.07 @ 12:56PM|#

Are the results suggesting political leanings are genetic? Wouldn't external forces be a factor as well in shaping one's world view?

Sorry, there I go thinking like a liberal again. :)

|9.10.07 @ 12:58PM|#

It's been my experience that conservatives are very sensitive to ambiguity...

|9.10.07 @ 1:00PM|#

"...liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty."

So they're more easily distracted?

|9.10.07 @ 1:02PM|#

liberal vs conservative? I'll buy it; Liberal vs Conservative? Not really.

|9.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#

libertarians are the smartest of them all, hahahahahhahaahahahaha.....choke...cough...sputter...fall over...

|9.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#

I dunno, ambiguity is well used tool in the Bush admin.

|9.10.07 @ 1:05PM|#

The problem is defining "liberal" and "conservative". Are liberals leftists, progressives, neolibs or laborites? Are conservatives paleo, libertarian, neocons or social traditionalists?

|9.10.07 @ 1:10PM|#

I read a fairly detailed article in a daily paper this morning that explained that this test consisted of following a set of directions, where the subjects were asked to avoid pressing an 'M' or a 'W' when those letters appeared in the test, and the subjects who were designated liberal were very accurate at following these directions and the subjects designated conservative were not.

Of course liberals are very good at following directions, it is what they do! The mindset comes from a desire to please their teachers in grade school. They adopt the opinions that they believe will get them the most approval from the authority figures they come in contact with in their formative years.
I was in the education field for a few years and I saw this phenomenon happen many, many times.

So, I feel the interpretation of the data given is incorrect, and does not account for the bovine mindset that would most likely seek the approval of the researchers (substitute authority figures), whereas subjects consisting of a general population sample would be more inclined towards boredom as the test persisted and from that they would likely make more mistakes than the eager to please liberal test subjects.

fyodor|9.10.07 @ 1:10PM|#

If the study has flaws, then someone should try to replicate it while fixing the flaws. Meanwhile we all have the choice of believing whatever we choose to. Contributing to technology that works certainly helps give a science credibility, and whether social psychology has is probably rather open to debate. I know it would get me in a cranky from the start having to identify myself somewhere along the stereotypical liberal versus conservative spectrum. Regarding what they ostensibly found, intuitively it seems odd to me that modern left-leaners would necessarily be more open to change than right-leaners since the latter want to change things just as much, only in different ways. I guess the sterotype is that conservatives want to change things to the way they were before, but I don't know if that's always necessarily the case either. Seems moderates would be the ones most wanting to keep things the same.

|9.10.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Liberals More Sensitive to Ambiguity than Conservatives

Hey!

|9.10.07 @ 1:15PM|#

All snark aside, the methods for determining the reasonability of this study are not available (or more accurately, available for $30 which I do not want to spend), so I can't say how they came up with this idea. Oh,and Alan's post makes no sense.

|9.10.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Alan,
If liberals are better at following directions than conservatives, why are most protesters hippie liberals?

x,y|9.10.07 @ 1:29PM|#

A friend of mine in college told me that her professor explained the difference between liberal and conservative. Of course, I knew the "answer" before she even got to that part of the story. Sure enough, the professor said that liberals are open to change and conservatives are not.

Why do people talk in terms of liberal vs. conservative instead of statist vs. liberty? The latter seems much easier to quantify/qualify.

|9.10.07 @ 1:31PM|#

Maybe its just me, but the liberal world view as a whole is very not into ambiguity and nuance. I mean, they pay it a lot of lip service, but shits pretty black and white most of the time.

Unless ambiguity means wondering which government agency is supposed to remove the ambiguity and nuance...

O hell, there goes my typical conservative rigid thought patterns.

For me, pretty sure its bad genes.

|9.10.07 @ 1:33PM|#

A man of twenty who is not a liberal has no heart and man of forty who is not a conservative has no mind. - Churchill


Most psych experiments already suffer from the flaw of using college students as an exclusive sample. Judging conservatives by the anomalies known as college Republicans is more than a little warped.

|9.10.07 @ 1:33PM|#

x,y,

The problem is that liberal and conservative definitions have been hate fucked by the political establishment here and have come to represent republican right wing and Democratic left wing (both of which want to change certain things and keep other traditional)

The classical liberal definition is open to change (both social and economic) while the classical conservative resists change (both social and economic).

|9.10.07 @ 1:35PM|#

libertarians are the smartest of them all, hahahahahhahaahahahaha.....choke...cough...sputter...fall over...

Best. Post. Ever.

Bill|9.10.07 @ 1:35PM|#

I click the link to open Bailey's 2004 article on "pathological conservatism," and the inset advertisment is for a daily Ann Coulter e-mail.

|9.10.07 @ 1:37PM|#

My new study found that liberals have more bumper stickers on their cars. It showed that people with liberal views had, on average, 4.2 stickers on their cars compared to only 1.6 for conservatives. The conservative figure only rose to 2.1 when Christian 'fish' stickers were included. This may be due to liberals believing they are challenging the status quo, conservatives being less open about their political beliefs, or the fact that liberals are generally younger, and have much crappier cars that aren't likely to lose any value by having advertisements for Black Flag and PETA on the rear window.

Ok, where's my $25,000 grant?

Brian Sorgatz|9.10.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Where's the liberal mind's sensitivity to "informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty" when it comes to the government's de facto monopoly on early education for the poor and lower middle class, or the moral panic just beneath the surface of hipster documentaries like Super Size Me?

On its face, I'm having trouble with the study's conclusion-unless they mean "liberals" in the European sense (i.e. what we call libertarian) rather than American FDR worshipers.

I don't know whether Alan's explanation is accurate, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. All public school did for me was waste my time and fuck with my head.

|9.10.07 @ 1:40PM|#

For more results along these lines, see my forthcoming paper in Nature Neuroscience, titled: "People like me are way smarter than everyone else."

dhex|9.10.07 @ 1:41PM|#

i would go out onto a limb and say not a whole lot of fucking people are into nuance, lib, conservative, libertarian or otherwise. DEMAND KURVE et al.

Marcvs|9.10.07 @ 1:45PM|#

My recent study found that both liberals and conservatives spend entirely too much time finding ways to spend MY money and fuck with MY life.

|9.10.07 @ 1:55PM|#

'Liberals More Sensitive to Ambiguity than Conservatives'

Apparently the study proves Robert Frost to have been correct when he said:

"A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel."

Jerry|9.10.07 @ 1:55PM|#

At least this study seems to be innocuous compared to other studies of yesteryear (like that of Right-Wing Authoritarianism).

|9.10.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Why do people talk in terms of liberal vs. conservative instead of statist vs. liberty? The latter seems much easier to quantify/qualify.

I don't know...if the last 6 years has taught me anything, it's that conservatives will gladly sacrifice liberty in the name of security.

That's no to say liberals are so great...but you'd have a hard time convincing me conservatives are any better.

|9.10.07 @ 2:01PM|#

It has definitely been in vogue the last few years to write a book or do a study calling everyone who disagrees with you unreasonable and insane. First, there was Thomas Frank's abominable "What is the Matter With Kansas". Then we have Reasonoid version of that with Brian Caplan's "Myth of the Rational Voter". I would love to put Caplan and Frank in the same room together and have them explain to each other why they are each thinks the other is completely and totally insane. There was also that study a while ago that said Conservatives were more easily lead to totalitarianism. There is just a whole new genera of "everyone who disagrees with me about anything only does so because they are insane" political literature.

|9.10.07 @ 2:07PM|#

Alan,
If liberals are better at following directions than conservatives, why are most protesters hippie liberals?

Protesting involves marching and according your actions within the framework of group behavior. Naturally, liberals would be attracted to such activity and want to join in.

Kidding aside, there are obvious problems with the definition of liberals and conservatives in these test. I used the one most likely to be tested in these conditions in our current fashion. Someone who defers to technocratic authority. Someone more Glabraithian than Chomskyite. Someone who looks breathlessly forward to Brian Williams telling them about the latest health study after the next commercial break (okay, I'm kidding again).

Chuck|9.10.07 @ 2:10PM|#

BakedPenguin--

You're doing it wrong. Get the grant first, *then* do the study. Unless you want to use the data you have as "preliminary results" indicative of a "promising new direction of research", for which you need to add a zero or two. $25K is small potatos.

|9.10.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Reminds me of the old saying that a liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in an argument.

Edward|9.10.07 @ 2:15PM|#

For some who are gullible and dogma-prone, it's simply a question of which ideology grabs them in the formative years. Party-line libertarians don't differ from party-line socialists in mindset. For both, the dogmas and slogans are a substitute for thinking.

|9.10.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Conservatives dismissing the results of a scientific study because they don't like its political implications?

Naw, that can't be right. That doesn't sound like how conservatives think. At all.

Flyover Country|9.10.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Liberals accepting the results of a scientific study because they like its political implications?

Naw, that can't be right. That doesn't sound like how liberals think. At all.

|9.10.07 @ 2:29PM|#

"Naw, that can't be right. That doesn't sound like how conservatives think. At all."

I will remember that the next time I see liberals embracing studies that show a bell curve in IQs among different races or differing interests and aptitudes for science and math among men and women.

|9.10.07 @ 2:33PM|#

More anti-science from the No-Nothings.

|9.10.07 @ 2:35PM|#

John,

Were you a liberal, or some other variety of thoughtful person, the necessity of judging a study by its merits would have occured to you.

"The Bell Curve" has been discredited by statisticians for its sloppy statistical analysis, but you don't even bother to acknowledge that fact, because you can attribute the collapse of its respectability to political motives.

|9.10.07 @ 2:35PM|#

For some who are gullible and dogma-prone, it's simply a question of which ideology grabs them in the formative years. Party-line libertarians don't differ from party-line socialists in mindset. For both, the dogmas and slogans are a substitute for thinking.

So sadly true. I've long contended that "If you agree with the party line on all issues, you're no thinking for youself". This is a corolary to my earlier theorem "If somebody says they have all the answers, run like hell."

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 2:36PM|#

joe, if you are actually placing any stock in this study, you are stupider and more partisan than I ever imagined, and I already thought you were totally partisan. But not stupid, until now.

Note that I would be saying this if the study were reversed. I just feel that I have to make these disclaimers with you because you can't seem to understand that criticism of liberals is not support for conservatives.

|9.10.07 @ 2:41PM|#

I haven't said anything one way or the other about the study, Episiarch. Did you not notice that?

It would appear to be YOU, sir, who has assumed that I am taking one side because I've criticized the other.

You should try to knock off that partisan shit. I understand that it can interfere with your thinking.

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Were you a liberal, or some other variety of thoughtful person, the necessity of judging a study by its merits would have occured to you.

You sure seem to think that all liberals are thoughtful people (and seemingly a few others in the "other variety" category).

But if you note, joe, I said "if you are actually placing any stock in this study", which meant I wasn't sure (because you did not explicitly say so), but statements like the one I quoted above seemed to indicate that you might.

Please don't lecture me about assumptions when you are doing it yourself. All you do is make an ass out of "u" and..."mption" *.

* name that movie if you can

Russell|9.10.07 @ 2:50PM|#

The problem seems to be that dopamine is released in the anterior cingulate whenever the test subjects knuckles start dragging.

|9.10.07 @ 2:52PM|#

I consider myself a liberal but must break with joe on this one. It strikes me as a little dumb to mix science with highly subjective and relative labels like liberal and conservative.

|9.10.07 @ 2:52PM|#

here,

joe | September 10, 2007, 2:25pm | #
Conservatives dismissing the results of a scientific study because they don't like its political implications?

Naw, that can't be right. That doesn't sound like how conservatives think. At all.

Where does non recursive, not reflective enough to realize self contradiction fall on the political axis?

GILMORE|9.10.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Who, besides fellow true believers, do they think is dumb enough to pay attention to such an incredibly politicized bit of "science"?

True that

Everyone seems to take for granted that "science" is using some objective criteria for the real differences between 'liberal/conservative', when in fact they are largely arbitrary names slapped on a handful of political hot potatoes. In real life, people who choose to label themselves clearly one or the other are more alike than different. Most people are not different because of political positions, but in their method of reasoning. See Kholberg, his work on cognitive development... two people who come to entirely different conclusions are often using identical frames of thinking. Trying to make this kind of study more credible by using analysis like, "stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern." might just be masking the fact that they asked a stupid question when they set up their study.

|9.10.07 @ 2:58PM|#

Episiarch,

You should stop assuming my positions on facts based on my politics. Period.

Dan T.,

If the data hold up, they hold up. If liberal or conservative politics correlate with certain brain activity or mental function, then they do.

Alan,

Try a little harder, and you might make sense.

|9.10.07 @ 3:02PM|#

GILMORE,

"Self-described liberal" vs "Self-described conservative" is a legitimate distinction.

So are "liberal vs conservative" based on issue surveys.

These "handful of hot potatoes" break down into a dependable bifurcation. If you know someone's position on abortion rights, you can guess his position on environmental regulation with a high degree of accuracy, even though the two positions have little to do with each other beyond having a liberal and conservative position.

There are a lot of theories about why this is, but it's defintively established that this bifurcation exists.

|9.10.07 @ 3:07PM|#

What about the studies on men and women's interest in science Joe? Or better yet, what about the endless amount of work that says that gun ownership decreases instead of increases crime? Since liberals are so reasonable and such worshipers of science, I fully expect the progressive community to embrace conceal and carry laws. What do they just not know the facts?

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 3:10PM|#

You should stop assuming my positions on facts based on my politics. Period.

I don't. I base my impressions on 1) what you say, and 2) what you have said in the past.

Seeing as you are 95% predictable, joe, I can't see how you would fault me on this. If you actually said something that deviated from the norm (like not saying exactly what I knew you were going to say in this thread), that would be interesting.

Predictability just means you are consistent. That's nothing to be pissed off about; you have your views and stick to them. Good.

But smug condescension towards the right (which I like!) while holding smug delusions of grandeur for the left (keep dreaming) is partisan, and I don't see how you deny it with a straight face (figuratively).

fyodor|9.10.07 @ 3:13PM|#

joe:

Conservatives dismissing the results of a scientific study because they don't like its political implications?

Naw, that can't be right. That doesn't sound like how conservatives think. At all.

...

I haven't said anything one way or the other about the study

Dan T.:
I consider myself a liberal but must break with joe on this one. It strikes me as a little dumb to mix science with highly subjective and relative labels like liberal and conservative.

joe, not just libertarians and Dan T., but any reasonable person would think you were likely endorsing the study based on your satirical treatment of those who criticized it. Now, technically, I can see that that's not necessarily the case. And I could see how clarifying your point would have interfered with your satirical effect. But the "Aha, gotcha!" to someone who would make such an assumption is just playing low.

Interested|9.10.07 @ 3:19PM|#

"Were you a liberal, or some other variety of thoughtful person, the necessity of judging a study by its merits would have occured to you."

If you really mean that, you would have to agree that most of the people posting on this topic are "liberal". Unless you mean that "liberal" means agreeing with any study that makes joe feel better about himself.

|9.10.07 @ 3:19PM|#

Episiarch,

You should stop assuming my positions on facts based on my politics. Period.

Dan T.,

If the data hold up, they hold up. If liberal or conservative politics correlate with certain brain activity or mental function, then they do.

Alan,

Try a little harder, and you might make sense.


3:18 PM EST Subject now displaying signs of mild paranoia that often accompanies delusion. Growing more angry as conditions tighten.

|9.10.07 @ 3:28PM|#

In other news, a recent study reveals that people who sometimes wear white labcoats are more intelligent, kinder, more sensitive, and much, much hotter in the sack than people who never wear white labcoats, say scientists.

|9.10.07 @ 3:32PM|#

RTFA, it's short:

Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.

1) I can buy that about liberals and conservatives. But what about Blues and Reds?

2) OK, let's assume they're talking Blues and Reds. I can kinda buy that this explains why, after all the anti-war posturing, the Blues are putting up pro-war candidates to embrace the sorts of policies the Reds are doggedly pursuing in face of public disapproval.

x,y|9.10.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Were you a liberal, or some other variety of thoughtful person, the necessity of judging a study by its merits would have occured to you.

Oh, like the merits of a study using 18-25 year old college students from NYU and UCLA as a sample. I get it now. Thanks joe.

x,y|9.10.07 @ 3:42PM|#

What has this site come to? Dan T. is consistently making more sense than joe.

|9.10.07 @ 3:51PM|#

John,

What about the studies on men and women's interest in science Joe? I usually see the results explained as the consequence of socialization, or differential treatment of students in school, or the family-friendliness of science departments in universities. I don't think I've ever seen a pundit claim that this difference doesn't exist, the way denialism of global warming is so rampant on the right.

Or better yet, what about the endless amount of work that says that gun ownership decreases instead of increases crime? What endless amount? There are some studies that say it increases crime, and others that say it decreases crime, and others that show no difference. On this disputed issue, there is dispute. So? But good demonstrating the flip side of the politization of science - the gleeful embrace of confirmatin bias. You actually believe that there is a overwhelming scientific consensus for the more guns/less crime theory, don't you?

|9.10.07 @ 3:52PM|#

"""The problem is that liberal and conservative definitions have been hate fucked by the political establishment here and have come to represent republican right wing and Democratic left wing """

BINGO!!

It's nothing but name calling, substance was checked at the door a while ago.


"""If the data hold up, they hold up. If liberal or conservative politics correlate with certain brain activity or mental function, then they do."""

But does it?

|9.10.07 @ 3:53PM|#

I base my impressions on 1) what you say, and 2) what you have said in the past.,/i>

Yes, Episiarch, and as you did here, you get it wrong.

You read my criticism of the reflexive dismissals, and assumed what I JUST HAD TO think about the study. And, you were wrong.

So, knock it off. Your sloppy assumption here proved to be incorrect. Let that be a lesson to you about the dangers of partisanship.

Too smug? Too bad. Don't make it so easy next time.

|9.10.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Are conservatives paleo, libertarian, neocons or social traditionalists?

Woh there, buddy! You almost got away with sneaking that flawed meme in without comment. Libertarians are not a subclass of conservatives.

|9.10.07 @ 3:57PM|#

fyodor,

I didn't just yell "Gotcha!" at someone who assumed I was endorsing the study. I yelled "Gotcha!" at someone who not only made that assumption, but had the baseless temerity to lecture me about the dangers of making such assumptions!

Episiarch was asking for it. He imagined that I was taking a reflexive "left" position because I criticized people for taking a reflexive "right" position, and let wagged his finger at me for assuming that critics of a reflexive partisan position must hold the opposite partisan position.

|9.10.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Interested,

No, many libertarians fall under the heading "other varieties of thoughtful person."

TrickyVic,

I don't know if the data hold up or not. What I do know is that the "No fair, that can't be true, because it makes conservatives look bad!" line of argument on display up above is an abandonment of reason.

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 3:59PM|#

(Just in case)

You smugness is distorting your ability to close italics tags, joe.

Answer my question, please--how do you deny being partisan with a straight face, and on top of it, accuse me of it?

|9.10.07 @ 4:04PM|#

Now now, correlation does not imply causation.

Based on a sample of joe, one can conclude that smugness and an inability to use italics tags correctly are closely correlated. But to show causation, you'd have to find a sample of non-smug joe comments for comparison purposes, and I just don't think you're going to find enough data to draw a meaningful conclusion.

And I don't deny being a partisan. In fact, it is my awareness of my partisan preferences that allow me to more effectively avoid the pitfalls of partisanship. Unlike you, who lives in blissful denial of his own partisan pitfalls, and keeps falling into the same third-party-partisan hole.

|9.10.07 @ 4:05PM|#

Maybe the liberals were just better at spotting the W's because they hate George W. Bush?

So libertarians are good at ambiguity on social issues, and single-mindedly in favor of free markets? Wouldn't that make the researchers who set this up conservatives, since they didn't think of the nuances of political orientation outside of conventional liberal v. conservative?

#69|9.10.07 @ 4:07PM|#

69696969696969

argh! that's too concretely-abstract for me!

*head explodes. figuratively?

|9.10.07 @ 4:08PM|#

My ongoing research shows that liberals are 67% more likely to leave unclosed tags in their posts than conservatives.

|9.10.07 @ 4:13PM|#

Party-line libertarians don't differ from party-line socialists in mindset.

In case you didn't notice from this site, Edward, the phrase "party-line libertarians" makes about as much sense as the phrase "conformist, herd-following cats".

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 4:16PM|#

So joe, by being partisan you're not partisan, while me not being partisan makes me some sort of mythical "third-party" partisan?

You know, joe, maybe this study and its findings of "abstract" thought in liberals wasn't far off...

And though I know you can't get your head around this and need to chant "third-party", not all of us need to join a group--in fact, some of us hate doing that. Just because you can only conceive of politics in a "my-team-vs-the-other-teams" way doesn't mean all of us do.

|9.10.07 @ 4:18PM|#

These "handful of hot potatoes" break down into a dependable bifurcation. If you know someone's position on abortion rights, you can guess his position on environmental regulation with a high degree of accuracy, even though the two positions have little to do with each other beyond having a liberal and conservative position.

joe, OK, I'll bite. My position on abortion is that somewhere after conception and before birth a fetus transitions into a human being, and thus acquires rights.

What does this inevitably tell you about my views on environmental regulation, and why?

|9.10.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Episiarch,

You should stop assuming my positions on facts based on my politics. Period.

Dan T.,

If the data hold up, they hold up. If liberal or conservative politics correlate with certain brain activity or mental function, then they do.

Alan,

Try a little harder, and you might make sense.


3:18 PM EST Subject now displaying signs of mild paranoia that often accompanies delusion. Growing more angry as conditions tighten.

Alan wins the thread!

|9.10.07 @ 4:25PM|#

"""No fair, that can't be true, because it makes conservatives look bad!" line of argument on display up above is an abandonment of reason."""

I agree. That premise is not reasonable.

I'm poopooing the whole thing, you can't take anything about conservatives as truth unless it comes from Fox news. ;-).

|9.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#

What has this site come to? Dan T. is consistently making more sense than joe.

Dan T., having tired of being the resident pinata, is trying to think stuff through. Whereas joe the ur-liberal is so certain he is right -- so certain that any ambiguity, nuance, or questioning of his notions is unthinkably wrong and cause for lashing out -- that he embraces a study saying liberals embrace ambiguity, nuance, and questioning.

/irony

|9.10.07 @ 4:36PM|#

Episiarch,

It's exactly that assumption that I'm talking about. Because you pat yourself on the back for your "pox on both houses" stance, you are inclined to accept any thesis that makes the two parties look equally bad, and reject any that makes one or the other look better.

And what's more, because you imagine this prefence to be "mythical," you don't even make the effort to acknowledge this pitfall, much less avoid it. You just sort of take it on faith that, of course any statement that makes on party look better than the other is false. A lack of equivalency is all you need to draw a conclusion about a statement's truth value.

Sloppy, sloppy thinking.

|9.10.07 @ 4:37PM|#

You don't think you've joined a team, Episiarch?

You're deluding yourself. You've joined the "non-partisan" team, and merely assume your superiority to those who identify with one or the other real parties.

|9.10.07 @ 4:42PM|#

prolefeed,

I wrote "high degree of confidence," not "absolute confidence." Surely, you've noticed that your opinion about abortion rights is a distinct minority among those who hold an opinion on the subject.

The largest set of opinions - that an embryo is a person with the right to life, or that a woman's right to control her body justifies killing a fetus - correlate quite closely with opinions about a whole range of unrelated issues.

Your unusual stance, which is neither liberal nor conservative, doesn't correlate with any such opinions. Still, this is discussion about liberals and conservatives. People who have the common liberal position on abortion are quite likely to hold other liberal opinions, and ditto for the conservative position. Surely you've noticed this, too.

Episiarch|9.10.07 @ 5:01PM|#

Because you pat yourself on the back for your "pox on both houses" stance, you are inclined to accept any thesis that makes the two parties look equally bad, and reject any that makes one or the other look better.

Or, joe, they are all corrupt political opportunists and have no substantive differences other than how they want to control us.

Doesn't that make more objective sense than MY TEAM BEST GO RAH RAH?

x,y|9.10.07 @ 5:01PM|#

joe,

Could you please direct me to the specific reflexive right position someone took? And please point me to something substantively reflexive, i.e., not just snark or the obvious dismissal of the study based on the sample.

|9.10.07 @ 5:41PM|#

Surely, you've noticed that your opinion about abortion rights is a distinct minority among those who hold an opinion on the subject.

Actually, joe, I ran for office and visited thousands of households, and found that the majority of people, when questioned about the specifics of their beliefs, rather than being asked whether they were pro-life or pro-choice, actually do believe what I do -- that a human being is formed sometime after conception but before birth, and then acquires rights. A small but vocal minority believes life begins right at conception, another small but vocal minority believes that life begins only upon delivery, and the vast gray middle tends to skew a bit toward one side or the other, but with every point on the spectrum covered.

For example, one woman who had my campaign poster on her fence angrily called me and told me to come pick it that sign when I was labeled "pro-life", because she was "pro-choice" and couldn't abide the Red Team position -- and didn't budge even after I explained my views, and questioned her and found she was opposed to late-term abortions, that in essence we were perhaps a couple of months apart on the notion of when human life begins.

Same deal with environmental regulation -- almost everyone believes that some regulation/enforcement, if only for pollution control, is necessary, with a few vocal Ayn Randian zealots thinking they should be free to pollute at will, and the rest skewing either toward authoritarian regulation or toward free market voluntary compliance combined with legal action to rein in the outliers.

There's some correlation between being more pro-choice than pro-life being also more pro-environmental regulation that more reliant upon free market pressures to do the right thing -- but hardly the hard and fast division you make it out to be.

|9.10.07 @ 6:36PM|#

You're deluding yourself. You've joined the "non-partisan" team, and merely assume your superiority to those who identify with one or the other real parties.

If you're not with us, you're against us?

That doesn't sound like the attitude of an ambiguity-embracing progressive, joe.

Paul|9.10.07 @ 6:50PM|#

This is the one that I found interesting:

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Right, liberals are far more likely to get wrapped up in the latest new agey crackpot theories about homeopathic "remedies", acupuncture and "traditional" chinese medicine, for examples.

I'm really pretty sure that one could game this "study" to mean anything they wish.

|9.10.07 @ 7:15PM|#

My theory on this, for what it's worth, is that many liberals are simply smart people who know little about politics but think that the majority of social scientists must be right.

When I was more apathetic to politics this is the way I thought. I can't follow a detalied creationism vs. Evolution debate or thoroughly explain the theory of relativity, but I assume biologists and physicists have more information than I do and believe what they say.

By the same logic, academic social scientists must have information that I don't and that is why they are for the most part liberal. So I should be liberal too.

Once I started paying attention and reading about political issues I realized that most academics have think about their beliefs in a way that is closer to religious than scientific thought. The only difference is our society, especially the "educated", gives the social sciences a respect it doesn't deserve.

Paul|9.10.07 @ 7:38PM|#

Grand C:

Lemme fix this:

The only difference is our society, especially the "educated", gives the social sciences "sciences" a respect it doesn't deserve.

There.

Mike Laursen|9.10.07 @ 8:34PM|#

You've joined the "non-partisan" team

That was a really oxymoronic thing to say.

|9.10.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Its actually spelled "so-so science". Being versed in real science, you wouldn't be expected to know that.

Just joking! Honest.

|9.11.07 @ 9:05AM|#

The only difference is that our society, especially the "educated", gives the social sciences "sciences" sciences a respect it doesn't they don't deserve.

OK, now it's really fixed.

|9.11.07 @ 9:25AM|#

Episiarch,

What doesn't make objective sense is assuming that you can judge the truth value of a statement by how well it conforms to your "pox on both houses" narrative. I get that it's a bad idea to judge the truth value of a statement by how well it conforms to my understanding of the parties. You don't.

x,y,

The reflexive dismissal of the study which made conservatives look bad was a reflexive right position. As for substantive, these knee-jerks are rarely substantive, just RAH RAH GO TEAM!

crimethink,

I hope that made you feel better, becasue it neither related to what I wrote, not advanced the discussion.

That was a really oxymoronic thing to say.

No, Mike, it's not. Non-partisan has become a brand name for people to define themselves by, just as much as Democratic or Republican. The certainty that the two sides must always and everywhere be equally bad is just as much of a prejudice as the certainty that one or the other must always be superior.