Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Startling Truth About Conservatives?
More purely objective scientific research from the purlieus of America's universities finds that conservatives are more apt to "startle" at disgusting images and loud noises than are laid-back open-minded liberals. As Time describes the study involving 46 Nebraskans and published last week in Science:
Researchers shied away from using labels such as conservative and liberal in their study, but they concede that volunteers who registered a heightened sense of threat also tended to subscribe to conservative attitudes. "It's not that conservatives are 'fraidy-cats," says Kevin Smith, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and one of the study's co-authors. "It's that people who support socially protective policies — which, yes, can be interpreted as people taking a conservative position on those policies — are more sensitive to environmental threat."
To measure that sensitivity, researchers conducted two tests. In one, they showed volunteers a series of photos that included some threatening images — for example, a picture of a man with a spider on his face or an infected open wound — while measuring the electrical conductance of the volunteers' skin, a technique also used in polygraph testing. In a separate experiment, researchers subjected the volunteers to sudden bursts of loud white noise to test their startle reflexes, measured by sensors attached to the muscle below the eye that recorded how hard people blinked.
People who blinked harder than others and registered a heightened response to threat on the conductivity test tended to support the death penalty and military spending. People with a mellower startle response were more likely to support abortion rights and gun control. The study also looked at several broader political tendencies, including compromise (the willingness to yield to a middle-ground solution) and obedience (the tendency to follow a set path), and found that people who were more sensitive to threat were less amenable to the former and more inclined toward the latter.
National Geographic reported:
"[People displaying] measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control," the team wrote in its report, to be published in the journal Science tomorrow.
"Individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War."
However, one suspiciously fair-minded critic wondered how the results would have been interpreted had they come out the other way:
Duke University political scientist Evan Charney said that such studies run the risk of "pathologizing conservatism … and I say that as a left-wing liberal."
The study could be read as, "Conservatives are a hell of a lot more threatened than liberals," Charney said.
"But if the results had come out the other way, we might be reading [interpretations] that liberals are more attentive than conservatives or more concerned than conservatives."
reason has been covering research into the psychopathology of conservativism for some time.
|9.23.08 @ 2:28PM|#
What sort of metric were they using to determine whether a person was liberal/conservative?
|9.23.08 @ 2:28PM|#
I'm having a hard time believing that the people who are less startled by loud noises are the ones who are in favor of gun control.
|9.23.08 @ 2:29PM|#
conservatives are more apt to "startle" at disgusting images
and loud noises than are laid-back open-minded liberals
Liberals are just stoned. (Good for them, I'd get stoned at a
stupid psychology experiment too.)
|9.23.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Explains why Bushco figured "shock and awe" would be
enough.
"Hell, it would work on me!"
|9.23.08 @ 2:30PM|#
What sort of metric were they using to determine whether a
person was liberal/conservative?
BMI
Hogan|9.23.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Nice to know that 'liberals,' however defined in one stupid study, don't seem to care when an ENORMOUS SPIDER IS CRAWLING ACROSS THAT DUDE'S FUCKING FACE ARE YOU GONNA DO SOMETHING OR WHAT?!
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 2:40PM|#
More purely objective scientific research from the purlieus of America's universities finds that conservatives are more apt to "startle" at disgusting images and loud noises than are laid-back open-minded liberals.
Wait, you guys are wrong.
Since the disgusting, smelly, filthy and loud liberals are the ones
taking to the streets trying to 'shock' people, wouldn't it follow
that the people not participating (like the ones trying to get to
work or having a family outing) are the only ones left to
survey?
|9.23.08 @ 2:42PM|#
It's a photo of a spider crawling across a dude's face, not a spider crawling across a dude's face in person. Short of covering your eyes, there's nothing to do in that situation.
jtuf|9.23.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Duke University political scientist Evan Charney said that such studies run the risk of "pathologizing conservatism … and I say that as a left-wing liberal."
The study could be read as, "Conservatives are a hell of a lot more threatened than liberals," Charney said.
"But if the results had come out the other way, we might be reading [interpretations] that liberals are more attentive than conservatives or more concerned than conservatives."
Agreed. These studies tend to tell us more about the researcher's
preconceptions than the subjects' mental states. You could just as
easily say that this study proves liberals are just too cold
hearted to see how much suffering their policies case. Best to just
debate the policies rather than to try and find a biological "root
cause" of opposing opinions.
|9.23.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Psychology be damned, I'd fucking punch a hole in the monitor showing me a spider on some guy's face. I hate spiders. Logically, they preform valuable services in killing flies, mosquitos and other annoyances, but I still fucking hate them. And studies like this make me want to punch researchers in the temple. If you want to call me conservative because of that, fine, but yeaugh (*shudder*)
Hogan|9.23.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Liberals are waiting for Obama to turn the spider into a
nice pony.
Obama issued a statement calling upon both the spider and the face
to exercise restraint and work for peaceful solutions.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Let me say for the record that I like spiders, but I still hate rainbows and puppies.
Franklin Harris|9.23.08 @ 2:51PM|#
I once had this dream in which the world was being overrun with spiders. Except the spiders looked like kittens. But everyone knew they were spiders.
|9.23.08 @ 2:51PM|#
I hear both parties support more research and development in this country--leads to high paying jobs and so on.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 2:51PM|#
What a piece of garbage. Who would think this is worth
publishing?
[wearing psychic hat]
Time, Science and National Geographic
I am available to consult on other issues for a nominal fee.
|9.23.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Let me say for the record that I like spiders, but I still
hate rainbows and puppies.
For the record, let me add that you're fucking nuts.
|9.23.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Some else said this before, but Guy still is not welcome on Rainbow Puppy Island.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 2:56PM|#
LIT,
Sorry, did not get your mom's name before. Now I can send her a
flower.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 2:57PM|#
John,
As I have said before, I will be establishing a Rainbow Puppy
Island for reasons that may not be obvious in the title.
|9.23.08 @ 2:58PM|#
It really doesn't matter if you want to characterize the
differences that studies like this keep uncovering way that make
liberals or conservatives look better.
They keep finding differences in neurological activity that
correlate with political opinions.
Boo hoo, does that hurt your feelings? Deal.
Science: you're on the bus, or you're off the bus.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 3:00PM|#
SF,
Was not advertising that as an all-inclusive list. But this
racket market is big enough for everybody, so feel
free to make your own purchase one of these fine hats
from me and go into business :)
|9.23.08 @ 3:00PM|#
"It's not that conservatives are 'fraidy-cats," says Kevin
Smith, a political science professor at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln and one of the study's co-authors. "It's that
people who support socially protective policies - which, yes, can
be interpreted as people taking a conservative position on those
policies - are more sensitive to environmental threat."
What do want, conservatives, a blowjob?
Those are the results of the experiment. The guy is bending over
backwards to explain them in a neutral way.
|9.23.08 @ 3:01PM|#
They keep finding differences in neurological activity that
correlate with political opinions.
I'm fine with science finally figuring out that liberals have
something wrong with their brain.
|9.23.08 @ 3:03PM|#
John,
Maybe it was a traumatic event involving a guy named Puppy in a
room full of rainbows and balloons that's driven Guy to this.
|9.23.08 @ 3:05PM|#
What do want, conservatives, a blowjob?
Well, if conservatives are getting a blowjob, it's only fair that
we all get one
TallDave|9.23.08 @ 3:07PM|#
So what they're saying is, if you're relatively insensitive to
stimuli, you're a leftist.
Well, this explains why the dead vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Stereotype Alert|9.23.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Reinmoose is proposing a redistribution of blowjobs in the interest of social justice.
|9.23.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Another study to confirm what we all sort of already know about conservatives through experience. There are many studies that seem to find the same thing over and over: conservatives are fucking primitive! Exactly what one might expect from people who don't believe in evolution.
Hogan|9.23.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Science: you're on the bus, or you're off the bus.
Or you can't tell the difference between the bus and a sex
predator's unmarked van full of candy. Be extremely skeptical of
anything purporting to make any kind of scientifically valid claim
"correlating" (shit I can't remember - duzz that meen cawzing?)
"differences in neurological activity" (care to elaborate on what
all that brain magic consists of?) with "political opinions" (I
look forward to Science's explanation of my attitudes towards the
Earned Income Tax Credit). If you have a taste for pop psychology
studies making tendentious claims, that's fine, but it's laughable
to try to base your preference with a Devotion to Science.
|9.23.08 @ 3:16PM|#
You know, I spent years reading conservatives proclaiming how
much better they understand threats to our security - and "better"
always, always, always meant "more intensely."
Liberals have a "9/10 mindset." Liberals don't understand that the
world is a dangerous place. Liberals don't know that there is evil
in the world. Blabbity blabbity fucking blah.
And now, it's some sort of horrible, biased, leftist slander for a
researcher to report that conservatives react more strongly to
scary things. ZOMG, how can he say that! Those darn liberal
scientists - we can't trust them. Boo hoo, I'm being picked on
again.
Wankers.
zoltan|9.23.08 @ 3:17PM|#
So people who support socially protective policies are more
likely to feel threatened--okay, so people who support gun control
are more likely to feel threatened--so liberals are more likely to
feel threatened?
Didn't this study just say that? Oh right it found the exact
opposite, because the socially protective positions liberals hold
are okay.
And I agree with whoever said it's ridiculous to separate people
into these two positions--both are cognitively dissonant, with one
calling for more government intervention in the economy and less in
people's social lives* while the other calls for less government
intervention in the economy* and more in people's social
lives.
*Except for gun control, affirmative action, etc.
*Except when they actually don't support free market ideas.
Even the fact that I have to addend those categories means these
people are even more cognitively dissonant. How exactly is it
helpful to see the difference between the sociopath and the
lunatic?
bubba|9.23.08 @ 3:20PM|#
I'm reminded of a recent study that correlated bumper stickers
(of any type) with honking when the light turns green. They
blathered for pages about public space, and private space, and
blah, blah, blah.
Maybe the people with bumper stickers are simply more
communicative.
Hogan|9.23.08 @ 3:25PM|#
And now, it's some sort of horrible, biased, leftist slander
for a researcher to report that conservatives react more strongly
to scary things. ZOMG, how can he say that! Those darn liberal
scientists - we can't trust them. Boo hoo, I'm being picked on
again.
I don't think the findings of this study are slanderous. If
anything about it was scientifically persuasive, I'd think it was
neat. But it's not. It's pop science b.s. So we all get to calm
down.
|9.23.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Joe,
All we can guess so far is that Nebraskans who call themselves
conservatives are jumpier than Nebraskans who call themselves
liberals (how many is that, like 10?)
|9.23.08 @ 3:41PM|#
zoltan,
From the article: People with stronger measurable threat
responses, the study found, tended to adhere to "socially
protective" political policies, or those that suggest more concern
for preserving the social unit - for example, supporting the Iraq
war and the death penalty but opposing abortion rights and gay
marriage.
Researchers shied away from using labels such as conservative and
liberal in their study, but they concede that volunteers who
registered a heightened sense of threat also tended to subscribe to
conservative attitudes. "It's not that conservatives are
'fraidy-cats," says Kevin Smith, a political science professor at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and one of the study's
co-authors. "It's that people who support socially protective
policies - which, yes, can be interpreted as people taking a
conservative position on those policies - are more sensitive to
environmental threat."
To measure that sensitivity, researchers conducted two tests. In
one, they showed volunteers a series of photos that included some
threatening images - for example, a picture of a man with a spider
on his face or an infected open wound - while measuring the
electrical conductance of the volunteers' skin, a technique also
used in polygraph testing. In a separate experiment, researchers
subjected the volunteers to sudden bursts of loud white noise to
test their startle reflexes, measured by sensors attached to the
muscle below the eye that recorded how hard people blinked.
People who blinked harder than others and registered a heightened
response to threat on the conductivity test tended to support the
death penalty and military spending. People with a mellower startle
response were more likely to support abortion rights and gun
control. The study also looked at several broader political
tendencies, including compromise (the willingness to yield to a
middle-ground solution) and obedience (the tendency to follow a set
path), and found that people who were more sensitive to threat were
less amenable to the former and more inclined toward the
latter.
So, no, the fact that you used the term "socially protective
position" to describe gun control does not mean that people who
support gun control respond more fearfully to shocking things. The
researchers found correlations between conservative political
beliefs and stronger physical responses to shocking things, and
used the term "more socially protective policies" in place of
"conservative policies" in an effort to be politically neutral, and
to find a conceptual link between fear responses on political
motivations.
|9.23.08 @ 3:44PM|#
What do want, conservatives, a blowjob?
Well, OK, joe -- but no sneaking up when you're going to do it. And
quietly, please, quietly.
|9.23.08 @ 3:45PM|#
This simply can't be true! Even though it confirms the
obvious...
And the responses confirm another recent study that shows that many
people, but conservatives especially, tend to become increasingly
sure of their (wrong) opinions the more those opinions are
challenged by facts. If you are unwilling to admit you could be
wrong (a trait common to conservatives--they are often wrong but
seem never to admit it), it's easier to claim bias or some other
boogey-man. But then this study was published in the Washington
Post, and everyone knows that's such a liberal rag so nothing in
its pages can be trusted, ever.
Zeb|9.23.08 @ 3:48PM|#
I think it is interesting. There has to be some reason why some people think one way and others think another. No one involved in the study said anything about it showing that liberals are better people or something like that. There is a lot of knee jerk overreaction in this comment thread based on things that are not said at all in the article (at least the part excerpted here). I wonder how people's reactions to this study correlate to their political views and if there is a similar mechanism involved?
Hogan|9.23.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Well so long as we're all airing our favorite pop psychology
studies to confirm our prejudices, I personally like one that was
done on female students at I think Northwestern in the 70s (can't
find a link). They showed the girls Thematic Aperception Test
illustrations of a man and woman walking down a sidewalk. In one
the man was taller than the woman and the other they were of equal
height. Everything else was the same. The subjects then had to
write stories describing the characters in the illustration. The
overwhelming majority of stories about the taller man involved a
dapper, wonderful, gentle, strong man sweeping the lady off her
feet to the land of happily ever after. The shorter guy was almost
invariably a cheap, rude bastard who might rape her later. They
added mustaches to the two of them for a later study and found that
the tall guy was just more Clark Gableish while the short guy was
even more of a rape-creep.
This just goes to confirm what we all know to be obviously
true!!!!!! And I like it because I happen to be rather tall.
zoltan|9.23.08 @ 3:52PM|#
So, no, the fact that you used the term "socially protective
position" to describe gun control does not mean that people who
support gun control respond more fearfully to shocking
things.
Yes, joe, that was the point. Socially protective positions taken
by liberals were ignored and liberals were defined as those who
don't take socially protective positions.
That first line I wrote was to illustrate how their results should
lead to that line of thinking even though that wasn't where they
ended up.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Hogan,
As a 6' 3" fellow, I must confirm that your 3:52pm post is in fact
factual, not just a bias on your part.
ktc2|9.23.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Conservatives! LOL!
I've yet to meet a single conservative. Lots of people who talk a
good game but as soon as the boot on my neck has their foot in it
they squeeze just as hard (albeit for different reasons).
|9.23.08 @ 4:00PM|#
zoltan,
Socially protective positions taken by liberals were
ignored No, they weren't. As a matter of fact, support for gun
control was one of the issues they screened for.
and liberals were defined as those who don't take socially
protective positions. This part is true - they used the term
"socially protective positions" to mean simply "conservative
political positions." Bad terminology, I agree. They should have
just gone with "conservative" and "liberal," because that's the
correlation they found. There was no need to make up a term like
that, because as you say, it's inaccurate.
Looking at the list of issues on each side, it seems the term
"socially protective" was effort to perform the fool's errand of
explaining why things like military hawkishness, opposition to gay
rights, and opposition to the social safety net are so often found
together.
I don't know what makes conservative positios vs. liberal positions
so closely correlated with each other. I think slapping the label
"socially protective" was a failed attempt to do so.
Guy Montag|9.23.08 @ 4:03PM|#
ktc2,
You are ahead of me. Most I run across don't even talk a good game.
Yet another opportunity to mention the R-voting 'Conservatives' who
advocate windfall profits taxes, "maximum wage" and 'taking
excessive profits' from drug companies.
dhex|9.23.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Maybe the people with bumper stickers are simply more
communicative.
i agree, they are complete assholes.
:)
and man, if you think these studies are controversial, imagine
what's going to happen when they discover the cool kids' gene.
|9.23.08 @ 4:17PM|#
There has to be some reason why some people think one way
and others think another.
There is. Its a combination of peer pressure/groupthink and how you
were raised. Doesn't matter how jumpy/numb you are (unless that's
also inherited).
I think slapping the label "socially protective" was a failed
attempt to do so.
I think we can all agree on that. I would note that the chose
loaded/favorable words to characterize the "liberal" positions as
well; make of that what you will.
As a gross generalization, I tend to say liberals tend to favor
policies that are based on risk aversion - social safety nets, gun
control, anti-war, etc. There are outliers/exceptions, of course,
but its not a bad rule of thumb.
Hogan|9.23.08 @ 4:23PM|#
There has to be some reason why some people think one way
and others think another.
Also let's not forget the different paths all of god's chillern get
led down by unique life experiences, chains of reasoning,
priorities, self-interests, knowledge bases, etc...
Oh wait yeah and prenatal bioprogramming.
armchairpunter|9.23.08 @ 4:25PM|#
I think its a bit like that joke about free market economists and the $20 bill on the sidewalk. The liberal says to him or her self, if that were a real spider, a conservative would have smacked the stuffing out of it...
armchairpunter|9.23.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Perhaps, as others have hinted, the test demonstrates the ability of the liberal to escape reality through abstract thought. A spider or an Iranian missile are much less threatening when relegated to the realm of abstraction. The liberal prefers to ponder; the conservative to act. The liberal asks "what is a spider, anyway?" The conservative says "that was a spider, for what it's worth."
Gilbert Martin|9.23.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I wonder how much of the taxpayers money was wasted on this nonsense?
|9.23.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Researchers shied away from using labels such as conservative and liberal in their study, but they concede that volunteers who registered a negligible sense of threat also tended to subscribe to liberal attitudes. "It's not that liberals are heartless, numb nihilists," says Kevin Smith, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and one of the study's co-authors. "It's that people who support socially liberal policies - which, yes, can be interpreted as people taking a liberal position on those policies - are less sensitive to environmental threat."
Am I doing it right?
|9.23.08 @ 4:40PM|#
We must appoint hard-core anti-illegal immigration politicians,
governors, mayors and underlings. Unless we do we may lose our
sovereignty and be overwhelmed by the illegal invasion from third
world countries. November is the absolute deadline to enact a
one-chance Federal law, to stop this abhorrent occupation.
If we enact the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) enforcement only law.
Millions of illegal aliens will leave by self-deportation.
ATTRITION! No job, they will leave of their own accord. Only
anti-American groups and Liberal-Democrat-Socialists are stopping
this law. ASK THEM WHY?
www.numbersusa.com have the uncensored truth? IT'S YOUR FAMILIES
FUTURE. DEPORTATION OR OVERPOPULATION.
IF WE DON'T STOP IT NOW, THEY WILL KEEP COMING..
JOIN 756.000 other American patriots at www.numbersusa.com , to
stop the travesty of our immigration laws. Learn about Immigration
governmental corruption at www.judicialwatch.org
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T KNOW..?
THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT?
Because illegal aliens cannot be issued Social Security Numbers,
the IRS issued TIN numbers which allowed them to get house
mortgages. Not even requesting SS# these people were given bank
loans and now walked away from them.
How much has illegal immigration contributed to the current
mortgage mess? .... Not just sub-prime, but about 80% illegal
aliens, by his estimation. ...
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/12/open-borders-and-the-mortgage-mess/
http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/29481/How-About-That-LaRaza-And-This-Morgtage-Mess-/
ASK YOUR SENATORS & CONGRESSMAN WHY?
|9.23.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Infected open wounds bother conservatives more than liberals? Science tells me infected open wounds area bad thing. So, does tis say something bad about liberals, conservatives, or stupid "research" like this? Considering this study was performed by real scientists and involved 4,600 participants from across the country....Oh, never mind, it was done by political "scientists" on 46 participants in Nebraska. Fucking hilarious. Anyone who missed that care to recant any previous comments!
Mad Max|9.23.08 @ 6:08PM|#
HYPOTHESIS #1: Liberals are less likely to be startled by images
of flesh wounds, and/or of spiders crawling across people's faces,
because 20% of all the movies liberals see have scenes like that,
so liberals are used to it, whereas conservatives tend to watch
Jane Austen movies where spiders and open wounds never flash across
the screen (except for the controversial *Termination With Pride
and Extreme Prejudice,* where the Viet Cong torture Emma and pour
spiders all over her mutilated flesh).
HYPOTHESIS #2: Conervatives are more likely to swill vodka and
cheap beer, so they have the DTs and are predisposed to think
spiders are crawling all over them, and it makes them *very*
nervous. Liberals tend to use other kinds of stimulants, and
they're mellower.
HYPOTHESIS #3: Liberals are less likely to hear loud noises because
their eardrums have been damaged by all the rock concerts they go
to. Conservatives rarely hear anything louder than cows and
roosters, and the occasional Lee Greenwood album (this is Nebraska,
after all), so their eardrums are comparatively undamaged and hence
more sensitive.
HYPOTHESIS #4: A forthcoming study will disclose that people who
oppose government-subsidized social science research are more
likely to be child molesters than those who are pefectly
comfortable with such research.
notsneaky|9.23.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Shameless self promotion:
http://notsneaky.blogspot.com/2008/09/physiological-foundations-of.html
Famous Mortimer|9.23.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I would be happy if they had performed yet another study that
proves that Conservatives, on average, are dumber, and less skilled
when it comes to basic logic.
Spiders?
Were they Atheists?
|9.23.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Joe:
You have to learn to tell the real science from the bullshit. Let
me give you an example:
Real science: "We took two random samples of people, and tested
their reaction to various 'startling' events. We then compared the
results to a questionaire filled out before the test, and
discovered that there was a correlation of X, with a P factor of Y,
between startle reflex and the self-identification of the subject
as a Republican."
That's measurable, testable, and falsifiable.
Bad Science: "We therefore conclude that Republicans tend to favor
social restrictive policies because they are fraidy cats."
The second half is pull-it-out-of-your-ass bullshit. It's not
testable, or falsifiable, and there's no evidence from which to
draw that conclusion other than a seemingly-unrelated
correlation.
There could be a million reasons why self-identified conservatives
or Republicans might test to have a higher startle reflex. It could
be a biological correlation that leads people to conservatism as
the article suggests, or it could be a problem with the sampling,
or it could be because of a confounding third factor that wasn't
tested for. Maybe more people who had the shit beat out of them as
kids become conservative, and therefore they flinch more. Or maybe
liberals are just pussies. Or maybe it's that the only type of
person willing to self-identify as conservative in a scientific
test is more aggressive than average. Or maybe more conservatives
have ADD and were on ritalin which boosted their startle
reflex.
Or maybe there's another of a million possible confounding
variables they didn't control for causing the correlation.
MJ|9.23.08 @ 10:19PM|#
So numb, apathetic people are liberals? While people who are aware and interested in what's going on around them are conservatives? That sounds about right to me.
Rick H.|9.23.08 @ 10:44PM|#
You know what's rich? The sudden appearance of a breathless,
semiliterate, OMG/CAPS-lock anti-immigrant spam screed, on a thread
where people are trying to defend conservatives against the charge
of bedwetting. Not that it proves anything one way or another. Just
funny.
I really thought it was somebody snarking until about the third
paragraph.
|9.24.08 @ 12:10AM|#
And no one has yet joked that the liberals were so much more
mellow because they were simply too stoned to respond to outside
stimuli?
Oops, sort of here:
Mad Max |
September 23, 2008, 6:08pm | #
HYPOTHESIS #1: Liberals are less likely to be startled by images of
flesh wounds, and/or of spiders crawling across people's faces,
because 20% of all the movies liberals see have scenes like that,
so liberals are used to it, whereas conservatives tend to watch
Jane Austen movies where spiders and open wounds never flash across
the screen (except for the controversial *Termination With Pride
and Extreme Prejudice,* where the Viet Cong torture Emma and pour
spiders all over her mutilated flesh).
HYPOTHESIS #2: Conervatives are more likely to swill vodka and
cheap beer, so they have the DTs and are predisposed to think
spiders are crawling all over them, and it makes them *very*
nervous. Liberals tend to use other kinds of stimulants, and
they're mellower.
HYPOTHESIS #3: Liberals are less likely to hear loud noises because
their eardrums have been damaged by all the rock concerts they go
to. Conservatives rarely hear anything louder than cows and
roosters, and the occasional Lee Greenwood album (this is Nebraska,
after all), so their eardrums are comparatively undamaged and hence
more sensitive.
HYPOTHESIS #4: A forthcoming study will disclose that people who
oppose government-subsidized social science research are more
likely to be child molesters than those who are pefectly
comfortable with such research.
I know some of you godless atheistic fetus-hating regulars may not
be well-disposed toward Mad Max because he is the Rome Warrior, but
you got to admit, that was pretty effing funny.
|9.24.08 @ 12:26AM|#
BTW, there was another very recent study out of Yale University
showing that conservatives literally can't be reasoned out of their
erronous, Faux News-spoonfed view of the world.
Apparently the study first provided misinformation to conservatives
and liberals that tended to support their various political
worldviews. Then they were provided with refutations of that
misinformation.
The findings: Reasonable, logical reality-based liberals were able
to reconsider and let go of the misinformation provided to them
earlier -- but when bull-headed, biased conservatives were provided
with the refutations, they just clung all the more bitterly to
their cherished myths and falsehoods.
Basically, this means that whenever joe tries to debate with
someone here who leans toward the nonliberal, rightish position on
any issue, he is wasting his time.
Read the sad, sad truth here.
Famous Mortimer|9.24.08 @ 12:29AM|#
"So numb, apathetic people are liberals? While people who are
aware and interested in what's going on around them are
conservatives? That sounds about right to me."
Wait...
"more aware and interested in what's going on around them?"
Is this statement meant to represent some vague form of
irony?
If not, then I will commence to pissing myself with laughter.
Famous Mortimer|9.24.08 @ 12:57AM|#
"The findings: Reasonable, logical reality-based liberals were
able to reconsider and let go of the misinformation provided to
them earlier -- but when bull-headed, biased conservatives were
provided with the refutations, they just clung all the more
bitterly to their cherished myths and falsehoods."
I wouldn't find it surprising.
Conservatism, at least in America, is rarely entered into via
Academic enlightenment. It's something that your parents supported,
and it's something that your church supported. That's a very
difficult indoctrination to shake. You can't just blame it on some
pushy Professor you had your freshman year.
If you turn government into the anti-Christ, then you have an
unshakable religious membership ready to reproduce, and release its
narrow minded hob-goblins to the masses.
Ron Paul understood this, which is why he used such podunk tactics
to try and rally a much more significant base than the one offered
to him by the Libertarian sub-culture.
Besides, Libertarians are really hard to motivate when it comes to
political action. All they really want to do is blow off some
steam.
It's easier to maintain membership by putting God into the
equation.
|9.24.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Basically, this means that whenever joe tries to debate with
someone here who leans toward the nonliberal, rightish position on
any issue, he is wasting his time.
But joe can be persuaded pretty easily when he's wrong? Sure, I
believe that.
Jordan|9.24.08 @ 12:10PM|#
I just received the results of a groundbreaking study. Apparently, Liberals are so terrified at the thought of anybody disagreeing with them, that they have to pretend that such people are clinically insane.
Guy Montag|9.24.08 @ 12:55PM|#
On a reexamination of this tripe study, I see that
it is a silly fine scientific basis to explain why
people cling to relegion and guns.
|9.24.08 @ 5:04PM|#
But joe can be persuaded pretty easily when he's wrong?
Sure, I believe that.
Theoretically. However, since joe is an intelligent and reasonable
reality-based liberal who always considers and reconsiders his
positions carefully, it is very unlikely that he could ever be
wrong.
|9.25.08 @ 6:28PM|#
There is another explanation that has been overlooked.
Perhaps liberals merely have an inadequate threat-response
mechanism. In prehistoric times, "liberals" would have been the
ones consumed by predators.
In our modern, relatively safe time, these evolutionary weaklings
are allowed to thrive and breed, leading to a sort of twist on
Idiocracy.
/tongue in cheek
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245