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
Your Personality and Your Vote
ScienceDaily is running a press release featuring the insights of New Hampshire University psychologist John Mayer who details the personality traits that incline voters in either liberal or conservative directions:
Liberals:
- View social inequities and preferred groups as unjust and requiring reform.
- Prefer atheists, tattoos, foreign films and poetry.
- Endorse gay unions, welfare, universal health care, feminism and environmentalism.
- Exhibit creativity, which entails the capacity to see solutions to problems, and empathy toward others.
- Tolerate complexity and ambiguity.
- Are influenced by their work as judges, social workers, professors and other careers for which an appreciation of opposing points of view is required.
Conservatives:
- Willing to defend current social inequities and preferred groups as justifiable or necessary.
- Prefer prayer, religious people and SUVs.
- Endorse the U.S. government, the military, the state they live in, big corporations and most Americans.
- Are more likely to be a first-born, who identify more with their parents, predisposing them to a greater investment in authority and a preference for conservatism.
- Have a fear of death, reflecting an enhanced need for security.
- Are conscientious – the ability to exert personal self-control to the effect of meeting one’s own and others’ demands, and maintaining personal coherence.
- Need simplicity, clarity and certainty.
So are you an empathetic and creative Obama voter or a fearful and simplicity-craving McCain supporter? Or do some psychologists have a certain unacknowledged preference for simplicity and clarity when it comes to politics?
Some of my other reporting on pathologizing conversatives here.
|11.3.08 @ 10:01AM|#
I like these generalities for groups of people that number in
the many tens of millions.
How is psychology better than astrology, Tarot-cards, and
spoon-bending? Discuss.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:04AM|#
How is psychology better than astrology, Tarot-cards, and
spoon-bending?
I'm sure it's more lucrative for its practitioners.
|11.3.08 @ 10:07AM|#
As a libertarian first born engineer that likes living, fuck you very much John Mayer.
Dormouse|11.3.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Pro Libertate,
I hope you realize you just generalized an entire profession.
robc|11.3.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Hmmm...I managed to go "nope not me" to almost everything in
both lists.
Breaking it down:
Liberal List
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes,Yes,No
5. Yes
6. No
Conservative List
1. Sorta
2. Yes,Yes,No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. Yes
7. No
|11.3.08 @ 10:08AM|#
I'm going to make a generalization: people who feel they can
boil down personality traits in a hugely diverse group of people
are really, really fucking stupid.
How is psychology better than astrology, Tarot-cards, and
spoon-bending? Discuss.
I has a veneer of respectability! Easy question. Besides, ProL,
there is no spoon.
WHOA
robc|11.3.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Dormouse,
The article in question generalized judges, social workers and
professors.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:11AM|#
LIT - I stand corrected.
from Wikipedia, Miss Cleo "was reported to have made $13.5 million
from her psychic services."
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:13AM|#
I'm not sure how a "fear of death" is uniquely conservative. Pretty much everyone I know is somewhat of death. I think that's sort of coded into the DNA.
BDB|11.3.08 @ 10:14AM|#
"Or do some psychologists have a certain unacknowledged
preference for simplicity and clarity when it comes to
politics?"
I'm gonna go with this.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 10:15AM|#
So are you an empathetic and creative Obama voter or a
fearful and simplicity-craving McCain supporter? Or do some
psychologists have a certain unacknowledged preference for
simplicity and clarity when it comes to politics?
To call one list a pathologizing of the group it describes is
nothing but a value judgment. I see positives and negatives in both
lists.
robc|11.3.08 @ 10:15AM|#
economist,
That was my thought on the fear of death. I only said "no" because
of the "enhanced security" part. The people without fear of death
are few and far between. And mostly nuts.
|11.3.08 @ 10:16AM|#
so Dr. Mayer took the stereotypes that Red State/Blue State feel
about the other and "scientifically" proved them?
Nice work if you can get it. Watch as I "prove" that prettier
people are dumb and nerds wear glasses.
kinnath|11.3.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Anyone seen any Myers-Briggs polling data?
Didn't we already determine that libertarians skew INTP/INTJ {two
of the lowest represented combinations}?
|11.3.08 @ 10:21AM|#
You know what you never see on these threads? Criticism of the
researchers' methodology.
Is it within the realm of possibility that the liberal and
conservative groups actually did exhibit the traits listed to
significantly different degrees? Is it within the realm of
possibility that research psychologists might actually be able to
design tests that measure how strongly different personality traits
and preferences are exhibited in individuals?
Nah. That can't be it. It's gotta be some sort of scam.
Mad Max|11.3.08 @ 10:24AM|#
You see, I told you that those Bushbot fundamentalists can't tolerate ambiguity and complexity!
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Okay, joe, here's my criticism of their methodology: They're psychologists. 95% of all psychology, apart from commonsense stuff, is bullshit.
|11.3.08 @ 10:25AM|#
joe,
To answer your questions, yes, it is impossible and unreasonable.
Unless we got psychohistory when I wasn't looking.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Obviously this isn't like a new theory of his - it's the same conservative profile from the Authoritarian Personality, which I believe is over fifty years old at this point. It's just annoyingly obvious that some things (fear of death, deference to authority, need for clarity) are fundamental to human nature: some people channel those drives into the Political Agenda of Tribe A and some translate them into the Political Agenda of Tribe B.
|11.3.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Nice work if you can get it. Watch as I "prove" that
prettier people are dumb and nerds wear glasses.
Our Tao is a good-looking, smart guy who, iirc, wears
glasses.
So there you go TAO. You're your own confounding variable.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
last time a pathology of conservatism post was put up (the study about how conservatives react to scary stimuli and liberals don't), there was quite a bit of immediate criticism of its methodology.
|11.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
The ScienceDaily article is, how do you say, complete and utter bullshit. The editor should be taken out back and whipped for this nonsense.
Nigel Watt|11.3.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Who says liberals don't have deference to authority? Joe's never thought of straying from the commands of the voices which tell him to jizz partisan idiocy all over these threads.
kinnath|11.3.08 @ 10:28AM|#
From the dim recesses of my brain, I remember another study that
showed:
If an individual believe that he/she has little control over
his/her chance of success in life, then he/she will skew
liberal/democrat.
If an individual believe that he/she has substantial control over
his/her chance of success in life, then he/she will skew
conservative/republican.
Consistent with some of the elements of the study described
above.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:28AM|#
the article doesn't even describe what, if anything, was done to develop these specifications. a questionnaire or something?
|11.3.08 @ 10:29AM|#
To call one list a pathologizing of the group it describes
is nothing but a value judgment. I see positives and negatives in
both lists.
Neu it sounds like you're one of those complexity and
ambiguity-tolerating liberals. As a needy and fearful conservative,
I trust the government implicitly to keep people like you from
changing the status quo, especially as it applies to my Chevy
Tahoe.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Like I said, most psychology is bullshit. Remember, this is the same profession that at the beginning of the last century was saying how if you had problems in adulthood it was 'cause you were molested or you saw your parents having sex, or something.
economist|11.3.08 @ 10:31AM|#
I have, of course, grossly simplified Freudian theory, but it's still bs.
|11.3.08 @ 10:32AM|#
kinnath,
So liberalism is fatalism in a political context? I would think
that believing the poor are fated to be poor is fairly illiberal,
and makes efforts to help them idiocy.
T|11.3.08 @ 10:34AM|#
joe,
Hard to criticize the methodology when all that's expressed in the
article is an appeal to authority. So mocking the conclusions works
pretty well, too.
I also think it's funny that judges are supposedly liberal. Given
that I live in Texas, that assertion is patently ludicrous.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:36AM|#
SugarFree - I think the idea is that the battle is not to the strong or the race to the swift but time and chance overtake them all... one man's success is luck and one man's failure is misfortune, so a solid insurance program should make sure everyone comes out mostly ok.
kinnath|11.3.08 @ 10:38AM|#
So liberalism is fatalism in a political context? I would
think that believing the poor are fated to be poor is fairly
illiberal, and makes efforts to help them idiocy.
No, the liberal mindset tends to think that the power of the state
is necessary to ensure the well-being of individuals, because
individuals have little hope of being successful on their own.
|11.3.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Hogan,
Without disagreeing with your assertion, I would say that seeing
life as a zero sum game is a form of fatalism.
kinnath|11.3.08 @ 10:43AM|#
kinnath,
Why do liberals think so little of their fellow human
beings?
You will have to ask joe; I'm not a liberal.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:44AM|#
SugarFree - you're right. I dunno how they work that out. Can't defend the inconsistencies of an ideology I don't share.
|11.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Liberals Tolerate complexity and ambiguity and therefore they are able to solve a myriad of problems using the method "government should just do x", the highest form of complexity.
|11.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
T,
Hard to criticize the methodology when all that's expressed in
the article is an appeal to authority.
Wouldn't the rational, evidence-based response be "there isn't
enough information to draw a conclusion" rather than "this must be
bullshit because it" a) involves psychologists or b) doesn't square
with what I want to think?
|11.3.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Oh, don't worry about it, Just in a mean mood. If we had two-day voting, I'd be off today like I am tomorrow.
|11.3.08 @ 10:47AM|#
The terminology is certainly skewed in a pro-liberal way. I love
the way conservatives "tolerate social inequity" rather than "value
personal responsibility", for example.
The fact that the US government is left off the liberal list of
endorsements is either an indictment of the way the study was
conducted or a pretty shocking exposure of the stupidity of the
"liberals" interviewed.
Abdul|11.3.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Clearly, the key to getting more conservative voters in the future is to encourage more people to be afraid of death. For my part, I'll start driving more recklessly to endanger pedestrians.
|11.3.08 @ 10:48AM|#
marc,
To riff on your comment:
"More government" is the Occam's Razor of modern liberalism.
Mad Max|11.3.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Hogan,
I don't know what methodology this particular guy used, but a
well-known questionnaire for Right Wing Authoritarianism is
included by Professor Altmeyer (an authority on this subject) in
his book
(Chapter 1, starting on page 10).
|11.3.08 @ 10:54AM|#
"Bullshit" doesn't necessarily mean that none of the results can
be true - it just means that we don't buy the scientific certainty
or premises of the study.
For example, seperating people into two distinct groups based on
more than one trait? Honestly? The more traits he outlines, the
more specific his claims, the more likely they are to be bullshit
on the whole
|11.3.08 @ 10:54AM|#
The fact that the US government is left off the liberal list
of endorsements is either an indictment of the way the study was
conducted or a pretty shocking exposure of the stupidity of the
"liberals" interviewed.
Conservatives don't endorse the federal government?
Funny, I hadn't noticed that over the past few years.
|11.3.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Reinmoose,
The fact that the US government is left off the liberal list of
endorsements is either an indictment of the way the study was
conducted or a pretty shocking exposure of the stupidity of the
"liberals" interviewed.
This assumes that the traits aren't correlated to a meaningful
extent, but are spread randomly or close to it.
|11.3.08 @ 10:57AM|#
I have performed an extensive study over many years, and have found conclusively that partisans are douchebags. My evidence is irrefutable.
|11.3.08 @ 10:58AM|#
"The terminology is certainly skewed in a pro-liberal
way."
This was my first impression. But I indulged anyway...
I never considered myself liberal (arguably except for my music
preference- Yes, I like John Mayer, the musician) but as defined by
Mayer, the psychologist, I'd rather see myself as a creative,
fun-lovin' hippie than a crotchety old fart.
Ahem, thanks for the insight.
T|11.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Wouldn't the rational, evidence-based response be "there
isn't enough information to draw a conclusion" rather than "this
must be bullshit because it" a) involves psychologists or b)
doesn't square with what I want to think?
Well, I'd agree with you on choice b, but many of us would be
inclined to argue that choice a is an evidence-based
response.
However, the conclusions fly in the face of observed reality. If,
as they say, liberals exhibit creativity in problem solving, why do
engineers trend conservative politically? And why is the liberal
solution to a social problem always some government action? Not
very creative thinking.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:06AM|#
I actually don't think the study was too misleadingly worded. I just think it's bullshit because 1.I don't trust most psychology 2. They were obviously reaching for their explanation for why conservatives tend to be more security-oriented.
|11.3.08 @ 11:09AM|#
"social inequities"
Bah!
Social equity is a method of rights and status allocation according
to my preferred prejudices, as opposed to the prejudices of those
with whom I disagree.
|11.3.08 @ 11:09AM|#
"Tolerance" of ambiguity? IMHO, a truly self actualized individual does not cherish, embrace or otherwise like tolerance for ambiguity-at least not as a desirable end, in and of itself. Ever notice that the folks who propagate such garbage are not ambiguous when it comes to (1) whether the state should exist; (2) whether the state should impose an income tax; (3) whether the state should impose a progressive income tax; (4) whether the state should confiscate and redistribute the property of individuals; (5) whether the state should be involved in education; (6) whether one should go to jail for questioning the holocaust industry and countless other examples?
|11.3.08 @ 11:10AM|#
I would buy the study more if it said "we would predict that
people with these characteristics vote for the 'liberal' and that
people with these characteristics vote for the 'conservative,'" but
that's not what's being said.
Also, i would then respond with "duh"
|11.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
There are basically three categories of people:
1. Those who think that everything or nearly everything is black
and white.
2. Those who think that everything or nearly everything is
ambiguous.
3. Those who realize that the first two groups of people are a few
fries short of a happy meal.
|11.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
J sub D,
An email? no. I got a link you posted for me on another thread last
week. Is it the same?
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Tom Cruise,
No I don't think people's psychological problems are caused by the
souls of aliens trapped in their bodies because of the machinations
of the evil Lord Xenu who recently broke out of Galactic Prison and
escaped on a DC-8.
|11.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
More claptrap to make leftists seem morally superior to those
evil conservatives.
Funny how history shows that leftist leaders have still never
created that utopia that they insist will come if we just would let
them take total control of everything.
In fact, most of the biggest 'purges' of population seem to occur
under leftist regimes leaving a system of have and have nots just
like capatilism.
But at least our betters are calling the shots huh?
|11.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
I see that the commie practice of declaring non-commies crazy
didn't end with the collapse of the soviet union.
Fuck John Mayer, and the pseudoscientific hobby-horse he rode in
on.
-jcr
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Nor do I think that children have marloks in their bodies that implode when adults molest them and make the adults immortal, so sayeth the ruler of Be'thos.
|11.3.08 @ 11:16AM|#
See, I was right about psychologists.
Well, technically, that would be L. Ron being right about
psychologists. Tom didn't come up with the psychologist hate on his
own.
And if L. Ron is right about anything, then Xenu help us.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Jcr,
Are you really sure you want to fuck a hobby horse? Or John Mayer,
for that matter?
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:18AM|#
I, of course, know the scientologists have it all wrong. Lord Xenu wasn't the aggressor in the pan-Galactic war that resulted in the trapping of thetans. Earth is actually a prison planet for the thetans of galactic terrorists who bombed the orthogon.
|11.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Is it within the realm of possibility that the liberal and
conservative groups actually did exhibit the traits listed to
significantly different degrees?
Sure, it's possible. It's not as likely as a pinko academic
psychologist living on the government teat at a state university
projecting his personal prejudices on the people he was
interviewing, though.
-jcr
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:20AM|#
And I am actually the heir of Xenu. My real name is Xenu XXV of the Galactic Confederation.
|11.3.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Are you really sure you want to fuck a hobby
horse?
You misunderstand me. I'm very much in favor of the social division
of labor, so I would prefer to delegate that task to a
specialist.
-jcr
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Xenu XXV shall crush them for their impugning of his ancestor's honor!
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
JCR 11:21,
I see. You would consider that a valid role of the Congress,
then?
|11.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Also the prison ships looked more like Boeing 747s than
DC-8s.
Dude, they're going to come down on you like a ton of bricks for
heresy.
-jcr
robc|11.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
kinnath,
Didn't we already determine that libertarians skew INTP/INTJ
{two of the lowest represented combinations}?
Yes, or at least that h&r commenters skew strongly that way.
That was the thread in which I declared INTJs first against the
wall after the revolution. I havent pulled back from that position.
:)
|11.3.08 @ 11:23AM|#
You would consider that a valid role of the Congress,
then?
Not in their official capacity. It's not one of the powers
delegated to them in the constitution. Of course, what they do in
their own time is their own business.
-jcr
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
JCR,
Fine, they can sue me all they want! You here me scientologists,
sue me! I'm not afraid of you, you douchebags! That includes you,
Tom Cruise!
Franklin Harris|11.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Didn't we already determine that libertarians skew INTP/INTJ {two of the lowest represented combinations}?
I'm really hoping Hit & Run participants are not a
representative sample.
Franklin Harris|11.3.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Yes, or at least that h&r commenters skew strongly that way. That was the thread in which I declared INTJs first against the wall after the revolution. I havent pulled back from that position. :)
And we haven't forgotten that you are an enemy of the Republic.
T|11.3.08 @ 11:30AM|#
That was the thread in which I declared INTJs first against
the wall after the revolution. I havent pulled back from that
position. :)
Does that mean INTPs will be second? I figure I get a head start
that way...
alan|11.3.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Of course the liberal would be inclined to be favorable to the
word 'ambiguity'. It is multisyllabic, yet not difficult
to pronounce with a rich contrast in varying sounds, pretentious
without being overly filling. Mayer would have been as successful
with the word 'poinsettia'.
*************************************
Have a fear of death, reflecting an enhanced need for
security.
Question #37 Do you want to die.
[Liberal gazes poignantly at the many scars that mar his
wrist]
Answer Yes
[Conservatice winces at stupid question]
Answer No
There you go, Conservatives fear death.
economist|11.3.08 @ 11:33AM|#
When Xenu XXV takes over, the scientologists will be the first against the wall.
robc|11.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Robespierre had a good run for an INTJ.
I think this validates my position. They are handy to have around
for the revolution, but we need to get rid of them immediately
afterward.
|11.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Rana,
No it isn't. Maybe I'm just screwed up here. Maybe it got flagged
as spam. Please E-mail me at cvddgcg@yahoo.com.
Thanks.
|11.3.08 @ 11:49AM|#
The fact that the US government is left off the liberal list
of endorsements is either an indictment of the way the study was
conducted or a pretty shocking exposure of the stupidity of the
"liberals" interviewed.
Conservatives don't endorse the federal government?
Again with the intentionally obtuseness, joe.
I never said that conservatives didn't endorse the government, joe.
I just pointed out that the liberal agenda depends very largely on
government implementation, so for liberals to also not endorse the
federal government is either disingenous or stupid.
|11.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
The ENFP libertarians will use our magnificent charisma and lead your bookish INTJ asses right off a cliff and be done with it. Or we'll become libertarian cruise ship directors.
projecthappy|11.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
As everyone has noted, these studies are always pure
bullshit.
I always laugh at the way they phrase their conclusions -
"conservatives" love "authority" but liberals don't? Then why do
liberals keep running for office? When liberals stop running for
office I'll believe they don't like using authority.
Or "creativity". What they really mean is dribbling paint to make
abstract art. What they completely exclude is the creativity of
running a business, making new products, being self-sufficient and
independent.
A fear of death makes someone conservative? Why not phrase it the
other way - being liberal makes you suicidal?
|11.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
T,
If, as they say, liberals exhibit creativity in problem
solving, why do engineers trend conservative politically?
Because engineering is the only profession that involves
creativity? Because engineering involves less creativity, and more
application of hard-and-fast standards, than most other
creative/ideas-based profession? Because you just made that
up?
why is the liberal solution to a social problem always some
government action? It isn't. In many cases, the liberal
solution is for less government action. You just don't notice that
as much, because you agree with it.
|11.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
J sub D,
No, you are not screwed up. I post with a fake email add
(shock!)... you know, living in Vz makes me a little
cautious.
Hmmm, you aren't goign to send me some virus, are you?
Hey, is paranoia a liberal or conservative trait?
Alan Vanneman|11.3.08 @ 11:55AM|#
I have a pronounced fear of death, which I like to exorcise by running people over with my SUV. I tend to spare folks with tatoos and those reading cahiers du cinema, unless I'm feeling totally shitty.
|11.3.08 @ 11:57AM|#
I never said that conservatives didn't endorse the
government, joe.
OK. Then you might have just as well have asked why the federal
government wasn't listed as an institution that the conservatives
endorse.
The lists of differences isn't comprehensive; it's about areas
where there are noticeable differences. If you'll notice, neither
list contains "motherhood," either.
On the "fear of death" thing - this isn't about personality traits
that are unique to each group, but which are expressed at different
levels of intensity. Of course everyone has a level of fear of
death. Of course everyone tolerates ambiguity to an extent.
But the conserative wailing about how 9/11 footage wasn't being
shown enough, and about how liberals see everything in shades of
grey and won't stand up against evil, really happened, and it
happened for a reason.
|11.3.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Hmmm, you aren't goign to send me some virus, are
you?
Moi? Of course not. I'm not digitally saavy or assholish enough to
do the virus thingee.
Hey, is paranoia a liberal or conservative trait?
Libertarian I think. Tinfoil hats and all of that.
LarryA|11.3.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Liberals: View social inequities and preferred groups as
unjust and requiring (government)
reform.
But it's the conservatives who have "a greater investment in
authority?"
Prefer atheists, tattoos, foreign films and poetry.
Completely describes union members and orthodox/reformed Jews, to
mention only two groups.
Tolerate complexity and ambiguity.
Unless you own a firearm, have a Confederate flag bumper sticker,
etc. Note that "scab" and "oreo" are liberal four-letter
words.
I'm not sure how a "fear of death" is uniquely
conservative.
It's code for "believes in an afterlife."
No, the liberal mindset tends to think that the power of the
state is necessary to ensure the well-being of individuals, because
individuals have little hope of being successful on their
own.
And, the conservative mindset tends to think that the power of the
state is necessary to ensure the moral well-being of individuals,
because individuals have little hope of being virtuous on their
own.
Potato, potahto.
Once again, statists are divided into liberals and conservatives,
excluding libertarians.
Hey, is paranoia a liberal or conservative trait?
Neither. When you're out to get everyone else, you aren't the one
that should be paranoid.
|11.3.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Once again, statists are divided into liberals and
conservatives, excluding libertarians.
Uh-huh. Just ask us about gay marriage.
|11.3.08 @ 12:31PM|#
I imagine Mr. Mayer sent in his mail-in ballot many weeks ago,
and that the ballot was heavily weighted to the Democrats.
He paints Conservatives as a bunch of "clingers" that can't bear to
venture outside their compounds and Liberals as camp counselors
sitting around the campfire with their multi-cultural friends
smoking a joint, singing Kum-ba-ya...
Oh crap. He nailed it.
fyodor|11.3.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Well...!
I think social inequities are necessary and inevitable, and I think
preferred groups generally contribute more to economic
growth, though I have few friends among the well heeled and
generally find my n'er do well friends more interesting.
I prefer atheists to religious people (including New Agers!), but I
have mixed feelings about tattoos. I used to like foreign films,
not sure now. I don't especially care for poetry OR SUV's....
I play rock music, which may or may not mean I'm creative. I feel
pretty dense compared to a lot of my more creative friends.
I'm second born. My first born older brother is definitely
following more in my father's footsteps politically than I, though
that means being more of a "good liberal"!
I'd like to think that simplicity, clarity and conscientiousness do
not have to be at odds with complexity (and flexibility!). Life is
going to be ambiguous at times and I'd say there's times and places
to embrace it and others to avoid it.
Neither fish nor foul, I guess....
robc|11.3.08 @ 12:42PM|#
BDB,
I was the same only squeaked across to the I side of the line. You
ENTPs are good folk, unlike the Js.
dhex|11.3.08 @ 12:58PM|#
i would like to take both meyers and briggs and throw them out a
window.
i think that makes me a JERK.
i can see why the phrasing of this particular project would set off
some bells, but it's also an incredibly wide generalization. hell,
it says conservatives are conscientious; this can be read as
"liberals are unconscientious fuckups" if you like.
everyone's happy! the other team is bad! our team is good!
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Gilbert Martin|11.3.08 @ 1:17PM|#
I wonder how much federal tax money was wasted on this guy to pass off his personal opinions as a "scientific" study.
fyodor|11.3.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Actually, my younger sister is much more of a "good liberal" too!! So much for that theory....
|11.3.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Next thing you know, they will tell us the Liberals prefer to
vote Democratic, while Conservatives tend to vote Republican. Also
that liberals are pro-choice while conserviatives are
pro-life.
But seriously, the list is a mixture of fairly obvious statements
about what defines left and right, along with some highly
questionable ones. "Tolerate ambiguity"? I know many so-called
"liberals" who are highly intolerant and have little room for
ambiguity in their worldviews.
I actually suspect that the entire thing is an experiment in seeing
if people are able to separate statements of fact from statements
of opinion when they are grouped together in a single list.
Psychologists play tricks like this frequently. They might be
trying to analyze how people process information - in batches or
individual units.
|11.3.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Tolerate complexity and ambiguity.
Considering that most of the people I know and hang around with are
engineers, physicists, mathematicians, etc. And most of them would
probably be called "conservative", then I would have to disagree
with this "liberal trait".
View social inequities and preferred groups as unjust and
requiring reform.
After arguing with Joe, the liberal's liberal, about affirmative
action and other forms of social engineering high on the Liberal
priority list I have to disagree. Clearly it is Libs who demand
"preferred groups".
|11.3.08 @ 1:51PM|#
robc,
You just try to put us INTJS against the wall while you're fighting
off our robot servitors!
P.S. INTJs are "Masterminds", and therefore have robot servitors.
We also know that "robot servitor" is a pleonasm, and relish the
expression for that reason.
the innominate one|11.3.08 @ 1:53PM|#
perhaps someone has already mentioned this (I'm not going to read >100 comments to find out), but I notice reason recently republished on the website their psychoanalysis of Bill Clinton, so, tu quoque and all that
|11.3.08 @ 1:54PM|#
After arguing with Joe, the liberal's liberal, about
affirmative action and other forms of social engineering high on
the Liberal priority list I have to disagree. Clearly it is Libs
who demand "preferred groups".
SOCIAL inequality, wayne. Liberals are opposed to SOCIAL
inequality..
The affirmative action example disproves your point - it is yet
another example of liberals wanting to do something about social
inequality. Whatever your personal opinions about AA's methods, it
is a policy that exists for the sole purpose to promoting social
equality, and undoing social inequality.
|11.3.08 @ 1:55PM|#
BTW, wayne, if you think I am a liberal's liberal, you need to expand your reading list.
economist|11.3.08 @ 1:55PM|#
I, Lord Xenu XXV, demand sacrifice. Bring me your most attractive virgins! Actually, bring me your most attractive females. They don't necessarily have to be virgins.
|11.3.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Obama personality traits:
- Independent
- Generous
- Optimistic
- Enthusiastic
- Courageous
McCain personality traits:
- Moody
- Short tempered
- Self-involved
- Impulsive
- Impatient
BTW, I simply replaced "Aries" with Obama and McCain. Sounds just
about as accurate as the study, if not more so, assuming you have a
Team Blue POV. I will admit, tho' that I think it does nail
McSane.
economist|11.3.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I would say that even the most liberal posters here couldn't be described as "liberals' liberals", except maybe for James (socialist version) and CO, who are both completely and utterly insane.
Gilbert Martin|11.3.08 @ 2:32PM|#
"The affirmative action example disproves your point - it is yet
another example of liberals wanting to do something about social
inequality. Whatever your personal opinions about AA's methods, it
is a policy that exists for the sole purpose to promoting social
equality, and undoing social inequality."
Actually it exists for the sole purpose of furthering the overall
liberal democrat stragety that has been in existence since the
1930's:
Promising targeted constituency groups some sort of handout
forcibly extracted from others to buy their votes. And of course,
to make those groups (and anyone else they can) as permanently
dependent on government as they can to ensure their own continued
political power.
And that's all there is to it.
|11.3.08 @ 2:41PM|#
any surprise that if INTJ/P is the personality of libertarians that libertarianism is a (tiny) minority party? Not only are we under represented from a stistical POV, but we pathologically don't understand the large part of irrational human behavior which politicians exploit in the will to power.
|11.3.08 @ 2:42PM|#
"one man's success is luck and one man's failure is
misfortune,"
Usually if you like/approve of someone, and he's successful, you
say he worked really hard and was brilliant, creative, etc. If you
disapprove of him, you say he was lucky.
Same with another's failure. If you like the person, she had some
awful luck. If you don't, then he's a fuckup.
|11.3.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Promising targeted constituency groups some sort of handout
forcibly extracted from others to buy their votes. And of course,
to make those groups (and anyone else they can) as permanently
dependent on government as they can to ensure their own continued
political power.
Seeing how this is the standard boilerplate you use to describe any
effort to promote social equality, Gil, I thank you for the
assist.
economist|11.3.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Po-tay-toh po-tah-to
to-may-toh to-mah-to
Let's call the whole thing off.
Gilbert Martin|11.3.08 @ 2:59PM|#
"Seeing how this is the standard boilerplate you use to describe
any effort to promote social equality, Gil, I thank you for the
assist."
Stating the absolute truth is no assistance to you, joe.
And absolute truth is exactly what that is.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 3:40PM|#
economist,
Like I said, most psychology is bullshit. Remember, this is the
same profession that at the beginning of the last century was
saying how if you had problems in adulthood it was 'cause you were
molested or you saw your parents having sex, or
something.
Given your chosen handle, which I assume reflects your profession,
I this made me laugh out loud.
As scientific endeavors, psychology and economics are
blood-brothers. They use the same conceptual tools, face the same
messy kinds of data, etc...
Both are frequently attacked as pseudo-science for a reason. The
question you should ask yourself is this...using an objective
assessment, which field has made more progress in the last
century?
Does economics manage to make predictions that are better than
common sense?
Does economics provide insight that goes beyond
folk-psychology?
Economics is the softest of the soft sciences.
Economists would be wise to maintain a bit of humility when
discussing other social sciences.
|11.3.08 @ 4:34PM|#
What a silly list on both sides. Few liberals fit the liberal
list, but I don't get why they felt the need to insult
conservatives. Can't we all just get along? I'm sure we can agree
on a few things:
Ayn Rand is the most overrated novelist ever.
Discuss.
|11.3.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I don't like this John Mayer fellow.
Jennifer love Hewitt
Jessica Simpson
Minka Kelly
Jennifer Anniston
He supposedly has a huge wang.
And now he comes out with this bullshit?
JLE |11.3.08 @ 4:56PM|#
The study was probably looking for all the wrong answers.
It's as simple as the hypocrisy in the fact that conservatives view
human nature as inherently evil and want to keep it the same, and
liberals see human nature as inherently good and want to change
it.
jkp|11.3.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Regarding "Pathologizing Conservatives", it appears that Matt Welch missed the sarcastic tone in Ron Bailey's 2004 article, and then proceeded to pathologize John McCain.
economist|11.3.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Neu Mejican,
Actually, I'm an engineer. I chose the handle "economist" because
when I first started posting here there was some person who made a
number of posts under the handle "engineer", and I didn't want to
cause any confusion. Plus, it was my original major (and ended up
being my minor) in college. After "engineer" stopped posting (I
think 7 or 8 months ago) I kept the handle for consistency's
sake.
That said, economics, while it may be a "soft" science, nonetheless
has a firmer basis in reality than psychology.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 5:38PM|#
economist,
That said, economics, while it may be a "soft" science,
nonetheless has a firmer basis in reality than
psychology.
Do tell.
I would love to see you try to spin a convincing case for that
assertion.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Economist,
You would need to address these issues.
Economics, it is often claimed lacks predictive quality (no
precision and poor reliability) which is compounded by the fact
that the growth of its predictive power over time is not of
scientific in quality.
Economics enerates true generic predictions, but that is not enough
to call it science.
To be scientific, economic theories need to anticipate the future
with a degree of precision and consistency greater than that
realized by common-sense utilized by an intelligent layman.
Using these tests, I think psychology beats out economics by a
smidge. Primary in that psychology is moving forward and doing a
better job of both describing their content and making predictions
that go beyond common sense.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 6:00PM|#
economist,
As an engineer, you may want to explain to this guy how his designs
are not based in reality.
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/event/html/id/132/Using-Cognitive-Psychology-to-Solve-Robotics-Problems-An-Introduction-to-Cognitive-Robotics
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 6:06PM|#
These hacks are way off base too..
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/aic/iss/aas/CognitiveRobots.php
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 6:08PM|#
And these guys are doomed to fail as they are basing their
designs on fantasy-based theories.
http://eecs.vanderbilt.edu/cis/CRL/index.shtml
|11.3.08 @ 6:36PM|#
So, NM, if these robots kill us all off, that will prove psychology to be a valid science?
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 6:43PM|#
cognitive psych is a different breed from what this mayerman is peddling - personality science. which is, in fact, bullshit.
cunnivore|11.3.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Psychology isn't inherently BS. Skinner and his behaviorist
allies, for instance, operated at a level of scientific rigor
equalling that of any physicist.
Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to get away with pseudoscience in
psychology than in other fields, so there are a lot of hacks who
can maintain a reputation by just making stuff up as they go along.
Physics has a similar bunch in the string theorists and "new
physics" people, but they're a distinct minority. In a sense, the
quality difference between the two sciences is that in psychology
the lunatics are running the asylum, so to speak.
|11.3.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Both psychology and economics work rather well when they involve
number crunching.
However, when it comes to psychology, that's generaly neuroscience
and other stuff that hardly anyone knows about. The kind of
psychology that involves talk therapy is on the lowest rung of the
ladder, sort of like business majors in economics.
The kind of economists who do game theory and information networks
and so forth have a much better scientific foundation than the
psychology guys running idiotic studies like this one.
Neu Mejican|11.3.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Pro Lib,
Not unless the psychologists predict it.
cognitive psych is a different breed from what this mayerman is
peddling - personality science. which is, in fact,
bullshit.
Not really true.
This study may be bullshit, but that doesn't damn the whole
field.
Physics has a similar bunch in the string theorists and "new
physics" people, but they're a distinct minority. In a sense, the
quality difference between the two sciences is that in psychology
the lunatics are running the asylum, so to speak.
String theorists are a distinct minority?
That is not the impression left by Lee Smolin in his writing on the
subject.
http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/
The kind of psychology that involves talk therapy is on the
lowest rung of the ladder, sort of like business majors in
economics.
It is important to recognize the distinction between "therapy" and
"science."
Medical science on, say, cancer, is certainly rigorous and
successful science.
However, that doesn't mean that what your average doc is doing is
science.
The kind of economists who do game theory and information
networks and so forth have a much better scientific foundation than
the psychology guys running idiotic studies like this
one.
Game theory is as much psychology as it is economics.
I would argue, in fact, that economics is largely a sub-discipline
of psychology...but that is a whole 'nuther argument.
economist|11.3.08 @ 7:45PM|#
Okay, there's a BIG difference between cognitive psychologists and the bs involved in most psychology. For one, most cognitive psychologists actually have a firm grounding in neuroscience.
cunnivore|11.3.08 @ 7:53PM|#
NM, most physicists deal with phenomena that don't overlap with
string theory at all, that is, investigating crystal structures and
electromagnetic properties of materials, etc.
Even among particle physicists there's been a backlash against
string theory during the past few years. It is the most visible
sector of physics to the general public, I'll grant, probably
because contemporary 'real' physics research is incredibly boring
to the uninitiated. Then again, I suppose that might be analogously
true for psychology as well.
Hogan|11.3.08 @ 10:08PM|#
This study may be bullshit, but that doesn't damn the whole
field.
obviously. and yet i still feel that the field is damned. i can be
persuaded otherwise if you can point me to some experimental
research with testable, falsifiable claims in the study of
personality. as opposed to the philosophizing of an adler, erikson,
jung, etc... not saying that the information that comes out of this
field isn't interesting or potentially valid, but i think at best
it's scienceish.
cunnivore|11.3.08 @ 11:07PM|#
That depends on what you consider the study of personality. The behaviorist school of psychology did very rigorous experimental work on the origins of human and animal behavior, though the truly hardcore behaviorists would deny that there is such a thing as personality.
cunnivore|11.3.08 @ 11:19PM|#
The problem the behaviorists have is that their entire program
is based on the assumption that free will does not exist, or at the
very least is irrelevant; and human personality and animal behavior
are more alike than they are different. Not nearly as easy a sell
to the public as psychoanalysis or the modern psychobabble
crowd.
Also, they were limited in their ability to experiment on human (as
opposed to animal) behavior due to ethics concerns, so they were
never able to provide conclusive evidence of the above.
Jervas|11.3.08 @ 11:42PM|#
The reason it's easier to get away with bullshit like this in
psychology is because it is damn hard to do good experiments.
Ethical considerations alone nix a lot of the more interesting
experiments. Take violence for instance, it would be unethical (in
most cases) to expose someone to a stimulus that you expect will
make them violent. Therefore you have to deal with a similar
concept (like aggression) that isn't really the same. In other
cases the experiments needed to properly test concepts in a
definitive way would be impractical or impossible to perform.
Dealing with people is a whole other ordeal. People lie, both
consciously and unconsciously, and different people lie in
different situations and in different ways. Researchers will
unintentionally and unfortunately sometimes intentionally influence
the results.
Doing the research right and properly explaining the results
doesn't often result in cool stuff that gets on the news.
The useful stuff in psychology is limited and a little boring. Part
of the problem is probably that the majority of people who could
really help advance the field don't end up in psychology, probably
not helped by it's reputation as bullshit pseudo-science.
Bullshitters get publicity driving away people who might be
interested in and good at the real research away. Look into some of
the research on eyewitness testimony for an example of good
work.
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