[2dogs]

Berkeley study links Reagan, Hitler
Psychological research on conservatives finds them 'less complex'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 23, 2003
2:15 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In a study that ponders the similarities between former President Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh, four American university researchers say they now have a better understanding of what makes political conservatives tick.



Underlying psychological motivations that mark conservatives are "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," they wrote, according to a press release issued by the University of California at Berkeley.

The researchers also contend left-wing ideologues such as Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro "might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended."

The study was conducted by Associate Professor Jack Glaser and visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park.

Glaser allowed that while conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said, according to the Berkeley news release.

"They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser explained.

The assistant professor of public policy said President George W. Bush's comments during a 2001 trip to Italy provide an example.

The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe, and I believe what I believe is right."

Glaser also noted Bush told a British reporter last year, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

'Elegant and unifying explanation'

The Berkeley news release said the psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books, conference papers, speeches, interviews, judicial opinions and survey studies.

Consistent, common threads were found in 10 "meta-analytic calculations" performed on the material, Glaser said.

Berkeley's Sulloway said the research is the first of its kind, synthesizing vast amount of information to produce an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of "motivated social cognition."

This area of psychological study, the news release explained, "entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs."

Noting most all belief systems develop in part to satisfy psychological needs, the researchers said their conclusions do not "mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

Their finding also are not judgmental, they emphasized.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

However, the study showed, according to Glaser, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives.

The conservatives' intolerance for ambiguity and need for closure can be seen, he said, in the current controversy over whether the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq's alleged purchase of nuclear material from Africa.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

The researchers said the "terror management" tendency of conservatism is exemplified in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views.

Likewise, they said, concerns with fear and threat can be linked to another key dimension of conservatism, an endorsement of inequality.

That view is reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the researchers wrote.

A current example of conservatives' tendency to accept inequality, he said, can be seen in their policy positions toward "disadvantaged minorities" such as gays and lesbians.

Stalin a conservative?

A broad range of conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the researchers said, linking Reagan, Hitler, Mussolini and talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

These men were all right-wing conservatives, the study said, because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form.

Glaser conceded the research could be viewed as partisan because it focused on political conservatism, but he argued there is a vast amount of information about conservatism and little about liberalism.

The researchers acknowledged left-wing ideologues such as Stalin, Castro and Nikita Kruschev resisted change in the name of egalitarianism after they established power.

But these men, the study said, might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended.

Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

[Henry Bowman]

How can anyone call Hitler conservative? He was a socialist (NAZI)!

[2dogs]

How can anyone call Hitler conservative?

Berkeley! What else don't you understand?;)

[Diesle]

Up till now I thought I was made of sugar and spice and everything nice....

Berkley....:rolleyes:


Diesle

[Pilgrim]

Underlying psychological motivations that mark conservatives are "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
Translation:
Lack fear and passivity is good.
Tolerance of confusion is good.
No solutions to life's problems is desired.
Run in circles, scream and shout is good.

The researchers also contend left-wing ideologues such as Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro "might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended."
Sort of covers all bets, doesn't it?

Nice to see that UC Berkeley hasn't lost its touch.

Pilgrim

[DigMe]

Gee, who was in charge of this study...Al Franken? Michael Moore? What a bunch of bull$hit!! That's just sickening.

brad cook

[2dogs]

The interesting thing will be when these psycho commies get "Conservative" entered into the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual- published by the American Psychiatric Association, the main diagnostic reference of Mental Health professionals in the United States of America) and then come up with some kind of way to cure it- or lock you away for it.:uhoh: :evil:

[Dain Bramage]

Studies at the Dain Bramage Institute show the difference between liberals and a banana is that the banana has appeal.

Yuk! Yuk!

Studies comparing liberals to gum stuck under a desk are continuing. Please send your financial support now. :neener:

[hansolo]

I attended college in Sonoma County in the late 60's: I drove to S.F. and Berkeley on weekends to see/hear the Rock Icons of the Era.

More than 30 years later, the Bay Area is still Chock Full 'O Nuts. Feinstein, are you trolling?:banghead: Is your trigger finger twitching because all the "conservatives" are recalling your buddy Grey Davis? :neener:....this lady "packs heat," yet is against private gun ownership. Something's wrong here... :barf:

[Lictalon]

Course, you'll notice that "nice" conservatives don't make the list...Churchill anyone?

Ah well, it Berkley. :banghead:

[Dain Bramage]

2dogs has hit the nail right on the head. I just read an article this morning on Asperger Syndrome in the Seattle Times. The diagnosis includes those who have difficulty in social interactions, communication, and are preoccupied in a narrow field or interest, but often do well in math and engineering. Thus being a nerd is now a disease, subject to drugs and therapy.

Pretty soon, moral and sexual deviancy will be the only "normal" activity.

[longeyes]

"The interesting thing will be when these psycho commies get "Conservative"
entered into the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual- published by the
American Psychiatric Association, the main diagnostic reference of Mental Health
professionals in the United States of America) and then come up with some kind
of way to cure it- or lock you away for it."

As the man said, "Analyze THIS!"

The irony is that this posse of sherrydrinkers, if ever given power,
would all be dictators to the nth degree. Right now they can only
lord it over impressionable grad students.

This kind of biased nonsense is a disgrace to scholarship. I continue
to think that madness prevails in certain enclaves of the academic
community. They will keep pushing until all hell breaks loose.

[Poodleshooter]

While the study is no doubt rather biased (simply by it's use of negative conservative personalities), there is some validity to what is said. A co-worker who is intensely liberal, discussed the same concepts with me in one of our occassional business lunches. We found that "black and white" vs "shades of gray" to be rather definitive of our method of decision making. Not mentioned in this study is the other conclusion we found- conservative thinkers tend to make more decisive leaders than liberal thinkers. They are morally satisfied with absolute decisions, and don't waffle too long on the possibilities.

[cordex]

However, the study showed, according to Glaser, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives.
Hmmm ... isn't this kind of a "by definition" sort of observation?
Definition of "conservative": tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
Definition of "liberal": not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

A "classical conservative" is anyone who works to preserve the current system.
A "classical liberal" is anyone who works to change the system.

Right? Or are they trying to tie the modern usage of conservative and liberal with all the issues that come along to this classical usage?

[Rangerover]

It's not just U.C. Berkeley. Some Red from U.M. College Park had his paws in this study, too. I did part of my Undergraduate tour of duty at Maryland. If there's a more leftist, commie infested craphole in the universe than U.M., I'd appreciate someone telling me where it is.

The place is brimming over with "Social Engineers" and loons. Of course I'm referring solely to the Social "Science" departments. The ACTUAL science departments (you know, the ones with the smart people who know how to do arithmetic and get real jobs) weren't like that. Come to think of it, they never are... :scrutiny:

[JohnBT]

My personal opinion...

One group thinks things through once and sticks with their conclusion.

The other group thinks things over and over and over until they forget what the question was and then complains that nobody understands them.

John

[GSB]

Underlying psychological motivations that mark conservatives are "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management,"

That actually perfectly describes the typical DemocraticUnderground poster.

[boltaction]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Range, but as a Science Prof, I can tell you that the science departments are also top-loaded with knee-jerk collectivists, gun grabbers, etc. Again, as a PROF, I tell my kids (one at Univ of MD at College Park, one going to Catholic U in the fall, and the other about to start senior yr in HS), to challenge their profs whenever they deviate from "fact" (being teenagers, and having a prof as a Dad, my kids are already biased against profs!). My oldest has already given her profs hell for their leftist bias (last time in a music class, no less!), and she considers herself a liberal! I hear lefist propaganda spread by other science profs ALL THE TIME. Nuff said.

Bolt

[Mute]

You all missed the point. Psychology is an art form. I bet I can artistically compare liberals with serial killers and ponder the similarities and get exactly the same type of conclusions as the crap in this study.

[rrader]

Rangerover:

It's not just U.C. Berkeley. Some Red from U.M. College Park had his paws in this study, too. I did part of my Undergraduate tour of duty at Maryland. If there's a more leftist, commie infested craphole in the universe than U.M., I'd appreciate someone telling me where it is.

UMBC?

College Park wasn't so bad when I was an undergrad there in '76-'80. We actually succeeded in running off one Marxist idiot: Bertell Ollman (NYU), who the Political Science Dept. wanted to hire as department chair.

[seeker_two]

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over & over again, but expecting a different result...

USSR...
Cuba...
East Germany...
Great Britain...
Canada...
New York City...
Berkley...


I think the Berkley researchers (and liberals in general) already have their diagnoses listed in the DSM-IV...

297.10 Delusional Disorder
297.30 Shared Psychotic Disorder
300.02 Generalized Anxiety Disorder
300.29 Specific Phobia (Hoplophobia)
301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder
301.60 Dependent Personality Disorder
304.80 Polysubstance Dependence
307.90 Communication Disorder NOS
309.24 Adjustment Disorder With Anxiety
312.30 Impulse-Control Disorder NOS
312.90 Disruptive Behavior Disorder NOS
313.81 Oppositional Defiant Disorder
313.82 Identity Problem
318.20 Profound Mental Retardation


Anything I missed?...:evil:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Once in power, everyone gets conservative. In my observation, almost any degree of increase in power leads to less openness to change and less desire to look at different sides of an issue. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Just because Hitler had "socialist" in the name of his party doesn't make him a socialist any more than "Democrat" makes people in that party democratic or "Republican" means those folks give a rat's hiney about the republic.

[Master Blaster]

Glaser allowed that while conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said, according to the Berkeley news release.

"They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser explained


I think the above part is correct, Conservatives dont feel the need to lie and make up abunch of crap to justify illogical positions and beliefs like liberals do.

[longeyes]

I sent this story to a liberal friend of mine living in Eugene, OR.

Here's his take:

"well, it had to be said, so someone finally said it. republicans and
conservatives by policy and platform spread fear and separatism. these
principles embody the force of decay and de-evolution and hence are
destined to go the way of the dinosaur if life is to continue. life
grows toward unification and ever greater integration and complexity."

Be warned.:D

[.45Ruger]

Does it bother anyone besides me that these strange, abstract, and wasteful studies are done at Public Universities, using public monies. This is as relevant as when NASA sends up a shuttle to experiment on the effects of zero gravit on plants.

[grampster]

If we conservatives are nuts, then that illness should qualify us for social security disability payments......sign me up now! (I can use the cash to get me that 7 shot, snubby .357, vented barrel, titanium wheel gun...drool)

:D

[GSB]

This is as relevant as when NASA sends up a shuttle to experiment on the effects of zero gravit on plants.

Those experiments actually do have a point. They are laying the groundwork for long-term human habitation of zero-G environments. Making sure you can grow enough food optimally in zero-G for consumption and oxygen scrubbing is important.

[DRC]

.45ruger,

The study of zero gravity on plants is very relevant. One has to find out what can and cannot be grown in zero gravity in order to determine what further steps in space exploration and even horticulture can be taken. Think of it this way, if you're going to do deep space exploration you will need a replenishable food supply i.e. a garden of vegetables. So if you can't grow plants in zero gravity deep space exploration will be near impossible.

I just wanted to throw that out there. Continue talking amongst yourselves about neowabbymaxizumedweebies at UC Berkley. I will say this before I sign off and that is, have you all notice that everything insane in nature has come out of UC Berkley? If something newsworthy and kockamamy is printed it most likely came from UC Berkley.

DRC

[Pendragon]

"Conservative" is not defined very well in our society.

I know a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" but I think they are elitist, statist socialist (here in CA, its all relative dont you know).

I consider my self much more of al ibertarian than a conservative. I still vote Republican because I am pragmatic and I think the LP is often loony.

However - the nice thing about being a libertarian is that it is not that difficult to determine your position on something. Light the scenario with individual rights and liberty and most things become pretty clear.

Conservatives and Liberals alike want to restrict certain liberties because they have decided that some freedoms are less important than some causes. I think it is that simple.

The real issue is - what freedoms do you want to restrict and what what do you think the government should be doing?

[Sean Smith]

The best comedy is when people are oblivious to their own absurdity. Those Berkleyites just haven't found their proper calling as starving comedians... heavy on the starving.

:evil:

The Soviets used to send political opponents to mental institutions... so really, the Berkleyite head shrinkers are just getting in touch with their roots.

:barf:

[Rangerover]

rrader:

U of M '76-'80? Things were probably different back in "the day". I don't know if one can fix an exact date to when our public universities took the infamous "left turn", but it's virtually inescapable these days. There's no point in even attempting to learn history from a public university. You're better off going to the local library or buying some books and studying it yourself.

Unfortunately, the only thing that I learned at U.M. was that ALL white males are S.O.B.s and that someday we're gonna get our comeuppance for all the dasterdly deeds we've perpetrated against the poor, innocent, huddled masses, and that even though I've never owned a slave, deep down I really want to, etc., blah-blah- :barf:

Ah. We all know how the public university system is. No point beating that proverbial horse anymore. :(

[rrader]

Rangeover:

Maryland's State Government wasn't so far-left back then. We had Marvin Mandel and other Governors who were left of center but still sane.

I can recall sitting in on a Black studies class that met before my Soviet History class and being gratified to hear young black Americans challenge the Marxist South African Prof. on his anti-US, anti-CIA rants about US policy on Angola.

The big shift left at Univ. Maryland came in the late 80's when they switched to the University System of Maryland and stated publically that they wanted UM College Park to be the Berkley of the east, and immediately started tenuring left-wing extremists.

[rrader]

Calling Hitler and Stalin Conservatives is more of the Big Lie technique used by the hard-left to run away from the bloody outcome of their political system in the past.

You have to at least give them credit for the astonishing size of the lie.

The authors of this "study" are merely playing semantic games by describing the statist, static behavior of any dictatorial system as resistance to change, i.e, "conservative" and making the leap of twisted logic to the conclusion that political "conservatives" all share this trait, and then the next leap of twisted logic to the conclusion that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. were all political conservatives. What a load of B.S.

[Khornet]

of a bunch of psychological studies, then interpreted by the same sort of fools who did the original studies.

Beware meta-analysis of anything.

For an interesting response to this, see Jonah Goldberg on today's National Review Online. www.nationalreview.com

[WonderNine]

Oh my god. :rolleyes:

Where does one start with this article?

[Sean Smith]

some academics think they can use their head for a colonoscopy and then crab-walk around expecting all the world to think their new hats make them look smart.

:evil:

[Monkeyleg]

"That view is reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the researchers wrote."

Interesting that they'd mention Thurmond--who disavowed his segregationist views--and not Democrat Lester Maddox, who went to his grave spewing hatred for blacks.

[cuchulainn]

However, the study showed, according to Glaser, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives. The Third Reich was all about *ahem* "change," and Hitler not only was tolerant of such *ahem* "change" -- he openly pursued the *ahem*"changes" he thought would make an ideal world.

[BowStreetRunner]

"Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said, according to the Berkeley news release."

um, yeah, thats because we dont have to twist logic to come to our views

BSR

[Mr. James]

Calling Hitler and Stalin Conservatives is more of the Big Lie technique used by the hard-left to run away from the bloody outcome of their political system in the past.

You have to at least give them credit for the astonishing size of the lie.


rrader,

More spot-on words have rarely been typed. When the socialists ate their own, the hard-left lied about it, endlessly. Now, they're tying up loose ends. Big lie, indeed.

[PATH]

I like Michael Savage' quote: "Liberalism is not so much a political ideaology as it is a form of mental illness".

Liberals don't brook dissent. You'll be attacked and they will start screaming at you and accuse you of some horrid phobia or hatred.
Just question a liberal Prof. and see what happens?

[Mark Tyson]

Psychoanalyzing an opponent's positions is a cheap shot. It is basically saying: "I don't need to consider your arguments because your arguments come from all these psychological conditions, and are obviously not logical."

[Rangerover]

The big shift left at Univ. Maryland came in the late 80's when they switched to the University System of Maryland
rrader:
Ahhh, that explains it. That coincides EXACTLY with the time when Iwas there, right after I E.T.S.ed from the Army.

Tenuring extremists? Exactly. I always wondered where they got some of the loons I ran into from. I guess they intentionally imported them. It's a shame, too. I was fortunate enough to get a FEW classes there that were among the most challenging and interesting I ever had. The instructors must have been leftovers from the old days. I do have some good memories. Then they went and ruined it in the name of ideology.

I transferred out and never went back. If you even looked like you might disagree with their leftist dogma they'd come down on you like the proverbial million pound craphammer. I don't know what they did with the few GOOD teachers I recall. Found a way to fire them or deny them tenure, I suppose. Or made them so miserable that they just left for friendlier climes.

Too bad. Thanks for the info; that solves something I'd been wondering about for years.

[Skunkabilly]

How much is the registration fee at Beserkeley and how much of it goes to the research? Since tuition is free, you have to pay $$$$ to register for the classes....what a deal!!

At UCI, our tuition was $1518 a quarter, some of my classes were held in trailers while all the remodeling and construction had one lecture hall and the rest was dedicated to reasearch.

Research concludes that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor and White people (except the professor) are bad....all this for Gray Davis' autograph :banghead:

[shooten]

NRO has a great article that puts this "study" in perspective. Here's the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072403.asp

Scott

[Partisan Ranger]

As Jonah Goldberg wrote today, 'conservative' has markedly different meanings depending on context. A 'conservative' Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia hacks a woman's ears off for showing her face in public. A 'conservative' American generally espouses classicly liberal ideals, such as free markets, individual freedom, liberty, and the rule of law. I hold that an American 'conservative' is in actuality more interested in real change than the - gag - 'progressives' are.

Who wants to give people control over their retirement? Conservatives.
Who wants to dismantle the redistributionist tax system? Conservatives.
Who wants to crack down on terrorist savagery? Conservatives.

[longeyes]

"Psychoanalyzing an opponent's positions is a cheap shot. It is basically saying: 'I
don't need to consider your arguments because your arguments come from all
these psychological conditions, and are obviously not logical.'"

I think Mark Tyson is dead-on. We think they're nuts, they think we're
nuts. That's a non-starter. We need to stay on argument, on facts, and
rational. The premise of a Republic is that men are rational and
have free will. There's a totalitarian, autocratic streak to the
psychiatry politburo that disguises itself behind pseudo-scholarship and
"science."

[Khornet]

Conservatives just think libs are wrong. They're puzzled about how libs can come to the conclusions they do, but they don't think they're satanic. For example, pro-life conservatives on their wildest days don't say things like "Patricia Ireland wants every pregnancy in this country terminated."

Libs, on the other hand, don't just think Cons are wrong. They think we're sick. Evil. At least that's what their rhetoric says. As in TV ads linking Bush to those who drag blacks behind cars. As in DNC ads showing Bush pushing granny in her wheelchair off the carrier deck.

So no, it's not "they think we're nuts, we think they're nuts." What do you call it when Bush says we should cut taxes and Charles Rangel says "Before it was 'n***r' and 'sp*c', now they just say "Let's cut taxes'"?

You've got one thing right, pardner. It sure would be nice to have a real discussion of the issues.If only the Left would try it.

[Partisan Ranger]

I would tend to agree that the left is quite a bit more ruthless than the right as far as demonizing the opponent. I always chuckle at the left shrieking about being labeled unpatriotic. Whether I think they are or not (I do), why do they get so wigged out about it? As a staunch conservative, I have my very humanity questioned by leftists because I think abortion is a nasty thing, think guns are a good thing, and want to keep my income to myself. And they snivel because someone says they're unpatriotic? Grow up. If you take a stand, have the courage to take the heat. Otherwise, shut up.

[Marko Kloos]

Liberals don't brook dissent. You'll be attacked and they will start screaming at you and accuse you of some horrid phobia or hatred.


It's simple debating psychology. You seek to claim the moral high ground by tagging your opponent as something that is commonly seen as immoral.

"Sure, he says he wants to cut taxes, but he's a white male Republican, and therefore a racist. Since he's a racist, can we believe anything he says?"

"My client did not rob that store. Besides, the only witness lives in a trailer park and earns money as a prostitute, so what does that make her?"

Unfortunately, Conservatives have discovered their own variant of this technique when it comes to dismissing arguments:

"You're just being Politically Correct!"

[Skunkabilly]

When I was in the debate club in high school, my last-ditch comeback was, "well...that sounds like something Adolf Hilter would say." :D

[Deepdiver]

Oh gosh!! When those old boys from Berkeley interviewed me about how I, as a staunch conservative, handled problems, I guess I should not of told them that as far as I was concerned,

....there were few problems in life that couldn't be solved with a 1911 and the proper amount of high explosive......

(a modified version of an old Navy Seal bit of wisdom)

and now, I guess this means that we will no longer be friends.

[longeyes]

I know people in both camps who view their antagonist as "wacky."
It's intellectually lazy, that's all.

Of course, not all debates can be resoved rationally.

[2dogs]

Liberal bunkum

David Limbaugh


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Have you read about the university study that purports to show psychological links among Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Rush Limbaugh and other "political conservatives"? There's so much here, where should I begin?

The study was conducted by four American university researchers, and its findings were reported in an article in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated by Social Cognition." The enlightened professors concluded that certain psychological motivations characterize conservatives, including "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management."

"From our perspective," wrote the professors in a press release, "these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination."

Liberals have often hinted there was something deeply wrong with conservatives, but now they have "academic" support for their position. Conservatism is symptomatic of deep-rooted negative psychological character traits.

Most amazing is the professors' manifest ignorance of political theory, upon which they base their conclusions. To suggest that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were political conservatives is pathetic. Since the '60s, liberals have been getting away with calling conservatives "nazis" and "fascists," but Nazism and Fascism are, in essence, socialistic systems. Such systems are the logical conclusion of big-government liberalism, not free-market conservatism.

And don't talk to me about conservatives being proponents of a police state, either. There is nothing inconsistent between conservatives' advocacy of law enforcement and their championship of individual liberties.

Like most good liberals, these professors believe that the thought processes of conservatives are less nuanced and more black and white. One of them, Jack Glaser of UC Berkeley, said, "[Conservatives] are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm. … The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and need for closure."

Surely the professor can do better than that. This example tends to demonstrate the liberals' lack of nuance more than the conservatives', as do many other examples I'll give you. Can't these paragons of complexity understand that Bush's words were at most ill advised based on disputed, not phony intelligence? Don't they understand that a lie involves the intent to deceive, not just arguably erroneous information? Further, can't they grasp that this was not even one of the major reasons we used to attack Iraq?

Let me give you a few other examples of the liberals' seeming inability to make intellectual distinctions. They seem too narrow-minded to understand that:


perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of court are different from merely "lying about sex";

likening Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler is the grossest form of hate speech they otherwise pretend to decry;

the desire to reverse liberal judicial activism is not conservative judicial activism;

one can favor action against Iraq without being a "neo-conservative";

opposition to affirmative action is born of egalitarianism not racism;

advocacy of government-forced wealth redistribution is not synonymous with compassion, and opposition to it is not incompatible with compassion;

their championship of tolerance as the highest virtue is inconsistent with their intolerance toward conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives;

opposition to federal control over education is neither anti-children nor anti-education, but precisely the opposite;

the tax code can affect economic behavior such that marginal tax rate cuts do not result in dollar-for-dollar losses in revenue;

the terrorist threat of suitcase nuclear bombs does not obviate strategic missile defense (SDI) – we continue to face multiple threats;

developing SDI is not an offensive gesture, but defensive, and should not be deceptively dubbed "Star Wars";

America can attack Iraq without attacking all other despotic regimes in the world and not be guilty of inconsistency in its approach to foreign policy;

school choice will liberate and uplift minorities;

irresponsible gun control measures will cost, not save lives;

promoting "separation of church and state" often stifles rather than promotes religious freedom;

this bogus study by biased liberal professors so close-minded and arrogant that they don't even realize their findings were predetermined by their ideological prejudices speaks loudly to their tunnel-vision simplicity.
Were it not for the destructive influence of their jaundiced ideas we should feel nothing but sympathy for these misguided professors. But they and their ilk are helping to poison the minds of America's next generations of leaders. Or is that too simplistic for us to understand?



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33772

[Edward429451]

Psychoanalyzing an opponent's positions is a cheap shot. It is basically saying: "I don't need to consider your arguments because your arguments come from all these psychological conditions, and are obviously not logical."

It's simple debating psychology. You seek to claim the moral high ground by tagging your opponent as something that is commonly seen as immoral.

Why does this sound familier? Low level public servants debate like this, as well as the high level ones. It sounds exactly like...(**** *** ***) ! I'll be good.:D

"You're just being Politically Correct!"

Ouch.:D

It's intellectually lazy, that's all.

Ouch. I gotta hit the books more.:o

Of course, not all debates can be resoved rationally.

Ahhh, slight reprieve. Monday for sure.:D

Anybody see themselves in this? Be honest. :D :D

[Khornet]

is a result of liberals' intolerance of ambiguity, their need to see things in black and white, and their need for closure.

[MeekandMild]

seeker_two, I think you could thin down your Liberal differential diagnosis list a good bit but it will take some background reading. Ignoring the purely sociopathic "Morlocks" such as Bill and Hillary for a moment we find the "Eloi" more easily chategorized. (Using class distinctions among the antis already defined on TFL.)

IMHO it is clear most all varieties of modern Liberal dogma are driven by and obtain their sustainance from the five clusters of behavior among their Eloi which may be lumped into the category of "Borderline Personality disorder".

Description and Background (http://www.palace.net/~llama/psych/bpd.html)

Criteria (http://www.psychologynet.org/bpd.html)

Description and Psychodynamics (http://behavioraltech.com/resources/sourceFiles/bpdFactSheet.pdf)

Of course Conservatives are much simpler than Liberals. When you tell the truth there isn't much to say. It is only when you lie to yourself you have to develop many stories.

(Hitler wasn't a Conservative nor a Liberal; he was a State Socialist. He just happened to be skilled in evoking emotions among the German people. You are going to have opportunists like him more often among the Liberal camp than among the conservatives as it is easier to fool a few millionaires into contributing funds than it is to fool a hundred thousand middle class folk.)

Psychoanalyzing an opponent's positions is a cheap shot. It is basically saying: "I don't need to consider your arguments because your arguments come from all these psychological conditions, and are obviously not logical." I would hold the opposite might be true. I don't think that analyzing their position is so important as analyzing how they got to their position. It is really hard to understand arguments when they are based on something internal to the arguer unless you can find their pattern of thought don't you think?

[CasualShooter]

I'm not surprised to see something like this come out of Berkeley. I've grown used to it! :rolleyes:

But, it would be of interest to know who funded this so called Research Study . Who paid for it? Where did the money come from? :cuss: :banghead:

[trooper]

How come that conservatives are supposed to champion individual liberties? Just think Patriot Act...

I will let gun control out of this because it's a specifically American issue; but in most other countries (including mine) it's usually the conservative side who demands stricter laws, less tolerance for "unnormal" behaviour (such as homosexual marriages), more power to LE agencies and so on.

The report is biased and ideological, but there IS some truth in it.


Regards,

Trooper

[MicroBalrog]

In my country, it's the conservatives who support gun control.

The Likud representative in my town officially told me that "If it were up to us, we wouldn't give out any gun licenses AT ALL"

[trooper]

In my experience liberal arguments for gun control are something like "Violence is not a solution, and besides this you will hurt yourself with it," while conservatives usually go like "Firearms in the hands of citizens are a danger to our police officers."

Liberals want to ban guns because they think they're evil and morally wrong. Conservatives simply think they pose an unacceptable risk.

Of course, none of the above arguments make much sense.

Oops, got into the gun control thing anyway...

Trooper