Part of the reason why I don't take college ranking systems too seriously is because UC Berkeley is consistently placed near the top of every list. And they put out drivel like this.
Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?Go read The Angry Clam's take on the matter, and then grin wistfully at his picture from the Good Old Days.Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
The Berkeley authors manage to lump Hitler, Mussolini, and President Reagan together, and then toss in well-known conservatives Stalin, Khrushchev, and Castro for good measure. Bah, go read the whole thing, it's very condescending. Oh no, we're not saying conservatives are simple-minded, they're just less "integratively complex".
Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.Or maybe we're just smarter than you, and your pathetic leftist "brains" can't even comprehend our mental processes.
Wow, I thought I'd seen it all in academia. But now conservatism is a psychological disorder.
They must be addressing only conservative social policy, not economic policy, because the leftist arguments on economic policy are so ungrounded in reality and statistical fact as to make them the political equivalent of puppy-eyes.
Regarding conservative social policy, I agree, at the core, it's a reluctance to change and a tolerance for inequality. Why? Because the moral character instilled by those much-maligned "traditional values" is responsible for the successes we've had, and the "intolerant" system is the one that gives these fools the right to bash it without being executed for treason. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The fact that we have people like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice (all three of whom fit the Left's every definition of "poor and disadvantaged") in some of the most powerful positions of our government tells me quite firmly that there is no inherent racial inequality in this society for people with the character and determination to climb their way up the ladder.
As for inequality between those who work hard and those who do not, I say, "give me more of it!"
Good points, Cypren. It was the "fear and aggression" and "simple-mindedness" that set me off more than the stuff you pointed out. As with Europe calling Americans "cowboys", they just don't understand that the things they mean to be insulting just aren't.
Maybe it's the same as when we call them commies or hippies.
Well, it's not like right and left (in the political sense) are just different-colored jerseys; there are real differences in the values underlying the two positions, so it stands to reason that people who tend toward one or the other political pole would tend to share other sorts of things with each other.
The thing about being an honest scientist, even a social scientist, is that you don't get to attack their findings based on your being personally offended by what they show, or because you recognize too much of yourself in the negative picture that emerges from them. Well, you can, obviously, but they're not going to pay any attention to your complaints (other than to observe that you're just verifying their results, by revealing a hostile attitude toward the cognitive dissonance their results have produced in your primitive reptilian brains).
If you want to really attack their results, you're going to have to look at their methodology and the quality of their data. You're going to have to approach the question with a bit more of an open mind. Which, as the study points out, may well not be your strong suit.
Heh. No, seriously, insults aside, I think they may have something here. I'm quite the leftist, and I'm all about ambiguity; I can't see any situation without seeing at least two or three sides to it, and I can't even criticize a loser like Bush without periodically feeling compelled to say nice things about him.
Meanwhile, you righties are shoulder-to-shoulder. Everything is simple, black-and-white; there are good guys (you) and bad guys (everyone who disagrees with you), and the solution is always to just haul off and kick the bad guy's ass, either metaphorically or otherwise.
I'm reminded of a Doonesbury cartoon from a couple of weeks ago. See:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20030713
Argh, that's a ridiculous and condescending Doonesbury. That's the problem with the research in question here, I don't think it was objective. What do you want to bet that all four of the main researchers are registered Democrats? I don't know how we could discover that, but I'd bet $100 on it.
I have no doubt that leftists and rightists are different psychologically, but not for the reasons attributed here. You may think we are too simplistic to deal with ambiguity, but that's not it: we're decisive. Every leftist I know is constantly second-guessing themself, even when there's no new evidence, just some random feelings or opinions. I do see many things in black-and-white, but that's because I've considered the various options, and then made a decision. If I'm wrong, I'm generally the first to admit it. I hate being wrong, I'd much rather change my position so that I can be right.
" the solution is always to just haul off and kick the bad guy's ass, either metaphorically or otherwise."
Is that an example of one of your three-dimensional views, John?
As a scientist, I'd love to take notes from you on scientific methodology, but I've learned not to waste time on people for whom it all depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.
Heh. Yeah, it's true. I'm way indecisive.
Mark, touche. That was a pretty unscientific observation I made. I think I was motivated mainly by the sense I have that George Bush, in particular, is too simplistic in his choice of solutions to complex problems, too willing to believe the emotionally satisfying act of lashing out in anger is the correct strategy, even in situations where he hasn't bothered to determine if the thing he's lashing out at is actually the thing responsible for making him angry in the first place. But that's a different topic.
I'm curious, though: You've indicated that you believe quoting that particular Clinton lie ("depends on what the definition of 'is' is") is a suitable insult for this situation. I wonder if you'd be willing to tell me what your take is on the whole "16 words" story, especially the way the principals have been asserting that the words in question are "technically true". Since from my (admittedly biased) perspective, that seems like an awfully Clintonian sort of statement.
Are you willing to judge the Bush administration by the same standard?
Not trolling; honest. I really am interested in your views on this.
Well, as opposed to the question of what actually constitutes "sex", it's pretty clear that Bush was relating intelligence from the British, and not purposefully playing word games.