Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jul 27th, 2003, 08:40 PM        I've seen propaganda before... but THIS is just sad.
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.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Jul 27th, 2003, 11:23 PM       
Sad because you don't like it, or sad because the research sucked?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 01:37 AM       
Their argument that conservatism tends to be situational is rational, and it has been made by others like Michael Lind. It's perfectly logical to call staunch Sovietism a conservative movement.

And how is this "propaganda"? That implies that it's broadlt absorbed, wgich seems not to be the case....
Reply With Quote
  #4  
O71394658 O71394658 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A theater near you
O71394658 is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 11:24 AM       
Man, I love when people classify millions of Americans and force them into cookie-cutter roles as "resisting change" and "intolerant of other people".

I'd love for someone to explain to me how Conservatives are intolerant?

I also believe the rhetoric that Stalin and Castro were really right-wing idealogies to be blatantly false. I don't know if they're referring to the context of the political spectrum or to how the two parties are viewed in the political arena today,but either way, I don't see how Stalin et al. could be classified as Righties.

Funny, as there are people who believe Stalin was right-wing, many people also believe Hitler was left-wing.

I'd also like to know the political affiliations of those four researchers. :/
__________________
Do not click here.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 11:51 AM       
Conservatives tend to be intolerant of other ideals, especially of homosexuality and pro-choicers. Conservativism by definition implies resistance to outside change, implying innate xenophobia. Hence the isolationist policies of historical conservatives. This begets further intolerance in many cases, and explains why the overwelming majority of hate groups such as the KKK have right-wing ideologies.

In the socio-economic context of communism, a right-wing idealogue would strive to consolidate power into an oligarchy, in contrast to the plebian government envisioned by Marx. Both Fidel and Stalin have done this, so I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

It's a shame, but such an analysis can't really be done upon the left because the very definition of of liberal is subjective to historical context.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #6  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 01:51 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by O71394658
Man, I love when people classify millions of Americans and force them into cookie-cutter roles as "resisting change" and "intolerant of other people".

I'd love for someone to explain to me how Conservatives are intolerant?

I also believe the rhetoric that Stalin and Castro were really right-wing idealogies to be blatantly false. I don't know if they're referring to the context of the political spectrum or to how the two parties are viewed in the political arena today,but either way, I don't see how Stalin et al. could be classified as Righties.

Funny, as there are people who believe Stalin was right-wing, many people also believe Hitler was left-wing.

I'd also like to know the political affiliations of those four researchers. :/
That's why I find this article disgusting.

I think it's propaganda because anyone who writes this trash did not take a neutral, "non-judgemental" stance. They used Bush as their primary example for a conservative (who anyone with half a brain knows is the most intelligent man). I'd also love to see those "meta-analytic calculations".
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 02:01 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
Conservatives tend to be intolerant of other ideals, especially of homosexuality and pro-choicers.
Everyone is intolerant of other peoples ideas. I don't see how homosexuality is an ideal, but I will adress pro-choicers.

Take the average pro-choice person. They believe women have a right to chose. Most pro-choicers are annoyed that pro-lifers don't believe the same thing.

If by intolerance, you are referring to the hyper-conservatives who think that pro-choicers are all going to burn in hell, that's a poor example of the average rightist. By that logic, I could use the vegans who think meat eaters should be ripped apart limb from limb as an example of the average leftist.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 02:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
It's a shame, but such an analysis can't really be done upon the left because the very definition of of liberal is subjective to historical context.
The historical definition of a conservative has been just as subjective and situational.

I don't think they're calling Stalin a "Right-Winger" under the context of a Republican in 2003. The point is that Stalin's perpetual revolution was a contradiction, and in fact a conservative force, opposed to change, and in favor of the preservation of Soviet institutions.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 02:43 PM       
I don't see how homosexuality is an ideal

Think of proponents of gay rights who are not themselves homosexual, et cetera.

Take the average pro-choice person. They believe women have a right to chose. Most pro-choicers are annoyed that pro-lifers don't believe the same thing.

Flawed comparison. Pro-lifers, of which I am one, object to the very act of comitting abortion. Furthermore, they are therefore opposed to political opinions that approve of abortion, because they condone a despised act. The pro-choicer's resentment for the stance of the pro-lifer has no basis in any actual action, so is pointless.

The historical definition of a conservative has been just as subjective and situational.

Issue for issue, absolutely. But the general essence of a conservative is that things are best in a pre-existing state, whereas the liberal generally sees room for improvement in all places. Conservativism morphs into whatever society evolves to, whereas liberalism is more sporadic and multi-faceted. The right has much less diversity of opinion than does the left.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #10  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 02:53 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
Flawed comparison. Pro-lifers, of which I am one, object to the very act of comitting abortion. Furthermore, they are therefore opposed to political opinions that approve of abortion, because they condone a despised act. The pro-choicer's resentment for the stance of the pro-lifer has no basis in any actual action, so is pointless.
It does have basis to an action: the action of disapproval from the pro-lifer. It's actually more of a basis to a reaction, but I think it suits my point none-the-less.

In reference to homosexuality: I think that's more of the hyper-conservative type that I was referring too. I rarely meet any people who have problems with homosexuality.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 02:57 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
Issue for issue, absolutely. But the general essence of a conservative is that things are best in a pre-existing state, whereas the liberal generally sees room for improvement in all places. Conservativism morphs into whatever society evolves to, whereas liberalism is more sporadic and multi-faceted. The right has much less diversity of opinion than does the left.
Agreed on the first premise of your argument, on the "pre-existing state" matter. I disagree however that conservatism is lacking in diversity. Perhaps that is true today, but most political debate is dead today beyond 4 or 5 issues.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 02:57 PM       
It does have basis to an action: the action of disapproval from the pro-lifer.

What a stupid fucking sentence.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #13  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 03:07 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
What a stupid fucking sentence.
It makes perfect sense according to the english language.

With reference to the "pre-existing state" comment... I think it's more of a "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mentality than anything. I do believe that most conservatives would be willing to change something if they saw the practicality in it.

Also, some conservatives want to change a lot *coughLibertarianscough* with reference to the modern day world *coughgetgovernmentoutofalotofthingscough*.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
O71394658 O71394658 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A theater near you
O71394658 is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 03:10 PM       
Seth, you greatly are greatly ignorant on the issues of the right.

I will secede your point in that most hate groups tend to have basis in right-wing politics. This is definitely truth. But when you try to compare these movements to the overall conservative issue overall is when you turn lame. Comparing everyday conservatives to hate groups and Fascism is like comparing everyday liberals to Stalinist Communism.

Quote:
Hence the isolationist policies of historical conservatives.
What? War on Iraq? Somalia? The Middle East? Desert Storm? The Contra Rebels? Iran? Yeah....sure buddy.


Quote:
It's a shame, but such an analysis can't really be done upon the left because the very definition of of liberal is subjective to historical context.
That made me laugh. What exactly makes Conservatives any different?


Quote:
The point is that Stalin's perpetual revolution was a contradiction, and in fact a conservative force, opposed to change, and in favor of the preservation of Soviet institutions.
Admittedly, this issue isn't my forte, but just because you wish to preserve institutions that you've created doesn't automatically classify you as a Conservative. His mere left-wing idealogy establishes him as a radical liberal, does it not?[/i]
__________________
Do not click here.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 03:26 PM       
Comparing everyday conservatives to hate groups and Fascism is like comparing everyday liberals to Stalinist Communism.

Except Stalin wasn't a liberal in his context.

What? War on Iraq? Somalia? The Middle East? Desert Storm? The Contra Rebels? Iran? Yeah....sure buddy.

Congratulations, you demonstrate awareness of THE LAST TWO DECADES. The middle east represent vested interest, namely the farcical war on terror and oil.

That made me laugh. What exactly makes Conservatives any different?

I already told Kevin.

His mere left-wing idealogy establishes him as a radical liberal, does it not?

We've already explained that his ideas were not left-wing at all in relation to how he inherited things from Lenin. Please try to keep up with the conversation, or remove yourself from it.

It makes perfect sense according to the english language.

Yet was devoid of real meaning. Disapproval is not an action, it's a notion.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #16  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 03:40 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by O71394658
Quote:
The point is that Stalin's perpetual revolution was a contradiction, and in fact a conservative force, opposed to change, and in favor of the preservation of Soviet institutions.
Admittedly, this issue isn't my forte, but just because you wish to preserve institutions that you've created doesn't automatically classify you as a Conservative. His mere left-wing idealogy establishes him as a radical liberal, does it not?[/i]
That's a loaded question. In a traditionally liberal sense of non-government interventionism, and open markets, Stalin couldn't be further from the case.

In a modern "Liberal" sense, as in New Deal Liberalism, you still don't get Stalin. I think the point is like the old saying goes, today's radical is tomorrow's reactionary. This actually makes sense with arguments conservatives have made on these boards.

Folks like Vince have said that if you're under 30 and a conservative you have no heart, but if you're over 30 and a Liberal you have no brain (or something like that). People get older, see the change(s) they campaigned for reach fruition, and become more protective of the institutions they've created.

In other words, it could be argued that conservatism is a state of being, where as liberalism is much more ideological.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
O71394658 O71394658 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A theater near you
O71394658 is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 04:35 PM       
I can't involve myself in the Stalin argument, considering I don't really know that much about it. We'll have to wait for someone with more knowledge on the subject, I suppose...but I don't look at his institutional resisitance to change so much as the left-wing politics that he didn't want to change.

Quote:
Folks like Vince have said that if you're under 30 and a conservative you have no heart, but if you're over 30 and a Liberal you have no brain (or something like that).
Actually Winston Churchill said that...so maybe Vince stole it? :/



Quote:
Congratulations, you demonstrate awareness of THE LAST TWO DECADES. The middle east represent vested interest, namely the farcical war on terror and oil.
Okay, you want more? Boxer Rebellion. Spanish-American War. Panama Canal. Latin America. Just to name a few.
__________________
Do not click here.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Zebra 3 Zebra 3 is offline
Striped Tomato
Zebra 3's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay City
Zebra 3 is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 05:30 PM       
Hitler was a socialist, and Dubya is a moron, I mean conservative.
__________________
'Huuutch!' - Starsky
Reply With Quote
  #19  
O71394658 O71394658 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A theater near you
O71394658 is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 05:32 PM       
Hitler was a fascist.
__________________
Do not click here.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jul 28th, 2003, 08:58 PM       
Boxer Rebellion: I confess I don't know much about US involvement in that, I'll have to look into it...

Spanish-American War: Good ol' fashioned imperialism.

Panama Canal, Latin America: Republican or not, TR administered enough social reform that he would be considered liberal.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #21  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 29th, 2003, 12:30 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by O71394658
I can't involve myself in the Stalin argument, considering I don't really know that much about it. We'll have to wait for someone with more knowledge on the subject, I suppose...
Okay, but it doesn't have to be solely about Stalin. Take your pick of reactionaries throughout the years....


Quote:
but I don't look at his institutional resisitance to change so much as the left-wing politics that he didn't want to change.
But this, in essence, is conservative. Censorship was rampant, dissent wasn't tolerated, political competition was prevented, as was market competition. That doesn't mean the act of censorship is a conservative Republican trait, what it means is that these are the conservative methods Stalin used to secure power.

Quote:
Quote:
Folks like Vince have said that if you're under 30 and a conservative you have no heart, but if you're over 30 and a Liberal you have no brain (or something like that).
Actually Winston Churchill said that...so maybe Vince stole it? :/
Yeah, I had assumed that Vince didn't make it up, as I have heard it before. I was implying in the literal sense he has re-stated it on this board.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Miss Modular Miss Modular is offline
Little Monster
Miss Modular's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Haus of Gaga
Miss Modular is probably a spambot
Old Jul 29th, 2003, 12:39 AM       
Quote:
Folks like Vince have said that if you're under 30 and a conservative you have no heart, but if you're over 30 and a Liberal you have no brain (or something like that).
Quote:
Actually Winston Churchill said that...so maybe Vince stole it? :/

Yeah, I had assumed that Vince didn't make it up, as I have heard it before. I was implying in the literal sense he has re-stated it on this board.
And how old is Vince? Hmm, considering he's under 30...
__________________
Live From New York, It's Saturday Night!!!: http://notready4primetime.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.