The Ideological Animal

January 9, 2007 9:55 AM

The Ideological Animal. We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect. Or the Metafilter effect. [ducks]
posted by gottabefunky (44 comments total)

Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Meta
posted by elpapacito at 10:03 AM on January 9, 2007

I find studies like this to be fundamentally tautological.
We label people with certain characteristics liberal, and those with other characteristics conservative. When the "experts" study the differences in the two groups, lo and behold, they turn out to have exactly those characteristics!
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:08 AM on January 9, 2007

"Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death."

Among other factors, such as reason and ethics. And I'm not so afraid of death that "9/11" colored my thinking, because I know that the chances of terrorists running a 747 into me are rather slim; what I have come to fear more are those "9/11 Neocons" who want to make North Korea look like Sesame Street.

I still say 9/11/2001 was MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AGO. Allow yourselves to get over it. Unless y'all want to be like those Serbs who are still all wounded over something that happened in 1389 -- and just recently dredged it up as an excuse for further evils.
posted by davy at 10:13 AM on January 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

Anyone using 9/11 for an excuse for more religion, against liberals, is very unstable. They subconsciously agreed with the terrorists and are in denial about it; and all that garbage about God striking America for its sins that made the rounds back then is pretty solid proof of it, because they were quoting the enemy.
posted by Brian B. at 10:17 AM on January 9, 2007

Allow yourselves to get over it.

One difference is that I don't have any friends who died in 1389.
posted by JParker at 10:19 AM on January 9, 2007

>> Allow yourselves to get over it.

> One difference is that I don't have any friends who died in 1389.

Nor did Milosevic's buddies 500 years later. With all due respect, even if you lost your sister, after five years it's not mourning but monomania.
posted by davy at 10:26 AM on January 9, 2007

Liberals are more likely to be fiscally conservative, conservatives are more likely to be capitalistically liberal.

What a fun game!

9/11 made me do a 180 and my mate made me do a 69.

Neoconservatives are neither new nor conservative but Straussian and Zionist?
posted by nofundy at 10:32 AM on January 9, 2007

We think our political stance is the product of reason

We also think we have free will (do we?).

I'm never very impressed by studies like these. On the one hand, if you really do believe that you are an ultimately rational being, then it would be surprising to you to realize your stances aren't entirely rational.

But I think any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand that there is far more at play in their world view than just reason.

That's not a controversial idea in the social sciences.

On the other hand, neither is it the case that reason has no role at all in one's political beliefs. Neither is it the case that those beliefs can't be reexamined and changed, even if it's hard and rare.

In short, meh.
posted by teece at 10:32 AM on January 9, 2007

We label people with certain characteristics liberal, and those with other characteristics conservative. When the "experts" study the differences in the two groups, lo and behold, they turn out to have exactly those characteristics!

Read the article more closely, weapons-grade pandemonium: The participants here self-identified their political leanings.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:33 AM on January 9, 2007

As an employee of SFGate.com (online arm of the SF Chronicle), that lede is misleading. Stillwell does not appear in the printed SF Chronicle, only online.
posted by vporter at 10:34 AM on January 9, 2007

On the other hand, neither is it the case that reason has no role at all in one's political beliefs. Neither is it the case that those beliefs can't be reexamined and changed, even if it's hard and rare.

Read the article, people!

"But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death."
posted by saulgoodman at 10:35 AM on January 9, 2007

saulgoodman,

I'm not sure basing it on self identification solves anything. As a society we've taken a few sets of character traits and assigned them either to "liberals" or "conservatives." Then people present a series of policy ideas as liberal or conservative and people who have classified themselves based on their personalities pick the one they are told they should identify with. People don't pick freely from the set of political leanings, they do so with an eye toward what type of person they associate with each side, and what type of person they want to be.

Think about the music example, is there any reason why conservatives should prefer country music? It's not an older or more traditional type of music than jazz or classical, and it's not a type of music that inherently conveys a conservative political message. There's plenty of conservative country music, but that strikes me more as an effect than a cause. I'm not sure there is a reason, and I don't think there's anything about a temperament that favors country music that makes one conservative. Instead, I think we're probably seeing the effect of identifying the two with each other based on a similar regional distribution pattern. The fact that this pattern is "known" serves to reinforce it, and country music becomes the music of conservatives.

this problem of self identification is especially pronounced in an age where people largely select to receive only information from sources on their "side."
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:56 AM on January 9, 2007

I'm sorry, but anyone with the misfortune to be named "Cinnamon" was bound to start voting Republican sooner or later...
posted by stenseng at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2007

“But soon she found herself concurring about...traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family...
Her marriage broke up due in part to political differences.”

Now that’s funny ha ha.

But I think there’s a distinction to be made between the modern cultural conservatives and modern cultural liberal and their principled counterparts. The leaf eating Birkenstock wearing art car driving “liberals” wouldn’t agree with 1/2 of what Locke or Keynes or Hayek had to say (and indeed the flip side, the modern conservative break from principle, is now a cliché).
But they seem to be mixing ideology with the sociological phenomenon - e.g:
“Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat.”

That statement is only partly correct. Conservativism does emphasize tradition and continuity however the principle is based on drawing reason from what has gone before - like mathematics or engineering as opposed to Liberalisms adherence to change in favor of the individual and what is seen as a reaction to shifting generational needs. And indeed there are merits and drawbacks in either ideology, but neither ideology has much to do with those who self-identify as “liberal” or “conservative” for social reasons.

And the reasoning in the piece is, for that reason, specious, e.g.:
“You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.
That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point.”

The condescension aside, “liberal” in this context seems to mean “tolerant, open to new ideas,” - etc. pretty much what they had labeled it as earlier in the piece - and so of course all of their conclusions line up - it’s tautology.

As I was educated I became far more conservative because I wanted to preserve the institutions that protected our liberties. Bush has repealed such things as federal troops being allowed to enforce laws within U.S. borders. Is my “conservative” position now wrong because Bush is “conservative” and therefore rescinding long standing traditions is what “conservative” means if it’s done for modern social reasons?

Indeed, one could assert that “liberals” are far more conservative based on the reasoning here - because they self-identify socially rather than politically or philosophically.
Conservativism is based on allowing society to dictate it’s needs to the government and any change over time happens through changing traditions socially rather than the more liberal position of having the government safeguard or dictate social change (hence Goldwater’s opposition, on principle, to the civil rights act f’rinstance).

The piece merely reinforces the already staid stereotypes that only “liberals” really think, only “conservatives” care about the country, etc. etc. etc. (seriously one’s messy one’s neat - wtf kind of erudition is that? Oh, but we said “more likely” so it’s ok.)

There are not only disconnects between philosophical ideals and political realities, but between ideals and social self-identification as well.
What a great mass of people say or think in any given situation tends to be ignored, and has been for centuries, not only because of aristocratic perspective or differences in ‘breeding’ or education or any of the other stupid wrong headed elitist ideas, but precisely because so few people actually mean what they say and act on it or base their lives around it as they would an ideology.
Or rather, more plainly: talk is cheap.
And it’s been that way for a long time - even Locke was worried about property rights in the hands of the mass of the bell curve. And hell, damn few even bother to vote, yet they’ll say “I’m a hardcore ‘X’” You’ve seen ‘em.

Most people’s ideology seems to be avoiding trouble, working, and enjoying life, home and family. And there’s not a damn thing wrong with that, but it’s not “conservative” or “liberal.”

(yet more plainly - what weapons-grade pandemonium, teece, Bulgaroktonos, sed)
posted by Smedleyman at 11:08 AM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'm sorry, but anyone with the misfortune to be named "Cinnamon" was bound to start voting Republican sooner or later...

...but Nutmeg--there's a whacko liberal if I ever saw one.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:12 AM on January 9, 2007

i stopped reading her columns in the sf chronicle when i (quickly) tired of her uncritical, hook-line-and-sinker embrace of some ideas (bush admin) i found to be stupid and self-serving.
theory: she needs a lot of effusive personal validation. there isn't a lot of mutual reinforcement on the left these days, compared to the backbiting and recrimination, and the neocons do loving group hugs with the newly converted a lot better.
posted by bruce at 11:15 AM on January 9, 2007

I read the article carefully, saulgoodman. The whole point is that few of us, if any, truly self identify. The logic is circular.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:24 AM on January 9, 2007

smedleyman: some very good points as always.

but i think that many people do, either consciously or unconsciously, align themselves with various "stereotypes" of what a particular identity group represents--especially when they feel as though their sense of identity is threatened or insecure.

Well, basically, you said it yourself:

There are not only disconnects between philosophical ideals and political realities, but between ideals and social self-identification as well.

But what this research does seem to show is that people who call themselves conservative and claim to believe in traditional values (though I guarantee you they don't always give much thought to what that actually means) seem to have certain other traits in common. Are these findings at all illuminating? I'm not sure, but I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:25 AM on January 9, 2007

I read the article carefully, saulgoodman. The whole point is that few of us, if any, truly self identify. The logic is circular.

ah, gotcha, wgp... agreed.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:27 AM on January 9, 2007

Bush could never have sold the war to the American people had it not been for their post-9/11 desire for retribution.
posted by homunculus at 11:35 AM on January 9, 2007

I just decided to "self-identify" as a "conservative anarchist": I hold to traditional anarchist positions, like refusing to vote for a Presidential candidate even if s/he seems like a lesser evil to G.W. Bush. But I'm considering registering to vote in the next local elections so I might try to have a say in local matters like what the Board of Education and Metro Council do; if I do then I'll have to re-self-identify as something else, like maybe "liberal anarchist".
posted by davy at 11:35 AM on January 9, 2007

Cinnamon Stillwell never thought she'd be the founder of a political organization. She certainly never expected to start a group for conservatives, most of whom became conservatives on the same day—September 11, 2001. She organized the group, the 911 Neocons, as a haven for people like her—"former lefties" who did political 180s after 9/11.

911 Nincompoops would have been much, much more apt.
posted by rougy at 11:54 AM on January 9, 2007

Liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican - one concept to represent thoughts and ideas for every 150m people.

Does anyone besides me find the labels tiresome?
posted by sfts2 at 12:09 PM on January 9, 2007

You know what people who changed their political belifs because of 9/11 are? Pussies.
posted by delmoi at 12:10 PM on January 9, 2007 [3 favorites]

"You know what people who changed their political belifs because of 9/11 are? Pussies."

Right ON.
posted by davy at 12:12 PM on January 9, 2007

Am I the only one who remembers the Bush administration stalling and blocking the investigation?

Guess the 911 Neocons were too busy "getting it" to notice.
posted by rougy at 12:16 PM on January 9, 2007

"Help me daddy, I'm afraid of the big, bad terra!"
posted by nofundy at 12:51 PM on January 9, 2007

nofundy, the Bush administration's spreading of paranoia post-9/11 has been a disaster (and cynically manipulated IMHO), but that dosen't mean that violent Islamic fundamentalists should be blithely dismissed as unimportant, either. Just saying.
posted by jonmc at 1:35 PM on January 9, 2007

Yeah, it really does. You're more likely to die from accidentally ingesting antifreeze from a bus that fell out of an airplane that fell from space than you are to ever be in danger of "the terra." We managed just fine at the brink of nuclear apocalypse for thirty plus years, and now, NOW we're all scared of the ragheaded baddies? Please. America is going through a mid-life crisis or something...
posted by stenseng at 3:09 PM on January 9, 2007 [2 favorites]

“Am I the only one who remembers the Bush administration stalling and blocking the investigation?”

Nope. And yeah - wtf was that? I get the political reality, you don’t want a witch hunt, but if your people drop the ball that badly...
...well, yeah, I guess you do want a witch hunt. Didn’t even blame any of Clinton’s people. Well, until way later. And Clinton too, but he shut that down pretty well. Meanwhile Bushco acts like it couldn’t have been helped. Those terrrrsts are just too darn slick. You’d think people want, y’know, value, in terms of security for the trillions spent on nat’l defense. Not so much I guess.
So the new 9/11 crop, they’re what then? Conservitards? Librawls?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:10 PM on January 9, 2007

Disgusted, she looked elsewhere. She found solace among conservative talk-show hosts and columnists.

Yeah, great. A big-time deep-thinker to begin with. Let 'em have her.
posted by John of Michigan at 3:16 PM on January 9, 2007

So, weapons-grade, how would you structure the study?

Or do you just take the anti-intellectual position that we can't correlate politics and other personality traits at all, and shouldn't bother?

This seems about as ideal a setup as you could get. They never gathered the childhood information with the goal of political categorization in mind, and they went back and asked people about their own politics. They found certain broad correlations, and all you who are pooh-poohing those correlations as representing "liberals good, conservatives bad" -- I'm looking at you, Smedleyman -- are actually buying into cultural biases that liberalism is good. Yes, you, not the study's authors. They simply had people identify, Political Compass style, what they valued.

We know that conservatives value authority, but they usually justify it as e.g. necessary to protect essential liberty. Or national identity. Or life and limb. You guys are the ones saying that's bad, but if you're really conservative, don't you believe it's good?

Now, all that said, a very interesting next step would be to look at political conversions, and outliers. Conversions are nothing new -- for crying out loud, the Republicans used to be the liberal party in the United States. The South used to be solidly Democratic. The upper Midwest used to be the home of "prairie populism" and reliably elect McGovern and Daschle types. More broadly, this could be the start of a What's the Matter with Kansas? investigation, as to how people vote against their economic interests. Certainly the US has continued to be remarkably conservative and has never, except for brief flirtations here and there, been anything remotely socialist in a broad sense. I don't think people are that different in the US, but maybe they are.

Then there's the outliers -- those of you who say those generalizations don't apply to you, but you're still [label]. I, for one, would be fascinated to see the breakdown. Maybe there's one single factor that outweighs all others. Maybe you have a conservative personality but liberal politics or vice versa. I know my childhood more closely matches that spec they gave for Republicans, yet I'm progressive by bent (and the more time I spend with right-wingers the more I'm reminded of why I'm not one). Still, I've never been a man-the-barricades lefty, and that could be why.

I think this is a fertile ground for more research.
posted by dhartung at 3:52 PM on January 9, 2007

Don't forget sense of belonging to a group, which can be quite reassuring.

Similarly, feeling that other people share our toughts make them look more similar to us, therefore less alien, theremore if not more likeable, at least "more like us".

Unfortunately there is a secondary effect: these who don't appear to us as "belonging to our group" or as belonging to "no group" are very easily categorized into being part of "belonging to THEIR group" , which is necessarily a different group.

But "different" does NOT IMPLY "opposed", as bipolar partisan politics often suggest, expecially pundits can't help not calling dhartung a flaming liberal. Wheter this is true or not, is hopelessy irrelevant as the whole point is that of "labeling" the person as "not belonging" and therefore "opposed"

So much time is spent counting irrilevant differences, or making up ones, that could be otherwise spent on more interesting ventures such as, for instance, developing methods to produce energy.
posted by elpapacito at 4:34 PM on January 9, 2007

Or in my case, correcting spelling errors and review vocabulary and english grammar.
posted by elpapacito at 4:36 PM on January 9, 2007

I recently saw someone somewhere say ~ "people who feel anger or a lack of control over their lives are easily manipulated".

Frankly, I always thought that, as a liberal, I was above that sort of manipulation. Since seeing how the statement applies to me personally, I've endeavored to be less thoughtlessly angry, and recognize responsibility for my personal power.

I'm not yet ready to be an independent or moderate though.

*gazes upwards to where strings vanish into shadows*
posted by modernerd at 5:36 PM on January 9, 2007

“are actually buying into cultural biases that liberalism is good.”

Er...yeah. That’s the point. There exists that cultural bias. There’s stereotypes that conservatives are cold hearted businessman money grubbers and/or hard ass war mongers and liberals are peace and love hippy types and neither is true.
And it doesn’t make it reality simply because people self-identify that way. And that’s exactly my assertion - they’re studying a social - not a political, ideological or philosophical - phenomenon, therefore they should use the terms differently. Or indeed, chuck them altogether.
Their terms are relative and being used conflatedly without regard to the complexities involved.
I’d argue one should say “opposition” or “support” as regards the current administration.
That’d be more enlightening.

I self-identify as a conservative, but I’m very much in opposition to this administration. So I’m wrong because really I’m a liberal? Or is it that I fit into the weasel area outside of the “most” they’re putting forth. Or is it, more likely, that Limbaugh and other asshats going around calling themselves “conservative” have nothing at all to do with the ideology or political philosophy of conservativism but that’s become the trademark and these people are buying into it?

"liberals good, conservatives bad"

I said nothing of the kind. Indeed, I asserted a different political focus for each. My argument is that either term as used in the study is useless because it’s not attached to anything beyond someone saying (metaphorically) “I’m on this team” devoid of which playbook, or indeed - which sport is involved.

So, ok, I’m a liberal now. I happen to be pro-gun, but there are pro-gun liberals. I happen to like tradition, but there are traditional liberals. Fuck John Kerry - but there are fuck Kerry liberals. etc. etc.

At what point does one recognize the disconnect between the social term bandied about and the genuine adherance to principle based on a body of thought?
And, really, why the hell didn’t they use “democrat” or “republican”?

I think it’s an excellent topic for research. It just doesn’t seem to have been done well.
I’d rather see a study on what issues people value and where they stand on them and how that correlates to their personality.
E.g. someone who is pro-gun is neat, pro-life folks are messy or like ‘x’ music or what have you.
This Felix Unger/Oscar Madison schtick is simplistic.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2007

I’d rather see a study on what issues people value and where they stand on them and how that correlates to their personality.

This is that study.

You may have issues with the way it was written up, or with your own biases, Smedleyman.

Let me phrase this another way. As a conservative (whether or not you support the administration, which I would agree is not in large part emblematic of conservatism, the defined philosophy), surely you have values, some of which you've stated. Saying that you have those values, which are different from my values, doesn't denigrate your values. I don't see where the denigration is taking place except in your reading.

Surely one could as easily interpret this data as showing that liberals have the "wrong" values, like fuzzy decision-making or excessive concern for the well-being of others.

Or is it just the childhood precis that bugs you?

Certainly one disturbing aspect of this entire field is the idea that it could help one find a magic word, so to speak, that could motivate people to vote one way or another. I'm not entirely sure that's possible or much of an advance on what the parties -- especially Republican -- already do (the whole Lakoff "daddy government" thing).
posted by dhartung at 9:08 PM on January 9, 2007

Smedleyman, I'm afraid it's the self-proclaimed "conservative" leaders rather than the liberals who have defined the terms against you.

Liberals aren't the ones who claimed exclusive rights to intellectualism; conservatives are the ones who abandoned it. Ditto for tolerance, honesty, accountability, and a whole host of other things.

Oh, maybe Bush and his ilk aren't really "conservatives" -- but I never heard anybody challenge his claim to that label, at least not until he became an obvious political liability.
posted by bjrubble at 11:21 PM on January 9, 2007

nofundy, the Bush administration's spreading of paranoia post-9/11 has been a disaster (and cynically manipulated IMHO), but that dosen't mean that violent Islamic fundamentalists should be blithely dismissed as unimportant, either. Just saying.
posted by jonmc

You are correct, terrorism should not be blithely dismissed. It should, however, be put into proper perspective and not be misused, both failings of Bushco. So I feel justified in poking fun at the idiots. How to defeat terrorism: quit being afraid. (no fear, ain't skeered)
posted by nofundy at 5:47 AM on January 10, 2007

"The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11."
posted by homunculus at 10:02 AM on January 10, 2007

Damn homunculus, great link!

Have the neocons (D'Souza) turned into the "Blame America first" crowd? :-]
What a maroon!
posted by nofundy at 11:20 AM on January 10, 2007

“Saying that you have those values, which are different from my values, doesn't denigrate your values. I don't see where the denigration is taking place except in your reading.”

Uh, perhaps it’s your reading skills that are flawed. I never said anything of the kind. I said - repeatedly - I don’t like the use of the terms as such.

“You may have issues with the way it was written up...”

Which, yeah, is what I did actually say.

“Certainly one disturbing aspect of this entire field is the idea that it could help one find a magic word...”

Yep. Fear seems to work.

“Oh, maybe Bush and his ilk aren't really "conservatives" -- but I never heard anybody challenge his claim to that label”

Then you haven’t paid much attention to that...or did you miss that bit where “liberal” became - socially - something of a perjorative? Yeah, I didn’t much like that either. A liberal is a liberal because of philosophy and values, not because of some outward social indicators. (Hell, Coulter went to Grateful Dead concerts. She’s not a liberal. And really, not a conservative either, I don’t in fact see any principles beyond serving herself.) But it seems to me there was wide agreement by the old-guard conservatives that the term had been fully co-opted more than 10 years ago. But my point being, those terms themseves have been manipulated and as such are less accurate/useful than other terms. I’m not arguing wrong, right, or by who, or indeed, given your perception, how loudly, publicly or successfully.
Seems to me the authors took sets of values people said they had and grouped those as “liberal” or “conservative” depending on the current social use of the term rather than how they align with any philosophy. What you say you are and say you value is one thing, what you do, how you vote, where you send money, is another. Whether you listen to right or left wing talk radio isn’t a ‘value.’ Now maybe the study is far more scientific, I wouldn’t know I’m not a sociologist or anything. I’m just commenting on how the article reads. And I assure you accusing me of lacking a clear perspective on this - or having my personal bias interfering - isn’t worthwhile. Especially since my comments are easily checked upthread.
But to restate - there are flaws and merits in both liberal and conservative ideologies. Those are irrelevent here. There may well be personality traits that can be aligned with why someone chooses a particular ethos. When labeling any given ethos one should make sure not only the ideological core is put into action by the subject, but that the label itself is not too wide, varied, encompasing, etc. There are plenty of nuances in both liberal and conservative philosophies and liberals have vehimently disagreed with fellow liberals over the most elementary topics within the “liberal” spectrum (the same is true of conservatives).
Therefore it would make more sense to me to use narrower, more sharply defined terms and align them with the values to explicate the complexities involved - particularly because these labels as used sweep from ideological principle to political action.
Otherwise one runs the risk of such a study being used to cast a negative shadow on whatever broad group or groups concerned.
Indeed, one could even, in asserting the validity of the study, attack critics on the basis that they are prejudiced because they identify with one of the broadly cast net groupings.

Case in point:
“ Liberals aren't the ones who claimed exclusive rights to intellectualism; conservatives are the ones who abandoned it. Ditto for tolerance, honesty, accountability, and a whole host of other things.”

Indeed, all “conservatives” did that? Not one disagreed? And if they did disagree, are they still “conservatives”? Was there then a large shift in ideology away from tolerance, honestly, etc.? Or was it a change in the political power structure?
You see - I’m not disagreeing with the statement there, because in a very real sense that’s what did happen. But that’s what happened politically, not ideologically.
Let’s switch out the terms to, say, Kantians -

“Spinozans aren't the ones who claimed exclusive rights to intellectualism; Kantians are the ones who abandoned it. Ditto for tolerance, honesty, accountability, and a whole host of other things.”

You see, there is a difference between the group socially calling itself “Kantians” and the actual Kantian philosophy, and - more importantly - the values we ascribe to them.

The more reasonable term(s) to use for the study would have been the political parties under which a variety of ideologies and a variety of iterations of them are practiced.

Indeed, most of my work in Illinois has been with third parties. I see no conflict in holding a conservative philosophy (which does tend toward preservation) and supporting the Green party which has as part of it’s platform environmental conservation. But in terms of this study, I’m not a Green, I’m a “conservative”. Well, Ann Coulter is a “conservative” and so is Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of others. I’ve seen no evidence they work for the Green party. Their work seems to be exclusively for the Republican party - and in fact - whatever that platform may be regardless of whether it’s actually conservative or not.
Al Gore is a “liberal.” So is Al Franken. And yet all their work has been to support the Democratic party and it’s platform. Now perhaps Franken hasn’t towed every line the Dems put out, but he’s talking about running as a Dem. And Gore supported one of the most conservative Democrats (Clinton) the country has had.
This study doesn’t - seems to me - recognize that disconnect between those terms and political action, etc.
I don’t know if all that’s clear. And perhaps my analysis is flawed given I’m not an academic or a sociologist and don’t have primary evidence and such. But I know what I’m not seeing here and it’s not any distaste or bias on my part.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:51 PM on January 10, 2007

“The more reasonable term(s) to use for the study would have been the political parties...”

To clarify - in this case, and without more sharply defining the links between values one puts into action and whatever personality trait. So if they said “Republicans are more neat” and “Democrats are messy” I’d’ve been fine with it. Because there’s enough play in those terms that is married to political action and compromise that it’s a more worthwhile social indicator. As stated above today’s democrat was yesterdays republican - so the context works better than with something linked to a philosophy. “Democrat” or “Republican” shifts with the times and the context shifts with it. So you can lump “republicans” in with Limbaugh - because even if Joe Republican and Limbaugh have different ideals, they’re rowing the same boat. So - same result either way.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:02 PM on January 10, 2007

It takes a lot of rejecting of peers and authority figures to grow up in Berkeley but still self-identify as a conservative by as early as 23 years old. I bet being an anti-social and put-upon child is probably helpful in developing the requisite disposition to think for one's self.

If you did a study of pre-schoolers in the opposite-of-Berkeley environment (say, a nice upscale suburb of Houston), I bet you find the opposite (or, really, the same) result: the more socially-well-adapted the pre-schooler, the more likely the young adult to be a conservative.

I'm as right-wing as they come and I share the suspicion of people who became conservative as a result of 9/11: they're sentimentalists, and I wonder what the next big event will lead them to believe. For those who considered it carefully, there was nothing paradigm changing about 9/11. If anything, 9/11 was very good for confirming political views of all sorts.

Still, it's not all suprising for a person who changes allegiances on one issue to start to change their views to match up with those with whom they have an allegiance on their most important issue. You respect someone with whom you share your most important belief, and it's easy to be persuaded by them on other things, particularly when you disrespect those who are arguing the other way.
posted by MattD at 5:51 PM on January 10, 2007