Scientists Are Beginning To Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative

[hue]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias

Ten years ago, it was wildly controversial to talk about psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Today, it's becoming hard not to.

You could be forgiven for not having browsed yet through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you'll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called "Open Peer Commentary": An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it, and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics.

That's a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics—upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests; and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway).

The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. In the process, Hibbing et al. marshall a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it.)

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

[samsingh]

1. i would think lower intelligence or a tendency for being sociopaths - little empathy

extreme self centeredness

[blkmusclmachine]

34. ^This. But on a GOOD day.^

[jimlup]

2. Is there a "stupid" gene

I mean I understand the "fear" thing but it seems to me that at this point in our history it goes far beyond that. Gullible and stupid seem to me to be the functioning reason most of the voters who vote for the conservatives do what they do.

[whistler162]

25. Must be if people actually believe

these "articles"/"studies"!

[BillZBubb]

32. You don't like science?

What about the studies confirming Global Warming? Is someone stupid who believes them?

[whistler162]

40. This is as much science as the

science used to show that African Americans and Jews where of low intelligence.

Please proceed!

[BillZBubb]

43. Baloney.

You are trying to equate modern techniques with the prejudicial hand waving of nearly 100 years ago.
That is wrong.

This is indeed science.

You may not like the conclusions. Many won't, but there will be follow up studies that will either verify or refute this one. That is how modern science works.

[whistler162]

45. I am sure that was the excuse used

for the other "studies". No this is not modern science this is hate pure and simple.

again please proceed. You are about 4 feet down now keep digging!

[Springslips]

70. I am with you whistler...

As much as I can't stand conservative thought, I do not see where the studies findings relate to conserves only. I see liberals and myself have the exact same psychology. Conserves and liberal just focuses it on different things. For instance, instead of fearing undocumented workers we fear the NSA. Or look at this:

. . .published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that...

It seems your critic is just as needing certainty and is intolerant of the ambiguity of your statement. "This science is certain; I don't want to hear another opinion."

I predict these finding will not hold up over time. Peer review will show them to be simple human characteristic we all share.

[AzNick]

62. Everybody is of low intelligence. I have the science.

I can prove it to you by showing that it's true. It has two lines, one goes up, one goes down.

Science, I swear.

[AzNick]

63. I agree, liberals are well informed and fearless

Science.

[Triana]

3. Basically, conservatives exhibit a more "neanderthal" response to

negative stimuli ie: disturbing images and are more prone to fear. They want certainty (not knowledge). IOW, they're still pretty much knuckle-draggers.

[cantbeserious]

4. Albeit - Less Evolved And Sophisticated

eom

[Gore1FL]

6. I don't know if "less evolved" is a thing

Evolution is adaptation to an environment. It doesn't really have a quantitative more/less unless you count the species who did not survive as "less."

[Enthusiast]

22. True. The environment will determine which traits are most valuable

in the long term.

[blkmusclmachine]

36. Whoever has the most bombs, wins.

[Cal33]

44. Uh-oh! Most Republicans have guns, many Democrats don't. :)

[MillennialDem]

56. Not sure if there is something else going on with this post, but

bombs and vehicles are more important than guns.

[AzNick]

64. Guns make you conservative.

Which is why we liberals don't have guns and will trust the police all the time.

[daleanime]

5. Kick....

[tridim]

7. It's simpler than that. They believe everything they hear from party approved corporate sources.

No questions asked, ever.

The party approved corporate sources understand this and proceed to exploit the hell out of them.

[BillZBubb]

33. But perhaps those messages merely exploit their predispositions.

The don't question because the message fits their innate belief system.

If not, you still have to explain WHY they unquestioningly believe what they are told.

[AzNick]

59. While MSNBC and HuffPO are corporate approved party sources?

It is not like these guys don't have big corporate donors, advertisers and underwriters.

[jaxind]

8. My Own Little Theory

I've had this theory for the past year or so that if you took a large number of people and put them into a room, and asked all the people who were bullies in their middle and high school years to step to the right side of the room, and then asked each of them what political party they belong to, I bet you anything every one of them on that right side of the room, would say they are Republicans!

[underpants]

28. Something I use often - irony and non-offensive satire

If I am meeting someone or in a group an ironic statement (even a corny one) gets response from people who later turn out to be non-conservative. Left or more middle. A smile, nod of the head, something.

Conservatives - nothing. Blank stare. Nothing just happened.

I have seen it time and time again. This sort of equates with the certainty and structure element in this article.

I don't always say the ironic or sarcastic (not about someone present or not just general sarcasm) but if it happens I look around. I'd say it is about 90% accurate.

[BillZBubb]

35. Anecdotally, I agree.

I have notices the same thing. Conservatives definitely don't get satire and often have no sense of humor--unless the "humor" involves belittling another group of people.

[stillwaiting]

9. They are very scared children. Jesus does not seem to deliver them from their fear. nt

[hue]

16. They are TERRIFIED of Women!! They seek to suppress Women at every opportunity!

[The Wizard]

10. If you mix cognitive dissonance with

anal retention you get the conservative thought process. And add a spoonful of unmitigated self loathing.

[nxylas]

11. Aaand the response to a scholarly, peer-reviewed article is...

...knee-jerk prejudices and ill-informed opinions. All, ironically, based on the assumption that liberals are more intelligent, open-minded and questioning than conservatives.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. I think it's apparent that liberals are more openminded and curious.

That much is inherent in the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative".

[hue]

20. Your above response is also knee jerk.Each DU'er has their own education, opinion, level of response

This is a discussion forum. Any problems with that??

[whistler162]

26. Well those studies in Germany

during the 1920's and 30's where peer-reviewed and those peer-reviewed studies of the intellect of races other that white come to mind.

But, the gullible are out there.

[BillZBubb]

37. Wow, I am certainly glad someone stepped up to defend the conservatives!

OK, not really.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. That's very "bi-partisan" of you.

[valerief]

12. All this and whatever their pastors tell them, too. nt

[eggplant]

13. So this would explain why our FEMA camps to re-educate them aren't working.

Praying away the neocon just doesn't work, apparently. It's not just a lifestyle choice.

You do all realize that with this evidence, the neocons can argue for equal rights, and to stop being oppressed or otherwise harassed. But there is still time -- we can get laws through our legislatures to make neocon marriage illegal, and just hope that the Supremes uphold our view, in you know what I mean.

[underpants]

30. LOL

I got a new job about a year ago. As per usual it is with either a company no one has ever heard of or some uncommon industry. My buddies ask, "Okay WHERE are you working again?" This time I looked around and said, "I probably shouldn't say this but .... those FEMA camps aren't going to build themselves"*

One if my buddies has a running 1/2 joke that I am CIA. I'm not.

* I read the FEMA camp joke here on DU

[nikto]

47. "Praying away the neocon just doesn't work"

I agree.

But what about beating it away?

Starving it away?

Working at hard-labor around-the-clock might chase it away, also.

And there's always blow-torching it away.
But that uses too much petroleum-based fuel.

[eggplant]

49. All interesting alternatives

Beating it away could be cost offset by making the beating a structured exercise program covered under the ACA.

Starving it away would really take far too long, given the amount of fat they have to live on in the meantime.

I'm on the fence about hard labor. These people would require job training that, although available free of charge, I just don't think they would have the knack.

I do like the blow torching idea, but I agree about the issues with fuel. Perhaps some sort of concentrated solar energy alternative. Or we could just strap them to the blades on a wind farm.

I think simply forcing them to watch Teletubbies 24 hours a day while sitting in a giant ball pit until they repent might be enough, though.

[nikto]

50. After a few weeks of 24-Hr Teletubbies...

They'll all commit suicide.

[AzNick]

60. Would you beat people you disagree with?

If yes, would you do it for free or for a fee?

[eggplant]

66. I would consider outsourcing it (well, keeping it in the US at least)

but as to whom, it would depend. I would want the jobs to go to Americans first, but I'd be willing to consider issuing H1-B visas to the incoming refugees for this purpose -- at least until their refugee paperwork was done.

But I don't think it is fair to expect people to beat neocons for free, no matter how enjoyable it might be. I would prefer collective bargaining for this. I'd even be open for this with the neocons themselves, if they could somehow manage to form a union. Progress is progress, after all.

[AzNick]

67. Please define neocons

By my definition, they are a small group of select few who live in well protected ivory towers.

[eggplant]

69. This should help.

http://bit.ly/1ruYtiu

[HockeyMom]

14. Chemical Imbalance in their Brains?

I always thought it was that.

[hue]

17. Ha! But is that the result or the cause of their skewed thinking/perceptions?

[nikto]

48. The chemical imbalance Conservatives have in their brains is...

Not enough blood, too little Oxygen.

[icarusxat]

15. There are many reasons for bullying behavior...

A short list of the motivations behind bullying include:
• Sense of empowerment
• Low self esteem
• Frustration
• Anger
• Passing the bullying inflicted by others along
• Gender based
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Yearning to belong
• Perceived peer expectations
• Establishing identity
• Drama
• Parental expectations
• Fear of self
• Fear of the outside world
• Yearning to feel
• Testing the boundaries
• Desire to control
• Habit
• Boredom
• Sense of belonging if there is group involvement
• Lack of higher purpose
• Mental defect
• Coveting
• Confusion
• Desire to change the social order
• Cry for help
• Hormonal onset
• Curiosity
• Payback
• Peer pressure
• Establish leadership
• Establish control
• Inclusion
• Exclusion
• Just plain meanness
• Attempted gene pool domination
• Jealousy
• Fun
• Entertaining others
• Desire to be the center of attention
• Outward appearance of victim
• Outward appearance of self
• Sexual orientation
• Disability
• Dehumanization
• Ignorance
Obviously, with so many underlying causes there is not going to be any one size fits all solution.

Kent W. Thompson, PhD

[TygrBright]

21. On some level, almost all of those "causes" derive from a 'fear' motivation.

Fear of personal inadequacy, manifested as fear of others, need to dominate others, need to self-inflate the ego, etc.

reductively,
Bright

[albino65]

18. Don't forget the stupidity genes which they have in abundance n/t

[Cleita]

23. Hmm. I always thought if given IQ tests, the righties scores would be lower as

a demographic, but I don't know if anyone has put this theory to a test.

[BillZBubb]

39. There is a high proportion of liberals in those with advanced degrees.

That has been demonstrated. On IQ, I don't know of any study showing a liberal edge.

I would be surprised it there was a significant difference. One could have a high IQ and still be susceptible to a conservative mythology that played on ones fears and reinforced ones prejudices.

[eridani]

53. Not sure about that. Does lack of empathy affect overall intelligence?

I haven't seen any research backing that.

[Cleita]

57. Neither have I. I wish someone who could would.

My observation has been that a lot of my right wing acquaintances, many of who do have empathy, seem to not understand that we need to be inclusive to succeed as a government and even a species. They believe whatever they are told and that seems to be because of a lack of critical thinking on their part.

[Springslips]

71. It is doubtful to me. . .

That figuring out that the triangle is the continuation of a pattern relates to ideology in any meaningful way. A sociopath can score high on an IQ test, that doesn't make him/ her more likely to be a liberal.

When we perceive stupidity from our con friends we are watching cognitive dissonance at work. There favorite method of alleviating that is to pretend they didn't hear it. That doesn't mean they have a low IQ.

[BlueJazz]

24. As George C Scott said in the movie "Patton" > "They're Yellow-bellys."

Terrified of everything and everybody.
So scared to die that they'll make up anything to fool their own mind.

[AzNick]

61. Terrified of what for instance?

I am writing a book about things that conservatives are terrified of.

Reversely, liberals are fearless, as we know.

[BlueJazz]

65. Small example>> The Liberals I know (who have children) let them live the way...

..that most children have lived for generations.
The play in dirt, mud and God knows what. They allow their 8-15 year old children to walk to their friends house, even if it's a mile or 2 away.
If the kid gets a cold, well...it's a cold...big deal.
Conservatives seem to see danger at every corner.
"Look at your hands...let me get the Sani-Wipes."
"You're not walking that far...something can happen"
"Come on, I'll take you to the Doctor...I heard that sneeze"

You may asked, how do I know so many people?
I'm a MCSE and a Tech and all that crap and I go in people's homes constantly and while I certainly LIKE a lot of conservatives, I find them scared of a lot of things that most people just take for granted as "part of life"

[AzNick]

68. So why are liberals more and more for a police state where children belong to the community?

The storm trooper type police tactics have been on the rise.

Kids cannot be kids anymore:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/dad-arrested-son-skips-church_n_5544661.html

I used to be able to walk half a mile or even miles at that age, but now under the Obama regime, this is becoming less and less possible. We live in a bubble wrap society where the children belong to the community:

[BlueJazz]

73. The children are suppose to be helped by the community.

Obama didn't start the atmosphere where (almost) everybody is more afraid to live... The right wing press started down that nasty road with Ronnie Reagan and his welfare queen in a Cadillac, which was an outright lie.
Republicans would destroy half the country and society if it meant a few more dollars in their pocket.
Yes, they're truly that selfish and insecure.

[tea and oranges]

27. This is a topic to which I've devoted much thought

I've come to believe the brain of the authoritarian is different.

Fortunately, there's not that many of them, perhaps 30% of the species. But they have an advantage over non-authoritarians in that they're willing to do things nons wouldn't.

One of their most stunning characteristics is that they don't get hypocrisy. Their brains are wired to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. This is so normal to them, that they get confused & angry when accused of hypocrisy.

Their hands developed to grasp rather than caress. They regard all humans not in their pack to be predators after the same limited resources. This is why all the snarling, snapping, need for weapons, hatred.

They are, for the non-authoritarians: our cross to bear, our albatross, our original sin, our snake in the garden. It is they who love war, uniforms, to be powerful, own vast wealth, & increasingly, to be above the law. They are willing to do almost anything to meet their goals. Bullying & outright lies, smearing any who dare cross them.

Whenever in power, they use it, not for the common good, but for destruction to benefit the few like them.

I'm fucking sick of them.

[underpants]

29. Hypocrisy yes

I posted above on irony and sarcasm. Good post tea and oranges!

[packman]

31. Fox and Fear

Fox peddles it, conservatives buy it up. The statement " centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns" is the Fox mantra.

In my lifetime, conservatives have pushed the fear of:

Communists
Hippies
Old people - those entitlements
Blacks
Not being religious enough
The government
Arabs
Women
Mexicans

and this is just the short list

and ignored or denied the real fears of:

Poverty
Climate change
Guns
Falling wages/standard of living

Again a short list

[Avalux]

41. Fear is their only god. n/t

[nikto]

46. Peace on Earth will be un-attainable until...

All Conservatives finally evolve into opossums, crawl under a log,
and stay there.

[Kablooie]

52. But opossums hang from branches.

I don't want to see conservatives hanging from all my trees.
Make them evolve into something else.

Though it will be pretty hard to convince them to evolve into anything.

[Kablooie]

51. Interesting that conservatives have a negativity bias but liberal don't have a positivity bias.

Liberals can even have a similar negativity bias.
They said that conservatism is more concretely defined than liberalism.

I read this in skimming one of the papers that the article is based on.

[Gothmog]

54. This is a very interesting study

Conservatives are indeed different from normal people

[raccoon]

55. IME, conservatives don't think deeply. They rarely re-consider their own opinions and/or change

their opinions. They just have their beliefs about religion or whatever, and that's that. For life.

[DESchiller]

58. Are They Really Conservatives?

I think the term "conservative" is not an apt label to pin on most right-wingers in the United States today. Edmund Burke, widely considered to be the founder of modern conservatism, championed many causes that were quite progressive for the time and place in which he lived, including the American revolution, the abolition of the slave trade, Catholic emancipation, and parliamentary reform to eliminate the "rotten boroughs". He saw change, when needed, as a necessary element in preserving the integrity of traditional institutions. The modern American "conservative movement" owes a lot to the publication of The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk. Yet, by the end of his life, Kirk was thoroughly disillusioned by what American "conservatism" had become. We should draw a distinction between genuine conservatism and the kind of knee-jerk anti-liberalism espoused by Rush Limbaugh et al.

[Springslips]

72. Classic definitions.

Classic conservatism, the kind that Burke advocated, was based on the idea that humans are basically bad, the Hobbian dog eat dog is our basic nature. So to maintain civilization, a strong government must exist.

Classic liberalism is that man's nature is basically good, and we need less government and more freedom.

Today con and libs are actually a mixture of both the classic types.

Which mean today's ideology is a myth, there's no idea beneath them. For instance, conserves like liberal free-marketism. It is called liberal because they believe man would choose correctly as said by the classic definition of liberalism.

[Iceberg Louie]

74. While I have no doubt that both sides would love to lay claim to an IQ bias

the study in to OP better explains a quantifiable difference between the two mindsets. The puppetmasters along the whole spectrum of modern conservatism (from Chamber of Commerce chickenhawks to 'Murica-lovin' teabillies) have consistently demonstrated smarts and savvy in whipping up their respective sectors of public support. The common thread among their strategies has been fear. Fear of change. Fear of ambiguous threats. Fear of "others". While they mix up the window dressing with each new wave, the CON-servatives have skillfully used the same basic tactic. Whether it was Joe McCarthy slurring and hiccuping over the "red menace", Reagan tapping the threat of "welfare queens" to "states' rights", Little Bush greasing the wheels of his re-election by defending "traditional marriage", or Palin-ites convincing themselves that the current president is a secret African, fear has been a powerful motivator for a certain swath of society. The same fear that drove the KKK to their massive power grab in the 20's (and all the societally sanctioned atrocities that came with it) today drives neo-Posse Comitatus to declare martial law in Bunkerville and Murietta. And where that irrational reactionary mindset remains, there will always be craven parasites eager to exploit that fear.

An arguably fair criticism of liberalism may be the naive collectivist idealism that often comes with it. Admittedly, I sometimes find the smugness and self-righteousness a bit distasteful (both sides are guilty of this). However, at the end of the day, I will always have more respect for those driven by compassion and social justice than those who channel fear and paranoia into hatred.