No surprise: Liberals are empathetic and compassionate, conservatives love orderliness

[andym]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/1006091113...

ScienceDaily (June 10, 2010) — There is a strong relationship between a voter's politics and his personality, according to new research from the University of Toronto. Researchers at UofT have shown that the psychological concern for compassion and equality is associated with a liberal mindset, while the concern for order and respect of social norms is associated with a conservative mindset.

"Conservatives tend to be higher in a personality trait called orderliness and lower in openness. This means that they're more concerned about a sense of order and tradition, expressing a deep psychological motive to preserve the current social structure," says Jacob Hirsh, a post-doctoral psychology student at UofT and lead author of the study.
....
"Our data shows that liberalism is more often associated with the underlying motives for compassion, empathy and equality," says Hirsh.
....
People's values are deeply embedded in their biology and genetic heritage," says UofT Professor and co-author Jordan Peterson. "This means you have to take a deeper view of political values and morality in terms of where these motives are coming from; political preferences do not emerge from a simple rational consideration of the issues."
--------------
Perhaps explains why dialog is very difficult between strong liberals and conservatives. Fundamental personality differences are difficult to bridge

--> reposted from science forum, after suggestion from a DUer to post here so more people can see this.

[YOY]

1. If they love orderliness they sure don't act like it.

Unless it's the fascist kind of order where everyone knows their place...

[andym]

2. I think any kind of "order"/structure would count

fascism can be considered a form of extreme conservatism after all.

[housewolf]

6. If you think of "order" as "everyone being in their place"

or a sense of authoritarianism (which is dependent upon a view that sees humanity in a hierarchial mode), than I think it's quite fitting

[housewolf]

3. Updated link

The link listed in the OP to the originating article didn't work

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111312.htm

Interesting article, validates the common wisdom of "bleeding heart" liberalism

"People's values are deeply embedded in their biology and genetic heritage," says UofT Professor and co-author Jordan Peterson. "This means you have to take a deeper view of political values and morality in terms of where these motives are coming from; political preferences do not emerge from a simple rational consideration of the issues."

Peterson argues that in order to maintain a functioning society, both types of political motivation are required.

"The fact that variability still exists in these motivational systems, from an evolutionary perspective, means that neither one is sufficient on its own. There are costs and benefits to each political profile and both appear critical to maintaining an effective balance in society."

[Duer 157099]

4. Anal retentive is probably apt

Since they are so full of shit

[Skinner]

5. I was reading a book about evolutionary psychology, which included a short tangent about ideology.

The author argued that political ideology is essentially a form of "signaling" to broadcast our personality traits. We tell people we believe X, Y, and Z, or that we vote for a particular political party because we are trying to show the type of person that we are.

The author suggests this is why it is usually pointless to try to change anyone's political opinions. Most of us don't come by our opinions "honestly" by weighing the empirical evidence and then deciding. Instead, we hold a particular point of view because it "fits" our personality and "signals" the type of person we are.

I must admit that after running DU for nearly 10 years, I have reluctantly come to agree that trying to persuade people to change their opinions usually is pointless. Not sure I buy his argument. But it has given me something to think about.

[bik0]

7. Sounds like a good read...

Name of the book?

[hadrons]

8. what's the name of the book?

[Skinner]

9. "Spent" by Geoffrey Miller.

Subtitle is: "Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior"

To be honest, I would only give it a lukewarm recommendation.