NationStates Jolt Archive

offered for your perusal (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554)
Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.
Now, as with all studies of this sort, there's not a one-to-one correlation between whininess in childhood and conservatism in later life--the best the study says is that there's a study says:
Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.I'm certainly no expert in the social sciences--I'm posting this largely for the adolescent giggle factor because it's getting late and I ought to be grading papers instead of fucking around on NS.

There is another way to read the results, the author of the article notes, one conservatives will no doubt flock to.
Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.
So feel free to stick your tongues out back at us. :D

This can all be explained by the fact that the study was done in primarily liberal Berkely. The more secure, "normal" kids fit into the crowd and were liberal. The kids who were whiny and insecure and usually cast out and ignored questioned their classmates beliefs and ended up conservative. All it's really saying is outcasts are insecure.

The thing I find most fascinating about this kind of study isn't so much the results as it is the fact that people start these studies not knowing if they'll ever see the results, much less what the results will be. I mean, there's a lot of people living today who won't be alive in 20 years. In a society seemingly built around instant everything, the idea that you'd be willing to wait that long or longer to find out what's happening in a study seems, well, odd. But in a good way.

This can all be explained by the fact that the study was done in primarily liberal Berkely. The more secure, "normal" kids fit into the crowd and were liberal. The kids who were whiny and insecure and usually cast out and ignored questioned their classmates beliefs and ended up conservative. All it's really saying is outcasts are insecure.
always possible. It is always important to remember correlation /= causation.
It is pretty interesting tho.

offered for your perusal (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554)

Now, as with all studies of this sort, there's not a one-to-one correlation between whininess in childhood and conservatism in later life--the best the study says is that there's a study says:
I'm certainly no expert in the social sciences--I'm posting this largely for the adolescent giggle factor because it's getting late and I ought to be grading papers instead of fucking around on NS.

There is another way to read the results, the author of the article notes, one conservatives will no doubt flock to.

So feel free to stick your tongues out back at us. :D
I listened to that earlier today. F*cking hilarious!!!
:D

always possible. It is always important to remember correlation /= causation.
It is pretty interesting tho.
Yeah, I'm always careful about how seriously I take these studies for that reason, and because it's too easy to pigeonhole groups using that sort of thinking. Dennis Miller had an observation about racism that can easily be extended to political groups or any other social construct that divides people. He said, "Why should I hate a person because of the color of his skin when I can get to know him and have a far better reason to hate him?"

Yeah, I'm always careful about how seriously I take these studies for that reason, and because it's too easy to pigeonhole groups using that sort of thinking. Dennis Miller had an observation about racism that can easily be extended to political groups or any other social construct that divides people. He said, "Why should I hate a person because of the color of his skin when I can get to know him and have a far better reason to hate him?"
haha...that quote gets me every time.
Most people don't really understand statistics and research methods, so its always good to remind them to take everything with a grain of salt.

This is soooo funny!
And really explains PM Harper... c'mon... lookit the guy... he was obviously the target of bullying... or shoulda been. ;)

Pinko commie liberal propaganda I say.

Pinko commie liberal propaganda I say.
better than fascist nazi propaganda:D

Mommy tells me I was a good baby.

better than fascist nazi propaganda:D
Well at least this is amusing in its utter and sheer ridiculousness. :p

Pinko commie liberal propaganda I say.
Considering how badly liberals get their asses beat in most elections, we must have the shittiest propaganda machine in existence, and yet it manages to inspire such fear in conservatives...go figure.

I would guess it's mostly cultural, not ideological. If you compared left-libertarians to right-libertarians, I doubt the same results would ensue.

Well at least this is amusing in its utter and sheer ridiculousness. :p
Actually, i think Cutty Sarkhaan has gotcha there:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/rumsfeld_steps_.html

Originally posted: March 20, 2006
Rumsfeld steps on Nazi landmine
Posted by William Neikirk at 4:42 pm CST

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, created a major uproar last year when he compared the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with the treatment of World War II prisoners by Nazi Germany and other infamous regimes. The criticism became so harsh that Durbin was forced to apologize. "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," Durbin said as he told the nation he was sorry.

In an op-ed article in Sunday's Washington Post, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote: "Turning out backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great as disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet dominaton because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries."

Durbin learned his lesson the hard way that it is politically risky to make the Nazi comparison to any kind of modern horror, especially when U.S. forces are involved. The defense chief's remarks were carefully thought out, as he penned an article on the third anniversary of the war in an effort to make a pitch for staying the course. Rumsfeld, known for carefully choosing his words, clearly took great rhetorical risks to make a point.

"Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vaccum--and the free world might not have the will to face them again," he wrote. This is, of course, the nightmare scenario for Iraq, which in the administration's view could become safe haven for terrorists everywhere. But such language clashes with other administration statements--that the situation on the ground is improving, and that fears of a civil war in Iraq are overblown.

Rumsfeld's Nazi comparison produced criticism from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.

"You know, that is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," Brzezinski said on CNN. "When we occupied Germany in '45, there was no alternative to our presence. There was no resistance. The Germans were totally crushed. There was no resistance.

"And a great many Germans realized that they had to go back to the democracy that they had before Hitler came to power. And many people don't know that Germany was a thriving democracy for decades before Hitler came to power.

"The situation in Iraq is totally different. And for Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has urged withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, called Rumsfeld's remarks irresponsible. Rumsfeld's Nazi statement also was the topic of critics on blogs and talk shows.

Yet the defense chief is not one to yield so quickly to criticism. He obviously believes what he says, and he is not running for anything. He seems happy to be the lightning rod for the administration on the Iraq war, even if means using the Nazi connection to help make his point.

Considering how badly liberals get their asses beat in most elections, we must have the shittiest propaganda machine in existence, and yet it manages to inspire such fear in conservatives...go figure.
Not all Conservatives are born with the power to breathe fire and to withstand even the mightiest blow of the liberal sword. Some are just weak.

I would guess it's mostly cultural, not ideological. If you compared left-libertarians to right-libertarians, I doubt the same results would ensue.
Yes, but then we are talking about intelligent individuals. ;) :p

Actually, i think Cutty Sarkhaan has gotcha there:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/rumsfeld_steps_.html

Originally posted: March 20, 2006
Rumsfeld steps on Nazi landmine
Posted by William Neikirk at 4:42 pm CST

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, created a major uproar last year when he compared the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay with the treatment of World War II prisoners by Nazi Germany and other infamous regimes. The criticism became so harsh that Durbin was forced to apologize. "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," Durbin said as he told the nation he was sorry.

In an op-ed article in Sunday's Washington Post, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote: "Turning out backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great as disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet dominaton because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries."

Durbin learned his lesson the hard way that it is politically risky to make the Nazi comparison to any kind of modern horror, especially when U.S. forces are involved. The defense chief's remarks were carefully thought out, as he penned an article on the third anniversary of the war in an effort to make a pitch for staying the course. Rumsfeld, known for carefully choosing his words, clearly took great rhetorical risks to make a point.

"Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vaccum--and the free world might not have the will to face them again," he wrote. This is, of course, the nightmare scenario for Iraq, which in the administration's view could become safe haven for terrorists everywhere. But such language clashes with other administration statements--that the situation on the ground is improving, and that fears of a civil war in Iraq are overblown.

Rumsfeld's Nazi comparison produced criticism from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.

"You know, that is really absolutely crazy to anyone who knows history," Brzezinski said on CNN. "When we occupied Germany in '45, there was no alternative to our presence. There was no resistance. The Germans were totally crushed. There was no resistance.

"And a great many Germans realized that they had to go back to the democracy that they had before Hitler came to power. And many people don't know that Germany was a thriving democracy for decades before Hitler came to power.

"The situation in Iraq is totally different. And for Secretary Rumsfeld to be talking this way suggests either he doesn't know history or he's simply demagoguing."

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who has urged withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, called Rumsfeld's remarks irresponsible. Rumsfeld's Nazi statement also was the topic of critics on blogs and talk shows.

Yet the defense chief is not one to yield so quickly to criticism. He obviously believes what he says, and he is not running for anything. He seems happy to be the lightning rod for the administration on the Iraq war, even if means using the Nazi connection to help make his point.
haha...very nice.

PS, you have a TG.

Not all Conservatives are born with the power to breathe fire and to withstand even the mightiest blow of the liberal sword. Some are just weak.
wait...liberals get a sword while conservatives get to breathe fire?!

SIGN ME UP!

*snip*
I stand corrected. :eek: Then again, he is American, and then yet again, he is Republican. They have yet to see the Truth that is libertarianism.

wait...liberals get a sword while conservatives get to breathe fire?!

SIGN ME UP!
If you're okay with the scales and the horns, then fine.

*Hands you a form*

I would guess it's mostly cultural, not ideological. If you compared left-libertarians to right-libertarians, I doubt the same results would ensue.

i don't know - half the people who self-identify as libertarians ("yay capitalism" sense) give me the impression of people barely restraining their authoritarian impulses. for example, get them talking about labor unions and a good chunk will come out swinging to have them outlawed.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country.

I'd give a larger, nationwide study credibility. This one just doesn't cut it for me.


The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?

Coming from the standpoint of a social scientist, these questions would seem to be very important to me.

Hmmm, Berkeley in the 60's. Be interesting to track parental factors as well. But they didn't. 10:1 says most if not all of the parents were hippies, communists, or both. In which case it could just as much be seen as rebellion as anything else. The number of kids studied makes it suspect, as well as the limited area. And then of course there's this gem:

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

Of course the flipping results hold. They're not going to magically change on him. Unless he fudged his results and later the real ones get out. And then there's this:

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

Pretty much anthing below 1/3, preferably 1/2 can be ignored in strictly correlational studies, especially ones as casually done as this one. It's a very weak correlation at best.

It would also have been interesting if they had tracked other factors like bullying throughout the course of the study. Instead they had two plotting points, with several decades between them. Hardly anything to base conclusions on.

I'd give a larger, nationwide study credibility. This one just doesn't cut it for me.


Coming from the standpoint of a social scientist, these questions would seem to be very important to me.
It would be nice to see a study like that--but who would fund it? Especially these days when there seems to be a quite anti-intellectual bent throughout the US, especially toward the social sciences and the arts.

i don't know - half the people who self-identify as libertarians ("yay capitalism" sense) give me the impression of people barely restraining their authoritarian impulses. for example, get them talking about labor unions and a good chunk will come out swinging to have them outlawed.

Right, but you don't see them going around calling non-heterosexuals perverts and insisting that women work in the home. That's suggestive of the sort of insecurity referred to in the article; the sort of elitism many right-libertarians engage in is a different phenomenon.

Right, but you don't see them going around calling non-heterosexuals perverts and insisting that women work in the home. That's suggestive of the sort of insecurity referred to in the article; the sort of elitism many right-libertarians engage in is a different phenomenon.
Indeed. We are definitely a lot less scary than most social conservatives by any standard.

It would be nice to see a study like that--but who would fund it? Especially these days when there seems to be a quite anti-intellectual bent throughout the US, especially toward the social sciences and the arts.
State governments probably. Espescially through state universities. I'm sure Ohio State would gladly hop onto such a study, and there's probably plenty of other schools around the country that would like to pool their resources.

Sigh...I'm being overly hopeful again, aren't I?

State governments probably. Espescially through state universities. I'm sure Ohio State would gladly hop onto such a study, and there's probably plenty of other schools around the country that would like to pool their resources.

Sigh...I'm being overly hopeful again, aren't I?
Probably. The sad truth of the university system is that they don't like to fund anything that won't show a profit and quick--long, drawn out studies that provide pure knowledge that's not really marketable probably get shunted to the back burner (right next to raises for grad students and adjunct faculty).

i don't know - half the people who self-identify as libertarians ("yay capitalism" sense) give me the impression of people barely restraining their authoritarian impulses. for example, get them talking about labor unions and a good chunk will come out swinging to have them outlawed.
There was a time where I really did have a tough time with my authoritarian impulses, and I admit that they did and continue to exist, but one only needs to kick logic in to keep them under control.

Indeed. We are definitely a lot less scary than most social conservatives by any standard.

Almost anyone is less scary than most social conservatives, except for the social conservatives so extreme that they aren't in the majority.

Almost anyone is less scary than most social conservatives, except for the social conservatives so extreme that they aren't in the majority.
You mean Mr. Looney out in Kansas? What's his name...uh...Fred Phelps, that's it. What a creep.

Almost anyone is less scary than most social conservatives, except for the social conservatives so extreme that they aren't in the majority.
There is a reason we have asylums for the mentally insane.

You mean Mr. Looney out in Kansas? What's his name...uh...Fred Phelps, that's it. What a creep.
That guy is good comedy though :p

haha...very nice.

PS, you have a TG.
What, no "white script"? ;)

I stand corrected. :eek: Then again, he is American, and then yet again, he is Republican. They have yet to see the Truth that is libertarianism.
Uphill battle, i fear.

There was a time where I really did have a tough time with my authoritarian impulses, and I admit that they did and continue to exist, but one only needs to kick logic in to keep them under control.
Indeed, same here. I find libertarianism to be a nice alternative to the political "norms" either way.

That guy is good comedy though :p
If you can find one of his sermons on a video, you really ought to hop on the Fred Phelps drinking game. Sure, you'll be plastered at the end of the first five minutes, but that makes it even more fun.

Every time he says Fags, Queers, Homos, Dykes or anything else in that similar vein, you take one drink.

If he says "God hates [fill in the blank]" you take two drinks.

Any time he says someone's going to hell for some sexual action or another, you take one shot of hard liquor.

Any time he prays that people die, you drink the entire glass down to the bottom.

It's a great game...I'm only sorry I don't remember much of the last time I played it...

You mean Mr. Looney out in Kansas? What's his name...uh...Fred Phelps, that's it. What a creep.

Wasn't thinking of him (I was thinking of outright fascists, actually), but yes, he qualifies.

*snip*
And your brain remains intact after all this? :eek:

Wasn't thinking of him (I was thinking of outright fascists, actually), but yes, he qualifies.
Well if he doesn't, who does? I can't think of anyone scarier than him. He is the type of person who could give Hitler nightmares.

And your brain remains intact after all this? :eek:
Not really, but the surgeons at OSU are superb.

Not really, but the surgeons at OSU are superb.
So I take it you won't be participating in another game like that any time soon. :p

So I take it you won't be participating in another game like that any time soon. :p
Probably not...but it was fun while it lasted.

Well if he doesn't, who does? I can't think of anyone scarier than him. He is the type of person who could give Hitler nightmares.
Wet ones, it's fair to assume.

Wet ones, it's fair to assume.
Now for that you do deserve balefire and brimstone! :eek: That is the worse mental image anyone has ever made me suffer.

Now for that you do deserve balefire and brimstone! :eek: That is the worse mental image anyone has ever made me suffer.
Yeah, no kidding. That's gonna take tequila to get rid of.

Yeah, no kidding. That's gonna take tequila to get rid of.
Heh right now I feel like Bailey's Irish Cream for some unknown reason.

Now for that you do deserve balefire and brimstone! :eek: That is the worse mental image anyone has ever made me suffer.
And you were insinuating i didn't have "credentials", you silly person, you. ;)

Guess what else gets sigged? :D

Yeah, no kidding. That's gonna take tequila to get rid of.
Collateral damage? :eek:

Heh right now I feel like Bailey's Irish Cream for some unknown reason.
Not nearly strong enough for me, not for that kind of image.

And you were insinuating i didn't have "credentials", you silly person, you. ;)

Guess what else gets sigged? :D
My mind tires, beyond the point of being able to venture a guess...so do tell.

Heh right now I feel like Bailey's Irish Cream for some unknown reason.
Go for the everclear!

Not nearly strong enough for me, not for that kind of image.
Straughn really outdid him/her self there.

Go for the everclear!
Right now I should be going for dreamland actually. Which is what I shall be doing in a while.

And I swear, if I have any dreams of Hitler having wet dreams Straughn, I will personally guide you into Hell.

Go for the everclear!
Seconded!!!

Probably. The sad truth of the university system is that they don't like to fund anything that won't show a profit and quick--long, drawn out studies that provide pure knowledge that's not really marketable probably get shunted to the back burner (right next to raises for grad students and adjunct faculty).
Not to mention that a study of that sort couldn't be done in the political climate of the day. You can't do a 'blank slate' study like this without either an agenda being proved or being accused of an agenda.

My mind tires, beyond the point of being able to venture a guess...so do tell.
Sure ... these two together:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611345&postcount=46
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611388&postcount=54

For context and cred!

Not to mention that a study of that sort couldn't be done in the political climate of the day. You can't do a 'blank slate' study like this without either an agenda being proved or being accused of an agenda.
Some things never seem to change ... :(

Sure ... these two together:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611345&postcount=46
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611388&postcount=54

For context and cred!
Yes, and may it serve as a stark reminder of the evil -nay, Evil- you wrought upon me this day. Oh well, with that said, I am off to sleep. Night. :p

What, no "white script"? ;)
haha...you know me too well. I almost put some in.

Not to mention that a study of that sort couldn't be done in the political climate of the day. You can't do a 'blank slate' study like this without either an agenda being proved or being accused of an agenda.
Well, you want to know what you're buying, after all.

Not to mention that a study of that sort couldn't be done in the political climate of the day. You can't do a 'blank slate' study like this without either an agenda being proved or being accused of an agenda.
Yes, that is the sad truth. I'd be fascinated by such a study though, and I'd love to see the results. It's a shame it will never happen.

Well, you want to know what you're buying, after all.
Sadly.

EDIT: I know more 'on it' cats than me have written about this, but I'm sort of stunned by the politisizing of science that almost seems Galileo-esque. Science should be science-it seems weird. It almost (almost, since it doesn't work the same way and isn't the same sentiment) makes you wish that there was a seperation of science and state...

haha...you know me too well. I almost put some in.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Shrubya, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Yes, and may it serve as a stark reminder of the evil -nay, Evil- you wrought upon me this day. Oh well, with that said, I am off to sleep. Night. :p
Yay, i was noticed today!!! *hops up and down, clapping emphatically*

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Shrubya, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Before I go, didn't Bush say that? :p

Before I go, didn't Bush say that? :p
I don't think he even knows if he said it! :eek:

Yay, i was noticed today!!! *hops up and down, clapping emphatically*
haha...what, me and peech don't count anymore?

haha...what, me and peech don't count anymore?
Ah, i'm part of your chorus, everyone knows that! ;)

The theory that conservatives are whiners can be proven by browsing this forum!

There was a time where I really did have a tough time with my authoritarian impulses, and I admit that they did and continue to exist, but one only needs to kick logic in to keep them under control.
So were you conservative and then became libertarian? What convinced you to stray from conservatism?

The theory that conservatives are whiners can be proven by browsing this forum!


So were you conservative and then became libertarian? What convinced you to stray from conservatism?
On a purely observationally-semantic manner, i'd say the difference would be "liberty".
Just an observation.