Slashdot Mirror
Brain Differences In Liberals and Conservatives
i_like_spam writes "Scientists from NYU and UCLA report in Nature Neuroscience that the brains of Democrats and Republicans process information differently. This new study finds that the differences are apparent even when the brain processes common information, not just political topics. From the study, liberals were more likely to be accurate and showed more brain activity in the region associated with analyzing conflicts. A researcher not affiliated with the study stated, liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.' Moreover, 'the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry... as a flip-flopper.'"
Like... Whoa!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A young person who isn't a liberal has no heart. An old person who is has no brain.
So could it be that the mental flexibility of youth makes them more susceptible to liberalism (in the modern usage of the word) than the more experienced minds of the older generations?
Thanks a bunch kdawson.
(I've shown considerable restraint in pointing this out in the last 10 similarly crap stories, but enough is enough.)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
The only reason you have a black and white Liberal - Conservative divide in the US is the mathematics of how your electoral system works. Other countries with sane electoral systems actually have shades of grey.
Deleted
Having said that. I don't think there are any religious ideas of signifcant value. Buddhism I'd class more as philosophy.
Deleted
2. This war should not be about "winning the war" or being a "pansie", it should be about stopping the suffering of the Iraqi people.
Don't forget this quote:
"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
So yeah, you can flame them as much as you want, they're not going to change that easily.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Liberals aren't the folks who got so wound up in paranoia and fear that they cheered on the POTUS to invade a country that had fark all to do with any attacks on the US. Liberals aren't the ones constantly bleating about terrorists and alert levels and all the other nonsense.
But yeah, it's liberals that are the wussy scaredy cats....
Right.
You may want to do some reading before using the term. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism.
Why bother.
Finish fixing what problem, exactly?
Please don't start with the socialist thing. Americans do not know what "socialism" is and they've co-opted the word to use as an insult. Much like "Liberal" and "Conservative" are no longer definitions of political ideology but epithets. In this black and white world of false political dichotomy there is no room for moderates and there is no understanding of any political ideology outside of those espoused by the two faces of the single American political party (Republicans & Democrats).
In much the same way that religious voters will tolerate massive corruption and sexual perversion from politicians who claim deep religious convictions (of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant variety only please) . American's will tolerate outright evilness on the part of the avowed anti-communist & anti-socialist capitalist businessmen and lobbyists.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
The deal is not so much that conservatives like corporate leaders, it is that conservatives believe that if they work hard, and get a bit lucky, they can form their own business as well, and achieve a degree of independence. On the other hand, a socialist system offers no independence at all.
Really, conservatives place such a high premium on independence and freedom and that they are willing to accept a lot of other shitty things to get it. As much as conservatives talk about God and Jesus, really, they are all fixated on Dante's Devil, proclaiming, "It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"...
This is my sig.
As I said earlier, you can debate whether or not the war is worth the cost, or if it should have been fought at all
I may be conservative, but I'm neither arrogant nor close-minded enough to believe that somebody is stupid, callous, or a coward just because they don't agree with me.
The problem of the security vacuum that was created when Hussein was brought down. After we brought down the old order, we failed to step up and maintain order, so now we have the unenviable task of trying to establish order where none exists.
Our leaders were blinded by their own optimism, now many of our finest are paying the ultimate price for that failure.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I may be conservative, but I'm neither arrogant nor close-minded enough to believe that somebody is stupid, callous, or a coward just because they don't agree with me.
:) ) I found this behavior fairly appalling.
I have no doubt that you as a person are not. However as a non American I must ask what did you think of the treatment of the French. Who disagreed with US policy and have the American media and public ridicule them as a country of cowards and idiots. Even tho I dont like the French(Ive had to work with them
Did I say that sticking to your beliefs is bad? I didn't.
What is bad, is sticking to them without even considering other arguments. So is being a total flip-flopper: if you can't see which option is better, you should better refrain from choosing one altogether.
In other words: choose an option and stick with it neither too strongly nor too weakly.
And, I didn't say I'm a liberal, too. This word has been hijacked by american Commiecrats, a totally despicable party of corrupt populists who tout their version of socialism. I would dare to say they're more despicable than that lying group of power-mongering christian fascists, which is a huge accomplishment.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
This story was obviously submitted so that you would see something like an "501 of 896" posting count. It is 100% pure flamebait or perhaps on a higher level a poorly written satire.
I am not in the middle of this Liberal/Conservative "war," and I can tell you honestly that liberals can be very stupid, and conservatives can be very astute.
Also, are we talking about ideals, financial, or strictly both to qualify conservative or liberal? My ideals are conservative, but I'm financially liberal; were these things weighted? I'd say my socio-economical class doesn't much lean either way (white male, middle-middle class, 23), so is the question just which side I relate to more?
FWIW, I don't think binary labels are a good tool for representing an analog chunk of an analog spectrum without assigning weights to aspects that are of a social nature. Does anyone else feel that this entire study ended up with a group of people standing around grinning at their excessive cleverness at the end of the day, while no actual scientific work was accomplished?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
What is bad, is sticking to them without even considering other arguments. So is being a total flip-flopper: if you can't see which option is better, you should better refrain from choosing one altogether.
Exactly. However, a lot of the ranting about Kerry "flip-flopping" seems to be trying to suggest that sticking to an idea, no matter how cretinously stupid and harmful, is the most important thing and changing your mind in the face of a changing situation is bad and wrong.
Most people here assume just accepting new ideas at face value (which is all the study suggested) is a good thing. The article did not in any way indicate that it tested what the evaluative processes that liberals vs conservatives go through before they integrate new ideas into their view of the world. That's a critical thing to know. Frankly, I want people in charge and those voting to have some initial skepticism and to analyze new ideas before they accept them. Just because you hear it or have an initial thought doesn't make it true or valid.
On another note, the article indicated that they chose "very liberal" or "very conservative". It's entirely plausible that the extremes are there for biological reasons and those who dont "identify" with their political orientation choose that orientation for different reasons (former biological, latter rational thought)
Sorry, but polling COLLEGE STUDENTS does NOT reflect the general populous. Is this stat a little rigged? Very rigged? Think for a minute here--aren't college students naturally more open to doing things? I have seen an awful lot of college students go from "mad liberal" to moderate in a matter of a few years as I am in a "spectatorial" position where we hire guys fresh out of school and watch how they change throughout their careers.
--parasonic
I guess it goes without saying that democratic politics seems to be something less than the shining beacon of leadership it's meant to be, at the moment. The "left" and the "right" seem to rarely argue from their traditional perspectives anymore (left: more tax, more public services, more rights for gay people and women; right: less tax, more freedom for corporations, "family values") and instead just stick to the party drift. Right: pro-war; left: anti-war.
In the UK, we even have the leader of the right wing Conservative party (David Cameron) saying he will match Labour's spending commitments. There is now nothing to choose between them in terms of policy. The only difference is whichever set of politicians you think is the least idiotic and selfish.
In the US, I guess it's whether you're more sickened by the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans or the cowardice and lack of direction of the Democrats.
Peter
"And, I didn't say I'm a liberal, too. This word has been hijacked by american Commiecrats, a totally despicable party of corrupt populists who tout their version of socialism."
You can choose to label it what you want, but the version of "socialism" in question would be called "conservative" in most first world nations.
(no sig)
That's precisely what drove me crazy about the whole Kerry thing. Granted, Kerry wasn't the best candidate. By far. But being able to reason out various thoughts and change your decisions if the situation merits it is a sign of intelligence. Repeating the same thing over and over is something I'd expect a kid with autism to do, not a President or any other politician.
If a stove burns you every time you touch the hot burner, do you stop touching it and get called a flip-flopper, or learn from the mistake and stop touching it?
Someone needs to repeatedly remind the French-hating Americans that it was the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" who won the American war of independence at the battle of Yorktown.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
I guess it goes without saying that democratic politics seems to be something less than the shining beacon of leadership it's meant to be, at the moment.
Got that right.. The last Democrat who was worth a damn was Harry Truman.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
See my sig.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
"In much the same way that religious voters will tolerate massive corruption and sexual perversion from politicians who claim deep religious convictions..."
Most religious voters are far and away not religious by their own holy text's standards, it's standard hypocrisy and magical thinking at work.
Well, they probably had them fill out a questionnaire and figured out which way they lean. All your variables are based on that first assumption that they just went by the subject identifying themselves. While its true that may be a possibility in how it's done, it's also not the usual way an experiment would be conducted. And your whole variable of "are the subject of your study representative of all people..." would then make virtually ALL science awful. All science is based off a test sample and than basing some hypothesis that the idea will scale to the rest of society, with some margin of error.
I don't think its junk at all. Determining differences in cognitive abilities on something such as politics makes a lot of sense. The study doesn't say one is better than another, but it did show a difference in thinking which supports WHY each faction has different tendencies. It doesn't seem out of reach that SO MANY people seem to be split on such basic ideas about the driving forces of our society.
The only awful science is if you try to say that this article says one is better than the other.
And yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective titles, but mainly because each is a spectrum characteristic. They're varying degrees of liberalism and conservatism. So, when you try to place someone exactly where they belong, its difficult, but when trying to determine if they're on one half of the spectrum or the other has a lot less guesswork involved.
"France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
Most? I think Britain and Russia can claim the last one.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
-jcr
What does fascist communism have anything to do with socialism? In other words, you have no idea what socialism is and you need to shut up.
Are you even aware that socialism is more common than straight capitalism? Even in the US. Do realize that there is *gasp* capitalistic fascism that is just as bad if not worse than socialism?
Grow up. Learn about the world, then foam at the mouth.
cat sig >
I love how the strength of people's biases filter through to so control how we think and act in this world. The majority of responses here seem to complain about Democrat or Republicanism or some hardly veiled tack. Take a look at TFA, it purely distinguishes between liberals and conservatives (small l and small c) not Democrats and Republicans. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. And to assume or extrapolate otherwise is a hugely incorrect step on all our parts. As a matter of fact, the word Republicans isn't even mentioned in the report! Strangely, the word Democrat appears once describing John F. Kerry (which is the most douchebagish way of saying John Kerry...), but regardless. Another important issue, is we cannot link directly to the ACTUAL study in question" (for a separate reason: due to the controlled access of knowledge by academic institutions, which sucks). How do we know truly what the study entails, how the methodology is controlled, etc., without access to the actual paper. This is only possible if you have $30 for the article entry, btw. Nonetheless, as long as Americans continue to automatically draw the line between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, black and white, etc., as the article quotes the author of the study: "liberals and conservatives are never going to agree". And articles like this do nothing to help. But ultimately, its all our faults for drawing lines in the sand and being so damned stubborn to the detriment of life, society, and wellbeing.
...and it should be known by now
That's all fine and well and your story makes me weep, but the reality is that with your emotional diatribe, you've neglected to mention that these people are not in the USA legally. So, if these "victims" can't even be bothered to follow the laws of getting into the country, why would they even be reliably expected to follow the other laws of the country as well. And you know what, they -don't-.
So please, don't keep on lying. Immigration and illegal immigration are two entirely different things. Legal immigrants are invited to this country, and improve it. Illegal immigrants are invaders.
This is my sig.
In the first split second. That in no way implies it doesn't happen later. Basically, we now know how liberals vs conservatives respond if they have only an instant to think about it - we know nothing about how the process routes afterwards.
True enough. :-) But some of those examples do indicate learning from mistakes. It's sad, some of his original positions actually made more sense than his later ones.
Research and willful learning are beyond most of today's politicians, though, which is sad for all parties and every citizen. They do, unfortunately, represent much of America, though.
It is one of those forms of science that annoys me. If I agree with the statement then I give credit for it. If I disagree and point out that say I am a conservative and I think this science is bubkiss then it only proves the science only further. Remembering this is only science and there is statical deviation where most conservatives show a trend of this and liberals show a trend of that. Doesn't mean that a conservative is unable to have a brain the functions like a liberal and vice versa, just more of a trend towards that direction. Sometimes a person is conservative because they spend a lot of time thinking about it and they see the direction that the liberals give is more flawed and in the long run will cause more problems then gains. E.g. Is spending more taxes on a service that has a marginal value vs. not paying the extra taxes and have the person use it towards something that offers better value. Or the opposite can be true, Eg Person A believes that there should be more taxes for government services because they grew up taking handouts from government services and that is the only life they know.
As for a general trend I would agree with the data but you need to be sure not to go to someone with a republican bumper sticker and assume they are hard nose and cannot learn, or someone with a Democrat bumper sticker(s) (Normally the case with liberals who tend to have more bumper stickers then conservatives) you can assume they will collect information easily and can grasp new concepts easier. Because a trend doesn't equate to people falling into stereotypes, just the fact the dice is weighted slightly to one side.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
More likely that 'liberal' became equated to 'commiecrat' because that is how the Conservatives painted them, just like the Liberals paint all 'conservatives' as 'right-wing nut-jobs'.
As for the Corrupt Populist Socialists vs. the Power-mongering Christian Fascists... that was just a stroke of pure genius. Sad that our political realm can be summed up so succinctly. Sad, but true...
Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...
54
Well, kinda, but that's largely the result of a media that generally has been manipulated by the right for the last 15-20 years and generally repeats conservative talking points and framing. Liberals have found it harder to frame issues than conservatives have.
Liberals are generally standing up for the more unpopular issues and aren't looking for things to be terrified of. I spend a fair amount of time debunking various inane "OMG! The US is about to be invaded by... {insert current bugbear here}" chain emails that are increasingly fanatical and insane (the latest involves a Mexican-Canadian overpass, that I thought was someone taking an old Onion story seriously until I did some Googling and found it all over the websites of the right. There is no logic, no sanity, no rationality to this "conspiracy" and yet right wingers the country over are trying to interpret all kinds of facts to fit it.)
Note, I'm not saying the left doesn't have its own insane conspiracy theories, it's just the left doesn't seem to have that same fear thing going. The left's has to do with the right being increasingly unhinged and manipulative to an extreme, whereas the right's has to do with actual invasions by groups that, in reality, pose little or no threat.
So the right is cowardly. Their use of framing, to portray Bush as some heroic figure, a "war president", to suggest the principle of "shoot first, ask questions later" is anything other than the response of an immature teen holding a gun while peeing in his pants, is how they get away with it. It is the confusion of using violence with the very often opposite principle of bravery.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The situation is worse than that, and in my opinion is one of the reasons that it is practically impossible for a member of the Legislative Branch from running for President. Kerry didn't take a single issue and change his mind a couple of times. Rather what happened was that the issue in question was a rider which was tacked onto three different other bills. What Kerry did was to vote yay or nay on the actual bill and the rider was, well, just along for the ride. Kerry was not voting against sending body armor to the troops, he was voting against making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but someone with an agenda can take that vote and make it look like Kerry was giving the troops the middle finger.
Every single legislator who has ever voted on a bill has the same exact voting record if you're willing to dig for it. When you can tack arbitrary riders to other proposed bills that is the situation you get. If you take a bill proposed to aid war veterans and tack on a rider to club baby seals there simply is no good way to vote on that bill. You either hate veterans or you hate baby seals.
Part of it is learning from mistakes, another part of it is blowing with the political win. In our Representative Democracy we expect our leaders to form knowledgeable opinions and stick to them even if its an unpopular opinion. Simply having an opinion because it is popular leads to mob rule and is ultimately destructive.
Illegal immigration is an administrative violation, and is a lesser crime than speeding or letting your parking meter run out. Do you also consider double-parkers and cellphone drivers criminals or are you anal only towards immigrants?
'Illegal' immigration becomes an actual crime after an immigrant fails to report to an immigration hearing, or fails to follow a deportation order; doing either is a misdemeanor. I believe working without authorization could also be a misdemeanor. Re-entering the country after having been deported is a felony. Simply being here 'illegally' is neither.
Congress has tried in the past to make first-time border crossing a misdemeanor or even a felony, but failed.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
So we should reject the next rich powerful candidate because she is related to a former president? Just trying to apply your logic to present day.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
In the short term, in America, "right-wing" and "conservative" overlap.
In general, conservatism is an attempt to preserve existing state, liberalism an attempt to change it, or at least an openness to change. That people who are open to change are open to change is not a surprising result.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
We always get the "things changed after 9/11" argument, which I can understand to a point. That may have made it more appealing to them to remove Saddam, faulty intelligence or not. However, it certainly didn't change the problems that Cheney talked about before. It didn't change the likely outcomes of an invasion one bit. So, I don't know how we could possibly have been so unprepared, but it certainly wasn't because they were blinded by optimism.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I will point out the flaw, "conservative" and "liberal" are subjective labels. How do you objectively decide that someone is conservative or liberal? Do you go by their self identification? If so, how do you select your candidates? Are the subjects of your study representative of all people who self identify that way? I can go on. There are so many variables about people that trying to determine differences in cognitive ability based on political leanings is junk.
Their self applied labels. So what ever convinced them to be one or the other has some correlation. We haven't done tests to determine causation. So for some reason being Lib correlates to more accurate adaptability in simple tests of reflexes.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
A lot of new ideas are just plain wrong. Accepting every new idea that comes along just because it's new throws out knowledge and wisdom that has properly withstood the test of time. I'd rather stick with what works, than fall for every new scam that comes along.
Keep an open mind, and a lot of garbage will be thrown into it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Tapping a W when supposed to be tapping a M makes you "dumb?" What a fucking joke. If you ask me, anyone who can see how a W could be an M (but upside down) is MORE open minded, MORE creative. Someone capable of seeing both sides of an issue.
And this is a joke to "liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas."
Come visit the San Francisco Bay Area. The liberals here just as intolerant and just has condeming as an conservative. Liberals here hate religion, refuse to accept science that conflicts with their beliefs, and refuse to accept that some lifestyles are OK even if they are undesirable.
Its more of a matter of who is the dominant group. Dominance demands conformity.
*
btw I am not a Republican if you were jumping to conclusions.
Right on. "Socialism" is at best an ad hoc concept, able to exclude "bad people" at will. Modern day socialists want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to separate themselves from Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the other evil fuckheads while remaining committed to the collectivist moral ideals they espoused. When you've accepted that the rights of the individual may be trampled on for the sake of the group, the actual number of corpses is just a matter of details.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Interesting quote.
So what would it be if given the two wolves and a lamb, only one wolf was well armed? Liberty for the armed wolf or a dictatorship? Guns don't provide liberty, beliefs and actions do.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I hate the generalization of all Democrats being Liberals and all Republicans being Conservatives. I am a democrat, I drive a car when I could easily bike to work, waste plenty of electricity, and still believe in personal responsibility (I'm not even going to get into that one). In other words, I'm not a Liberal, please don't call me one.
It's bad because when I try to tell people this they say I'm the nut-job, and that I'm just "throwing my vote away". I'm not sure when the socialists took over the Democrats, and when the Christians took over the Republicans and Boy Scouts. But I'm pretty sure, unless revisionists have worked their black arts, that Republicans and Democrats were not originally this way.
Although this is all in the context of US politics, Europeans for example think both are parties are for right-wing religious nut-jobs. And don't find our Democrats to be anything like what they would call a Liberal or a Socialist.
- too bad the lofty ideals of socialism require the use of force against all people.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Read through all the user comments on the article... The vast majority of them are COCKSURE. It's a human tendency that we should try to overcome. Conservatives tend to exhibit this headlong stubbornness more so than liberals. But, it exists in all of us. "Don't let overconfidence consume THEE!" (+10 pts to whomever remembers what old Mac video game that quote is from) Quick thinking is rarely a sign of wisdom. I think wisdom and critical thinking are best measured by a person's ability to put on the brakes when they think they have formed a conclusion and continuously go back up their decision-tree to revisit assumptions. And, put their ego aside. No one likes to be wrong... just watch how angry I get when someone trolls this post.
all males are butchers
Isn't that a premise of radical feminism?
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Personally I view the issue as one of personal freedom. If I see an illegal alien working I'll let it go and not report it, much in the same way that if I saw a run away slave a hundred years ago I'd let it go and not report it even though both acts would have been illegal. I think our laws should be changed so that if a person can find work here, they should have legal status here (and pay taxes and be allowed to drive if they obtain insurance and pass the tests, etc...). Some on the anti-immigration side talk about the damage done to our culture. But to me our culture means individual freedom. Mass deportations and agressive limitations on immigration do not say freedom to me.
You can have a strong dislike for Israel without being a "jew-hater." Do NOT confuse anti-semitism with dislike for a country's policies or divisiveness.
Actually one of the symptoms / characteristics of extremely low IQ (developmental disability) is rigid thinking. Job coaching DD clients is quite challenging, as once they get a concept in their heads it is extremely hard to dislodge, they fixate on it. Much like many conservatives I know. I'm just sayin'.
http://www.mhall119.com
http://www.mhall119.com
Liberal parties are called Liberal parties in Commonwealth countries because capitalism was originally a liberal ideology, as opposed to the state-controlled merchantilist economies that preceded it. These were not socialist, but probably what you'd consider even more "capitalist"; government supporting particular large corporations for the purposes of consolidating power in the hands of the ruling elite of the nation in question. Free market capitalism arose as a part of the general liberal movement against government authority; that sort of pro-market attitude which was classically called liberalism is today also known as (surprise) "classical liberalism" or, in the United States, libertarianism. Newer movements have since co-opted the name "liberal" for themselves, despite promoting often illiberal agendas, and labeled the older liberal movement (accurately) "conservative"; though in the US at least, large portions of those classically liberal conservatives have somehow become entangled with the sort of authoritarian conservatives that the original liberalism was rebelling against.
Liberal and Conservative are not antonyms. "Liberal" just means in favor of liberty, and its antonym is "authoritarian". "Conservative" just means in favor of the status quo, and its antonym is "progressive". When liberal democracies first started arising out of the mire of medieval monarchies and aristocracies, the liberals were progressive, because the status quo was highly authoritarian, and so authoritarians were rightly called conservative. Thus the terms "liberal" and "conservative" functioned like antonyms for a time; but only because the liberals happened to be the new guys (the progressives) and the conservatives (the establishment) happened to be authoritarian.
Eventually the progressive liberals mostly won out, but the societies they built still weren't satisfactory for everyone (viz. the pitfalls of so-called "actually existing capitalism", as opposed to the peaceful, voluntarist, competitive free markets that classical liberal authors dreamt of). So new movements, mainly socialism, continued to push for further change, in many ways changing back away from liberal ideals to more authoritarian ones, just intending to use that authority more benevolently. But the terminology didn't keep up with that. The people pushing for more authority (to be used benevolently) still call themselves "liberals". Further confusing the issue is that in addition to the liberals who are now conservative in comparison to socialists, there are still also the old elitist authoritarians who are even more conservative - though I guess a more apt term for them would be "regressive", as they want to change many things back to how they used to be long ago. Still adding further confusion to the issue, in America at least, is that the "progressive" socialists and the "regressive" old conservatives have made enough headway by now that the people who originally called themselves "conservatives" (now more often called "libertarians"), wanting to keep this country liberal as it was founded, are now in many ways progressive, or even regressive; wanting to change things from the now-authoritarian status quo, back to the liberal way things used to be. And all of this hides the issue that both libertarians and authoritarians can be subdivided on the issue of egalitarianism (though the split between the old aristocratic authoritarians and the new socialist authoritarians hints at this).
I find that the simplest way to clear up all the confusion is to stop all the talk about progressive or conservative, as those terms are entirely time-relative and imply different things now than they did a hundred years ago, and have even less in common with what they implied two or three hundred years ago, even though the words literally *mean* the same thing in all those times (i.e. someone who is in fact [not self-labeled] conservative now holds an ideology very different from someone who was in fact conservative 100 years ago, because the status quo now is very
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."