Slashdot Mirror


Political Viewpoints Linked To Fear

Pentagram writes "Researchers writing in Science report that the political orientation of test subjects who have strong views is linked to how easy they are to startle. They found that subjects who were more fearful were more likely to have right wing views, such as being in favor of capital punishment and higher defense budgets. The researchers suggest that this psychological difference is why it is so difficult to change people's minds in political arguments."

38 of 800 comments (clear)

  1. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Easily startled people carry guns, so be careful out there!

    1. Re:In related news... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, hey republicans...

      ...
      ...
      ...
      ...

      BOO!

      Hahahahaha.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  2. Fear leads to hate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hate leads to Anger... Anger leads to killing George Lucas for some really bad movies.

    1. Re:Fear leads to hate... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, hate is good?

      Wallstreet 2. The role of Gordon Gecko is revised by Jar Jar Binks. When asked for comment on initial reaction to the casting, George Lucas claimed "people just don't understand the range of an actor like Jar Jar."

  3. So in other words... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Funny

    Republicans are cowards.

    Yeah this discussion is going to go well...

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Strictly speaking, fear doesn't make one a coward. Acting only on that fear is what makes one a coward.

    2. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      in other words, Republicans are cowards.

    3. Re:So in other words... by Cow+Jones · · Score: 5, Funny

      in other words, Republicans are cowards.

      No, they only act on other people's fears.

      But let's not put this into a political debate and get back on topic. Wait a minute...

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    4. Re:So in other words... by David+Gould · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think acting out of a perceived need of self preservation is how I would define cowardice.

      No, but being too quick to "perceive" such a need -- that's cowardice.

      (Over-re)acting out of all proportion to the severity of the threat -- that's cowardice.

      Letting it skew your priorities to the point that you neglect to protect yourself against other (less dramatic but equally or more important) dangers -- that's not only cowardice, it's stupid and makes you less safe.

      Allowing your rights to be violated whenever the administration says "Grant us this expanded executive power, or we'll let the terrorists kill you" -- that's cowardice.

      Does that clear anything up?

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    5. Re:So in other words... by Walkingshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except when you percieve innocent things, like gay marriage, as a threat to your self preservation.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    6. Re:So in other words... by adisakp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Republicans are cowards.

      Not necessarily. However, they are willing to give up freedoms for security and social stability is more important protections of minorities.

      TED had a very good talk about psychology of left vs. right without necessarily putting down one or the other.

      Basically, what they found out was that Liberals have two main axes of morality: Harm and Fairness.

      Conservatives have five: Harm, Fairness, In-Group, Authority, Purity.

    7. Re:So in other words... by riceboy50 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That just depends on which liberties you're watching.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    8. Re:So in other words... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've never understood the big opposition to gay rights/sex/marriage/whatever. Let's call it what it is: one group imposing their religion and personal "ick" bias on another group.

      Let's break down the numbers. First, for every male gay couple out there, there are theoretically 2 more women out there looking for a guy to be with. Considering the world's population is pretty close to being 50-50 m/f, anything that tips the balance in our favor is pure goodness, especially among the /. crowd. Second, for every lesbian out there ... well, I know I can't explain why, but we all know that two women together is inexplicably hot, even if us guys have zero chance of being involved. So, yeah ... that's pure goodness too. What's not too like?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  4. more detail... by crescente · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was also a more indepth article about this last year in Psychology Today: http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20061222-000001.xml

  5. And I'm sure... by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the timing of this article is a complete coincidence.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  6. So Obvious by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In retrospect.... I'm in the UK, and the more right-wing the paper, the more knee-jerk to headlines.

    I guess it's also what gives the conservatives (small c) that weird advantage in polls- their always more likely to be 'in tune' with the masses, because their opinions are always more likely to have been formed off the back of the most recent scare story.

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
  7. NPR has the scoop by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So in other words... Republicans are cowards.

    The researchers commented on this situation on NPR this morning. Yes, you could potentially see Republicans that way. But the researchers suggested that you could also see Democrats as "lacking in a basic sense of self-preservation."

    The researchers went on to say that they don't believe that either label is appropriate. Rather, they hope both sides will use this information to better understand one another.

    From my own perspective, I feel that it's also worth pointing out that both sides tend to follow their ideals. It's not like Republicans tend to avoid military service after demanding it, and it's not like Democrats seek military service due to a lack of self-preservation. The two sides merely react to certain stimulus, but the actual psychology of the drive is obviously more complex. Which leads me to my next point.

    The researchers suggest that this psychological difference is why it is so difficult to change people's minds in political arguments.

    Many of the other researchers interviewed by NPR were skeptical of these findings. Their belief was that the study failed to show that these responses were set biologically and not by environmental stimuli. So in fact, it may be that Republicans are more suspicious of attacks than Democrats due to their environmental training. Which certainly seems more likely than dividing people up into "cowards" and "idiot-savants".

    1. Re:NPR has the scoop by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do a search on:

      "The Power of Nightmares..."

      Its six hours long, but well worth the time.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    2. Re:NPR has the scoop by wellingj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Theft if theft. I'm by no means rich, but I pay 28% of my income to the government and something tells me not even a whole 1% actually helps care for poor children... dropping bombs, invading countries, corporate bailouts, welfare to able bodies, spying on citizens...

      Need I go on about the various horrors that the wealth I make for 2hours and 20minutes out of every day enables? Here is a novel thought, why don't they not take my money and I can give it directly to the poor children. Why does the government need a cut?

      Here, please educate yourself

    3. Re:NPR has the scoop by HiVizDiver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A propos of not much, I've spoken with several people who have admitted that they are voting for McCain, and when pressed as to why (not in an interrogatory way, I assure you - mostly out of general interest), it boiled down to Obama's black AND his middle name is Hussein. One person actually said (and I quote) "He went to a Muslim school, and I don't care what anyone says about it - that stuff gets IN THERE" as she pointed to her head. I'm not sure what "stuff" she was referring to. That was there only reason for voting for McCain. While I don't feel that voting for McCain automatically makes a person a Republican, it certainly seems that their vote is being cast out of a complete sense of fear of that which they don't understand.

      I would not argue that voting against something that concerns you is a good idea; however, their fear is SO misplaced (and racist, or at least xenophobic), that it certainly paints them as uneducated and ridiculous.

    4. Re:NPR has the scoop by sleigher · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wouldn't it be nice if we had country where people could help themselves instead of relying on handouts from republicans?

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    5. Re:NPR has the scoop by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aristotle says the virtues are always midpoints between extremes, and the extremes are vices.

      The opposite of cowardice isn't courage, it's rashness. Courage is the temperate midpoint between the vice of cowardice and the vice of rashness. Courage accepts danger but acts, which makes it different from either extreme.

      Rashness and cowardice are the kinds of superficial opposites that have many inner similarities. The coward fears to act, and the fool fears to think.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. I guess the old saying is true, then... by Tetsujin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged" - I guess the message there is supposed to be "having been mugged and now being familiar with the true nature of the world around them, they learned that the ideals they formerly embraced were foolishly misguided" but I always read it more as "having been mugged they allowed fear to take over their lives, replacing their sense of justice with a more Machiavellian approach to the world."

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:I guess the old saying is true, then... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I always read it more as "having been mugged they allowed fear to take over their lives, replacing their sense of justice with a more Machiavellian approach to the world."

      I think that's a naive interpretation of the saying. In this case "mugged" tends to be a metaphor for "negative experience". A negative experience does sometimes teach people to be a little harsher.

      I know I tried a hands-off approach with administrating a web forum for a quite a while, and quickly found that a few disruptive members were driving away all the actual contributors to the discussions. I tried being reasonable and applying polite warnings. I mean, we were all adults, right? The only thing that happened was that these users got good at skirting the edge of the rules. They'd cross the line regularly, but tried not to do enough to warrant a perma-ban. They got especially good at pushing the buttons of other users such that otherwise contributing members became part of the problem. Then these users were able to play a game of public appeal when the mods pointed a finger at them.

      In the end, there was only one solution. I clamped down. I hated doing it, I really did. But I managed to drive those users out, keep careful controls on the direction of threads, and attract many of our lost users to return. The community came together and really helped the site(s) it supported to thrive after that. I initially got some blame for the bans, but most users ended up thankful after only a short period of time. (Which I honestly didn't expect.)

      I eventually relaxed the controls a bit, but I still found I had to keep vigilant or else someone would show up to attempt to ruin the forums again.

      What I'm getting at is that Republicans aren't always wrong in those respects. Sometimes control and structure ARE necessary. It's just difficult for them to always know when. There's a fairly good talk from a psychologist on TED TV who echos these thoughts.

      On the flip-side, I think the recent issue over deregulation shows that Republicans do try to relax controls, sometimes with disastrous effects. Which simply reinforces their ideas of control and structure.

    2. Re:I guess the old saying is true, then... by binary+paladin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I always counter by saying, "Yeah and a liberal is a conservative that's been abused by the police."

      And historically... I wonder who has a higher body count, government goons or mere muggers.

    3. Re:I guess the old saying is true, then... by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it's not a straw-man argument, it's an illustration of a fallacy. A well-known fallacy, in fact -- the fallacy of compromise. While some sort of compromise is very often useful or effective, it does not follow logically that a compromise between two arbitrary suggestions is necessarily superior. In many cases, a "compromise solution" makes no sense; in others, it's clearly not the "fair" choice.

      There is no innate "middle ground". If you define it as a "reasonable compromise", you're imposing a particular person's arbitrary sense of "reasonable" anyway.

      Anyway, yes. Fallacy of compromise.

  9. It goes both ways by Robotbeat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This definitely affects Democrats, too. My father-in-law is a staunch democrat, and he's also very anxious all the time. It affects his political views because he worries greatly about things like health care and such, things which he thinks the gov't can protect us from.

    There's a well-known saying: "A Democrat is a Republican who's been arrested, and a Republican is a Democrat who's been mugged."

    I know that the saying works for me, too. My wife and I were the victims of gang violence (well, just some inner-city middle schoolers who broke our car window while we were in the car, causing my wife's face to bleed) and I definitely think it caused me to lean to the right, and more recently I was arrested (charges later dismissed) which caused me to not trust the police and lean to the left.

    Now, I don't think I'm really on either side. The police aren't going to really do too much to you as long as you don't make their lives difficult, and I think I can handle myself and my family if the whole economy implodes. Politicians usually don't actually make you safer. Good neighbors, family, and friends do.

  10. Re:Fear? Look in the mirror by calmofthestorm · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, MY beliefs are valid, not yours! Yours are silly and smell bad!

    Invoke Godwin's law and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  11. Conservative =Protective? by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FTA: "decided to test the idea that liberal and conservative (or "protective") social beliefs are related to individuals' sensitivity to threat."

    So really what they tested was whether people who have more protective attitudes toward others react more to fear stimulus. Well, isn't that obvious? Correlation OR causation, it seems a pretty direct link that if you are afraid of something, you'd want to protect against it, and if you are afraid of more things, you'd want to protect against more things, and if the intensity of your fear is higher, the level of protection would increase.

    So how on Earth did they translate that into "conservative" political views?

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  12. Re:Fear? Look in the mirror by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Talk about fear of competing ideas, you Libs need a mirror. Variations of this story appear here and on every libtard site every few weeks now, claiming conservative ideas are the result of mental defect. Because if you can keep that idea formly in yer heads you can justify the childish antics you guys normally do when exposed to a different set of ideas, shout it down. Because if the other side is mentally ill there isn't a reason to even allow them to speak.

    To a liberal, 'diversity' is defined as all colors, gender identities and faiths all thinking exactly alike. Because the one thing liberalism can't tolerate is reasoned debate since the whole system is based on emotion.

    No, I don't think liberalism is a mental illness in return. I think it is evil. You guys have free will, you chose the wrong side. Of course you convince yourselves that notions like good and evil are outdated because few will admit to serving evil so you solve that problem by handwaving the whole question away.

    Wow, your sane, calm, and carefully-reasoned response has totally convinced me.

  13. Sure, But Only the Paranoids Survive by Louis+Savain · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A November 2007 Gallup poll reveals that Republicans by a wide margin across all age, gender, income, and education levels report significantly better mental health than Democrats and Independents.

    As we observe in nature, only the paranoids survive. The others are just nuts. LOL.

    1. Re:Sure, But Only the Paranoids Survive by jbeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahem - they are **reporting** that they have better mental health. Doesn't mean they're actually healthier. In fact, they could just be more fearful that other people will think they're nuts.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
    2. Re:Sure, But Only the Paranoids Survive by DeanFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A November 2007 Gallup poll reveals that Republicans by a wide margin across all age, gender, income, and education levels report significantly better mental health than Democrats and Independents.

      Just to be clear. They rate their own mental health as excellent. They believe they're the ones who are sane and everybody else is crazy.

      PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls.

      It appears Democrats at least have an open mind to the possibility of being wrong.

      -[d]-

  14. gun control by selfdiscipline · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That makes me wonder:

    Are fearful people more likely to be against gun control or for it? I can see fear playing a part in both sides of the issue.

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
    1. Re:gun control by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's exactly why I think this study is totally bogus. They're basically assuming that the current Democrat and Republican political platforms are 1) the only two possible viewpoints people could have, and 2) basically unchanging ideals. There's tons of people who don't agree with either, or agree with parts of both parties' platforms. These platforms aren't the way they are because people believe in them; they have arisen out of political expediency. For instance, why are the Republicans in favor of religious fundamentalism, foreign wars, and deregulation of business? Because these things actually go together? No. This came about because the power brokers in the Republican Party panders to religious fundamentalists in order to get votes, so they can get elected and pursue their economic agenda which benefits their wealthy friends.

      The Democrats aren't much different. They pander to poor people and people afraid of guns with promises of welfare and gun control, so they can get votes and enact laws (like the DMCA) which benefit their wealthy friends and campaign donors.

      These parties would happily change their platforms if it netted them more votes, as long as they could continue enriching themselves and their wealthy friends. These politicians are sociopaths and don't actually care about society, their country, the people they serve, or whether their laws are right or wrong. Why else do you think Republicans, who are always bashing gay people, are frequently discovered (in airport restrooms, no less) to be gay themselves?

  15. Re:Democrats are for defeating, no compromising wi by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we can open that argument up I'm convinced it will be as easy to convince the undecided that the core of the Democratic party is indeed evil as it was to win the argument the Soviet Union was utterly Evil.

    Unless you believe that the core of the Republican party is also evil, I'm afraid I can't support your position.

    I'm younger than you are, so I missed the Cold War scare that you're referring to. Consequently, I don't have an irrational fear and hatred of the USSR drilled into me, so telling me that the Democratic party is as evil as Russia was in Reagan's day just doesn't make the emotional connection you were going for.

    I can see that if you start with the premise that Cold War era Russia was inherently evil, and the Democratic party promotes some of the same ideas that were a cornerstone of Russian society, then the Democratic party must be evil because those ideas must be evil. However, please try to understand that many of us do not take this premise to be a given. If you believe socialized healthcare is evil, you'll have to argue the case for why it is evil, not just draw a connection to Russia. If you believe a so-called "progressive" tax system (in which wealthier people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes) is evil, you'll have to explain why it's evil. If you believe that charging suspected terrorists with crimes and prosecuting them in a court of law, rather than simply detaining them without charge indefinitely and subjecting them to torture, is evil, you'll have to explain why. If you believe requiring a warrant in order to eavesdrop on someone's phone calls is evil, make your case.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  16. People vs. Things by Guppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When it comes to the physiological response, a more complete description might be "fight or flight", as Fear and Aggression are closely linked. In addition, I've noticed that Conservatives tend to be afraid of People, while Liberals tend to be afraid of Things.

    To clarify, I mean that Conservatives seem to focus on threats with a human face -- foreign terrorists and rogue dictators without; criminals, illegal immigrants, and gays within (gays are a particularly interesting example of "threat", due to an odd mix of cultural and psychological reasons, instead of being any threat to life/liberty/livelihood). This leads to harsher law enforcement and big military budgets.

    While Liberals seem to focus on systematic dangers, like pollution or global warming. This leads to lots of attention to things like pesticides, endocrine disruptors, and genetically modified organisms; resulting in lots of regulation and governmental intervention.

  17. Re:yeah right (wing) by Arthur+B. · · Score: 4, Funny

    More

    --
    \u262D = \u5350