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."

23 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. 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 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.
    5. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.
  6. 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 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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."

  10. 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.
  11. 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?

  12. 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;