Are Conservatives genetically predisposed to being more fearful?

[shelphs]

Are Conservatives genetically predisposed to being more fearful?

An article entitled “Political view ‘all in the mind’” was published/posted by BBC on September 18, 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7623256.stm).

The study conducted in Nebraska was of a small scale: out of 46 volunteers, those who had strong political views and agreed to take part in the second part of the experiment were exposed to images and sounds while their physiological responses were observed/recorded.

The researchers concluded that people who have an increased perception of threat in the world in which we all live are more likely to be right wing voters; therefore, our innate perception of reality and threat contributes to our political mind-set, and that is why it is so difficult to change other’s minds on political issues.

What are your thoughts on this? I am particularly interested to read what Conservatives think of this study.

[Wild Bill]

Are Conservatives genetically predisposed to being more fearful?

An article entitled “Political view ‘all in the mind’” was published/posted by BBC on September 18, 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7623256.stm).

The study conducted in Nebraska was of a small scale: out of 46 volunteers, those who had strong political views and agreed to take part in the second part of the experiment were exposed to images and sounds while their physiological responses were observed/recorded.

The researchers concluded that people who have an increased perception of threat in the world in which we all live are more likely to be right wing voters; therefore, our innate perception of reality and threat contributes to our political mind-set, and that is why it is so difficult to change other’s minds on political issues.

What are your thoughts on this? I am particularly interested to read what Conservatives think of this study.

Well, I'm more of a Libertarian or perhaps classic Liberal. It's ironic how on this board so many assume I must be a Conservative. So much for dictionaries, I guess.

Anyhow, I dunno about being more fearful but I would agree that there are definitely personality traits associated with political leanings.

I am constantly struck by how many "lefties" are math challenged! It seems that this side of the fence doesn't tend to attract hard scientists and engineers, or techie types. If they do attract scientists it's usually botanists instead of physicists, rarely rocket scientists.

There are exceptions of course but over the span of my life the trend seems overwhelming. I too would be interested if others have noticed more non-political traits associated with political leanings.

[capricorn]

Are Conservatives genetically predisposed to being more fearful?

shelphs, I dug up the link to read the article you refer to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7623256.stm

I am not so sure that the predisposition to be conservative minded is genetic in nature. In my case, I was a lifelong Liberal Party supporter until the right united under Harper and the CPC. You could say I was an inter-generational Liberal Party voter, as many francophones are, simply because that is how my family voted traditionally. It is only since I began supporting the Conservatives that I began thinking seriously about my own political ideology. I have determined that at this stage of my life I am of the conservative mindset.

I looked around to find other studies that were done on the question you raise. I came across this very interesting article from Psychology Today titled "The Ideological Animal" which in fact compares the liberal mindset and the conservative mindset. It addresses your question as to whether conservatives are inherently "fearful". What I found interesting is that psychological researchers have found a credible link between 9/11 and other terrorism events to the rise of conservatism in the general population.

I won't quote from the article. There's just too much information of interest to be selective. I'm sure you and other readers will find it interesting.

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index....0001&page=1

As a final comment I would suggest this topic would be more appropriately placed in the political philosophy forum.

[Who's Doing What?]

Are you suggesting the CPC has been practicing genetic engineering?

[Bryan]

If anything, it's the opposite. It's the left that are the ones always using fear mongering as a means to get their points across. Global Warming anyone?

[Who's Doing What?]

If anything, it's the opposite. It's the left that are the ones always using fear mongering as a means to get their points across. Global Warming anyone?

Really?

CPC lottery ad campaign anyone.

[marksman]

If anything, it's the opposite. It's the left that are the ones always using fear mongering as a means to get their points across. Global Warming anyone?

War on terror?

War on drugs?

Stop immigration before immigrants destroy the Canadian way of life?

I'm sure both sides use fear tactics sometimes but it does seem like it's used more often to support right wing policies.

[scribblet]

Genetic - really. Nothing here, moving right along

[capricorn]

War on terror?

War on drugs?

Stop immigration before immigrants destroy the Canadian way of life?

I'm sure both sides use fear tactics sometimes but it does seem like it's used more often to support right wing policies.

I don't agree with your example of immigrants. There's no evidence that the Conservatives have scaled back on the number of immigrants we take in or issued warnings against immigrants. But for the rest, yes, and as the article I linked suggests, using fear as a motivator to push policies forward seems to work.

[marksman]

I don't agree with your example of immigrants. There's no evidence that the Conservatives have scaled back on the number of immigrants we take in or issued warnings against immigrants. But for the rest, yes, and as the article I linked suggests, using fear as a motivator to push policies forward seems to work.

Sorry I should've said that I wasn't limiting myself to any 1 political party but to arguments that I've heard from right wing type people in general. In Canada even the wars on terror and drugs have less fear mongering than in the US where the immigration issue does come up more often with political parties using fear tactics.

[capricorn]

Marksman, thanks for clarifying. I agree in Canada it is done more subtly than in the US. As they say, know your audience.

[BC_chick]

Let's see, it's true that people are more fearless when they're young... and it's also true that people tend to move to the right the older they get... so ya, the study makes sense.

[DrGreenthumb]

Let's see, it's true that people are more fearless when they're young... and it's also true that people tend to move to the right the older they get... so ya, the study makes sense.

kind of explains the conservative "scare people into voting for us" technique.

Young people are scary, we will put them in jail. vote con!

plants are scary we will put people who grow plants in jail vote con!

forigners are scary we will go to their countries and kill them so they can't come here and kill us vote con

[cybercoma]

kind of explains the conservative "scare people into voting for us" technique.

I'm pretty sure it was the left wing parties that were trying to scare voters away from the Conservatives, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

[marksman]

I'm pretty sure it was the left wing parties that were trying to scare voters away from the Conservatives, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

And right now the Conservatives are trying to scare voters away from the Liberals.

When it comes to discussing specific parties that's why it isn't a question of which party uses scare tactics - the questions are which party uses scare tactics more and how does a party use scare tactics?

The how question's more important. Do the parties use the scare tactics simply to get votes like by saying a particular leader "is scary" or do they use them to justify policies? I think using people's fear to justify policies is much worse.

[eyeball]

It is only since I began supporting the Conservatives that I began thinking seriously about my own political ideology. I have determined that at this stage of my life I am of the conservative mindset.

Did your math skills improve by any chance?

[Bryan]

And right now the Conservatives are trying to scare voters away from the Liberals.

CPC is warning voters about Liberal policy, and reminding them of Dion's indecisiveness. It's the NDP and Liberals that are running the "Harper is scary" campaign. It was the left that ran the "they are right wing therefor they are scary" campaigns against the Reform as well.

In Canada, no question, the left are the ideology of fear.

[Moonbox]

And right now the Conservatives are trying to scare voters away from the Liberals.

When it comes to discussing specific parties that's why it isn't a question of which party uses scare tactics - the questions are which party uses scare tactics more and how does a party use scare tactics?

I think that there's HUGE and distinguishable difference between the scare tactics of the different parties. The Conservatives are making Canadians question very specific policies Dion has brought forth. He's said Dion wants to raise GST back, which he's said openly is a strong possibility. They said he'll cost Canadians money via the Green Shift, which is impossible to argue unless you belong to the lowest of the lowest tax brackets. He's said Dion is a poor leader and not worth the risk and I don't think that's really much of a stretch given his bumbling.

Opposition, on the other hand, sends the vague and ambiguous message Harper hates the environment, the economy and Canada itself. According to them, he encourages his ministers to say stupid things and his party is the only one that has boneheaded members. NDP (who I hold in absolute contempt more and more each day) have taken it a step further by devolving their propaganda back to WWII era imagery of soldiers marching and bombs dropping.

The how question's more important. Do the parties use the scare tactics simply to get votes like by saying a particular leader "is scary" or do they use them to justify policies? I think using people's fear to justify policies is much worse.

This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that we shouldn't be talking policies and we should instead argue image and rhetoric like the Americans? In a sense I get what you're saying in that Bush and his administration have Americans so terrified that they'd probably vote for Rambo as president but I think that's more a testament to their sheeply tendancies than it is of anything else.

I think scare tactics regarding things like "higher taxes" are unavoidable in election campaigns. You HAVE to talk about the issues and ponder at the consequences of your opponent's policies. The silly imagery that comes with the idiotic ads all three parties have come up with this year I think is insulting to Canadians and completely unnecessary, but a lot of Canadians buy that sort of crap so it kind of tells you how sophisticated the average mind really is.

[marksman]

CPC is warning voters about Liberal policy, and reminding them of Dion's indecisiveness. It's the NDP and Liberals that are running the "Harper is scary" campaign. It was the left that ran the "they are right wing therefor they are scary" campaigns against the Reform as well.

In Canada, no question, the left are the ideology of fear.

CPC saying that voting for Dion is like gambling and that he's a weak leader that'll destroy the economy is a scare tactic.

CPC questioning the amount of spending and questioning its effect on the economy isn't a scare tactic.

They use both.

Liberals saying that Harper has hidden agendas and that he'll destroy the country is a scare tactic.

Liberals questioning actual comments made by CPC candidates isn't a scare tactic. Questioning why Harper won't disclose a party policy on issues like abortion isn't a scare tactic.

They use both.

The only way the left is without question the ideology of fear is if you're so partisan that you're blind to the fact that all parties use scare tactics.

But when talking about ideologies in general at least lately the policies of the right seem more often promoted with scare tactics than the policies of the left.

[Oleg Bach]

CPC saying that voting for Dion is like gambling and that he's a weak leader that'll destroy the economy is a scare tactic.

CPC questioning the amount of spending and questioning its effect on the economy isn't a scare tactic.

They use both.

Liberals saying that Harper has hidden agendas and that he'll destroy the country is a scare tactic.

Liberals questioning actual comments made by CPC candidates isn't a scare tactic. Questioning why Harper won't disclose a party policy on issues like abortion isn't a scare tactic.

They use both.

The only way the left is without question the ideology of fear is if you're so partisan that you're blind to the fact that all parties use scare tactics.

But when talking about ideologies in general at least lately the policies of the right seem more often promoted with scare tactics than the policies of the left.

Like pot smokers who do not get paranoid after inhaling wheel chair weed..these smokers are to stupid to be paranoid and are unaware of the preditorial nature of human beings. What I have just described here is the core of the liberal mindset...trusting and foolish to a fault - Conservatives are more fearful because they are traditionalist and are very aware of what human nature is historically - that people can be bad and go bad in a turn and harm you. Conservatives believe in good and evil...Liberals believe that everyone is good..that is an error.

[tango]

Isn't it well known that Libs and Cons are two sides of the same corporate 'coin'?

I mean, what's the point of even choosing between two versions of the status quo?

Get crazy ... choose between NDP (socialist-green) or Green (capitalist-green)!!!

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[marksman]

I think that there's HUGE and distinguishable difference between the scare tactics of the different parties. The Conservatives are making Canadians question very specific policies Dion has brought forth. He's said Dion wants to raise GST back, which he's said openly is a strong possibility. They said he'll cost Canadians money via the Green Shift, which is impossible to argue unless you belong to the lowest of the lowest tax brackets. He's said Dion is a poor leader and not worth the risk and I don't think that's really much of a stretch given his bumbling.

Opposition, on the other hand, sends the vague and ambiguous message Harper hates the environment, the economy and Canada itself. According to them, he encourages his ministers to say stupid things and his party is the only one that has boneheaded members. NDP (who I hold in absolute contempt more and more each day) have taken it a step further by devolving their propaganda back to WWII era imagery of soldiers marching and bombs dropping.

It's all in how you phrase it. You can also see my last post for how I think both parties use scare tactics and legitimate tactics to address the same issues.

Some people say Harper hates the environment. Other people point out that his plans haven't addressed any of the real problems and that by promoting intensity targets he's really promoting a policy that'd increase emissions not reduce them. The 1st is a scare tactic. The 2nd is legitimate.

Some people say Dion's policies will be bad for the economy and make legitimate points about it. That's not a scare tactic. Other people do use scare tactics and try to say that a vote for Dion is a gamble and that he's weak without ever pointing to an actual policy or fact. The whole "Dion is weak" campaign is a scare tactic. It doesn't address any policy but does bring to mind the idea of what happens when we're attacked or something horrible happens.

This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that we shouldn't be talking policies and we should instead argue image and rhetoric like the Americans? In a sense I get what you're saying in that Bush and his administration have Americans so terrified that they'd probably vote for Rambo as president but I think that's more a testament to their sheeply tendancies than it is of anything else.

I'm saying the exact opposite of that! So I'll have to explain what I mean. We should be talking about policies and not focusing on image. I've talked about this in another topic.

Take the issue of drug use. How does a party justify it's drug policies? Does it talk about actual statistics and how programs can be tailored to fix problems or does the party say if your kids use pot they'll end up addicted to crack and'll turn into monsters? The 2nd justification is a scare tactic to justify a policy.

National security is another example. Parties who say we need more military spending because terrorists will attack us are trying to scare people into voting for that policy. Fear shouldn't be used to justify increased spending on the military or anything else. There're legitimate reasons to increase military spending.

I'm trying to say that we'll always have an element of scare tactics when it comes to things like a leader's capabilities at least so long as candidates insist on attacking personal characteristics. That's bad but not as bad as using scare tactics to justify policies on specific issues. If the only reason you've got to justify a policy is that bad things might happen then your policy needs to be rethought.

I think scare tactics regarding things like "higher taxes" are unavoidable in election campaigns. You HAVE to talk about the issues and ponder at the consequences of your opponent's policies. The silly imagery that comes with the idiotic ads all three parties have come up with this year I think is insulting to Canadians and completely unnecessary, but a lot of Canadians buy that sort of crap so it kind of tells you how sophisticated the average mind really is.

Canadian politics right now is extremely insulting to Canadians. Idiotic personal attacks and even stupider comments made by candidates of all parties. Justifications for policies on all sides that high school students could probably poke holes in. And the partisan attacking done by all parties and their supporters is ridiculous.

I don't think Canadians would buy that crap if they had a choice. But we don't have that choice. No one's been able to show that they're worthy of a vote so instead people vote for what they think is the least worst choice.

[tango]

Canadian politics right now is extremely insulting to Canadians. Idiotic personal attacks and even stupider comments made by candidates of all parties. Justifications for policies on all sides that high school students could probably poke holes in. And the partisan attacking done by all parties and their supporters is ridiculous.

I don't think Canadians would buy that crap if they had a choice. But we don't have that choice. No one's been able to show that they're worthy of a vote so instead people vote for what they think is the least worst choice.

HEAR!HEAR! Well said!

... and from my post above ...

Isn't it well known that Libs and Cons are two sides of the same corporate 'coin'?

I mean, what's the point of even choosing between two versions of the status quo?

Get crazy ... choose between NDP (socialist-green) or Green (capitalist-green)!!!

[Oleg Bach]

HEAR!HEAR! Well said!

... and from my post above ...

Isn't it well known that Libs and Cons are two sides of the same corporate 'coin'?

I mean, what's the point of even choosing between two versions of the status quo?

Get crazy ... choose between NDP (socialist-green) or Green (capitalist-green)!!!

Well said - the libs are the corporate henchmen (most unknowingly) and the Cons are the managers. Harper should slowly accept the fact that Canada has matured and he will eventually convince the public that benevolent dictatorship is the only way to go - I don't know if this boyish prime minister who would rather be Wayne Gretsky...is up for the job of benevolent king dictator - there must be at least one good dictator type available for the job?

[Wild Bill]

HEAR!HEAR! Well said!

... and from my post above ...

Isn't it well known that Libs and Cons are two sides of the same corporate 'coin'?

I mean, what's the point of even choosing between two versions of the status quo?

Get crazy ... choose between NDP (socialist-green) or Green (capitalist-green)!!!

Non sequitur! Just because there are two sides doesn't mean that one side is better than the other. Just because one might be disenchanted with his common choices doesn't mean that ANY other choice like the Greens would automatically be better.

From what I read from the Greens they have little besides Green in their platform. From their ideas of how capitalism works I wouldn't let them run a variety store. Their socialist ideas seem stronger but cribbed from the NDP.

They are a one note flute! They would obviously love to steal from the existing parties but they really don't seem to have better than a college frosh's concept of anything but their green goals.

No shame to that. They are a young party. They may look much better when they grow up.