Are Conservatives genetically predisposed to being more fearful?

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I am particularly interested to read what Conservatives think of this study.

What about what a former Conservative/Republican thinks?

I'm not so sure conservatives are "genetically" predisposed to be more fearful; fear can be consciously taught and/or instilled. It can also be subconsciously/unintentionally taught/learned. So were the more fearful reactions "innate" or "instilled?" I don't think this study does anything to differentiate between the two, so I think a more appropriate question would be just a straight out "are conservative voters more fearful?" And I think the answer to that is yes. I was a Republican for years, and looking back, it was based on "fears."

Furthermore, I think Bush won the election based on fears; I think he intentionally played on the fear factor.

Do people realize they are 'fearful?' I doubt it, so I'm guessing not a lot of conservatives will agree with that study.

Edited September 23, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

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.

You're making a real leap there. If it's true that there are fewer liberal "rocket scientists" than there are conservative, you'd have to cite a study that shows anyone who doesn't want to be a rocket scientist is "math challenged."

I'm guessing there are many people like me, who tested strong in math/effortlessly got their highest grades in math, but had no desire to go into a career that involves mainly math. You see, people can excel at many things, and generally chose one over the other when making a career choice. In other words, it's a real leap to assume that just because someone doesn't choose a career that's strong in one area that anyone who doesn't choose that career is "challenged" in that area.

[Moonbox]

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.

I largely agree with you there. What I was really saying is that conservative and liberal scare tactics differ greatly in their approach. The conservative approach is more to mock the opposition whereas the Liberal approach is to truly present Harper as an evil scheming dictator. Truthfully I think the CPC attack ads are terrible. Give me a day and I could come up with something better. With that said, I think the Liberal ads are even worse. The Harper = Darth Vader strategy failed them last time but here they are trying it again. *shrug*

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 see what you're saying and I agree with you in regards to the examples you've given. What you're saying is you think it's wrong to exploit the electorate's ignorance by encouraging politically convenient paranoia right? No argument there.

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.

You or I, who obviously show interest in the subject, can rightfully feel insulted. The average Canadian, however, doesn't look deeper than newpaper headlines and television ads. It's their common ignorance and stupidity that encourages idiotic election campaigns. I asked my sister who she was voting for. She said Conservative. I challenged her, "Why?" She said, "Because I think the Green Shift is stupid." I asked her, "Why do you think that?" Her eyes glazed over. That's how far the average voter weighs the issues in an election. You would think they would care a little bit more about something that can and will affect them SIGNIFICANTLY, but the details are too mundane I guess when you can go home and watch, "So you think you can Dance" instead.

For the record, I don't really like Stephen Harper that much. I am voting for him because i appreciated the GST cut and because I think that Flaherty knows what he's doing as finance minister. I loved him in Ontario (aside from the 407). With that said, I think Harper is a bit too bible-thumping and I would probably hate the guy in person. He's an enormous hypocrit and I don't respect that but the alternatives, as has already been mentioned, are far worse.

[Wild Bill]

You're making a real leap there. If it's true that there are fewer liberal "rocket scientists" than there are conservative, you'd have to cite a study that shows anyone who doesn't want to be a rocket scientist is "math challenged."

I'm guessing there are many people like me, who tested strong in math/effortlessly got their highest grades in math, but had no desire to go into a career that involves mainly math. You see, people can excel at many things, and generally chose one over the other when making a career choice. In other words, it's a real leap to assume that just because someone doesn't choose a career that's strong in one area that anyone who doesn't choose that career is "challenged" in that area.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about career paths. I'm simply voicing my suspicions that the majority of NDP types seem to be the folks that are more intuitive in their thinking rather than "cause and effect". It would go a long way to explain why "lefties" seem to focus on their goals and get rather vague about the details of how to achieve them and make them self-sustainable.

There is a clear difference between those who think in logical terms and scientific method and those who are more intuitive. I'm not making a value judgement. Both methods of thinking have value in different situations. It CAN however explain how two such kinds of people have trouble understanding each other.

[August1991]

Is this what passes for scientific research nowadays? Show pictures to 46 people and then guess how they react?

From link above:

Their research, published in the journal Science, indicates that people who are sensitive to fear or threat are likely to support a right wing agenda.

Those who perceived less danger in a series of images and sounds were more inclined to support liberal policies.

The authors believe their findings may help to explain why voters' minds are so hard to change.

In the study, conducted in Nebraska, 46 volunteers were first asked about their political views on issues ranging from foreign aid and the Iraq war to capital punishment and patriotism.

Those with strong opinions were invited to take part in the second part of the experiment, which involved recording their physiological responses to a series of images and sounds.

----

I'm not so sure conservatives are "genetically" predisposed to be more fearful; fear can be consciously taught and/or instilled. It can also be subconsciously/unintentionally taught/learned. So were the more fearful reactions "innate" or "instilled?" I don't think this study does anything to differentiate between the two, so I think a more appropriate question would be just a straight out "are conservative voters more fearful?" And I think the answer to that is yes. I was a Republican for years, and looking back, it was based on "fears."

Well, women tend to be more risk averse than men. In general, women prefer jobs that involve less risk of injury and less chance of being unemployed. (I am generalizing and of course, there are many individual exceptions. This explains in part why women on average earn less than men since riskier jobs typically pay more than safer, more secure jobs. This difference between men and women has been observed across ages and cultures.) Older people also tend to be more risk averse than younger people. Rich people tend to be more risk averse than poorer people.

Now then, women generally vote in favour of the Democrats in the US and for the Liberals/NDP in Canada. (This is known as the gender deficit.) Curiously though, women in Quebec are more inclined to be federalist than sovereignist.

I frankly don't think it is so simple to correlate risk aversion and voting patterns. The study reported in the BBC is laughable.

I tend to agree with the general opinion above that political parties play on fear if it will gain them votes. The right tends to imply that we'll be overrun by terrorist hordes and the Left tends to imply that we'll burn up/drown in an environmental hecatomb.

-----

The New York Times over the weekend had an interesting essay by Hannah Seligson, a twenty-something free-lance journalist who writes about her “rocky entrance” into the working world. Her observation: Women often excel and outperform men in the classroom, but they’re ill-prepared for the realities of what it takes to succeed at work. Many women, she says, are too perfectionist and hence averse to risk-taking, asking for raises, being told “no,” bragging about themselves, and other activities men seem more comfortable with.

She writes: “I used to think that perfection was the pathway to success. Not so, according to women I have interviewed who have reached the apex of their professions. Rather, it can lead to paralysis. Women, I have found, can let perfectionism stop them from speaking up or taking risks. For men, especially if they are thick-skinned, the thought of someone telling them ‘no’ tends not to be viewed as earth-shattering.”

WSJ

[Who's Doing What?]

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)!!!

My cat's name is tango.

You are right about the coin 100%.

Makes me hate to have to choose.

[marksman]

I largely agree with you there. What I was really saying is that conservative and liberal scare tactics differ greatly in their approach. The conservative approach is more to mock the opposition whereas the Liberal approach is to truly present Harper as an evil scheming dictator.

They're different that's correct. I guess I'm not as concerned with the differences because to me saying "don't vote for him because he'll destroy the economy and you'll lose your house" sounds more or less the same as "don't vote for him because he'll destroy public healthcare and you'll be unable to get medical treatment". It's all ridiculous.

You or I, who obviously show interest in the subject, can rightfully feel insulted. The average Canadian, however, doesn't look deeper than newpaper headlines and television ads. It's their common ignorance and stupidity that encourages idiotic election campaigns.

I'm more optimistic about the average Canadian. I think negative campaigning's part of a vicious cycle where people expect less because of it and stop paying attention and then that encourages more negative campaigning. If we've got politicians who ran good campaigns and talked about issues then maybe people would care more and pay attention. I'm not willing to write off Canadian voters yet.

You're right in a way because there'll always be people who've got no idea why they're voting for something. I think that with real leaders those types of voters might be in the minority.

It'll probably be really depressing for me if we actually had real leaders running a campaign and Canadian voters still didn't think their votes through. "Luckily" I doubt we'll be getting a crop of real leaders any time soon.

For the record, I don't really like Stephen Harper that much. I am voting for him because i appreciated the GST cut and because I think that Flaherty knows what he's doing as finance minister. I loved him in Ontario (aside from the 407). With that said, I think Harper is a bit too bible-thumping and I would probably hate the guy in person. He's an enormous hypocrit and I don't respect that but the alternatives, as has already been mentioned, are far worse.

We may disagree on things like the GST and Flaherty but I'm glad you're 1 of the few that seems to look at the good and the bad before voting. It's the people who ignore any possible faults of their chosen candidate that I don't get. Like saying Harper's such an honest and accountable guy except that he's just like every other politician.

I'm still undecided on my vote right now but leaning towards Liberal. I think Canada needs to start doing something to address carbon emissions and unfortunately the Green Shift is the only game in town right now. The reason I haven't decided yet is that I haven't had a chance to go through the recently released platform and it seems like Dion's been going on a promise making spree. My problem with Harper is mostly the hypocrisy but also a few other things. I don't like politicians that cut programs that help poor people get access to the courts. Or politicians who try to avoid or control reporters.

[WIP]

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.

There may be some truth to the study. I can't help noticing that Republican campaign strategy is all about pushing emotional levers these days. Every message revolves around fear, greed, revenge, patriotism and combinations thereof.

It certainly doesn't account for people who have shifted in their political opinions and orientation. I grew up in an N.D.P. family that lived and breathed union politics, but as I moved out of entry level jobs into the middleclass and started paying higher taxes, and found myself supporting a family, I noticed my political opinions and voting drifted across the Liberal Party to the Conservatives. Over the last five years, I've become disillusioned with the Right, and I'm not sure where I'll end up!

If I took this test, would my results have changed as my political opinions were changing? At the end of the story, it mentioned that Dr Hibbing feels that the results may help explain why it is so hard to change someone's mind in a political debate: Different people, he said, started from a different psychological point. "You have people who are experiencing the world, who are experiencing threat, differently.

But why shouldn't the same reasons apply to all belief positions? A better explanation for why we hold fast to our beliefs is offered by neurologist Robert Burton. He contends that our sense of certainty of beliefs are not a result of a conscious thought process, but instead the feeling of knowing is a mental sensation that functions independently of reason and rationality. Feeling correct or certain isn't a deliberate conclusion or conscious choice. It is a mental sensation that happens to us.