It official, conservatives are more fearful (emotional) than liberals

it explains a lot tbh...

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative
Ten years ago, it was wildly controversial to talk about psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Today, it's becoming hard not to.
—By Chris Mooney

Scientists are using eye-tracking devices to detect automatic response differences between liberals and conservatives. University of Nebraska-Lincoln

You could be forgiven for not having browsed yet through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you'll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called "Open Peer Commentary": An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it, and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics.

That's a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics—upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway).

It is a "virtually inescapable conclusion" that the "cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different."The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.)

In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it).

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.
The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. "One possibility," they write, "is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene," when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed. (The Pleistocene epoch lasted from roughly 2.5 million years ago until 12,000 years ago.) We had John Hibbing on the Inquiring Minds podcast earlier this year, and he discussed these ideas in depth; you can listen here:

Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what's truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, "22 or 23 accept the general idea" of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of "modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work," and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely.

That's pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that There is by now evidence from a variety of laboratories around the world using a variety of methodological techniques leading to the virtually inescapable conclusion that the cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different. This research consistently finds that conservatism is positively associated with heightened epistemic concerns for order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity, as well as existential concerns such as perceptions of danger, sensitivity to threat, and death anxiety. [Italics added]

Back in 2003, Jost and his team were blasted by Ann Coulter, George Will, andNational Review for saying this; congressional Republicans began probing into their research grants; and they got lots of hate mail. But what's clear is that today, they've more or less triumphed. They won a field of converts to their view and sparked a wave of new research, including the work of Hibbing and his team.

"One possibility," note the authors, "is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene," when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed.

Granted, there are still many issues yet to be worked out in the science of ideology. Most of the commentaries on the new Hibbing paper are focused on important but not-paradigm-shifting side issues, such as the question of how conservatives can have a higher negativity bias, and yet not have neurotic personalities. (Actually, if anything, the research suggests that liberals may be the more neurotic bunch.) Indeed, conservatives tend to have a high degree of happiness and life satisfaction. But Hibbing and colleagues find no contradiction here. Instead, they paraphrase two other scholarly commentators (Matt Motyl of the University of Virginia and Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California), who note that "successfully monitoring and attending negative features of the environment, as conservatives tend to do, may be just the sort of tractable task…that is more likely to lead to a fulfilling and happy life than is a constant search for new experience after new experience."

All of this matters, of course, because we still operate in politics and in media as if minds can be changed by the best honed arguments, the most compelling facts. And yet if our political opponents are simply perceiving the world differently, that idea starts to crumble. Out of the rubble just might arise a better way of acting in politics that leads to less dysfunction and less gridlock…thanks to science.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...egativity-bias

By just the title of the thread, and not reading the OP yet...

I would say conservatives are more emotional because they don't have fake emotion pushed on them like liberals do. Look at all the political correctness they must fey emotion over.

How Much Do Our Genes Influence Our Political Beliefs?

A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness,” published by the journal Personality and Individual Differences in 2013, three psychologists write that “authoritarianism, religiousness and conservatism,” which they call the “traditional moral values triad,” are “substantially influenced by genetic factors.” According to the authors — Steven Ludeke of Colgate, Thomas J. Bouchard of the University of Minnesota, and Wendy Johnson of the University of Edinburgh — all three traits are reflections of “a single, underlying tendency,” previously described in one word by Bouchard in a 2006 paper as “traditionalism.” Traditionalists in this sense are defined as “having strict moral standards and child-rearing practices, valuing conventional propriety and reputation, opposing rebelliousness and selfish disregard of others, and valuing religious institutions and practices.”

“the correlation between religious importance and conservatism” is “driven primarily, but usually not exclusively, by genetic factors.” The substantial “genetic component in these relationships suggests that there may be a common underlying predisposition that leads individuals to adopt conservative bedrock social principles and political ideologies while simultaneously feeling the need for religious experiences.”

From this perspective, the Democratic Party — supportive of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the primacy of self-expressive individualism over obligation to family — is irreconcilably alien to a segment of the electorate. And the same is true from the opposite viewpoint: a Republican Party committed to right-to-life policies, to a belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman, and to family obligation over self-actualization, is profoundly unacceptable to many on the left.

If these predispositions are, as Friesen and Ksiazkiewicz argue, to some degree genetically rooted, they may not lend themselves to rational debate and compromise.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/09...iefs.html?_r=0

Its important to note the two posters who immediately react to classifying.

they also did the study that shows conservatives have higher testosterone levels and bigger balls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

they also did the study that shows conservatives have higher testosterone levels and bigger balls

---

Doubt it. That doesn't really jive with the science here bud. You're an emotional wreck who lives in and is driven by emotion (particularly fear). I'd hardly equate that with high testosterone and big balls. You're a fearful, emotionally stunted man. The science is in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...servative.html

it's true dude. not even trolling here, it's pretty obvious that most of you liberals are weak and effeminate just look no further than chumpdumper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...servative.html

it's true dude. not even trolling here, it's pretty obvious that most of you liberals are weak and effeminate just look no further than chumpdumper.

---

Article didn't reference testosterone or big balls. It really just said meat necks who don't use their mind are more inclined to vote conservative. Can't say I disagree with that. Nice work emo.

It said conservatives tend to be physically stronger men. Testosterone builds and maintains muscle. Balls produce testosterone.


Who's the dumbass now, blue balls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Doubt it. That doesn't really jive with the science here bud. You're an emotional wreck who lives in and is driven by emotion (particularly fear). I'd hardly equate that with high testosterone and big balls. You're a fearful, emotionally stunted man. The science is in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Article didn't reference testosterone or big balls. It really just said meat necks who don't use their mind are more inclined to vote conservative. Can't say I disagree with that. Nice work emo.

---

Pretty emotional posts there :lol

Now we got the whole crew riled up. Who are we missing? Need a cameo from CC dismissing it out of hand, DarrinS posting a completely irrelevant YouTube video, then TB challenging the statistical accuracy of the study before the threads complete tbh :lol Am I missing anyone? Angrydude? The king emo. Need him to blow a libertarian gasket in here as well.

Nobody's "riled up," you just never have an actual response to anything that isn't retarded liberalism, hence your :cry "you're being emotional!!!" :cry schtick....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

Nobody's "riled up," you just never have an actual response to anything that isn't retarded liberalism, hence your :cry "you're being emotional!!!" :cry schtick....

---

Response? What do you want to hear? Conservatives are generally more fearful than liberals. That's what the study says. You've added nothing but emotion to this thread...per par, for the resident ronpaul.com subscriber. What are you paying for that, like $29.99 a month?

Wow. My first fan.

Healthy suspicion is a primal survival instinct..were more manly and have bigger balls after all so it makes sense.

Sorry. Forgot the emoticons. I'm such a failed conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Response? What do you want to hear? Conservatives are generally more fearful than liberals. That's what the study says. You've added nothing but emotion to this thread...per par, for the resident ronpaul.com subscriber. What are you paying for that, like $29.99 a month?

---

Lather, rinse, repeat.... I'd estimate that 90% of your posts have been spent on telling conservative posters that they're :cry "being emotional!!!" :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Sorry. Forgot the emoticons. I'm such a failed conservative.

---

Actually, I generally would like you to point out the shortfalls of the study. The analytical approach is appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

Healthy suspicion is a primal survival instinct..were more manly and have bigger balls after all so it makes sense.

---

Healthy suspicion and having an irrational response to a picture of a spider aren't the same thing. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

Lather, rinse, repeat.... I'd estimate that 90% of your posts have been spent on telling conservative posters that they're :cry "being emotional!!!" :cry

---

You're emo.

:lol Ron paul

:lol emo

seriously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Actually, I generally would like you to point out the shortfalls of the study. The analytical approach is appreciated.

---

Not exactly in my wheelhouse. I'd take a run at reading the paper if Mother Jones provided a link. The link in the MJ article doesn't parse.
I am fairly skeptical of a characterization of a study provided by Mother Jones. They've not exactly been the standard bearer of neutral/objective journalism.

Characterizing "......positively associated with heightened epistemic concerns for order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity, as well as existential concerns such as perceptions of danger, sensitivity to threat, and death anxiety. [Italics added]" as fear (a clinically undefined term in this MJ narrative) might be the first petard to be hoisted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

You're emo.

:lol Ron paul

:lol emo

seriously

---

^ Well-thought-out and totally unemotional rebuttal....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

Healthy suspicion is a primal survival instinct..were more manly and have bigger balls after all so it makes sense.

---

The Nazi has healthy suspicions...

No need to worry, the Nazi will take care of any Jew vampires.
Sleep well all, your necks are safe.

And your large balls Nazi, it's inflammation.
You get em kicked in quite often.

Let me know when the trolls leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...servative.html

it's true dude. not even trolling here, it's pretty obvious that most of you liberals are weak and effeminate just look no further than chumpdumper.

---

lol you are so emo.

And a huge lol to that study. Hollywood action heroes? That's the basis of your claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

muh feels

---

Suck it up and stiffen that upper lip soldier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

Suck it up and stiffen that upper lip soldier

---

Don't try to project your emo on others.

Wonderful examples in here of right-wingers' adolescent, even puerile, definition of what manhood is, never mind adult hood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Wonderful examples in here of right-wingers' adolescent, even puerile, definition of what manhood is, never mind adult hood.

---

Manhood will be on full display during the coming 2nd American civil war
This is a great active from yesterday

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/07/americ...tion-1-people/

just remember bet that when guys like m>s and DD are bearing down on you and you've got CD in the trench next to you that it's too late to repent because there will be no mercy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Now we got the whole crew riled up. Who are we missing? Need a cameo from CC dismissing it out of hand, DarrinS posting a completely irrelevant YouTube video, then TB challenging the statistical accuracy of the study before the threads complete tbh :lol Am I missing anyone? Angrydude? The king emo. Need him to blow a libertarian gasket in here as well.

---

Is this supposed to be not emotional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

it explains a lot tbh...


(Actually, if anything, the research suggests that liberals may be the more neurotic bunch.)

---

Explains the bunch here tbh

Link from OP

http://sites.duke.edu/niou/files/201...huber-etal.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

Manhood will be on full display during the coming 2nd American civil war
This is a great active from yesterday

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/07/americ...tion-1-people/

just remember bet that when guys like m>s and DD are bearing down on you and you've got CD in the trench next to you that it's too late to repent because there will be no mercy

---

You said you were leaving the US.

We're you just being emotional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Is this supposed to be not emotional?

---

what's so emotional about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

what's so emotional about it?

---

Why do you always think of emotions as a negative thing and try to deny that you act on them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Why do you always think of emotions as a negative thing and try to deny that you act on them?

---

Ah, the semantics game again. You know what I'm talking about. I realize I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but generally speaking, constevatives let emotion drive their decision making whereas liberals use logic and reason and empirical data. That all. I don't know why that bothers you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Ah, the semantics game again. You know what I'm talking about. I realize I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but generally speaking, constevatives let emotion drive their decision making whereas liberals use logic and reason and empirical data. That all. I don't know why that bothers you.

---

I'm pretty sure the study concludes nothing of the sort. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

Manhood will be on full display during the coming 2nd American civil war
This is a great active from yesterday

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/07/americ...tion-1-people/

just remember bet that when guys like m>s and DD are bearing down on you and you've got CD in the trench next to you that it's too late to repent because there will be no mercy

---

Will you display your enormous balls before you advance on The Bootian front line?
I mean, he might retreat without a fight...

liberals are only concern about the $

they dont care even if its selling their own for $

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

liberals are only concern about the $

they dont care even if its selling their own for $

---

"liberals" are conservatives in upside-down AU.

Liberals and conservatives are liberal and conservative in US.

nearly every one of them runs for office to get rich.