|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dems and Reps at age 3? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I was rather astounded by this research.
The article is on page two of this link I recommend reading the whole thing.
All people are born alike”except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.
Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Let me be the first to say that the research is only confirming the obvious.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
In order for this research to actually mean anything, one would have to define conservative or liberal.
Is a person who believes in less federal power but more fiscal responsibility a conservative or a liberal? Is a person who believes drugs and prostitution should be legalized but also believes in strict enforcement of crimes against person or property a conservative or a liberal? Indeed isn't even the thread title a bit oversimplistic? Are all conservatives Republican and all liberals Democrat? Is a Libertarian liberal because they don't believe in victimless crimes or a conservative because they don't believe in welfare. Is a Green a conservative because they believe in conserving the environment for the use of their descendants or a liberal because they believe the solution must be at the federal level? Today people argue that even gender is not an either-or proposition, in at least some cases with merit. Should I seriously consider an article that makes all the flavors of political opinion an either-or proposition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/04/predicting_politics.php
Around 1989, when the participants were 23, six experienced psychologists again rated their personalities. Block also evaluated their political orientations on a five-point scale using a variety of measures including self-identification, the Kerlinger Liberalism and Conservatism Scales and a questionnaire on issues that divided the Republican and Democratic parties at the time. The Kerlinger scale allowed participants to express their opinions on issues such as socialized medicine, racial equality, capitalism and moral standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i think people figure out pretty early whether they care about other people or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5979 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Study Hypothesis writes: The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics. Interesting, but I would like to see the tradition and authority that these kids were raised with. Wouldn't an insecure child from a liberal household tradition take more comfort in what he/she knows best? Would the leaders they recognize as 'authorities' be such based on what they have grown up with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
That's a good question.
I don't know if the researchers included such considerations or not. The thing is, though, three year olds don't really get the whole idea of tradition, I don't think. Remember, the general finding was as it is stated in the OP. There are of course going to be factors that modify individual's views between 3 and 23, but the interesting thing is that the correlation is there, despite all the factors that could be modified in 20 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It has a lot to do with being self-centered. Insecurity leads to selfishness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i think that all depends on what you mean by insecurity. i'm horribly insecure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
It's still a matter of imposing a two-dimensional model on a multi-dimensional reality.
From the same article:
Block acknowledges that his sample skews left and his subjects' hometowns are "appreciably different from much of America," but he maintains that his results are valid at least within his geographical area. Without access to the original article containing details on the research (I tried), it is difficult for me to comment on it's methodology, but I still have difficulty with the idea of jamming everyone into two absolute categories. I think the research would have been more informative if the number of categories had been expanded to better accommodate the diversity of political opinion that exists. Had that been done, I think the results would be far more revealing as to any childhood political predispositions. Also, I would like to add that today in the US for the first time, registered independents outnumber either republicans or democrats. Maybe I am not alone in questioning these ready-made labels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So what are you saying? That the correlation doesn't actually exist? The results are invalid?
Angla, all scientific studies simplify the questions they ask. No scientific study considers every single possible variable that may affect the outcome. If they tried to do this, we would never learn anything about anything. All scientific studies are imperfect, incomplete snapshots of a specific phenomenon (or several phenomena). It is through the accumulation of numerous studies over time that point to the same outcome that a consensus agreement about the explanation for that phenomena is reached.
quote: That's why, as I quoted in my last post, at least one of their methods to determine their subject's political leanings was a scale, not an either-or measure. The study's political categories accurately reflect the social, economic, and moral differences between the major groups as they existed in the late 1980's. They are largely true today, as well. If you want to look at individual case studies so that all the subtle nuances of each person's worldview will be independently considered, that's fine, but you can't do science that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
nator writes: So what are you saying? That the correlation doesn't actually exist? The results are invalid? First, I haven't seen the value of any correlation coefficients so I don't know to what degree any correlation exists. Second, I believe from what I have read so far the results have limited validity.
Angla, all scientific studies simplify the questions they ask. No scientific study considers every single possible variable that may affect the outcome. If they tried to do this, we would never learn anything about anything. All scientific studies are imperfect, incomplete snapshots of a specific phenomenon (or several phenomena). It is through the accumulation of numerous studies over time that point to the same outcome that a consensus agreement about the explanation for that phenomena is reached. There are well-designed studies and there are not so well-designed studies. I am concerned that this study has some researcher bias. From page 3 of the article in the OP:
quote: That's why, as I quoted in my last post, at least one of their methods to determine their subject's political leanings was a scale, not an either-or measure. The study's political categories accurately reflect the social, economic, and moral differences between the major groups as they existed in the late 1980's. They are largely true today, as well. If you want to look at individual case studies so that all the subtle nuances of each person's worldview will be independently considered, that's fine, but you can't do science that way. There is a third way, which would be to determine where opinions cluster into definable groups. A study which uses a two-dimensional scale to lump fiscal conservatives, semi-libertarians, neocons, and evangelicals under the umbrella term conservative is not as useful as one that distinguishes between such groups. Here are a few other small problems I have with this study. 1. It acts as a propaganda instrument against independent and third-party movements by implying one must either be a conservative/republican or liberal/democrat or be in some mushy middle. 2. By being from 1989, it does not take into account any clusters of political beliefs that may have developed since that time, which somewhat limits it's applicability to the current situation. 3. It may hurt the cause of the Democratic Party in the next election by turning off fiscal conservatives and quasi-libertarians through implying they have negative behavioral characteristics. Since the neocon view of government is for huge intrusive scale, limited personal freedom, and reckless spending, the values of the two above mentioned groups are not being well represented by the Republican Party at present. To conclude, I am not mainly saying the study is 'right' or 'wrong,' I'm just saying it could have been better designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 760 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
This online book - not terribly long - reports on research that meshes with that in the OP.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ Well worth the read, and it deals with the numerical measures, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Coragyps writes: This online book - not terribly long - reports on research that meshes with that in the OP.http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ Well worth the read, and it deals with the numerical measures, too. This afternoon I finally made it through all 261 pages, and yes it is well worth the read. It fits in with some research I have been doing that I would like to add to your other topic. The study in the OP in this thread is mentioned in the footnote on page 76 so there is a bit of 'mesh.' However on page 41 there is some discussion concerning the use of the term conservative to mean authoritarian, namely that it is shorthand and the meaning has changed over time. I think terms such as conservative or liberal are not as definitive as the term used in the article, namely RWA - Right Wing Authoritarian. I also think I would easily win any bet that the correlation between the behavioral characteristics mentioned in the OP is far stronger with authoritarianism than conservatism because the term authoritarianism is not as fuzzy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, it doesn't. It is a scientific study. If the results are used that way by others, it is in no way an invalidation of the results any more than if people use results of gender difference studies to justify sexism.
quote: So? Studies of any magnitude and extending over decades will always lag behind current conditions. Does that mean the results are invalid?
quote: So what, we should bury the results because you don't like the political ramifications? Jesus! I can't believe I'm reading this.
quote: I think, angla, that your political agenda is getting in the way of your scientific thinking.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024