Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Ironically Evolution explains the differences between liberals and conservatives

Posted by on Feb. 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM
  • 26 Replies

Want to Understand Republicans? First Understand Evolution

Earlier this week, yesterday's Republican primary champ Rick Santorum called global warming a "hoax." Yes, a hoax. In other words, apparently scientists are in a global cabal to needlessly alarm us about what's happening with the climate -- and why would they do such a thing?

Well, presumably to help advance an economy-choking agenda of global governance -- or perhaps, to line their own pockets with government research grants. Seriously.

Santorum's absurd global warming conspiracy theory is the kind of thing that absolutely outrages liberals -- but to my mind, they really ought to be getting used to it by now. From global warming denial to claims about "death panels" to baseless fears about inflation, it often seems there are so many factually wrong claims on the political right that those who make them live in a different reality.

So here's an idea: Maybe they actually do. And maybe we can look to science itself -- albeit, ironically, a body of science whose fundamental premise (the theory of evolution) most  Republicans deny -- to help understand why it is that they view the world so differently.

In my last piece here, I commented on the growing body of research suggesting that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not merely ideological in nature. Rather, it seems more deeply rooted in psychology and the brain -- with ideology itself emerging as a kind of by-product of fundamentally different patterns of perceiving and responding to the world that spill over into many aspects of life, not just the political.

To back this up, I listed seven published studies showing a consistent set of physiological, brain, and "attentional" differences between liberals and conservatives. Later on my blog, I listed no less than eleven studies showing genetic differences as well.

Last month, yet another scientific paper on this subject came out -- from the National Science Foundation-supported political physiology laboratory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The work, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (free version here), goes further still in helping us understand how biological and physiological differences between liberals and conservatives may lead to very different patterns of political behavior.

As the new research suggests, conservatism is largely a defensive ideology -- and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments. By contrast, liberalism can be thought of as an exploratory ideology -- much more appealing to people who go through life trying things out and seeking the new.

to read the rest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/want-to-understand-republ_b_1262542.html

by on Feb. 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
futureshock
by Ruby Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 11:13 AM
3 moms liked this

The right wing's denial of science is just one reason why I would never vote for a Republican candidate.

cueballsmom
by Silver Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 12:50 PM
7 moms liked this
It has been proven many times over that the whole glodal climate change is a normal fluctuation pattern that we have little influence over. Why do Democratic buy into bull so whole heartedly? Real scientist scoff at the ideas, but scaring people into buying electric cars, that ultimately use energy made by dirty means, is a good business move.

The only clean energy is wind energy. Which is difficult at best. Solar is okay, but to make the solar panels creates poluution. Dams do it, at the cost of marine life. Nuclear is okay, until you need to trash the material. And coal turbines, well that explains itself.

So, any way. Beginning an article with a false premise totally destroyed any credibility author may have started with.
DivingDiva
by Gold Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM
2 moms liked this

I am highly skeptical about this type of research.  There seems to be the assumption that political ideology is bimodal in nature.  That is, there are two distinct groups within the population, each with its own normally distributed group of attributes.  I would argue that political orientation is one population attribute and political attitudes overall are normally distributed.   In other words, if you studied a group of people, you would not have "liberals" with one bell curve and "conservatives" with an overlapping but distinctive bell curve with its own peak, you would have one bell curve with one peak that would pertain the entire group. 

Lots of people are hard to pin down as either "liberal" or "conservative" and for the purposes of studies like this I think they tend to be artificially pigeonholed into one category or the other so the resulting data is inaccurate. 

yourspecialkid
by on Feb. 12, 2012 at 1:34 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting cueballsmom:

It has been proven many times over that the whole glodal climate change is a normal fluctuation pattern that we have little influence over. Why do Democratic buy into bull so whole heartedly? Real scientist scoff at the ideas, but scaring people into buying electric cars, that ultimately use energy made by dirty means, is a good business move.

The only clean energy is wind energy. Which is difficult at best. Solar is okay, but to make the solar panels creates poluution. Dams do it, at the cost of marine life. Nuclear is okay, until you need to trash the material. And coal turbines, well that explains itself.

So, any way. Beginning an article with a false premise totally destroyed any credibility author may have started with.

 Well said! 

Oregon is removing at least 2 hydroelectric dams.  They will be switching to coal power...all in hopes the salmon that haven't been in the river for 10,000 years will come back.  The logic in this boggles my mind....as does the logic in switching from a cleaner burning gas car to a car essentially powered by coal.

We are in WY now and this state is a leader in wind energy.  They hope to be proving 20% of California's electricty by 2019...if the feds can get there end of it done.  Our new home will have a wind turbine.  I can hardly wait..maybe I can finally be able to kick the air down a little when I have hot flashes at night!

Carpy
by Emerald Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM

On this we can certainly agree.

Quoting cueballsmom:

It has been proven many times over that the whole glodal climate change is a normal fluctuation pattern that we have little influence over. Why do Democratic buy into bull so whole heartedly? Real scientist scoff at the ideas, but scaring people into buying electric cars, that ultimately use energy made by dirty means, is a good business move.

The only clean energy is wind energy. Which is difficult at best. Solar is okay, but to make the solar panels creates poluution. Dams do it, at the cost of marine life. Nuclear is okay, until you need to trash the material. And coal turbines, well that explains itself.

So, any way. Beginning an article with a false premise totally destroyed any credibility author may have started with.


katzmeow726
by on Feb. 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM

One of my close friends from high school is a staunch conservative.  She's also working her way through college, and hopes to have a science heavy career in marine biology and/or environmental resource management.

Hate to break it to you, not ALL conservatives are against science.

 

Quoting futureshock:

The right wing's denial of science is just one reason why I would never vote for a Republican candidate.


Carpy
by Emerald Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM
4 moms liked this

I don't think any are "against" science, they are just against FALSE science.

Quoting katzmeow726:

One of my close friends from high school is a staunch conservative.  She's also working her way through college, and hopes to have a science heavy career in marine biology and/or environmental resource management.

Hate to break it to you, not ALL conservatives are against science.

 

Quoting futureshock:

The right wing's denial of science is just one reason why I would never vote for a Republican candidate.



cueballsmom
by Silver Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM
3 moms liked this
Anyway, those this article required several rereads to understand, I think his basic assumption is wrong. First because no one I have met agrees wholely with the parties agendas, not even the canadites they endorse. Secondly, because there is more than two parties, it's like saying racism is a issue between whites and blacks when clearly other races are affected. Thirdly, the main difference that I have found is that dems want to handout everything and regulate how you live in return, while repubs want to live and let live unless it goes against the bible. So to say, the parties want on one hand to be socialists and on the other to be a theological democracy.

Both have good and bad points. However, I like logic. I agree with sound logical desicions that are fully vetted by the constitution as it is our ultimate law. Neither party cares about that until it fits their argument.

But saying it's genetics is a bunch of cop out. Fully grown, educated adults can and will choose what they feel is right. Saying they were born that way completely discredits their ability to think and reason.

In short, this article/blog is a bunch of bull.
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM

 no it hasn't, and the conservative group put together to debunk climate change after the scandal...proved the DATA was not tampered or changed and they outsome of their study was the SAME....

Quoting cueballsmom:

It has been proven many times over that the whole glodal climate change is a normal fluctuation pattern that we have little influence over. Why do Democratic buy into bull so whole heartedly? Real scientist scoff at the ideas, but scaring people into buying electric cars, that ultimately use energy made by dirty means, is a good business move.

The only clean energy is wind energy. Which is difficult at best. Solar is okay, but to make the solar panels creates poluution. Dams do it, at the cost of marine life. Nuclear is okay, until you need to trash the material. And coal turbines, well that explains itself.

So, any way. Beginning an article with a false premise totally destroyed any credibility author may have started with.

 

Click for The Walking Dead Forum :


LoveMyBoyK
by Ruby Member on Feb. 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM
1 mom liked this
Wow, more blanket generalization bullshit, just what we need to move the country forward. Ugh.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)