Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

How to spot a baby conservative

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
canuckistan
Mod Team
Mod Team


Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:07 am    Post subject: How to spot a baby conservative Reply with quote

Well I have noticed that conservatives don't like thinking outside of the established box....

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=970599119419

How to spot a baby conservative
KID POLITICS | Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...
Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR


Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings � the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.

Kurt Kleiner is a Toronto-based freelance science writer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dulouz



Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, kids with fetal alchohol syndrome, crack addictions and other brain deadeners are not likely to complain. This means liberal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dulouz



Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests.


Yes, Liberalism...the highest form of development for humanity.

Quote:
but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.
... Gay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moldy Rutabaga



Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The findings may be accurate. The assumptions behind the findings are subjective-- "whiny" is a value judgment. Someone else could say emotionally involved as opposed to aloof. The things people write to get tenure..

Ken:>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Berkeley scholar produced a study that concludes that liberals are stable and mature and conservatives are "whiny"?

Never saw that one coming.


Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
laogaiguk



Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya, feelings are way too subjective for this to be taken seriously. Look at the "People are cheap" thread I started up a bit ago. What some people thought was cheap, some people was thought as being nice to have a low price.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flakfizer



Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I know is this definately belongs in the "current events" forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yu_Bum_suk



Joined: 25 Dec 2004

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about those of us who went from radical conservative to moderate conservative to moderate liberal to radical liberal to generally apathetic?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A Berkeley scholar produced a study that concludes that liberals are stable and mature and conservatives are "whiny"?

Never saw that one coming.


I think a flaw might be that these kids were rated by their teachers. So, what the study could REALLY be proving is that students who have bad relationships with their teachers grow up to be conservatives. In my experience, most liberals and centre-left people tend to be the type who have an idealized view of the teaching profession, possibly rooted in personal experience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fiveeagles



Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If liberals are more mature and stable then why do they oppose tough crime against sex offenders?

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?p=744528#744528

Why are the democrats not calling for the impeachment of the judge? Are they too mature and stable?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nowhere Man



Joined: 08 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:28 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

I won't comment on this issue at hand, but I do wonder why conservatives are in a serious minority when it comes to the entertainment industry.

I'll leave it at that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another view.

Quote:
Remember the cocky, arrogant kid in nursery school, the one who always thought that he had all the answers and that he could do whatever he wanted, and was always ignoring what the teacher had to say? Chances are this bully grew up to be a conservative.

Right now, I have no doubt that some liberal readers are nodding their heads and saying, "Yes! That makes total sense. Conservatives are such bullies!"

Well, according to the latest "scientific" study this is nonsense. In fact, it's the other way around.

Here's the lead from a story in the Toronto Star about a new study in the Journal of Research Into Personality: "Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative."

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley - of course - found that of the roughly 100 kids they tracked for 20 years, starting in nursery school, the whiny kids were more likely to become conservatives.

UC Berkeley professor Jack Block's theory, according to the Star, is that insecure kids look for "reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial."

Ah yes, in Berkeley, Calif., nothing is more rebellious to the status quo than being a liberal. Why, they must be pariahs at the local organic food co-op. I mean, it's just plain heroic to embrace liberal politics in a town where residents cast 90 percent of their votes for John Kerry and only 6.6 percent of their votes for Bush.

But don't nominate these mavericks for a Profiles in Courage award just yet. If you read down to the 15th paragraph in the story, you'll discover that there was "a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult." In other words, self-reliance explains seven percent of the variance between kids who bravely became liberal and tykes who supinely embraced conservative politics.

One obvious problem with this sort of analysis is that the single best predictor of partisan affiliation is the political orientation of your parents. In Berkeley, the most liberal majority-white city in America, most kids are going to be liberal because their parents are liberal. If one or two of the whinier kids turn out to be conservative, it might have more to do with the fact that their parents are whiny conservatives. Heck, if I lived in Berkeley, I might be whiny too.

To call these sorts of studies entirely useless is probably unfair. No doubt Block has more or less accurately charted the path of his subjects. And even he concedes that the study tells us little about the rest of the country. But it's also pretty clear that Block wants to find psychologically satisfying explanations for what makes people conservatives. It's not hard to imagine that if the whiny, sniveling brats turned out to be liberals, he would explain this as proof that liberals are born more emotionally sensitive and with a greater acuity for spotting injustice.

One reason this isn't hard to imagine is that this is a very, very old game. Ever since Theodor Adorno came out with his scandalously flawed Authoritarian Personality in 1950, liberal and leftist social scientists have been trying to diagnose conservatism as a psychological defect or sickness. Adorno and his colleagues argued that conservatism was little more than a "pre-fascist" "personality type." According to this school, sympathy for communism was an indication of openness and healthy idealism. Opposition to communism was a symptom of your more deep-seated pathologies and fascist tendencies. According to Adorno, subjects who saw Nazism and Stalinism as similar phenomenon were demonstrating their "idiocy" and "irrationality." Psychological counseling, many argued, could cure these maladies. But for some it was too late. In 1964, an ad in The New York Times reported that 1,189 psychiatrists determined that Barry Goldwater was not "psychologically fit" to be president.

In 2003, another Berkeley study, led by John T. Jost, reviewed four decades of research of conservatism and found that conservatives tended to be fear-driven dogmatists, terrified by ambiguity. The study linked Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The findings were hardly surprising since they basically recapped the branch of "scholarship" launched by Adorno.

Yet another Berkeley professor, George Lakoff, has convinced leading Democrats that psychology is the best way to tackle politics. People see things through "frames," according to Lakoff, and if Democrats could simply recast those frames in their favor, conservatives would see the light. Howard Dean calls Lakoff "one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement."

Perhaps the more revealing psychological insight can be found in the fact that so many liberals think disagreeing with them is a form of psychosis.


http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2006/03/22/190779.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coolsage



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: The overcast afternoon of the soul

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what does that say about Libertarians, who are so far to the right that they're almost all the way back to the left?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
buildbyflying



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: To your right. No, your other right.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to see this study recreated in the rural South (USA). If the numbers came out the same there... then I'd be impressed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International