Needless to say, not all experts are on board with the subtext of these conclusions. Political scientist Evan Charney dismisses links made by the studies between personality and ideology. "There's a lot of bad science here," says Charney, a fellow at the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy at Duke University.
"Confirmation bias has flooded into this [area of] study. I'm a liberal but I don’t believe liberals are superior people or that there's an obvious correlation between personality and political ideology," he says. The studies "take the most value-laden language and treat it as if you're talking about a left-spinning or right-spinning neutron. They are invariably going to reflect the value assumptions of a society—in this case, academic liberals."
Other supposed explanations for political behavior also are controversial. Circuits of cells called mirror neurons that fire or send out signals when we see someone act in a way that's familiar may have played a role in a 20-point, post–Republican Convention swing in allegiances among white, female Obama supporters to the GOP ticket, says Marco Iacoboni, author of the book Mirroring People: The Science of How We Connect with Others. Pundits credited John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate for the shift, but Iacoboni says there's reason to believe biology played a role.
At the most basic level, mirror neurons—in the form of empathy with Palin—may have temporarily dazzled swing female voters, says neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine, author of the 2006 book The Female Brain, which explores hormonal and other influences on the brains of women and girls.
"The mirror neurons in your brain are going, 'ding, ding, ding—this person is just like me,'" Brizendine says. Those mirror neurons are working with the insula, a section of the limbic system involved with emotions and gut feelings, she says. Both operate at a subcortical, or nonthinking, level dubbed the "sub-Blink level" after New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell's best-selling 2005 book Blink about gut instincts.
"It carries a really big wallop to the thinking part of the brain, which has to argue for or against it," Brizendine says. "The part of the brain sending off messages of gut feelings that 'she [Palin] gets it' influences the other part of your brain. It doesn't mean it will trump it in the voting booth, but it's enough to switch the numbers" in polling immediately after being introduced to her.
Neuroscientist Elizabeth Phelps cautions that "neuropolitics" is too nascent an area of research from which to draw strong conclusions. "There's not a one-to-one correspondence between brain regions and behavior," Phelps, director of the Phelps Lab at N.Y.U.'s Center for Neuroeconomics, said during a recent panel discussion on the issue. "Brain science hasn't yet informed political decisions."
See what we're tweeting about
72 Comments
Add CommentBut I am awash in books AND laundry baskets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm awash in books but also have laundry baskets all over the place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouple this with the fear=right unafraid=left recent study and we can get some interesting combinations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA messy unafraid person and a fearful neatnik would be easy to predict, but what is there was a messy person who is afraid? A neatnik who is not afraid?
We need more studies!
I have a subject to investigate scientifically. It would be fascinating to find out what part and state on human mind creates the phenomenon of channelling. Somehow this is a taboo subject in science, and is so wide spread now. Lot of information coming is trivial and feeding on human emotions, but some of them are at least fascinating not only through contents and information received but also by the way it is delivered. Ignoring it by scientists does not help in understanding and explaining it. It could start with ancient texts Bible, Vedas, more recent Blavatsky, AA Bailey, or contemporary Kryon, Group, Tobias to mention only a few. How and where information is coming and why? Can science find the answers?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am artistic and intellectual but in government, I like order. This is a relatively narrow minded study, in my opinion. I have books all over the place, and though I try to keep things neat, I am usually too busy to clean all day. I love art and music, too, and spend time drawing and playing several instruments. However, in politics, I am more conservative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am artistic and intellectual but in government, I like order. This is a relatively narrow minded study, in my opinion. I have books all over the place, and though I try to keep things neat, I am usually too busy to clean all day. I love art and music, too, and spend time drawing and playing several instruments. However, in politics, I am more conservative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article indeed. Apparently it makes sense that you choose something similar to you to lead your country, but that also arrises many questions, we know that politics (that is the guys in the party), know and make a living by "selling" themselves to the people, by saying things their researchers and opinion meters say they should think, as an example, it is hard to find a politician who says "I am a Creationist" in a liberal and prone to be Evolutionist area, even, if asked directly, he will divert the question, because he knows that will cost him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, you really don't have much of a say in which party you would belong just by seeing if you are "neat" or "messy". and then, what happens when you have more than two parties, here in Mexico, we have about 10 of such things leaching from our taxes (opposed to USA, here we pay the party expenses instead of them finding their sponsors), so the spectrum of choices is wider,
If you're liberal with your money, you're a liberal. If you're liberal with other people's money (taxes) then you're a thief. This study doesn't define what a liberal is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just as I predicted--Liberals and Democrats think with the right side of their brain, giving them great artsy and "feelings" abilities, while unfortunately missing out on all the hard-core *logic* that republicans enjoy. Having messy rooms supports this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat also supports this is how Hollywood is full of liberals and democrats. The actors, the singers, songwriters, movie stars, etc. The people who think with their right sides are the ones who buy into the liberal ideas.
Liberals are fanTAStic at writing speeches and delivering them--but it's unfortunate that their ideas are illogical, having great hope and promise, but failing to realize that they'll never be able to deliver on such promises, because reality is just not LIKE that.
If we were all able to "live perfectly happily ever after", then we'd already be doing it.
Republicans/Conservatives, on the other hand, have the right ideas, but sometimes aren't able to deliver them well, because too much of their brain "stock" is in their left sides.
Kind of ironic, isn't it? The Right thinks with their Left, the Left thinks with their Right.
Wow, amazing. Another attempt to generalize everyone into 2 groups falls hopelessly short.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNickmeister, you're reaching. Far. And falling just as far, because it's clear you get your world-view from tv. Grow up.
So does this mean Bush is a neat freak?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I got my worldview from TV, I'd be worshiping people like Oprah and everyone in Hollywood, following their liberal bend. It's quite the opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Positive personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and negative ones attributed to conservatism (easily victimized or offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid)" Are there negative traits for liberals?, positive traits for conservatives? I wonder whether dominating is a positive personality trait. Bad science, verrry bad science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Positive personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and negative ones attributed to conservatism (easily victimized or offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid)". Are there negative traits for liberals and positive traits for conservatives? Is "dominating" a positive trait? Bad science, verrry bad science!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Republican, have a measured 148 IQ, and am MESSY! My office desk looks like an avalanche happened, and my walls are covered in pictures of my family, book shelves full of reference materials, and deplomas. My bedroom looks pretty much the same. So much for the sterotyping!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Republican with a measured 140 IQ. My office is MESSY! My office walls are covered in book shelves full of refference materials, pictures of my family and deplomas. My bedroom looks pretty much identical. The only thing that startles me is the kind of shody science represented by this study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy room is obsessive-compulsively neat , as is my entire house. Every room in my house is in a beige and brown palette (no colours). I'm artistic, but I put my art supplies away. I cant force myself to look at the cover of travel, or feminist related books, hate folk music, but love rock. I dont keep movie tickets, because Im not fond of films...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalendars? Clutter. Postage stamps? E-mail. Laundry baskets, irons and sewing materials are a necessity. My bedroom and office are poorly-lit, and...again, sports paraphernalia and flags are unnecessary clutter...
...and I'm liberal.
I'd like to know what they've based their clearly incorrect theory on...
If there is a red state of mind and a blue state of mind, and maybe there are these dichotomies, it's surely more nuanced than just "neat" and messy." I'd like to see a study that examines the difference between tribal people(comfort with one's own cohort and ways, discomfort with what's perceived as far-away and unfamiliar) and levellers (all ideas are of equal value, all people are basically the same, everything in the world should be shared, I am just one citizen of the universe like everyone else). Are the neat people more "tribal" and apt to circle the wagons? Are the messy people more apt happily to sift over a whole lot more information? In the Myers Briggs temperament lingo, are the red state people SJ and the blue state people NP?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a bunch of crap! I, for example, am a liberal Democrat who's also a neatness freak. Not only is my apartment spotless and warmly decorated, my car and clothes are usually spotless. Several of my Republican friends live happily amidst clutter and disarray. Actually, I've not noticed any correlation between neatness and political leanings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe guy who, along with Boole, invented modern logic is a leftie: Bertrand Russell. Equally brilliant and logical were Einstein, Issac Assimov, and Carl Sagan, Ledbetter, and thousands of others on the logical left.
What is obvious: The author propagating nonsense lacks logic and must, by his reckoning, be a leftie.
,
v For the most part we inherit our opinions. We are the heirs of habits and mental customs. Our beliefs, like the fashion of our garments, depend on where we were born. We are molded and fashioned by our surroundings. Environment is a sculptor -- a painter. If we had been born in Constantinople, the most of us would have said: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” If our parents had lived on the banks of the Ganges, we would have been worshipers of Siva, longing for the heaven of Nirvana. – Robert G. Ingersoll
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut Ingersoll wasn't talking about the influence of genes, but the the sculpting of culture, which we can never escape -- no matter how far we roam.
i spend my days in a recording studio and a walnut library that are by all accounts dark and controlled environments- with a ton of art on the walls of the studio and mementos of all the albums and songwriters i have worked with, my library is filled with books, magazines and electronics from circuit cards to iPods- not to mention the dogs wandering about. there is even a flying Elvis Buddah on my speaker bridge!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have none of the calendars, postage stamps, laundry baskets, irons and sewing materials you mention or the well light surroundings- seems to me your article is more about reinforcing stereotypes than any actual science- oh an my mom the lib- she is surrounded by all those things that i am not surrounded by!!
well done!!
I've noticed this in some of my friends who are very republican (and thus religious) and commented on it once but would never have thought there was a real science behind it. I guess it just goes to show how much more reasonable the Democrats are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. Study Study Study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisabout many personal, political and community topics
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTuesday, October 14, 2008
about political leanings
This week's Scientific American e-letter contains the article "Political Science: What Being Neat or Messy Says about Political Leanings" and asks the question: Do genes determine whether you'll be liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican?
The most fascinating paragraph for me is this:
Positive personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and negative ones attributed to conservatism (easily victimized or offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid) appear as young as nursery schoolage kidsand correlate with those children's political beliefs in adulthood, according to a 20-year study published in 2006 in the Journal of Research in Personality. More recently, scientists linked the strength of a person's startle response to their political leanings: conservatives tended to scare easier, blinking harder than liberals when they heard a loud noise.
Are there any positive traits associated with conservatism, and negative ones associated with liberalism? I mean, it looks so much better to be a liberal. In fact, most of the liberal traits are those so often advocated by conservatives when arguing with us liberals about what (if any) social programs are needed to help poor, disadvantaged people. For example, I read "self-reliant" as "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" and "dominating" as "we need a strong military."
Interesting that conservatives are "easily victimized or offended" in pre-school. We see that in Sarah Palin and John McCain's blaming the "liberal media elite" for "manipulating" how Palin appeared on CBS and ABC interviews. As if her answers didn't speak for themselves! She is to all appearances an idiot. Maybe an idiot-savant, in the sense that she excels at performance. (The pageant training paid off!)
If these are indeed the traits of conservatives, I'm not surprised that McCain and gang are using typical bully tactics against Obama. The victim does often become the victimizer, as we know. The bullies I know are so mean when trying to get their way, and then dissolve into tears and "I'll tell my Mommy!" when they are challenged by someone stronger. It's all there in pre-school!
Is there hope for conservatives? Can we help them grow up and accept reality, rather than wishing it were different? Will they ever see that life is messy and constantly changing, and the key to happiness is to go with it?
As a scientist and a liberal I would have to say that nickmeister is clueless when he talks about who has "the right ideas". Einstein was a liberal Democrat, Hitler was a right wing lunatic. And Hitler was extremely orderly and Einstein was messy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy scientific friends fall into the Einstein category without exception. They may have a stain on their shirt, their hair is often messy, their desk is piled high with books, journal articles, napkins, calculators and writing utensils. They may not even notice when another person is nearby because their brain is a million miles away. Sometimes we pass in the hall and don't see each other. When the mind is fluid and quick this is how people seem to behave. On the opposite end of the spectrum are the uptight, neat-as-a-pin conservatives who apparently think that their appearance is what matters, perhaps it will fool the casual observer. Like some acquaintances of mine (bellicose conservatives) who complain that the neighbor left their camper in the driveway overnight and it was unsightly. Gawd. At least liberals focus on things that matter and not petty appearances. I guess its obvious who gets invited to my barbecues...
there are actually more conservatives in the closet in hollywood than anthing- and with respect to being Fantastic and writing and delivering speeches- there are very few liberals that can compare to Reagan when it comes to a speech- the caveat being,,,, he actually believed in what he was saying- which of course to your point underscores the core of liberalism which is not an intellectual pursuit but rather an emotional one- one of the core problems with the study is the inventory of College kids involved in the study- Conservatism in most cases comes later in life-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeh, this is pretty much BS. Correlation is not causation, and even if a general trend were identified as correct (which I severely doubt, I know many examples to the contrary of these findings) it wouldn't really reveal anything important about the real philosophy behind these generalized political differences. Honestly, along this line of reasoning you could argue that old people are right and young people are left. You could get some data to support your claims, and show how more old people are conservative. But it has no real meaning or bearing on what it actually means to be conservative. I know for my own self that my political views have no correspondence to my cleaning habits. If I don't clean, it because I'm lazy. Not because I'm a liberal artistic intellectual. My mother organizes people's homes and clutter FOR A LIVING. She made her own business, so she could do that for people (and of course she is extremely organized herself). And she's just about the most left-wing eccentric person I know. Political opinions are not some deep dark force in every human's life that dictates everything from how scared we are of noises to our lifestyles, to our other philosophical beliefs. It seems like a waste of scientific inquiry to figure out ways to classify and separate people who hold generally different views, which really run a huge spectrum beyond just 'right or left'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow...this whole article is a moronic generalization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI go to NYU. I'm messy. I'm very creative, which requires much openness. And the only thing I fear is Obama being elected.
This whole article and all its assenting posts are moronic generalizations. Here's a question, a real life scenario involving my own life:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI go to NYU. I'm messy. I'm very creative, which requires a good deal of openness (I claim to be open). Care to guess what party I'm registered with?
I'll give you a hint: its the same party as McCain, who I voted for via absentee ballot.
This is pseudoscience. It uses value-laden language that uses negative terms to describe what it calls "neatnik" conservative tendencies. It's not worth having in Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven though I'm solidly sided with Obama and the Democrats, I have to say, while there my be a shred of truth in this artical, there is a lot of self serving bias for the Democrats. Cramped for time i'll end this short but please respond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat nonsense. These sorts of "studies" are stupid yet safe for those who carry them out. As long as a reasonable number of people see themselves in the results, there will always be enough support to validate carrying them out. This is one step from phrenology and an utter waste of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm becoming concerned for the integrity/authority of Scientific American--when I was a child, SA was a magazine to be afraid of--to respect and pretend to read. Now, it seems to be caught in the zeitgeist of popular commercialism, rather than anything close to true peer review. The article was somewhat balanced, but the Title and the first few paragraphs was hokum--pure pseudo-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is better--and more interesting--data about political affiliation and personal information out there. But we the readers shouldn't be the ones who have to point it out to the editors.
Neatness=conservative! Fearful=conservative! Being well read and having eclectic tastes in books/music/art=liberal. What bull shit.
Excellent-- You said it better than I could!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell my wife is an artist, and I am extremely "well traveled" with plenty of books on diverse cultures, history, and science. We only have one calender in the house and I would be hard pressed at the moment to tell you which stack of papers it's buried in. Oh, by the way, we're both so conservative we make John McCain look like a democrat. Shoot this study in the foot because I know a lot of other conservative families just like mine. We're also not timid or "afraid".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis left brain / right brain argument is just as spurious (and misinterpreted) as the liberal / conservative one...and then there is a confusion between liberal/conservative and one's party affiliation (as if there were only two parties, or categories of political thought)...and what are those "right" ideas that conservatives have (like that the free-market works to benefit all)?....there are conservative democrats and liberal republicans, or did you forget? Right now, we have a conservative - capitalist president pushing a Socialist - liberal remedy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study seems to be a newer reformulation of some older psychological theories, like inner-directed and outer-directed persons, etc. Someone else noted the afraid / not afraid dualism as well....as if Liberals have no fear (something intrinsic to human/primate minds, like falling and snakes)...point being that any simplistic, 'either/or' (either this or that) paradigm will be woefully inadequate in describing human behavior or psychology....the proof is this comment thread--has any true insight been granted by this study (as evidenced herein)?
Perhaps only this: we are too complex to be neatly divided into two's. The researchers (presumed to be "academic liberals"), ironically, by reducing human political behavior to a simple, dualistic (orderly) paradigm, are perhaps proving their conclusions wrong.
And anyways, where's the genetic evidence for any of this (as mentioned in the subtitle)? Mirror neurons are a few levels of organization removed from gene networks. They've got some 'splainin' to do...
This left brain / right brain argument is just as spurious (and misinterpreted) as the liberal / conservative one...and then there is a confusion between liberal/conservative and one's party affiliation (as if there were only two parties, or categories of political thought)...and what are those "right" ideas that conservatives have (like that the free-market works to benefit all)?....there are conservative democrats and liberal republicans, or did you forget? Right now, we have a conservative capitalist president pushing a Socialist - liberal remedy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study seems to be a newer reformulation of some older psychological theories, like inner-directed and outer-directed persons, etc. Someone else noted the afraid / not afraid dualism as well....as if Liberals have no fear (something intrinsic to human/primate minds, like falling and snakes)...point being that any simplistic, 'either/or' (either this or that) paradigm will be woefully inadequate in describing human behavior or psychology....the proof is this comment thread--has any true insight been granted by this study (as evidenced herein)?
Perhaps only this: we are too complex to be neatly divided into two's. The researchers (presumed to be "academic liberals"), ironically, by reducing human political behavior to a simple, dualistic (orderly) paradigm, are perhaps proving their conclusions wrong.
And anyways, where’s the genetic evidence as mentioned in the subtitle? Mirror neuron networks are several levels of organization removed from genetic networks. They’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do…
Not important. US polls are allways amusing (Iremember Florida)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it not important. US polls are allways amusing (I remember Florida)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion it is not inportant. I think US polls allways amusing (I remember Florida)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion this is not important.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all US polls are amusement (I remember Florida)
US polls stay amusing (I remember Florida)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly US voters I presume
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKrist: WTF? say it once (or even twice and then shut the hell up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad that most of the prior responders attacked the idiocy of the first part of this article. The flagrant misuse of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is appalling. Anyone that works in the science arena should be concerned about accuracy of labelling. There are vanishingly few people that are liberal or conservative on all areas of life. Indeed, how would the study authors explain the Liberal Conservative political movements of the mid 1900s? Liberal and Conservative are not opposing terms in most cases and to use them as if they were is ignorant at best.
Lets analyse the first part of this article in the same way as the study was done. Clearly then we need to find bigotted terms to use to describe the two stereotypes we want. Let us go with normal, thinking, decent human beings that find the study silly at best and on the other side the study authors and their supports will be sheep molesting, cannibal, queer, vagrants.
See my point? How did these people graduate from high school?
julie1319 you are a child. "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" would not be a liberal way of operating. Why help yourself when the Government will give you a free handout they took from the guy who works hard. That teaches people that they don't need to work. This is the problem with welfare. It is a mouse trap, and we all know the cheese in a mouse trap is free. Talk about bully tactics, all politicians use them, can you say Hillary? You just see those against you as bullies and those for you as guardians. This is a very human way of seeing people. "That person does not agree with me, therefore they are a mean person" As for your comment of growing up and accepting reality and just accept the world the way it is, go along with the current trend. I guess the Germans went along with the way things were during WWII and the holocaust. What would that most famous of liberal times the 60's have thought of you, they did not accept the current status quo and worked to change their world, they did not go along. Is there hope for conservatives? As long as there are liberals like you I would think so. You wont stand up and fight for what is right, you will just go along to get along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis had to be the most ignorant article I have seen in SciAm for a long long time if not ever. I guess from this and the "news" I can extrapolate that liberals are not very good with money and do not make smart business decisions. Most CEO's must be Republicans and Democrats must be Lawyers. It then makes sense that the lawyers want to take money from the people who actually produce something and give it to those who choose to be lazy. Most people seem to hate lawyers (a generalization) so welfare and "spreading the wealth must be a lawyer/actor plot to make people like them, as in the preschool mentality espoused by julie1319. What is SciAm coming to? I have argued that it is not a liberal rag, was I perhaps mistaken
julie1319 you are a child. "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" would not be a liberal way of operating. Why help yourself when the Government will give you a free handout they took from the guy who works hard. That teaches people that they don't need to work. This is the problem with welfare. It is a mouse trap, and we all know the cheese in a mouse trap is free. Talk about bully tactics, all politicians use them, can you say Hillary? You just see those against you as bullies and those for you as guardians. This is a very human way of seeing people. "That person does not agree with me, therefore they are a mean person" As for your comment of growing up and accepting reality and just accept the world the way it is, go along with the current trend. I guess the Germans went along with the way things were during WWII and the holocaust. What would that most famous of liberal times the 60's have thought of you, they did not accept the current status quo and worked to change their world, they did not go along. Is there hope for conservatives? As long as there are liberals like you I would think so. You wont stand up and fight for what is right, you will just go along to get along.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis had to be the most ignorant article I have seen in SciAm for a long long time if not ever. I guess from this and the "news" I can extrapolate that liberals are not very good with money and do not make smart business decisions. Most CEO's must be Republicans and Democrats must be Lawyers. It then makes sense that the lawyers want to take money from the people who actually produce something and give it to those who choose to be lazy. Most people seem to hate lawyers (a generalization) so welfare and "spreading the wealth” must be a lawyer/actor plot to make people like them, as in the preschool mentality espoused by julie1319. What is SciAm coming to? I have argued that it is not a liberal rag, was I perhaps mistaken
This "study" is so BOGUS... give me a break.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am very disappointed in SciAm for publishing this article. While most of my feelings on the subject have already been discussed, I still feel a need to say that this article is a bunch of liberal propaganda as they blatantly tried to make conservatives look like a bunch of fear paralyzed OCD ninnies . And while we haven't decided on a definition of liberal or conservative, I think it's safe to say that one side is more into feeling and one is more into thinking. So if SciAm is a scientific publication, catering to the thinking/logical segment of society, why are you publishing this trash? Note that I didn't use the word intellectual as I believe there are many different ways to be intellectual, but using the word victimized in a description of conservatives? Please!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm, please stop the political agenda leanings you have been tending toward over the past year or so!
The first sentence of the article was wrong: the neatnik and I mean "neatnik" in our family is definitely a Lefty and those of us who are messy are on both sides also. So much for your vaunted study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion: if 90-95% of all MSM'ers; politicians and staff; academia from K thru PhD and most of the bureaurcracy are Left to Uberleftists...it can be a negative to you and yours because you and yours are totally incorrect in your survey/study as it applies to our family group of about 2 dozen family members in various affiliations.
I'm interested in that 5shitt gene mentioned in the article. This story is certainly full of it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most advanced biologists recognized long ago that all individual traits (including behavioral traits), of all living organisms (including humans(, develop ontogenetically (in the individual organism), under inseparable (!) effects of both (!) genes & environment, (plus inseparable effects of that which already exists at each point along this ontogenetic process).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis means that it is impossible to separate the effects of genes from the effects of the environment, not even by comparing identical twins with non-identical twins.
It is high time that all scientists stop wasting time, as well as good research-money, on endless futile attempts to achieve an impossible separation, and inundate scientific journals with endless blather!!
The most advanced biologists recognized long ago that all individual traits (including behavioral traits), of all living organisms (including humans), develop ontogenetically (in the individual organism), under inseparable (!) effects of both (!) genes & environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInseparable means inseparable, irrespective of any kind of twins, or what have you!
It is high time for all scientist to stop wasting time, as well as good research-funds on attempts to achieve an impossible separation, and inundate scientific journals with endless blather!
Wow, just... wow. This article is a joke, right? I am a total neatnick, but also super artistic. In my home, I have all the "travel souveniers, art, and posters" associated with liberals, yet I am conservative. My father is uber-conservative, but also uber-messy. We're only two people, yet we defy the findings of this study. Perhaps a messy, creative, left-leaning "scientist" designed and conducted this study?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, am I the only one who picked up on the implication that conservatives don't think? Then again, maybe my inner reactionary conservative is just easily offended!
I have a problem with a story that points out the traits of one political group as negative and another as positive. If I saw more pros and cons of each, it would hold more weight with me. Similar to describing extrovert vs introvert in one is better than the other terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm more Libertarian, so I don't have a stake in this. I do want my accountant to be "more conservative" and my artists to be "more liberal" in general.
I'm a messy conservative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, Noes!!! I must have the schizophrenia!!!
Alternatively, this is just another bogus 'study' where erroneous conclusions are drawn from insufficient and unscientific data, based on the subjective assignment of value-laden 'traits' to casually observed behaviors.
Lame.
This is interesting, but not ground breaking or earth shattering. Why was a study done on this at all? Arent there more important things to study? You seriously couldnt think of something better to spend money and time on? Autism? cancer? Sociopaths? Seriously? WOW! you guys really went for it! How about next week you research underwater basket weaving!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but this is complete bunk. I hope none of my tax dollars funded this. I am a fairly conservative person. However, I write poetry, have about 700 to 800 books on a wide range of subjects, love Folk (love Dylan and just saw him in concert in Kansas City a month ago or so), I have both conservative and liberal friends, have no laundry baskets, don't make my bed (even after 15 years in the military), love art, etc. I will admit I do keep my kitchen pretty clean, so there is that I suppose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder what the drive is to find a genetic and/or psychological link to political tendencies. Perhaps it could be coupled with genetic research and then the populace could be 'inoculated' to sway an election. That is my conspiracy theory for the day. :)
You lost me with this assumption. I have 3 calendars, 2 sewing machines, I startle easily when someone sneaks up on me wearing my ipod, I am just about to go clean my bathrooms and I am a lefty liberal! I also like Pete Seeger and have a map of the U.S. taped to the wall. Did I mention I have grey hair and I am a quilter? You just can't generalize about people. P.S. I know some not-so-tidy right wingers too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Positive personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and negative ones attributed to conservatism (easily victimized or offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUhhh ... what? How can one be rigid and indecisive? I can't tell if it's the study or the story reporting it that is so blatantly biased.
Ah, good. Scientific American has started publishing politically-biased, self-congratulatory pseudoscience. I hope this means I can expect more articles extolling the virtues of creationism and the healing powers of crystals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it all about money? It is the monetary system which is failing. To learn
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismore about it try the website zeitgeistmovie.com and zeitgeist addendum.
And coming to taxes you can try: America: freedom to fascism.
Sam Gosling's work in brilliant in more ways than one. His personality research involves a lot of topical subjects, for instance how Facebook profiles give clues to who you are that are unintended.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn his new book, Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You, he looks deeply into what your home or office environment says about your personality and character.
The last chapter of that book talks about an architecture firm in Texas that uses a process called the Truehome Workshop to design homes that are tailored to the personality, values and lifestyle of their inhabitants.
Next we will be looking at how the decor of McCain's seven houses expose his strengths, quirks and frailties. Imagine what we would find out if CNN took Gosling and visited the Obama and McCain households!
Maybe the Truehome Workshop could be used to develop design criteria for remodeling the White House after the Obama family takes up residence. Perhaps it could be designed to be toxic to special interests.
Now that would be "real change"!
I see there are a lot of visceral reactions to the results of these studies. I don't think Gosling and other social scientists who study personality and behavior can fairly be criticized for studying how personality might impact political behavior statistically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisParticularly as it is an observable fact in everyday life.
Any generalization is only useful as statistical information. Social science studies report statistical correlations which means any set of results would only report probabilities. That does NOT mean the findings are not valid or useful.
Consider the facts that are underpinning this work.
1. It is quite settled in neuropsychology that 90+% of the decisions we make each day are intuitive and unconscious. What that means is that we make choices emotionally, then after the fact rationalize them to support our identities and social goals.
2. A recent study that was the subject of a story on Sept. 5th in the New York Times called "For the Brain, Remembering Is Like Reliving" points to a foundational finding that proves that our reactions to circumstances around us are deeply impacted by spontaneous memories from the past.
And this is a physiological finding, a "hard science" result.
The same area of the brain is activated when we experience an event in the present that was activated that lit up when we first experienced a similar even in the past. How we feel about political figures and philosophies, home and office environments, even food and strangers we meet on the street comes from irrational emotional sources fro our past - genetic and developmental.
3. If you read Dan Ariely's awesome new book, Predictably Irrational, you will find a highly convincing argument that a great deal of our behavior is not only automatic and irrational, but predictably so. We not only make important choices based on our personality and out past, but we do it over and over again regardless of whether or not those choices benefit us.
I suggest those who ridicule this article check their identities at the door, and take a look at why they might have such strong reactions to the suggestion that their patterns of behavior might be predicted - within a reasonable range - based on how they position themselves not only politically, but culturally, intellectually and socially.
To be frank, I question how anyone who observes the evidence can believe anything else. That does not stop us all from defending and justifying our identities, an irrational but very natural response.
Methinks people posting here "protests too much".
It's good to know that my vote canceled your vote out Matchew88.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am very conservative. But I don't fit the profile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does that mean????
Sorry to burst this one... but I am a real neat freak/gotta have everything in it's place person.. I am voting OBAMA!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to burst the bubble here, but.... I am an extreme neat freak/everything has it's place. I am voting OBAMA!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study is trying to corelate a voter's personality to their party views, when there isn't necessarily a corelation. These personality traits they bring up are all secondary characteristics. Meaning they may be used to describe a voter/person, but those specific characteristics do not bleed over to the decision making process of how we chose our party. I could care less if a political candidate had a picture of travel or a calendar on their wall. Neither would tell me how the candidate is going to cut taxes or solve the energy crisis. The primary characteristics of a voter are: age, gender, religion, location, education, income and occupation. These characteristics will be the ones to influence how we vote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an organize person who scares easily when you creep up on me. I own a laundry basket which I use regularly, and everyone who see's my living space would consider me as organized and clean. The article would view me as republican by this statement... however I am liberal in my political beliefs... most likely because of where I live, my gender, my income, my occupation, and my education.
This article needs to do it's study on a national scale before I would consider the findings legit.
I only read the article just now (since a link to it was put on the MSN homepage today), and I haven't read any of the comments yet (though I intend to), so maybe this has already been said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study sort of confirms what I've suspected for a long time. I observe that liberals tend to be "fuzzy", disorganized or disordered in their logic/thought processes, leading them to dubious or erroneous conclusions (which serves as the basis of their proposals and policies). In short, they seem to adopt or liberal positions because they don't bother (or aren't able) to think through the logical ramifications of their positions. So much of what they believe (or at least SAY they believe) just doesn't make sense, or is based upon any number of unwarranted (or simply false) assumptions that usually remain unstated or undefined. Perhaps they feel that defining (or even thinking about) their assumptions about politics, behavior, religion, the world, etc. is simply unimportant and not worth the time or effort. So claiming that liberals do more thinking and conservatives are just more fearful is so much hogwash in my estimation. Order is better, generally, than disorder, isn't it? It's how we make sense out of the universe, isn't it? I tend to agree with Michael Savage on the radio who says that "liberalism is a mental illness". Perhaps if liberals tried a new approach and made the effort to organized their thoughts a little bit better, they might find that some of their cherished liberal views don't seem quite so reasonable or apealing any more. And who knows? Maybe such new-found habits of order would spill over into their houskeeping as well.
hotblack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not at all clear that nickmeister gets his world view from tv. TV programming is diverse. Are you trying to knock someone you don't like on tv? If so, then speak clearly and don't hide behind innuendo and disparaging remarks.
I like the way you think! ahhahha :) If I ever need a transfusion....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswill you donate? ahahhahaa
Wow! what a waste of time. This is the most retarded study I've seen in a long, long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this