People who startle easily tend to vote conservatives

www.washingtonpost.com...

People who startle easily in response to threatening images or loud sounds seem to have a biological predisposition to adopt conservative political positions on many hot-button issues, according to unusual new research published yesterday.

The finding suggests that people who are particularly sensitive to signals of visual or auditory threats also tend to adopt a more defensive stance on political issues, such as immigration, gun control, defense spending and patriotism. People who are less sensitive to potential threats, by contrast, seem predisposed to hold more liberal positions on those issues.

The study takes the research a step beyond psychology by suggesting that innate physiological differences among people may help shape their startle responses and their political inclinations.

I actually "figure this out" a long time ago, the same goes with atheist and religious person in my opinion, I believe there are subtle biologically differences somehow, I can give you any prove though, it's simply a hunch. I'm not saying an atheist can't become a theist or vice versa, simply that there're tendencies.

reply to post by Jazzyguy




Thank you for posting this interesting information


No doubt there are many who consider themselves to be the exception to the rule as proposed in the article you quoted, as future posts may reveal

reply to post by Dock6

I don't think they come to this kind of (scitech) board, but it's definitely an interesting article.

hehe... I could say "sad, mentally unhealthy, non-charitable people" tend to lean Liberal and the "social scientists" are biased... and I would be right.


(According to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal." A 2007 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Republicans versus only 38 percent of Democrats said that their mental heath is "excellent." One reason may be that conservatives are so much more generous than liberals, giving 30 percent more money (even when controlled for income), donating more blood, and logging more volunteer hours. And it isn't because conservatives have more expendable income. The working poor give a substantially higher percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, and three times more than those on public assistance of comparable income—poverty is not a barrier to charity, but welfare is. One explanation for these findings is that conservatives believe charity should be private (through religion) whereas liberals believe charity should be public (through government).

Why are academic social scientists so wrong about conservatives? It is, I believe, because almost all of them are liberals! A 2005 study by the George Mason University economist Daniel Klein, using voter registrations, found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans among the faculty by a staggering ratio of 10 to 1 at the University of California, Berkeley and by 7.6 to 1 at Stanford University. In the humanities and social sciences the ratio was 16 to 1 at both campuses (30 to 1 among assistant and associate professors). In some departments, such as anthropology and journalism, there wasn’t a single Republican to be found. The ratio for all departments in all colleges and universities throughout the U.S., says Klein, is 8 to 1 Democrats over Republicans. Smith College political scientist Stanley Rothman and his colleagues found a similar bias in a 2005 national study: only 15 percent professors describe themselves as conservative, compared to 72 percent who said they were liberal (80 percent in humanities and social sciences).

Why do people vote Republican? Because they believe their lives—and the lives of all Americans—will be better for it.)

www.nullsession.net...

reply to post by Jazzyguy

As you say, it's the kind of thing one may easily work out for oneself.

Conservatism is the political gospel of fear. Conservatives are folk who are afraid of change, afraid of different ways of looking at things, afraid of losing their lives, their loved ones and their property. Afraid, in short, of anything that threatens their prized but utterly illusory 'security'.

Such fear also explains the violence (and love of violence) that is so much a part of the conservative outlook.

It also explains this:

Originally posted by infolurker
According to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys, 1972-2004, 44 percent of people who reported being "conservative" or "very conservative" said they were "very happy" versus only 25 percent of people who reported being "liberal" or "very liberal."

Frightened people are generally more prone to telling lies (to opinion pollsters as well as to everyone else) than brave ones.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by infolurker

You know, you should ask yourself why most scientists are liberal (if that's the case). After all you use their inventions, right? It's kinda a hypocrisy if you don't like them, yet you're still using their inventions.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Frightened people are generally more prone to telling lies (to opinion pollsters as well as to everyone else) than brave ones.

It's possible Astyanax, it's kinda like asking the chinese government whether everything is okay. They'll say, oh it's harmonious. Yeah, I guess it's possible they're lying, they usually have a need to preserve a certain image of themselves. And they get very angry when people are questioning or challenging those image.

Originally posted by Astyanax

As you say, it's the kind of thing one may easily work out for oneself.

Afraid, in short, of anything that threatens their prized but utterly illusory 'security'.

Such fear also explains the violence (and love of violence) that is so much a part of the conservative outlook.

what a load of crap astyanax, you figure this out all by yourself or did get this off some militant Atheist website like so many other idiotic sweeping generalizations I have seen you make when people are not as "cool" as you think you are. I'm still wondering who it is YOU think you are saying "this explains that" you don't have any clue what you are talking about which is why you don't have anything more scientific to substantiate your assertions about conservatives being more violent, even loving violence.

The only time someone is going to say we are so startled and so frightened but angry and violent in the same sentence is when people like you think you know what you are talking about but can't see past your own contradictions to see how silly you are.

For you to hone in on a thread as utterly ridiculous as any are that single out a people to blame them for all kinds of evils is something of a hobby for you. From your many threads I have seen you run your mouth about the evils of religion to the one blaming creationists for destroying ATS and you tell us conservatives are startled easy? HA HA HA you are a funny guy when you call the kettle black as much and as often as you do.

Hysterical is what you are, but what is sad is, I know you really believe this kind of stereotyped propaganda.

It also explains this:
Frightened people are generally more prone to telling lies (to opinion pollsters as well as to everyone else) than brave ones.

Oh brother,, I don't think I have to explain how that makes you look but I will say, if only you could apply that ostentatious vocabulary to a cogent basis for your argument, you might not appear to have that chip on your shoulder. It's either that or the tendency for liberals to become such milk toasts not having the broad shoulders to take responsibility for their own lives always taking and never making a damn thing but lame excuses why it is always our fault they can't turn a buck, or blame their paranoia on frightened angry conservatives who are sick and tired of liberals who can't pull their own weight much less know why their is always ten liberals who lean to everyone ONE conservative, that lifts.

reply to post by MAINTAL

Hi, MAINTAL. I'm flattered and delighted to learn that you've been following my posts on ATS so closely. Thank you for taking the trouble to reply to this one. Your reply illustrates some of the things I was talking about quite neatly, so thanks for that, too.

you figure this out all by yourself or did get this off some militant Atheist website

A lifetime of experience, an interest in what makes people tick and a longstanding interest in subjects like psychology and evolutionary biology have brought me to the same conclusion arrived at by so many others: conservatism is the ugly, bullying child of fear.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Study a little sociology. Familiarize yourself with Adorno's analysis of the authoritarian personality, a classic sociological work from the 1940s which, though heavily criticized, remains influential and carries the ring of truth. Read Conservatives without Conscience, in which Richard Nixon's former White House Counsel John W. Dean applies Adorno's work to modern conservatism. That's just two relevant works off the top of my head. There are many more besides. Beyond this, a quick internet search will reveal numerous studies like this one, in which the connection between conservatism and fearfulness is made explicit:

Lakoff (2002) claims that conservative discourse has been effective mainly because it appeals to a widely held “strict father” model of morality. In contrast, we highlight the gender and racial dimensions of conservative discourse and its mobilization of fear.

Or, if that's a little heavy for you, try this interview with a sociologist, in which he explains the intimate bond between fear and conservatism.

I suppose the authors of these books and studies are all evil, Republican-baiting liberals; some of them may even be - who knows? - radical atheists. It's true that John Dean used to be friends with Barry Goldwater, but I'm sure he's cured now. Still, put aside your conservative prejudices (and your fear) for a moment and try some of those links. You'll learn something about yourself. You'll also learn that it is no contradiction

to say we are so startled and so frightened but angry and violent in the same sentence

because, as we learn when we study the rudiments of psychology, anger and violence are always provoked by fear.

And really, I don't think it's any great stretch to say that anger is the conservative's darling emotion, and violence his favourite resort. It was ever thus, since time began. There you go, another of those

idiotic sweeping generalizations I have seen you make when people are not as "cool" as you think you are

-- but one few people knowledgeable about history and current affairs would think to deny.

Would you deny it? You say that I

don't have anything more scientific to substantiate your assertions about conservatives being more violent, even loving violence

but really, MAINTAL, how scientific do we need to be? Look at issues in US politics. Who demands that certain crimes be punishable by death? Who throws a tantrum if their precious 'right to bear arms' is threatened by so much as a feather's touch? Who supported America's massive military machine and aggressive, bullying foreign policy throughout the Bush era? Who bombs abortion clinics? Who beats up gay people? Who is forever ranting about the Wrath of God that will cleanse the world of the wicked? Who blew up the World Trade Centre? Liberals?

Do we really need a scientific study to prove what is as plain as the nose on your face?

Your own words, as I said, illustrate my thesis. Look:

From your many threads I have seen you run your mouth about the evils of religion to the one blaming creationists for destroying ATS and you tell us conservatives are startled easy? HA HA HA you are a funny guy when you call the kettle black as much and as often as you do.

Hysterical is what you are...

Gosh. You come up with an outburst like that and top it off by calling me startled and hysterical? Full marks for chutzpah.

And as for this,

Oh brother,, I don't think I have to explain how that makes you look but I will say, if only you could apply that ostentatious vocabulary to a cogent basis for your argument, you might not appear to have that chip on your shoulder. It's either that or the tendency for liberals to become such milk toasts not having the broad shoulders to take responsibility for their own lives always taking and never making a damn thing but lame excuses why it is always our fault they can't turn a buck, or blame their paranoia on frightened angry conservatives who are sick and tired of liberals who can't pull their own weight much less know why their is always ten liberals who lean to everyone ONE conservative, that lifts...

I think it sort of speaks for itself, don't you?

Thank you for stepping forward to help me prove my point, MAINTAL. It really was rather brave of you.

Or maybe liberals just cant tell whats dangerous eh?

What does this research prove?!

I think the time and trouble in addition to all that blithering idiot author you you subcribe to in your post more than proved my point and that is simply that you are one of those knowitalls so unaware of how pretentious you look I don't have to use over kill in point by point rebuttals it is that obvious to me I'd be wasting my time.

Yeah I have read many of your posts. Although I never agree with them, they were given as examples of what not to do in a long list of mistakes made in posts from authors where WHAT they are about, speaks so loudly, that what they have to say,,

gets ignored.

reply to post by Astyanax


Very interesting statistics Astyanax.

This definitely explains my conservative friend who seems to lie, or at least stretch the truth, on 50% of the things coming out of his mouth.

Of course I don't want to call my friends liars, so I'm always trying to get him on ATS so he'll have to provide some sources to back up his arguments.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What does this research prove?!

Simply that there are tendencies, just like I have stated.

"We are not saying if you sneak up on someone and say 'Boo!' and see how hard they blink, that tells you what their political beliefs are," Hibbing said.

Nor is there the slightest implication that either liberals or conservatives are somehow abnormal for being more or less sensitive to threats: "We could spin a story saying it is bad to be so jumpy, but you can also spin a story saying it is bad to be naive about threats," he said. "From an evolutionary point of view, an organism needs to respond to a threat or it won't be around for very long. We are not saying one response is more normal than another."

Indeed, Hibbing and other researchers hope their study might help lower the volume of partisan invective in the presidential campaign: The research suggests that people who adopt political views you disagree with are not be stupid or irrational. Rather, they may arrive at their positions in part because they are predisposed to be more or less worried about risk.

reply to post by MAINTAL

Yeah I have read many of your posts... they were given as examples of what not to do in a long list of mistakes made in posts...

Glory be, fame at last! Could you post a link? Thanks.

Just to clarify, I'm not calling conservatives cowards. Whatever their politics, all humans must know fear; it isn't being afraid, but being overmastered by fear, that makes a person a coward. But conservatives look askance at change and novelty, automatically assuming the worst in all such cases. So, in a world of constant change, conservatives must live in constant, pointless fear.

Poor fellows. No wonder they're all so jumpy.

Read Conservatives Without Conscience, by John Dean. It is all about the psychological predisposition for authority and how it has destroyed the conservative movement from the late sixties to the present. I don't think this research would be shocking to Mr. Dean.