« | »

Conservatives Are Negative, Liberals Positive

From BBC News:

Fear factor: The science behind America’s red/blue divide

January 30, 2012

Americans are as divided as ever between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Is there a psychological foundation for the red/blue split?

Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln are studying liberals’ and conservatives’ reactions to happy or pleasant photographs and scary or sad ones in an effort to learn more about the cognitive underpinnings of political preference.

The findings? Conservatives tend to concentrate more on images considered to be negative, while liberals’ eyes tend to linger on positive images, says political science professor John Hibbing.

We get it. Conservatives are stupid and afraid and bigoted. Can anyone blame us?

By the way, this study seems to have come out way back in October 2008. So you have to wonder why the BBC is trotting it out again all these years later?

Or is that too negative to mention?

The BBC’s Matt Danzico visited the university, where the researchers were employing eye-tracking kit on subjects who were also asked to fill out a political questionairre [sic].

Yes, it sounds very scientific.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Tuesday, January 31st, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

43 Responses to “Conservatives Are Negative, Liberals Positive”

  1. Rusty Shackleford

    Having run into this aberration and annoyance all my life I now simply respond thus: “It’s not that I’m negative, it’s that I can identify things that can potentially harm me and be prepared for them when they do happen, as opposed to your pie-in-the-sky optimism that leaves you a free target for chatty salespeople and identity thieves.”

    Usually shuts them up.

    In order to truly achieve positive results, one must first be able to identify the potential for where things can go wrong. If the architect who designed the largest stadium in the US failed to anticipate catastrophe, the structure he designed would fail in a certain circumstance and kill a lot of people. And, for the record, isn’t that what the critics of 9/11 were hammering on about the designers of the WTC?

    What comes off as “negative” so so many people is simply either pragmatism or caution. Confusing “cheerfulness” with reckless abandon is a very bad mood. And focusing on photographs is a very bad way to assess this anyway. “pleasing” photographs? By whose assessment?

    It never fails to surprise me how these giddy, “positive” people are constantly torpedoed by kids who are “inexplicably” on drugs, or stopped by a cop because 2/3′s of their brakelights are out.

    Negatives are a part of life and much of that, has been brought about by liberal social-engineering. Is it any wonder that conservatives, in an effort to live a happier, more carefree life have to constantly try to prepare for the negatives that liberals have installed that interfere with said life?

    • Mithrandir

      EXACTLY:

      “Conservatives tend to concentrate more on images considered to be negative, while liberals’ eyes tend to linger on positive images…”

      If you weren’t biased, you COULD interpret the data as:
      Conservatives have a VERY STRONG moral component, and a STRONG sense of INJUSTICE. And tend to focus on a world in which they don’t desire it to be.

      LIBERALS don’t care about negative things, and are easily dismissive of them, indicating they are moral-less, are easily distracted by the next irrelevant stimuli. They are conscience-less, forgetful of others’ injustice and swayed by how life might be, not how it really is.

      BROWN EYES BLUE EYEShttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...../view.html

      Everyone should see this evil and ridiculous attempt at claiming the “smoking gun” for genetic racism in white people. What the video REALLY proves is that liberals are manipulative monsters, and that white people have A VERY STRONG SENSE OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE AND UNFAIRNESS, even at a very young age. (meanwhile, slavery still persists in Africa in 2012, go figure)

      This woman is a very famous lecturer, and one of the holy cardinals of liberalism touring America. I cannot figure out why people have not caught on to her crazy and unethical exploitation of young people, and then MISINTERPRETING THE RESULTS!

  2. This is mindless garbage. Except for the finding that Liberals have little awareness or interest in things that can harm them. Like the Eloi of H.G. Well’s The Time Machine, they want to spend their time playing pretend and fantasizing about a Utopia. Denial is stitched into their very fabric, and don’t know how to react to a threat until it’s too late.

    The morality tale of pre-WWII Britain is perfect for our time. Only Churchill and his friends could see the threat in Europe. The pacifist Liberals (here in the U.S. also) nearly brought the civilized world to ruin.

  3. Petronius

    BBC : “Is there a psychological foundation for the red/blue split?”

    According to orthodox Liberalism, there are no psychological causes whatsoever. There are only social causes which it is the Liberal’s duty to correct.

    The Liberal :

    Even the lowly amoeba has the will to life and the instinct for preservation; yet these qualities are invariably lacking in Liberals.

    A white Liberal always prefers the interests of strangers, foreigners, and enemies over those of his own kith and kin. He has a Death Wish for our people and civilization and not much else. His ideal for society is: blood on the cobblestones.

    His sado-masochism seems to stem from his ideology, including his obsessive hatred for Western Christian Civilization, his obsessive guilt and deep well of bitterness –– although he also believes that his power and wealth will somehow save him when helter-skelter comes down.

    He is an ideologue who takes delight in destruction and in the exercise of power over others. His doctrine is Marxism. His aims are power (both for its own sake and as a means to control and remold human beings), theft (loot), and destruction of Western Civilization (Christendom). The Liberal seeks to promote class envy, anti-white racism, and a mythology of victimization; to enslave successful individuals and to redistribute their wealth to moochers, freeloaders, and parasites; and to stifle and choke the human will to self-responsibility and the human drive to succeed and prosper.

    His mottos are: “You’re a racist.” “We’ll bring a gun.” “Eat your peas.” “Off the pigs!” “Burn it down!” “Let it all fall apart!” “All of us were immigrants once.” “Celebrate diversity.” “You’re finished blondie!” “Bye-bye blue eyes.” “Who cares what happens to them?” “Here’s a tender piece, sir.”

    For the Liberal the purpose of politics is to maximize his own power and the power of government over the lives of individuals, and then to use that power radically to deconstruct the social order and human beings into the ideologue’s vision of utopia, without regard to reality or consequences, in fact with positive joy in the damage that will result, including loss of freedom, and with callous disregard for the country’s exiting way of life, constitution, traditions, customs, laws, or institutions.

    Of course the destruction wrought by the Liberal seldom occurs all at once, but rather as a series of gradual steps, always presented as individual acts of kindness and social responsibility, with nice labels attached to make them agreeable to us, labels such as “the Great Society,” “fairness,” “shared sacrifice,” or “the social contract.” We are told these measures are taken for our own good, in order to do us some good, or to make us good as our rulers see the good . . . or so they say.

    The Conservative :

    Conservatism is the opposition to ideology in politics. Conservatism is an attitude or disposition and a way of living, not an ideology. Being a conservative is something you do, not something you believe.

    A conservative is someone who knows that things could always get worse. His mottos are: “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” “Live and let live.” “Mind your own business.” “Let well enough alone.” “Stick to your own cabbage patch.” “Good fences make good neighbors.” “Read the bill.” “How can I help you?” “Merry Christmas.” Perhaps one of the finest expressions of pure conservatism is this from G. K. Chesterton : “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.”

    The conservative is realistic and non-utopian. He has an intuitive grasp of genetics and biology. He is clever enough to understand that there are no solutions to most social and economic problems, which are in fact not problems at all, but permanent conditions of human existence. He realizes that human beings are imperfect and that most of the ills in the world have biological, psychological, and moral causes rather than social causes. And that government, by tampering with the existing social order, invariably substitutes new and worse problems by undermining the healthier sectors of society.

    For the conservative a healthy political society reposes in the enjoyment of inherited traditions and customs, and the art of politics is to preserve these arrangements, and, when it becomes absolutely necessary to modify them, to do so only by moderate and prudent measures that apply the principles inherent in the country’s existing constitution, traditions, customs, and laws. The purpose of government is to maintain conditions which leave individuals free to make their own arrangements and deal with their own situations as they think best, with an absolute minimum of government interference.

    • proreason

      Nice, petronius. So true.

      It all boils down to reality vs fantasy

    • tranquil.night

      “in fact with positive joy in the damage that will result, including loss of freedom, and with callous disregard for the country’s exiting way of life, constitution, traditions, customs, laws, or institutions.”

      “A conservative is someone who knows that things could always get worse.”

      Hard to pull favorites from that post. Exceptionally done as always Petronius.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      And yet, the first people to find themselves at odds with a totalitarian “utopian” government are, in fact, the liberals.

      The artists, the writers, the thinkers, the philosophers, the professors, the reporters, the newspapers, the entertainers.

      For, in utopian society, such things are wasteful and not conducive to the collective good.

      I am currently reading Mark Levin’s “Ameritopia” which outlines this very phenomenon. Good read.

    • A serious study of Liberalism would prove that it’s a religion based of faith, not results and facts. It’s far easier to believe that Jesus Christ is a miracle-worker and the immaculately-born son of God than it is to believe that Liberalism/Marxism/Collectivism actually work. Exactly the opposite. They lead to tyranny, stagnation, despair, and death. History has proven it, and proves it again in Western Europe.

      Atheists are particularly prone to be Liberals because they’re hungry to believe in God. The human brain is hardwired for religion, and if someone rejects conventional belief in God they will invariably worship money, power, politics, and crackpot Utopian theories.

      As the great psychologist and Christian Carl Jung said, “We can take away a person’s gods, but only to replace them with other gods.”

    • Mithrandir

      THE LIBERAL MIND: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MADNESS
      http://www.libertymind.com/

      Everything Petronius said is outlined in this book: (you are a fool, if you haven’t read it yet…or maybe you are just busy these days…)

      Liberal Ideology
      “We are unable to JUDGE other cultures based on our own values.”–thereby, withholding any sort of Christian or Western morality standards upon other people.

      “Homosexuality? Who are you to JUDGE?”–thereby, trying to disarm morality or rules of standard behavior upon fellow countrymen.

      “Don’t you JUDGE me!” –no one is to be judged, less you look like a hypocrite yourself.

      (Bill Clinton / Monica Lewinsky) “Let those without sin, cast the first stone.” –remember that one? Only perfect people were to JUDGE the morality of the situation. (Note: Jesus said “go now and sin no more,” the democrats dropped that part from their story)

      BUT…..when it comes to liberals making JUDGEMENTS, they certainly are not restrained by their own rules now are they? As I have said before, liberal rules are for OTHER PEOPLE to follow.
      * “When my sister and I were growing up,” Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, “there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so.” Such it is in the day and the life of the liberal Animal Farm.

  4. TerryAnne

    I’d like to know: 1) what were the pictures of, and 2) who said what they were to begin with?

    As in: what were the “negative” photos really of? If it was a picture of a bunch of dead terrorists, of course, as someone on the right, I’m going to focus on that one. And probably call it a happy photo. And how about the “happy” photos? Were they kittens and puppies? If so, how about the gender spread of the test takers? Were the conservatives largely male and, thus, not predisposed to “ooh and goo” over photos of baby animals?

    If the people conducting this test put their own preconceived notions about the objects as the baseline, then, of course, the results are going to be skewed.

    Thought I’d turn a bit of the liberal pop-psychology back on them.

    • tranquil.night

      “Were the conservatives largely male and, thus, not predisposed to ‘ooh and goo’ over photos of baby animals?”

      This is where the study loses me too, TA.

      Presumably a Conservative that saw such a picture would think “food, me hungry,” right? Why wouldn’t it make the dumb brute happy?

      Maybe it makes them unhappy because it’s a reminder they’re not out with their gun, huntin’.

    • TerryAnne

      LOL! Not exactly what I meant, but funny. ;)

    • If their numbers ar correct, we can deduce the content of the photos.
      First let’s assume (in true liberal fashion) that the liberals tested are more likely to be tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing, dirt worshiping leaf, twig, and grass grazers. Now let’s also assume that the Conservatives tested are more likely to be tree chopping, aligator boot wearing, hard workin’ dirt farming, meat and potato eaters. Fair enough?

      The positive photos then were probably of the produce section of the local “Fer Sher Tootallly Organic Market”, and the negative photos were from the non-biodegradable menu of the local “Slaughter & Sear ‘em Steak House”

      As a Conservative, I’m much happier looking at a plate of rare filet mignon than some pretty sunflowers (awww).
      Since we’ve deduced the content of the photos, and the methodology of the study, we can now catagorically state that we all hope no government funds were used in the compilation of this study.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      One photo was reported to be of a supercarrier launching FA-18′s on a clear, sunrise. For the conservatives, it evoked a sense of purpose, strength and power and brought a smile to their face. The panel assessed this was a negative vibe, man.

      When the liberals saw the same photo, they fainted straight away as they could only think about the child-killers and the imperialism of the nation that owned said supercarrier. The panel assessed this to be a “healthy and strong” reaction.

      Yup, probably no bias there.

    • preparing4theworst

      Re: the liberal mind- I have had this poster since I was a sophomore in high school and when i was in college found that if you tacked it the ceiling over a swivel rocker and had someone lean back and spin the chair it would make them almost crosseyed and barely able to express themselves coherantly… ie just like a liberal on a good day. (I was a psych minor…a mind is a terrible toy to waste…) now all I have to do is figure out how to get the other one to my facebook page…all my friends would probably love it!

  5. ezra

    Yet another annotation of a wispy summary that is clearly lifted from some executive summary, which itself is probably based on an abstract of some analysis which, in original form, may be of actual interest. Sigh.

    Instead of the usual circle jerk, how about googling the darn thing?
    http://rstb.royalsocietypublis.....9/640.full (this is a new study published in the latest volume of a British journal, which may explain “why the BBC is trotting it out again all these years later”.)

    As a RINO (aka marxist) who is unburdened by the self-righteous illusion that I am a more highly-evolved political being than everybody who does not agree with me, I find this sort of thing interesting. I think the scientific method is grand, and it is within that context that I view such studies with a very critical eye.

    • David

      As a RINO (aka marxist) who is unburdened by the self-righteous illusion that I am a more highly-evolved …and it is within that context that I view such studies with a very critical eye
      As opposed to the EVERYONE else who has commented about this article with a “critical” eye. But no, no self-righteousness here… move along…

    • tranquil.night

      We are not slaves to our pre-determined physiological impulses, ezra – it is the liberal mindset that approaches human behavioral studies through this prism. Your lack of respect for the principle of individual liberty is why you aren’t a natural Conservative, and why you’ll never be able to approach this subject with a “critical eye,” because to do so with intellectual honesty would mean understanding the entire premise on which these inquiries are based isn’t scientific – it’s political.

      It’s futile to ask that you spare us your self-righteousness, I know you’re just back and looking to bait.

    • ezra

      David,

      I don’t see any comments about the study, though plenty have questions. I’ve supplied a link for those who are interested.

      Self-righteous = “Conservatism is the opposition to ideology in politics.” Which means what, exactly? Substitute “conservatism” for any other -ism and you have an equally (in)valid comment providing a perfect equivalency whereby “conservatism = maoism = x-ism = y-ism = z-ism”.

      I know my middle is messy.

    • David

      And by the way if you cared to be “scientific” about it the problems with the study are manifold.
      1. As others have mentioned there is an assumed bias in the hypothesis that goes untested.
      2. They use factor analysis (which assumes a continuous distribution over the political spectrum) and then proceed to mangle the numbers to fit a discrete two way descriptor (liberal conservative).
      3. They base their findings on the IMAP images which are in themselves averages responses. The study could just as easily be saying that IMAP skewed results towards a political bias.
      4. IMAP is flawed in its self as it assumes the average is an objective standard for an image’s affect. Is a picture of a great white shark inherently negative? IMAP says it is. The Discovery Channel clearly disagrees.

    • TerryAnne

      BS, ezra.

      The article you posted is even more biased than the “excerpts”.

    • ezra

      I don’t see the great bias in this study. I feel like many here are just very defensive and prone to take the whole subject personally … ironic, given the topic!

      I’m trying to figure out your responses, David.

      1. What is the bias which remains uncontrolled?
      2. The tables seem to regress along the spectrum (while the charts do not). No?
      3 & 4. What are IMAP images? The selection of the images seems to control for subjectivity to the extent this is possible. “Great white shark” does not equal “spider on face”, I believe. No?

      I love the way they put in the pictures of politicians, as well, although I’m not sure that doesn’t actually muddy the waters here.

      I have my qualms, but I suspect that my test results would definitely align predictably with this study’s results. If these guys proved that they could accurately predict political ideology with such a test, I don’t think that is any sort of scandal or source of shame for anybody involved. As the conclusions point out, self-awareness (opposite of denial) may be a good thing.

    • tranquil.night

      Self-awareness is best achieved through self-discovery, not some elitist with an agenda telling people who they supposedly are by a process of collectivization which makes them easier to control and social engineer.

    • ezra

      “Self-awareness is best achieved through self-discovery, not some elitist with an agenda telling people who they supposedly are by a process of collectivization which makes them easier to control and social engineer.”

      A very good summary of Marx on religion …

      The point is noble and true to a degree, but clearly “in extrimus” the idea is ludicrous. Let’s not bring religion into it. If you take an aspirin, you are benefiting from the scientific work of an elitist with an agenda. And somewhere there is surely a nutcase who is convinced that aspirin is a tool of collectivization and social engineering. And there may be a shred of truth in the argument … certainly for ritalin the argument is strong!

      But my question is: why such a visceral reaction denying visceral reactions? What is the issue with discovering that you may react with more or less disgust to a disgusting image, and that this reaction may correlate to political views? In the study, no judgments or causality are presented, and I fail to see where they should be implied. In the BBC article you could accuse the wording as being vaguely judgmental, but the accompanying video certainly is not.

    • tranquil.night

      “What is the issue with discovering that you may react with more or less disgust to a disgusting image, and that this reaction may correlate to political views?”

      Because that hypothesis itself is a false causality. And the manner in which the experiments are conducted hardly seems professional.

      The study is focussed on elevating that single correlation without accounting the myriad of other factors that also may correlate to an individuals political views.

      For a purpose – to produce a conclusion that supports the impression that Conservatives are more primitive. That is the unspoken hypothesis which I see motivating these studies, and that is what produces the visceral reaction of disgust.

      It is visceral because at it’s heart we see it as dishonest and motivated by “intellectual’s” forms of bigotry, where they hide behind ideas like they’re only motivated by the noble pursuit of knowledge and social science. HAH.

    • tranquil.night

      “A very good summary of Marx on religion …”

      You really aren’t as smart as you think you are.

      No, Marx rejected religion flat-out when the more accurate correlation you should be trying to make with what I am saying is “religious authoritarianism” which has existed at times and Marx and the French rebelled against by turning their backs on and their religious heritage, customs, and ethos altogether -getting replaced by the government-as-god, perpetuallyy failing, perpetually reincarnating utopian redistributionist-statist dream world.

      Marx also wasn’t terribly far off in diagnosing aspects of America’s Ruling Class at times either. That doesn’t mean the Tea Party which stands against today’s Ruling Class are for carrying out a Marxist revolution. Stop extrapolating what isn’t factual – this is part of why you’re blind to the inherent bias of these dumb social experiments.

    • ezra

      “Because that hypothesis itself is a false causality.”

      No causality is offered or implied that I can see. No judgement, either. What I find fascinating in the annotations to the summary article and the comments that follow is the vehement insistence that there MUST be an agenda … there MUST be causality … there MUST be judgement. (And yes, I’m judging a bit.) And yes, the reactions just might fit in well with the study itself! But it is the moderator and commenters, and not the researchers, who have written the script!

      “And the manner in which the experiments are conducted hardly seems professional.”

      I mean, we’re talking college political science here. Professionalism doesn’t really play into it, and I don’t begrudge schools and teachers for this type of work. It’s like the engineers and their battlebots … fun stuff! I agree it is definitely silly, but it does seems scientifically rigorous to me.

      “The study is focussed on elevating that single correlation without accounting the myriad of other factors that also may correlate to an individuals political views.”

      Not really true, since they did seek (and found less) significance to age, gender, income and education factors against the physiological tests. So they did at least try to cover their bases there. Besides, they are not trying to map the route from A to B, they’re only suggesting the existence of such a route, even if totally indirect.

      These findings from the study do not alarm me in the least:

      “Be this as it may, the central message of these
      findings is not that one political orientation is somehow
      superior to the other but rather that, in light of
      the connection between location on the political
      spectrum and physio-cognitive differences, those on
      the political right and those on the political left may
      simply experience the world differently.”

      At this point we could return to the discussion of the superior political orientation, which is totally absent from and absolutely unimportant to this study!

    • ezra

      “You really aren’t as smart as you think you are.”

      I’m just saying that all pronouncements of self-reliance and self-awareness by menfolk must be accompanied by signed written statements by their wives before they are afforded any credibility.

    • tranquil.night

      Ezra I don’t get paid enough to have the time and energy to read pointless drivel from the academic land of political sociology theories and pictures of puppies, and debate its merits with you. Your history commentary here has otherwise brought absolutely nothing useful and not engendered that type of respect.

      The article which prompeted this subject was posted by Steve in part I believe to point out how a media outlet was recycling an old study so that they could use it in support of their political template. Whether the study itself was legitimate, it gets abused in political context to try and influence minds or just plain agitate and divide. That’s what’s frustrating.

      “those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently”

      Whoa, now THAT IS a brilliant discovery alright!

      I wonder if they’ll ever figure out the perplexing phonenomenon behind why a Liberal might actually come to change their worldview to that of Conservatism? What the hell is going on there physiologically I wonder?

    • ezra

      “The article which prompeted this subject was posted by Steve in part I believe to point out how a media outlet was recycling an old study so that they could use it in support of their political template.”

      Yes, and I replied because:

      A) It is not an old study. It is a new study. He linked to an old study. But there is a new thing called google where you can find the new study. I surmise that the BBC published the article because the study was published in a British Journal.
      B) Steve’s red meat annotations are unsupported by the vaguely titillating contents of the article which are unsupported by the wholly apolitical contents of the study.
      C) The study itself is an interesting topic of conversation and perhaps a welcome diversion.

      Sorry, I’ll go with the program next time. Back to the circle jerk.

    • tranquil.night

      “C) The study itself is an interesting topic of conversation and perhaps a welcome diversion

      Sorry, I’ll go with the program next time. Back to the circle jerk.”

      Okay King Ezra. I guess the rubes would be sorry too if they were smart enough to understand how primitive they are for not finding this interesting.

    • tranquil.night

      And y’know, we’re all too busy enjoyin’ this circle jerk, ’cause like we’re not practically at each others throats on host of other topics right now.

      For all your claims of insight to self-awareness, you sure demonstrate a yawning lack of awareness towards those on this site you troll.

    • JohnMG

      I found his assumptions insulting and not a little annoying. But I perceive that to be his intent.

      Very little of value was brought to the discussion.

  6. canary

    TerryAnne, I found a Hibbing’s smiling photo for example. Creepy. click highlighted …study in…Oct 2008

    First there is an in your face candle lit face with neon blue and neon red (pink) hair like bozo the clown.
    It is an eye sore.
    So, guessing this quack Hibbling’s photos may be photos doctored and an eye sores, or a naked child smiling or peeing on a railroad track,

    I would say Hibbing looks a movie add for Chuckie the Clown grown up movie add.

    • canary

      Hibbing is Chuckie the Clown grown up. Here is photo of Hibbing eating warms. Pics of horror and gay card played.

      Today at UNL : “That’s gross! Study uncovers the physical nature of disgust and politics”

      In the study, UNL’s Kevin Smith and John Hibbing used images like this to link political attitudes to how individuals react to gross images.In the study, UNL’s Kevin Smith and John Hibbing used images like this to link political attitudes to how individuals react to gross images.

      Most likely, you would be disgusted if confronted with a picture of a man eating a mouthful of writhing worms. Or a particularly bloody wound. Or a horribly emaciated but still living body. ut[sic] just how much disgust you feel may lend important insight into your personal political proclivities.

      “This is one more piece of evidence that we, quite literally, have gut feelings about politics,” Smith said. “Our political attitudes and behaviors are reflected in our biology.”

      As predicted, conservatives responded to the pictures with much more intense disgust than did liberals. Attitudes in opposition to same-sex marriage were highly connected.

      — Steve Smith, University Communications

      http://newsroom.unl.edu/announ.....l/722/4411

      It would show conservatives are more human and
      Liberals minds are filled with such gross gutter that they are immune to it. Just like muslims enjoy watching executions in arenas.

  7. proreason

    Here’s the experiment I’d like to see.

    Put a dollar bill between people and a bunch of puppies and kitties.

    Measure how many puppied get stomped by the liberals.

    But you would need a really huge supply of puppies and kitties.

  8. canary

    Concerning the gross & horror photos used in Hibbing’s study (it’s not just his own self picture Chuckie the clown. Hibbings looks like Bill Ayers the underground bomber. Of course only a conservative would notice.

    Dead flies will cause even a bottle of perfume to stink! Yes, an ounce of foolishness can outweigh a pound of wisdom. Ecclesiastes 10:1

    “For the greater my wisdom, the greater my grief. To increase knowledge only increases sorrow” Ecclesiastes 1:18

    Ignorance is bliss. Hibbings is disgusting

  9. DW

    OK.
    So yesterday’s ground-breaking study of conservatives (Low IQ and Conservatism Linked to Prejudice) came from Brock University.
    Brock U is in St Catharines, Ontario. It’s a lovely little city whose carbon footprint is much more acceptable now that all the GM plants have closed. I grew up near there.
    The university is nice. The sort of place you go if you can’t make the grade for a university in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or someplace really exotic …like Hamilton.

    Today’s study is from …where??? Oh yes, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
    Now no disrespect to you corn-huskers or hosers (no wait- that’s us… oh) -hoosiers or whatever it is they call you guys down there in the tropics…

    …but is either of these areas really the Vienna of higher learning and scientific study?

    I get as frustrated as anybody when the media constantly throws crap at us but this isn’t even good crap. It’s barely second-rate crap.
    Worthy, IMHO, of a snort and an amused comment or two over a brew but hardly deserving of any real……..pique.
    Treat it -and its source- with the respect it deserves.

  10. beautyofreason

    Flip it another way. I wonder if this means conservatives are good at risk assessment and liberals are oblivious. Sure it feels good for them to spend without end, print a trillion dollars, bailout, breakdown the traditional “patriarchal” evil known as the family unit, treat Islam as better than Christianity (while their grandchildren get used to minarets). After all, liberals don’t have to clean up their messes.

    Also, if this study is taken at face value, ain’t it great that all of those negative tea party protesters can at least throw away their trash? For such positive people OWS didn’t seem to notice that other people walk on the streets

  11. Reality Bytes

    I’M POSITIVE LIBERALS HAVE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM!

    (YES I’M YELLING)

  12. Anonymoose

    Ignoring Ezra, although I did download and read the study. (Yes, I’m a conservative with a master’s, who would’ve thunk it.)

    Two things that really got my attention (and concerned me) from the video: Hibbing saying some people were hardwired for political values but there was still a chance to “change” them if they were on the edges, and keeping the images blurred in case you may ever end up being tested. Flat out admitting he had a bias, and how likely are any of us to be tested with this device?

    The study went to great lengths to justify itself; an anonymous group of people, average age 42, images delegated by a group of judges as positive and negative, and statistical numbers about the the “dwell time” where how long people looked at images. (And the differences were down to milliseconds).

    What’s missing is what is most important: What were people thinking? Their reactions? It’s down the simplistic whoever looks at positive or negative images ergo must be what they focus on and their outlook.

    Here’s another way it can be looked at:

    Liberal: Ugh, don’t care about those people and their problems. Ooh, cute puppies! And that looks like where I may go on vacation!

    Conservative: Puppies and vacation pics, ya, ya, see them all day. Are these accidents and crimes real pictures or staged? Was someone hurt in that crash? What was that guy doing breaking in the window?

    In other words conservatives are concerned and involved, rather than just blowing it off. I’d be more concerned about Liberals not noticing or paying attention to something bad.

    It’s just like that “study” a few years ago about how Liberals had offices that were more bright, cheery, and open. I could just as well as said:

    Liberal: Ooh! Bright and Shiny! See all my multicultural stuff and that rug I got at the Diversity Ball.

    Conservative: I’m here to work, not decorate.

    Sadly we’re likely to see a lot more like this from him. A “Foundation Regents Professor” is a sort of made up title when you can’t promote someone any higher and an Emeritus status isn’t appropriate as they’re still active. Basically it means you’re a big fish in that academic pond.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »