Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)

[John Cuthber]

Ok it seems you don't like the idea of the Right being defined by being the Right.

 

you seem to have forgotten that I did attack the principle or, at least, I provided a link to where another group has done so.

http://www.oecd.org/...es Numero 2.pdf

 

But there's a point where people stick to principles even after they were shown to be wrong.

At that point I start to think they have lost their minds.

[Acme]

...

I will discuss right versus left ideology with anyone ( remember, I am Canadian, our Conservatives are more left wing than American Democrats), but did not read the book Acme wanted me to, because of the title which slights half the American population. ...

No, the title of the book I wanted you to read is The Authoritarians. If you would not succumb to knee-jerk reactions and actually read what is writ you might come to the facts. The term insane in the thread title came from a blog in the opening post which led to an article at a university which led to the meta-study which led to the psychological study book titled The Authoritarians which lay in the house that Jack built.

I'll be back in the new year, but I'm taking a hiatus from the insanity for the holiday.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Acme

[MigL]

My apologies for the mis-statement, Acme.

 

The holidays ARE insane; people who take/observe them ARE NOT. See the difference ?

 

Sorry again. I just couldn't resist one last poke.

[billvon]

 

Calling them "non-reality based" regardless of the position is to ignore the actual arguments and reasons behind the positions. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying that labeling positions in such ways tends to close off discussion and actual understanding.

I didn't call them "non-reality-based" regardless of position. It depends a great deal on their position. As I mentioned, some right wing extremists are non-reality-based - just as some far left wing political types are. Both use the same sort of labels to close off discussion and prevent understanding - because to political extremists, understanding poses a risk.

 

To take two examples, a right wing extremist is not going to want anyone to understand the amount of taxes that illegal immigrants pay, because that eats into their argument that they are universally a burden on the US. So they label anyone who supports them a "crime supporter" which serves to derail the conversation and avoid the more messy facts.

 

Likewise, a left wing extremist might want only solar and wind used for electrical power. This is currently not possible because we rely on other methods of generation to supply baseline power, and will for decades to come. When this is brought up, often the extremist will ask something like "so you want coal power pollution to kill people?" Again, this serves to derail the discussion and avoid the underlying issues.

[Willie71]

Really Willie ?

 

I like some conservative ideas, yet I don't fit into any of the stereotypes you just mentioned.

I also like a lot of liberal ideas.

And I dislike quite a few from both camps.

I suspect there's an awful lot of people like me.

 

Where do we fit in your world view ?What're you gonna do ? Label us also, and call us confused ?

If you don't toe the party line, you aren't a conservative. That label doesn't fit you. I think most would refer to you as unaffiliated, or independent.

[Dekan]

The next President of the United States of America will be a woman . That's obvious. There's been a (semi) "Black President" . He hasn't been much good. But he ticked the politically correct box, ie "black". The next box to be ticked must surely be "Woman President".

 

After that, there'll be an openly Gay President. Then a Black Lesbian President.

 

I empathise with what Americans are suffering. Their country used to be the hope of the world. Now it's being deliberately destroyed.

 

"Republicans", "Democrats" , what difference does it make?

[Ten oz]

The next President of the United States of America will be a woman . That's obvious. There's been a (semi) "Black President" . He hasn't been much good. But he ticked the politically correct box, ie "black". The next box to be ticked must surely be "Woman President".

 

After that, there'll be an openly Gay President. Then a Black Lesbian President.

 

I empathise with what Americans are suffering. Their country used to be the hope of the world. Now it's being deliberately destroyed.

 

"Republicans", "Democrats" , what difference does it make?

You do not have any statistical analyst to support your assertion. A breakdown of the actual voting shows that their is no difference in the support Obama received vs other democrats:

Al Gore in 00' received 42% of the white vote

John Kerry in 04' received 41% of the white vote

Obama in 12' received 39% of the white vote.

The difference between all 3 democrats was marginal. What effected the outcome was a drop in the total portion of that specific demographic of total voters. In 2000 whites made up 81% of total voters. By 2012 that number had fallen to 72% of total voters.

 

The trend continues for other groups:

Al Gore in 00' received 90% of the African American vote

John Kerry in 04' received 88% of the African American vote

Obama in 12' received 93% of the African American vote

Again, the difference in marginal.

 

If you look up other groups (women, Asians, Latinos, etc) you will see the same consistantcy in rewards for which party they support. The race of a candidate, home state, age, and etc does not change the numbers. The idea that Obama won election because he is black is a fallacy. Obama received all the same support Democrats typically receive nationally. I used the last three national candidates as an example but the trend goes further back.

 

2000 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html

2004 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html

2012 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

[davidivad]

now that's what a thread should look like...

i am embarassed nowby my own laziness...

 

oh, yea.

we are all nuts politicians included.

here is my proof.

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/ouija-board-product-reviews/.

[billvon]

After that, there'll be an openly Gay President. Then a Black Lesbian President.

 

I empathise with what Americans are suffering. Their country used to be the hope of the world. Now it's being deliberately destroyed.

People have been saying that for at least 150 years. There are always problems in the US - but compared to our historical problems, our problems today are relatively minor. We are not currently trying to split the country in two (and kill everyone in the other half) or keep minorities enslaved, or imprison people of a certain race. People who grew up during the Kent State shootings, or the race riots of the 1960's, or the Vietnam War, or even the Cold War, would disagree that America is in more peril than ever.

[overtone]

In general while political conservatism (or liberalism) is _not_ a form of insanity, right wing extremism is often associated with non-reality-based approaches to issues. (Same is true of left-wing extremism.)

With the difference, relevant to this thread, that rightwing “extremism” as characterized thus has increasingly become a norm while dominating US political life and the associated factions vying for power, while left wing extremism as characterized thus (divorced from reality) has only a tiny role in US public discussion and essentially no political representation at the current time.

If I was to say ALL muslims are insane because they believe in jihad and blowing themselves up to get virgins in heaven, I'd be an ignorant idiot, and you, Tenoz, along with JohnC., Acme and others would be the first to jump all over me. The truth is only some act that way because of the way they interpret their beliefs.

If I was to say ALL black Americans are insane because they aspire to be gangstas and drug dealers, who support anarchy and riot and loot at every opportunity, I'd also be very wrong, and again I'd hear it from you guys. The truth is only a few of them believe that revenge on 'whitey' can make up for the past wrongings and current disadvantages.

I could continue with other groups, but I'd be wrong generalizing about them also. So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs.

 

This is an example of the weirdness surrounding conservative politics in the US these days.

They consider themselves a different kind of human being – a category like a race or a religion that one is born into, unavoidably, as an ethnic or genetic inheritance.

 

The generalization is exactly backwards. We aren’t labeling the blacks by their association with gangstas, the Muslims by their association with jihadists: we are labeling the gangstas and jihadists as the crazy faction of the blacks, Muslims, etc.

 

The American “conservatives” are the gangstas, the jihadists, the crazy faction. And we can prove it – they harbor dozens of “beliefs” and opinions and apparently ineradicable presumptions that simply don’t match physical reality: they are in conflict with things like physics and logic and the order of established events in time. They argue and vote and act on the basis of delusion and falsehood – not just variant opinion, but hallucinatory nonsense. And they seemingly can’t remember what they said or did for five minutes running. It looks crazy, to an outsider.

 

Why isn’t it? Looking at, say: the current public defense of State interrogation by torture, including publically defining waterboarding and stress position shackling as not torture; the three year uproar over Obama’s birth certificate; death panels in Obamacare; denial of the physics of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere; the Book of Genesis as a text in high school science classes; denial of the risks of GMOs; denial of significant racial bigotry in the white people of the US; guiding US foreign policy by interpreting the Book of Revelations; black helicopters and FEMA concentration camps and gun confiscation and IRS tyranny and Benghazi and chemtrails and Muslim infiltration of the White House and Russian hurricane manipulation and gay rights hurricane invocation and

 

communists/jihadists/drugs/jihadists/drugs/communists/jihadists

fading in and out with

Federal budget deficits are disastrous/ok/disastrous/ok/disastrous/ok

 

like syncopated strobe lights of panic switching on/off every couple of years

 

in a context of perfectly good information, easily available to well educated and freely acting people. Nobody’s putting a gun to their heads, censoring their potential sources of info. There’s no reason for this - actually, no good reason. Those who read history can trace the obvious heritage from the foundations of the country in plantation slavery through the Civil War, Reconstruction, the KKK era, and the plutocratic revolt against the New Deal finding its strategy in the "Southern strategy" and its tactics in their own marketing departments as well as the media professionals of Disneyland and Hollywood.

 

If that isn’t mild insanity, what is it?

 

 

 

I have seen this exchange repeated a few times here

"REPUBLICAN: "I think it would be wise for the US to control the flow of immigrants into our country, so that our welfare services can cope, and our industries can make the best use of their talents"

 

 

You haven’t seen that very often, in the US public discussion, from a Republican. That would be a very liberal Democratic approach, usually, in the real world at the moment. Making a reasonable case for somebody else is a very liberal thing to do. (try to find an example, on this forum or anywhere, of a self-identified conservative with knowledge improving a liberal’s argument to set up their strongest case for debate). The actual Republican policies and most of the rhetoric supporting them are dog whistles for bigotry, designed to get votes for politicians who will allow the exploitation of labor and reduce the tax burden on the exploiters. No wisdom involved. Big walls and drones and military patrols on the Rio Grande enforcing deportation of five million people including a million children raised in the US, alternating with evocations of the memory of “Tear down this wall” Reagan – no sign of any mental conflict.

 

They’re crazy.

Edited December 16, 2014 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@ Overtone, bait and switch is a common debating tactic for conservatives. I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

[MigL]

What I would get worked up over , is the fact that overtone waits until I've left the discussion to attack points I made, not having had the ba*ls to it before like you Tenoz , and JohnC,

 

While your political leanings are not a race that you are born into, do you doubt that as a group , black Americans have a certain set of beliefs based on their environment and upbringing ?

And how exactly are you born into a religion ? Because your parents were ? What if your parents leaned towards certain politics ? And what of people who change religion ?

 

Are you that obtuse, overtone, that you don't see these as groups or demographics with a large number of common shared beliefs ?

Just like Right and Left are groups with a core of shared beliefs, and some that are not so universal, but more local or even singular.

 

The examples you cited are my examples and I am neither conservative or American. But I do have integrity, unlike what you demonstrated.

Next time address me directly in your post and I'll come back ( as I have ).

No need to wait till I've announced my intentions of quitting the topic.

[Ten oz]

What I would get worked up over , is the fact that overtone waits until I've left the discussion to attack points I made, not having had the ba*ls to it before like you Tenoz , and JohnC,

 

While your political leanings are not a race that you are born into, do you doubt that as a group , black Americans have a certain set of beliefs based on their environment and upbringing ?

And how exactly are you born into a religion ? Because your parents were ? What if your parents leaned towards certain politics ? And what of people who change religion ?

I do not believe all black people share specific views. Some Black people like Clearance Thomas are crazy conservatives while others are brilliant advocates of science like Neil Degrasse Tyson. Nor do I believe all black people share a common environment. Jaden Smith for example has had a different unbringing than Tamir Rice had.

 

The overwhelming majority of people who have religion have the religion they were born into. People born in Muslimmdominant areas who become religious become Muslim overwhelmingly. The numbers of people raised Christian who become Muslim or vice versa is very low. All religions in the United States other than Christian combined (Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, etc) are less than 5% and the overwhelming majority of them moved to the U.S. from a country where their faith was in the majority. If you need citation Pew Research and the Cencus Bureau have the statistics.

 

Even if you could prove that people often change faith, blacks share common attitudes, or etc it doesn't lend a defense to container ions of this thread. This is not a thread about the insanity of black culture. Switching it to that does not serve as a logical defense of conservative ideology.

[overtone]

What I would get worked up over , is the fact that overtone waits until I've left the discussion to attack points I made, not having had the ba*ls to it before like you Tenoz , and JohnC,

Tell you what: If I ever feel the need to post my upcoming schedule of personal business and forum appearances to every jackass here, you'll be the first to hear from me.

 

Meanwhile: all I did was repeat the main point, with a bit more evidence: American conservatives are fruit loops. Seriously. The entire Republican Party has gone right around the bend, and it's interfering with their ability to do simple, ordinary, how-do-I-tie-my-shoes reasoning from evidence - even in matters about which they are presumably fully informed, and invested in demonstrating reason and logic and sound views (check out some of the more directly scientific threads with political aspects, here).

 

 

 

 

While your political leanings are not a race that you are born into, do you doubt that as a group , black Americans have a certain set of beliefs based on their environment and upbringing ?

Yes. Some are gangstas, with the beliefs and traits common to gangstas, most aren't, for example. You posted that, and I agree. Gangstas, like "conservatives", are the crazy faction. They don't speak for the rest.

 

And how exactly are you born into a religion ? Because your parents were ?

Yep. That's the overwhelming bulk of the religious folks on this planet, anyway. Look around: where do you think most people get their religious affiliations - from school? Chance encounters at bus stops?

The contention is that a set of people who like gangstas and jihadists do have a certain set of beliefs and character traits in common, by definition - self-described American "conservatives" - are noticeably crazy, visibly insane to some degree, in a manner directly correlated with the shared beliefs and viewpoints that they themselves use to define themselves as "conservative".

here, I didn't come close to a complete list back there: http://prospect.org/article/why-irs-non-scandal-perfectly-represents-todays-gop http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/gops_benghazi_addiction_why_conservatives_so_desperately_need_a_scandal http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/01/28/breitbart-brings-acorn-videos-lie-to-msnbc/159744

If something like that list could be compiled from "black people" it would be fine to say so, of course. In a different thread. Find one with a few conservatives in it - they have a lot of stuff like that to say about black people.

Edited December 17, 2014 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Please keep the personally snipes and slurs against groups of people out of conversation. It's not productive.

[chadn737]

The red herrings and straw men introduced to divert this thread from actual discussion of psychology is telling. I guess if the actual science fails to confirm your opinion of those who disagree with you...then use fallacies....

[John Cuthber]

The red herrings and straw men introduced to divert this thread from actual discussion of psychology is telling. I guess if the actual science fails to confirm your opinion of those who disagree with you...then use fallacies....

One particularly spectacular red herring is the reference to psychology.

If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.

If, on the other hand, you are using the term colloquially then any of us is "qualified" to give an opinion.

it's especially clear that it's a red herring as I pointed the issue out before.

Edited December 17, 2014 by John Cuthber

[chadn737]

One particularly spectacular red herring is the reference to psychology.

If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.

If, on the other hand, you are using the term colloquially then any of us is "qualified" to give an opinion.

it's especially clear that it's a red herring as I pointed the issue out before.

 

Since the thread was started based on psychology studies....all the debate on contentious issues that in no way assess an individual or group of individuals actual mental state (i.e. your entire argument) is a red herring.

 

If you want to say that only psychiatry is qualified to say whether or not "conservatism" is a form of insanity...then I'll gladly go along with that and ask that you show actual scientific evidence from psychiatric research that supports any such assertion. At least the psychological research discussed earlier has standards regarding measurement and statistical analysis. The current debate that relies on peoples opinions on contentious subjects (again your arguments) is so far from the any psychological or psychiatric measure of insanity as to be laughable. So by all means, lets discuss the psychiatric research on conservatives. Please show me any published research from any reputable psychiatric journal that has conducted such work.

[John Cuthber]

If you look back a bit, you will find out what I think is required to make a diagnosis

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity/?p=841378

 

And, since I have clarified why I think it's essentially a societal decision, ordinary people are perfectly able to decide if someone has lost the plot or not.

As I said, people diagnosed others as being insane long before psychology existed.

It's possible that psychology and psychiatry can tell you more about these unfortunates- perhaps give you the why's and wherefores or even offer treatment.

But, in terms of just answering the question "are these people normal?" there's no need for any qualification; there never was.

[chadn737]

If you look back a bit, you will find out what I think is required to make a diagnosis

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity/?p=841378

 

And, since I have clarified why I think it's essentially a societal decision, ordinary people are perfectly able to decide if someone has lost the plot or not.

As I said, people diagnosed others as being insane long before psychology existed.

It's possible that psychology and psychiatry can tell you more about these unfortunates- perhaps give you the why's and wherefores or even offer treatment.

But, in terms of just answering the question "are these people normal?" there's no need for any qualification; there never was.

 

Um no. You are not qualified to make the diagnosis, neither are common people. You yourself just said that only psychiatry is:

 

John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist."

 

So if you want to actually claim that conservatives are crazy, then you need to provide ACTUAL psychiatric data on the mental state of conservatives. Anything less than that is non-scientific, speculation, and shear biased opinion.

 

I'll ask you again to please support your claims with hard psychiatric research.

[John Cuthber]

Next time, before you quote stuff back at me, you may wish to read it

John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.""

 

Also, it might look better if you spell my name correctly- I know it's a pseudonym, but surely it's not too much trouble to get it right.

 

And, once again I will draw your attention to the fact that three were de facto diagnoses of insanity before there were psychiatrists.

The doctors came about because there was an illness- not the other way round.

Are you actually going to address that?

[chadn737]

Next time, before you quote stuff back at me, you may wish to read it

John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.""

 

Also, it might look better if you spell my name correctly- I know it's a pseudonym, but surely it's not too much trouble to get it right.

 

And, once again I will draw your attention to the fact that three were de facto diagnoses of insanity before there were psychiatrists.

The doctors came about because there was an illness- not the other way round.

Are you actually going to address that?

 

Anything other than a medical diagnosis is non-scientific and simply name-calling. We call things/people "insane" or "crazy" in common usage not because people are actually insane or crazy, but because we simply find the idea or person ridiculous, outrageous, disagreeable, etc. This sort of usage is subjective, unscientific, non-medical, and simply reflects the user's own biases and opinions....nothing more. They may be perfectly sane....more sane than the person calling them "insane" and we recognize that such verbiage is simply opinion and not a reflection of the accused's actual mental state.

 

I will draw your attention to the fact that before there were psychologists we treated homosexuality, transexuals, and a host of other non "insane" people as if they were literally insane. Even after there were psychiatrists, we treated such people as if they had a mental disease. We treated people of different races as if they were sub-human and lacking in mental capacity. Forgive me then if I take issue with your "de facto" diagnosis that is not backed by scientific evidence. Such diagnoses have a very high rate of false-positives and tend to be colored by a person's biases. Calling those you personally disagree with "insane" without any actual psychiatric evidence to back it up falls under this same sort of biased diagnosis that you call "de facto" that was used to justify locking homosexuals up. The only person that it is "de facto" too is yourself and those who share your personal biases.

 

At this point, your refusal to actually provide psychiatric evidence that conservatism is a form of insanity is nothing but dodging. Your responses are dodging and an attempt to justify "folk psychiatry" as legitimate science.

 

I ask you again....do you have any actual psychiatric/scientific evidence that conservatives are insane? If not, then we can conclude that calling them such is simply your opinion and can be dismissed as such.

Edited December 17, 2014 by chadn737

[Willie71]

One particularly spectacular red herring is the reference to psychology.

If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.

If, on the other hand, you are using the term colloquially then any of us is "qualified" to give an opinion.

it's especially clear that it's a red herring as I pointed the issue out before.

This is incorrect. As a psychiatric nurse, I give diagnosis on each case I see. Psychologists and social workers at the masters level can too.

 

There is no diagnosis of insanity either. The specific condition will be lured based on the manual used, the DSM5, or the ICD10.

Anything other than a medical diagnosis is non-scientific and simply name-calling. We call things/people "insane" or "crazy" in common usage not because people are actually insane or crazy, but because we simply find the idea or person ridiculous, outrageous, disagreeable, etc. This sort of usage is subjective, unscientific, non-medical, and simply reflects the user's own biases and opinions....nothing more. They may be perfectly sane....more sane than the person calling them "insane" and we recognize that such verbiage is simply opinion and not a reflection of the accused's actual mental state.

 

I will draw your attention to the fact that before there were psychologists we treated homosexuality, transexuals, and a host of other non "insane" people as if they were literally insane. Even after there were psychiatrists, we treated such people as if they had a mental disease. We treated people of different races as if they were sub-human and lacking in mental capacity. Forgive me then if I take issue with your "de facto" diagnosis that is not backed by scientific evidence. Such diagnoses have a very high rate of false-positives and tend to be colored by a person's biases. Calling those you personally disagree with "insane" without any actual psychiatric evidence to back it up falls under this same sort of biased diagnosis that you call "de facto" that was used to justify locking homosexuals up. The only person that it is "de facto" too is yourself and those who share your personal biases.

 

At this point, your refusal to actually provide psychiatric evidence that conservatism is a form of insanity is nothing but dodging. Your responses are dodging and an attempt to justify "folk psychiatry" as legitimate science.

I ask you again....do you have any actual psychiatric/scientific evidence that conservatives are insane? If not, then we can conclude that calling them such is simply your opinion and can be dismissed as such.

Insane is not the correct term. Are they scizophrenic, bipolar? No. They have a belief system that is not connected with reality, but as with religion, a shared group delusion is a faith, not an illness under current standards. If it is learned, then it is belief. Outside of this caveat, conservatives, when asserting the world is 6000 years old, or that evolution is untrue, or that climate change is not happening, are clearly and unequivocally out of touch with reality. It's simply delusional, but taught just like the various magic man beliefs of the Abrahamis religions. One read of the bible should confirm the nonsensical nature of the assertion, but we are told repeatedly that this is truth, and questioning is not acceptible.

[chadn737]

Insane is not the correct term. Are they scizophrenic, bipolar? No. They have a belief system that is not connected with reality, but as with religion, a shared group delusion is a faith, not an illness under current standards. If it is learned, then it is belief. Outside of this caveat, conservatives, when asserting the world is 6000 years old, or that evolution is untrue, or that climate change is not happening, are clearly and unequivocally out of touch with reality. It's simply delusional, but taught just like the various magic man beliefs of the Abrahamis religions. One read of the bible should confirm the nonsensical nature of the assertion, but we are told repeatedly that this is truth, and questioning is not acceptible.

 

Except that the issue is not whether or not some conservatives believe things that are "out of touch". ~40 some percent of liberals do not believe in evolution, ~1/3rd of conservatives do, and there are many Creationists who believe that the Earth is billions of years old. If simply having a belief outside of what is fully supported by science is enough to make one insane...then ~40% of liberals are "insane".

 

The issue of this thread, from the start, has been whether or not conservatives are "mildly insane" because...well because psychology says so....somewhere along the line....mainly after I pointed out the inherent flaws in the experiments/measures used to come to some of these conclusions, the debate became about labeling half of a nation "insane" because they disagree with John Cuthber and associates on immigration or topic X.

 

If you want to label that many people as having a mild mental disorder based on political affiliation, then I expect scientific evidence to support it. It is hypocritical and unscientific to make such absurd assertions and refusing to support it with scientific evidence while pretending to be the defender of science. It is illogical to go around making classical fallacies like hasty generalizations: if ~1/3rd of conservatives believe in evolution and ~40% of liberals do not, then calling "conservatives" "out of touch" or "insane" and that liberals are somehow not on this one issue is a hasty generalization when such large sections of each group believe the opposite.

 

It really is saddening to see scientists and those who claim to be dedicated to science suddenly ignore all science and need for evidence and resort to such obvious fallacies when suddenly its comes down to politics. That is no different intellectually than what a creationist does. Rational people should reject such obvious fallacious name-calling.

Edited December 18, 2014 by chadn737

[Willie71]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts-political-beliefs-with-83-percent-accuracy-17536124/

 

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/

 

Read this and get back to me.