Similarly, this current study also found that economic , but not social, conservatives were more satisfied with their lives. Conservatives also tend to do the kinds of things that lead to happiness, like getting married and having children and, yes, going to church. Even though this study accounted for religiosity, social connections like the kind we make at houses of worship make us feel happy. Why might conservatives feel more of this? Social conservatives, Schwarz says, tend to think the world is the way it ought to be.
The world tends to be less meaningful to people who think tradition is unimportant and everything can—and possibly should—change on a dime. For liberals, the capacity to see the gray in life might be valuable in some sense, but also not give them as clear a sense of meaning. A leading-edge research firm focused on digital transformation. Good Subscriber Account active since Shortcuts.
Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders. It often indicates a user profile. Log out. US Markets Loading H M S In the news. Liberals and conservatives don't just differ politically. According to scientific research, people on different ends of the political spectrum differ psychologically too. Fear is linked more often to leaning conservative, whereas feeling safer can lead people to lean more liberal. Liberals and conservatives also tend to show compassion to different groups of people.
The following are of the 15 biggest psychological differences academics have found between liberals and conservatives around the globe. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Being scared can make you more conservative.
A conservative brain is more active in different areas than a liberal one. On the other hand, feeling safe and endowed with strength might make you lean a little more liberal than you otherwise would. Liberals are less squeamish about looking at yucky stuff like vomit, feces, and blood. Conservatives tend to display more ordered thinking patterns, whereas liberals have more "aha" moments. Liberals tend to follow the wandering gaze of others more often, while conservative eyes stay more focused on the original subject they're looking at.
Holding conservative views seems to make people more resistant to change and help them explain inequality. Liberal and conservative tastes in music and art are different, too.
Liberals are more likely to describe themselves as compassionate and optimistic, while conservatives are more likely to say they're people of honor and religion. Conservatives believe they have more self-control. Liberals and conservatives extend feelings of compassion to different people. Conservatives tend to report feeling greater meaning and a sense of purpose in life than liberals do. Research also suggests shared values likely matter more than shared politics when it comes to who we vote for.
One British study found that voters who were aggressive, angry kids were more likely to distrust the government and lean liberal as adults. Moreover, they are also associated with psychological motives to reduce uncertainty and threat, consistent with a theory of political ideology as motivated social cognition that Jost and other collaborators proposed in They asked American participants a series of questions that sought to capture different motivations e.
I do believe we are discussing an issue which most liberals and conservatives can agree on — the expansion of the middle class and the increase in wealth for all. You will always have some inequality, even in wealth and there will always be the poor. The disagreement is how to achieve this goal. I do not think that conservatives are calling for non-governmental involvement at all in some things. There are people who genuinely need social assistance, but it should not be a lifestyle that carries on for generations.
Again, I ask, how is the government to distribute wealth? What statistics will they use to inform them of equal distribution and when it is achieved?
And what is equal distribution of wealth? When that happens, are we then to live in a static economy? Will there be no upward mobility? This is, in effect, government control. But why should we shame others if they have worked hard and decide to buy a large house, a big yacht, a fancy sports car, and fashionable accessories? Why put a stigma or a scarlet letter upon someone who has worked hard, or even on those who inherited wealth, just because they can afford a lifestyle others would like to achieve?
The root cause of such shaming is envy. Just because a person buys a yacht, a big house etc. It is how the person carries himself or herself, and how he or she treats the poor among us that is more important. And we never know how much that person may be giving to the poor behind his or her wealth. We should stigmatize the flaunting of wealth because it is a waste of resources. It also is a cost that if one did not have would free up resources for other more productive ventures.
I suspect that the real reason liberals are less happy is simple: the focus on fairness and justness caused them to see everything that is wrong in the world. To them the world is a place that needs fixing and is never good enough. What should be done about the highly unequal distributions of wealth in this country?
This video documents it; other experts identify that it is precisely legislation that has created this enormous inequality — but neither conservatives nor liberals endorse this and 9 out of 10 Americans are shocked by it. I know that liberals regard the Republican Party as having enacted legislation to help the successful keep more of their money. Legislation that allows for all people who work to keep more of their earnings, whether liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, is rather fair, for lack of a better way of putting it.
The Republican Party is not a conservative party; it is a political party. Democrats have the support of most of the entertainment industry — actors, producers, directors, musicians, et al. The myth that the Republican Party is the party of the rich is just that. The Democratic Party can also be considered the party of the rich. Both parties have wealthy supporters. If wealth is to be had by more, the best way to do so is to allow for the wealthy — whether Democrat-leaning or Republican-leaning — to be able to create jobs.
We must allow for an environment in which creation is valued. Jobs will be created when the wealthy invest in businesses and start-ups if they believe they will not be taxed heavily for doing so, and they believe they can keep the rewards of what they have risked.
But legislation to cut taxes does not favor only the wealthy; it favors all Americans who pay taxes. This is a good thing. If I, who am in no way wealthy, am allowed to keep more of what I earn, I will save it, invest it, donate to a charity, or whatever I choose to do with it. All Americans would be free to do so. In the video, a CEO is portrayed as earning a whole lot more than the average worker.
But it is the shareholders in a company who decides if the CEO is worth his salary. He also has a great deal more responsibility than the average worker, and so must be compensated accordingly. Shall we, as a society, decree that the government should put a limit on how much someone in the private sector earns? What number is the limit? There is always someone making more. It will continue downward. If there is a cap on income the wealthy would know when they are wealthy. It may even eliminate the need for social welfare because of the excess resources going around.
It would cause the labor force to care more about the jobs they do because higher productivity would be rewarded with a likely increase in money or the wellbeing of there community. I enjoyed reading this article very much and congratulate the author on her honesty and courage in admitting certain prejudices, and her newfound patience to engage others with whom she might disagree politically. We often look at the other person as a political person, instead of a human being, neglecting the human behind the words.
I have been guilty of that. I interact with many people with whom I disagree politically, but we have other interests that go beyond politics. The late William F. Buckley was famous for having friends of the opposite political persuasion.
The author stated in her article that she held in contempt those conservative values such as not believing in global warming, unequal treatment of men and women, exploiting and vilifying immigrants, etc. I would respond that those are not conservative values, neither are they liberal values if you believe in global warming, you treat women and men equally, etc.
They are human values, treating people with dignity. Conservatives do not dismiss those living in poverty, nor do they enact legislation to help the successful keep their money. I do not even think of those two actions as either conservative or liberal. It is a belief that if one works hard and earns his or her own money, one ought to be able to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor, as the saying goes.
Of course, taxes must be paid, but it is the amount that is the crux of the issue. There are many who do genuinely need some form of government and community support, and there are many conservatives who donate both time and money to certain church or neighborhood organizations to help the poor. Edmund Burke, considered by many to be the father of modern conservatism, would never have called himself a conservative, and I do not think the appellation existed in his lifetime, at least in the way how we understand it now.
He would have considered himself a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is the mother of what is considered traditional conservatism the strain I myself adhere to. Milton Friedman, the highly respected economist, considered himself a classical liberal. Your work is remarkably refreshing! I always asked them how they coped with their grief, and whether they sought out any therapy or counseling. In their world-view, traumatic events were to be transcended via spirituality and meditation.
Were they to speak to anyone, it would most likely be a Buddhist monk who could advise them in ways to strengthen their focus on what is to come, rather than what has already happened. I was struck by how different this approach is from the endless delving into past emotions and memories that is commonplace in psychotherapy here in the US. I also wish to offer you a counterexample of how Americans with liberal views can in fact have characteristics similar to those you ascribe to conservatives.
But first let me say that in general I do not take issue with your observations. Here in the Northeast, many of those who share my progressive views could easily fit into the mold you describe. However, we also maintain a residence in Hawaii, and I would argue that folks in our community there a mix of locals, Japanese, Portuguese, and haoles are a definite counter case.
Their politics are quite liberal. Obama is a native son, and remains very popular. Their views on issues like reproductive choice, same-sex marriage, and environmentalism are very similar to the more liberal elements of New England.
Many, many extended families pack up their tents and head off to a beach park every weekend to spend time camping with brothers, sisters, and their kids. They thoroughly embrace the overarching importance of family and group belonging that you describe. Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking article. Less thinking, more emotion. No, because the political elite have no interest in condemning a group we in fact are taught to revere.
Make sure people stick to their emotional formation of opinions and fail to engage in any critical thinking. The reality is we need more thinking about policies, not less. My greatest fear is the failure to develop critical thinking of institutions that have, quite frankly, failed us. And if you believe in the myth of war, are you a happier person than the person who attempts to understand the reality? What we really need in this country is a huge dose of critical thinking about institutions that have failed us.
The folks that head these institutions care not about society as a whole, but their own special interests, typically financial interests. Haidt may have identified the problem, but he offers no solution. I loved reading this! After the election last year, I stood at the end of a red-dirt road and talked for half an hour about the election with one of my neighbors. The big picture, global concerns of the liberals seem so out of touch with the day-to-day realities of living very far from fuel stations, transportation access, health care, internet access, and a vast pool of information options.
Paul, thanks for the pointer to that special issue on the the biology of cultural conflict. Still, at the least it makes the point that my brief paragraph is over-simplified.
All are invited to post here their ideas about why there appear to be several types of patterns of correlations between political ideology, physiology, and self-report data. By investigating the physiology and neuroscience of morality and politics, their findings are a little different than what you summarize 3 paragraphs up.
Click here to cancel reply. Issue Archives Bostonia is published in print three times a year and updated weekly on the web. Alumni Research 2. Alumni 5. On Campus Artificial Intelligence Data and algorithms can spot medical concerns early and point to solutions June 12, Crowdsourcing a Second Bill of Rights?
What It Means When You Dye Your Hair Purple Should a something information technology specialist, by all accounts a competent employee, be able to dye her long, wavy brown hair purple without getting grief from management?
Overseas Education It was May Reply Link. Neither system is better? Please get your eyes off the pawns and on the real puppet masters. Other ideas? Thanks for the read. I especially enjoyed the comments.
0コメント