The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats - Mother Jones

[LiberalFighter]

Mother Jones

First, in the American Journal of Political Science, a team of researchers including Peter Hatemi of Penn State University and Rose McDermott of Brown University studied the relationship between our deep-seated tendencies to experience fear—tendencies that vary from person to person, partly for reasons that seem rooted in our genes—and our political beliefs. What they found is that people who have more fearful disposition also tend to be more politically conservative, and less tolerant of immigrants and people of races different from their own. As McDermott carefully emphasizes, that does not mean that every conservative has a high fear disposition. "It's not that conservative people are more fearful, it's that fearful people are more conservative," as she puts it.

[NBachers]

1. Yes, but what about the Republican Stupidity Quotient?

[sofa king]

16. Oh, it's in there.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

It turns out conservatives lead frightening and puzzling lives, largely because they have difficulty understanding anything ambiguous or complex.

Like life, for example.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. fascinating paper!

[sofa king]

33. Yes it is.

For a very long time now right here on DU, I've been trying to put the theory into predictive practice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5415300&mesg_id=5421432

When you begin to realize that conservative leaders zeroed in on this demographic and have been successfully smacking right-wing authoritarians with the fear-wicket since about 1946, you realize that fear has been the driver of American foreign and domestic policy all of our lives.

It was how the Bush people got away with everything, because while we are only beginning to realize what has been going on, they have perfected the use of fear and dishonesty as a social motivator.

As I pointed out in that article above, political conservatism is directly related to fear, and conservatism actually runs on a sliding scale. Ratchet up the fear, and you have more people temporarily making conservative choices.

They'll be back in 2016, and they will have a new, refined plan which will be even more sophisticated. I ask all of you reading this to remind yourselves, when the political environment becomes very very frightening once again, that the fear is intentionally created to influence your decision-making.

Remind yourselves that the real enemy walks free and among you, not in some insignificant faraway land.

[IrishAyes]

43. Bravo

I yield the floor to my liege.

[Kali]

37. "difficulty understanding anything ambiguous or complex."

man, THAT would have been a great Meta topic

[RC]

51. You have the makings of a sig line there.

[whistler162]

2. Some people believe any garbage

if it is printed on the Internet!

[alfredo]

13. The OP article was printed on the internet, and so was this comment.

[Larry Ogg]

17. Ever-since the earth was created 5000 years ago...

People have known that the earth was flat, brains have nothing to do with what you think or how you behave, and that you should never believe what you hear on the internet.

Ask any conservative clergy, faux news pundit, or politician con-artist, and they might try to convince you that God said, he gave us brains just to confuse us, therefor we should avoid using them at all cost.

It's a good chance that, IMHO, there would be more people who would believe them, as apposed to those who did not. Evident so many people that outsource their thinking while practicing the art of not using their brain, and censoring those who do.

[IrishAyes]

44. That's where...

... a woman I once worked with picked up the untold true story that space aliens landed on top of the WH every night to deliver Bill Clinton's drugs.

I wonder if they drop off a joint or two for the gentleman from Hawaii/Illinois? If I hurry, maybe I can intercept them....

[immoderate]

3. I look forward to additional studies...

I have been following this work, and it looks coherent, but can use some replication, and expanded samples.

It really explains a lot about irrationality in otherwise intelligent people. Interestingly I have a right wing friend who sent me an article that was written to point out that liberal brains were different. He changed the subject when I showed him articles, based on the same data, that just said there are physiological differences between liberal and conservative brains.

--imm

[magical thyme]

4. what they're arguing is *not* genetic

it is specifically that environment profoundly affects how our brains develop. In "nature versus nurture," this is an area where nurture expresses itself.

Children raised in physically abusive families will have their brains develop differently than children raised in nurturing families. The pathways that are most used become the most developed.

And that children raised in severely abusive families grow up to be more fearful is also is pretty well understood. And that they they adopt ideologies that express and ultimately reinforce those ideas is also understood.

This is pretty old news. Why is it so "surprising?" and why are they calling it "deeply rooted in our genes" when, in fact, it is not based on the specific genes you inherited but the people who beat the shit out of you while you were growing up?

[Thor_MN]

5. So in broad terms, a portion of conservatism may be a symptom of PTSD?

[socialindependocrat]

6. Could relate to fear of change and need to control one's environment.

An interesting question would be - Why do conservatives need to control the environment of others?

Ans: In making sure that there is absolutely NO change they can be assured that
change will not impose upon their own lives.

Just some thoughts

[GeoWilliam750]

24. Expansion on the thought

It is easy to understand how the unknown or things outside of our own control can be unsettling. Question/hypothesis:

A clear position in a social order is very comfortable in that one knows what is expected of oneself and others, a bit of "a place for everyone, and everyone in their place."

Beyond this though, being able to put somebody else into a position subservient to oneself implies the ability to extract value or profit from the labour of those of lower social status or power. Being independent, outside the system, or refusing to be subservient might easily be (mis)read by a conservative as an attempt to establish superiority to that conservative, and thus by extension an attempt to extract wealth from the conservative, which they would find frightening.

The fearful have a lower tolerance for disorder - or lack of control, thus, others must be put into their social order for the conservative to maintain control of their fear?

[IrishAyes]

46. Sounds about right to me

[magical thyme]

11. I don't know that I would define it that way...

I just remember reading that brains develop different neuropathways when the individual is subject to severe abuse over a period of time. Different areas of the brain grow larger and are more active/reactive in the abused individual than is seen in individuals not subjected to severe, extended abuse.

I have seen nothing to indicate that it is a genetic response, i.e. that it is inherited. That potential is there in all of us, depending on our environment.

[Larry Ogg]

20. Nurture or Nature?

The controversy over what determines who we are, whether it is Nature (heredity, our biological make up) or Nurture (our environment) is taking a new shape. Through the past decades, psychologists have developed different theories to explain the characteristics of human-beings. Usually, these theories were one directional in the nature / nurture question. Today, a new approach to deal with this question is emerging. This new approach finds a middle ground between nature and nurture. The conclusion that nature and nurture are complementary and work hand and hand to shape a behavior is not a compromise. It is a result of numerous studies. Studies on heredity and environment plus their affects on determining one s development and behavior. In fact, the more we understand about development and behavior, the more obvious it becomes that nature and nurture are similar influences rather than determinants. Ultimately, What is it that makes us who we are?

Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. This is what Richard Dawkins states in his book, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins argues that we are merely a product of our genes and our main purpose in life is to serve the genes, become distribution agents and ensure their continuance. Before we consider Dawkins statement, the term nature must be defined.

Nature represents what we are born with and cannot control. Our biological make up is determined by the genes we receive from our parents, residing in the 23 pairs of chromosomes, 23 from each parent. A gene is a segment of DNA that provide a blueprint to pass on genetics or hereditary information (Microsoft). These genes not only affect our outlook, but also play a significant role in determining our behavior and our characteristics.

Through new genetic studies, clinical observation, and research on identical twins and adopted children, we are becoming increasingly aware that many of the human characteristics previously taken for granted as products of childhood rearing and environment are rooted in the genetic matrix (Neubrauer 38). Studies of identical twins, whom were separated at birth, have provided researchers with a lot of clues about the role of heredity factors in every day life behavior. Twins (monozygotes) are of extraordinary importance when studying heredity because they share identical copies of genes. An interesting study on twin brothers who were separated at birth and raised in different countries by respective adoptive parents showed that they both kept their lives neat, neat to the point of pathology. Their clothes were preened, appointments met precisely on time. When asked about the reason they felt to be so clean, the first one replied, My mother, when I was growing up, she always kept the house perfectly ordered. She insisted on every little thing returned to its proper place,... I learned from her. What else could I do? When his twin brother was asked the same question he answered The reason is quite simple. I m reacting to my mother, who was an absolute slob (Neubrauer 21). In this example, we see a natural preference based on heredity. Both twins blamed their mothers for their behaviors, while none of the mothers required such neatness.

Take for instance schizophrenia, a disease characterized by hallucinations, delusions, flat or inappropriate emotional expression, paranoia and suspiciousness. New findings point out to its relatedness to genetics. Genetic markers for schizophrenia are founded on chromosomes 22, 19, 15, 13, 9, 8 and 5 ( Shore 1). These examples reveal the genetic role in our development. Genetic analysis of behaviour is complex because behaviour reflects both genetic and environmental influences (Rydelius 1). Even though scientists have only identified 16,000 out of the total 100,000 genes, many psychological diseases are on the verge of being unraveled.
<snip>

Read the whole article here:http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Genetics/10412.htm

[magical thyme]

35. no, conservatism...

I don't think I would define conservatism as a symptom of PTSD. Conservatism is an approach to life, not a symptom of a disease. It is just a measure of risk one is willing to take.

As I wrote elsewhere, I am very liberal in my thinking and voting, but conservative in my personal choices. On the surface, a Ayn Randian would look at my political liberalism and say I'm looking for the "nanny state" to do my thinking for me. Were I asked, however, I would say I trust the combined observation and collaborative thinking of many viewpoints and the resulting decisions over any one individual, no matter how intelligent that one individual is. And it turns out I am right; recent studies (forget now where I saw this, maybe a PBS program on the group mind) have shown that decisions and choices made by large groups are usually more successful than those made by individuals, even when the groups are not the highest IQ and the individual is.

A specific example:personally, I prefer the virtual guarantee of a retirement income over the vagaries of real life with the risk of losing all my savings to fraud or a crappy bit of luck. Which would make my politically "liberal" support for Social Security a result of my "conservative," risk-averse approach to life.

So we have to be careful not to confuse conservatism in general with political conservatism, not to mention the extreme teaparty variation of conservative we see today.

Back to the nature versus nature, I have a pretty good, general idea of the function of dna and genes. Genes are molecules that provide the chemical recipe for the synthesis of proteins. The actual function of dna plus rna is really quite mechanical and interesting to look at closely. However, the development of neurological pathways is more than just genetic.

It is similar to muscle development. You may genetically inherit a tendency for big, bulky muscles, but if you sit in a chair in front of a computer all day, those muscles will not develop. Conversely, if you engage in daily practice of weight lifting, you will realize that genetic tendency toward big blocky muscles. On the other hand, if you spend a lot of time training for distance running, you will develop muscles more geared toward distance running, but you will likely never be as good at it as somebody with dna that provides a more streamlined, long-limbed body.

Likewise, your genetic tendency may be for example, to develop very good and sensitive hearing, but if you listen all day to classical music, your emotions and thinking will develop more in one direction, whereas if you listen all day to Rush Limbaugh, your emotions and thinking will develop more in another direction. In the first case, your "math muscle" and "aural pattern recognition muscle" and "equanimity muscle" are exercised. In the second, your "hate muscle" and "chaotic, illogical muscle" are exercised, while your poor "logic muscle" atrophies, lol.

In any event, the twin study in your post cites an example of only one pair of twins, which provides an idea but hardly proof. For statistical validity, it would require a minimum of 60 data points (i this case 60 pairs of twins looked at for "neatness" and "slobiness&quot and really requires many hundreds if not thousands to give a valid answer.

And it is, like many psychological studies, less data driven than anecdotal. I wonder if mother #2 would be considered a slob by most people, or if she only seemed like a slob to the exacting twin she raised. IOW, once you are relying on one individual's description and explanation of their personal experience, you are out of the realm of science. What constitutes "neatness?" What constitutes "a slob?" There is no one definition. Are the twins equally "neat?" and according to whom? How does that compare to the relative neatness of slobbiness of another set of twins, and their descriptions of their childhood? That is why psychology is considered a "soft" science. No matter how much they try to combine it with hard, measurable sciences, it really is comes down to one person's definition of a term versus another.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Well, maybe more generally, DESNOS--

Disorders of Estreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified. A lot of therapists have argued that the category of symptoms associated with extreme stress is broader than what the DSM labels PTSD. For example, dissociation, depression, certain types of chronic anxiety, some Cluster B Personality Disorder symptoms, etc. may be present in survivors of trauma who don't show the full gamut of classically recognized PTSD symptoms.

And, FWIW, I have come to believe that there may be some genetic susceptibility to environmental impacts such that different people exposed to the same type of trauma may develop different symptom patterns, of differing severity, partly because of the genotypes they bring to the experience. Nevertheless, there is a tendency in "biological psychiatry" to attribute everything to genes and to seek to treat everything with medications.

[magical thyme]

54. that makes sense

"I have come to believe that there may be some genetic susceptibility to environmental impacts such that different people exposed to the same type of trauma may develop different symptom patterns"

I believe that of many physical diseases and ailments as well.

[jwirr]

7. I agree with you to some extent. The fear factor can come from other sources such as extreme

anxiety disorders and those can be genetic. However I doubt that this is a gop symptom. Also when I read the article I thought about the idea of "use it or lose it". We liberals tend to do a lot of research and educational reading our entire life. Reading that asks us to use our thinking process. On the other hand from the looks of conservative sites and media they expect someone to tell them what to think. Maybe their brains are atrophying.

[JoeBlowToo]

12. As someone who experience terrible panic attacks for years, I can say it didnt cause right wingism..

If anything it made me more empathetic and understanding of others.

[jwirr]

14. Yes, my brother and granddaughter both are good Dems.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

26. I've always been liberal and nonconformist

Despite having been traumatized (and resulting PTSD) repeatedly, starting n infancy.

True, one anecdote does not make a scientific study, but.... it's still worth noting that nurture is not the full answer either.

[magical thyme]

30. it's like the difference between my eldest sister and I,

both abused. She is a teaparty nutcase. I'm here on DU. I suspect intelligence plays a large role, along with other factors and influences in your life. Also your position in the family. She was 1st and my mother's "favorite;" I grew up watching her and learning.

And because a study shows a trend or tendency does not mean that 100% of people with certain characteristics go one way or another. Just more of them.

There's also a difference between what people purport to believe and how they behave. I'm liberal in my beliefs, but conservative in my behavior, in terms of my personal choices, how I dress, act, spend money, etc. So my behavior is restrained by fear (fear of loss, fear of abandonment, fear the asshole across the street, etc.) but my thinking is not.

On the other hand, how many so-called conservative, we're all on our own, time to tear down the government with guns, tea party nutcases actually are living totally on somebody else's dime doing nothing? Hint: every single one that I know!

[IrishAyes]

48. A tip of the shamrock to you

With the rough start you got in life, just being alive is a terrific victory.

One of my best friends is a high-functioning schizophrenic. Even with the best meds faithfully taken, she sees all sorts of terrifying things such as a snake on somebody's head, etc. Her method of coping is to assume that if the person on whose head the snake apparently sits seems unaware and unconcerned, it must just be her malfunctioning imagination. So she tries to ignore it as well. The fact that she's one of the kindest and best friends I ever had leaves me in awe of her. Under the same circumstances I'd probably be locked up somewhere or pushing daisies.

[certainot]

34. here's the explanation that makes sense to me:

[IrishAyes]

45. Probably because

... the answer, as usual, is complex and compound; part nature, part nurture. Studies which I cannot quote you exactly at the moment purport to show that siblings reared together, whatever the virtually identical circumstances, can turn out markedly different.

I saw this in my own family. My sister - same sex and everything - couldn't be less alike. Allowing for birth order differences, one of us must be a changeling. I lack a proper regard for self preservation, and she's still waiting on a spine donor. (No, she doesn't think that's funny either.) The differences were not our parents' fault either. We were both treated the same.

BTW, our total opposition extends to politics.

[SpartanDem]

47. I blame religion

well, the religions they tend to practice. If you understand the beliefs of Evangelical Christianity which comprised 40% of the GOP vote in 2012 then the growing up in fear thing make sense.

[davidthegnome]

8. This required a study?

It should be evident to anyone who has even a vague understanding of politics. I'd have to disagree with McDermott, conservatives, overall ARE more fearful, more gullible, more ignorant, less educated, more violent, etc. There's also the fact that they are, generally, not really "conservative"....

[bhikkhu]

9. And, less surprisingly, fox news is more dedicated to stoking fear than anything else

the "news" part is just a convenient tool to deliver fear, to those who need their daily fix to feel normal.

[otohara]

10. I Have A Fear of Guns

everything else, not so much.

Bleeding heart liberal i am

[AlbertCat]

15. I have a fear of strangers....and crowds

Not because I have a clinical phobia, but being a sissy, I was beat up at school for years and years, and then at home was told it was my own fault by my "loving" parents...who proceeded to call me stupid and an embarrassment. So...DUH!

But I also have an intellect.... and it tells me my fears are irrational, and even tho' they are there (and boy, are they there!) they are not to be acted on (sometimes a hard thing to do)

My intellect comes from rational thinking. We need to teach rational thinking early on!

[ThoughtCriminal]

18. We are dealing with people who

1. Think the universe is 6000 years old.
2. "Knew" with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMDs and still believe that.
3. Believe what they hear and see on Fox News is the only truth out there.
4. Thought that George Bush a genius selected by God to lead us.
5. Are terrified that President Obama is training an all black army to invade their homes and take away their Bibles and guns.

I could go on all day. If you are a paranoid imbecile, the GOP wants you on their mailing list.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

27. +100000

You're so right!!!!!!!

[drynberg]

42. YEAH, THE BELIEFS OF MANY OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS TRULY RESEMBLE EITHER

The "Onion" or long career cultists...it flavors (taints) every experience they have...about 25% are very "radical" in their RW interpretation of reality. Maybe this will decline as the elders pass on and don't get replaced as often as they die, but still this is a long term carbuncle of our population. This is magnified with the Supremes having a majority of reactionaries, including passage of atrocious interpretations of laws such as "Citizens United" and the 2000 Presidential (Florida) switcheroo for Bush.

[DallasNE]

19. The Most Profound Statement In The Article Reads

Schreiber thinks the current research suggests not only that having a particular brain influences your political views, but also that having a particular political view influences and changes your brain. The causal arrow seems likely to run in both directions—which would make sense in light of what we know about the plasticity of the brain. Simply by living our lives, we change our brains. Our political affiliations, and the lifestyles that go along with them, probably condition many such changes.

This helps explain why the most conservative age group today is roughly 45-52. They were the youth for Reagan activists back in the day. Now that they are all grown up they still cling to the lifestyle that brought them there. It helps explain how people are set in their ways, even long after available evidence should be pointing them in a new direction. It probably even explains why things such as deprogramming have so little success. It's that "can't make me do it" side of people that give birth to all sorts of weird behavior.

[maxsolomon]

21. smack in that age group - 49.

i am constantly amazed that i know conservatives my age. in my youth, i couldn't fathom how anyone could see Reagan as a positive - but then again i listend to punk rock.

of course, NONE of conservatives i know live near me in Seattle - they are all HS acquaintances in Cincinnati. immersed in a media culture of 99% right-wing talk.

[mrsadm]

22. I wonder if it is a brain wave thing...

I will look for the research sources to find out more...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. One would probably need brain cells for waves to be transmitted?

[Grins]

23. Matches what John Dean discovered and wrote...

...about in the first sections of his book "Conservatives Without Conscience" ( a very good book, btw) and the authoritarian streak rampant in conservatives.

Google: John Dean Bob Altemeyer "the Authoritarians" and you should find the research Altemeyer has been doing for more than 30-years on the authoritarian personality. His conclusion is that authoritarians are overwhelming conservative. (Altemeyer is a professor at Canada's U. of Manitoba.)

A snip from a article Dean wrote in Boston.com:

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.

Link: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/07/john_dean_autho.html

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. now I want that book!

I've read Altemeyer's


Dean really captured the characteristics.

[reACTIONary]

29. The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer.

Here is the link to The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. This is an attempted popularization of his psychological survey research into authoritarian personality types.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

He identifies two personality types: the more or less docile, passive authoritarian follower and the more or less outgoing, aggressive authoritarian leader. These two are very distinct and separate personalities, but were meant for each other. The follower type, individually a rather nice guy or gal, has a strong need to become absorbed into a group identity and to serve the group with unquestioning loyalty. The leader type tends to be a sociopath who has a strong need for power and dominance regardless what it takes to achieve it . A marriage made in heaven!

And heaven has something to do with it. In America there is a very strong correlation between the authoritarian follower personality type and fundamentalist religious ideology. This is not a necessary relationship, since the same personality dynamic can find expression in extremist left-wing, secular ideologies also. But here in America, at this time, it tends to be expressed in the phenomenon of right-wing fundamentalist political activism.

While his book is readable and is quite informative and insightful for those of us who are concerned about the RRR*, “Dr. Bob” is a bit clumsy as a popular writer. I’m sure his dry, academic stuff is much better! However, he is not that bad, and the book is free on the internet. Check it out.

*The Rabid Religious Right

[Avalux]

39. Yes, this.

And the underlying theme to those which don't seem to be connected is fear. If a person is fearful, if they worry about everything because they are unable to differentiate fact from fiction, it is much easier to manipulate them, either politically or with religion, or both.

Fear is prevalent in those who are ignorant and not able to think critically. Hence the assault on our public education system to 'dumb down' the populace.

[IrishAyes]

49. Hey, d'ya think...

... that John Dean did some of his research where I retired in what I call RedNeckLand? Because "enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." describes at least half this town. Yet they feel over-qualified to instruct little old harmless liberal lady me in the fine art of ethics. Their alleged freedoms - more like excesses - seem to entitle them to destroy mine. I never knew what a dangerous tool of commies I am until moving here. I used to think I was a happy if driven people lover. Now I'm not so sure. This has become the acid test of my own beliefs, to see if I can learn to love at least some of my neighbors a little bit part of the time. I've already given up on higher ambitions.

(Don't listen to my yelps. There really are a few nice people here, just none I'd trust to raise my dog when I'm gone.)

[Andy Stanton]

25. So, basically, conservatives are paranoid psychos?

I'll buy that.

[bluedeer71]

38. Check out these two books!!

There are two books that are a "must read" when it comes to this topic. The first is "The Believing Brain" by Michael Shermer and the second is "The Republican Brain" by Chris Mooney. Both books are full of scientific research regarding this topic. My anxiety level has decreased substantially after having read these books. I whole-hardheartedly recommend them both to you.

[davidpdx]

40. I will have to read that, but this is a good time to tell a joke

When I was born the doctor took one look at my dropped me on my head and said "it's a Democrat".

and yes...I have been a Democrat for as long as I can remember following politics (which was around the time I was 13).

[happyslug]

41. Lets not get "to much" information from this study,

What I mean by the above is simple, we have to understand that Humans came out of African (and developed in Africa) about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, as an animal, that works with other similar animals to achieve a common purpose. In the days of hunting and gathering it was hunting and gathering, in the days of farming it was planting, hoeing, harvesting and storing the crop (Herding developed at the same time, in areas NOT farm-able with the technology of the time period, but it required moving the herd around to new pastures and otherwise protecting the heard from any thing that would take the herd away, all best done as a member of a group).

Thus being human requires people to work together for a common benefit, and that way each member of the group prospers.

The down side is simple, one MUST be willing to give support to other people, in exchange for support from those same people. The more confidence we have that we can rely on such support, the less we need to fear outsiders and other threats. The less confidence we have, the more we fear change, including change by developing new relationships with new people.

In many ways, conservative people are people with less confidence in society and other people when it comes to expected support from such people. When growing up, they had a fear of losing such support, and thus will do anything to maintain such support. Thus they dislike change for it generally means some sort of loss of support. They fear strangers for the same reason, loss of support. They tend to stay with traditions, for such traditions indicate what support they can get. They tend to obey people above them, for failure to do so can mean loss of support from those people above them AND other supporters of that person.

On the other hand, people who are confident that they have support from others in society, tend to accept change and strangers, for change and strangers have NOT meant any loss or harm to them.

Thus the difference, may be simply a difference in what level of support these people have had in the past. Conservatives tend to people in fear that what support they have will disappear if they are changes, thus they hate change even if it benefit them right now (in the near future it may not, thus to be feared).

In many ways, this may be a reflection of WHO immigrated to the US in the 1800s (and even the 1600s and 1700s). Most people who moved to the US, had little prospect of improving their life back in the old country, thus they moved. Prior to the Great Depression and the invention of Social Security and Unemployment insurance, they only support group were they fellow workers, who were often set against each other in the various types of hiring system used before Unionization of the 1930s. The push for unionization was stopped after WWII (and unions started to decline in membership in 1948) due to various rules and legal interpretations that permitted such unions to be attacked and destroyed. Thus by the time of Reagan, you saw most workers almost at the level they were in the 1920s. Wanting a good paying job, but having to make sure they stayed employed by following whatever rules their employer imposed.

This system ended up being learned by the children of these workers, for they faced the same set of unofficial rules. As long as they were in School, they could be radical, but once out of school and into the work force, they felt the need to comply, rather then risk they jobs.

In many ways, low income conservatives seems to fit this pattern, they do NOT have the education to get a better job then they have, and fear losing whatever job they do have. If such people go to Collage, they bring with them the same fears, willing to do "Collage" things with their fellow collage students, but once they return to the work force, turn conservative for change is to be feared, for change means a loss of some sort of support they are use to relying on.

People who tend to be progressive, tend NOT to have this fear of loss of support, mostly because most progressives have had a history of being able to rely on the system (including they relatives and Friends) when things go bad. Thus they do not need to fear change, for change may cause them some problems, but it tends to be problems they can get support in resolving.

One of my favorite "Factoid" that shows this is that while the group that starts the most new Starts up are people in their 20s (Mostly of people who know they can get support if the start up goes bad from family or friends, thus Bill Gates could get into the mini-computer business, for he could rely on his father, one of the top notch lawyers in Washington state, to give him a place to live if he ever lost everything). After people in the their 20s, the next largest group are people over age 65, who can rely on Social Security. Notice both groups have something to fall back on if things go bad. Thus they have the ability to accept change for if change is bad, they can rely on their support group so that they can still survive.

On the other hand, people who do not or can not rely on such support group (Mostly because they family and friends are just like them, barely surviving) for give them support in times of Crisis, tend to do they best to avoid change and strangers for by doing so their minimize crisises.

Thus people who rely on the fear section of their brain, do so for the simple reason it gives them the opportunity to prevent change that can lead to economic hardship, a hardship that they can NOT endure without hardship. On the other hand, people who have confidence in themselves and their support group will gladly take risks, accept change and new people, for if things go wrong they have enough support to survive any hardship such change will represent.

This report is more on why people tend to be Conservative or Progressive and it supports a long held position that it depends on how much support a person can rely on (and that is dependent on how much support such a person has received in the past during any crisis, if no support, they are quite confident, if no support they tend to be conservative).

[IrishAyes]

50. Very thoughtful post

"They fear strangers for the same reason, loss of support."

When I retired here, for what seemed like ages people couldn't get over the idea that I'd just left my former spot in the Southwest and moved here lock, stock and barrel with no acquaintances or family or friends in place to receive me. It took me a long time to grasp that they really weren't kidding about something I simply took for granted. After all, I'd done as much financial and practical research as possible, and I've made my own decisions and taken care of myself most of my life. As an army brat and ex-wife of a career army officer, I fairly took it for granted that my behavior was normal.

Apparently that's not the case. I was supposed to wire ahead for permission or something, I think. When they asked me where I was from, I told them Planet Earth. (Very few found that amusing.) Well, where were you born? That makes no difference because we only stopped there in passing so Mom could pop me out and we left 5 days later, never to return. Then where did you live before? Lots of places, which would you like to hear about? L.A. or NYC or parts in between, not to mention overseas. Who are your relatives? Nobody you'd know - some you wouldn't want to know, haha! Not funny. Etc.

Point being, here's a stranger over whom we exercise absolutely no social control, therefore she represents (drum roll, please) DANGER! Gotta be a commie of some kind. That's the only explanation. And she's a Democrat - that proves it!

So in order to retain a shred of sanity in this place, I decided to treat the (mis?-)adventure as a social experiment. Only when the last dog dies will we know the outcome. I'm determined to survive and thrive here no matter who thinks I shouldn't. Every time I pacify one of them, even on the surface, I mark it up in my devious little mind as a victory. Although it's a tad surreal sitting in a Sunday School class with a bunch of other people, knowing from past shouting spells they've pitched at me that at least one or two would love to puncture my car tires some night if they weren't afraid I'd catch them at it. Well, and if I still kept a vehicle, which I don't because I don't need to. It's too much thriftier to hire a driver the rare times I need to go a long distance. Yada yada yada.

I can't even seem to learn to react appropriately. When somebody outright asked me at church if it's true I'm a commie, instead of a heated and doubtless false denial, I burst out laughing my head off. Well, Obama's one and you inflicted him on us with your vote, so you must be too.

Try arguing your way out of that, missy!

(Sorry, fellow DUers, without gallows humor I'd never make it. And there really are a few people here I MIGHT stop to pull out of a ditch on a clear day when I had nothing else better to do, if they asked me real nice and promised to vote Democrat the rest of their lives in gratitude. You can see I really don't ask for much.)

[liberal N proud]

52. I knew there was a legitimate reason people vote against their own best interest.