Are the minds of liberals and conservatives different?

[msmcghee]

I say they are.

I believe that liberals and conservatives (in America today) generally differ in how they make important life decisions, like what to believe in and how they generally see the world.

This operative difference determines many things about them including their religious beliefs, if any, as well as the type of political party and candidates they are drawn to - and it affects almost everything else in their lives - down to the books and movies they like, the sports they follow and the type of friends and spouse they will choose.

I have some ideas about why this is - that I have tried to explain in the link at the bottom of this post, if you're interested. What I have written there is a view that I am constantly revising - several times a week, usually. I put it there and edit it as an exercise for myself. I believe that if I can't explain my ideas to others coherently, then they may not be very good ideas.

But, I have no desire to convince anyone that my view on this is the correct view or even the only view. There are a lot of smart folks here at DU. Mostly, I'd like to hear what they (you) think about this topic.

Don't feel restricted about taking this thread out into any area of discussion that you think is relevant. I have placed it here in this relatively slow moving forum because for me it is a deep topic that deserves some critical thinking before posting - so take your time.

But this is not a side-issue for me. I believe that it is crucial for liberals to understand this much better than we currently do - if America is to remain a free democratic republic in the years to come.

[atreides1]

1. My Simple Take

Conservative=one who is narrow minded, prefers the current order of things, lacks tolerance, has no use for civil liberties.

Liberal=broad minded, tolerant,favors civil liberties, and democratic
reforms.

[The River]

13. Yes...but WHY?

What is it in the "liberal" character that allows it
to be broad minded, tolerant,favors civil liberties, and democratic
reforms." Why are these traits absent (or less developed) in conservatives? Lets be honest. Conservatives can be just as trusting & caring towards others but, only of their own kind.

A Question... how do you identify your place in the world?

Are you the center of the universe and everything
must bend to your ego? There's a word for it; Egocentric. We
all know them when we see them. Is * an egotist? Do conservatives in
general seem to be more egocentric?

Or maybe you see yourself in a larger context. Something like a basic patriotic American. You may quantify that a bit by adding Anglo-American or Afro-American or whatever -American. Possible subdivisions are nearly endless. Your own personal needs (ego) are very important but there is something more. You feel a sense of connection and responsibility to others who share a common community.
Welcome to the world of ethnocentrism.
ethno-
1. a combining form meaning " culture, " "
people, " " ethnic group ": ethnography.
<< Gk, comb. form of éthnos body of people, nation>

Not ethnic as used to describe race but as;
body of people, nation, culture.

So then...are Democrats more ethno-centric then repubs?
Don't republicans view themselves as good Americans too?
I believe they think so, and they are, but, they view the
idea of being a good American through an egocentric lens. In other words, what they see as best for America is what they see as best
for themselves. Democrats, I would contend, are more likely to see whats best for ALL of us. Yes? No? How else could you explain
them getting away with their tax cuts to the rich?

Not done yet. One more way to view the world; Worldcentic!
When people ask me where I am from...I reply; "Earth".
First and foremost I am alive on this planet. That means I have a right to what gives me life. I have the right to clean air, clean water, and clean food. I believe that every other living thing on Earth has the same rights.
As a human member of this planet wide community, I may be at the top of the food chain and I have an inherent right to consume other lifeforms to stay alive,but I still must respect that which I consume. I owe them: Clean air, water and nourishment. I also owe all humans everything I want for myself.

So.. I offer these 3 basic (there are more) ways to see
your place in the world.
Egocentric
Ethnocentric
Worldcentric
What do each of these Points of View (POV's) have in common? Just the Ego. It is the most basic point of reference we have. In a healthy mature person the ego is important but not to the exclusion of everything else. The ethnocentric person is more evolved. This person has both ego and a sense of being part of a larger community. Their world is more inclusive. A person with a Worldcentric POV has it all. This person has an ego self, a large and more immediate sense of community but also a sense that they are an important part of the whole of life on planet Earth.

Now, factor this into the equation.
Not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone thinks rationally.
What comes before rational thought? What comes after? Can there be be something more than pure rational thinking?

My list of modes of thinking and what they cover:
pre-rational= not thinking (faith-magic-violence)
rational= thinking (science)
trans-rational= understanding (Trans-rational thought understands AND transcends both faith and science)
Both become valid parts of the whole (in their proper place) as they become more than the sum of their respective parts.
Anyone can think in any of these modes but are more at home in one or the other. Even a fool can have brilliant insights and understanding from time to time. Even the most rational scientist can have irrational thoughts.

What mode of thinking is most common with conservatives?
With Liberals?
How do these ways of thinking play out in politics?
Is the religious right so caught up with "faith" that they can't think rationally? (Even their version of science must conform to their "faith" first) Is this why concerned scientists are so against *'s policies?
Are rational scientic people so scornfull of people of faith that we ridicule them unintentionaly?

Is there an element of evolution working here as people and cultures
become more rational and more inclusive as time passes?

Before you can understand either conservatives or liberals, you have to take into account both what people think about the world and their place in it AND how they think about it...

When you come right down to it, this isn't a battle between left and right or conservative verses liberal. We are part of the last few generations who will finally win a battle that has been going on since
Coppernicus and Galileo; Faith vs. Science. Pre-rational beliefs vs. Rational scientific thinking

Faith based thinking denies a rational reality
Rational thinking would negate the value of faith.
Transrational understanding says they both have their place but would not allow governmental polices to be based on prerational beliefs.
This was understood instictually by the founding fathers, hence the separation of church and state.
Faith is running scared in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and will do whatever it can to survive. We all see how faith is trying to do that; by becoming the government.
The left has to understand this and accomodate it if it ever hopes
to heal the nation and the world.

Just my 2 cents.

[msmcghee]

14. Glad you've joined us, River.

You have posted a lot of information in this post. Some resonates immediately - some I need to think about. Here's a quick take on some of it.

River: What is it in the "liberal" character that allows it
to be broad minded, tolerant,favors civil liberties, and democratic
reforms." Why are these traits absent (or less developed) in conservatives? Lets be honest. Conservatives can be just as trusting & caring toward others but, only of their own kind.

It is the behavior and responses that we each have learned to derive good feelings from. Discovering rational answers to problems like the balancing of rights in a democracy makes the rationalist feel good, satisfied. Demanding that the rights of others be granted or denied according to scripture makes the believer feel very good.

The opposites of each of those make them feel bad.

Re: *.centrism

I see this through the evolutionary biology window. Humans have always had to work out the contradictions between selfish behavior and altruistic behavior. Evolution has given us the capacity for both. The post re: the UCLA study and the development of the amygdala is possibly relevant here. But I suspect we can learn to be more or less responsive to our amygdala. So, I guess I'm saying that which centric you become is an effect - not the cause of one's pov.

River: What mode of thinking is most common with conservatives?
With Liberals? How do these ways of thinking play out in politics?

I'm not ready to agree that thought processes can be divided into the three levels you describe. When we come to some conclusion in life, when we make a decision, we do so by using some mixture of rational thought and instinctual response. The default mode is instinctual - and unless we consciously apply our intellect to a problem, instinct will guide us automatically and dominate the solution.

Each person learns to apply rational thought to problem solving differently. We use it in different amounts, for different types of questions in our lives, and at different times in our lives.

But generally, I'd say both libs and cons use primarily instinct to decide which side of the political/philosophical spectrum we will reside on. Once there, we will both use our intellect - more or less -to find solutions that are congruent with and/or further our philosophical pov. Are liberals more likely to look for solutions rationally? I used to think so but now I'm not so sure. That could be the crux of this thread.

As far as the last few paragraphs - I have a hard time accepting any force in a discussion of the nature of life other than the (virtual) battle for particular strands of dna to replicate themselves. I say virtual because dna doesn't do anything - in the sense of making choices. It just does it's dna thing - which will result in more less of it being replicated.

I'm not sure that intellect is always (or even usually) better than instinct in this battle. We seem to be holding our own over the last 10,000 years or so (hardly a blink on the cosmic scale) by evolving a powerful intellectual capacity - but who's to say that some virus will not become the dominant life form on this planet at our expense in the near future? And who's to say that our vulnerability to it will not be a result of our intellect. Possibly, human intellect is an evolutionary box canyon and we're just arriving at the back wall.

Even from a homo sapiens-centric pov, it is entirely possible that religious fundamentalists will steal just enough technology from us rationalists to detonate a few nukes in major cities of the world - and then go about killing any survivors who harbor rational tendencies.

The fundamentalist dna triumphs - at least temporarily.

I suddenly recall one of my favorite books from the sixties - A Canticle for Liebowits. I bet you read it.

Anyway, I'm getting out there and I'm tired - but thanks to you and everyone else here for the thoughts. Lots to digest here. I'm looking forward to more of this.

[D-Notice]

21. Conservative vs Liberal:

1st lot see everything in black & white, the 2nd lot see the grey areas.

[DuaneBidoux]

31. True

And in times of stress fight or flight makes even the most liberal person WANT to see the world in black and white. This is why conservatives (of any nationality) tend to use fear to stay in power. Fear doesn't truly work for liberals. Our strength is in times of hope. We are weakened by times like these. It is a sad truth of the way humans evolved. The worse it it, the easier it is to get worse. The better it is, the easier it is to get better.

[HawkerHurricane]

2. Conservatives and Liberals

Conservatives think thier opponents are evil or dupes of evil.

Liberals think thier opponents are misled or ignorant.

Liberals trust others, because they think that at heart people are good and loving, just like they are.

Conservatives distrust others, because they think at heart people are no good bastards, just like they are.

[capriccio]

3. Yes, and there's a study to prove it

About a year or two ago some academics at Berkeley I believe published the results of their study on this very thing. It was immediately marginalized by the media as the work of the pointed headed elite. But it had some pretty interesting findings (not all hostile to the conservative mindset). You can probably find it with a bit of a Google search or maybe there's a DUer who knows exactly what I'm talking about and has a link.

[loftycity]

4. Being Conservative or Republican is just a cover to be greedy

It is plain as day. It is a platform to be a self centered and greedy.
And they get all the kudos from each other. They have absolutely no conscience, which gives room to be devious traitors all the time.

[NMDemDist2]

5. thank you for this thread, I will be interested to see where we go with

it. I have often wondered why there is such a huge gap in our ( Lib vs Con) world views.

It seems they can't see beyond the ?fear? ?arrogance? ?jingoism?

I really don't understand it.

[msmcghee]

6. Wow, that was fast.

I'd say I agree with all that. And I do remember that study from Berkeley. A link would be cool if anybody has one - because I think that was relevant.

I think everyone here probably understands that we are different from the other side. What I want to know is - after reading the studies and opinions of others about this - what is you're view.

What goes on in our minds that causes us to come to different conclusions than they do?

Another related question - can we, here on the committed left, even have an objective opinion about this. Or, have the vicious attacks coming from the right wing, over the years, caused us to see things in such a partisan way, that we can't possibly think productively about this?

Or, is there something inherently more rational about the left that is not found on the other side?

I know I get angry at times. But I can usually keep things tight - and I usually know not to trust my judgement too much when I'm angry.

[oscar111]

10. some of us can still be objective

some cannot. A real mix on the LW side. remember, mussolini began in the soc. party of italy, changed, and went to the RW. So there is always a mix on the LW side , which includes those here by virtue of pure self-advancement. but in the main , we LW's are based in a desire to end pain for all... aka, .. end suffering .... aka, compassion... aka... loving attitude.

RW is based in greed... pain for others is OK... maybe even fun to watch... greed is the core.. theft is fine, maybe a great virtue... purest RW is the illness called sociopathic personality.. basis of serial killers.. which is what Hitler was.. and social policies that kill, like homelessness, are OK.

These mental diffs ought to show up in PET scans of the developing brains of toddlers. Anyone know of such studies? Was that berkeley study alluded to , a PET study?

[DuaneBidoux]

32. Conservatives are also desperate because over 1000s of years

they have always been on the losing side. I always ask conservatives WHEN would you have been liberal? I sometimes say that conservatives never want anything new to be tried for the first time.

My dad claims to be conservative. I ask him: do you support segregation? No he says. So you were liberal when there was segregation? Well, no, he was for segregation then. My granddad claimed to be a conservative, and so I asked him, do you support a women's right to vote? Well of course he says (he was 92 in 79 or so when I last discussed this with him). So you were liberal THEN? I ask him. Well no, he didn't support it then. Of course we could go on and on. From the time that there were no unions and people slaved for 80 hours a week with no time off and no health care, to the time when only propertied classes could vote, to the time when women weren't considered human, to the time when slavery was quite acceptable, etc. etc. etc. AND NOW GAY MARRIAGES. It slips away on them. And they know it.

Conservatives say that liberals are on the wrong side of history. But this can't be true. If we were on the wrong side of history, we'd still be dragging our women back to the caves by their hair.

[capriccio]

7. What a coincidence!

New York Times magazine feature article today on this very topic...with ref to the study I vaguely cited above (UCLA, not Berkeley).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/magazine/22IDEA.html

[msmcghee]

9. Very cool article.

What a coincidence, as you say. I have read Antonio Damasio and that's mostly where I got my premise that we basically make all decisions according to our feelings, just like all other animals.

And that's also why I see our analytical intelligence in a supporting role rather than a decision-making role.

Fascinating article.

[VOX]

27. Good article. Missed it first time around.

Thanks for posting.

[msmcghee]

8. More food for thought.

I just came across this link from another DU thread I was watching. It's about the psychology of cognitive dissonance - which certainly applies to the true-believer mindset IMO.

In case you're interested it's at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[oscar111]

11. UCLA study summarized, pls

someone pls tell us harried types the gist of the UCLA study? PET scans used?

[msmcghee]

12. I'll try . . but it's an easy read.

The amygdala in the brain is where we register empathy for others. Liberals seem to register more empathy than conservatives when exposed to various images.

We like to be around people who respond the same way we do to external stimuli. We are therefore more likely to be Democrats if our amygdalas are on the "more sensitive" side - because we will tend to enjoy the company of similarly inclined folks.

We then develop positions (that are Democratic) as an afterthought. We don't do do it in reverse; use our intelligence to examine positions, come to rational conclusions and then join the Democratic party to support those positions.

The same would apply to conservatives, of course.

This is similar in some ways to my premise that People believe what feels good - and just use their brains to justify it.

[msmcghee]

15. And in General Discussion this morning . .

. . this interesting thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


This seems to be a hot topic these days.


Here's a link to a pdf I found of the actual study.

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/Cons...

[msmcghee]

16. Damn. Those links don't work.

Try these:

The study pdf:

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf

The GD thread - now off of front page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2250712


These both work now in my post/preview window.

[msmcghee]

17. A thought this morning

It seems to me that many people do not appreciate the power that world-view has on the results we produce from both memory and reason. World-view components, especially in the mind of the true-believer, come with strong emotional attachments. When these strong emotions are triggered, especially by some conflict or threat, they can easily overpower the relatively mild annoyance of cognitive dissonance.

And remember, cognitive dissonance is not high on list of priorities for the RW - or for most conservatives for that matter. Otherwise, why would Evangelical Christianity, based on literal biblical interpretation, be such a good fit for so many on the right.

And, IMO, that's also why many of us on the left are not so easily duped or led along by Bush's rhetoric. We tend to see our liberalism as a rational answer to problems of governance. Since we like to approach problems with reason, we tend to be more bothered by cognitive dissonance.

For those whose liberalism is of the true-believer variety - they are immune from Bush's rhetoric mainly because they dislike him so intensely that anything he says triggers the opposite in them - strong negative feelings.

Of course, nothing is black or white here. No-one of us is completely rational or emotional on any topic. Each of us will experience a mixture of these forces - and the mix changes with time and circumstance.

[smirkymonkey]

18. Yes, we have them and they don't

[Codeblue]

19. They must be different

People must almost be born liberal or conservative or else develop those ideals within themselves at a very young age.

It is easy to see this in my view by the many liberals with conservative parents and so on. Of course this could just be a way to disagree with their parents. Their parents like Bush so they decide they aren't going to like Bush.

I think though that the way the mind of the individual liberal works is much different from the way a conservative works. But then think about this...what aoubt those who are completely moderate?

They don't feel strongly attached to one side or the other. What's their brain functioning like and how is it different? Why don't they choose sides?

[ochazuke]

20. Mind, shmind. Look at the BRAIN, Igor. THE BRAAAAIIIN!

Reptilian brain = locus of right-wing ideology
Mammalian brain = locus of left-wing ideology
cerebral cortex = where they duke it out.

OK, oversimplified, but it's a place to start.

[atommom]

22. We are clearly wired differently than they are.

I've read a lot about this over the years. One of the more interesting studies concluded that liberals and conservatives dream differently, too. Liberals tend to have enjoyable dreams, while conservatives are more prone to nightmares about losing control. It's that old reptilian brain again...

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XanaDUer]

24. Yes. Here is an example...

Let's take the example of the case of the young woman portrayed in the movie, "Homeless to Harvard."

Conservatives would hold this up as an example of bootstrap self-reliance at its best (and what the young woman did *is* laudable), how she overcame homelessness and poverty to attend Harvard, etc.

Here is how most liberals would see the same situation-it should never have happened in the first place. By that I mean, the young woman should not have been homeless and disadvantaged to begin with, even if she did not end up in Harvard.

I think it is a fundamentally different way of looking at the world.

[Green Lantern]

25. It is not

a difference in intellectual capacity, but rather in the emotional baseline.

Primary emotional state is one of anxiety for the conservatives.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PittLib]

28. My take is psychological...

My only rational justification for my mother to be a Republican is her obsessive self-interest. She is a narcissist, as one definition of narcissism is "a psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem". Understandable considering that she was basically crapped on by her parents during her formative years and later by 2 husbands. Her motive is self preservation and a defense mechanism, even at the detriment of others and ultimately, herself as a woman. It is what the Republican party tries to sell (you need only be responsible for yourself). She is totally egocentric. I, on the other hand, grew up with my mother's "me,me,me" voice constantly in my ear and never had an opportunity to develop that kind of ego. I learned to consider others either because she always came first ... or because I realized that being that self-centered makes you paranoid, angry and generally miserable.

[msmcghee]

29. I think you're on the right track.

I noticed in your bio that theater is one of your interests.

I think there are a variety of reasons someone could be attracted to acting. But I have a theory that conservatives like the attention and the power that gives them over others. In other words, control.

I think liberals enjoy the challenge of experiencing the world through another person's eyes. In other words, empathy.

I'm not sure how all this plays out but it seems to me that the best method actors I know of are all liberals - and the actors that basically play different versions of themselves in every film are conservatives. Which I don't call acting. That's just showing off.

What's your experience on that? Have you noticed different personalities and approaches like that in theater?

[PittLib]

30. I have definitely noticed that...

I am not an actor myself. I thought about it, to be sure. I never thought I would get over people looking at me, so I tried it. I did get over it ... and it sort of lost its appeal. While I love the idea of breaking down and getting inside of a character, it strikes me as much more gratifying to dissect the relationships between characters in regard to the story as a whole. I'd prefer to direct, which may also provide interesting parallels. You work for the intention and integrity of the piece, often having to tease some people out and reign others in to get the truer meaning across. Yes - I see what you mean in differentiating between true actors and show-offs. Though not quite actresses, I look at Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson and their recent "political" comments which basically say "I don't know, I don't care and I certainly won't risk offending anyone by forming an opinion!" Here are the quotes according to US Weekly (yeah yeah - I can't help it):

"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that... and be faithful."

-Britney Spears (on the war in Iraq)

"I support President . I've been praying ... for the president's decisions. We have to trust that he's making the right decision."

-Jessica Simpson (on the war in Iraq)

These mediocre talents throw themselves into the spotlight every chance they get. Oh - and this little gem:

"I'm Irish Catholic, so a Democrat by blood. But I'm 100 percent for Bush. I want my president to be like my agent: not afraid of people, but wants my best interest."

-Lara Flynn Boyle

Hmmm - rabid self interest. Given her lack luster career of late, her agent is about as successful as Bush is. Maybe she can hire him in 2005. And the other two? Well, no ever accused either of them for having brains. Boobs? Sure, but not brains.

And a direct quote to back your point ...

"Because the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the freedoms we yet still enjoy are threatened."

- Meryl Streep (on why she's supporting John Kerry)

Great actors work for the love of the art, not the notoriety and liberals work for the good of the whole, not just themselves.



PS. I guess I should have spent a little more time on that bio :)
For now I am content to be a patron and promoter of the arts.

[DuaneBidoux]

33. Method acting definitely interesting

My wife and I were discussing method acting after watching John Travolta on Actors Studio on Bravo and we were listening to Travolta talk about how he makes his character "authentic." I told my wife that it was interesting that so many actors were liberals but then she started pointing out that older ones tended to be conservatives (for example John Wayne, or the gun guy (name escapes me). Well, I said, they weren't method actors because they learned their craft before method acting. There is something about method acting the enduces an almost ultimate state of empathy. And the more I think about it the more I believe empathy is one of the core characteristics of liberals.

[msmcghee]

34. I just watched Robert Duvall interview on 60 Minutes

Now he's a very entertaining actor. But he still is himself in every movie I've seen. I'm not saying that John Wayne or Kirk Douglas (the gun guy) can't be fascinating and very entertaining.

But in their case, IMO their success came from the fact that they were cast well. The part fit them very well - or they made the part fit their personality - which allowed them to bring their own talent for expressing themselves, very vividly, to the part. I definitely grant them that talent and I admire it.

But I don't think that's acting. That's just being very expressive. Emotive is not empathetic.

Here I am pontificating on the art of acting and I know absolutely nothing about it.

But it does seem like there are some basic differences between liberals and conservatives in how they do it.

I don't even know what most directors political persuasion is. I know Spielberg is a notorious liberal. But that's it. How about Frances Ford Coppola? Woody Allen and Mel Brooks have gotta be liberals.

Does anyone here have some thoughts about conservative/liberal differences in directors?

[PittLib]

35. I guess it depends on the material ...

There's plenty of testosterone fueled, shoot 'em up, t&a exploiting, big budget directors out there too. Hmmm, sound familiar? If they aren't repugs, they're pretty smart to capitalize off them. I wish I could give an example ... but this crap doesn't do it for me. Plus the acting is usually for shit.