Some interesting correlations...

One of my students recently conducted a survey in her communications class in preparation for a presentation. This was an undergraduate class in a state-run university in Kansas.The sample size was only 16 students, and although the Pearson product moment correlation is hardly a robust analysis, some interesting trends were evident.
No ground-shaking conclusions here, but thought it might make for a good conversation starter.Here are some of her key questions:Have you ever been to a foreign country?Do you believe the war in Iraq was justified?Are you pro-choice or pro-life?Do you attend church regularly?Do you feel that gay people should have the right to a legally recognized union?Do you feel that we, as humans, are overpopulating and destroying our planet?Are Americans perceived in a positive light internationally?Do you think we are being well served by our current president George W Bush?Here are some of the 'significant' correlations (P < 0.05).Those who hadn't ever been to a foreign country were more likely to think Americans were perceived in a positive light internationally.Churchgoers were more likely to be pro-life. (no surprise there)However, those who were pro-life were also more likely to support the war in Iraq (!! Does 'pro-life' end when you are old enough to draft ?)Those who thought Bush was doing a good job also supported the war, were less likely to have ever visited a foreign country, did not feel gay people had the right to any legally-recognized union, and thought we were *not* overpopulating and destroying our planet (are these students reading anything factual at all ?)

This is just more evidence which strengthens my hypothesis that conservatives in this country have a "team" mentality, where you believe what you are told by the "team leaders" and that it is every team member's job to never disagree with, don't question too closely, and always support the version of reality that the "team leaders" have given you.It is very much like religious indioctrination.

This is true of politics in general, on both sides of the political spectrum, and is a fairly uninteresting observation.Now this conservative needs to return to arguing against ID...

Maybe a little younger than that, since we Texans will consider the death penalty for criminals down to 16.....ABE: Oops! I missed the Supreme Court throwing that law out.This message has been edited by Coragyps, 05-08-2005 02:34 PM

I know that feeling.And conservatives like to see the democrats as a monolithic, anti-Bush entity, but it is not true (as paisano implies).This is because Democrats are a far more diverse group culturally and ideologically. Unfortunately, it makes them harder to mobilize as a voting force come election day. It is far easier to marshall a bunch of 'values voters', especially when you can successfully use scare-mongering and character assassination to convince a large, uneducated subset of them that any alternative to the fascist agenda of the Republican party would somehow result in a weak, ineffectual government in the face of serious, anti-American terrorist threats.Kansas, being on the front line of the war on terror, always votes strongly Republican.

Well, if you're going to make that case (which has some truth to it) why present a list of oversimplified, vague questions that seem designed to elicit binary responses that serve to feed the confirmation biases of the questioner ?I'd answer the majority of the questions "Well, that depends...it is a complex issue..."

The questions are admittedly simplistic and mostly binary w/r/t responses, but I don't think you can call them intrinsically biased. It is perfectly correct to pose questions designed to resolve specific differences that happen to be of interest.The results don't prove anything, but they nevertheless suggest a certain 'uniformity of world view' on the conservative side.Not all responders followed this pattern.

I see the questions as designed to elicit "correct" responses from the far-left perspective. Certainly the Republicans have a strong social conservative wing, but you underestimate the free market socially moderate/libertarian wing. And some Democrats recognize the need to use military force when necessary, and H. Clinton and others have recognized a need to recognize some room for the pro-life viewpoint.

The ESRC (European Social Research Council) carries out this kind of study using a far wider range of questions that are aimed to be as unbiased as possible. It contacts thousands upon thousands of people across Europe each year.The results invariably show that increased levels of education are directly correlated with more "liberal" attitudes. I don't mean liberal in the sense of US party politics, but in terms of attitudes toward gay marriage, interracial marriage, war, privatization, etc. These people might be right wing or left wing, politically, but are united in being not conservative in their social values.I suspect EZScience's questionnaire, despite its small sample size and more-or-less biased questions, gave results that are consistent with the ESRC's more professional effort.

These results may not be applicable to US culture, as the differences between US and European culture, not to mention economic and geostrategic interests, are likely more substantial than generally recognized on either side of the Atlantic.

That is not the point.Do different 'geostrategic interests' justify different moralities?
I thought the latter were judged on their own merits,
independent of international financial and political investments ?

Hi paisano, that may well be true. Unfortunately I don't know much about US social attitudes surveys. Perhaps somebody out there can point me to a reputable source. I looked on the web and couldn't find anything.Mick

Morality is such an emotive term. Europeans may have reasons for their military weakness, for example, that may or may not be valid given their strategic goals and interests. The US may need to adopt different strategies.If, for example, you're somehow suggesting pacifism is somehow more moral than a willingness to fight a just war, I of course disagree, and that is of course another topic.I'm simply pointing out that for the US to parrot Europe in attitudes, or vice versa, may be an unrealistic expectation, for a complex set of cultural and other reasons.