Dems and Reps at age 3?

quote:

---

The research findings indicate that at some stage in their developement, insecure children turned toward an authoritarian source/view.

​

What the research did not do is rule out any other factors in the choices made. It is not difficult to make the leap from insecurity to a comfort zone, but I don't know why the comfort zone would always be the same 'conservative' politics.

---

Well, these sorts of questions will lead to more research, and that's good.The study never claims that ONLY insecurity, et al leads to certain political political leanings.

quote:

---

Once before you mentioned that people tend to prefer landscapes that depict scenes close to food and water supplies. I never asked you the particulars of that study, but it struck me at the time as very fishy too. How is it possible to say the 'food and water' aspect was more important than maybe the art or photography of the scenes, the color schemes (warm or cool, comforting colors, etc.) or the area where the study participants called home?

---

You can control for these things.Believe it or not, scientists are trained in experimental design, you know.

quote:

---

We recently saw a study where a link was made between young children and a preference for attractive faces. I am not sure how much worse we could get in terms of bias, or how much more such a study could depend on the time or decade in which it was done. What is or is not attractive changes very often!

---

Not true with faces.What humans consider attractive in faces seems to be fairly hard wired and is strongly linked to symmetry.

quote:

---

I do understand that these types of studies are starting points. It is the way they are marketed that gets to me.

---

Marketed? Do you mean how they are reported by the media, or how they are disseminated and discussed among professionals in the field?

quote:

---

If for example the 'attractiveness' study would have been presented as 'What Type of Faces Are Children Attracted To?' and the results analyzed, I would have no issue compared to a news line which reads 'Children Prefer Attractive Faces'.

---

Like I said... what humans consider attractive (symmetrical) in faces is universal, with only small variations.But anyway, blame the media that reports the science. Scientists have very little control over how their work gets reported, misreported, etc.

quote:

---

What this study is saying (sort of) is that none of these children changed or moved past their insecurities.

---

No that's not at all what I get from the study.

quote:

---

You know as well as I that this does not reflect reality.

---

Well, no, I actually don't know that this finding doesn't reflect reality, even leaving aside your rather strawman versiopn of the findings.That's what the scientific method does; it lets us look at reality free from the biased, anecdotal thinking of "you and I know that X is/isn't true".

About the only thing that I can think of that you could add to this comment and make it less accurate and more inflammatory would be to say that conservatives are all racists as well.The classic, core belief of conservatism is that the government is a drain on society, it takes money away from the people who earned it and out of the pubilc sector. Government regulation of the free market interferes with the operation of that market making it less likely for those operating in it to maximize their potential. Thus, the best way to help people is to stay out of their way.Now, you may certainly disagree with those beliefs, but to say that those espousing them must necessarily not care about people is the worst kind of political demagoguery. It is akin to me saying that all liberals are communists in disguise who think they know how to run the free market better than anyone else and want to destroy capitalism.Edited by subbie, : Speeling

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I lived 10 years in USA. I know that conservatives can be a pain in the ass. I know that they are self-righteous and close-minded. But I think that most of them do care about other people. may be I'm being naive.

I'm not a conservative and I'm not planning on being their devil's advocate. I'm just saying that I think most of them actually believe that social aid, in the long run, does more harm then good. I just happen to disagree with them.

Its author, Bob Altmeyer, also hails from U of Manitoba: The AuthoritariansThis quote is from the web page where the book can be found: Thought it might be of some use in the current debate.

take money away from those who are able to make it, you mean.
and don't say maximize their potential. it's so ... distant. you mean get rich, say it.gee. i can't imagine how a goverment that regulates products and labor to ensure a protected public could possibly be helpful.

Virtually everyone is able to make money, other than the severely disabled. I didn't say that, and that isn't what I meant. I meant to be able to compete in a free market and make enough to support oneself and one's family, which is all that most people want out of life. Yes, some get rich, but you make it sound like that's a bad thing. If that is what you think, please explain why that's so, because I don't happen to think that it is. If you think that that is the only reason that the government regulates the market, you haven't been paying attention.Edited by subbie, : Speeling

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

For what it's worth, I don't think you are being naive. I believe that most conservatives are doing their best to do what they think is in the best interests of the country. There are a few crooks, but there are crooks on the other side of the aisle as well.Despite what the demonizers on both sides would have us believe, the differences between left and right, for the most part, do not boil down to good vs. bad. They boil down to different theories about what would be good for most of the country. And, as far as I can tell, both sides have their good points and their bad. Anyone who can only see those who disagree with them as evil-doers has a very juvenile view of politics.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

yes, of course. especially working at the wages the hypothetically unregulated companies will allow them to work at. do you know how very many people are working three jobs and still can't support their families? if the head of a company gets rich and the people he depends on to make that company work cannot make a decent living, yes it is a bad thing. and i'd like you to think about the pay discrepancies in your average company. i work for a small company. but my boss drives a land rover and owns a $500k house. i can't even pay my bills. i like my boss. i don't think she's a bad person. but i think she might ought to think about her priorities. no, i'm well aware that the government regulates a great number of things. labor laws, product and workplace safety, tarrifs for import and export, product quality, environmental impact, federal taxation, company size and market share, market practices, buying-selling-and-growth.... zillions of things. but forgive me for being a little hobbesian about business majors. i've known too many.

I said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this study is saying (sort of) is that none of these children changed or moved past their insecurities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you said;
No that's not at all what I get from the studySo, we have insecure kids finding security in conservative politics. Since we can't get a voter's reg until 18 years old, and the study was on 23 year olds, then it does seem to say that the samples were still seeking security at age 18-23. If a few people can tell you in anecdote that their insecurities are past history and they are now liberal free-thinkers, it would be obvious that the study doesn't reflect ALL of reality. Conversely 'reality' tells you that attempting to put people into little neat packages is only interesting and not realistic. So, again, yes, yes, yes ask more questions.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Virtually everyone is able to make money, other than the severely disabled.

---

Now they are better able to, since these days the government regulates minimum wages.The government also has made possible safe and humane work conditions, non-discrimination in hiring, overtime pay, minimum age requirements, educational and job-training grants, etc.Before the government instituted all of these things, the life of the average American worker was awful. They were little more than indentured slaves to the company with no hope of "getting ahead".Let us also remember that pollution of the air and water was very bad before environmental protection laws were passed, and food and drug quality and safety regulations keep tainted and harmful foods and drugs from damaging people. People can't pretend to be doctors and lawyers and pharmacists and police officers, but have to be licensed by the state.The reason we instituted these protections in the first place is because many, many people who want to make money have no problem doing so regardless of the damage they do to others or the Earth we all live on.The simple truth is that we have learned that you cannot trust business to do the right thing for the community if it is the choice between the community and making money.Here is some proof:Pittsburgh, PA late 19th century, pre regulation: Streetlights were on 24 hours a day becasue it was so dark. There were lots of public showers since people got filthy just from walking around town. It was called "Hell with the lid off".Edited by nator, : No reason given.

And still is for many (mostly illegal, yes) Hispanics I see here in my town. Way below minimum wage, no benefits, no job security, no recourse if they get injured, harassed, or fired. A stain on the America I thought I knew..... [/OT rant]

quote:

---

If a few people can tell you in anecdote that their insecurities are past history and they are now liberal free-thinkers, it would be obvious that the study doesn't reflect ALL of reality.

---

No scientific study, including this one, claims to reflect ALL reality. So that's a strawman, unless you can show me where in any of my posts, or in the study, or in the articles about the study, anybody claimed that it reflected ALL reality. Sheesh.

quote:

---

Conversely 'reality' tells you that attempting to put people into little neat packages is only interesting and not realistic.

---

*sigh*All scientific studies limit variables. All scientific studies limit what they look at. No scientific study can look at each individual person's infinite individual nuances and come up with anything meaningful. If we didn't simplify things we would never learn anything about anything. One scientific study is only part of the picture and other studies need to be included to form a more complete picture.Look, the results are what they are, and they are valid results.You all who are objecting just need to deal with that.What is it about Psychology research that makes laypeople so easily brush it's findings aside, or assume the scientists researching an issue are complete morons who haven't already figured out the issues they believe are so damning to the study?

Sheesh, don't you have a thread on that somewhere? Nothing makes any of us doubt the scientists or their methods or their integrity or their genius. I am questioning their findings.Opening a topic about the study does, however, make us believe you would like to discuss the results, rather than just post them.