Dems and Reps at age 3?

In order for this research to actually mean anything, one would have to define conservative or liberal.Is a person who believes in less federal power but more fiscal responsibility a conservative or a liberal?Is a person who believes drugs and prostitution should be legalized but also believes in strict enforcement of crimes against person or property a conservative or a liberal?Indeed isn't even the thread title a bit oversimplistic? Are all conservatives Republican and all liberals Democrat?Is a Libertarian liberal because they don't believe in victimless crimes or a conservative because they don't believe in welfare.Is a Green a conservative because they believe in conserving the environment for the use of their descendants or a liberal because they believe the solution must be at the federal level?Today people argue that even gender is not an either-or proposition, in at least some cases with merit. Should I seriously consider an article that makes all the flavors of political opinion an either-or proposition?

It's still a matter of imposing a two-dimensional model on a multi-dimensional reality.From the same article: Without access to the original article containing details on the research (I tried), it is difficult for me to comment on it's methodology, but I still have difficulty with the idea of jamming everyone into two absolute categories. I think the research would have been more informative if the number of categories had been expanded to better accommodate the diversity of political opinion that exists. Had that been done, I think the results would be far more revealing as to any childhood political predispositions.Also, I would like to add that today in the US for the first time, registered independents outnumber either republicans or democrats. Maybe I am not alone in questioning these ready-made labels.

First, I haven't seen the value of any correlation coefficients so I don't know to what degree any correlation exists.Second, I believe from what I have read so far the results have limited validity. There are well-designed studies and there are not so well-designed studies. I am concerned that this study has some researcher bias.From page 3 of the article in the OP:

quote:

---

Even with impeccable methodology, bias may creep into the choice of which phenomena to study. "There is a bias among social scientists," admits Glaser. "They look for the variables that are unflattering. There probably are other nice personality traits associated with conservatism, but they haven't shown up in the research because it's not as well studied."

---

There is a third way, which would be to determine where opinions cluster into definable groups. A study which uses a two-dimensional scale to lump fiscal conservatives, semi-libertarians, neocons, and evangelicals under the umbrella term conservative is not as useful as one that distinguishes between such groups.Here are a few other small problems I have with this study.1. It acts as a propaganda instrument against independent and third-party movements by implying one must either be a conservative/republican or liberal/democrat or be in some mushy middle.2. By being from 1989, it does not take into account any clusters of political beliefs that may have developed since that time, which somewhat limits it's applicability to the current situation.3. It may hurt the cause of the Democratic Party in the next election by turning off fiscal conservatives and quasi-libertarians through implying they have negative behavioral characteristics. Since the neocon view of government is for huge intrusive scale, limited personal freedom, and reckless spending, the values of the two above mentioned groups are not being well represented by the Republican Party at present.To conclude, I am not mainly saying the study is 'right' or 'wrong,' I'm just saying it could have been better designed.

This afternoon I finally made it through all 261 pages, and yes it is well worth the read. It fits in with some research I have been doing that I would like to add to your other topic.The study in the OP in this thread is mentioned in the footnote on page 76 so there is a bit of 'mesh.' However on page 41 there is some discussion concerning the use of the term conservative to mean authoritarian, namely that it is shorthand and the meaning has changed over time.I think terms such as conservative or liberal are not as definitive as the term used in the article, namely RWA - Right Wing Authoritarian. I also think I would easily win any bet that the correlation between the behavioral characteristics mentioned in the OP is far stronger with authoritarianism than conservatism because the term authoritarianism is not as fuzzy.

Obviously I should have worded these responses better as my intended meaning has somehow been lost.When I listed the 3 small problems, evidently I should have used the term minor or minute to indicate that I meant the opposite of large, or major.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't.

​

It is a scientific study. If the results are used that way by others, it is in no way an invalidation of the results any more than if people use results of gender difference studies to justify sexism.

---

There is at least one alternative to a two-dimensional chart: So yes, I am arguing that a line is simpler than a two axes chart and therefore conveys less information. I suppose one could argue that either may be used for propaganda purposes.

quote:

---

So? Studies of any magnitude and extending over decades will always lag behind current conditions. Does that mean the results are invalid?

---

It may be the most recently available, but that doesn't mean perfect. A minor quibble, but I mistakenly thought that the OP asked for discussion rather than a simple yes-no answer.

quote:

---

So what, we should bury the results because you don't like the political ramifications?

​

Jesus!

​

I can't believe I'm reading this.

---

Here's the one where misunderstanding as to my meaning has really been blown out of proportion IMO. Please allow me to clarify my exact meaning.I think that demonizing the word liberal has had a negative effect upon political debate and therefore demonizing the word conservative would have the same effect.After all, it was Bill Clinton's conservative fiscal policies that led to balanced budgets and were likely a factor in economic prosperity in the late 1990s. I would hate to think that people would think that a balanced budget is bad because it is due to conservative fiscal policies and the word conservative means bad.After all, some people are quite susceptible to such grand generalizations and oversimplifications.Also notice the use of the term, 'may' hurt. At any rate, another minor quibble.What I did not mean was the article is a direct and immediate threat to any Democratic victory as has been implied. However, demonizing the term conservative may be a problem as it is as dishonest as demonizing the term liberal.

quote:

---

I think, angla, that your political agenda is getting in the way of your scientific thinking.

---

I am a Syndico-Anarchist Libertarian, my primary agenda is to remove two subsets of what may be called the conservative movement from power, namely the evangelicals and neocons. I do not have any problems with balanced budgets or increased human liberties.I consider the removal of neocons and evangelicals from any political power so important, I would much prefer to bring fiscal conservatives and possibly 'described as conservative' libertarians into the struggle than I am to demonize them or falsely ascribe to these subsets characteristics that are only present in neocons and evangelicals.But I guess that's just my opinion.