Confident kids become liberals, Whiny kids become conservatives...

[Annie]

The truth hurts...Don't it.

Doesn't it?

 

[Psychoblues]

You, Semper Fi, are just so uncool and whiney that I almost missed your point. You stay away from name brands. Now, how does that affect the big picture? You, like most self professed conservatives on this board, whine everything to death without debate at all. Name calling and self serving innuendo doesn't rank up there with "debate".

Liberals search for truth, genuine compassion and fairness in everyday life. Conservatives look for a way to make a buck off the perceived weaknesses of truth, genuine compassion, fairness and everyday liberals. The truth of America has held for 200 years. The current leadership and media will slow the progression of this country and the lies of the 21st Century Republicans will force this country into political dilemma for only a short while.

Give peace, understanding and genuine compassion a chance. GWB and his neocon followers certainly aren't into peace, they certainly aren't able to understand and their compassion is like zilch.

Most folks I know only want to make an honest living and have little tolerance for lying businessmen or politicians. But, most folks I know are also confident, self-assured and liberal. Virtually all of the whiney, paranoid and xxxxaholics I know call themselves conservatives and are in denial of their obsessions. History has proven multitudes of times their (conservative, traditional) political persuasions are faulty and this age will not be an exception. Ghengis Khan was an intolerant conservative with world exploitation as his driving ambition. Hitler was just another of them and GWB is only another in that list.

Que Sera Sera

Psychoblues

I'm a self-assured and confident youth, I'm a conservative. From what I can see, and that's first-hand, conservatives are the smart students who know whats right and follows and defends it. Liberals are the ones that whine and complain and do nothing all day. I'm surrounded by them right now in class, no study can disprove that.

Most students are liberals, so the ones who are not politcally aware lean to the left because they want to follow the crowd and be accepted. I, however, hold myself above that. I stay away from name-brand clothes, drugs, and "coolness" (though I am the official definition of cool). That, as far as I am concerned, is self-confidence. All those studies can go to hell.

Funny thing is, when we can debate, we (the republicans) always win, and liberals walk away. That, or we convert the un-thinkers to conservativism, even for just a little while.

 

[Trigg]

Honestly whatever the outcome of the study the Berkley people would have turned it around to their best advantage.

"Whiney kids become liberals because they're more sensitive to other people's feeling."

Most kids grow up to accept the political ideas of their parents.

 

[Trigg]

Liberals search for truth, genuine compassion and fairness in everyday life. Conservatives look for a way to make a buck off the perceived weaknesses of truth, genuine compassion, fairness and everyday liberals. The truth of America has held for 200 years. The current leadership and media will slow the progression of this country and the lies of the 21st Century Republicans will force this country into political dilemma for only a short while.


Most folks I know only want to make an honest living and have little tolerance for lying businessmen or politicians. But, most folks I know are also confident, self-assured and liberal.

Your making some huge generalizations here. Do you actually know any conservatives, off this board of course?

I like the line about having little tolerance for lying politicians and yet Teddy Kennedy is the poster child for Democrates, he just can't seem to get unelected. Why is that??????????????????????

Most Republicans I know what less government intrusion in everyday life, seen and not heard would be nice every so often.

You must have met some screwed up people. Since most people I know are compassionate towards people on hard times. But, after working in health for years and working with Dr.'s who do disability exams. I have only so much compassion for people trying to "work" the system at the expense of hardworking people and people who deserve the help they're looking for.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"intolerance of ambiguity" means you don't pretend that john kerry makes sense.

 

[insein]

You, Semper Fi, are just so uncool and whiney that I almost missed your point. You stay away from name brands. Now, how does that affect the big picture? You, like most self professed conservatives on this board, whine everything to death without debate at all. Name calling and self serving innuendo doesn't rank up there with "debate".

Liberals search for truth, genuine compassion and fairness in everyday life. Conservatives look for a way to make a buck off the perceived weaknesses of truth, genuine compassion, fairness and everyday liberals. The truth of America has held for 200 years. The current leadership and media will slow the progression of this country and the lies of the 21st Century Republicans will force this country into political dilemma for only a short while.

Give peace, understanding and genuine compassion a chance. GWB and his neocon followers certainly aren't into peace, they certainly aren't able to understand and their compassion is like zilch.

Most folks I know only want to make an honest living and have little tolerance for lying businessmen or politicians. But, most folks I know are also confident, self-assured and liberal. Virtually all of the whiney, paranoid and xxxxaholics I know call themselves conservatives and are in denial of their obsessions. History has proven multitudes of times their (conservative, traditional) political persuasions are faulty and this age will not be an exception. Ghengis Khan was an intolerant conservative with world exploitation as his driving ambition. Hitler was just another of them and GWB is only another in that list.

Que Sera Sera

Psychoblues

I see you snuck into this thread and avoided all those tough discussions in the WOT forum. Typical psychoblues. Throw a bunch of bullshit at the wall. Run away. Come back in a week and hope no one notices.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

The truth hurts...Don't it.

Considering you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass, you have no basis of comparison.

 

[Avatar4321]

You, Semper Fi, are just so uncool and whiney that I almost missed your point. You stay away from name brands. Now, how does that affect the big picture? You, like most self professed conservatives on this board, whine everything to death without debate at all. Name calling and self serving innuendo doesn't rank up there with "debate".

Liberals search for truth, genuine compassion and fairness in everyday life. Conservatives look for a way to make a buck off the perceived weaknesses of truth, genuine compassion, fairness and everyday liberals. The truth of America has held for 200 years. The current leadership and media will slow the progression of this country and the lies of the 21st Century Republicans will force this country into political dilemma for only a short while.

Give peace, understanding and genuine compassion a chance. GWB and his neocon followers certainly aren't into peace, they certainly aren't able to understand and their compassion is like zilch.

Most folks I know only want to make an honest living and have little tolerance for lying businessmen or politicians. But, most folks I know are also confident, self-assured and liberal. Virtually all of the whiney, paranoid and xxxxaholics I know call themselves conservatives and are in denial of their obsessions. History has proven multitudes of times their (conservative, traditional) political persuasions are faulty and this age will not be an exception. Ghengis Khan was an intolerant conservative with world exploitation as his driving ambition. Hitler was just another of them and GWB is only another in that list.

Que Sera Sera

Psychoblues

I don't know whats funnier. the fact that you said that or the fact that you might actually believe that.

BTW Hitler was a socialist. That would be on the liberal side of the spectrum. Simply

Oh you are right about one thing. we have no tolerance for lying politicians. why else do you think we keep kicking liberals out of office?

 

[Semper Fi]

You, Semper Fi, are just so uncool and whiney that I almost missed your point. You stay away from name brands. Now, how does that affect the big picture? You, like most self professed conservatives on this board, whine everything to death without debate at all. Name calling and self serving innuendo doesn't rank up there with "debate".

Liberals search for truth, genuine compassion and fairness in everyday life. Conservatives look for a way to make a buck off the perceived weaknesses of truth, genuine compassion, fairness and everyday liberals. The truth of America has held for 200 years. The current leadership and media will slow the progression of this country and the lies of the 21st Century Republicans will force this country into political dilemma for only a short while.

Give peace, understanding and genuine compassion a chance. GWB and his neocon followers certainly aren't into peace, they certainly aren't able to understand and their compassion is like zilch.

Most folks I know only want to make an honest living and have little tolerance for lying businessmen or politicians. But, most folks I know are also confident, self-assured and liberal. Virtually all of the whiney, paranoid and xxxxaholics I know call themselves conservatives and are in denial of their obsessions. History has proven multitudes of times their (conservative, traditional) political persuasions are faulty and this age will not be an exception. Ghengis Khan was an intolerant conservative with world exploitation as his driving ambition. Hitler was just another of them and GWB is only another in that list.

Que Sera Sera

Psychoblues

So me avoiding name-brand clothes makes me whiny and not self confident? If that's the liberal way of thinking, I dont want anything to do with you people.

Other than that I'm not going to respond to your ranting.

I'd like to point out, however, that your entire post was a complaint and a big whine. So you whine and are a liberal, I'm confident and a conservative. Hmmmm.

 

[William Joyce]

Liberals have raised whining from a kid's past time to a lifestyle.

All net, no rim, from half court.

 

[007]

You, Semper Fi, are just so uncool and whiney that I almost missed your point.

Give peace, understanding and genuine compassion a chance.

In one breath, you unload a caustic pile of your shit on one of our boards youngest, nicest, and brightest members, and then you speak of "peace", and "understanding", and "genuine compassion" in the next breath? What kind of a fucking jackass are you? Don't bother answering. You're a LIBERAL jackass, that's what.

GWB and his neocon followers certainly aren't into peace, they certainly aren't able to understand and their compassion is like zilch.

The above statement is sooooo assinine, that even after I've thought about it, I have nothing to say in response. It just doesn't deserve one. It's too fucking moronic to even comprehend.

 

[Bonnie]

Do Bratty Kids Turn into Conservatives or Liberals?
March 25th, 2006

Are conservative leanings the fruits of intellectual inquiry or the fault of psychological frailty? If psychologist Jack Block is to be believed, it’s the latter.

Publishing his findings in the Journal of Research into Personality (a page-turner, I’m sure), the UC Berkeley professor claims to have found a correlation between being a “whiny,” insecure child in nursery school and an embrace of conservatism in later life. Describing the research in the Toronto Star, science writer Kurt Kleiner says,

In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids’ personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months….

...A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident [and outgoing] kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Being a great bastion of liberalism, the social science realm has disgorged such data before. As Kleiner points out,

Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism.

One can imagine the reaction to such proclamations. Liberals will use them to reinforce stereotypes about repressed, dysfunctional conservatives. Many conservatives will scoff and dismiss them out of hand, convinced that psycho-babble is merely liberalism gussied up in scientific parlance. And the study has its critics even within the social science community. University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg said of Block’s research, “ I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best.”

Being a longtime critic of psychology, I’m inclined to agree. That said, one would have to be intellectually lazy and quite incurious to delve no further. I also think it fair to say that Block has noted some valid correlations. The question is, though, are his interpretations and conclusions correct?

And many have asked just that question. Professor Greenberg has posited the theory that the ideology insecure people gravitate toward may be determined by societal context. According to Kleiner,

He [Greenberg] suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

Presenting other counter arguments, Kleiner theorizes that perhaps tiny, budding conservatives simply recognize “that the world is a scary, unfair place,” that “their ‘rigidity’ may just be moral certainty,” and that their subsequent embrace of tradition may then simply be a mature, correct decision. He then says,

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

I’m quoting Kleiner because I believe his article provides a good snapshot of the prevailing opposing arguments, and he and I find agreement on a couple of points. But I still think the critics fail to boil this issue down to its bare essence.

I spent about fifteen years working with children, during which time I had the opportunity to observe thousands and the responsibility of disciplining hundreds. I mention this because I too noticed a correlation between liberalism and childhood behavior. In fact, I quickly reached a point where I could predict how a child’s parents voted based solely on his behavior. And I wasn’t wrong too often. How did I do it?

Quite simply, I noticed that the ill behaved children, the ones who were wild, unstable, who had contempt for rules, usually had politically liberal parents. And the explanation is simple: aside from the example liberals may set, they also tend to raise their kids in very permissive ways, eschewing punishment and failing to enforce limits, instill discipline and demand obedience.

At the other end of the spectrum, I observed that the best behaved children often had three things in common: they had stay-at-home moms, attended church regularly (relatively rare in my area) and, more to the point here, had parents who were politically conservative. Were there exceptions? Yes, insofar as some well behaved kids didn’t fit the profile completely (but virtually every one had conservative parents). However, I cannot think of even one instance wherein a child who conformed perfectly to the profile was not well behaved.

Now, it may seem as if Block and I are talking about very different things. After all, my claim is that a certain type of ideology in the adult correlates with a certain type of behavior in his child, while his claim is that a certain type of childhood behavior correlates with a certain ideology in adulthood. But while we certainly don’t disagree on which ideology negative childhood traits are associated with, we are otherwise talking about the same phenomenon.

This is because it’s widely recognized that, by and large, children reflect the ideology of their parents. Sure, while the rebellious kid who casts his parents’ values to the winds – the Ron Reagan type – sticks out like a sore thumb, for every one of those there are at least a few who tread in their parents’ footsteps.

And I strongly suspect that Block recognizes this. In fact, regardless of whether these traits are the result of nature, nurture, or a combination thereof, they certainly are familial. Thus, my effect is his cause, which leads to his effect, which is my cause, which leads to my effect… so on and so forth. The parent influences the child, who grows up to be a parent, who then influences his child, who grows up to be a parent….

But then there is that disagreement. Are negative traits associated with conservatism or liberalism? Block places the onus on the former, so his findings contradict my anecdotal observations (which, I’ll reiterate, are legion). How can this be explained?

My Analysis

The answer is that I don’t accept Block’s basic suppositions, such as his rather tendentious interpretation and labeling of behavior.

Case in point: if a child (especially at ages three and four) complains to an authority figure, some may call it being “whiny.” Perhaps, though, it’s merely the result of having been instilled with the kind of healthy respect for authority that causes the child to address grievances through proper channels, as opposed to taking the law into his own hands. And it makes sense. Conservative parents are more apt to stress respect for traditional hierarchies and legitimate authority. And let’s face it, small children transgress against each other all the time, so they are often aggrieved.

Moreover, you’re more likely to complain if you perceive that the rules of the controlling authority have been broken. And since liberals tend to be more likely to pander to and negotiate with their kids, the latter probably won’t perceive as many rules as would a conservative child, who is more likely to be raised with black and white do’s and don’t’s. Quite simply, you won’t tell the teacher that certain rules of his have been violated if you don’t know they exist.

Also, since liberal parents are permissive and ineffectual, their children may become conditioned to believe that going to adults for redress is fruitless. And you won’t be likely to complain to someone if you believe it’s an exercise in futility.

Perhaps most significantly, since liberals’ children are more likely to be poorly behaved and, therefore, break rules and abuse peers, often the only ones they could “tell on” are themselves. And the bad guys don’t go to the cops; the good guys do.

Then, are the qualities that Block labels confidence and gregariousness really those things, or are they brazenness, arrogance, and impudence? In other words, maybe the liberals’ kids are just brats. After all, I’ve found that modern psychologists tend to label virtues vices and vices virtues, as they call good bad and bad good. A perfect example of this is what they call “self-esteem,” now reduced to a euphemism for pride.

Even if the children in question are merely confident and outgoing (which I don’t believe for a second), I don’t accept the assumption that this is indicative of psychological health in a tiny child. Why, I rather think that someone so young should be hesitant, insecure and shy, looking to adults for guidance and support and receptive to teaching. A child that age should be clingy. I mean, if you’re “confident and outgoing” when you’re four, what are you at fourteen? Stupid, reckless and presumptuous? No wonder liberals’ kids are on Ritalin when they’re eight.

As for the rest of the spirit of the age assertions, rigidity (I was called this by a former employer) is how relativistic marshmallows characterize the quality of being principled. I may also posit that the“confident” kids turned into adults who eschew traditional sex roles and are so eager to rationalize their “hanging loose” behavior – which is just a nice way of saying they have contempt for strictures and traditions – that they’re uncomfortable with moral clarity. And maybe what is being defined as “outgoing” behavior in the girls is really just the gratuitously precocious, overly assertive, promiscuous feminist attitude that so characterizes liberal women. As for the “introspective” men, they could just be emasculated. Are we talking about masculinized women and feminized men, the Valkyries and metrosexuals of the third millennium?
Last but not least, I have to wonder when liberals are described as “non conforming adults.” I actually had to laugh; how is being liberal a non-conforming state when the status quo is now so liberal? If iconoclasm is your fancy, try being a conservative and devout Christian. And if you beg to differ, Professor Block, find some places in the western world where hate speech laws are used to stifle liberal expression. Then get back to me.
I realized many moons ago that the social sciences today mainly serve to provide a specious scientific basis for liberalism. Do you want to give criminals a slap on the wrist and substitute rehabilitation for punishment or legislate against spanking? Simply point to studies that “show” that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. Would you like to eliminate personal responsibility and cast everyone as a victim? Just highlight research that “proves” that being a lush or a homosexual is caused by genes and childhood bad behavior by ADD. Yes, psychology has long been attacking tenets of conservatism, as it veils its agenda with a facade of science. Given this antipathy for the ideology, it’s little wonder that psycho-babblers’ zeal would eventually compel them to tip their hand and label conservatism itself as just another symptom of psychological inadequacy. Maybe we should rename introductory psychology “How to Prove Liberalism Correct 101.”
Of course, Jack Block has credibility. He has a Ph.D. in psycho-babbling and a project that bears his name at UC Berkeley. So, don’t listen to me. Unless, that is, you attach importance to something that G.K. Chesterton called “that forgotten branch of psychology.” Namely, common sense.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5357

 

[Psychoblues]

After diligent reading through this thread, I'd have to agree with the author. Conservatives are not only whiny children but they grow up to be rather whiny adults.

We will all see how the whining White House comes out of this illegal war on it's citizens works out.

Psychoblues

 

[Mr.Conley]

Just because a liberal politician may have been, "confident, resilient, [and] self-reliant" as a child while a conservative may have been, "whiny, [and] insecure," has no effect on the validity of either sides positions. This debate is moot.

 

[Psychoblues]

Just because a liberal politician may have been, "confident, resilient, [and] self-reliant" as a child while a conservative may have been, "whiny, [and] insecure," has no effect on the validity of either sides positions. This debate is moot.

You are correct, Mr. Conley. Doe's the "Mr." thing give you more confidence?

Psychoblues

 

[Mr.Conley]

You are correct, Mr. Conley. Doe's the "Mr." thing give you more confidence?

It gives me something to put in front of the Conley, which sounds simple on its own. Mr. is a term of respect to the person being addressed, a quality I hope to someday spread here.

That and people calling me Mr. gives me a feeling of Godlike power over the affairs of men. HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Psychoblues]

It gives me something to put in front of the Conley, which sounds simple on its own. Mr. is a term of respect to the person being addressed, a quality I hope to someday spread here.

That and people calling me Mr. gives me a feeling of Godlike power over the affairs of men. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe you think you're being funny. I really don't know. Is your humor directed towards a specific audience or are your remarks just as stupid as they appear to be?

Psychoblues

 

[Avatar4321]

After diligent reading through this thread, I'd have to agree with the author. Conservatives are not only whiny children but they grow up to be rather whiny adults.

We will all see how the whining White House comes out of this illegal war on it's citizens works out.

Psychoblues

Dude, Are you totally illiterate or just dumb? You are the only one whining!

Heck, you are even whining in this post!

NEWSFLASH: President Bush isn't up for reelection ever again. Stop running against him and try putting together a platform with a real agenda instead of just "I hate Bush"

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe you think you're being funny. I really don't know. Is your humor directed towards a specific audience or are your remarks just as stupid as they appear to be?

Psychoblues

I guess this just goes to show you that in order to be a liberal you have to sacrifice your sense of humor.

 

[Psychoblues]

I guess this just goes to show you that in order to be a liberal you have to sacrifice your sense of humor.

Tehehe. You whining about my whining? I ain't whining. I answered a post with straight forwardness. You attack it as whining? Common reich wing response. You got a problem with my argument? Spit it out and swallow the consequense. I certainly have to do the same here in USMB and in everyday life. It's called being an AMERICAN. Dig it?

Psychoblues