Conservatives

[Bfgrn]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

 

[mash107]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

I wonder why liberals, when they were "resilient" and "self-reliant" when they were kids, think it's alright to dictate their wishes through a government through use of force. It would surely be illegal for someone to steal money from his neighbor, but through the blessing of the states, it is legal. You'd think someone who wasn't insecure doesn't feel a need to force their neighbor to do things they'd be otherwise unwilling to do in a free society. There are conservatives that are plainly guilty of this as well, obviously. War on drugs, sexuality, terrorism, privacy, etc is a blatant abuse of power just as much as the war on prosperity waged by the liberals is.

 

[Agnapostate]

That study was posted here a while back. As I recall, there was quite a little temper tantrum that broke out...therefore causing the ultimate irony of validating the study by obnoxiously attacking it.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

I wonder why liberals, when they were "resilient" and "self-reliant" when they were kids, think it's alright to dictate their wishes through a government through use of force. It would surely be illegal for someone to steal money from his neighbor, but through the blessing of the states, it is legal. You'd think someone who wasn't insecure doesn't feel a need to force their neighbor to do things they'd be otherwise unwilling to do in a free society. There are conservatives that are plainly guilty of this as well, obviously. War on drugs, sexuality, terrorism, privacy, etc is a blatant abuse of power just as much as the war on prosperity waged by the liberals is.

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

 

[slackjawed]

I am a little baffled by the study. I did the usual internet searches and found that this guy and his dead wife are very well respected in their field. I found references to this study.
The thing that confuses me is how come there are only two groups in this study?
I didn't grow up to belong to either group, and I know a lot of folks like me.
Conservative on some issues, liberal on others.
Where in this study are we represented?
One thing is certain, American citizens are being abused by their leaders without regard to political belief.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study


THAT speaks volumes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am a little baffled by the study. I did the usual internet searches and found that this guy and his dead wife are very well respected in their field. I found references to this study.
The thing that confuses me is how come there are only two groups in this study?
I didn't grow up to belong to either group, and I know a lot of folks like me.
Conservative on some issues, liberal on others.
Where in this study are we represented?
One thing is certain, American citizens are being abused by their leaders without regard to political belief.

He can not link his source yet, but wanna bet that you can not see the actual data or criteria? How about numbers as well?

And how exactly does one tell if a 3 year old is all the things supposedly good about Liberals? Or all the bad things supposedly about Republicans?

Yup they sure got lucky and found a group of 3 year olds that all grew up and joined just the two major political parties with no independents at all.

 

[xsited1]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

I wonder what the results would be 20 years later (2009)? The political definition of 'conservative' and 'liberal' has changed considerably since then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

This is an excellent, clever, and inventive attack on Conservatives by a Liberal Psychologist, or am I being redundant? Having not seen your name before on this board, I'd like to welcome you. I look forward to many jousts, and thank you for showing your colors so early.

Interesting that you were so creatively able to take a slap at the 34 % of the electorate that self-identified themselves as Conservatives after the most recent election (21% as Liberals).

Unfortunately, you chose as your champions individuals who are so easily dispensed with. Had you been familiar with the Blocks you would know that Jeanne "Humphrey Block also became involved in the politically charged atmosphere of Berkeley in the 1960's. She marched in protest against the Vietnam War, "walked the precincts to muster support for Eugene McCarthy, and helped start the Committee of Social Responsibility (which later was transformed into Physicians for Social Responsibility)" .
Jeanne Humphrey Block

And, of course, Jack is "professor emeritus at UC Berkeley." Is any more necessary?

Your post is clearly a worthless polemic, and one that fails to meet any standards of objectivity. But worthy of the liberal arguments regularly found on this board.

Based on the results and adherents of liberal philosophies, the arguments you try to present are counter intuitive, and defy logic (a hallmark of liberal perspective).

Let me try to cast aspersions as broadly as you have. Liberals are the ones who believe in a weak defense nationally, sort of a "can't we all just get along" view of live, a head in the sand view of totalitarianism. They believe that special rights be given to protected groups, on whose identity they decide. They tell others how to live, and threaten the force of law and taxes if one does not abide by their rules. Weak, insipid, they believe in private and individual morality, which can be changed depending upon one's whim. They believe in equality of result, so it is fair to takes one person's property and give it to another.

And of course, liberals, two-faced as they are, claim to be the good hearted ones, but decline to give charity, leaving it to the government.

Liberal philosophy, and central to their perspective, feel so superior to others, that for them, 'feeling' about some subject is as good as actully knowing: this global warming and gun laws.

Liberals feel that without the protections of big government, none of us, poor helpless victims, could survive. Victims?

How humorous that you use a phrase such as "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful" for Conservatives. If I may borrow a phrase from the pseudo-science psychology, isn't this a classic example of projection?

Should you require further redirection and education, don't be shy.

 

[Agnapostate]

Please. Both liberals and conservatives are statist capitalists. Ain't that enough?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

What is that 'fair share"?
Oct. 28, 2008 Just heard on TV richest 1% own 21% of the wealth in the country, but this 1 % pay 39 % of the taxes(2005)

Jan. 23,2009 1% of the population make 28% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. WSJ


"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

 

[mash107]

"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

I wonder why liberals, when they were "resilient" and "self-reliant" when they were kids, think it's alright to dictate their wishes through a government through use of force. It would surely be illegal for someone to steal money from his neighbor, but through the blessing of the states, it is legal. You'd think someone who wasn't insecure doesn't feel a need to force their neighbor to do things they'd be otherwise unwilling to do in a free society. There are conservatives that are plainly guilty of this as well, obviously. War on drugs, sexuality, terrorism, privacy, etc is a blatant abuse of power just as much as the war on prosperity waged by the liberals is.

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

Who says we need a government air traffic controller? Seeing their ineptness at responding to hurricaines or balancing the budget or doing anything for that matter, I'd much rather have private airports maintaining control in their airspace than the government. There was a story of an incompetent government employee causing one plane to land directly on top of another.

Causes of Airplane Accidents | California Aviation Law Attorneys | Runway Incursions Lawyers Pilot Error Negligence

Runway Incursions

Our firm has successfully handled numerous runway incursion accident cases, including one at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in which a federal air traffic controller's negligence resulted in a US Airways plane landing on a SkyWest plane. We also handled the 2000 Alaska airline crash in which the crew attempted to fix a problem with the horizontal stabilizer in the plane's tail while the plane was still in the air. Due to a combination of pilot error and manufacturing defect, the plane went straight down and crashed into the ocean.

More importantly, on the moral issue, why should someone be forced to be laid off because the capital that would've hired him be directed somewhere else?

 

[Agnapostate]

What is that 'fair share"?
Oct. 28, 2008 Just heard on TV richest 1% own 21% of the wealth in the country, but this 1 % pay 39 % of the taxes(2005)

Jan. 23,2009 1% of the population make 28% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. WSJ


"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

You do realize that this completely ignores the diminishing rate of marginal utility, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is that 'fair share"?
Oct. 28, 2008 Just heard on TV richest 1% own 21% of the wealth in the country, but this 1 % pay 39 % of the taxes(2005)

Jan. 23,2009 1% of the population make 28% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. WSJ


"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
The Tax Foundation - Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

Hard to imagine you being any more wrong.

You do realize that this completely ignores the diminishing rate of marginal utility, right?

Just watch your language.

 

[Agnapostate]

Just watch your language.

You know, we do have something called Wikipedia.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just watch your language.

You know, we do have something called Wikipedia.

I can't use it: my keyboard only has one "i."

 

[edthecynic]

"War on prosperity"?! That is rich!

Since when has paying one's fair share of the cost of maintaining our nation become a "war on prosperity"?

Well-to-do people actually use some government-provided goods and services far more than do poor people. How many poor people need air traffic controllers? Or the US Passport Office? Poor people are also less likely to use federal highways as much as more well-to-do people. Many poor people don't need government-sponsored FDIC protection because they have no bank accounts. Government-provided law enforcement agencies don't have to spend time keeping an eye on poor people's businesses. Poor people are also unlikely to use state and national parks as often as more well-to-do people.

What is that 'fair share"?
Oct. 28, 2008 Just heard on TV richest 1% own 21% of the wealth in the country, but this 1 % pay 39 % of the taxes(2005)

You CON$ just make this crap up out of thin air. According to the 2005 CBO report, the top 1% paid 27.6% of all federal taxes. You obviously are not counting all wealth or all taxes.

How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap
Today the top 1% of households receives more pretax income than the bottom 40%. And the distribution of wealth is even more lopsided. The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s.

 

[Agnapostate]

It wouldn't even matter if her claims were accurate; a failure to factor in the diminishing rate of marginal utility still plagues her analysis.

 

[Bfgrn]

PoliticalChic... Sorry you "feel" victimized and offended...LOL

BTW, don't you believe there are "groups" that need special protection?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic... Sorry you "feel" victimized and offended...LOL

BTW, don't you believe there are "groups" that need special protection?

I love it! I must have ripped you apart as well as your argument since you felt it necessary to sneak behind the message board and give a neg rep!!!

This is so funny: in your world that 'slap' is the only response you have to my destroying the phonies who wrote the article you posted, and then eviscerated liberals, as well.

The usual inability to contend with real debate.

Work on your reading skills: where did I say that I was a victim? On the contrary, I am a Conservative.
Who are your protected groups, and what is the reason for the the protections?