On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:39:37 -0600, "Dr. Siddhartha Vicious"
<bokonon@ptsi.net> wrote:

<(((*> That said, I suspect that Old Coyote is correct in noting that a

<(((*> these days tends to get labeled as a "leftist" here in the States.

<(((*> often wondered if I were in Europe or Canada if I'd be considered

<(((*> "lefty" or if I'd seem more centrist.

We'd think you were a right wing fascist nut case, Sid.

And you don't want to know what we'd call thor.

(I sure hope thor has a sense of humour...)

Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada

x-no-archive: yes


"Dr. Siddhartha Vicious" <bokonon@ptsi.net> wrote:

That said, I suspect that Old Coyote is correct in noting that a
moderate these days tends to get labeled as a "leftist" here in the
States. I've often wondered if I were in Europe or Canada if I'd be
considered a genuine "lefty" or if I'd seem more centrist.

Neither shoe fits you. A "Leftist" in Europe would be a socialist, marxist
or communist, or even farther to the left. A "centrist" in europe would be
a social democrat, a liberal, or a christian democrat. The Green parties
in Europe are considered to be slightly left or the middle, but not
"leftist".

x-no-archive: yes

Dr Sid wrote (major snippage):

Another cluster of traits that might be part of a liberal's psychological
make-up: high tolerance for ambiguity, low need for cognitive closure, high
need for cognition. Generally, the world view of a liberal is one in which
there is little that is black and white.

I think most *people,* conservative or liberal, seem to be pretty black and
white in their politics. Actually, that includes people I know who've moved
from the left to the right, or vice versa; wherever they are on the spectrum at
the moment, they don't allow for the existence of another position.

I've spent too many years sitting in New England town meetings hearing
college-educated liberals say things like, "The wealth has to be redistributed
somehow," as if it had never even *occurred* to them that that was an
assumption and that they might make their case a little better if it was a
little bit more nuanced and allowed for the existence of another position. And
I hear too many liberals (and too many conservatives) say of someone who agrees
with them, "He *gets it.*" As if you couldn't understand them and still
disagree.


Naomi D.

x-no-archive: yes

Dr. Siddhartha Vicious wrote:

I'd be curious. Serially.

I have some of my own ideas of what drives liberals psychologically.

One trait that I think is shared by a great deal of liberals is a high

for affiliation. I get the sense that most of us want to liked even by

opponents. The benefit is that generally liberals want to cooperate and

within whatever framework is available. The drawback is that there is a
tendency to not fight back when perhaps we should (either locally,
regionally, nationally, or internationally).

Interesting, I never heard this one. What about a counter-part to this,
that they are fighting the establishment? That's a big part that I
sense, and maybe that results in them banding together. If you're
fighting what you perceive to be this monolithic, unified establishment,
then you're going to want to team up and get strength in numbers. I
don't know.

Another cluster of traits that might be part of a liberal's

make-up: high tolerance for ambiguity, low need for cognitive closure,

need for cognition. Generally, the world view of a liberal is one in

there is little that is black and white. Ill-structured problems (ones

are open-ended, having no absolute right or wrong answer based on the
information given) are problems that liberals probably thrive on.

Bring it on.

Yes and no. They like the language of ambiguity. but I think the hard
core political types (on either side) tend to be quite absolutist in the
way they espouse their views. There's nothing at all ambiguous about
what you or Alvin think about George Bush. It's quite black/white. Same
with the activist web sites I've seen. Very black/white. One even had
a "Bush Satan 2004" t-shirt. Now, I'm sure you'll take great exception
to this impression of mine, and that's...OK. If you're going to tell me
that it's much much worse on the Right, well, whatever. I'll agree with
you that it's just as bad. I kind of agree with Naomi's take on it, I
think the political types in general are kind of set in their views, and
only pretend to listen and be open-minded to a greater or lesser extent,
depending on the personality type.

I suspect there's also a tendency to continue to gather
information before settling on a solution (i.e., the low cognitive

high need for cognition). Generally, I'm guessing that liberals are

to keep questioning, debating, and information gathering long after
conservatives just want to settle on a decision and be done.

I think this is a load of crap, with all due respect.

I think that
the drawbacks are pretty obvious. Conservatives are very good at

a strategy and sticking with that strategy; they're very good at

a unified front, and generally tend to be confident about their beliefs

conclusion. I am guessing that liberals generally are more likely to

decisions which can be problematic under circumstances in which a

may be needed in short order, are less prone to find unity among their
ranks, and are generally less confident about their beliefs and

T-shirts that say "Think!" inside the blue field of the American flag,
instead of stars? i.e. If you engage your brain and actually think,
instead of being a stupid dummy from the Midwest, then you will wake up
and not vote for Bush. Websites like these hardly seem to be lacking in
confidence in their belief set.

Hence conservatives look relatively decisive and liberals look

indecisive.

I don't know where you're getting this. When I watch the talking heads
shows, the "liberal" guy/gal and the "conservative" guy/gal usually seem
equally confident and feisty. Seems to depend on personality, not
political belief. www.kgo.com - listen from 10pm-5am PST. Michael
Moore lacks confidence in his beliefs? I'm not criticizing them for
being confident, mind you. I just don't understand this observation at
all. It's like you're trying to tell me the sun rises in the west and
sets in the east. I don't get it.

The benefits I think are also tangible: liberals generally try
to think things through, and generally are open-minded enough to

converse with others with whom they disagree or continue to ponder

from other angles. Decisions arrived at are likely to be fairly sound
decisions.

You're so enmeshed in your politics, you don't see what crap this is.
Why don't you just cut to the chase and say this: liberals are
intelligent and have the correct answers, and conservatives are stupid
and are wrong? Wouldn't that be simpler?

Those are some of my educated guesses, inspired at least in part by my
reading of Bob Altemeyer's work, Ari Kruglanski's work, etc. There's

on-going discussion in the social sciences with regard to the

needs that drive conservatives and liberals, and my understanding is

each group is driven by a cluster of distinct psychological motives,

with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. There are contexts in

conservatives truly shine, as there are contexts where liberals truly

In a crisis situation, I'd want to listen to my conservative friends as

seem pretty decent at making quick decisions. If there are tons of

involved and a correct course of action is unclear or requires

data gathering, I'd turn to my liberal friends. In situations that are

crisis and ambiguous, we probably need to listen to each other -- that's
something that has broken down in the last decade or two.

If you're talking about non-political issues, and simply making a
general observation about personality tendencies, then you probably have
read a lot more about this than me, fine. But to say that conservatives
are just close-minded and reach quick decisions and that's that, that's
crap Sid.

I'm not too terribly keen on the idea that conservatism or liberalism

tied to mental disorders. If that's what you're hoping to propose, I'd

pretty skeptical. Just sort of an advanced warning.

No, not mental disorders. I was referring more to the far left and the
far right. Not George Bush, but Marty/Joe far right. e.g. That post
by Alistaire. Those people are almost cartoon characters. Markypoo
used to get pissed at me for stereotyping about the coasts, but damn, if
the glove DOES fit, then you must NOT acquit! Basically, those people
do not sound like happy, well-adjusted folks. My general impression,
based on my observations. I think these people are fighting something:
parents, society, something, some demon that is on their back. And
their politics just follows their overall angry world view.

As a general rule, I tend to look at ideology and mental disorders are
unrelated. I knew too many anarchists and too many Christian

who struck me as very stable, psychologically sound individuals. I've

mainstream liberals, conservatives, and moderates who suffered from
schizophrenia.

So, what are your thoughts?

No, schizophrenia, major biologically-based depression, etc...these
things are biological events. Even episodic depression is going to be
related to the person. Again, my point was about the further ends of
the spectrum and also the people who are very active and very
politically motivated. Most people are NOT as politically motivated as
say, the folks actually creating websites like moveon.org. Most people
are too busy trying to get by day-to-day. Proof: something like 1/3 or
50% of the people in this country can't place France on a map.