PDA

View Full Version : Study: Easily startled, jumpy people conservative



PatCox
09-23-2008, 02:46 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918170616.htm

Amazing, just what I always thought, conservatives are frightened people. Afraid of empowered women, afraid black criminals are coming to rape them and steal their wives, afraid of furriners, afraid of change.

Guess thats why they want a big strong government to keep them safe, test their urine, tell them what to do, why they like reciting creeds in unison and all that herd-like stuff.

MiddleAgesMan
09-23-2008, 04:17 PM
John McCain's knee-jerk responses to the financial crisis are proof this study has merit. ;)

It has been sad to watch a 72 year old conservative with half a brain react--We need a commision to study why this happened, I would fire the FEC (sic) chairman, I oppose any government bailout of AIG, I support any bailout governmental or otherwise of AIG, I am ready to handle any crisis--see? I'm ready to spout off at the drop of the Dow....My opponent is not qualified, you can be sure of that because he has been silent (and thoughtful, and supportive, etc.)

What a clown, this John McClown! ;)

johnw
09-23-2008, 06:37 PM
might explain this:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

Woxbox
09-23-2008, 06:41 PM
I was at a political debate once with about 50 people in the audience, all handpicked by their respective parties to ask questions. Before it got started, I looked over the crowd and guessed by appearance -- dress and grooming -- who was a Democrat and who was a Republican. I'd say I got it about 90 percent right.
But we all know how this works. But why is it so easy? Where does fear of what goes bump in the night drive one to wear a dark blue suit, white shirt and red tie?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-23-2008, 06:46 PM
might explain this:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

That is a gem! Thanks!

Bob Smalser
09-23-2008, 06:49 PM
Yawn. More political science. Another oxymoron, I guess.

Study size was a whopping 47.

And of course these scientists (cough) didn't consider that the guys and gals who literally get evaluated for coolness under live fire are 64% Republican, 8% Democrat, and the remainder Independents, Other or non-declared....but overall probably well over 90% politically "conservative".

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil432.pdf

capt jake
09-23-2008, 06:57 PM
Yawn. More political science. Another oxymoron, I guess.

Study size was a whopping 47.

And of course these scientists didn't consider that the guys who literally get evaluated for coolness under live fire are 64% Republican, 8% Democrat, and the remainder Independents, Other or non-declared....but overall probably well over 90% "conservative".

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil432.pdf

Gee Bob, it states in the very front of the study the problem with right wing republican flap....


The United States military's organizational climate has
shifted steadily to the right since the Viet Nam War. Today's Armed Forces are increasingly
identified with conservative Christian and Republican values. This change in group dynamics
can inhibit the decision making process by preventing a thorough review of relevant courses of
action, in accordance with the Rational Decision Model.

At least dip the other oar in the water once in a while, otherwise you will be paddling in circles...... I think that is what they mean by Rational Decision Model. :)

brad9798
09-23-2008, 07:00 PM
Smalser NAILS it again!

:)

Bob Smalser
09-23-2008, 07:02 PM
At least dip the other oar in the water once in a while, otherwise you will be paddling in circles......

Except there ain't no disputing the 64% Republican, 8% Dem, etc.

That the study I cite was done to ID evangelical influence is moot....it happens to be one of the few you'll find that asks soldiers about politics.

You can also store your oars somewhere else after you read further than the abstract:


First, traditional, conservative
Republican values on a wide range of platforms, from social programs to a strong defense,
seem to resonate well with the military. 38 Second, the Republican Party has actively courted
military voters, especially since the Reagan administration. The large build-up that eventually
ended the cold war resonated with officers, even if the President’s attempt to shift society as a
whole toward more traditional, conservative Christian values proved less successful.39

When the Democrats took office, President Clinton’s administration did not enjoy the
same harmonious relationship with the Department of Defense. Clinton’s anti-military stance in
his youth, his political beliefs, and his determination to allow homosexuals to serve in the armed
forces bred mistrust and, on occasion, even public dissent among military officers.40 In 1999,
the Kosovo air campaign represented a low point for civil-military relations.

Dissention between
the administration and the military led to a badly coordinated campaign whose impact rippled
through the entire NATO alliance.41 This schism graphically represents how the incongruence
between military recommendations and trust by civilian officials can affect policy formulation.
Additionally, among many in today’s officer corps, the belief is that liberal, and generally
more Democratic leaders, promote values contrary to military culture, interests, and proud
tradition of service. Conservative Republicans can point to three representative examples just
in the last two presidential elections. The first was during the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore
proposed one factor to determine a candidate’s suitability for the Joint Chiefs be his or her
position on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. 42 Secondly, the 2000
election’s fierce battle over Florida’s absentee ballots opened the Democrats up to charges of
hypocrisy. Republicans contested their claim that “every vote counted”, and charged the
Democrats wrongfully attempted to exclude more than 1,500 military absentee ballots.43 Finally,
during the 2004 election, attacks on Senator John Kerry’s Viet Nam service record and anti-war
stance, particularly from the “Swift Boat” veterans, highlights the strong hold conservatism has
not only on active duty personnel, but retirees as well.

capt jake
09-23-2008, 07:14 PM
Except there ain't no disputing the 64% Republican, 8% Dem, etc.

That the study I cite was done to ID evangelical influence is moot....it happens to be one of the few you'll find that asks soldiers about politics.

You can store your oars somewhere else.


Read the rest of it! Though I haven't read the article in its entirety; it spells out the pitfalls of only looking at one side of the coin. The right wings constant preaching and twisting the truth is showing through the old worn out coat they have been wearing.

Good leaders should (and I emphasize 'should') be able to look at both sides of a debate and/or problem to come up with the best plan of action. Being blinded by one's party and blindly following the herd can never correct poor decisions.

I can only surmise that you will never reach shore with the one oar you have.

Bob Smalser
09-23-2008, 07:21 PM
I can only surmise that you will never reach shore with the one oar you have.

This is real simple.

I pointed out that Army officers who get evaluated for coolness under fire are generally politically conservative.

I proved my point citing a 2006 DOD study that then showed political conservatism among officers to be well over half and increasing alarmingly.

All your peripheral about balanced leaders and rowing are moot, as well as childishly silly.

capt jake
09-23-2008, 07:30 PM
I proved my point citing a 2006 DOD study that then showed political conservatism among officers to be well over half and increasing alarmingly.

Well, duh..... It stated that the military stance has been moving to the right for many years. Seemingly staying in line with the politician whom they are accountable to.

Sheesh, you have been in the woods too long....

johnw
09-23-2008, 07:30 PM
Don't think the study tested for childish/silly and political affiliation. You'd probably find that it correlates with the Surprise Party, which ran Gracie Allen for president.

So my question is, if the study is valid, will Valium make people more liberal?

ishmael
09-23-2008, 07:39 PM
Oh gawd I'm going to be glad when this election is over and people go back to their normal silly selves for six days.;) A study size of 47! That's rich. They probably couldn't round up more who would put up with the poll questions. I know whenever someone calls with a telephone survey I, being my jumpy self, politely demure.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Twain

johnw
09-23-2008, 07:56 PM
Oh gawd I'm going to be glad when this election is over and people go back to their normal silly selves for six days.;) A study size of 47! That's rich. They probably couldn't round up more who would put up with the poll questions. I know whenever someone calls with a telephone survey I, being my jumpy self, politely demure.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Twain

Nope. Benjamin Disraeli.

pipefitter
09-23-2008, 08:01 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918170616.htm

Amazing, just what I always thought, conservatives are frightened people. Afraid of empowered women, afraid black criminals are coming to rape them and steal their wives, afraid of furriners, afraid of change.

Guess thats why they want a big strong government to keep them safe, test their urine, tell them what to do, why they like reciting creeds in unison and all that herd-like stuff.

That's quite the contrary to the conservatives(??) (where are these left and right people??) that I know. Even if it is true, it's still better than the nearly doped and conformist complacency that makes extreme liberals defenseless victims while waiting for the nanny to protect them. Most of the conservatives (??) I know embrace and encourage the empowerment of women. I think the real mistake here is thinking that the modern American citizen is either extremely liberal or conservative in the first place. If you walk away from these forums and the media, that only really allow being one way or the other, you might find 90% of these studies defunct. Every time I read this nonsense, I have to imagine a land far away, because in reality, most people these days or at least of the more modern and functioning generation are a more balanced equally in both liberal and conservative views that actually make sense for the ways of the world as it is now and I bet that is more the reason the polls are so close in numbers now than what the media would like you to believe. Balance does not make the headlines or an interesting study but like it or not, that's going to be what decides this election for the candidate that is able to reflect such a balance of sorts. The extreme left and right dinosaurs will be left to fight it out yet again for the next four years blaming each other while the middle will be somewhat perplexed, yet able to see the shortcomings of either extreme.

brad9798
09-23-2008, 08:12 PM
NOPE- Twain!

johnw
09-23-2008, 08:21 PM
Even though Twain was always careful to attribute clever things others had said, people just seemed to remember Twain saying it. Like the line about Wagner's music being much better than it sounds. He was careful to properly attribute, but people just connect clever lines with Twain.

Twain attributed 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' to Disraeli. Why not take his word for it?

David G
09-23-2008, 08:30 PM
The Disraeli quote, which I like and use: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"

There are two Twain quotes that I remembered that came close: "Facts are stubborn things but statistics are more pliable"; "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please"

I did a search for a better matching Twain quote, but the first one I remembered is the closest I could find.

ishmael
09-23-2008, 08:52 PM
As someone who likes language I'm always willing to be corrected on a quote. Sorry I got it wrong. Quotes should always be attributed to their authors. It is commonly attributed to Twain, and it doesn't change the truth of it that it was Disraeli.

And I'm not against the judicious use of statistics. Good science is largely based in them. But I think we can agree that the sample size in this case is, um, a bit small.

Interesting notion: that those natively conservative are more jumpy, nervous but that's not my experience. If anything, the opposite. Maybe it's because liberals don't keep a gun handy? That's a joke.;)

PatCox
09-23-2008, 09:08 PM
Come on, the study is funny, it proves not much, except that people who self-identify as strong conservatives blink and sweat more when presented with scary stimuli.

Still, its funny, because I perceive most of the conservative agenda as fear-driven; we need a huge army and a bellicose policy, or the furriners will get us, we need the death penalty and tough-on-crime policies and guns in our houses, or the criminals will come and get us, we need moral legislation or our children, despite our moral conservative upbringing we give them, will be humping in the streets and having half-black babies. If the gays get married, something bad will happen to our marriages, we don't know what it is, but we need laws called "the defense of marriage act" because its under attack and we need protection from the gays. The mexican hordes are taking over, we need protection from them, the sky is falling, everything is wrong and bad, help me, I'm scared.

David G
09-23-2008, 09:20 PM
Nothing wrong with statistics per se. When I studied econometric modeling I was astounded at how sophisticated statistical modeling has become. It's a very powerful tool. A tool that - as Twain notes - can be twisted at will and at a couple of places in the process.

pipefitter
09-23-2008, 09:43 PM
Come on, the study is funny, it proves not much, except that people who self-identify as strong conservatives blink and sweat more when presented with scary stimuli.

Still, its funny, because I perceive most of the conservative agenda as fear-driven; we need a huge army and a bellicose policy, or the furriners will get us, we need the death penalty and tough-on-crime policies and guns in our houses, or the criminals will come and get us, we need moral legislation or our children, despite our moral conservative upbringing we give them, will be humping in the streets and having half-black babies. If the gays get married, something bad will happen to our marriages, we don't know what it is, but we need laws called "the defense of marriage act" because its under attack and we need protection from the gays. The mexican hordes are taking over, we need protection from them, the sky is falling, everything is wrong and bad, help me, I'm scared.

I think another misconception is mistaking fear for audible and outright concern. There is no fear of the Mexicans taking over many blue collar jobs, that's a reality. I doubt you would know anything about that though. I've had to physically fight them from stealing my work that I had already started. Did you know that one fearless and pissed off white guy can take on about 3 Mexicans? I think that's another misconception. Mistaking anger for fear.

Bob Smalser
09-23-2008, 10:25 PM
Come on, the study is funny....

Perhaps to you, Pat.

But the political scientists (cough) who conducted it are as serious as a heart attack.




ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily

Political Attitudes Are Predicted By Physiological Traits, Research Finds

ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2008) — Is America's red-blue divide based on voters' physiology? A new paper in the journal Science, titled "Political Attitudes Are Predicted by Physiological Traits," explores the link.

Rice University's John Alford, associate professor of political science, co-authored the paper in the Sept. 19 issue of Science.

Alford and his colleagues studied a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs. Those individuals with "measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War," the authors wrote.

Participants were chosen randomly over the phone in Lincoln, Neb. Those expressing strong political views -- regardless of their content -- were asked to fill out a questionnaire on their political beliefs, personality traits and demographic characteristics.

In a later session, they were attached to physiological measuring equipment and shown three threatening images (a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face and an open wound with maggots in it) interspersed among a sequence of 33 images. Similarly, participants also viewed three nonthreatening images (a bunny, a bowl of fruit and a happy child) placed within a series of other images. A second test used auditory stimuli to measure involuntary responses to a startling noise.

The researchers noted a correlation between those who reacted strongly to the stimuli and those who expressed support for "socially protective policies," which tend to be held by people "particularly concerned with protecting the interests of the participants' group, defined as the United States in mid-2007, from threats." These positions include support for military spending, warrantless searches, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and Biblical truth, and opposition to pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.

The paper concluded, "Political attitudes vary with physiological traits linked to divergent manners of experiencing and processing environmental threats." This may help to explain "both the lack of malleability in the beliefs of individuals with strong political convictions and the associated ubiquity of political conflict," the authors said.

Alford's co-authors were Douglas R. Oxley, Kevin B. Smith, Jennifer L. Miller, John R. Hibbing and Mario Scalora, of the University of Nebraska; Matthew V. Hibbing, of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; and Peter K. Hatemi, of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics.

Adapted from materials provided by Rice University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

PatCox
09-23-2008, 10:47 PM
Help, the terrorists are gonna get me! There were 19 of them, and they had boxcutters, we're in so much danger, repeal habeous corpus, make us take off our shoes at the airport, tap our phones, I'm so scared of the swarthy guys with boxcutters.

Pathetic cowards. Sheep, scared by lies of WMDs and nuclear weapons, all lies, the only WMDs unleashed on america were sent by an american DOD employee, the anthrax.

Sheep. Scared sheep. Cowering whenever the corrupt Bushies wave some lie and tell you "we have to invade Iraq or you're all gonna die, we have to invade Iran or you're all gonna die, we have to tap your phone or you're all gonna die.

Cowardly sheep, kissing the hand of the tyrant.

Bob Smalser
09-23-2008, 10:49 PM
Atta boy.

Keep digging.

johnw
09-23-2008, 11:18 PM
You know, Bob, you've moved this thread up the list every time you've responded. Keep that in mind when you get trolled.

Does the fact that the people doing the study took it seriously mean that we have to?

Milo Christensen
09-24-2008, 04:07 AM
And Pat and I were having such a rational discussion about foaming at the mouth, raving, spittle, inane invective and other such mental attributes resulting from the fear that Obama might lose.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-24-2008, 05:04 AM
I am going to preface this long post by saying that I spent the day before yesterday lecturing to a group of people in US Naval Intelligence. I say that in order to demonstrate that I am by no means opposed to the US military, nor am I wholly ignorant of it. Now to the points I want to make:

Let us consider why the officer corps of the US armed services is inclined to be conservative and Republican, and is more inclined to be so today than it was fifty years ago.

There are surely two reasons.

One is that the emphasis on tradition and order which forms an important part of any military education causes those who embark on such a course of study to respect such values and to view innovation with caution. Anywhere in the world, a professional military is inclined to become increasingly conservative over time. This conservatism affects the prospects of innovators in the military and it affects the political posture of the military as a body.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. We are speaking of disciplined services.

The military career is one that is quite often followed in suceeding generations of families - this in itself makes people inclined to be conservative.

Nations which have a non-executive head of state generally make a point of formally directing the loyalty of their military towards the non-executive head of state, be he King or President. Where the head of state is also the head of the executive power, this opportunity is missed, and there is a somewhat greater potential for the military to see itself as more politically involved. A myriad examples bear this out.

The second reason can surely be found in another well known quotation, from a conservative, Republican, retired Army officer. I have added the emphasis:


"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

"In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded.

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific / technological elite.

"It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

or the U-tube version if you have broadband:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

US military expenditure seems to have amounted to perhaps 40% of the world total in 2006 (I have mentally adjusted the figures for China, which are understated for reasons that I can expand on, if wished)

http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html

Now, Eisenhower is making more than one point, there. He draws attention to the changed nature of the US military - a change that he saw himself. This change tended naturally to draw the politics of the officer corps towards the conservative, as the permanent establishment became much larger. This process has continued.

Next, he sets out the scope for the military industrial complex to acquire and use political power.

If we look at the scale and scope of the military industrial complex - taking together men and women in uniform, their dependants, employees in industry working on military related production, employees and owners of businesses which provide services to the military establishment (surely an even larger number than those involved in military manufacturing, and in closer contact with the military) and owners of, and workers in, businesses in towns and cities where there is a significant military presence, who are concerned to maintain a continuing military in their towns, we come to a fairly immense number of people with a vested interest in a large military and in high military expenditure. We might add to that list the security industry itself, of course.

Now, I think this comes into Ike's category of "unsought for" influence, but it is a huge influence. The voting behaviour of a great many people is affected by their personal economic prospects, and it surely seems clear to most of them that the Republican Party is more likely to continue a high level of military investment than is the Democratic Party.

Of course, there will always be numerous individual officers of other persuasions, but the majority will be on the Right, and the majority of the military industrial complex will be on the Right.

We should not be surprised by this.

The Bigfella
09-24-2008, 05:28 AM
I had some interesting chats on the subject with a few colonels when I had staff at four different army bases a couple of years ago. It turns out that most officers (in our armed forces at least) are ISTJs on the Myer-Briggs measure.

That'd be: Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

From wiki

People with Introversion preferences need time out to reflect in order to rebuild energy. The Introvert's flow is directed inward toward concepts and ideas and the Extravert's is directed outward towards people and objects. There are several contrasting characteristics between Extraverts and Introverts: Extraverts desire breadth and are action-oriented, while introverts seek depth and are thought-oriented.

Sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches that seem to come out of nowhere. They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data.

Those who prefer Thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules.

Myers and Briggs taught that types with a preference for Judging show the world their preferred Judging function (Thinking or Feeling). So TJ types tend to appear to the world as logical, and FJ types as empathetic. According to Myers, Judging types prefer to "have matters settled."

According to Myers-Briggs, ISTJs thrive on organization. They keep their lives and environments well-regulated. They bring painstaking attention to detail in their work and will not rest until satisfied with a job well done.
ISTJs are faithful, logical, organized, sensible, and earnest traditionalists. They earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Shutting out distractions, they take a practical, logical approach to their endeavors. Realistic and responsible, they work steadily toward their goals. They enjoy creating order in both their professional and personal lives.
Centered on their inside world, ISTJs are persons of thoughts and (sometimes) emotions. They prefer dealing with the present and factual, using various options to make decisions. They are also keen observers of life, well prepared for most eventualities, and have a good understanding of most situations. They believe in practical objectives and they value traditions and loyalty.

In both their professional and personal lives, individuals of this type are rather quiet and serious. ISTJs are extraordinarily persevering and dependable. The thought of dishonoring a contract would appall a person of this type. When they give their word, they give their honor. ISTJs can be counted on to conserve the resources of the institution they serve and bring to their work a practical point of view. They perform their duties without flourish or fanfare; therefore, the dedication they bring to their work can go unnoticed and unappreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISTJ

and so on.

Milo Christensen
09-24-2008, 05:49 AM
. . . Those individuals with "measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control . . .

The author's conclusion also indicated that these types of people are less likely to support public policies that emphasize protecting society.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-24-2008, 05:53 AM
The author's conclusion also indicated that these types of people are less likely to support public policies that emphasize protecting society.

Why would that be surprising, Milo?

Tom Hunter
09-24-2008, 05:55 AM
I think the study has methodology problems. Sample size is awfully small, they could easily have selection bias, and it's not clear that the respondents know what a warrentless search is.

Those are just a few examples. Did the people who saw bunnies dislike the Patriot act?

These guys seem to have spent some money to prove that people who are afraid of giant spiders want a strong military. Can you blame them?

These people aren't scared, but they should be:
http://freakytrigger.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/2102998558_3659431774.jpg

Quick, someone call an airstrike

ishmael
09-24-2008, 06:04 AM
Andrew,

An interesting book I only got about halfway through when I was up to Michigan is "About Face" by David Hackett. Bob may disagree and probably knows him personally, but here's a guy who all his mature life wanted nothing but to be a soldier. He enlisted shortly after WWII at the age of fifteen and served in the occupation of Italy, going on to serve in both Korea and Vietnam with great distinction. Not well book-educated, he never attended West Point for example, but obviously smart as a proverbial whip. He rose through the ranks to full Colonel. Again, Bob can comment more intelligently than I can about that row to hoe.

I haven't seen him on the toob for awhile, but at the start of the Iraq war he made quite a few appearances as the military expert dejour and as a critic of the war. Not a harsh critic, just opposed with experience that was difficult to refute.

I can't say about the relative conservatism of military officers. I imagine they form a spectrum of political thought and probably do tend toward the right. And Colonel Hackett probably isn't representative. But what a thoughtful man! Shy seeming, self-effacing, and apparently pretty damn good on the battlefield. The book is well written(somewhat ghost written) though I got ground down after 200 pages by the combat stuff. "You can't handle the truth!"

carioca1232001
09-24-2008, 06:20 AM
...Next, he sets out the scope for the military industrial complex to acquire and use political power.

If we look at the scale and scope of the military industrial complex ..... we come to a fairly immense number of people with a vested interest in a large military and in high military expenditure. We might add to that list the security industry itself, of course.

Now, I think this comes into Ike's category of "unsought for" influence, but it is a huge influence. The voting behaviour of a great many people is affected by their personal economic prospects, and it surely seems clear to most of them that the Republican Party is more likely to continue a high level of military investment than is the Democratic Party.

Of course, there will always be numerous individual officers of other persuasions, but the majority will be on the Right, and the majority of the military industrial complex will be on the Right.

We should not be surprised by this.

You´ve done a magnificent job !

Ike´s worst dreams seem to have come true.

Wonder if Colin Powell would be sympathetic to Ike´s fear of an all pervasive industrial-military complex ?

Milo Christensen
09-24-2008, 06:38 AM
Why would that be surprising, Milo?

Despite Pat's hysterical misinterpretations, one analysis of the results is that liberals don't react appropriately to situations designed to elicit the fight or flight physical response. There are extremely valid evolutionary reasons for an appropriate fight or flight response. Folks that don't respond appropriately can legitimately be designated as brain damaged.

The results, flawed as they may be, tend to support other research that liberals place an overemphasis on individual rights over the legitimate rights of society to defend itself from perceived threats to society as a whole.

I suppose, if I had designed the study (one of my specialties, incidentally) I would have first determined a "baseline" response and then taken a look at the variation in response from the baseline by extreme liberals or extreme conservatives. But it was an interesting small scale experiment worthy of refinement.

Bruce Taylor
09-24-2008, 06:54 AM
Despite Pat's hysterical misinterpretations

Geeze, you guys are jumpy. Pat's just teasing.

http://stuff.ubersite.com/1201816163487030370/1/1_.gif

Sue H.
09-24-2008, 07:06 AM
So are you saying that Barney Fife was a conservative? OH NO!!!!!!

Rigadog
09-24-2008, 07:16 AM
Fife was a hero, no matter red or blue.

Wayne Jeffers
09-24-2008, 07:48 AM
Were Eisenhower alive and active in politics today, he would be labeled a communist and would be the subject of the latest “Swiftboat” attack ads.

Actually, he was labeled a communist during his time as President, but only by the John Birch Society and other right-wing fringe elements. Serves him right for buying in to the New Deal consensus. :rolleyes:

Wayne

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-24-2008, 08:57 AM
Despite Pat's hysterical misinterpretations, one analysis of the results is that liberals don't react appropriately to situations designed to elicit the fight or flight physical response. There are extremely valid evolutionary reasons for an appropriate fight or flight response. Folks that don't respond appropriately can legitimately be designated as brain damaged.

The results, flawed as they may be, tend to support other research that liberals place an overemphasis on individual rights over the legitimate rights of society to defend itself from perceived threats to society as a whole.

I thought you were a libertarian? Or perhaps posing as one for amusement? Surely a libertarian would be even more "brain damaged"? ;)

Being serious, I am extremely wary of using arguments about "extremely valid evolutionary reasons" for behavioural traits in h. sapiens. We really know rather little about h. sapiens in the couple of million years or so before agriculture, and we should be cautious about inferring evolutionary benefits of behavioural traits without an opportunity to study the ethology of the species in question.

Having said which, it is emphatically arguable that the reverse is the case - that an over-active "fight or flight response" - an adrenalin- soaked body, so to speak - carries a significant disadvantage in civil society, both physiologically and socially.

Physiologically, individuals with such a response carry higher levels of stress in social contexts - broadly speaking, they succumb to a range of stress related ailments ranging from angina pectoris to "lead poisoning". Socially, they tend to react inappropriately and are much more likely to find themselves on the wrong side of the law. H. sapiens has not lived in settled urban society long enough for any evolutionary benefits arising from a slower fight or flight response to have developed, but that does not mean that, at the level of the individual, they are not there.

PatCox
09-24-2008, 09:05 AM
ACB, I was about to say about the same thing, except rudely; the fight or flight response is certainly necessary if you live in a cave and are preyed on by tigers, but in a civilized society, not so much.

Unfortunately, large portions of american society remain uncivilized, so people walk around armed, their defenses on a hair-trigger, always afraid.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-24-2008, 09:29 AM
This is topical here in Britain. We have a small, professional Army. Just a few days ago, the rather startling observation that one in eleven of our prison population are ex servicemen, or, to put that another way, ex servicemen are twice as likely as the average British subject to be in prison, hit our media. The number of ex servicemen in Britain is around 5.5 million but two fifths of those are people who served during conscription, who are without exception over sixty, so, if we correct for that, the figure is correspondingly higher. Usually for offences involving violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7589953.stm

ishmael
09-24-2008, 09:33 AM
Oh golly, Darwin is a bit of a love, isn't he?

I went through pretty careful training, came to enjoy how clean evolutionary theory seems with a minor passion. Like Walt Whitman, a hero, I came to the end of it feeling a bit empty, bereft. I think most do who pursue it.

As a favorite torch singer Peggy Lee once remarked in a lyric, "Is that all there is? 'Cause if that's all there is then let's keep dancing. Let's strike up the band and have a ball!"

This conflict between the rational and the dance is the conflict today.

cats..paw
09-24-2008, 10:19 AM
Thank you once again, Andrew C-B, for raising the bar.

Instructive and provocative.

:D

johnw
09-24-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm unsure that this study is valid because of its size, but if we assume it is, does that make the characteristics shown by conservative a character defect? To use one of the favorite tropes of conservatism, I bet Neville Chamberain didn't have a hightened fight-or-flight reflex. But I do find it fascinating that conservatives hate studies like this. Why is this?