The LA Times (natch) ran an article on some scientific experiments that showed a difference in how liberals and conservatives think. The article summarized that liberals "tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives", and that, "Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences."
If that's the way they put it, then I think the science is correct - liberals are better able to tolerate ambiguity and conflict:
Well, like, I know that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro and the Kims from North Korea shot, tortured, starved, and worked millions of people to death, but they meant well. They were just trying to make a better life for their people.
How's that for ambiguity? Whereas a "structured and persistent" conservative would say, "Those guys were evil, and I hope they burn in everlasting hell. End of story."
The article concluded by saying, "Based on the results... liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas."
Yeah, like Communism, socialism, eugenics, new age mysticism, human-caused global warming....
Good Day to You, Sir
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson
2 comments:
This post is being considered for The Sacramento Bee's roundup of regional blogs, which appears Sunday in Forum.
The Blog Watch column is limited to about 800 words. Blog posts included in the column are often trimmed to fit. The blog's main address will appear in The Bee, and the online copy of the article will contain links to the actual blog post.
If you have questions (or you DON'T want your blog post considered for inclusion in the newspaper column), contact me at greed@sacbee.com
Gary Reed
Forum Editor
Good points, all.
Post a Comment