DescentBB

I've had my suspicions that this was true about conservatives. Here kitty, kitty, kitty......

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jun ... g.doc.html

Abstract Permalink (redirects to informaworld.com):

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930802110007

PDF of author's galley proof:

http://files.yoelinbar.net/disgust_conservatism.pdf

Interesting. I used to read papers like this in grad school, though they were usually a lot better than this one.

Consider that females tend to be less conservative than males, and also more easily disgusted. They scaled down female disgust levels in order to be equal to male disgust levels, and then did their statistics. This could easily introduce error (example: 2 conservative males @ 3.0, 1 female @4.0; 2 liberal females @4.0, 1 male @ 2.0. The two sides have overall equal disgust, but scaling the females down to 2.67 makes conservatives appear far more easily disgusted.) A better approach would have been to do separate analysis for males and females. (I'd love to see their raw data and run my own analysis.)

Also, be careful to sort out the \"science\" from the \"speculation\" when you read the paper. Statements that there was a correlation between specific types of disgust and specific attitudes are science (though perhaps not as statistically valid as the authors believe.) Statements that \"it does seem unlikely that political attitudes would shift a person’s general emotional dispositions\" (from the final paragraph of the main text of the pdf) are speculative. I dare say that particular speculation is actually wrong; one's political attitudes often influence their choice of activities and associates, and therefore what they become comfortable with. A person who changes a lot of diapers is less likely to be disgusted by poop, while a person who hangs out with promiscuous types is less likely to be disgusted by promiscuity.

Also, beware of emotionally loaded phraseology. \"Conservatives are more easily disgusted\" could be rewritten as \"Liberals are less concerned with health and hygiene\".

tunnelcat wrote:I've had my suspicions that this was true about conservatives...

You have too much time on your hands if you invested any contemplating that.

Lothar wrote:Consider that females tend to be less conservative than males, and also more easily disgusted.

I must be outside their research parameters or just a gross liberal (although I'm not that liberal, just weird). Very little disgusts or grosses me out.

Lothar wrote:"Conservatives are more easily disgusted" could be rewritten as "Liberals are less concerned with health and hygiene".

They are, aren't they? Think about all those dirty hippi-type liberals in their socialist communes!

Will Robinson wrote:You have too much time on your hands if you invested any contemplating that.

Naw, just happened to get a heads up about it from a gay friend of mine. Much more personal to her.

A lot of the study was focusing on homophobia, which happens to be a 'disgust reaction' in humans, especially males, and if this 'disgust factor' had a relationship to conservative or liberal values. And yes Lothar, it doesn't translate very well to women. Women seem to get grossed out by everything! It does appear though that if a male has a disgust reaction to homosexuality, there is a high probability that he leans toward conservative values. The rest of the 'gross out factors' we think about don't seem to translate quite as well beyond that other than a 'statistical correlation'.

Very nice find, tunnelcat. I really like these studies. A while ago, I ran across a study investigating automatic startle responses in conservatives and liberals. They found that conservatives have stronger physiological responses to threat stimuli.

A pdf is here:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/st ... /oxley.pdf
See here for critical discussion:
http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2008/09 ... erals.html

Again, if you believe the result, does it mean that conservatives have abnormal responses to threat? You could just as easily argue that typical responses to threat are missing in liberals (as a variation of Lothar's point above).

tunnelcat wrote:

Lothar wrote:Consider that females tend to be less conservative than males, and also more easily disgusted.

I must be outside their research parameters or just a gross liberal (although I'm not that liberal, just weird). Very little disgusts or grosses me out.

Me too. Particularly the questions in Appendix 2. I mean, "someone left some poop in the toilet" is supposed to be a good gross-out question? Haven't these people ever changed a diaper before?

Also, recall my criticism that they intentionally changed the data for females to average out to the same as males. Their total sample size was 84 people -- 69 females and only 15 males! I think that scaling might be significant.

A lot of the study was focusing on homophobia.... It does appear though that if a male has a disgust reaction to homosexuality, there is a high probability that he leans toward conservative values

IIRC, the original study only showed a significant connection on 3 issues: gay marriage, abortion, and taxes. Having a disgust reaction to homosexuality pretty obviously correlates to opposition to gay marriage, and I suspect considering sex to be a reproductive act ties into that, which explains the abortion correlation. So the only really interesting result is that "lower taxes" correlates strongly with disgust reaction.

I'd be really curious to see how various people on the DBB answer their questions.

Lothar wrote:So the only really interesting result is that "lower taxes" correlates strongly with disgust reaction.

I'd be really curious to see how various people on the DBB answer their questions.

I think it meant the 'taxes' caused a conservative disgust reaction, so conservatives always strive to 'lower taxes'. The wording is kind of confusing I think. I'll reread it when I get on the other computer. However, we all know that liberals usually LIKE taxation because it funds social programs.

tunnelcat wrote:

Lothar wrote:So the only really interesting result is that "lower taxes" correlates strongly with disgust reaction.

I'd be really curious to see how various people on the DBB answer their questions.

I think it meant the 'taxes' caused a conservative disgust reaction

Nope.

People with stronger disgust reactions (to the disgust questions in the appendix) wanted less taxes.

Lothar wrote:People with stronger disgust reactions (to the disgust questions in the appendix) wanted less taxes.

Hmmmmmmm, isn't that essentially saying the same thing? If you want less of some 'thing', it must indicate that you don't particularly like that 'thing', so you want less of it around. What's the connection or logic between wanting lower taxes and disgust?

tunnelcat wrote:

Lothar wrote:People with stronger disgust reactions (to the disgust questions in the appendix) wanted less taxes.

Hmmmmmmm, isn't that essentially saying the same thing?

No.

What you're saying is "disgusted by taxes = want less taxes". That would be logical, but also not really worthy of discussion.

What the study actually says is "disgusted by poo, monkey meat, or barf = want less taxes". That's strange and surprising. There weren't any questions about whether taxes were disgusting.

What I find “disgusting” is…politically motivated science.

There are so many problems with those “studies” I wouldn’t know where to begin.

I tend to dismiss that type of thing as an attempt to dress propaganda with something that only looks like lab coat. However that does not necessarily mean it's incorrect. I try to keep an open mind whether I agree with the premise or not. Regardless of whether it is right, wrong or in between it is good to know what the other person is thinking and how they may have come to hold that opinion.

Lothar wrote:What the study actually says is "disgusted by poo, monkey meat, or barf = want less taxes". That's strange and surprising. There weren't any questions about whether taxes were disgusting.

I guess that it just points out a strange connection that needs to be looked at separately. I guess it does make some logical sense if you look at the way conservatives think. They desire a society with no government restrictions in their lives, a 'winner take all' or 'dog eat dog' world view, the promotion of an unregulated free market, having absolute, unrestricted freedoms and the ability for unrestricted individual (or corporate) wealth growth. Taxes fall 'outside' that world view.

Liberals believe that risks and benefits should be spread more evenly among society so that more fairness in wealth and employment opportunities can be attained for more members of that society, but at the expense of total freedoms, wealth growth, productivity and having more government involvement in everyday life. Taxes fall 'inside' that world view. I guess that doesn't mean that either mentality 'likes or dislikes' taxes. They're just ends to their respective means, but it doesn't explain the gross-out factor difference between the two types.

Haven't seen you around for awhile Tankie2.

tunnelcat wrote: Haven't seen you around for awhile Tankie2.

I always try to come home for the Holidays.

TunnelCat wrote:if you look at the way conservatives think. They desire a society with no government restrictions in their lives, a 'winner take all' or 'dog eat dog' world view, the promotion of an unregulated free market, having absolute, unrestricted freedoms and the ability for unrestricted individual (or corporate) wealth growth. Taxes fall 'outside' that world view.

I think you've managed to sum up an existing pathology fairly, TC, but you're wrong in calling that conservatism (or tacking that onto everyone who calls themself a conservative). I know where you get the idea, and I've heard/read such feelings from people who think they're conservative, but the truth is they're ignorant--they cling to a fragment of a philosophy like it were the whole, they're ignorant of taxation and government, and they aren't able to reason it through.

Our country was founded on very conservative principles, and that included taxation. That said, I would strongly argue that the citizens of this country are overtaxed, and a degree of that is certainly due to government overstepping its mandate and being larger than the constitutional interests of the citizens call for, as well as being improperly managed by people who probably wouldn't survive in a competitive economic environment (wasteful and inefficient).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Our country was founded on very conservative principles, and that included taxation.

Uhm? What exactly do you mean by taxation? There was no income tax until after the 16th amendment.

I was referring to taxation that was actually implemented during the period I was indicating. I'm not exactly a student of history, but I know that taxes were 'levied', and that unless you expected our representatives to pay for governmental expenses out of their own pockets they were necessary.

TC said \"taxes\", plural. It's hard to have a discussion when you can't allow people the benefit of meaning what they write.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Our country was founded on very conservative principles, and that included taxation. That said, I would strongly argue that the citizens of this country are overtaxed, and a degree of that is certainly due to government overstepping its mandate and being larger than the constitutional interests of the citizens call for, as well as being improperly managed by people who probably wouldn't survive in a competitive economic environment (wasteful and inefficient).

The new U.S. government needed some form of revenue, they couldn't just operate without some form of funds, so guess what the first type of federal 'tax' was in 1789, tariffs. That doesn't sound like our forefathers were completely conservatively principled to me. They were smart enough to realize that a civilized nation needs a central government to be able to function as a unified whole. Otherwise you'd get a bunch of disorganized little fiefdoms and states that would be powerless against a more unified aggressor nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in ... an_history

Kilarin wrote:Uhm? What exactly do you mean by taxation? There was no income tax until after the 16th amendment.

Not quite true. The first 'income tax' was levied in 1860 and 61 to pay for the Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_i ... ted_States

Hmmm, war. I guess that's an "OK" conservative reason to levy taxes. Taxes are 'good' when they pay for war, but are 'bad' when they pay for the social welfare. 33% of the taxes taken in pay for our national defense, while 24% goes to Social Security.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5037701_taxes-toward.html

Tunnelcat wrote:The new U.S. government needed some form of revenue, they couldn't just operate without some form of funds, so guess what the first type of federal 'tax' was in 1789, tariffs. That doesn't sound like our forefathers were completely conservatively principled to me. They were smart enough to realize that a civilized nation needs a central government to be able to function as a unified whole. Otherwise you'd get a bunch of disorganized little fiefdoms and states that would be powerless against a more unified aggressor nation.

Basically you're talking about some of the same things that were written about in the Federalist Papers. But you need to go read the Federalist Papers, because you seem to think that the creation of a federal government was at all at odds with the existing individual state governments. The idea was not that the concept of a central government was better than many individual governments on the whole, but that there were certain reasons (I can't think of any that do not concern foreign relations) to have the individual states united under one entity.

I fail to see how that is unconservative.

Do you presume that the Federal government was a trend that began way back when and will come to fruition with the total centralization of all American government?

Tunnelcat wrote:Hmmm, war. I guess that's an "OK" conservative reason to levy taxes. Taxes are 'good' when they pay for war, but are 'bad' when they pay for the social welfare. 33% of the taxes taken in pay for our national defense, while 24% goes to Social Security.

International war is one of the most sound reasons to levy a national tax. Only a fool would scoff at the notion. Whether the war is, or is not in the interest of the country is another matter.

And this is not Violence (War) vs Well-Being (Social Welfare) as you so stupidly put it. What a naive way to present it! The difference is the difference between asking a people to pay for the defense of their country as a whole against foreign powers, and asking them to pay other people's way in life. One is in their interest, and the other is in no one's interest but the career politicians. Welfare has fairly well documented negative effects on the human condition, and it is equally well proven that the government is inept in its attempts to target needs and meet out assistance. ...WTF.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: International war is one of the most sound reasons to levy a national tax.

so.. what you're saying is when a war happens, it's a good idea to impose a new tax, because there's a war going on?

Kind of a sticky question. I don't think we should need to, I think such a precedent would warn of a mismanagement of funds, but if we did need it then yes.

well then if there was a mismanagement of funds, imposing a new tax is a HORRIBLE idea.

\"i spent all of my money. can I have some of yours?\"

\"take a hike, bozo\"

Sergeant Thorne wrote:International war is one of the most sound reasons to levy a national tax. Only a fool would scoff at the notion. Whether the war is, or is not in the interest of the country is another matter.

Yes, but how much or what percentage do we as a people of this nation need to cough up in order to feed the military/industrial complex that has taken over our national defense? We're no longer paying to fight just a war, but to feed a giant sucking monster that has no oversight or restrictions on cost and that even goes out LOOKING for wars to start so as to justify the money it spends or desires on fancy war hardware. They'd rather spend money on expensive killing machines than get and train more able men to fight wars anymore.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And this is not Violence (War) vs Well-Being (Social Welfare) as you so stupidly put it. What a naive way to present it! The difference is the difference between asking a people to pay for the defense of their country as a whole against foreign powers, and asking them to pay other people's way in life. One is in their interest, and the other is in no one's interest but the career politicians. Welfare has fairly well documented negative effects on the human condition, and it is equally well proven that the government is inept in its attempts to target needs and meet out assistance. ...WTF.

The government is only inept because the people running it don't give a damn about it's efficiency or purpose. That's the reason that government is screwed up, lack of determination to make it function for the people, not the politicians or corporations. I agree that welfare is just a crutch that serves no purpose to society, but support to our elders and poorer members of society are in the long term best interests of any society. Not everyone can work and retire rich in old age like all you free market prophets like to espouse.

So you'd rather spend tax dollars on things that are for killing other people than helping our own society members function better and healthier so that they could contribute more in return for the whole. Hmmmmmmm......

TunnelCat wrote:Not quite true. The first 'income tax' was levied in 1860 and 61 to pay for the Civil War.

True, thank you for the correction.

TunnelCat wrote:The government is only inept because the people running it don't give a damn about it's efficiency or purpose.

But this is an INHERENT problem with government. It's always someone elses money.

TunnelCat wrote:Yes, but how much or what percentage do we as a people of this nation need to cough up in order to feed the military/industrial complex that has taken over our national defense?

Two charts that I think are both very significant to this questions.

First, I agree that while war may be necessary at times, it always has a terrible impact on economy. An impact most people never fully realize. This chart on the rise and fall of the value of the dollar from 1800 to 2009 quite enlightening:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ ... rLarge.jpg

BUT, despite that, and even as swollen as the military budget is right now due to the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military budget is not our primary financial problem right now. It IS a problem, but we have other problems that are going to completely dwarf it:

This is a pie chart of the United States 2009 budget:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy200 ... egory2.png
<entire article here>

Note the massive size of the combined Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Baby Boomers are just retiring, and the numbers for those three programs are about to swell beyond belief.

Way back in 2007, David Walker, The nations Comptroller General at the time, said that the nation will soon be unable to meet the obligations it has promised to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. You could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn't go away.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 8226.shtml

And if you really want to get nervous, realize that we were headed for a complete financial disaster BEFORE we add NEW health care obligations with the health care bill.

It's not about compassion, its not even about military spending vs health care spending. It's about the fact that we have made financial obligations around social security and health care that we have no hope of meeting.

Kilarin wrote: But this is an INHERENT problem with government. It's always someone elses money.

and this is the reason why they have such an easy time justifiying a new tax. if the money were coming out of THEIR pockets (which they damn well make sure it's not), the whole thought process would be radically different.

Ferno wrote:and this is the reason why they have such an easy time justifiying a new tax. if the money were coming out of THEIR pockets (which they damn well make sure it's not), the whole thought process would be radically different.

Well, it DOES come out of their pockets, they've just rigged it so that they don't have to cough up as much all us common peon serfs. Most of the people that run the government have got it made in spades and know all the ins and outs of tax dodging (they do write the laws ) to benefit themselves and their cronies. That's why we'll never get government reform, the fix is in for the powerful and connected that run the government. Even the Republicans would never totally get rid of government, it's their gravy train too. That's the trouble with humans, they can't be altruistic and fair to one another. They seem have this need to take what they want, when they want and to hell with the other guy. Everyone takes advantage of everyone it seems.

Kilarin, you're right about the baby boom bulge. It's going to put a big crimp in, if not outright bankrupt, Social Security and Medicare in the near future. We're all getting older and that's not going to change. How do we as a nation deal with that fact? As a stopgap, we could raise the FICA above the paltry $106,000 upper limit it was in 2009. Or maybe force older people to work until they just drop dead. A lot of seniors are doing just that and taking away valuable jobs from younger workers at the same time (and not for wages, health care is far more valuable). Maybe we could just let die any unproductive seniors since there aren't enough younger workers to sustain the senior retirement and health care programs anymore. I haven't heard any good solutions to the problem, just the chant to get rid of or bankrupt the program, without any thought as to the consequences. People have forgotten that seniors literally died homeless and penniless in the streets before Social Security came around.

I think any nation that puts war spending above the needs of it's citizens is in big trouble. I find it crazy that people in the U.S. would not question their tax dollars being spent on war machines and killing others on foreign soil, but rant on and on when it goes to helping those on our own soil get good jobs, retirement and health care benefits. And all because they think that other people are all deadbeats that get sick and poor because they are lazy and don't work hard enough. We really need to look at our priorities right now, but I'm afraid our American independent, self-serving attitudes, a corrupt and inept government and a greedy corporate system are part of the problem. Americans haven't woken up to the fact that the American dream is dying, probably forever.