The problem, Djiezes, you have with any of this research is that they're trying to 'bottle' people, which we all know are totally different, regardless of their political views. We also know that even though people don't change, for the most part, they certainly have known to change political affiliations, another point against this kind of research. How do you explain in research a person calling a conservative talk show host and telling him that for years he's been a staunch liberal, but after listening to the show he completely changed his views... was the person liberal initially? he claims so... can someone really changed their mind that much that quickly? absolutely, if you point t...

The problem, Djiezes, you have with any of this research is that they're trying to 'bottle' people, which we all know are totally different, regardless of their political views. We also know that even though people don't change, for the most part, they certainly have known to change political affiliations, another point against this kind of research. How do you explain in research a person calling a conservative talk show host and telling him that for years he's been a staunch liberal, but after listening to the show he completely changed his views... was the person liberal initially? he claims so... can someone really changed their mind that much that quickly? absolutely, if you point to me something and show me that I'm wrong - I'll change my mind in a heartbeat on that subject. So, this research, as scientific as it sounds, utilizing your categories or any others is meaningless in the end.

I was trying to give an incentive to stay on the topic before this developed into another you-rightwinger-you-leftie-you-all-suck thread.

The first thing that came into my mind reading the title of the clip was the Adorno's theory of the authoritarian personality , the F-scale, etc (which also came from Berkeley btw); which is, imho, a quite interesting - but dated - work when it comes to tying psychological/personality factors to a political spectrum.

Anyway, it's not clear what the underlying basis of this study is, since it's ...

I was trying to give an incentive to stay on the topic before this developed into another you-rightwinger-you-leftie-you-all-suck thread.

The first thing that came into my mind reading the title of the clip was the Adorno's theory of the authoritarian personality , the F-scale, etc (which also came from Berkeley btw); which is, imho, a quite interesting - but dated - work when it comes to tying psychological/personality factors to a political spectrum.

Anyway, it's not clear what the underlying basis of this study is, since it's only a newsflash. But such studies - especially some more recent than Adorno's - grab my attention.
I wouldn't say this kind of research is meaningless.

The 'bottling' or labelling of people on the political spectrum in such studies is unavoidable. It's natural that the subject being studied has some criticisms when his personality / psychology is being analyzed.

Shoot, I posted a reply and it went into oblivion (eric, help!)

I'll try to rephrase a historic response (just kidding).

I read some of what Adomo was saying and to say that it's interesting would be a major understatement, certainly fascinating reading.

But it seems to me for any research to be credible a few things must be in play: a) it must be from a credible, completely non-biased source; b) it must be done on a very large scale (the bigger - the better); c) it must be done with complete and detailed understanding of how human brain works. Considering the source of the stated research in the clip - none of the above apply, which is why I called it 'meaningless'.

Please don't get me...

Shoot, I posted a reply and it went into oblivion (eric, help!)

I'll try to rephrase a historic response (just kidding).

I read some of what Adomo was saying and to say that it's interesting would be a major understatement, certainly fascinating reading.

But it seems to me for any research to be credible a few things must be in play: a) it must be from a credible, completely non-biased source; b) it must be done on a very large scale (the bigger - the better); c) it must be done with complete and detailed understanding of how human brain works. Considering the source of the stated research in the clip - none of the above apply, which is why I called it 'meaningless'.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not for a second trying to say that research of people like Adomo is useless, I think it does have its place and certainly should be looked at and considered (and I don't think it's that dated... after all we still quote Plato these days). But the lack of real understanding of the function of the brain and details of human behavior based on such function - that's what makes it practically impossible to have any significant meaning, at least currently.

We know that there are many, many factors that shape our behavior, starting with the upbringing, school, peer pressure, etc. etc. Tony Robbins, in one of his books, mentions a story of 2 brothers, growing up in the same environment, same family, school etc. One turns out a drunk and lands in jail numerous times, the other becomes a doctor with a nice family. How can this be? Both brothers were asked and they had the same answer - their life is direct outcome of what they endured from their father, except one wound up repeating history and the other used it as an example of what NOT to do. Then you have people being one way and then doing a 180 almost on a dime. That's why I don't think conclusivity of this kind of research is relevant.

Anyway, I definitely plan to read more of Adomo's findings - thanks!!!

Interesting article. My take on it is that it owes a lot to the Frankfurt School (e.g. Adorno) and others who tried to create a psychology of authoritarianism post-WWII (like Gunnar Myrdal). From the way it is described here, the study really lacks historical perspective -- you just can't lump Reagan and the mid-20th-century fascists into the same category without explanation (to be fair, the researchers probably don't put things this simple-mindedly, but in a press release like this one you can't get too nuanced). Along the same lines, it seems like "conservative" is really the wrong word. It's too American and too modern. They are really describing a personality style that tends to ...

Interesting article. My take on it is that it owes a lot to the Frankfurt School (e.g. Adorno) and others who tried to create a psychology of authoritarianism post-WWII (like Gunnar Myrdal). From the way it is described here, the study really lacks historical perspective -- you just can't lump Reagan and the mid-20th-century fascists into the same category without explanation (to be fair, the researchers probably don't put things this simple-mindedly, but in a press release like this one you can't get too nuanced). Along the same lines, it seems like "conservative" is really the wrong word. It's too American and too modern. They are really describing a personality style that tends to translate into a particular set of political attitudes, but I don't see why it would apply to authoritarians on the Right any more than authoritarians on the Left.

@thecatwhisperer
There you go with those teeth again... Anyway, nothing wrong with being opinionated, as many here are, but common sense has to prevail the political viewpoint, in my book.

As for factual reporting - that's certainly the hope, otherwise what's the point. That's precisely why I'm so down on (last reference in this thread, I promise) AJ and even NYT, because time and again it's opinion being presented as news and that's not what their job is suppose to be. Opinions should be limited to OPEDs, not stories reported. I want to decide what's what, all I want is the information and not some character divulging governmental anti-terrorist spying activity to the whole world, j...

@thecatwhisperer
There you go with those teeth again... Anyway, nothing wrong with being opinionated, as many here are, but common sense has to prevail the political viewpoint, in my book.

As for factual reporting - that's certainly the hope, otherwise what's the point. That's precisely why I'm so down on (last reference in this thread, I promise) AJ and even NYT, because time and again it's opinion being presented as news and that's not what their job is suppose to be. Opinions should be limited to OPEDs, not stories reported. I want to decide what's what, all I want is the information and not some character divulging governmental anti-terrorist spying activity to the whole world, just to stick it to Bush, while actually sticking it to the US in the process. That's total BS in my book.

As for your comment about the US President being truthful - ever since hearing "I didn't have a relationship with that woman" line - that obviously has to go out the window. I have to have backup ever since. Perhaps there's some sort of an explanation in his book "My Lie" but I haven't read it (prefer Jeffery Deaver - it's also fiction, but at least it's very interesting).

And hey, you don't owe me an explanation about what you read and why... like you said, a free country, read whatever you want... even karl marx's Manifesto... just don't tell me to alter my life according to that.