Psychology 400: Underlying Conservative Motivations

[orleans]

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

*Fear and aggression
*Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
*Uncertainty avoidance
*Need for cognitive closure
*Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

"The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

"The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

"Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

"Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

read more on:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050321113907509
and know thine enemy!

[DELUSIONAL]

1. Right wing religious -- evangelicals also

*Fear and aggression
*Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
*Uncertainty avoidance
*Need for cognitive closure
*Terror management

All of these define the religious right wing -- of several religions.

There is also evidence of a genetic component of conservatives and liberals.

Bush also lacks empathy.

There's a lot of psy research on the Authoritarian Personality --

[NMMNG]

2. Good article

Sums up the RR very succinctly.

President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right."


Yeah, just like "The Bible is inerrant because it says it is inerrant". :eyes:

[checks-n-balances]

5. Agreed. Wanna nominate it with me for Greatest?

Meantime, I'm keeping a good thread kicked!

[NMMNG]

8. Done! n/t

[wli]

3. "terror management" is propaganda

Lending credence to this tripe is unwittingly advancing the propaganda. Mass hysteria is far more commonly induced than naturally occurring, particularly when it is not in response to a direct physical threat (volcanoes, earthquakes, bombs etc. striking directly in the vicinity of the affected causing demonstrable endangerment of those affected).

By and large people don't really panic that often when threatened by criminal violence, and when they do, it's only when directly threatened. The inducement of widespread fear in response to isolated incidents in order to claim to be quelling said fear is a propaganda technique, not a fundamental aspect of conservatism.

The actual aspect of conservatism is uncertainty avoidance as it relates to security, defense, etc. There is no such thing as "terror management" any more than there is such a thing as "love management". "Fear and aggression" may likewise be folded into uncertainty avoidance. Still, it may be useful to keep something indicative of both these sub-aspects in a sub-heading under "uncertainty avoidance," in particular avoiding the use of the nebulous "terror" and "fear" monikers. The consequences may be difficult enough to infer that mere "uncertainty avoidance" may fail to convey the notion.

I would in particular suggest the following. One should use "retaliatory deterrence" instead of "fear and aggression" and "countermeasures against diffuse threats" with a special mention of "terrorism" in its explanation instead of "terror management." In this case "retaliatory deterrence" strengthens the force of the argument relative to "fear and aggression," but "countermeasures against diffuse threats" is unfortunately weaker for lack of a better choice of words. In any case, the emotional description is poor on account of the ultimate unobservability of emotion.

The problem with misrepresenting conservatism (even unintentionally) is that when conservatism or liberalism are endorsed in propaganda the misrepresentation obscures the underlying motive of the propaganda. The threat posed by excessive conservatism (i.e. reactionary) movement can't be counteracted without a proper understanding of its basis. Smacking down "terror" here and "aggression" there is chasing a phantom. In fact, the whole liberal vs. conservative dichotomy must be completely deconstructed and furthermore defied to progress. Perhaps "scientific ideology" utilizing psychological studies such as this is the best method of accomplishing such.

Now the question remains, "What are the underlying psychological motivations of liberalism?" Surely, our honorable adversaries in debate (as well as the dishonorable ones) will ask the same, and liberals will continue to fall prey to every false flag operation conducted until they can answer that question.

[artemisia1]

4. There definitely is a right wing mindset.

However, I prefer "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer for an explanation. The RR is a political cult, IMHO, not unlike the isms that were the scourge of the last century.

[Paula Sims]

6. The RW needs an enemy to survive

Funny how they talk about "Christian" morals and ethics but don't practice it. First the scare was "Communism" and now "Terror". Can't they find a REAL enemy to fight instead of an ideology?

The truth is, meanies and bullies thrive on the fear of others. They need to generate a boogieman and make it the target. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves, but let's pick a REAL threat instead of making one up. The interesting part is that at some point, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that gets out of hand.

The other interesting part is that all suppression begins with an ideological enemy and the first thing that is attacked are the intellectuals that dare to think, question, and reason.

Paula

[slay]

7. Excellent point

These cowardly bastards do indeed need an enemy to survive. They are too weak to stand on their own. Whether it's communists, liberals, russians, or terrorists - it makes no difference to them. It's a way for them to thump their chest and act superior. It also allows them to focus attention away from themselves and onto some "enemy" - leaving them free to rape the national treasury all in the name of "homeland security". They succeed in doing this by pumping up their base of extreme patriots and religious zealots. The whole display is sickening. People are going to have to wise up and stop trusting these assholes. I'm hoping the Dems quit playing nice and start calling out the right wing for being criminals, liars, thieves, and manipulators who have betrayed not only the American people, but humanity as well.