Kelly Bulkeley, a Berkeley dream researcher, has issued a report that suggests Republicans have nightmares 3 times as often as Democrats, and those nightmares are worse as well. Seems like a Great Debate topic, if a little late, eh what? If it’s true, why?
Seems to me that the kind of person who is fundamentally afraid of the world, and more likely to have nightmares, is also more likely to have a simplistic, fearful, conservative political bent as well. But someone with a more nuanced and complete understanding of the world and people will be more comfortable in it, and have less psychic tension to be resolved at night, as well as having broader and more liberal political tendencies. Or else they’re simply too ignorant of the world to be afraid of it; take your pick.
Yup, this looks like a highly scientific, unbiased Berkeley-generated piece of research from a guy quoted as saying “People on the left (are)…open to the possibility of going beyond the way things are now to how things could be made better”.
Coming soon from other Berkeley scientists - exciting new research demonstrating that Democrats are more intelligent than Republicans (a favorite SDMB theme), Snappier Dressers* and have better sex lives!
*I caught a toad in my garden last night that looked exactly like Jesse Helms, even to the point of riding a small motorized scooter and singing “Dixie”.
Not relevant to this thread, but something I thought you all should know.
I second Manhattan. What’s so nightmarish about dreams of less governmental interference in our lives, holding people accountable for their own actions, and a society with an expectation of moral behavior?
If I were a Republican living in Berkeley, I’d be having nightmares, too.
I must say that the linked article didn’t go very far in reassuring me of the objectivity of the researcher. Or the reporter, for that matter:
Agree with the survey’s results? Because, when called by a wire reporter for comment on some study about which party has worse nightmares, he opts to make a joke?
Clearly, this man is convinced of the veracity of the study, or he would immediately have attempted to refute it with the results of the extensive dream research that the RNC has been funding all these years.
Oh, darn it.
I was hoping this thread would convince me that I wasn’t the only one having those scary dreams where the Nazis take over, and I’m blowing up their convoys and rescuing my captured friends. Luckily, I always wake up just as they’ve finally hunted me down in the woods…
Trying not to put too much of a partisan spin on things…
Maybe the reason conservatives/Republicans have more nightmares is because – in their world-view – there are more things that can go wrong. E.g., in the ideal Republican world, we’d all be living lives out of Leave It To Beaver, with our slightly-weird-but-harmless minority friends safely out of sight. Almost any change in the social fabric is going to disrupt this pristine worldview; ergo, Republicans have to worry about every single change that may happen, which leads to more nightmares.
Democrats, on the other hand, are more tolerant of the world, and therefore have an easier time rolling with the punches. New neighbors from an exotic part of the world? Cool! Daughter Susan thinks she may be a lesbian? Hey, no problem with that. The new CEO is a woman? Great! Yeah, there are things that will give Democrats nightmares, but there aren’t as many “little things” that will cause additional anxiety.
Christ on a pogo stick, what the hell is going on around here?! I really hope you’re kidding, rjung. Do John Corrado or goboy/gobear, both Republicans, strike you as feeling this way? How about UncleBeer?
I keep misreading the title of this thread as “Parisian Nightmares.” I’m enormously disappointed to find this isn’t a review of Moulin Rouge.
I expected to be equally disappointed when I followed a Google link to the report author’s home page. However, he had some interesting things to say:
It appears to me that, while the article by UPI Science Correspondent Mike Martin was definitely a “fluff piece”, the research itself may not be the junk science it’s been portrayed as being, and definitely doesn’t seem to imply what many people who’ve posted here think it does.
pld:If there’s one thing the typical Democrat, at least on the SDMB, strikes me as not having, it’s a “nuanced and complete understanding of the world and the people in it.”
On behalf of myself, jshore, xenophon41, RTFirefly, wring, and the many other liberals here who do our best to discuss issues thoughtfully and with the proper Cecilian respect for facts, I’ll just say “Thanks, Phil.”
Kimstu, I don’t consider the five of you to be “typical SDMB Democrats.” If anything, I consider you atypical, at least in contrast to . . . well, I ain’t namin’ names, but I think everyone knows who I mean.
Frankly, if everyone here (including me) posted more like you, Great Debates might actually be great.