Science explores conservatism and faith

[ElvisL1ves]

A couple of short items from the Jan 09 Scientific American:

Seeing on Faith
Religion might literally influence how you view the world. Scientists in the Netherlands compared Dutch Calvinists with Dutch atheists, looking for any effects potentially imposed on thinking by the neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty, which emphasizes that each sector of society has its own responsibilities and authorities. The researchers hypothesize that Calvinists might therefore not be as good as atheists at seeing the big picture. Participants were shown images of large rectangles or squares that each consisted of smaller rectangles or squares. In some tests, volunteers had to quickly identify the shapes of the smaller parts; in others, the larger wholes. The Calvinists scored slightly but significantly lower than atheists did in correctly identifying whole images. The investigators plan to study other religions for similar influences. See more in the November 12 PLoS ONE. - Charles Q. Choi

Politics of Blank Looks
How we react to faces could be linked to our political affiliations. Psychologist Jacob M. Vigil of the University of North Florida had 740 college students look at 12 photographs of faces digitally blurred to not display any clear emotion. The volunteers were then asked if these faces expressed sadness, joy, disgust, surprise, fear, or anger. The students who identified themselves as Republicans were more likely than those who identified themselves as Democrats to interpret these vague faces as mroe threatening, as measured by anger or disgust, and less submissive, as conveyed by fear or surprise. These findings, which appeared online October 21 in Nature Proceedings, are consistent with research linking conservative political views on military spending and capital punishment with heightened reactions to disturbing images and sounds. Vigil conjectures that the political ideologies we advocate could be linked with the way that we respond to ambiguous details - * Charles Q. Choi*

Correlation does not imply cauality and all that, sure, but still …

[ITR_champion]

…but still what?

Ask enough questions and you’ll eventually find a correlation. So what? If someone found that people who hate puppies are more likely to paint their walls white, would that mean anything?

(Also, where did they find any Calvinists?)

[Captain_Amazing]

@ITR_champion

(Also, where did they find any Calvinists?)

Most Christians in the Netherlands are Calvinist.

[DanBlather]

@ITR_champion

(Also, where did they find any Calvinists?)

Here.

[Napier]

>Ask enough questions and you’ll eventually find a correlation. So what? If someone found that people who hate puppies are more likely to paint their walls white, would that mean anything?
There are at least two applications of this correlation. For one thing, political scientists could better understand how nations can convince themselves to do things like the US war in Iraq. Since doing such things is of enormous consequence, it would be useful to know all the reasons we do them. For another thing, people in the business of creating national trends and fears and attitudes would no doubt try to use such understanding to improve their manipulation skills.

[John_Mace]

I’m not sure what geometric shapes have to do with political beliefs (ie, the first study), but the second study doesn’t surprise me much. “Conservatives” tend to be more fearful (or feel more anxiety) about the unknown whereas “liberals” are more open. Isn’t that one key definition of those two ideological stances? And I only put those in quotes because those terms can mean different things to different people, but for the sake of simplicity lets assume Conservative = Republican and Liberal = Democrat.

[BrightNShiny]

@John_Mace

I Isn’t that one key definition of those two ideological stances?

Is it? Because the past eight years have seen the government undertake activity after activity (such as the invasion of Iraq) which is inherently fraught with unknowns. And the people who supported these actions are usually characterized as conservative (either Republican or conservative Democrat).

[John_Mace]

@BrightNShiny

Is it? Because the past eight years have seen the government undertake activity after activity (such as the invasion of Iraq) which is inherently fraught with unknowns. And the people who supported these actions are usually characterized as conservative (either Republican or conservative Democrat).

Yes and know. I think in their own minds, they were dabbling in “knowns”. They “know” how to use the military to attack problems. Or at least they think the do. We kicked SH’s ass in the last war, so why can’t we do it again?

[Voyager]

@BrightNShiny

Is it? Because the past eight years have seen the government undertake activity after activity (such as the invasion of Iraq) which is inherently fraught with unknowns. And the people who supported these actions are usually characterized as conservative (either Republican or conservative Democrat).

But they acted as if the invasion was not fraught with unknowns - thus the lack of contingency plans.

As to why a correlation is interesting: clearly pure logic and reasoning does not lead to any particular political position, since there are smart people on both sides of divide. (Insert snide comment here.) The difference appears to be in the weights assigned to various aspect of the problem, such as how much government should help the disadvantaged. That’s not something that can be determined logically, and it makes perfect sense for it to be correlated with other aspects of the personality.

[ITR_champion]

@Captain_Amazing

Most Christians in the Netherlands are Calvinist.

The major churches in several countries were originally Calvinist, and nominally they are still the same churches. What I’m wondering is where they found people who actually believe Calvinist doctrine? If I entered my local Presbyterian church, I would not expect to find anybody who believes it, and probably not anybody who even knows all of it.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@ITR_champion

The major churches in several countries were originally Calvinist, and nominally they are still the same churches. What I’m wondering is where they found people who actually believe Calvinist doctrine? If I entered my local Presbyterian church, I would not expect to find anybody who believes it, and probably not anybody who even knows all of it.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

TULIP, like the Dutch tulip craze.

Sorry, IANACalvinist (and I find the idea quite repulsive), but that is burned into my brain from World History class and from learning about the background to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in English.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Liberal]

@ElvisL1ves

A couple of short items from the Jan 09 Scientific American:

Correlation does not imply cauality and all that, sure, but still …

Where’s the science part?

[lekatt]

@ITR_champion

…but still what?

Ask enough questions and you’ll eventually find a correlation. So what? If someone found that people who hate puppies are more likely to paint their walls white, would that mean anything?

(Also, where did they find any Calvinists?)

Boy do I agree. Some of the questions explored by scientists have no significance at all that I can see. Did anyone ask if the atheists had more math training than the Calvanists? People and groups of people are different in their abilities and beliefs. So?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Liberal

Where’s the science part?

Throughout. You do know what “science” is, I hope.

lekatt, there are a number of standard tests for existence and statistical significance of correlations, none of which says jack about causality. There can be an insufficient effort to control for other variables, sure.

voyager has a finger on it - you don’t want the biggest decisions made by people whom you have reason to believe are less adept at seeing the big picture or understanding human motivations, do you?