I’m not missing the point, and I’m not even fundamentally opposed to the idea that conservatives think differently from liberals in some respect. But I think this article embodies the sort of us-versus-them, my-opponents-are-liars rhetoric that it accuses conservatives of engaging in. It presumes that the opposition are not motivated by sincerely held and rigorously reasoned beliefs.
Certainly not all conservatives are so motivated–but then, neither are all liberals.
And yet, this liberal board doesn’t do that. There are plenty of conservative message boards that ban liberals as well. I’m sure there are some that don’t. But it’s definitely not something only liberals do.
I, also, think the linked article engages in the same kind of bullshit it’s decrying in the other side. Maybe left- and right-wingers think differently. The article doesn’t so much make the point as come across as just more partisan hackery.
But, that’s just it, it doesn’t; that’s the whole point Perlstein is getting at. He assumes conservatives are sincere*, and that their beliefs, if not rigorously reasoned, are definitely reasoned – in ways different from those to which liberals are accustomed, but still reasoned. I.e., if you have a conservative world-view to begin with, then, in response to gun violence, “more guns” makes more sense than “more gun control.” There’s bad guys out there, you can’t always (and a conservative shouldn’t) rely on the police to protect you and yours, so . . .
Liberals are always hoping they can “reason” conservatives into changing their minds; but it’s not that simple.
Scientists, who are overwhelmingly liberal, discover that liberals are rational fact seekers and demonstrate cognitive flexibility when exposed to new or conflicting ideas, whereas conservatives base their decisions around disgust, fear, xenophobia, and emotional negativity, especially around new things.
Isn’t that convenient?
It is interesting because it’s several years old by now and hasn’t been refuted yet and more studies align with the general idea.
Since none of us will be conducting research into political neuroscience we can ask does this line up with our stereotypes? I think it does.
Except the thing that liberals tend to gloss over when trumpeting this data is that the amygdala difference not only means conservatives are more fearful, it also means conservatives are more empathic. Since when is that a thing? It’s not just that liberals tout themselves as caring. Even conservatives make fun of them for this trait – oh, those bleeding hearts! Or accuse them of identifying and sympathizing with the enemy, those terrorist coddlers. Bill Clinton felt your pain. “Compassionate conservatism” was seen as phony. So that’s a strange facet that doesn’t line up with the rest.
The mental flexibility thing is funny to me because I consider myself particularly liberal and I can reason myself into and out of anything. Even just for fun. Having actual opinions on anything is just so bourgeois. Liberals often complain that getting a consensus with other libs is like herding cats. So that stereotype fits.
When you break down the most outspoken conservative opposition to gay rights you basically end up having to read descriptions of how disgusting and disease ridden anal sex is. They’re afraid of dirty immigrants. Ebola made them flip their lid, whereas libs were like “whatevs.” So the fear of contamination fits.
Better propaganda is the biggest boon of this sort of research. I think it was a thread here where people tried to come up with propaganda that would convince the other side using their own logic (anyone have a link?). For example, for global warming or energy conservation you wouldn’t cite facts and figures to convince conservatives, but you’d appeal to national security concerns, or portray polluters as taking advantage of them.
Given the supposed fear of contamination and upheaval of the status quo, shouldn’t conservatives be against even the tiniest of threats to their environment? But they’re not. That’s another hole.
It’s not like liberals aren’t afraid of all sorts of things that statistically probably won’t affect them, like guns, GMOs, nuclear power, and arguably global warming (when people hype it up to extremes at least).
From years of reading both lib and con blogs, I’d say that if you just changed pronouns it’d be difficult to discern between the two. The logic both sides use is remarkably similar, often to such an extent it’s actually pretty funny. There’s just a lot more appeal to religion on the right, random studies hot off the press with dubious veracity on the left. But common themes include:
That’s an extremely common attitude. People tend to assume that mostly everybody share roughly the same experience they do, view the world in the same way they do, feel the same things, and so on. Realizing that people have widely different perceptions and tend to project their perception unto others has been one of the big enlightening moments in my life. As a result, people in fact often live in almost completely different worlds (for instance some people live in a world where mostly everybody is dishonest and will take advantage of you if given the chance, while others live in a world where mostly everybody is honest and considerate).
I could give tons of blatant examples of people believing that mostly everybody think like them, and that people stating they think/feel differently are either weirdos or liars. Say, people assuming that you can’t possibly have enjoyed a movie they found boring, and that you’re just pretending to out of snobism. Or that you’re just trying to be politically correct if you state that the distinction between white and black races makes no sense. Or that male teenagers are all so horny that they would fuck anybody if they had the chance (because they were like that themselves). Or that nobody would return a wallet containing money, and anyway if you brought it to the police, the officers too would help themselves with the money. Or that you can’t possibly had 50 different sex partners in your life, you must be boasting. Or that there can’t be a friendship without afterthought between a man and a woman (for heterosexuals at least). I could keep going forever, as soon as I give an example new ones pop up in my mind.
Not all, but a lot of people believe everybody else is very similar to them. And even those who dont IMO tend to underestimate the differences.
It has always been so. People tend to hang out mostly with the like-minded, therefore they tend to overestimate the popularity of their shared beliefs, which are obviously just plain common sense in any case, and then we get expressions of astonishment like, “How could X have won that election?! Nobody I know voted for him!”
And, the problem has actually grown worse with the Internet – which makes it much easier to expose oneself to alternative viewpoints, but also much easier to seal oneself off in an echo chamber.
Here’s the difference though: IME, liberals are sometimes willing to consider alternative viewpoints. I.e., they hear a conservative say something they disagree with, they will think, “I must understand what he is saying, at least in order to engage with it and refute it.” A conservative will simply think, “I must tell him why he is wrong.” There are many exceptions but it’s true in general. IME.
Ironically, any attempt to disagree with this simply proves it to be true. 
Yeah, a fair chunk of the core of that piece could be rephrased as a right-wing criticism of progressives. I hear that sort of thing often enough:
“I’m a conservative! I think for myself!”
ETA: Well, it’s not quite the same. Any progressive in my part of the USA is well resigned to the idea that a majority of people just will not see things the same way, and most will never learn… But a rightwing friend of mine might say the same of me.
Cute story, though.
Conservatives are typically more stubborn, go-with-your-gut types.
Liberals are typically more malleable, it’s-all-relative types.
Both have value. Strong leaders display the first type and wise leaders display the second.
Which is why we need pragmatic, centrist leadership.
Cite?
Heh. That would make some of the “social justice” teenagers on Tumblr “conservatives.” Maybe you’re reaching for a pattern.
That said, I have the “conservative brain” more or less. I’m a radical conservationist, afraid of irrevocable change and of (certain kinds of) contamination. I also have a bad habit of engaging with different ideas by arguing against them, sometimes in a very surly fashion.
I just got sick to death of the blithe classical liberals who called themselves conservatives while merrily throwing great gobs of our inherited world away. So I left behind the “conservative” affiliation.
So even the labels are lies.
I think it’s simply human nature, liberal or conservative. Both sides do it. The attitude that* “I’m right, and if you disagree with me it proves that I’m right”* shields the speaker from criticism. It is comforting and prevents him or her from having to listen to the other side.
And that is why you support conservative, who don’t seem to know the meaning of pragmatic and centrist? :dubious:
Anyway, to me, how conservatives and liberals think reminds me of a little parable I read somewhere on the internet. I don’t remember exactly how it goes, but a man was on a park bench people watching, and along comes a jogger. The man watches as the jogger runs past a particular spot on the pavement and falls. He thinks “What a clumsy oaf, I’ve been watching that spot the whole day and nobody has fallen, it must mean he’s an idiot.”
The jogger, however, thinks differently. “I’ve been jogging for hours and I’ve never fallen once except on this spot, it must be that something wrong with the ground here”.
This story’s not to prove one side or another being right. Rather, it highlights how people tend to think.
For conservatives, they’re always out there blaming people. Poor people are poor because they’re stupid and make bad choices, women should dress more modestly if they don’t want to be raped, abortion shouldn’t be legal (at least one reason) because women should suffer the consequences of their choices, we cannot be lenient on crime because they made their bed and should lie in it, people who have no health insurance should just get better jobs to pay for it or shouldn’t get sick. And on and on and on. No empathy, no acknowledging that other people may have things happen to them out of their control, nothing showing the slightest bit of human compassion (and if you disagree with those characterizations, cite me 3 instances of an elected GOP official saying the opposite of those things who’s didn’t say it in the middle of campaign season)
One thing bears mentioning: Conservatives, IMHO, are more likely to perceive things from a “We’re being gagged/silenced” viewpoint, because political correctness tends to encourage liberal speech while discouraging conservative speech. Therefore, conservatives are more likely to say things like, “I’m going to be blasted for telling the truth, but I must tell it anyway,” because they genuinely believe that to be the case - that they are speaking unpopular truth. And to be fair, there are quite a few times when they are.
“Short of walking into a conversation, sandblasting the brick and installing track lighting, there is no surer way to announce one is from the 1980s than to mount an assault on ‘political correctness,’ the contemporary phrase for which is ‘not being a jackass.’”
Ever heard of Poisoning the Well?
52% of American scientists ID as liberal, 9% as conservative. 55% Dem, 6% Pub. Six percent! Been consistent over the years too.
I’m surprised you’d even want a cite for that, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you mention it before. When conservatives denounce science it’s often because they view it a conspiracy of ivory tower libs detached from the real world. It’s easy to see why they’d think that.
Well, I said “IME.” With Tumblr I have no experience.
Both sides are convinced that they are right and that the other side needs to either come around to their way of thinking or be thwarted to the maximum extent possible.
And there the symmetry/equivalence ends.