Let me take your own example:

“For example, conservatives in America are ardently against federal programs like Social Security, even though the program has been around for as long as just about anyone alive in America can remember and its a tremendously stable system of consistency, that provides not only individual stability in old age, but stability to the entire American economy.”

Many conservatives and Republicans would like to reform Social Security, but very few are ardently against it. Diverse data proves my point:

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/most-oppose-cutting-social-security-data/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/12/rel15b.pdf

I have no desire to analyze your long post. I just wanted to show how disconnected your analysis is from the actual data. By your own definitions, you know what ‘conservatives’ should be for and against. But apparently your definitions aren’t the same as the basic beliefs and values that motivate most American conservatives.

I will, however, offer a simple explanation for your confusing right-wing/left-wing ideology with ‘liberal’/'conservative’ psychological predisposition:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/alan-wolfe/false-distinction

“[E]verywhere I go, the moment I tell people that I have written a book about liberalism, I am invariably asked which of the two I mean. Classical liberalism, my interlocutors patiently explain to me, is that wonderful notion of the free market elucidated by Adam Smith that worships the idea of freedom. The modern version, by contrast, is committed to expansion of the state and, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to slavery. One must choose one or the other. There really is no such thing, therefore, as modern liberalism. If you opt for the market, you are a libertarian. If you choose government, you are a socialist or, in more recent times, a fascist.

“I try to explain to people that in my book I reject any such distinction and argue instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. But so foreign is this idea to them that they stare at me in utter disbelief. How could I have possibly written a book on liberalism, I can almost hear them thinking, when this guy doesn’t know a thing about it?

“[ . . . ] I think of the whole question of governmental intervention as a matter of technique. Sometimes the market does pretty well and it pays to rely on it. Sometimes it runs into very rough patches and then you need government to regulate it and correct its course. No matters of deep philosophy or religious meaning are at stake when we discuss such matters. A society simply does what it has to do.

“When instead we do discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.”

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/is-classical-liberalism-liberal/

“Liberalism and conservatism aren’t specific ideologies so much as they are general attitudes. By definition, a conservative wishes to conserve and a liberal does not. This brings us to one of the problem of American politics. As Gunnar Myrdal explained, “America is conservative in fundamental principles… but the principles conserved are liberal and some, indeed, are radical.” So, conservatism will criticize the living breathing liberalism of the moment often in defense of the fossilized liberalism of the past. This is why conservatives will claim classical liberalism as their own. Liberalism of the past is safe because it’s been cleansed of all unknown, and hence uncontrollable, elements. Even though neither is a specific ideology, conservatism is forever seeking to conserve the ideologies of the past whether they are considered liberal or conservative. Conservatives in the past would have criticized classical liberalism, but conservatives today can safely admire it because it’s been made into a set doctrine. This might also explain why many Americans identify as conservative even as they hold traditionally ‘liberal’ positions. Progressive policies were liberal when they were first proposed, but now that they’ve been established for almost a century they’ve become a part of the American tradition and so many conservatives will seek to conserve something like Social Security.

“Liberalism, by nature, is constantly changing, constantly pushing the boundaries, constantly trying new things (or putting old things in new contexts). As such, liberalism isn’t a single set of beliefs and policies. When conservatives are getting used to classical liberalism, liberals are already onto another original concept or system. Liberals adapt to present circumstances seeking to go in new directions.”

I completely agree with your final part of the post, that we must learn to communicate better. I have gotten into arguments where I am citing this, that, and ten others, while the other person just yells things at me. At least it makes a little more sense than me calling him/her batsh*t crazy.

And to the so-called Liberal #47 – Terry? While it is not addressed in this article, I could not help but ask, WHEN in recent history, have Republicans been LIBERAL about ANYTHING? ANYTHING? Liberal: marked by generosity, open-handed.

I think that some of those extrapolations generally derive from a lack of understanding that, in the US today, there is a large and growing gap between the actual definition of a sociopolitical term, and both its usage by politicians, and its assumed meaning by the average voter. Gaythia touches upon this concept in her comment noting that “left” does not necessarily equal “liberal/progressive” just as “right” does not necessarily equal “conservative”. I also see of a tendency among the “pro-conservative” writers to take this study more personally in a negative way, with attempts to imply that “liberals” are “just as bad” as the “pro-conservative” writes seem to perceive the study supposedly makes conservatives seem.

Terry Emberson had commented that: “Any rational study of political history teaches anyone who cares to look that authoritarianism is universal and egalitarian leftist regimes have been as authoritarian as hierarchical rightist regimes.” In reality, however, what such a rational study shows is that “left” not only does not automatically mean “egalitarian”, but also can embrace its own form of elitism and repression of the non-elites.

Later on, Pun the Librarian commented that: “I don’t think that liberal thought process translates that easily into “Checks out scientifically = valuable”.” Again, however, this is an incorrect perception based, it appears to me, upon assuming that the idea of more emotion-based decision making is being claimed as inferior.

There were later comments to the effect that “…you cannot judge a philosophy (and that what conservatism is) and its adherents based solely on the size of one portion of the brain…”, and again, this seems to be a personalization of specific subunits of the study.

This personalization, and subsequent, is something I’ve generally observed in most “liberal”–”conservative” exchanges. What it most reminds me of is the book, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”, which pointed out that, *generally*, there are differences in perception and communication which, when examined and understood, can have a positive effect on relationships.

This is the same focus of the Meyers-Briggs and other personality tests: when we learn how others perceive the world and make decisions, we can at least deal with one another on the basis of that understanding, as opposed to blind opposition.

To that end, I disagree with Kevin’s comment that: “I think you undermined your own point by asking both parties to bend”, because the salient point is not to ask people to “bend” so much as it is to ask them to understand.

So, for example, if Person A takes a statement personally, instead of Person B merely assuming that A is “stupid”, B can instead understand that what’s probably going on is that A feels undervalued. Similarly, A can try to understand that B is thinking and speaking more generally, trying to take all factors into consideration equally.

Meanwhile, I found Andrea Kuszewski’s differentiation between emotional reappraisal and emotional suppression both cogent, and in keeping with my own observations of others and also of my own experience with my personal evolution. I think this is also far from being in any way judgmental, and actually, a highly useful tool for improving how we relate to, and work with, others. For the person who quickly reassesses an emotion and re-forms the reaction, it’s useful and important to recognize that the person who *supresses*the emotion can still be experiencing it acutely, and realize that this is a completely valid human experience that needs to be taken into account as such. And similarly, the person who supresses emotion is helped by understanding that the “reassessors” are not intentionally seeking to “invalidate” the still-experienced emotions – they simply have a different method of coping with them.

IMO, this is the about the most basic, fundamental social and relationship information one can have- and yet, it is information that is almost never actually *taught*. Instead, it seems that we are taught to be so self-focused that we forget that different poeple are different, that we are all INDIVIDUALS – which is rather a cruel irony in a culture that ostensibly values individualism…

http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/Ideo.pdf

as always, interesting stuff. Do you know if anyone has done a study/test/whichever on seeing if someone can be intentionally made Conservative?

For example, conservatives in America are ardently against federal programs like Social Security, even though the program has been around for as long as just about anyone alive in America can remember and its a tremendously stable system of consistency, that provides not only individual stability in old age, but stability to the entire American economy.

Another major example of how conservative policy positions conflict with the so-called conservative mindset is conservative support for “free market capitalism” itself. Let’s not forget that “free market capitalism” was a product of the liberal revolutions of the 19th century, and its fundamentally the most liberalizing force in American society, yet certainly “liberals” are far more against it and conservatives religiously support it.

Indeed I would argue that the driving force behind almost everything that conservatives rail against is “free market capitalism”. There is no more fundamental force driving social and technological change in the world that “free market capitalism”, yet where are the conservatives calling for it’s overthrow?

Of course I’ve also long believed that most American conservatives would have been supporters of Stalin had they been born into the Soviet Union.

As for “family values”, again, it is the liberals who want to enforce a more European style system with more paid time off for mothers and fathers to care for their children, and it is liberals who are the main force against the corporate takeover of family life. “The family” is under attack from corporations, and government is the only means by which we can collectively fend off corporate attacks on the family, yet “conservatives” side with the corporations thereby enabling the radical transformation of American society from a society controlled by families to a society controlled by corporations.

Fundamentally what we call “conservative” policies in America are at the root of the radical transformation of American society, and what we call “liberal” policies are really the attempts to preserve pre-industrial, pre-capitalist modes of society.

Free-market capitalist industrialization is radical, it is the driving force of radical social transformation. How can the fact that free-market capitalist industrialization is supported by “conservatives” and maligned by “liberals” be reconciled with the analysis you have provided here?

I’m not saying that it can’t, or that I don’t already understand some ways that it can be, but I think this is something that needs much deeper analysis, both cognitively, socially, and politically.

Only problem I have with your reasoning is that you say liberal style of thinking is more in line with scientific thinking. I don’t think that liberal thought process translates that easily into “Checks out scientifically = valuable”.

Another Discover magazine blogger Razib at GNXP recently wrote a few posts on how conservatives and republicans are more sceptical about astrology than liberals and democrats. This would be in line with conservative thinking being against change and liberal thinking leaning towards novelty. But if his figures are correct, liberals “armed with data, research studies, and experts” are more likely than conservatives to reach a wrong conclusion, at least in the case of astrology.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/republicans-more-skeptical-of-astrology-than-democrats/

None of these 3 (stereotypes, change, logic) need be correlated. We currently have affirmative action, social security, and a budget deficit. These have been around for the lifetime of most people. But the people who want change—elimination of these things—are generally ones we would label conservative. And the liberals who are working hard to defend these ideas. There’s also no clear indication that liking logic and liking change are correlated—what happens if logic says don’t change?