• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

For ToxicAdam: Whiny babies grow up to be Conservatives

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142722231554

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Seems its true. Whiny babies turn into paranoid, whiny ass titty baby Republicans. :lol
 

firex

Member
This is just more of that radical Left Coast liberal agenda! I don't know about you, Mr. Incognito, but I'm an American. And real Americans - they don't fall for this kind of propaganda.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Oh yea, and using 100 Californians may be a good sampling for comparison to the people of Mars rather than the people in the "fly over" states.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Ha, this kind of reminds me of the logic behind explaining the behavior of bullies. Bullies lash out at others to attack and repress them because they feel insecure, afraid, and want to control their environment. They don't like "nerds" because they're very afraid of the nerd outsmarting them in an arena they can't compete in, etc.

I suppose if you want to make a connection between the image of strident republicans behaving much as bullies do, this study could make even more sense. Especially the stuff about gender roles... honestly, about the only real reason people have to be homophobic in this world is that they're afraid. Uncomfortable with that which is different from themselves or what they cling to as a "norm" for a security blanket.

Of course, people who are homophobic (for example) sometimes cover it up by going aggro and acting all aggressive, like a bully. I've seen more than one guy pump up his "masculinity" and act like a testosterone-powered idiot just to prove to the world how much he's not a "faggot". And of course there's no shortage of young while males who are mortally offended by bishonen characters and poor, poor Vaan :lol (C'com guys, he's just too /poor/ to afford a shirt. Didn't you know that?)

But wow, study findings like this one sure will get the attention of all the conservative pundits and bloggers. One might even say they'll /whine/ about it!
 

malek4980

Rosa Parks hater
The sameple size is small and the children are all from Berkeley, one of the most "progressive" places in America. As the article points out this is not exactly a representative sample of the US.

Anyway...
Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance).

7% isn't much, and if I had to grow up surrounded by children of snobby leftist intellectuals I'd be miserable too. The Toronto Star (the most leftist paper in Canada) has clearly published a sensationalist article, the results of the study don't warrant the tone of the article or the title.
 
malek4980 said:
7% isn't much, and if I had to grow up surrounded by children of snobby leftist intellectuals I'd be miserable too.

Or grown up to be independently minded just like them.*


*please read with your irony/humot/sarcasm detectors on full.
 
Kaijima said:
And of course there's no shortage of young while males who are mortally offended by bishonen characters

RichterPeaceSign.gif
>
juste.jpg


Where have all the real Belmonts gone?




































:(
 

Flynn

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Oh yea, and using 100 Californians may be a good sampling for comparison to the people of Mars rather than the people in the "fly over" states.

They tried the experiment in "fly over" states but the locals burned the scientists as witches.
 

AntoneM

Member
obviously this cannot be applied to the general population, however it doesn't mean it's a false or bad study. What this does show is that there IS some connection with being a whiny child and being a conservative. Further study would be necessary to show how these variables affect each other, if at all. Think of it like this... we know that capitalism tends to liberalize a governemnt and we have some theories as to why but we don't know for sure. Whiny children seem to have a better chance of becoming conservative however we can't even apply that generally (yet) let alone figure out why. This is a very interesting, if limited, study.

To summarize, those that are rejecting this study need to examine how social science is conducted more closely.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
... at what point does complaining about (insert political party/affiliation here) constitute whining?
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Honestly, it sort of ties into my other thread. Maybe your general outlook on life or mood has a great determining factor on which political party you choose.


When the author says "whiny", it's not clear what he means. Does that mean easily agitated? Uncomfortable in/dealing with new situations? Controlling? It's kind of a broad negative term which can be applied to many characteristics of conservatives I know.
 

terrene

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Berkeley professor.


The last bastion of unbiased thought.
Republicans are fucking retards, man.

If disagree, you must be biased, and if you're biased your opinion has no credibility. Oh! Thanks for clearing that up!! I shall enjoy living in your new magic fantasy land where only Republicans are allowed to criticise Republicans!
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
terrene said:
Republicans are fucking retards, man.

If disagree, you must be biased, and if you're biased your opinion has no credibility. Oh! Thanks for clearing that up!! I shall enjoy living in your new magic fantasy land where only Republicans are allowed to criticise Republicans!

New Magic Fantasy Land, you say? Hmm...

Bush Explains Confidence in Iraq Progress

Bush Falsely Claims He Never Linked Hussein To September 11

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, all along the government has been very optimistic. You remain optimistic. But I remember when you were saying we'd be greeted as liberators, you played down the insurgency ten months ago. You said it was in its last throes. Do you believe that these optimistic statements may be one of the reasons that people seem to be more skeptical in this country about whether we ought to be in Iraq?

CHENEY: No, I think it has less to do with the statements we've made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality, than it does the fact that there is a constant sort of perception if you will that's created because what is newsworthy is the carbomb in Baghdad, it’s not all the work that went on that day in 15 other provinces in terms of making progress in rebuilding Iraq.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
All this study proves is some correlation between being a whiny baby in Berkeley, CA and conservativism. Considering all the exterior factors, this could mean a lot of things. Maybe being a whiny baby means you're more likely to rebel against the norm (the norm in Berkeley being a tree-hugging hippy)? Maybe Conservatives tend to treat their babies differently due to more emphasis on "traditional values", which results in them being whiners (after all, we know the biggest correlation in political beliefs, as in religion, is that between parents and children).

The old statistics adage applies very well here - correlation does not prove causation. The article title is misleading.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
terrene said:
Republicans are fucking retards, man.

If disagree, you must be biased, and if you're biased your opinion has no credibility. Oh! Thanks for clearing that up!! I shall enjoy living in your new magic fantasy land where only Republicans are allowed to criticise Republicans!


You are very angry and whiny. Are you sure you are not a self-hating Republican?
 

terrene

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
You are very angry and whiny. Are you sure you are not a self-hating Republican?
If I even suspected myself of being Republican, I'd make sure the last thing I did was suicide-bomb President Bush, because I would be too ashamed to live.
 

Dr_Cogent

Banned
I have this rock that keeps tigers away.

Do you see any tigers? Nope? Neither do I.

Well, my rock must work then.

See! I proved it! w00t! Lack of controlled tests, logic and reasoning ftw!
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Dr_Cogent said:
I have this rock that keeps tigers away.

Do you see any tigers? Nope? Neither do I.

Well, my rock must work then.

See! I proved it! w00t! Lack of controlled tests, logic and reasoning ftw!

Oddly enough, this is the exact reasoning used by the Bush administration as to why we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

(The "rock" in this case is the war in Iraq.)
 

Dr_Cogent

Banned
xsarien said:
Oddly enough, this is the exact reasoning used by the Bush administration as to why we haven't been attacked since 9/11.

(The "rock" in this case is the war in Iraq.)

I have that rock too. It sells for 1 million dollars.

dr.evil_one_miliion_dollars.jpg
 

terrene

Banned
Dr_Cogent said:
I have this rock that keeps tigers away.

Do you see any tigers? Nope? Neither do I.

Well, my rock must work then.

See! I proved it! w00t! Lack of controlled tests, logic and reasoning ftw!
Um, what would the control group be? They didn't introduce any stimuli, they just observed the children as they grew up.
 

Dr_Cogent

Banned
terrene said:
Um, what would the control group be? They didn't introduce any stimuli, they just observed the children as they grew up.

Read Nerevar's post

My point is, this study doesn't prove shit. If the study said the opposite, that liberals were more whiny - I would still disagree. This has nothing to do with my political viewpoint - just my problem with assholes who try to spin things their way with shitty information.

Furthermore, consider the source of this report. The Toronto Star. They aren't exactly the most unbiased source around. They lean heavily to the left, and probably have an agenda which this article makes more obvious.
 
Dr_Cogent said:
Read Nerevar's postFurthermore, consider the source of this report. The Toronto Star. They aren't exactly the most unbiased source around. They lean heavily to the left, and probably have an agenda which this article makes more obvious.
Could you point out a source that is "unbiased" then? It seems that every time a news item comes up that conservatives don't like, they call the source biased.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
The Drudge Report and The Washington Times are as about as unbiased as they come.

Also, Canada is inherently evil. Their agenda is to turn Americans against one another, while they secret steal our private health care program. Those maple syrup-sucking Frenchies!
 

KingGondo

Banned
People who whine probably tend to find flaws and error in humanity as adults--possibly even coming to believe that people are naturally bad. I've always seen this as a benchmark of true conservatives.

If someone is raised in a controlled, happy, affluent environment (Berkeley), they will likely tend to view human nature as good, and therefore become a liberal. Since liberals typically view people as naturally good, socialism would work (although it's a failure so far).
 

KingGondo

Banned
Mercury Fred said:
Could you point out a source that is "unbiased" then? It seems that every time a news item comes up that conservatives don't like, they call the source biased.

Don't even try to act like this doesn't apply to liberals, too.
 

terrene

Banned
Dr_Cogent said:
Read Nerevar's post

My point is, this study doesn't prove shit. If the study said the opposite, that liberals were more whiny - I would still disagree. This has nothing to do with my political viewpoint - just my problem with assholes who try to spin things their way with shitty information.
There there, man, no need to start crying. I'm just making the point that your whining about how there was no control group makes absolutely no sense, that's all. It's an observational study, like people who embed themselves in animal habitats. It's a perfectly valid way to obtain data.

Dr_Cogent said:
Furthermore, consider the source of this report. The Toronto Star. They aren't exactly the most unbiased source around. They lean heavily to the left, and probably have an agenda which this article makes more obvious.
I've heard that so many thousands of times in my life. My anecdote against yours: liberal media bias claims have no weight at all. Neat!
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
KingGondo said:
If someone is raised in a controlled, happy, affluent environment (Berkeley), they will likely tend to view human nature as good, and therefore become a liberal. Since liberals typically view people as naturally good, socialism would work (although it's a failure so far).
If this was so, why are conservatives so adamant on trusting companies and other people to do the right thing while liberals insist that strong checks are necessary to maintain a just environment?
 

malek4980

Rosa Parks hater
Hitokage said:
If this was so, why are conservatives so adamant on trusting companies and other people to do the right thing while liberals insist that strong checks are necessary to maintain a just environment?

Political ideologies seem to pick-up baggage that doesn’t necessarily make sense through out the years. Anyway you made a broad generalization that is probably truer of conservative politicians than the conservative voters.

Traditionally conservative political ideology has been paired with a pessimistic view of human nature (Hobbes) while liberalism from an optimistic view of human nature (Rousseau). An example, conservatives tend to treat criminals harsher while liberals seek treatment or rehabilitation options instead. Another example might be welfare where conservatives view many recipients as scammers and those exceptions will turn into parasites who will stay on longer than they need to, since humans are flawed. Liberals see people on welfare as good people who have had a bout of bad luck or are repressed by the evil bourgeoisie and their life situations are the way they are not because they are stupid, uneducated, dependant on a drug etc., but something beyond their control. These were gross simplifications and I look at human nature as a mixed bag, so my political leanings are consequently mixed as well.

To reiterate an earlier point, the results of the study which are modest do not warrant the sensationalist interpretation.
 

way more

Member
I had an idea for a sitcom child to be like that. He would be a whiny little runt scared of ideas like homosexuality, no terrified of the thought. He would be the kid that O'rielly is always trying to protect from the vast gay agenda. He would also be a wuss in other situations.
 

terrene

Banned
Hitokage said:
If this was so, why are conservatives so adamant on trusting companies and other people to do the right thing while liberals insist that strong checks are necessary to maintain a just environment?
Corporations are not people. Distrusting corporations does not equal believing that people are not basically good. Being racist, being pro-death penalty, being prejudiced -- those are the hallmarks of they who doubt humanity.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
malek: Actually, I wasn't trying to refute his statement as much as throw out a contradictory example which was just as valid as his. I agree, it's not really that simple.

Corporations are not people. Distrusting corporations does not equal believing that people are not basically good. Being racist, being pro-death penalty, being prejudiced -- those are the hallmarks of they who doubt humanity.
I was not specifically referring to the corporate form in that post. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom