Really great (serious) simple psychological explanation for why some are liberals or

[jazzjunkysue]

conservatives: (The title is about psychologists, but it reads for everyone)

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/ExplainBehavior.html


Errors in Explaining Behavior –

Why Psychologists Are So "Liberal" *
David A. Gershaw, Ph.D.

First, not all psychologists are liberal. However, as a group, psychologists are more liberal than average. Those who are more conservative tend to label psychologists as "bleeding-heart liberals." Why are psychologists more liberal?

One reason is that psychologists understand the fundamental attribution error. This is a basic error that everyone tends to make when trying to explain the behavior of themselves and others. We typically blame disliked behavior of others on dispositional (internal) factors. In contrast, we usually attribute our bad behavior to situational (external) causes.

more at link

Also, there is the question of "locus of control" Somewone with a strong inner locus of control believes that their own actions determine their happiness. An outer locus of control allows you to think your actions are less important that just luck or destiny or other outside factors,and so display far less ownership of their lives or other's lives. They see their association to others as the determining factor. That explains the "die hard conservative:" No matter how much evidence you present that the republicans are wrong, they'll hold to their associations because they believe their associations are their lifelines and so won't chang associations when threatened.

Really helps accept stupid behavior:

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/ControlLocus.html

Locus of control is the perceived source of control over our behavior. People with internal locus of control believe they control their own destiny. They tend to be convinced that their own skill, ability and efforts determine the bulk of their life experiences. In contrast, people with external locus of control believe that their lives are determined mainly by sources outside themselves – fate, chance, luck or powerful others.

Your life is profoundly influenced by whether you perceive control over your life as predominantly internal or external. Locus of control influences the way you view yourself and your opportunities.

As an example, college students with strong internal locus of control believe that their grades are determined by their abilities and efforts. These students believe, "The more I study, the better grades I get." They change their study strategies as they discover their deficiencies. They raise their expectations if they succeed, and they worry when they think they have no control over their assignments.

more at link

[whistle]

1. If psychology is the new religion then by definition it is conservative

...not liberal

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I don't think psychology is a religion at all.

It meets any reasonable criteria to be classified as a science. It is mutable over time as more evidence is collected; it doesn't preach doctrinal certainty about anything, etc. Furthermore, most psychologists are humane people who are interested in the welfare of others. I know very few psychologists who are not political and cultural liberals. In this respect, they stand in contradistinction to most psychiatrists. And BTW, most psychologists shudder at Dr. Phil.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. I have to agree with you...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=20061222-000001&page=4

Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home.

People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:

Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.

That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well. And if the November election was any indicator, the pendulum that swung so forcefully to the right after 9/11 may be swinging back.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I think my earlier post is in perfect agreement with this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4314919&mesg_id=4314919

When I was in school we called them "Inner Directed" and "Outer Directed"

[Jackpine Radical]

5. or field-dependent versus field-independent.

I think there are some fine points of distinction between Rotter's formulation of locus of control and the older stuff we're talking about, though. Inner-directedness has to do with values, while locus has to do with beliefs.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. I understand....Thanks.

[jazzjunkysue]

7. Right on, Bklyn. Great study. I ned to remember why some people will cling to

a failed party in the face of overwhelming evidence. It't not rational. But, it's also a normal human reaction to simply seal up the eyes and ears and shut down the mind and hold to the past, regardless of the details.

Otherwise, I can't face these neanderthanls.

[SmokingJacket]

8. Interestingly, I know a conservative psychologist who is very much into

the internal vs. external locus of control thing. She thinks that blaming outside forces (economy, social factors) for your problems is faulty thinking, and that people who fail have basically chosen that path. Hence, she is a conservative of the bootstraps kind.

:shrug:

I think the difference comes down to empathy. A person who sees that other people are basically like them, and that they, too, might fail or exhibit bad behavior in other circumstances, is more likely to be liberal.

A person who cannot imagine the inner lives of other people, who thinks another's failure is avoidable because they themselves would have done things differently, is more likely to be conservative.