How to spot a baby conservative (whiny children - study)

[Minstrel Boy]

How to spot a baby conservative

Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...

Mar. 19, 2006
KURT KLEINER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

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.

Toronto Star

[Warpy]

1. Both studies cited in the article needed to add "thin skinned"

and "lacking insight" into their profiles, judging by the overreaction and hate mail. They also could have taken a shot at reading comprehension among conservatives.

Conservatives aren't crazy, they're just universally unpleasant at any age.

[Catrina]

4. The professor should add their reaction now to his study. It seems they

are verifying his findings. The same whiney brats who ran to the teacher complaining haven't changed much, now they're running to Congress to whine about the professor!! :rofl:

That study is now unassailable, he should respond to their hatemail by nforming them that he will be adding their 'correspondence' to his study and thank them for voluntarily helping him to complete the study by providing him with proof positive that his findings were, apparently, completely accurate.

[CTyankee]

23. Much as I agree with the study, I don't think it is "unassailable"

A study of only 100 individuals, in Berkeley, is kind of small. The bigger the study, the lower the margin of error. When medical studies are done, one of the crucial factors to their credibility is how large the sample group is.

In my un-scientific sample my grandkids are kinda whiny, but their parents are both liberal Dems (my son in law is a political consultant in Boston and has worked on Kerry's senatorial and presidential campaigns). The kids do well at school and get along great with their peers, but just do a lot of whiny stuff at home with each other. I worried about this for a while, then I realized it's just a bad habit they get into when all 3 are together. Plus, all 3 are the same gender, which makes everything more competitive.

That said, I myself think the study is right on. But I think we're vulnerable when it comes to defending it, or even using it, to neocons and other RWers.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

65. ...

:rofl:

[w4rma]

2. Jeff Greenburg of Arizona doesn't understand politics in China at all.

"Communist" China would be more appropriately called fascist China. There is no free speech there. Workers are exploited there as near-slave labor. It is almost impossible for Unions to exist there since they are not supported by the government. The wealth is moving upwards to a few powerful individuals. Etc. Etc.

An analogy would be that National Socialism wasn't socialist at all. One of the first things the Nazis did was imprison/kill all the Communists in Nazi Germany, then the unionists, then democratic socialists. Hitler was heavily bankrolled by upper upper class folks who wanted their own personal corporate agendas pushed. Etc, etc.

[NewJeffCT]

44. that's not the China I've seen...

They've moved hundreds of millions out of poverty the past 25 years...
There is a growing middle class...

Can the US make a claim of shrinking poverty & growing the middle class the past 25 years?

People generally ignore the government there - to them, it's no different than it was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago or 3000 years ago - same shit, different boss, be it the Communists or the emperors before that. Only now, people all have cellphones and at least are a little more aware.

I was also able to access DU and post to DU while there.

While China is far, far from perfect, they are headed in the right direction, though it may take decades. They take the long-term view of things, while here in the US we want instant gratification.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Humorous, but not a momentous finding.

It's more interesting in the context of being another study with results similar to the larger Stanford analysis a few years back.

And for those of you trying to refute it by saying that you were whiny kids, the Berkeley results show a tendency, not an absolute predictor of political thinking. Some whiny kids grew up to be liberals.

On edit: oops! posted in the wrong place.

[crispini]

100. I disagree that China is headed in the right direction.

They've managed to marry a totalitarian government with rampant capitalism. This alarms me, as I'm afraid that our very own Dear Leader will take their example as a good one. Their citizens have no voice in the government, which is viewed largely as a corrupt institution full of officials waiting to put the squeeze on the common people.

How long were you there? I lived in Shanghai a year. During that time I witnessed one young idealistic Communist's increasing disenchantment with the party, figured out how to buy railroad tickets on the black market because there were no other tickets available, and saw one nascent student religious organization summarily squashed by the authorities. Admittedly, it's only one person's view, but the Chinese government scares me. I no longer think that capitalism is a good harbinger of democracy -- if the Chinese experiment is anything to go by, the free market and totalitarian government can go hand in hand pretty easily.

[neuvocat]

126. You missed the point of the article by 100 miles.

China was used as an example but the same is true for left-wing and right-wing dictatorships. The whiners endeavor to win over those who are in power regardless of their bent.

[deadparrot]

3. Kind of makes sense for me.

The one thing that my parents (both liberal) could not stand when my brother and I were little was whining. They refused to acknowledge us when we tried it. Even today, the whine of a voice grates on my nerves.

[merbex]

36. My parents were the same way;whining got a "knock it OFF"

faster than a New York minute

First time I said it to my kids I chuckled at the memory

When I'm with other people's kids who whine I have to bite my tongue and funnily enough this post got me thinking about those people I know whose kids whine on a regular basis and they ARE all conservative Repugs

[DarkTirade]

43. That's something that bugs me about a lot of parents...

if you give in when the kid starts whining, you'll only be encouraging them to whine more in the future. Whining is a NEGATIVE thing, therefore the parents should give the kid a negative stimulus, not a positive one.

[Pacifist Patriot]

70. Yep!

And I don't tolerate it in my own children. What happens when you indulge the whining? Hmmm....?

[HuffleClaw]

5. bwaaahhahhahaaaaaa

THIS however, is less amusing, but a fine illustration of the point the research itself made!

"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."

[orleans]

6. a favorite part of the article:

"In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives."

[personman]

24. Tough conservatives, dragons, fairies and other myths...

Conservatives seem more concerned with appearing tough. Stubbornness and ignorance are not strength no matter how many massive media corporation owned political shows try to tell you otherwise.

Strength is overcoming your stubborn prejudices and ignorance, not being a servant of them.
Sometimes strength means NOT fighting. Restraint can take a lot of strength.

Hilarious how these chicken-hawks would talk tough to these little poor countries that barely even have an army, and weapons we quit using 50 years ago. Like Chomsky said "You don't attack a country that can defend itself". Three years later we're debating whether to pull out of this "small, poor country" because even with 1,000% of their military spending we aren't making much(any?) real progress.

-personman

"Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." - Bill Clinton

[savemefromdumbya]

47. lots of fairies!

LOL!

[Dervill Crow]

106. I've met more dragons and fae than tough conservatives. n/t

[K8-EEE]

7. ALL Freepers Have A Persecution Complex!!

They ALWAYS feel victimized -- by things like "being a white male." "Being Christian." Give me a fucking break! No non-white, non-male, non-Christian has ever been in the runinng to be President in this country because there's too many "victims." They start screeching every time a Black person gets an Academy Award or something, it has to be the Freep Profile EVERY TIME or else it's NOT FAIR.

[NoGOP]

15. Pay attention some time........

to the way a christian moans about Christmas being hijacked. You always see on the news some nut jobs that want people to boycott a store because they Happy Holiday banners instead of Merry Christmas ones. They are like 3 year olds. They think the world revolves around them and any challenge to that is met with a tantrum.

[Kber]

66. Good point!

You think O'Rielly just started whining as an adult? It's a life long habit.

[mondo joe]

95. To be fair, there are liberal authoritarians who do the same.

And I think that may be the real thread that ties it all together - the feeling of being a victim and the leaning toward authoritarianism.

[robbedvoter]

132. Liberal authoritarian - that's an oxymoron

There are authoritarians of the left persuasion out there - but liberal - they ain't.

[mondo joe]

135. Very well - I'll take that distinction. n/t

[SomewhereOutThere424]

117. ummm...

Isn't the greater majority of posts on DU about how the republicans are pushing against their ideals and persecuting them as individuals and a party? It's true, but I'm just sayin'.

[norml]

8. Time to Grow Up and Join the Democratic Party

Time to stop living in a land of make believe created by some right wing media clowns with their infantile arguments and their childish lies.

Time to leave behind the crackpot economics, and the tin pot foreign and domestic policies of the movement that calls itself conservative.

Time to Grow Up and Join the Democratic Party

[DLnyc]

9. Interesting implications

Confirms my general theory that kids who grow up in an authoritarian, repressed environment tend to be fearful and untrusting. The sad thing is, it implies a viscious circle: these kids are likely to grow up to be authoritarian and repressive parents who don't give their kids the kind of nurturing that would allow them to develop self-confidence and trust.

Also explains a lot about American politics: the fear card (communism, racial tensions, now terrorism) works very well with people who basically see the world as dangerous and rely on an authoritarian structure to give them confidence.

Maybe a lot of bushbots are not so much 'crazy' as traumatized.

[sojourner]

91. 'scuse me, but that was MY theory you just cited. :-)

kidding. but that HAS been my general theory, (supported by research on attachment and other developmental processes and their contribution to personality, BTW)

[rman]

10. The ones who, as toddlers, complain to daddy that mom hates them

because she won't let m have a cookie shortly before dinner time.

[Kber]

69. But I want my tax cut NOW!

NOW NOW NOW or I'm going to hold my breath and make you withdraw your supreme court nominee!

[rucky]

11. Authoritarian parenting

is tantamount to abuse.

[undergroundpanther]

131. Authoritarians ARE trauma creators

How else can authoritarians pull off such an illusion as "power" when they are so weak and uninsightful and unwilling to share or empathize?

Our culture has inverted the meaning of strength.

Instead of power directed outwards to others as the indicator of strength

In our culture power is directed inwards to mostly glorify a singular false self,to create an illusion of strength for a bully by the bully creating a posse of syncophants and sniveling patsies around himself for creating mutual irresponsibility or in other words bullies who are pathetic,seek enablers so the bully can get away with victimizing and diminishing the truly strong ,the outwardly oriented giving power type people the bullies ENVY.

[MarmiteVarmint]

12. Interesting but . . .

I'm afraid I don't understand the later comments about it:

(""I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.")

Who is this man who said THAT--and does he have any credentials with which to question the original scientists? Didn't seem like he had . . .

[rucky]

13. "He suspects..."

Now there's the answer to "poor science".

Welcome to the DU, by the way!

:cheers:

[daleo]

64. Liberals have hypotheses, conservatives have suspicions. n/t

[Minnesota_Lib]

81. Liberal and conservative labels are relative to the time, place....

...and culture. Remember, it was the liberals in the old Soviet Union that wanted to dump communism while the hard-line conservatives wanted things to remain the same. Same in China. It is all relative. Conservative=against change, pro-authoritatian "well-ordered" society, tradionalist, etc. Liberal (progressive)=wants to change things for the betterment of all, not held by tradition, etc.

This critic of Block falls into the category that so many others fall into. They confuse conservative with rightwingers and liberals with the left. That holds true in the U.S., but not in other nations, so basically when he says he suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people (insecure, defensive, rigid people) would likely become fervid party members, he is only confirming Block's findings. LOL

[MarmiteVarmint]

87. That's a good explanation.

The man sounded confused all the way 'round . . .

[PATRICK]

114. This is the best observation

That is closest to getting the hammer on the head of the nail. With all the polarization and all of the scientific expertise very very few thinkers are homing in on human nature to see exactly what and exactly who. Going into the ancient past the lines blur and cross between what we define as the issue right and issue left scene, but suspiciously underneath it all is the same old same old human divisions.

What the vast majority of decent people, though we all shade to the dark side somewhere, miss is how history is ruined by specific people, specific mindsets, specific problems. The whiniest or loudest most authoritative voice sets a lot of preconceptions that although universally despised are acceded too after a disastrous historical run of thousands of "civilized" years. Moral intelligence and "right" thinking themselves are impossible to study even without being opposed, spun, refashioned and forced to apologize.

The effect on the global warming issue itself is a catastrophic success of the kneejerk RW in that patient and cautious scientists have been browbeaten to underestimate and become ineffective. When confronted with the physical truth, the unbelievable RW will begin to extol the new tropical paradise and the need to gun down invaders without skipping a beat. The corrupting, domineering morass of being LED by these people in every area of American life is a madhouse of unsustainable catastrophe. Once leading, who is there to shut them up, to pry their fingers off the toys?

But it is not the ideas themselves or the ideology that is the logical link, but the directions this behavior takes everywhere when it reaches for its ideal and power.

Change, want, super wealth. I add super wealth because suddenly you have kids, whatever their nature, who have it all. HBO did a horrific show on the effect inherited wealth had on children. It sucked the life right out of them in regards to normal achievement, socialization and morality. Some settle in finally, or decay or seek the higher levels of achievement that money alone(unfortunately) can open up to them, including a disastrous proclivity for power over people they can't understand. Combine a weak or badly nurtured character with super wealth and you get those plutocratic microcosms that lead the core whiner groups into the mess we see around us today.

But what does that say about the rest of us, that we allow the world to be turned Right side up again? Did we collectively, subconsciously, because of comfort in our institutions and prosperity shy away from confrontation? And then we have some crossovers like neoliberalism, neoconservatism, etc. to confuse the issue that lies within ourselves and cripples the ability to finger the problem and name the obvious criminals.

[Minnesota_Lib]

119. Well said...

[DLnyc]

94. His comment really supports the conclusions of the study.

'Insecure, defensive, rigid people' tend to be drawn to authoritarian and repressive organizations. The actual political ideologies are less important than we think.

Here is a list of groups and movements which I would call authoritarian and repressive; note that in many cases their professed beliefs are quite different from each other, but their 'psychology' is quite similar:

Taliban, US 'Religious Right', Russian Communist Party under Stalin (c. 1945), Cultural Revolution in China (c. 1970??), Robespiere (French Revolution), US torturers at Abu Ghraib, Joe McCarthy, Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, Nazi Germany, . . .

[Xithras]

123. Actually, I think it's the RIGIDITY they seek, not the political view.

Whiny kids tend to be whiny because they're insecure. Rather than make a request and wait for it, they whine because they don't trust the adults they're around to fulfill their requests. That kind of insecurity and lack of trust could easily make a person favor ideologies that promote rigid structures...they know what is expected of them, and exactly what they should expect from other people. Conservatism clearly defines the roles for everyone in society, whether you're black, gay, female, or white protestant male. When you don't trust the world, it's somewhat natural to seek out and promote social structures that require obedience instead of trust.

In the US, that rigid stucture lies on the conservative movement. In China, you can find it in the communist party. In Britain, you'd likely find it among the monarchists.

[slor]

14. Get this story to KO !

Oh course the punk ass conservatives will just say that a Liberal scientist conducted the story.

[galatea]

16. Neocons

are ugly, repressed, evil and boring people. Their kids are just as pathetic.

[NMDemDist2]

33. welcome to DU galatea!

:hi:

[BR_Parkway]

17. So that's why they're always against funding Head Start or any of

the early childhood education programs. We might teach those toddlers a little self reliance and they'd grow up as liberals.

[Demeter]

18. Now I'm Worried About My Second Child

Does it count if they become whiny and non-self-sufficient as teenagers?

[dingaling]

59. This is bullshit.

Just because a kid is whiny, it does not mean that they end up being rigid and conservative. What about the influence of adolescence in a persons life. One cannot discount that. Human beings are ever changing and nobody can point to one stage in a humans life and decide the rest.

[Demeter]

60. I WAS Being Sarcastic

And since the characteristic of the GOP/NEoCon/ Red Staters is whining, and the study has the advantage of length, breadth, and serendipity, I think it is a valid observation.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

71. not just whiny...

also "the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints?"

[AnneD]

92. No, Demeter...

I think that is puberty. If they were not whiney toddlers, they generally won't be whiney adults. Daughter just grew out of the pouty teen mode. We went to India, and the poverty there made her rethink a lot of things. I recommned having the teen do volunteer work at a soup kitchen or shelter. Works wonders.

[DLnyc]

96. The title of the thread is a little misleading, I think.

The study implies that insecure and dependant kids are more likely to be attracted to authoritarian and repressive environments. The 'whining' thing is a way of characterizing insecure kids, I think. The MORE they whine, the more insecure they are.

In my experience as a parent, almost all kids will try whining when they want something. But kids who whine all the time are probably feeling very needy and insecure. My way of dealing with my son when he would start whining was to listen to the feeling of neediness and try to engage him in a positive (and EMPATHETIC) way in thinking about practical ways to get his needs met. It was often startling how well this worked.

Today, I am happy to say, he is a very healthy and self-reliant young man.

[eppur_se_muova]

107. No, that's standard issue for most teenagers.

...this from a (long-ago) former teenager...

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Would explain the kids who drift off to private school.

Most, not all, are kids who need to latch on to one person and demand unquestionable loyal. From there they might increase to up to four kids. And what they do is trash everyone else as inferior to them. If for some reason that security blanket falls apart, or they are no longer in favor in the group, their parents resolve it by sending them off to private school where they'll find a whole network of kids who love to put down everyone who isn't part of their school.

[DesertRat]

20. My three kids went to private school

And fortunately all grew up to be caring young adults and liberal Democrats. :-)

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. I'm sure you had a lot to do with that.

I live in a staunch Republican county and the kids I've met that went off to private school, most of them were very much like their parents. Power-player wannabes. When the kids no longer were able to be leaders within their tight circles, and their kids came home unhappy because everyone was being mean to them, their parents blamed it on the public school environment and sent them off to private schools where they expected to find more intelligent kids.

[underpants]

22. So this is why we heard how horrible it was for "latch key kids"

Maybe?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. 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). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. It is very important, for the long term (they won't have a hope

in Hell of office for many decades), for this insane myth of Republican "machismo" to be thoroughly and utterly debunked. They're the wily Harry Lime geeks, getting their revenge for being unpopular at school. Always have been, always will be.

Well, no. They haven't always been. Their officers used to lead from the front in wars, like their Democratic rivals. A Republican politician who served in the armed forces is now as scarce as rocking-horse droppings. And incidentally, rednecks are the types who have always provided the secret police in fascist countries.

It is an axiom of Judaeo-Christianity that if you do not move forward, you are inexorably destined to move backwards, so that, in very principle, Conservatism is by definition anti-Christian, most notably in that most important of all religious areas, love of and active concern for one's neighbour's welfare, in particular, those who are less fortunate in terms of this world's goods.

It seems both good fortune and ill fortune that nothing is ever that straight-forward in Christianity, however, and it transpires that one the main bastions of Christianity in our post-Christian societies are the old/old-money Conservatives and the private schools they resort to. Our misfortune in that regard is that the violent heathen, masquerading as Christians, have taken over the political right in both our countries, the UK and the US.

[connecticut yankee]

26. I don't agree

I was a "whiny" kid, primarily because I was small and sensitive and got picked on a lot. And I'm about as "Liberal" as they come.

I think it's the bullies that grow up to be Conservatives, or even Dictators.

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. I agree about the bullies, too. They tend to be big kids who are

jealous of the kids who do better them in their studies, but who don't have the heart to be good at sports - despite their physical advantages. Dictators, I think have often been shorties, but all of them have an exceptionally low cunning (unless their father has it).

Actually, there must be all sorts of potential reasons for a kid being whiny, for none of which the child would be responsible. People have different crosses and while the world may not recognise their valour, that's part of the human condition, isn't it. A dodgy used-car salesman might struggle all his life to do the right thing, while a bishop might have been a whited sepulchre all his life, simply hiding behind the cloth.

The author or authors of the article in question, though, are generalising in a way that can still point to a significant general truth. He's not saying all whiny kids become Conservatives, but that Conservatives tend to have been whiny kids. Commentators can't refrain from disparaging bad characters in terms of negative characteristics, just because good people sometimes share them. Nobody, but nobody is perfect, and we have to generalise to make sense of the world, which is itself a very general and mixed bag. Identifying general themes, if you like.

[MissMillie]

27. Isn't it funny... just a few weeks ago

the reports where that conservatives were so much happier than we are.

[KittyWampus]

34. Ask a full blown alchoholic if they are happy after scoring a bottle

they will probably say yes.

Any study that measures happiness solely by asking people to evaluate their own subjective state is essentially meaningless.

[GinaMaria]

130. Interesting comment considering

most of the conservatives I've met in life have been addicts :hangover:

[HootieMcBoob]

28. Numbnuts from Arizona.

Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

Greenberg, in dumbassedly trying to bash the study actually reinforces Block's point. Communist China is not liberal Numbnuts! It's a repressive, totalitarian regime where if you don't toe the party line you're likely to end up in prison or worse! Could Jeff Greenberg, social psychologist at the University of Arizona be any more thick?
:banghead:

[AngryAmish]

29. Now they can be targeted

Can we make sure these kids are not allowed to be educated further? Or should they be dealt with at that age?

[KittyWampus]

30. In other words, kids who fail to develop higher brain functions

more fully are Republicans and dominated by their reptiliain instincts.

[patcox2]

31. Gratifying, but I am doubtful. Lots of rigid authority-cravers here.

Yes, here on DU. Lots of people who crave assurance that they are in agreement with everyone else, who post questions flat out asking what position "we" at DU should have on a given topic.

Also lots of tattle tales who love crying to the mods.

I tend to believe that its not what you believe but how you believe it. It is as easy to be a rigid, doctrinaire, authortitarian liberal as to be a rigid, doctrinaire, authoritarian conservative.

[havocmom]

35. Was wondering about that myself. Control freaks on DU too.

New closet conservative detection method or just another wedge between people? :shrug:

Makes some sense that types who need constant approval and like authority figures (daddy?) to love them would gravitate toward political groups with strong authoritarian leanings and well defined, even ridgid, talking points. They also make the best brown shirt, jack boot thugs when those authoritarian political groups get enough power in a society to become a real threat. Tattle tales just love to get a little authority so they can abuse others.

Makes the 'privatization' of many law enforcement functions all the more frightening.

[mondo joe]

37. Me too.

As much fun as this study might be, I have very real reservations.

[Roland99]

32. A whole gaggle of Little Lord Pissypants!

[AnneD]

38. This is a case where .....

you just knew the answer but had to get the data to back you up. This ties in nicely with the entire conservative 'cult of the strong personality'. These kids do not tolerate change well and want a structured enviroment......HOWEVER, in our EVOLUTION as a species, it has been the adaptability to unforseen (liberal?) that has ensured our survival.

Many years ago, I told my ex (a conservative) that people were basically divided between sheep and wolves. Sheep were followers, incapable of independent thought to the point of following a Judas goat to the slaughter, and destroyed the pastures they were in by their grazing habits. Wolves were intelligent and shrewed. They mate for life and loyal to their pack. They are survivors because they can adapt (in a wild enviroment or civilized).

Wonder if I could get a grant?

[Mithras61]

39. Had an interesting talk on this subject with my spouse...

I need to add a little background for you before I post her comments, though.

We have two children: a boy (12th birthday tomorrow) and a girl (5th birthday about a month ago). They both tend to be demanding and a bit on the whiny side at home (the boy more than the girl). They both tend to lead and tend to be self-sufficient if neither of us is around.

When I brought up this article to my wife, her first question was if we were raising one R and one D, but when we examined the facets of our children's personalities, we realised that what we see as being "whiny" at home is as often as not a means for them to try and complete for our attention and to try and get us to do things for them (sort of testing to see how far they can go). They aren't really "whiny" so much as they are like most people I know, trying to get others to do for them what they would rather not do themselves (regardless if it is getting a drink or snack, or putting up their own clothes).

Going back to the article and to some of the other comments I've seen here, I would suggest that an outside observer may be a better source of information on our children's behaviors than we ourselves tend to be. Remember, we often see their worst behavior at home, and extrapolate from there, but others see them outside the home where they tend to have to look after themselves and can give a less biased opinion of how our children act away from Mom & Dad. This is actually one of the phenomenons I've observed with OP children as well - when they come to my house to visit, many of them are less demanding than they are at home, but some of them are whiners and tattle tales. The whiner kids never last long at our house. My kids tend to not play with them of their own choice (I don't try to choose my children's friends, since they have to learn to do it sooner or later).

[Liberal Veteran]

40. It takes no bravery to follow the herd.

Thinking for yourself and living life on your own terms takes backbone. Conservatives tend to follow the herd and live the life that others expect of them.

[BlueEyedSon]

41. Conservatism as a mental illness/behavior disorder. I like it.

:)

[MrPrax]

42. It's a good yarn...

and definitely a keeper to post to annoy 'rightwingers'...but it is kinda bogus...
1) sampling too small; different methodologies employed

2) no clinical agreement on what constitutes a 'conservative' and 'liberal' personality; can't be falsified; the definitions organizes the data

3) income differentials could technically produce the same observations in children: poor people tend to be 'more self-reliant' by circumstances ('cash' nexus) whereas wealthier people can 'purchase' more services...

Would not this make a huge developmental difference if one had chores included 'mowing' the lawn as opposed to 'watching' a gardener mow the lawn or grew up in an apartment?
Wouldn't it make a huge difference if you had a 'stay at home' doting mom as opposed to a mom who had a wants you to stay out of mommy's 'work clothes' closet?
Does it make a big difference if you grew up seeing Daddy come home via the back door to change out his muddy work clothes as opposed to a Daddy that came through the front door that dressed like the people on TV.

Come on...nobody here NEVER meet a spoiled whiny brat at a 'potluck' house party?

[FDRLincoln]

45. whiny

I'm not sure I really buy this. I was pretty whiny and insecure as a kid, but I turned out to be liberal. I know a guy who was very confident and self-assured and not a whiner, and he turned into an arch-conservative.

I'm not saying that the study is completely wrong, but I would warn against making too much of this.

[MrPrax]

48. You struck on the obvious

implication of this study; that IF political voting patterns are struck as 'children', then it makes little sense to bother with rational arguments, political platforms and coherent social planning...but as you point out, your 'conversion' to tolerance, community and diversity came via from 'without' and not from 'within'

The other little problem--more parochial--is that the article is from a Canadian newspaper?
Why?
Well at this moment in Canada there is a huge battle brewing with the new Tory (your GOP) minority gov't over federal daycare funding (crazy country for debating that instead of 'creationism', I know) and one of the bugaboos among the 'whiny' set is a fervent belief that government daycare schemes are the cutting edge to liberal social engineering.

Studies like this don't help throw much needed water on that little 'burning' whine.

[daleo]

79. Well, you would have to see the entire paper

But, I presume they used multi-variate analysis, so the .27 correlation between "whininess" and later political orientation should have been after adjustment for other predictors. I would think income differentials would be an obvious candidate for inclusion in the statistical analysis, but without the paper we can't say for sure.

I agree that a sample of 100 in an observational study is pretty small, so the statistical power wouldn't be that great. On the other hand, it was a longitudinal study (they followed the same people for decades) so I think that adds to its validity.

I don't know if there is no clinical agreement on 'conservative' and 'liberal'. There are a lot of instruments that have been designed to measure these concepts. One obvious one of practical import is "how did you vote?".

It would certainly be interesting to read the original paper. And anything that annoys rightwingers is good for something.

[MrPrax]

85. Good cop...

yer right...the full study with data would tie up pendantic lose ends...

But to play devil's advocate on my own point and yours regarding income, the income differentials might not be much of a factor if the 'sample' attended the same daycare, same fees, same location, same 'parent' profiles, cibling distributions, etc. All these predictors could be 'nulled' out quite easily in the data.

[daleo]

104. True, given the sample makeup

100 Berkeley kids, there might not be a lot of variance in some of these variables. From a statistical standpoint, I would say there would be the potential for a lot of multi-collinearity, leading to results that might be unstable and therefore difficult to interpret.

The fact that it is panel data might help, though. There are probably a lot of subtle points here. One hopes the researcher took them into account. It's tough to tell from a newspaper account.

[annabanana]

113. there you go.. getting all 'rational" on us..

It's more amusing t'other way..

[DarkTirade]

46. One might wonder though,

how much of it was the parents' influence. That might say more about the parents than the children. The parents who reward their kids for whining screw up their sense of right and wrong early on, so they cling to things like gender and society roles instead and become conservatives.
Just a thought. :)

[savemefromdumbya]

50. is it usually the case that if a baby is born of RW parents

that the baby will become RW? What's the stats?

[DarkTirade]

121. In most cases I think so.

But I don't have any stats to back that up, just what I've observed. A small percentage go the extreme opposite and go very liberal. But the rest stay with their parents.

[bloom]

74. That's how I see it

It's like a teaching of entitlement.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Whiny kids are a phenomenon of parents letting them whine

and giving in to their whining. Such parents either try to placate their whiny kids ("Do you want a cookie? Do you want to watch a movie?") or blow up and start hitting ("Shut up! I can't take it anymore!") instead of dealing with the underlying problem.

It can create either right-wing authoritarians or left-wing authoritarians. My totally unfounded theory is that the placating parent creates the left-wing authoritarian, the insufferable type who gets all self-righteous about the tiny sliver of a left-wing cause that they have decided to devote themselves to. When you're an adult, nobody's going to give you a cookie to make you stop whining, but they may accede to your demands that they indulge your obsessions. That is the future of the brat at the Sierra Club potluck.

The "put up with it till you explode" type parent creates tremendous insecurity, because the kids learn not that things are right or wrong but that you can do whatever you want until the authority figure goes ballistic. Without any real guidance, they feel out of control themselves and want to be "whipped into shape." Hence the phenomenon I saw several times in my teaching career of bratty students leaving school to enlist in the Marines. They are also susceptible to political and religious cults of all kinds.

[superconnected]

51. I read the whole article and the writer is more of a propaganda-ist

than a journalist.

I think he's trying to un-factually, blow down the professor of Berkeleys findings. The professor in Arizona insulted the study with no facts to back him up, but still got quoted. More than half of the article is the personal opinion of the journalist.

I call this shabby reporting. Okay, it's more propaganda for conservatives, to distort a factual study, than anything else.

The professor in Berkeley did appear to do his home work, so kudos to him.

I'm still willing to donate to a study on IQ and political leanings.

[Demeter]

67. It's More A Question of Personality Than IQ

In Mensa, which sorts for IQ, there is the entire spectrum of political leanings. There's nothing worse than an educated ignoramus, or one who perverts his intellect and education for selfish and hateful reasons, or to advance a political campaign.

[superconnected]

73. Yes, but it would still be nice to have an offical, "it's even".

If it is.

[daleo]

82. But Mensa only looks at the top 1% of the population, by definition

And it also is a self-selected 1%. So, it is doubtful whether their intelligence vs politics findings can be generalized to the entire population.

[Demeter]

127. Actually, It's 2%

I always compare Mensa to the corona of flour left when you scoop out 98% of the middle of the heap==flakes all around in a big, hazy donut shape.

[4_TN_TITANS]

52. Makes sense to me....

The staunch conservative on the other side of the cubicle is the first to run to the boss about anything she deems "unfair"... The study findings fit every Republican / conservative that I know.

[superconnected]

54. It's dead on for all of the conservatives I know too.

But the article is trying to discredit the study. It's not using anything but opinions, to do it.

[mom cat]

53. I remember a little kid whose whining used to drive me insane. He is

now a Marine recruiter. Not only were the parents rigid, they did not know how to listen to the ir kids basic needs, so the kids became whiners.

[gordianot]

55. Very interesting, also wonder if this includes bullies.

They tend to be very insecure and when confronted outside of their group are basically wimps. I know several who developed into first class neo-conservatives. One of the wimpiest turned into what could be called Ultra-Conservative, of course he is a chickenhawk. Sounds like a good longitudinal study combining personality and political science.

[jdadd]

Sounds like my sister.....

We both grew up in same environment, she was always the tattletale and the whiner...today she is the Bushbot. This really puzzled me, now I understand.

[stepnw1f]

56. Yup... I Have Seen This With My Own Eyes!

A kid I grew up with was a whinny brat, that had to get his way, even if he was the only one making a big deal. Today he is a Conservative, or whatever the hell that means anymore. Greedy, selfish bigot who believes some people should rule over others. He despises Democracy.

[daleo]

57. This has been my observation of family and friends

Whiney when young = conservative when older.
Even tempered when young = liberal when older.

With a few exceptions.

[Coexist]

58. I just emailed that a LOT of people!

:evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

61. I was a whiny brat and I definitely ain't conservative.

So I definitely bucked this trend. Also, I don't think it has to do with Left vs. Right axis of the ideological chart but with the athoritarianism vs. libertarian axis. Kids that have passive parents that let said whiny kids get what they want grow up to be bossy, hence the athoritariansim. Kids with super-strict parents rebel against the parents and therefore tend towards libertarianism.

[progressivebydesign]

76. It's not just the whiny part.. there's more to the study.

It's not just the kids that were whiny, as most kids are pretty whiny, it's the reasons why they were whiny.. it was the kids that felt everything was unfair to them, and uncomfortable with change, etc.

[mondo joe]

86. That makes even less sense to me.

My 10 year old has always been whiny, uncomfortable with change and first to jump on the "it's not fair" card.

But at the same time she really is the most fair kid I know - she has what I'd call an exceptional sense of social justice. She's quite willing to surrender her own advantages inthe interest of being more fair.

The whole thing strikes me as pretty weak. Not least of all, there is no fixed definition of what's liberal or conservative.

[wryter2000]

62. I know that prof!

He chaired my orals committee.

:woohoo:

[Plaid Adder]

63. Doesn't it matter that this study was done in the Berkeley area?

My impression is that in the Berkeley area, the dominant ethos is progressive. I think the results would probably be different if you did the study someplace where the dominant ethos was conservative. I don't know how, exactly, but before I accept this as gospel I'd want to see the study done on a national scale.

OK, the article does deal with this in a later paragraph:

"Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial."

In general this seems to assume that insecurity is a temperamental thing that kids are basically born with. But some kids who are insecure are that way because they've been picked on--either at home or at school, and often if it's at school it's because the other kids have figured out that they're sensitive, or as this article puts it "whiny," and therefore more entertaining to torment. Seems to me like a kid with that profile is at least as liable to wind up being a liberal based on their experience of persecution and of being an outsider.

To me this just looks like another study done to reinforce the message that being sensitive and vulnerable is bad. Whee.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[Jim__]

68. Isn't this the same way you spot an adult conservative?

Whiny, complaining? Always running to the teacher - see David Horowitz, recent high school student in Denver.

[progressivebydesign]

75. In my own experience.. I find this to be 100% true.

I can't think of an instance, in my life, when I've been confronted with a laid back, creative, easy going, conservative. Every single one has been uptight... Sad that the conservatives are so unhappy with who they are. They could change. Felix Unger would be a conservative, Oscar Madison, a liberal. Charlie Brown a liberal, Lucy a conservative. (Snoopy would be a Green) Darrin would be conservative, Samantha a liberal.

[Javaman]

77. and this study, for me, has finally solved something for me that has

been escaping me. There has always been an element of morons* personality that continually grated upon me and I could never quite put my finger on it, until now.

moron* is a whiny little mother fucker. Plain and simple. He* was one of those little shits that got there way in everything purely through whining. Look at how everything he's* fucked up so far. It was part of his* whiny ass "vision" of complete stupidity.

he* whined as a kid, he* whined as a failed business man, he* whined as governor and now he* constantly whines as prez. This is the single most irritating factor in his* personality. He* is a gigantic pain in the ass.

When I was a kid and some little snot would whine, my friends and I would basically say, "shut the fuck up, grow a pair and act like a fucking adult, if you can't go away!" Always worked like a charm.

colossal whiny racist failure*

[sendero]

78. I can easily agree with this study..

.... but I think the use of the word "whiny" in too imprecise to be useful.

Yes, running to the teacher, yes insecure, those are specific. IMHO, "whiny" embodies a set of traits, not all clearly related, and is a word that means different things to different people.

[NVMojo]

80. omigod, this is hysterical but believable! Control being the key here!

[thinkingwoman]

83. wow this is stupid

No, seriously it is. Junk science at its best. Watching approximately 100 kids for 100 years won't produce a legitimate study. The group is just too damn small for meaningful extrapolation.

It's just stupid.

[pamela]

103. It's a longitudinal study.

It's not junk science. Longitudinal studies have their limitations but they are also some of the most informative studies used in the behavioral sciences. The sample size is actually quite respectable for this type of study.

[thinkingwoman]

109. the sample size is so small that it's meaningless

I'm aware of what a longitudinal study is thankyousomuch.

It's still junk science if the sample size is so small that extrapolation is worthless. You can think following 100 people yields answers about millions if you want to. I don't.

[pamela]

118. Junk science? NIMH disagrees with you.

http://review.ucsc.edu/summer.97/29_years.html

"Begun in 1968 at UC Berkeley by Jack and Jeanne Block, the "Block Study" has generated some of the richest data in the field of developmental psychology. After intense competition with other research universities, Jack Block, professor emeritus of psychology at UC Berkeley, recently chose UCSC to carry on his life's work in part because of contributions made by Santa Cruz faculty, some of whom have ties to the project dating back more than 25 years.

"We can't call them kids anymore, because they're all in their 30s now," says UCSC associate professor of psychology Per Gjerde, who became involved with the study in 1978 and is directing it at UCSC. Colleagues David Harrington and Avril Thorne have also been involved with the project for a long time.

"If you're interested in how life unfolds--how we become who we are--you really have to follow people from early childhood into adulthood," says Gjerde. "This study is unparalleled and provides a rich research and training resource for our students." The project has been funded by the National Institute of Mental Health every year for more than 25 years and has generated more than 100 research papers, some of which are classics in their fields."

[thinkingwoman]

120. I'm sure they do

And that's their right, in a free society.

Just as it's my right to disagree with them.



edited to add a "t"

[xxqqqzme]

84. My daughter teaches pre-school (pre-K, 4yr olds)

I will have to show her this because her biggest challenge are the whiny kids. Sometime she is successful, others not so much. If the parents indulge it, it continues. She has a bumper sticker w/ the word whine w/ a red slashed circle around it.

[electropop]

88. "baby conservative" - isn't that redundant?

:evilgrin:

[GrimReefa]

89. What is a conservative?

He/she is someone who tends to be anti-social (hence the antipathy for anything that might be labeled "socialism") and doesn't like/trust his peers (i.e., would rather live in a predesigned society than the one that is continuously redisigned by the people around him).

So it makes complete sense that conservatives displayed anti-social tendencies as children.

The real question is, is this cause or effect? Do little conservatives act like obnoxious brats as children because they are conservative, or does this anti-social behavior, if left uncorrected, blossom into conservatism?

Liberal indoctrination in Universities might be a paranoid right-wing fantasy, but perhaps liberal indoctrination in pre-school (by teaching kids to play nice with others) could be a reality...


Hmmmmmm.....

[Elidor]

90. Now that we know that conservatism is a disease...

We owe it to our conservative brothers and sisters to see to it that they get the professional help they so desperately need to eradicate this crippling affliction. I would suggest a rider to the bill that will require schoolchildren to take whatever drugs the pharmaceutical companies deem right for them, to include proper medication for Whiney-Assed Titty Babies everywhere, and at all age levels. Together, we can end this nightmare of suffering for millions of people.

[pitohui]

93. conservatives make whiny adults too EOM

.

[Divernan]

97. The deeper the roots, the stronger the wings. . . .

and the stronger the wings, the farther and faster your "chicks" will go when they leave the nest.
Kids who grow up in a nurturing home, with plenty of love and approval for each of them, however many kids one has, have healthy self-confidence and are ready to explore life. Their parent(s) have taught them that if you never fail, you're not exploring enough possibilities; and if you make the wrong choice, then you STILL have other choices about where to go from there.

For four generations, my family, with a few exceptions, have on the whole ranged far and wide in both pursuit of careers and just for fun travel. And guess what, those few exceptions are narrow-minded conservatives who were the whiny cousins at the holiday get-togethers. That little group of 4 brothers had a mother (she married into my family) from a wealthy conservative family. Everything they did had to be absolutely perfect and the kids were always getting scolded. Whatever they did, it could have been done better, faster and cleaner. They were the only cousins who had bedwetting problems, and of course their Mom had to complain to the rest of the family to further humiliate them. One of the boys (all adults now) is gay, and his mom refuses to include him at family weddings, reunions, etc. The oldest one served in Nam, from where he wrote letters home bragging about how many gooks he'd wasted. IMHOP none of her kids turned out happy. Glad to say that the rest of us are fire-breathing Dems.

Memo to lurking freepers: Break the cycle. Get counseling. Don't do to your kids what was done to you.

[BlackVelvet04]

98. I don't know how scientific this is

but it sure is funny.....I love it.

LOL

[Divine Discontent]

102. well if I am any kind of proof.....

I was the most giving little kid, I used to split up my prizes in school with the kids who did the worst, quietly sit and mind my business, and sing on the playground... I remember the screaming bratty kids, and it wouldn't surprise me if those little Tucker's grew up to be Faux News Believers.

[Initech]

99. And the conservatives call US the crybabies! HA!

[mimitabby]

101. uh.. i was a whiny timid kid...

and i've voted democratic all my adult life. i'm not politically conservative. i hate the whole GOP thing..etc.
i don't need to go on an on here.

[Dervill Crow]

105. LOL - no wonder my kids are all liberals.

I actually was conservative in my "young mom" days (misguidedly bought into the good mom = christian = republican meme), but I told my kids my ears were broken and couldn't hear whiny voices.

(Thank gods my conservatism was just a phase and very short-lived.)

[Benfea]

108. ...and they're STILL whiny and insecure as adults! n/t

[SomewhereOutThere424]

110. Unreal

From the looks of the many replies to this thread, BOTH liberal and conservative children are going to grow up as only one thing. Warped.

children are not political tools

As much as I may seriously dislike republicans; or basically anyone who finds torturing and abusing things on any form of scale, I have to say this is a seriously disturbing topic and a seriously disturbing echo of supporters to it. The child who normally runs up to the teacher is normally the one being bullied, or, in many cases, the one facing serious parental neglect at home. Or in some cases physically or sexually abused by an authority figure.

So our conclusion is to mock them? Our conclusion is to laugh and say 'oh yeah remember that kid we all hated, shunned, didn't let participate? HE IS A FREEPER! AREN'T WE SO COOL!?'? This is the democratic party you're trying to convince me to vote for?

Well the child who is often insecure, who has those 'whiny' problems isn't always a republican. Sometimes he simply grows up with alcoholic parents who severely mistreated him, making him sleep in a dog house at night. And we don't always grow up to be conservative. I'm independant. Was a hairstring close to being democrat until I found a bunch of sophomore leveled idiots cheering on at topics like this here at DU.

Liberals, democrats, are those who are supposed to reach out and be the better party. The bigger man. Well I'm not seeing that, I'm seeing a bunch of neandrothols doing the fag dance and picking this week's favorite scapegoat because freepers are too stupid to properly insult. Congrats, you're one step closer to being freepers every day.

[eppur_se_muova]

111. For insight into RW psyche, here's a good article...

http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/77/6/1121.html (requires $$, abstract below)

Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
By Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999 Dec Vol 77(6) 1121-1134

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

[ElboRuum]

112. As someone said earlier...

This isn't about conservative or liberal, it has to do with authoritarianism, order, and control.

Conservatives are just more noticeable because they whine the loudest. People who exhibit these traits of persecution and insecurity, when you drill down to the cause, feel uncomfortable, even threatened by the world's natural randomness, its chaos. Of course, the difference between conservative and liberal authoritarianism is the basis for that authority, one's reason, the other's superstition. I'll leave it to you well reasoned folks to decide which is which.

[tanyev]

116. Hi, ElboRuum! Good post, great handle.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

122. HOW DARE YOU talk about Ken Melmen like that? He was never whiny

except for weekdays, during school, at home or on saturday and sunday.

[daleo]

124. Intelligence and Lib/Con

Here is an interesting finding from the article (page 10):

"(3) It is of interest to note that the LIB/CON score does not relate to intelligence
(WPPSI IQ) at age 4 for either boys or girls (r’s of .07 and .01). However, LIB/CON correlates positively with intelligence in the following decade for both boys and girls. WISC IQ at age 11 correlates with LIB/CON .30* and .28*, and WAIS IQ at age 18 correlates .36* and .24* for boys and girls, respectively. These evolving relationships may be consequential upon further development, and divergence, of the subjects."

So people that tested higher on IQ in their early and late teens were more likely to be liberal, but IQ in nursery school didn't come into it.

[happydreams]

125. K&R. What about squealing like a piggy?

I notice Rush gasbaugh did this alot when somebody criticizes him.

[kestrel91316]

128. This fits with the kind of kid I was, I think -

I was definitely self-reliant. I used to go down to my playroom in the basement when I was little, and busy myself all day without asking for or needing anything. If friends came ove to play, fine, but if they didn't I didn't fuss or say I'M BORED, MOMMY, or I WANT ____________(fill in the blank).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

129. I've always believed this - right wingers worship authority

It makes perfect sense that as kids they would be reporting to the teacher whatever other kids do. They're also the snitches. I've never had much respect for right wingers to begin with, but seeing that studies are beginning to bear out what I've suspected and seen over my lifetime, I have even less respect now.

[PatrioticLeftie]

133. It just keeps piling up...

Evidence against the RW. But somehow it's still all our fault.

[tomreedtoon]

134. What about the kids of "What's The Matter With" Kansas?

There are kids just as bullied, and just as whiny, in that state. Did their results turn out just as solid? Because there seems to be a lot more conservatives, of a lot nastier temperament, in places like Kansas, not to mention Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama and the like. I'm talking the kind of conservatives that think it's fun to chain up a gay man and drag him behind a pick-um-up truck until he dies. That's a kind of conservative that should be of more concern than the prejudiced-but-passive yuppies in Berkeley. Sneering at a gay is less offensive than slaughtering one.

[0rganism]

136. Perhaps the conservatives felt worse about themselves?

That's what I'm getting from this: the ones who end up "rigid and traditional" were taught to have low self-esteem and over-reliance on authority figures from the get-go.

[populistdriven]

137. More Importantly: How would someone Cure this Personality Trait/Disorder?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

138. They'd have to get rid of their sado-masochistic streak. nt