Category: Science & Nature

I tend to be leery of articles that seem psychological or biological differentiation between “conservatives” and “liberals,” for a variety of reasons. First, such articles almost always show a bias as to which end of the spectrum is better. Second, “liberal” and “conservative” are so broad and slippery of labels that they tend to be difficult to make meaningful from a scientific standpoint.

The experiment (and background experiments) discussed in this article, though, is fascinating and, beyond the clickbait headline (which, mercifully, G+’s current treatment of WaPo articles obscures) takes a relatively straightforward approach, and in a way that rings true, drawing a correlation between a sense of physical safety (or fear of physical danger) and one’s conservative vs liberal bent.

All of which makes sense, and maybe even just a truism. Conservative political leaders and pundits often take a fearful view of the world (rapist Mexican immigrants, gun-toting narco-gangs, molesters in the public restrooms, ISIL terrorists sneaking in as refugees, tyrannical big government coming to take your guns and freedom, etc.). Regardless of whether this is realistic, (let alone whether this is fearmongering to garner or even create votes, vs sincerely held beliefs), the identification of conservatism with a sense of fear for the physical safety of oneself and one’s loved ones lines up all too well.

What makes the experiment described so interesting is that by creating a sense of safety, of immunity to physical harm, the researchers were able to get Republicans in the study to answer questions on a number of “fearful” topics in a way that was consistent with how Democrats answered, least for a period of time. That indicates that such attitudes can be shifted (presumably in either direction), and that they are less ideologically based than they are emotionally based.

Again, this is broad-based stuff. Liberal politicians often dabble in fear-mongering, too, though not perhaps of an explicitly physical nature. But understanding the whys and wherefores of ideological differences may make us more aware of how our own emotions are driving what we think are intellectually sound belief systems, and how to approach people who believe very differently from us in a way that is effective, and not targeting the wrong root of their beliefs.

washingtonpost

View on Google+