Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
That might explain their incessant whining as adults.
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.
(via Balloon Juice)
TrackBackI haven't seen the study itself, but the way the linked article describes the study results is ridiculously biased.
If someone is a conservative, it's because he needs the security of traditional ideas, whereas if he's liberal, it's because he's comfortable exploring alternatives.
Mmmkay...
Might it not be possible that conservatives are conservative because they have actually considered the alternatives and found conservative ideas to be superior? And that liberals are driven by emotion, adopting whatever ideas strike their fancy, regardless of whether they make sense?
Meanwhile, a completely different study (one not focused entirely in Berkeley) found that conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.
Posted by: GaijinBiker at March 21, 2006 02:59 AMAha. I have now RT whole FA and found that neither the survey nor the article is quite so one-sided as I had thought based on reading your post alone.
Posted by: GaijinBiker at March 21, 2006 03:06 AMAll my love, GB, but I'm not sure the way to respond to that excerpt is by whining about the study not conforming to your rigid standards.
Just sayin'!
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at March 21, 2006 01:21 PMSurprisingly, I find myself in agreement with a significant portion of what GB just said. To whit:
Might it not be possible that conservatives . . . adopt . . . whatever ideas strike their fancy, regardless of whether they make sense?
Like say, the Laffer Curve, or impeaching Clinton, or invading Iraq to spread democracy, or . . .
Posted by: M/tch M/lls at March 21, 2006 08:58 PMCriticizing conservatives = hangin' loose
Criticizing study about conservatives = whining
Got it.
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at March 21, 2006 09:00 PMI did see what looked like a fair criticsm of the study somewhere, that it was based in Berkeley, and so might be reflecting a correlation between whininess and unusual or deviant political views rather than whininess and conservativism. That is, in Berkeley, the well-adjusted kids grew up having majority political views, that is as liberals, and the whiners grew up with minority views. If the study were replicated in Salt Lake City, the well adjusted kids might have been the conservatives.
Posted by: LizardBreath at March 22, 2006 11:46 AMYeah, I noticed that in the article Apostropher linked to, once I read it.
Posted by: GaijinBiker at March 22, 2006 12:09 PMVolokh Conspiracy has made a couple posts addressing the basis and claimed flaws in the study.
Frankly, this all seems a bit silly, although who could begrudge you a bit of gloating. Maybe conservatives are happier (GaijinBiker's comment above) because we are not so insecure that we have to conduct studies to show that we are psychologically superior to our political opponents. (speaking generally; me, I'm plenty insecure)
Posted by: Idealist at March 25, 2006 06:32 PMI posted it lightheartedly. I don't take it seriously.
Posted by: apostropher at March 25, 2006 07:23 PMI was referring to the whole kerfluffle generally--particularly how exercised some people on both sides (not you) got. I did not mean to accuse you of taking it more seriously than it deserves to be taken. Honest; not trying to start a fight here.
Posted by: Idealist at March 25, 2006 08:15 PM