I find it somewhat odd that George Will would object to the characterization of (particularly *his*) conservatism as being driven by emotional need. After all, he confessed in Ken Burns' _Baseball_ series that he was driven to conservatism by the childhood disappointment engendered by being a lifelong Cubs fan, and that his boyhood friends, who were all Cardinals fans, became what he himself called "happy liberals." :-)
Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ =========================== Aubyn Fulton wrote: > Louis_Schmier wrote: > Any of you tipsters read George Will in the Washington Post this morning? > I suggest you do. I won't tell you what he says. I've got my take on it. > I'd like to hear yours. > > PAUL K. BRANDON wrote� > The Psych Bull article that Will is referring to is a meta-analysis, with > all the limitations of its breed. Since it's based on a wide variety of > verbal reports of what individuals apparently mostly politicians) say that > they would do or say in a specified situation, it is of limited value. > > And Will of course has selectively abstracted parts of the report that > suit his politics. > > All in all, I'm more disappointed in Psych Bull in publishing the article > in the first place. > > Aubyn writes� > Aside from sharing his staunch conservative opposition to the Designated > Hitter (a position all right thinking baseball fans adopt) I long ago > stopped taking Mr. Will seriously, but I don�t begrudge him responding to, > and even being a little insulted by, the thesis put forward by Jost and > others (including Frank Sulloway) that political conservatives are more > likely to be rigid than liberals. Will is essentially an entertainer these > days, so I also don�t really expect him to give a fair reading of the > article. > > If one were to take Will seriously, I think the main dispute I would have > with him is his distortion of Jost�s position on the psychological > determinants of all beliefs. Will fills much of his column with assertions > like the following: �Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other > people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological > explanations for their beliefs� and � The professors have ideas; the rest > of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses� and ��the > professors, who do not say that their judgments arise from social > situations or emotional needs rather than reason�. While Jost et. al. do > argue that conservatives are more likely to be rigid and uncomfortable > with ambiguity, they specifically are not arguing what Will attributes to > them repeatedly, that only conservative beliefs are motivated by > non-rational processes. Note this passage, only partially quoted by Will: > �Our first assumption, too, is that conservative ideologies�like virtually > all other belief systems�are adopted in part because they satisfy some > psychological needs. This does not mean that conservatism is pathological > or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or > unprincipled.� Will chops the quote up, and exaggerates the emphasis on > the phrase �necessarily false� to make it [inaccurately] seem that Jost is > really exempting liberal beliefs from non-rational motivation. > > I don�t understand Dr. Brandon�s disappointment with Psych Bull for > publishing the article � unless he is disappointed with all published > reports of meta-analysis (which would make him one disappointed > psychologist indeed). There is a long and broad literature on the > psychology of political ideology, and it seems appropriate for Psych Bull > to publish a review of this literature from time to time. Jost and company > state up front that whether or not conservative ideology is uniquely > linked to the set of psychological needs and motives they suggest is an > empirical question, and they use acceptable empirical methods to support > their answer. Psych Bull also published a response to Jost et. al. that > argues in the alternative � that the rigid avoidance of ambiguity is not > uniquely associated with conservatives, but is an attribute of ideological > extremists of all kinds. Jost then replies with their explanation of why > they think this is not true, and that conservatives really are uniquely > rigid. I don�t know that these articles will be the last word on this > topic, and it is certainly possible to disagree with elements of both, but > from what I can tell they seem to be of a type and quality that is > consistent with the scope and mission of Psych Bull. Maybe next time they > will publish a review of research on the motivations of liberal ideology. > > What would really be disappointing is if Psych Bull were to allow > political and popular pressures and criticisms discourage them from > publishing potentially controversial articles. > > Here are the full citations for anyone interested in reading the articles > for themselves: > > Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. By Jost, John T.; > Glaser, Jack; Kruglanski, Arie W.; Sulloway, Frank J. Psychological > Bulletin. 2003 May Vol 129(3) 339-375 > > Psychological and political orientation--The left, the right, and the > rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). By Greenberg, Jeff; Jonas, Eva > Psychological Bulletin. 2003 May Vol 129(3) 376-382 > > Exceptions that prove the rule--Using a theory of motivated social > cognition to account for ideological incongruities and political > anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003). By Jost, John T.; Glaser, > Jack; Kruglanski, Arie W.; Sulloway, Frank J. Psychological Bulletin. 2003 > May Vol 129(3) 383-393 > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
