Dear Tipsters, In his discussion of political attitudes, Hans Eysenck distinguished between the dimensions of Radical/Conservative and Tender- minded/Tough Minded. Communists are Radical and Tough- minded, Fascists are Conservative and Tough-minded, so they are similar on tough-mindedness. For him, probably in a British context, Liberal mean neutral on the Radical/Conservative dimension and somewhat tender-minded.
Bob Altemeyer has worked extensively on right-wing authoritarianism and somewhat on left-wing authoritarianism. I think that they are similar to Eysenck;s fascists and communists. Stuart Send reply to: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Rick Froman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: George Will's Washinton Post Column. Date sent: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:56:33 -0500 Organization: John Brown University > I am not a political scientist but I have friends who are political > scientists and I just wonder if anyone else has had the not-so-brilliant > thought that the whole left-wing/right-wing dichotomy in political science > is way too oversimplified? I just had such a thought today when I read > someone referring to privacy as a liberal issue. It may be but there are a > lot of right-wing groups that don't want the government involved in their > business either. > > There are many problems with a simple left/right dichotomy and I can't > believe political scientists haven't figured this out yet. If they have, > they are keeping it a secret from the rest of us (including the > psychologists who study political motivations). To start with, there are, of > course, economic conservatives and liberals and social conservatives and > liberals so, at least, there are two axes with four quadrants: the two > well-known ones, Libertarians (who are basically social liberals and > economic conservatives) and a fourth group of social conservatives and > economic liberals (which, if they actually exist, seem to be about as > numerous as Kohlberg's Stage 6 reasoners). To consider fascists or > communists to be either extremely to the left or to the right of the > American political spectrum is ludicrous. They seem to be pretty closely > related (at least in their real life manifestations) to one another. I think > there may be almost as many dimensions to political thought as there are > political issues. To tie in another thread, I think such a one-dimensional > dichotomy is even less likely to shine light on a person's motivations than > the gender dichotomy or racial distinctions. > > Rick > > Dr. Rick Froman > Associate Professor of Psychology > John Brown University > Siloam Springs, AR 72761 > (479) 524-7295 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/rfroman.asp > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aubyn Fulton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:46 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: RE: George Will's Washinton Post Column. > > 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] ___________________________________________________ Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600 Department of Psychology, Extension 2402 Bishop's University, Fax: (819)822-9661 3 Route 108 East, Lennoxville, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quebec J1M 1Z7, Canada. Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy ___________________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
