It is much easier to place people in in-groups and out-groups if we can dichotomize them. After all, how do we know who to hate if we can't pigeon-hole them into overly-simplistic categories? Political and religious ideologies are great examples of complex realities that are too often simplified into dichotomies. It's much easier to complain about those bleeding heart Democrats or those hateful fundamentalists rather than considering the possibility the many shades of gray in the ideological spectrum.
I had a methodology professor who used to complain all the time about researchers who take interval- or ratio-scaled data (e.g., age) and turn them into categorical data (e.g., young versus old) for their analysis. In the process, they end up washing-out important distinctions. I suppose we also wash out important distinctions when we do this with variables such as political or religious ideologies. Why do we do this? Is it some variant on stereotyping? Helping us to deal with information overload by simplying the issues? Any social psychologists want to chime in on this question? ______________________________________________ Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. Department of Psychology LeTourneau University Post Office Box 7001 2100 South Mobberly Avenue Longview, Texas 75607-7001 Office: Education Center 218 Phone: 903-233-3893 Fax: 903-233-3851 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Froman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:57 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: RE: George Will's Washinton Post Column. > > > 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] > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
