For all the clueless commenters who insist that I'm a conservative, you can't imagine the clutter in my office. Or my many bookcases full of a wide variety of books.

Also, on the fear of death thing, that must explain why the military, fire and police departments are so overrun with liberals.

Articles like this are why so many people have trouble taking psychologists seriously, particularly academic ones. As Tyler says, at a minimum, it would have been useful to have more than two categories. Though it would still be nonsensical. Just more on the continuing Berkeley theme that "conservatism" is a mental disorder.

"Articles like this are why so many people have trouble taking psychologists seriously"

I'm inclined to think that the causal connection between the two phenomena -- articles like this and psychologists not being taken seriously -- is not that either one causes the other, but that they're both caused by a third factor -- namely, the lameness of psychology as a "science."

you aren't a conservative you are a neo-com

you aren't a conservative you are a neo-com

And you are an old-fashioned paleo-idiot.

Simberg

Why do you deny being a neo-con?

anonymous, very likely because Rand is not a neo-con, either by the standard defintion or whichever twisted up parody you have imbedded in that cowardly thick skull of yours.

I am a conservative, been one since way before the term "neo-con" was coined. Proud of it too.

What are you Anonyarse, other than a complete moron that is?

The biggest problem with the article and research is that it defines political differences along only one dimension -- left to right. While that is an important dimension, there are others that are also important. For instance, there are the freedom - totalitarian and the democratic - authoritarian dimensions. I know I'm personally strongly in favor of freedom and democratic decision making. I suspect many people who comment here are likewise. The right to left dimension isn't as important to us. That, for example, is why Rand insists he is no conservative . That's actually an honest assessment of his political positions.

The way we think can help explain the phenomenon described at the beginning of the Psychology Today article. There are quite a few leftists who aren't all that much in favor of free societies. There's even been some research done on such left authoritarians. It might not be as popular in academia as the research done on right authoritarians, but it has been done. Academia has all sorts of blind spots.

Dismissing psychology out of hand isn't very wise. You do need, though, to think about it in ways that some people do not care to. I suspect more authoritarian conservatives would rather not like to see their ideas challenged in such ways -- hence the general challenge of the worth of psychology as a science.

When I hear someone call someone else a "neo-con", especially as a term of insult, the time-tested heuristic is that the user of the term doesn't know what the hell they're talking about and is just flailing about for an insult that their little clique thinks is both especially awful and especially malleable.

Irving Kristol can call someone a neo-conservative and get away with it as justifiable.

An anonymous blog-troll, not so much.

Actually, there's a very interesting subject to ponder in the middle of all of this. I'm convinced that we evolve our political philosophies to answer psychological needs we each have. Depending on our inherent pyschological makeup and how we were raised, as well as the external circumstances of our childhoods and adolescences, we develop the political philosophies to which we adhere during the bulk of our lives. There is some research on the subject, actually, and the subject of how belief systems propagate strikes me as an intensely fascinating one.

Since our psychology is a lot more complex than a single axis from left to right, it isn't surprising that our political notions reflect a similar complexity. I'm not sure there's any one- or two- dimensional axis that can model the variations properly, so just talking works for me.

That's part of the fun of hanging out here, from time to time, for me. There are a decent number of intelligent people with whom I largely disagree, but who are passionate about subjects that also motivate me.

I'd love to see that study try to pigeon-hole me. For several of the things they said were a liberal trait, I was or still am. And I am a proud conservative in most things. And don't even get me started on books. My collection goes from paleontology to architecture to history to Sci-Fi/fantasy.

Why do these studies always feel the need to classify people so 2 dimensionally? No one is can be classified that way. By this studies standards, my left-leaning wife should be as conservative as they come and I should be the liberal...

Dumb...

From the Wiki article on neocon:

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.

Jane,

There is some truth to what you say. I can remember my own political odyssey. In my youth I was a moderately conservative Republican, in good part because that's what my parents were. The Vietnam War pushed me briefly to absolute pacifism. Interestingly, though, I kept my respect for certain conservatives -- for example Barry Goldwater -- while holding a fair number of leftists in utter contempt. A fellow pacifist friend first introduced me to the concept of multidimensional politics because he had quite similar thoughts -- and was older and more mature than me.

In the post Vietnam era I drifted rightward -- but much more libertarian in orientation than some people who describe themselves as conservatives. I also try to listen to others and learn from them. That's a trait I picked up from my family.

One Republican friend has described my current politics as eclectic. That's pretty accurate. Dogmatism, of whatever stripe, too often goes off the tracks too quickly. That's probably why my temperment is moderate and democratic in general -- although not all the time.

Thoughtful commentary is one reason why I keep coming to Rand's website. I learn things from people with whom I have some disagreements. For what it's worth, the anonymous posters annoy me even more than most people who have voiced disapproval of them -- especially if they are taking a position that could be construed as one I hold.

2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture

That part surprises me -- I always thought that "neo-conservative" means fiscally conservative, aggressive in foreign policy, and socially liberal (more or less policies of The Governator). What Kristol wrote is standard conservative formula -- prefix "neo-" becomes meaningless.

I suspect Mr. Kristol may have fallen into the error so many political ponderers fall into, of assuming that the true meaning of whatever label one prefers, is whatever that person happens to believe in.

If Anonymoron considers "neocon" an insult, he must be a "paleo-lib."

What's interesting is that Simberg squeals like a pig
whenever he's labeled a neo-con. I'm really trying to
find out why it bothers him to line up with Kristol,
kagan, perle, feith, wolfowitz and the rest of the
AEI likudniks.

He spouts their propoganda, he toes their line,
he polishes Dubya's codpiece, so why does he
resist being a neo-con?

But if you are interested in the subject of political affiliation
look up the political compass. www.politicalcompass.org

AJ-H,

Do you think Rand would be less likely to stop protesting your mischaracterization of him if instead you started to repeatedly insist he was the founding memeber of 'Parliment' and George Clinton's BFF?

Wow, it's true, you wind up an anonymous leftroid, and it stutters and clatters all over the floor.

What fun! Let's just say the exact same thing in slightly different words...

* Liberals are less competent at basic tasks (like keeping your room or person neat) than conservatives.

* Compared to liberals, conservatives are better at making tough decisions. Liberals spend more time frozen in indecision because they can't figure out which way to jump.

* Liberals are more out of touch with basic reality (i.e. that everyone dies, and it could be your turn right now, if you're about to do something dumb).

* Liberals have a poorer self-discipline and less respect for privacy. They tend to blurt out secrets more often, and more readily pry into other people's business. Also, their tastes are coarser than conservatives: like thrill-seeking adrenaline junkies (or just plain junkies) they find it difficult to find enjoyment in the subtle pleasures of ordinary living and instead compulsively seek new forms of stimulation all the time.

* Conservatives think more often of the effect of their actions on others, and hence are better at cooperating with their fellow men, following social norms, obeying rules, discharging generally-recognized duties, etc.

* Conservatives dislike dithering, and prefer to reach decisions as fast as is reasonable. Liberals like to form committees and "study" a problem until someone else (e.g. a conservative) solves it for them.

* When people are prompted to think about death -- a state of mind most people consider indicative of passing from adolescence to adu1thood -- they actually become more conservative.

* Conservatives are more likely to have been sensitive and thoughtful as children and unhappy in the unreal socialist paradise that is public schooling, while liberals are more likely to have been blissfully ignorant.

The left suddenly "got" democracy (bit like getting religion in '89 or thereabouts.

Before that it they were selling the "People's Democracies are actually more democratic than ones where you can actually choose your leaders" line.

For fun, look up what the current leaders of the British Labour party were saying circa 1982.

LoL! Good one Carl.