Thread: conservative political opinions = mental illness ??

Debunking the "conservatives are crazy" study

Iron Shrink dissects the latest "conservatives are crazy" study published in Psychology Today.

http://www.ironshrink.com/articles/0...ethodology.php

A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans
January 16, 2007

You may have heard the news by now. People who hold conservative political opinions are suffering from a syndrome in need of a cure. How do we know this? Because a professor of psychology has demonstrated it to be so. The news has been getting a lot of press lately.

Since his graduate school days, John T. Jost, who currently holds position as an Associate Professor of Psychology at New York University, has been studying the reasons for which people adopt conservative political ideology. His most publicized achievement is a 2003 article titled Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition (from here on out, I’ll refer to it as “the study.”) It was touted in the February 2007 issue of Psychology Today, as “the most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date.”

Don’t confuse comprehensiveness with integrity. The study maligns half of the U.S. population and much of the population of the world. Research resulting in mass vilification always causes the Iron Shrink to raise an eyebrow, so I examined the methodology that the authors used to arrive at their conclusion. Regular readers will know that I have little tolerance for intellectual sloppiness.


Waaayyy to long to C&P but well worth the read ...


See also http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007...psychologists/

The OP's original article from Psycholgy Today:

The Ideological Animal
We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect. By:


Jay Dixit

Cinnamon Stillwell never thought she'd be the founder of a political organization. She certainly never expected to start a group for conservatives, most of whom became conservatives on the same day—September 11, 2001. She organized the group, the 911 Neocons, as a haven for people like her—"former lefties" who did political 180s after 9/11.
Stillwell, now a conservative columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, had been a liberal her whole life, writing off all Republicans as "ignorant, intolerant yahoos." Yet on 9/11, everything changed for her, as it did for so many. In the days after the attacks, the world seemed "topsy-turvy." On the political left, she wrote, "There was little sympathy for the victims," and it seemed to her that progressives were "consumed with hatred for this country" and had "extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists."
Disgusted, she looked elsewhere. She found solace among conservative talk-show hosts and columnists. At first, she felt resonance with the right about the war on terror. But soon she found herself concurring about "smaller government, traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, national unity over identity politics." She embraced gun rights for the first time, drawn to "the idea of self-preservation in perilous times." Her marriage broke up due in part to political differences. In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, she began going to pro-war rallies.
In 2005, she wrote a column called "The Making of a 9/11 Republican." Over the year that followed, she received thousands of e-mails from people who'd had similar experiences. There were so many of them that she decided to form a group. And so the 911 Neocons were born.
We tend to believe our political views have evolved by a process of rational thought, as we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we're not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear. How the United States should confront the threat of terrorism remains a subject of endless political debate. But Americans' response to threats of attack is now more clear-cut than ever. The fear of death alone is surprisingly effective in shaping our political decisions—more powerful, often, than thought itself.

The OP's original article from Psycholgy Today:


Abstract Art vs. Talk Radio: The Political Personality Standoff
Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberals—not just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament. Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.
"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.
Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature. The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative. Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."
Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false.
Yet critics retort that the research draws negative conclusions about conservatives while the researchers themselves are liberal. And it's true that over the decades, a disproportionate amount of the research has focused on figuring out what's behind conservative behavior. Right shift is likewise more studied than left shift, largely because most of that research has been since 9/11, and aimed at trying to explain the conservative conversions of people like Cinnamon Stillwell
Even with impeccable methodology, bias may creep into the choice of which phenomena to study. "There is a bias among social scientists," admits Glaser. "They look for the variables that are unflattering. There probably are other nice personality traits associated with conservatism, but they haven't shown up in the research because it's not as well studied."
"There are differences between liberals and conservatives, and people can value them however they like," Jost points out. "There is nothing inherently good or bad about being high or low on the need for closure or structure. Some may see religiosity as a positive, whereas others may see it more neutrally, and so on."

Red Shift
By 2004, as the presidential election drew near, researchers saw a chance to study the Jost results against the backdrop of unfolding events. Psychologists Mark Landau of the University of Arizona and Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore sought to explain how President Bush's approval rating went from around 51 percent before 9/11 to 90 percent immediately afterward. In one study, they exposed some participants to the letters WTC or the numbers 9/11 in an image flashed too quickly to register at the conscious level. They exposed other participants to familiar but random combinations of letters and numbers, such as area codes. Then they gave them words like coff__, sk_ll, and gr_ve, and asked them to fill in the blanks. People who'd seen random combinations were more likely to fill in coffee, skill, and grove. But people exposed to subliminal terrorism primes more often filled in coffin, skull, and grave. "The mere mention of September 11 or WTC is the same as reminding Americans of death," explains Solomon.
As a follow-up, Solomon primed one group of subjects to think about death, a state of mind called "mortality salience." A second group was primed to think about 9/11. And a third was induced to think about pain—something unpleasant but non-deadly. When people were in a benign state of mind, they tended to oppose Bush and his policies in Iraq. But after thinking about either death or 9/11, they tended to favor him. Such findings were further corroborated by Cornell sociologist Robert Willer, who found that whenever the color-coded terror alert level was raised, support for Bush increased significantly, not only on domestic security but also in unrelated domains, such as the economy.
University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg argues that some ideological shifts can be explained by terror management theory (TMT), which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views. TMT predicts that images like the destruction of the World Trade Center should make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. "In the United States, political conservatism does seem to be the preferred ideology when people are feeling insecure," concedes Greenberg. "But in China or another communist country, reminding people of their own mortality would lead them to cling more tightly to communism."

The OP's original article from Psycholgy Today:

Jost believes it's more complex. After all, Cinnamon Stillwell and others in the 911 Neocons didn't become more liberal. Like so many other Democrats after 9/11, they made a hard right turn. The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it's more certain about the answers it provides—right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them—and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what's familiar and known. "Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat."
To test the theory, Jost prompted people to think about either pain—by looking at things like an ambulance, a dentist's chair, and a bee sting—or death, by looking at things like a funeral hearse, the grim reaper, and a dead-end sign. Across the political spectrum, people who had been primed to think about death were more conservative on issues like immigration, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage than those who had merely thought about pain, although the effect size was relatively small. The implication is clear: For liberals, conservatives, and independents alike, thinking about death actually makes people more conservative—at least temporarily.

Fear and Voting In America
Campaign strategists in both parties have never hesitated to use scare tactics. In 1964, a Lyndon Johnson commercial called "Daisy" juxtaposed footage of a little girl plucking a flower with footage of an atomic blast. In 1984, Ronald Reagan ran a spot that played on Cold War panic, in which the Soviet threat was symbolized by a grizzly lumbering across a stark landscape as a human heart pounds faster and faster and an off-screen voice warns, "There is a bear in the woods!" In 2004, Bush sparked furor for running a fear-mongering ad that used wolves gathering in the woods as symbols for terrorists plotting against America. And last fall, Congressional Republicans drew fire with an ad that featured bin Laden and other terrorists threatening Americans; over the sound of a ticking clock, a voice warned, "These are the stakes."
"At least some of the President's support is the result of constant and relentless reminders of death, some of which is just what's happening in the world, but much of which is carefully cultivated and calculated as an electoral strategy," says Solomon. "In politics these days, there's a dose of reason, and there's a dose of irrationality driven by psychological terror that may very well be swinging elections."
Solomon demonstrated that thinking about 9/11 made people go from preferring Kerry to preferring Bush. "Very subtle manipulations of psychological conditions profoundly affect political preferences," Solomon concludes. "In difficult moments, people don't want complex, nuanced, John Kerry-like waffling or sophisticated cogitation. They want somebody charismatic to step up and say, 'I know where our problem is and God has given me the clout to kick those people's asses.'"

Into The Blue
Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home.
People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:
Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.
That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well. And if the November election was any indicator, the pendulum that swung so forcefully to the right after 9/11 may be swinging back.
By:

Tipping The Balance
Political conversions that are emotionally induced can be very subtle: A shift in support for a given issue or politician is not the same as a radical conversion or deep philosophical change. While views may be manipulated, the impact may or may not translate in the voting booth. Following 9/11, most lifelong liberals did not go through outright conversion or shift their preferred candidate. Yet many liberals who didn't become all-out conservatives found themselves nonetheless sympathizing more with conservative positions, craving the comfort of a strong leader, or feeling the need to punish or avenge. Many in the political center moved to the right, too. In aggregate, over an electorate of millions—a large proportion of whom were swing voters waiting to be swayed one way or the other—even a subtle shift was enough to tip the balance of the Presidential election, and the direction the country took for years. "Without 9/11 we would have a different president," says Solomon. "I would even say that the Osama bin Laden tape that was released the Thursday before the election was sufficient to swing the election. It was basically a giant mortality salience induction."If we are so suggestible that thoughts of death make us uncomfortable defaming the American flag and cause us to sit farther away from foreigners, is there any way we can overcome our easily manipulated fears and become the informed and rational thinkers democracy demands?
To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death. Preliminary research shows that reminding people that as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences—what psychologists call a "common humanity prime"—has the same effect.
"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."
The solution, then, is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

Seems like a reasonable well researched article thank you OP for bringing it to our attention.
No where in the OP's Psychology Today article is it stated that "conservatives are crazy." Perhaps it is a self analysis?

Update to http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...nore-them.html


Problem: Too many damned conservative authors dominating the New York Times best-seller lists.

Solution: A Fairness Doctrine from books!


[b]HuffPo Ponders Separate NY Times Bestsellers List for 'Conservative Blockbusters'
By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
November 10, 2009 - 14:34 ET

According to The Huffington Post, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and other right-of-center stars that regularly dominate the New York Times Hardcover Non-Fiction Bestsellers List are - or should be - in a league of their own.

No, that isn't Arianna Huffington's blog heaping praise on conservative authors. It's a literal suggestion. With right-leaning books and authors holding so many spots on the list, and more to come - former Sarah Palin, former Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush all have books due out -Huffington Post suggests conservatives should have their own category to differentiate from other works of non-fiction. http://www.cultureandmediainstitute....110105149.aspx

In a Nov. 9 entry on The Huffington Post that laments Fox News host Glenn Beck pulling a feat not done before - holding the number one spot on The New York Times' four lists: hardcover fiction, hardcover non-fiction, paperback non-fiction and children's - they suggest a separate category altogether, not for political non-fiction, but conservative non-fiction. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_351184.html

"Should The New York Times create a separate bestseller list for conservative blockbusters?" the post said. "Think of the history: we have a children's bestseller list because of "Harry Potter" -- Harry was knocking adult books off the top spots on the hardcover fiction list so publishers complained. The same thing must be true for Beck, Palin, Cheney, Bush (George W. and Laura), Malkin and others. What do you think?"

HuffPo isn't the only liberal source bothered by right-wing literary success. Pundits like MSNBC's Chris Matthews have openly expressed aggravation over conservatives dominating the list. However, the Huffington Post novel solution of "if you can't beat them, put them on their own list," seems to be a sign the left has given up on its own ability to sell hardcover non-fiction. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-dr...st-seller-list

What's more, conservatives are selling books without the usual push best selling authors get from other media. A recent study by the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute found that most of the conservative books that appeared on the list often went unnoticed or unmentioned by the networks, while liberal authors and books enjoyed plenty of coverage. http://www.cultureandmediainstitute....908115345.aspx


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...ive-blockbuste




Call the Wambulance. : Typical of limo libs. Let’s change the playing field to make it more “fair” to those who are getting their butts kicked in life. :waah:.

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
by Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – 18 hrs ago

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience. "Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.

Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics. "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. "The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured.

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races. "This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said. "There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally. "We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world. "Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general. "My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ. "There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conserv...180403506.html


comments

They are keeping us fighting each other like gangs. Meanwhile, the people that really control everything are robbing us blind. Folks, the people at the top don't really care about right/left issues. They use it as a wedge. Wake up. Follow the money.

...

Stupidity is in all races people. I'm black and know some blacks who are prejudiced heavily against whites. Racism and prejudice is not limited to those two groups alone either.

...

In a new study, it was discovered that people who were taught by their parents to treat people kindly actually treat people kindly.

In an unrelated study, it was discovered that people who were not taught by their parents to treat people kindly do not treat people kindly.

In other news, a seperate study found that water is wet...

...

I'm an independent. does that make me only half stupid? lol!

..

Ignorance plus arrogance equals stupidity... regardless of race, creed, or political party

...

I worked with adults with developmental disabilities who had IQs less than 55 and they exhibited far fewer prejudices than adults with higher IQs.

..

"In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general." This pretty much sums it up. I think most of us already knew this.

...

In a recent study, it was determined that people who don't agree with my point of view are stupid.






http://pophangover.com/2012/01/24/yo...nt-is-invalid/

February 10th, 2012
ANTI-GOVERNMENT PHOBIA
A CLINICAL ANALYSIS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT PHOBIA
Ivor E. Tower, M.D. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Volume 11, series 3, pages 4-5

Abstract

This study conclusively demonstrates that unfounded fear of government is a recognizable mental illness, closely related to paranoid schizophrenia. Anti-Government Phobia (AGP) differs from most mental illnesses, however, in that it is highly infectious and has an acute onset. Symptoms include extreme suspiciousness, conspiracy-mongering, delusional thought patterns, staunch "us against them" mentality, withdrawal from reality, and often religious fanaticism. Having the patient committed to a qualified mental health institution is the best option for family and loved ones. For this reason, all psychiatrists and family physicians should be provided with educational materials which will help them recognize the various symptoms and warning signs accompanying onset. Since comparatively little is known about Anti-Government Phobia at the present time, a government-funded health commission should be set up to oversee, and help focus, future research.

Incidence and Etiology

Anti-Government Phobia has a worldwide distribution, but has a particularly high incidence in the United States. Infection rates are estimated by mental health officials to be about 5% of the general population, and this rate is growing at an alarming rate. Rates are highest, but not limited to, those who are disaffected in some fashion, especially those who have a strong personal grudge against the federal government for one reason or another.

Although certain variants of the illness have been around for many years, it is only in the last decade or so that the more virulent and infectious strains have appeared. This is most likely due to the rapid buildup of government, at all levels, during the 1980's. Closely paralling this trend was an explosion in the number of cases in which individuals were diagnosed as having unfounded fears concerning such.

Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis Anti-Government Phobia is marked by extreme suspiciousness toward government. Onset is acute. Symptoms start almost immediately after a run-in with some agency or institution of the government, or when the patient is introduced to anti-government propaganda, in one form or another, by a self-styled "patriot." Common ways in which this harmful, anti-government propaganda is spread include: books, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, audiotapes, videotapes, short-wave and conventional radio programs, computer bulletin boards, and various Internet sites.

Upon exposure to "patriotic" propaganda, the patient mysteriously begins to imagine hidden links between unrelated current events, weaving these gross distortions of reality into a complex delusional web; a labyrinth of conspiracy theories with all imagined clues leading straight to the federal government. With further exposure, the patient becomes increasingly paranoid, and slowly withdrawals from reality. However, mental deterioration is usually so gradual that the patient is often unaware of it.

This mysterious malady progresses until the patient invariably assumes a staunch "us against them" mentality. For instance, in the patient's warped mind-set, each new piece of gun-control legislation is oddly rationalized to be merely one additional step in an ultimate plot by the federal government to confiscate guns altogether. In some unusually severe cases, the patient assumes a survivalist mentality, stockpiling guns, ammunition, de-hydrated food, and other "essentials," in preparation for "D-Day" or "Armageddon."

At this stage, the patient also inexplicity experiences increased delusional thinking. For instance, he may start fallaciously believing that the Federal Reserve is not in fact part of the federal government, but is instead controlled by wealthy Zionists. Other far-flung delusions may involve the United Nations, "black helicopters," concentration camps, or the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Delusions involving "takeovers" by foreign military troops, or jack-booted government storm troopers dressed in all black, are also commonly diagnosed.

Anti-Government Phobia is often associated with religious fanaticism. An excellent example of this is the infamous Branch Davidian case, in which most cult members preferred a fiery suicide over peaceful surrender to the forces of what they considered to be "Mystery Babylon." There have been other prominant cases in which "patriots" have became involved with terrorist activity, fallaciously believing that they were somehow doing the "will of God." More commonly, "patriots" have been involved in aggressive outbursts in courtrooms, and other public places such as town-hall meetings.

Overall, the worldview eventually adopted by "patriots" interprets modern-day news events as pieces of a giant jig-saw puzzle. Oddly, they believe that it is their solemn duty to put these unrelated pieces together in order to discover the underlying "picture." The warped interpretive framework used by many "patriots" in their missionary-like endeavor of saving the lost "sheep" (derogatory term comparing non-patriots to lost sheep) is a hyper-literal interpretation of Biblical prophecies, particularly those contained in the book of Revelation.

Spread of the Illness

In the eyes of the so-called "patriots," the relentless drive to indoctrinate others with extremist political beliefs is seen as a righteous and compulsory act to save their "self-destructing" nation. Wildly fantasizing that America can somehow turn back the clock to better times, which in reality never existed, many "patriots" feel obligated to quote constantly from the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the writings of the Founding Fathers. In an ironic twist of fate, when "patriots" expose others to their divisive anti-government propaganda, through their misguided efforts to restore "individual liberty," they are actually infecting them with an extremely contagious mental illness.

A strong analogy can be drawn between "patriotic" indoctrination and patterns of religious conversion. In both cases, ultra-idealistic individuals believe that it is their solemn duty to gain proselytes for their particular faith. This is usually done on a person-to-person basis with a friend or acquaintance. To keep new converts from going astray or "backsliding," they are eagerly provided with a steady stream of propaganda. In each case, the devotee imagines that there is an evil, sinister force which must be opposed at all costs. In the case of various religions, the faithful are supposedly rewarded in the afterlife for sparring with the "devil." In the case of the "patriot," the so-called "New World Order" is viewed as the demonic bogeyman, with the reward for opposing it supposedly being an increased amount of "personal freedom." In both "patriotic" and religious circles, there is an entire counter-culture, centering around various anthems and holy books, constantly being promoted by prophets, preachers, and paranoid propagandists of all creeds, colors, and strains.

Prevention

Needless to say, prevention is the first line of defense against any type of illness or disease. Unfortunately, many mental illnesses are genetic in nature and thus can not be prevented. Fortunately, Anti-Government Phobia is non-genetic and thus wholly preventable. From an individual standpoint, the most effective prevention policy is obviously not to allow oneself to become indoctrinated by a self-styled "patriot," preferably by staying as far as possible away from any potentially divisive propaganda. As an added precaution, one should rely exclusively on well-known and reputable sources for news and other information.

Family members and loved ones can help out in this effort. However, it should be noted that prevention programs work best only when the entire community is involved. We all need to practice constant vigilance in order to spot diviseness and hate in our communities. In this regard, networking is the ultimate key to success. A successful community-based empowerment program would include the following elements: citizen-citizen networks, police-citizen networks, parent-teacher networks, pastor-parisoner networks, doctor-patient networks, state-local law enforcement authority networks, and federal-state law enforcement authority networks.

Treatment and Prognosis

Although the prognosis is generally good if the illness is treated soon after symptoms first appear, studies have shown that a disturbingly low percentage of patients allow themselves to be treated. Thus, having the patient committed to a qualified mental health institution is the best option for family and loved ones. For this reason, all psychiatrists and family physicians should be provided with educational materials which will help them recognize the various symptoms and warning signs accompanying onset. Once the illness is properly diagnosed, they should next notify the patient's immediate family members and discuss the various treatment options with them. This effort should be reinforced with extensive public ad campaigns promoting a 1-800 help line. Since comparatively little is known about Anti-Government Phobia at the present time, a government-funded health commission should be set up to oversee, and help focus, future research.

It can not be over-emphasized that prevention is the key to stopping the spread of Anti-Government Phobia. Once a person is infected, the illness is generally incurable. The only proven treatment is an extended, and often risky, "de-programming" session conducted by qualified professionals, such as the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). Left untreated, chronic symptoms invariably persist throughout the entire lifetime of the patient. Sadly, even the patients themselves realize this horrifying fact and surprisingly, seem apathetic to it. Oddly, they often confuse their symptoms with being "awake." For instance, they have been known to garble gibberish such as "once your awake, you can't go back to sleep." Further research is presently being conducted on the reasons why they rationalize their mental illness in this highly unusual manner.

Acknowledgements

The writer wishes to thank the following individuals and organizations for contributing their expertise to this report: Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Rick Ross of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), the United States Justice Department (USJD), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

http://www.waltonandjohnson.com/show...html?n_id=2326

Why Aren’t You a Democrat?

Today is my birthday. However, I was treated to an early birthday present in the form of a wonderfully hilarious YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=NnpBFxvLxJE Over the weekend, this campaign video from Ryan Combe of Utah was plastered all over my Facebook news feed from my left leaning friends. So, naturally, I had to see what all the fuss was about. I wanted to fill my brain with the incredible liberal logic (an oxymoron, I know) that my friends claimed this video represented. While I couldn’t locate the intelligent logic, I did enjoy the video, though perhaps not for the same reasons.

This campaign video details a conversation between a college-aged boy and his “Proud Republican” parents. At the onset of the video, the boy breaks the news to his parents that he is a Democrat. In false stereotypical fashion, both parents break into hysterics. Besides the comedic value, what I enjoyed about this campaign video was its reliance upon typical Republican stereotypes and flimsy liberal arguments. It’s basically a minute and a half of the liberal platform complete with easily debunked planks. Naturally, I could not resist taking this video down a peg by taking on each of the son’s flimsy liberal arguments about his party-switch. Arguments like this:

“I just want to help those less fortunate than I am.”

I guess the implication here is that Republicans do not care about the less fortunate? Just because you have two different approaches toward relieving poverty does not imply that one side does not care about the poor. Ideologically, the main difference between conservative and liberal approaches to poverty is the source of the assistance. Liberals tend to believe that government should have a large hand in assisting the poor while conservatives put more of our stock into private charity. The conservative argument was clearly articulated long ago by Benjamin Franklin who stated, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” Perhaps that seems harsh to many liberals. However, it’s nothing more than common sense. Conservatives favor “hand-ups” not “hand-outs.” The liberal solution to poverty is perhaps more harmful to those living below that poverty line than the conservative solution. How will someone ever rise above their situation if they are made comfortable with numerous welfare handouts?

“I don’t want my student loan rates to go up; but not at the expense of women and children’s preventative healthcare.”

This argument refers to a plan suggested by Republicans a few weeks ago designed to keep student loan interest rates from rising automatically on July 1st. The plan passed in the House includes taking the necessary funds from the portion of Obamacare known as the “Prevention and Public Health Fund.” Clearly, this is an attempt to take down Obamacare piecemeal should it not be overturned by the Supreme Court. Regardless, this plan has faced opposition from people on the right and left, including from the Heritage Foundation. At least it’s a solution. To place the blame for failure to reach a deal solely on Republicans is naive. One could just as easily argue that the ball in in the Democrats court and they have simply been standing on the sidelines. Where is their plan to solve the student loan crisis? For that matter, where’s their budget? But I digress…While a deal perhaps needs to be made now, at least on a temporary basis, I contend that the government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing student loans in the first place. Government subsidized student loans both lead to increased education costs and a greater burden on taxpayers. Thus, you can imagine my extreme “delight” when I opened my financial aid package last summer only to realize that I was not 100% a client of the US government.

“We should tax the oil companies to better fund education.”

This suggestion is indicative of most liberal arguments in a nutshell: Instill a punitive tax and then give the revenue from the tax to education. Adding education to anything, even tax hikes, makes people feel good about themselves doesn’t it? However, this fallacy didn’t stop President Obama from suggesting that Congress needs to end “Big Oil tax breaks.” Well, give me a break. First off, according to an article in The Daily Caller last year, oil companies do not even receive tax breaks, at least not in the way that Democrats are portraying. Although oil is an industry just like any other industry, including those of “alternative” energy, they are often portrayed as enormous, corrupt monsters of death. Talk about vilifying success. Second, increasing taxes on oil companies will do more harm than good. Liberals might not want to admit this, but the oil industry is behind a lot of economic success right now. They have provided thousands of jobs to our fragile economy. What are the odds that no one in the oil industry will be laid off if the entire industry faces steep tax hikes? It’s probably about the same as the odds of Barack Obama admitting he’s wrong about. About anything. Also, you want energy prices to go up? Well, then by all means, tax the oil companies. “Big Oil” is less likely to drill for new sources of oil if they’re being taxed to death. America is on a freeway towards economic demise. Next stop: skyrocketing energy costs.

“I believe that men and women in this country deserve equal rights and equal opportunities under the law.”

I don’t even know how to approach this one. However, I’m in a valuable position, being an “oppressed” woman and all, so let me take a stab at it. Sure, men and women face different treatment in the media, workplace, etc. but that’s always been a fact and the street goes both ways. However, that’s a social reality, not a legal reality. Based on law, men and women are equal. I’d like to enlighten my Democratic friends with the fact that it is 2012, not 1912. I can vote, run for office, and enter the workforce just like any man. The “War on Women,” is just a construct created by the left in an attempt to get their socially liberal policies enacted. Just because I don’t get free contraception and easy access to abortion doesn’t mean I’m being oppressed or faced legal inequality.

“I don’t think that if someone loses their job or gets sick that they should go bankrupt and lose their homes.”

Sure, if this happens, it’s unfortunate and sad. If people weren’t so dependent upon the government, the maybe private charity could step in. However, this argument is not accurate. Most people who file for bankruptcy actually get to keep their homes. It’s actually bankruptcy itself which gives people the option for a fresh start. However, for liberals, this is never good enough. They always want more and more government. But the more government programs we have, the more chance of there being abuse of the system. Our government already does do a lot for people who lose their jobs, and in the end it’s not exactly a good thing. The number of weeks people can spend on unemployment benefits drastically increased last year. A safety net may be necessary, but 53 weeks of paid vacation is more like a safety bed.

“I believe in good, affordable healthcare for everyone.”

Obviously, this statement implies that Republicans are against good and affordable healthcare because we oppose the destructive entitlement known as Obamacare. Rather, it’s quite the opposite because Obamacare will provide healthcare that is neither good nor affordable. Thankfully (or perhaps, unfortunately) we have the “great” examples of socialized medicine in Canada and Europe to look forward to should Obamacare withstand legal scrutiny. You want good healthcare? Don’t go to Canada or Europe. In the UK, a 3-year-old was denied a life-saving heart surgery because there were simply not enough beds available for doctors to perform the surgery. Another woman was denied treatment because she had the “audacity” to seek out a private doctor for relief to her crippling back pain after she had been on a waiting list for surgery for months. God forbid someone seek out the advice of a private doctor.

Neither is socialized medicine affordable. The health care system in Canada lost taxpayers approximately $3 billion dollars in 2011. That’s just what our failing economy needs: another bloated entitlement. No wonder the UK is moving towards privatized healthcare. In addition, you know who’s going to be the most injured by Obamacare? The youth (aka Obama’s most powerful voting bloc). Young people typically pay much less for healthcare, but under Obamacare, we will have to pay much more to support the increased number of people on the government’s dime. If Obamacare remains viable, our nation has nothing to look forward to but healthcare rationing, poor health care services, and an even further damaged economy.

At the end of this campaign video, Ryan Combe states, “Why aren’t you a Democrat? It might not be as bad as you think.” Well, if I have to judge the Democratic party based upon this video filled with inaccurate, insulting stereotypes and flimsy liberal arguments, then I’ll pass. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority. This video is obviously targeted at the young and uninformed voters. Many, like my peers who seem enthralled by this video, fail to pick apart its terrible arguments. This video may be an insult to my intelligence, but I actually enjoy it. Very rarely do liberals put many of their unintelligent arguments in such a bite sized form. I’m glad I could get such a laugh from it. Now excuse me, I’m going to scout out my birthday cake and keep an eye on today’s Supreme Court rulings.

posted at 8:39 am on June 25, 2012 by Amy Lutz
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...ou-a-democrat/

comments

Based on law, men and women are equal. I’d like to enlighten my Democratic friends with the fact that it is 2012, not 1912.

In order for their ideology to make sense the Left must believe we live in a class-locked, racist, sexist society from the distant past. In reality we’ve moved way, way past that. Asians have surpassed whites in income & education. There is no “institutionalized racism” any longer.

Progressives did help get some good things done…a long, long time ago. However the ideology has definitely run it’s course in America and is now nothing short of destructive. Just look at what Progs have done to public education, inner city poor families, energy, debt, deficits, health insurance, etc.

Further, as demonstrated by the video, the modern Progressive ideology is based completely on a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of basic economic principles which are (in their defense) largely counter-intuitive.

...

I’m surprised the arguement didn’t include that Republicans don’t believe in AGW. Which is what my wife heard over the weekend. She even tried to rebut the statement by mentioning the Medevil Warm Period. The response – ‘I don’t care about history!’

...

The older you get and the more you have to deal with big government, the more you realize that the bigger government is, the less it’s able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And that’s because the further government moves from the local level, the less each person is a human face and the more they’re just Case No. L5374502-1604 — totally disposable, unless there’s an election coming up, when pols throw ‘free’ stuff there way in hopes of winning new terms.

Most people discover the inefficiencies and the limits of government when they got out into the real world. Those who see those inefficiencies and still think if government can just be tweaked according to their design it can create Shangra-La are usually the immediate gratification types (who want it NOW, even if it means taking from someone else to get it) or the power trippers (who aren’t happy unless they can tell everyone else how to live their lives). For those two groups, the ego stroking this video offers just feeds into their own belief that they’re a higher form of human life than the rabble out in the hinterlands.

..

I know that nothing is free. I accept that people’s stuff belongs to them and they have a right to the fruits of their labor. I believe children have a right to be born. I think everyone should work. I believe that if Global Warming Climate Change were real, the people who are trying so hard to convince us to accept it would live their lives without private jets and limos and trips to exotic locales for conferences about how to make the rest of us live. I know that pouring more money into a bottomless pit to improve education will not do the job and I think the Dept of Ed should be shut down. I believe that too much government regulation strangles growth and the EPA should be shut down. I believe the Dept of the Interior is preventing us from exploiting our natural resources responsibly and to their full potential and should be radically reduced. I believe the UN is a giant boondoggle that enriches diplomats and dictators and does nothing worthwhile and should either be shut down or moved the hell out of New York and go on without our participation.

I’m sure there is more to add and I’ll think of it as soon as I hit the enter key, but that’s a start for me.

...

Responding to the young mans arguments is satisfying in the short term but after a while you’re going to get tired of it.

When you know a liberal everyday is Groundhog Day, you can patiently explain why they’re wrong, how they’ve misstated the facts, how the real world works… and the next day they will repeat the same worn out talking points.

No matter what you say to a liberal, they will hear something directly out of their playbook and answer with something that doesn’t relate to your point at all, then they change the subject.

It’s very rare that you can find one who can help you hone your debating skills, with most of them, you’d be better off talking to houseplants.

..

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. because we’ve had to struggle and have been on food stamps..

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. because I’m a proud American and will not be treated as an ignorant peasant by a social worker with a degree and a Prius, along with a very nasty condescending attitude towards the masses..

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. Because I’m a veteran, and served proudly in the cold war, as democrats worked feverishly to undercut the President and appease the Soviet’s.

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. because I felt democrat love in a college bar when my friends and I stopped in for a beer after we got off duty.. Amazing that in 1981, liberals still thought spitting on a US military uniform was cool.

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. Because I never wanted to be “kept”, I just wanted to work, and have since the day I turned 16, till the day… the doctors.. well, I miss it. Disabilty is to me a necessary evil, not a seat cushion. I end up feeling ashamed because I have to depend on it to feed and cloth my wife and kids.. my wife works dammned hard.. but it’s not enough.. I feel ashamed, though my back was broken twice, the second time in two places.. because some have so gamed the system, they get an SSD pension for a single bad disc,.. or because they are over 400lbs.. or because they faked an injury.. They treat it like winning the lotto,, and all I ever wanted, was to work..

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. because I have self respect, and refuse to surrender it in exchange for the title of “victim”…

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. because I value all opinions in my party, not just the ones I want to hear. I value free speech, and would never demand an opponent be silenced and yanked from the airwaves.. I can just turn the channel, something educated liberals can’t figure out.

I’m not a democrat, and never will be.. Because I have children,.. and I want them to have a better life than my wife and I had, because it’s the birth right of an American, to dream the big dreams. Not to find a couch and demand the state provide a comfortable cell.