October 28, 2010
An evolutionary psychologist proposes a new framework for understanding the root causes of our political beliefs
Tom Jacobs in Miller McCune:
As much as we stake our identity on such core beliefs, it’s unlikely we emerged from the womb as little liberals or libertarians. This raises a fundamental question: At what point in our development did such predispositions begin to form, to coalesce and to harden? What is it about our biology and/or psychology that propels us toward a liberal or conservative mindset?
The question has long intrigued social psychologists such as John Jost of New York University. In a 2003 meta-analysis of 50 years of research, he summarizes the overwhelming evidence that political ideologies, “like virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs.” Jost quickly adds that this “is not to say they are unprincipled, unwarranted, or unresponsive to reason or evidence” — only that the underlying motivation to believe in them emerges from somewhere other than the rational, conscious mind.
“Most of the research literature … suggests that conservatives are more easily threatened, more likely to perceive the world as dangerous, and less trusting in comparison with liberals,” he notes. This is fairly self-evident. If you perceive the world as a threatening place, you’re more likely to cling tightly to those you trust (i.e., your in-group, however you define it), and to warily eye those you don’t.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 10:33 PM | Permalink
Comments
How is it remotely possible to take seriously social scientific research based on the supposed psychological or evolutionary psychological difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" when it relies on the liberal/conservative false dichotomy and liberal/left false conflation that is standard in American political discourse?
Posted by: weaver | Oct 29, 2010 5:34:12 AM
Weaver, how is it remotely possible to comment on an article you clearly haven't read? The article defines the traits studied.
Posted by: Clay Shirky | Oct 29, 2010 6:28:34 AM
The terms are defined psychologically, not politically, or by using meaningless labels of American two-party affiliation. Perhaps you should read it.
Posted by: weaver | Oct 29, 2010 10:18:14 PM
Jacob Vigil, an evolutionary psychologist based at the University of New Mexico, suggests the following NONSENSE from an evolutionary perspective:
"On the other hand, those who have experienced numerous setbacks (illness, injury, an unstabl...e home environment, etc.) are less likely to work their way into such a dominating position. To advertise their desirability as friends or associates, they take a different route, emphasizing their ability to care for, and about, others."
From statements like this, he suggests that present day political beliefs are an adaptation to evolutionary pressures in the local environment over millions of years. If so, then the equivalent constructs of liberal and conservative should have been demonstrable for millennia in all cultures, including paleolithic. Perhaps they weren't and are only observable in the past 300 years.
This viewpoint, presented as evolutionary psychology, rests on the presumption that if you can make an argument that such-'n-such can be called dominance, and this-'n-that can be called submissive, then these modern day behaviors can be explained by mutation and natural selection. Give me a break!
Posted by: Norman Costa | Oct 30, 2010 12:36:37 AM
"Jost, one of the leading researchers in this field, is intrigued but skeptical by Vigil’s ideas. For him, this evolutionary framework is “too general for me to be able to evaluate empirically.” He adds that “I have not seen any data indicating that conservatives acquire a larger group of friends and associates than liberals. That may be true, but I am doubtful of that general claim, and I haven’t seen the evidence.”
While it’s hardly definitive, Vigil provides some data to back up his ideas in a paper recently published in the journal Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. In a study of 838 college students in Florida,, he found that self-described Democrats had an average of 9.46 good friends, compared to 12.91 good friends for self-described Republicans.*
To sum up, Jost, a social psychologist, does a meta-analysis of 50 years or research and comes up with conclusions that upset some conservatives. In order to give "equal time" to the "other side", we are treated to the speculations of a self-described evolutionary psychologist who has found a "morally neutral" way to describe the liberal/conservative divide: conservatives are more "competent" than liberals.
There's a way to describe this kind of article, but it's not "good science reporting."
*because the path to competence is to value socializing over studying in college, I guess.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Oct 30, 2010 12:54:48 PM
Post a comment