Study - Conservatives happier than Liberals

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080507/sc_livescience/conservativeshappierthanliberals;_ylt=ArFwGBCczoiykQnTg5X5ksKs0NUE

The article suggest that this is because coservatives are better at rationalizing inequalities.

Quote

Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

Interesting....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . because coservatives are better at rationalizing inequalities.

No argument there.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydyvr 0]

"Ignorance is bliss".

. . =(_8^(1)

[Butters 0]

Quote

"Ignorance is bliss".

Not according to this study ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

"Ignorance is bliss".

Not according to this study ...

No, I believe that is EXACTLY what the study is saying.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Ignorance is bliss".

Not according to this study ...

No, I believe that is EXACTLY what the study is saying.

Actually, the study seems to be saying the OPPOSITE of ignorance. Note that it says that conservatives can "rationalize" it. That's not "ignorance." That means actually THINKING about an issue.

Liberal - "Why isn't it like this?"
Conservative - "Here's why. A, B and C."
Liberal - "Well, why A?"
Conservative - "Because of 1, 2 and 3"
Liberal - "That's not fair."
Conservative - "No shit. Life's not fair."
Liberal - "Well, life should be fair."
Conservative - "Why?"
Liberal - "Because."
Conservative - "No, tell me why you think it should be fair."
Liberal - "Because I feel that is should not be that way."
Conservative - "Well, unfortunately, you were simply born with a fair complexion and get sunburned easily. Just like me. Most of the people in the world don't have to worry as much as you about the sun's rays and causing a sunburn. It might not be fair in the grand scheme of things that you need to wear sunscreen in order to avoid a sunburn. But, unfortunately, there is nothgin we can do to make the sun stop emitting UV rays. So you've just got to make adjustments."
Liberal - "But that's not fair."

So, as opposed to cursing my fate and being embittered about my whiteness, I rationalize it, say that nothing's gonna help me tan, and move on with my life.

I've rationalized it and been content with the knowledge that there is nothing I can do about it except for protect myself - even if so many others do not need it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Conservative: There is nothgin we can do to make the sun stop
>emitting UV rays. So you've just got to make adjustments.

>Liberal: But that's not fair.

On the plus side, the "not fair" sentiment leads to sunscreen and hats, which are good things overall. Even better when the "not fair" leads to the end of slavery, voting rights for women, equal opportunity for all races - and today is leading to more rights for people of all sexual orientations.

So while "but that's not fair" might indeed lead to unhappiness, it can also make the world a better place. Is it worth the unhappiness? For some people, yes.

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

>Conservative: There is nothgin we can do to make the sun stop
>emitting UV rays. So you've just got to make adjustments.

>Liberal: But that's not fair.

On the plus side, the "not fair" sentiment leads to sunscreen and hats, which are good things overall. Even better when the "not fair" leads to the end of slavery, voting rights for women, equal opportunity for all races - and today is leading to more rights for people of all sexual orientations.

So while "but that's not fair" might indeed lead to unhappiness, it can also make the world a better place. Is it worth the unhappiness? For some people, yes.

Very well put.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Amazon 7]

So basically the conservative puts his hands over his ears.... Closes his eyes.. and then goes... NANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANANA

And all the problems go away.

Seems to work for King George II

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam ( even if I do kick the piles with my cowboy boots)
And the deer and the antelope play ( Gotta have something other than well heeled supporters for Dick to shoot)
Where NEVER is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day ( I love my cowboy hat)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Conservative: There is nothgin we can do to make the sun stop
>emitting UV rays. So you've just got to make adjustments.

>Liberal: But that's not fair.

On the plus side, the "not fair" sentiment leads to sunscreen and hats, which are good things overall. Even better when the "not fair" leads to the end of slavery, voting rights for women, equal opportunity for all races - and today is leading to more rights for people of all sexual orientations.

So while "but that's not fair" might indeed lead to unhappiness, it can also make the world a better place. Is it worth the unhappiness? For some people, yes.

Ah! But therein lies the issue. It is NOT worth the unhappiness in many instances. And in that sense is where the rationalization comes in.

Who here knows anybody who just bitches and moans and never does anything about it?

Who here knows anybody who bitches and moans and does useless stuff about it, like online petitions, high profile protests, and public promises to do something for which there is zero chance of it goign through?

And then there are those who rationalize. "It will take some time and a lot of energy but this is a problem and here's how to fix it."

The idealist thinks it should be changed now. Idealists often give up on pragmatism because they shouldn't have to be patient.

There is ZERO reason why pragmatism and idealism have to be mutually exclusive. A person has an idea and wants to make it happen. If that person is an irrational idealist, that person will experience grave difficulties because these things that WORK. Bill - you've got enough patents to know that ideas are one thing, but realistic solutions? That's your job.

The engineer's job is not to design and build things, but to design and build things that work that are smaller, lighter, faster and cheaper. The idealist thinks that this should not be difficult. The pragmatist says, "Yes. You'd think that. But we've gotta test and retest to make sure it works."

And then - perhaps years later - the person who hung tough and worked out the kinks can see that idea in practice. The rationalism is that it is rarely overnight.

The rationalism allows people like me to say, "I am doing better now than most in my age group. That's fair, because until the age of 30, I was earning far less than most in my age group."

Ideally, I should not have been penalized economically for choosing school over work for those years. But I was happy because I could rationalize that it'll even out in a while, and I'll eventually come out ahead.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SpeedRacer 1]

sure but as Bill pointed out, Conservatives can become content & complacent with an unjust status quo, such as the Jim Crow regime in the South before the '60s.

It takes a person who is dissatisfied with the way things have been to be motivated to change it for a better future.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

It takes a person who is dissatisfied with the way things have been to be motivated to change it for a better future.

For a better future for whom?

Both sides are dissatisfied with the way some things have been and are motivated to change it. The difference is simply different ideas of "a better future".

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It takes a person who is dissatisfied with the way things have been to be motivated to change it for a better future.

Ah, then liberals are the martyrs of the 21st century.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,132]

>then liberals are the martyrs of the 21st century.

People who are dissatisfied with the way things are, and who work for change, are in many cases the martyrs of the 21st century. Also the 20th, and 19th, and 18th, and 17th, and so on. (Ask Bruno Giordano about that.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>then liberals are the martyrs of the 21st century.

People who are dissatisfied with the way things are, and who work for change, are in many cases the martyrs of the 21st century. Also the 20th, and 19th, and 18th, and 17th, and so on. (Ask Bruno Giordano about that.)

This would be good if not for the fact than many times liberals push for change is because is makes them "feel good" about themselves because "they care". Not for good reason

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>than many times liberals push for change is because is makes them
>"feel good" about themselves because "they care". Not for good reason.

To me, caring about an issue is an important part of implementing change. Better than the alternative.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

>then liberals are the martyrs of the 21st century.

People who are dissatisfied with the way things are, and who work for change, are in many cases the martyrs of the 21st century. Also the 20th, and 19th, and 18th, and 17th, and so on. (Ask Bruno Giordano about that.)

This would be good if not for the fact than many times liberals push for change is because is makes them "feel good" about themselves because "they care". Not for good reason

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you provide a couple examples? Thanks.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Iceburner 0]

i always was told the liberals and the conservatives held oppiste views back in the day from how they view stuff now...so wouldn't the liberals have wanted slavery to continue, and it was the conservatives that put an end to it?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

i always was told the liberals and the conservatives held oppiste views back in the day from how they view stuff now...so wouldn't the liberals have wanted slavery to continue, and it was the conservatives that put an end to it?

Not quite. Conservatives were in favour of keeping the mercantilist economic system while liberals were in favour of trade liberalization. today the GOP is the party of free trade/free markets.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>than many times liberals push for change is because is makes them
>"feel good" about themselves because "they care". Not for good reason.

To me, caring about an issue is an important part of implementing change. Better than the alternative.

It is an important part, bill. But caring for the sake of caring is not a good thing. "I care more than you."

There are plenty of people out there who would give eyou the shirts off of their backs. But only if there was a public announcement about what they just did.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>It is an important part, bill.

That's all I'm saying.

>But caring for the sake of caring is not a good thing.

It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's like skydiving for the sake of skydiving instead of for a competition or employment.

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree. Anyone can say, "I care." And usually when a person says, "I care about ____" it is for the purpose of elevating ohers' image about the person.

I respect those who care without saying it - those that you find out, "THAT is what she has been doing?"

Too many care for their own glory, and not for others. Others may receive an ancillary benefit, but often do not.

Example? Sean Penn taking a boat out to rescue people in New Orleans, with his entourage and personal photographer to document what a good guy he is... Sean - leave the photographer out and you could rescue another person!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Anyone can say, "I care."

Anyone can say anything.

I respect the people who care enough to do the right thing, whether they say so or not. The people who don't care at all, and do it because they want the glory, or the recognition, or the power - I have little respect for them.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

. today the GOP is the party of free trade/free markets.

Now that's just funny.....

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

i always was told the liberals and the conservatives held oppiste views back in the day from how they view stuff now...so wouldn't the liberals have wanted slavery to continue, and it was the conservatives that put an end to it?

It’s the inverse: liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a copt-out, as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying