Perhaps they should do a study on the liberal blogosphere and opinion media

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Rather than 95 kids from Berkeley over the course of 20 years. This is hilarious:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn’t going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids’ personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There’s no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it’s unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Kerfuffles asks: “Does that mean that White House reporter Helen Thomas is a conservative?”

LOL.

Block ought to, for starters, check out the liberal reaction (noted by Stephen Spruiell here, Bob Owens here, and Danny Carlton aka “Jack Lewis” here) to the announcement of the Washington Post’s new “Red America” blog to see classic cases of liberal whining at it’s – er, most dramatic – all of which shows that conservatives don’t have a lock on “whining” – not by a long shot.

There are so many more cases of liberal whining out there, but the liberal reaction to the Red America blog controversy is a good place to start :)

Also commenting on this: Ben Domenech (heh!), Riehl World View, Main Street Journal

PM Update: Michelle Malkin has a .pdf link to the actual study itself, as well as links to blogger/pundit reax to this study.

56 thoughts on “Perhaps they should do a study on the liberal blogosphere and opinion media

  1. Pingback: Michelle Malkin

  2. “where unhinged haters are so threatened by conservative Washington Post blogger Ben Domenech”

    The guy’s a creationist. I think the failure of his education is fair game.

  3. It also shows that the reason the Rightwing arms itself to the teeth is because they are scaredy-cats. The Left on the otherhand is not afraid and will confront people, unarmed, and dialogue for Peace. And right now we should be reestablishing full diplomatic relations with Iran. Peace

  4. Gotta love that confident liberal mindset. If you truly are confident that you are right, and your views are correct and applicable, you have self confidence, and don’t need a constant stream of bogus “studies” to prove to yourself and everyone else that you are OK. This is nothing more than another sign of the deep insecurity and lack of self esteem that many on the Left have. As is also evidenced by their inability to allow any competing viewpoint or opinion to be heard. Confident, mature people let the opposition ramble and dig their own holes, but whiney liberals seem incapable of doing that, shouting down any opposing viewpoints or speech. Yeah, they’re the mature, sensible, confident ones alright. Feh! :-@

  5. steve is, once again, wrong. The reason the Right arms themselves is that they don’t believe that government can protect them, and also don’t have that overweaning desire to be victims. Leftists seem to have this masochistic need to be victims, victims of racism, victims of poverty, victims of something. Beats taking responsibility for your own life and liberty I guess…if you’re mentally deficient.

  6. “The guy’s a creationist. I think the failure of his education is fair game.”

    What a pathetically narcissistic example of logical fallaciousness.

  7. “This is nothing more than another sign of the deep insecurity and lack of self esteem that many on the Left have.”

    Funny. All that from one study of 93 kids.

  8. Severian, the left wing are the victimizers! They do unto others, then split!

    lefties like steve are ao angry that the right stands up for themselves and protect themselves from the sidewalk socialists that just want to rob, rape, and kill you, that they just can spit.

  9. Hey Steve why don’t you put a sign in your front yard that says “This House is Weapon Free” to show how much you believe in gun control. If you are sssooooo sure that the government can protect you from anyone that might want to deprive you of Life, Liberty or property. Oh and take a picture to prove just how much you believe in government and gun control.
    :d

  10. Ben Domenech writes pretty good. Maybe I’ll comment at Red America when comments open…

    The funny thing about the name is… The blue and red colors used to alternate between elections. The newspapers were equally using blue and red alternatively. What happens if the media continues this policy? Will it be renamed Blue America?

  11. “The guy’s a creationist. I think the failure of his education is fair game.”

    From this statement, I am going to assume you subscribe to evolution. Since that theory has no basis in proof..coupled with the fact that about 85% of Americans profess a belief in God, I would say your assinine, rude and not to mention arrogant and moronic statement above opens you to some savage criticism. However, in the interest of politeness, I shall refrain.

    You know Andrew, upon reflection, we auromatons of the right wing religious military industrial complex are lucky to a have guys like you to explain thing to us since our education has been such a failure.

    Thanks for the lesson.

  12. Pingback: Sensible Mom

  13. Andrew: The left’s hypocrisy is laughable. You think Domenech should be questioned for his Christian views, yet you are also the ones that refused to print cartoons that questioned or lampooned the Islamic faith. Oh, and we can’t question Darwinism…yet there are holes in that philosophy.

    Steve: So wait, Bill Clinton firing missiles into a Tylenol factory is considered an acceptable liberal way to “confront people, unarmed, and dialogue for Peace?” How about this…if we agree to “dialogue for Peace,” then you agree that when that route fails, you’re on the front line absorbing material from IEDs…OK? Just make sure to draw up your will first.

  14. “What a pathetically narcissistic example of logical fallaciousness.”

    Its not to say its necessarily his education that was lacking. He could just have refused to listen, and thus come out a creationist. I think that’s more likely what happens to most creationists. They’re not all home schooled.

    “andrew is apparently an evolutionist. I think the failure of his moral compass should be fair game.”

    Fire away, mythology-boy.

  15. I see andrew’s demonstrating more of that confident, liberal ability to accept and welcome other viewpoints. :-@

  16. I think this study is spot on. First, the premise that some kids are whiny and others aren’t isn’t really groundbreaking science.

    However, the study shows that conservatives grow up more mature, while liberals never mature as adults.

  17. “I see andrew’s demonstrating more of that confident, liberal ability to accept and welcome other viewpoints.”

    There’s really no accepting of creationism. Its not just another viewpoint in a relativistic world with no objective truth, where all viewpoints are valid. It’s just plain wrong. That’s why it requires belief.

  18. “Andrew: The left’s hypocrisy is laughable. You think Domenech should be questioned for his Christian views”,

    Well, if they’re wrong, they’re wrong. Christian or buddhist or whatever.

    “yet you are also the ones that refused to print cartoons that questioned or lampooned the Islamic faith.”

    Me? Dubya said it was a bad idea. I never did.

    “Oh, and we can’t question Darwinism…yet there are holes in that philosophy.”

    There’s holes in all of science. thats different from it being a crock and mythology being correct.

  19. A belief in God is not necessary to know and understand the scientific base of Evolution and the faithyness of creationism. When a country where 70% are member of or follow a Christian Church and only 2% think that creationism is what happened, then that is a reflection of their good education.

    And therefore, yes, it is a logical conclusion that creationism is a statement of faith, while evolution is a scientific theory. If someone fails to distinguish between these two things than yes, their education lacks some important elements.

    btw the country I am talking about is Germany.

  20. Words of wisdom from a mental midget: There’s really no accepting of creationism. Its not just another viewpoint in a relativistic world with no objective truth, where all viewpoints are valid. It’s just plain wrong. That’s why it requires belief.

    rel·a·tiv·is·tic (rl-t-vstk)
    adj.

    1. Of or relating to relativism.
    2. Physics.
    a. Of, relating to, or resulting from speeds approaching the speed of light: relativistic increase in mass.
    b. Having to do with or based on the theory of relativity: relativistic mechanics.

    :d

  21. “Of or relating to relativism.”

    There ya go.

    relativism:
    A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

    You know what I’m talking about.

  22. Andrew wrote, “Its not to say its necessarily his education that was lacking. He could just have refused to listen, and thus come out a creationist. I think that’s more likely what happens to most creationists.

    It’s this failure to recognize a debate exists between VERY intelligent people that get people upset with you. I have not seen anything from you that would give me the feeling that you have credentials in this area but I’ve read articles and other works from people who have spent a lifetime thinking that something had to have a role in designing. There are too many evolutionary theory questions without answers. It is fine to know that this world and all of it’s life was formed in a process that took millions of years. What is not fine is for someone like Andrew to question the education or whether someone didn’t listen to what was being taught to him when Andrew himself hasn’t shared his credentials in this area and there IS a debate going on. Your dismissal of people because they don’t agree with you is astonishingly arrogant. And what is ironic is you’ve used that word arrogant plenty of times yourself.

    How about evolving? =))

  23. “. There are too many evolutionary theory questions without answers.

    Of course. Nobody knows why we have evolution. There are some mythologies that explain why we are here, but no science explains why there is evolution. A whole lot has been written by the mythologies of why we are here, genesis being just one.

    “What is not fine is for someone like Andrew to question the education or whether someone didn’t listen to what was being taught to him when Andrew himself hasn’t shared his credentials in this area and there IS a debate going on.”

    What credentials do I need? If its a question of education any educated child can grasp the difference between science and mythology.

    “Your dismissal of people because they don’t agree with you is astonishingly arrogant”

    There is right and wrong, science and myth, in this world. Sorry.

  24. “Thank you mightily andrew and LA, for proving my point”

    Its really a shame that talking about the difference between science and mythology is ‘whining.’

  25. Andrew, since evolution cannot be proven and even Darwin didn’t believe it, you sure are confident of it’s legitimacy.

    I guess other crackpot theories are the gospel truth to you like maybe…the moon is made of cheese….the earth is flat… Communism could work if only the right people implemented it…Rev. Jim Jones was God…David Berkowitz’s neighbor’s dog was behind the son of sam murders…well, I could go on but I can feel you rolling your eyes.

    All told, Andrew, if I had a dollar for every intolerant leftist I personally met, I would have about 300 dollars.

    Keep at it..your true colors paint you as a simpleton.

  26. “Andrew, since evolution cannot be proven and even Darwin didn’t believe it, you sure are confident of it’s legitimacy.”

    We’ve observed species evolving into others. And I don’t see what Darwin matters much, as what we understand evolution to be today is different than his understanding.

    “Keep at it..your true colors paint you as a simpleton. ”

    Believe away mr. believer.

  27. Comment by Minilab @ 3/22/2006 – 11:53 am

    Dear Minilab
    Don’t flatter yourself into thinking all us right wing types are creationists … or even Christian.

  28. since evolution cannot be proven and even Darwin didn’t believe it,

    What the Hell are you talking about? Darwin not believing in evolution?
    What orifice did you remove that idea from?

  29. Okay, I’ve read through the comments and it seems Andrew’s bugaboo is “science” versus “mythology.” So, Andrew, a question for you:
    Since many in the “science” camp conclude that evolution is the process that followed through natural progression after the known universe was incorporated through a process the scientific community refers to as “the Big Bang,” can you please, scientifically, explain to me who lit the match on that firecracker?

    Answer that one, monkeyboy, and maybe you can convince me that what you are nattering on about as “mythology” doesn’t have as valid a stance as your chosen belief system.

  30. “Since many in the “science” camp conclude that evolution is the process that followed through natural progression after the known universe was incorporated through a process the scientific community refers to as “the Big Bang” can you please, scientifically, explain to me who lit the match on that firecracker?”

    I said science doesn’t answer why we have evolution. But mythology does. However, one day science might answer this. Just like in the past science didn’t answer why we have speciation, and mythology yielded. Or should have.

    “Answer that one, monkeyboy, and maybe you can convince me that what you are nattering on about as “mythology” doesn’t have as valid a stance as your chosen belief system.”

    I haven’t talked about my belief system yet.

  31. Comment by TC@LeatherPenguin @ 3/22/2006 – 1:22 pm

    Your posting is NONSENSICAL.

    You are not helping our image of Republicans/right-wingers as educated people by confusing/melding the ideas from 2 sciences: cosmology and biology.

    Stellar evolution has NOTHING to do with the evolution of species.

    … and “ZAP! You’re a human” is not science.

    On this I agree with the lefties. (someone shoot me)

  32. “There’s holes in all of science. thats different from it being a crock and mythology being correct. ”

    But what makes you so sure that Christianity is a crock? Religions that are “crocks” are easy to spot; they suppress any kind of dialogue that goes against their beliefs. For instance, Isaac Hayes and Cruise putting the kibosh on the reairing of that South Park episode because it lampooned Scientology.

    I pray that you see that Christ is more than a myth someday.

  33. I was an Evolutionist until I was reading the book of Job Chap. 39 or 40. In those verses God asks Job if he (Job) had put a hook in the nose of the Great Leviathan to tame it. Or if he (Job) was the one who killed the Mighty Behemoth. In both the verses God goes on to describe a Platosaurus and then a Brontosaurus . Now how could someone in 3000 BC describe these animals so well. – Lorica

  34. “But what makes you so sure that Christianity is a crock?”

    I never said it was. I said it was mythology.

  35. “What the Hell are you talking about? Darwin not believing in evolution?
    What orifice did you remove that idea from?”

    The orifice I removed that FACT from was Darwin’s mouth you sanctimonious petty little person. You know, if you read a little more before making smart ass comments, perhaps you might learn something. Your orifice would do well to be kept closed whilst adults are having a discussion.

    Oh and..

    “Don’t flatter yourself into thinking all us right wing types are creationists or even Christian.”

    Ya know cheeze and crackers…you shouldn’t flatter yourself at all. Nowhere did I paint all us right wing types as christian or anything else. Putting words in other’s mouths is a bad habit, so stop doing it.

    Debate is fine, but your personal animosity is repugnant.

    See Andrew…even us right wing types don’t agree on everything. I am sure you left wing types don’t get along on everything either. Just ask Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller what they think of Cindy Sheehan.

  36. Pingback: chez Diva » Whiny Conservatives?

  37. “See Andrew…even us right wing types don’t agree on everything. I am sure you left wing types don’t get along on everything either. Just ask Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller what they think of Cindy Sheehan.

    What makes you say joe lieberman and zell miller are left wing?

  38. Andrew they are both Democrats with Lieberman more left leaning on social issues than Zell. But they both side with the President on the War on Terror.
    :d

  39. Andrew…sorry man…I chose Joe and Zell in the heat of an argument with cheeze and crackers. I should have written “democrats” instead of “Left wing types”. I was using cheeze’s turn of phrase to be sarcastic right back to him.

  40. So much to say so few words. JimM, refute what is said don’t just use invective. Severian, the “government” is us, you and me, and even though I think your nutz, I will see that no harm comes to you. I hope you’ll extend the same morality. PCD, all Socialists are robbers and rapists, or just the one’s you know? Gutshot, Clinton is a Conservative. Realitivism=E=MC2–anyone want to explain that away? Peace

  41. Cheezy? What gave you the idea that I should be slotted under “Republicans/right-wingers” based on what I wrote? It was “rhetoric,” skippy; a game of semantical folderol.

    I’m neither Repub or Dem, Libber or Con. I am a Ramone. Barking Moonbat or Wild-eyed Wingnut equally draw my ire and fire when ever they enter the field of play (though Moonbats are WAY more fun to flay).

    And as opposed to the majority of the voices here, I provide a link where anyone can find out all they need about me, and come play in my sandbox if they really want to get the game going.

  42. And who determined they were whiny? Liberals!=)) Dennis Miller said it best after Iraq was invaded..If he were GWB, he would then hit Syria, Iran, North Korea, and just for the hell of it to send a message… on to Berkeley..just because it needs to be done =))

  43. I agree Pam. Ohhh yes the study shows that conservatives start out whiny. What next “The Survey Says”???? Seems to me Ronald Reagan wasn’t too whiny, or GWB. Hell I still hear my liberal friends whiny about how the 2000 election was stolen. LOL :) Go look on Zombietime.com and see how the left whined that GW was reelected. They wanted to burn down a McDonalds. Damn, and I mean DAMN. Talk about big babies. – Lorica

  44. Pingback: Political Satire Fake News - The Nose On Your Face

  45. I know the ‘discussion’ is long over, but I felt I’d jump in for a moment…

    “Creationism” and “Evolution” are not mutually exclusive.

    Evolution, while reasonable, will always fall under the category of ‘Theory’, simply because of one of the basic tenants of the Scientific Method–ie, something is only ‘proven’ if a human, given the proper tools and test material, can replicate the results accurately as many times as they desire. Some things, like Gravity, are ‘theories’ only because we don’t know HOW they work (we can observe the effects, we know THAT it works, but whether it’s some particle or variant of existing force is uncertain). Some things, like Evolution, might be factually true or possible, yet will ever qualify as ‘theory’ simply because it is impossible for someone to replicate the results (doing so takes several orders of magnitude more time than said person’s lifespan).

    In general, Science is concerned with ‘how’ and Religion is concerned with ‘why’. Science doesn’t ask why something happened, it asks how it happened. Religion is usually the reverse, as it’s not so important as to how a creator or figure from the past accomplished a miracle, but for what purpose they did so.

    The two, however, do not cancel each other out. It is entirely possible for, say, an Abrahamic religion to state that both coexist perfectly in that their Creator used the methods we have discovered by science as the ‘tools’ by which things were made and that most of the descriptions we have are how, as Lorica states, a person from that era would understand the concept or describe it to another (though I must stop to note, real quick, that the Brontosaurus is a human-conceived Chimera and not an actual dinosaur. There are, however, numerous other large beasts that could qualify).

    Also, Science generally has holes simply because whatever is in the ‘hole’ hasn’t been discovered yet. Like the whole ‘missing link’ concept, each time a new thing is discoverd, the holes get smaller, but until everything is explained perfectly, there will always be holes. Religion, again, is the reverse, not caring so much about the ‘holes’ since they are considered unimportant to the basic purpose or concept at the time. One could point out countless ‘holes’ in various religions that will likely never be completely filled, but such is not important to the actual message or purpose behind it anyway.

  46. I think the whiny kids were just suffering from nervous exhaustion. After all, when you’re growing up in Berkeley, California, The Abortion Capital of America, your worst nightmare is that someday they’ll approve retroactive abortions, and then where would you be?

    Here’s my take on it.

  47. Here is what the study said about nursery school girls who grow up to be LIBERAL:

    Is a talkative child,
    Behaves in a dominating manner,
    Expresses negative feelings openly,
    Is verbally fluent,
    Teases other children,
    Seeks to be independent and autonomous,
    Is self-assertive,
    Attempts to transfer blame to others,
    Is aggressive (physically or verbally),
    High standards of performance for self,
    Tends to be judgmental of others,
    Can admit to own negative feelings,
    Likes to compete,
    High intellectual capacity,
    Is curious and exploring,
    Is self-reliant, confident,
    Tries to be the center of attention,
    Is resourceful in initiating activities,
    Tends to dramatize, exaggerate mishaps,
    Is emotionally expressive.

    And here is what the study said about nursery school girls who grow up to be CONSERVATIVE:

    Indecisive and vacillating,
    Is easily victimized by other children,
    Is inhibited and constricted,
    Keeps thoughts, feelings, to self,
    Prefers non-verbal communication,
    Is neat and orderly in dress,
    Is shy and reserved,
    Anxious in unpredictable environment,
    tends to yield and give in,
    Is obedient and compliant,
    immobilized when under stress,
    Is fearful and anxious,
    Looks to adults for help and direction,
    Tends to go to pieces under stress,
    Has a readiness to feel guilty,
    Likes to be by him/herself, Cries easily.

    The “liberal” traits that are perceived as appealing to the researchers I see as: bullying, willfully imposing themselves onto others, disrespectful of others, domineering, careless, cheater, complainer, unjust, self-centered, disruptive, rude, and more than anything: SELFISH loudmouths. Read the list again. Those kids were the jerks. The “conservative” traits that are seen as negative I see as: respectful of others – particularly elders and those in authority, careful, organized, thoughtful of others, obedient, desires to please, desires to do the right thing, does not cheat, reliable and honest, well behaved, does not want to impose on others, sensitive, seeks guidance in order to do the right thing, does not pretend to know more than she does, is not full of herself- sees the world as something other than herself.

    I would love to have a conservative child!

    Huge holes in the study:

    -23 year olds are not politically mature. They know nothing yet of the world. They have not yet truly worked and earned their way. Their politics are largely formed by teachers/professors, media, and cultural influences – all of which are, especially in S.F., liberal. It is a false to conclude in this study that childhood personality can predict adulthood political affiliation because these 23 year olds will not necessarily remain true to their current political leanings. Liberal S.F. certainly influenced these young adults’ politics.

    -Many of the study’s perceived “well-balanced” 23 yr old liberals would not be liberal if they grew up in a different cultural environment (anywhere but S.F. – look at European kids – similar cultural influence, similar politics). Those liberals would be conservatives if they were properly introduced to conservative thinking.

    -Roughly 100 kids, all from S.F., is NOT a representative sampling.

    -Bias of those Berkley grad students who evaluated the young children. Did they know the childrens’ parents? – any bias find its way into unfavorable evaluations of the disliked/liked parents’ children? Or did those (undoubtedly liberal) grad students see behaviors in the children they themselves had and parlayed them into favorable traits? Were these grad students qualified to evaluate child personality traits? They weren’t doctors. They hadn’t raised children. What do they know?? Could it be too that the self-absorbed liberal researchers of this study describe the traits of the young and adult liberal subjects in glowing terms because they themselves share these traits?

  48. Pingback: Scrutator

Comments are closed.