Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Full Story Here

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.

---

I like case studies like this because of the simple fact that even if they lack a completely generalizable external validity, they do show in great detail a system of growth from child to adult. The political aspect of it does seem to flow relatively consistently between insecure children and self-assured children and their transition into conservative and liberal political ideologies.

It would be interesting to see whether this kind of intensive study could be repeated elsewhere with similar results.

At 3/22/06 10:44 PM, JMHX wrote: The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

Yeah, I know, Its a cheap shot but...

And people say liberals a whiney pussies.

This makes me feel even more confident. If I get anymore confidence I will fucking explode.

At 3/22/06 10:51 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Okay, so let me play devil's advocate...what kind of kids grow up to be liberal?

Did you not read the actual article?

At 3/22/06 10:51 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Okay, so let me play devil's advocate...what kind of kids grow up to be liberal?

IF WE LIVED IN A GODLY COUNTRY, THE ONLY KIDS WHO GREW UP TO BE LIBERALS WOULD BE DEAD ONES.

I'm curious what is the predominant political persuasion of the Berkley area?

It seems to me that people who grow up in an environment where they hold differing values than the majority of those around them may less confident. Or the fact that their personality defects alienate them from the group may motivate them to adopt a differing ideology from the group norm.

If only there were a bigger sample size over a large area, then this might actually be worth discussing.

I think this has more to do with area not temperment, consider a shy kid who feels like someone is out to get him in an area infested with liberals, he's not exactly going to develope a good peer base in the area and also will choose a political path unlike those who he feels were taunting towards him. I bet if the same study was performed in an area infested with conservatives you'd get the exact opposite results.

At 3/22/06 11:18 PM, BeFell wrote:

If only there were a bigger sample size over a large area, then this might actually be worth discussing.

To say this isn't worth discussing because it was a case study of only 100 children shows a fundamental ignorance of political science research methods. It would be nearly impossible and prohibitively expensive to undergo a case-study research model of 1,500 children from infancy to middle age. The whole purpose of a case study research model is to provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of a few cases and then use what information is gained to cautiously generalize to the population. Yes, while case study research models do not have as good external validity as a representative sample study, they are incredibly internally sound in that the data is concentrated on a few cases and retested over a matter of years. A case study method is just as valid and worth discussing as a representative sample.

At 3/22/06 11:18 PM, BeFell wrote:
It seems to me that people who grow up in an environment where they hold differing values than the majority of those around them may less confident.

Ten bucks says the mormon was bottle fed.

At 3/22/06 11:29 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 3/22/06 11:18 PM, BeFell wrote:

If only there were a bigger sample size over a large area, then this might actually be worth discussing.

To say this isn't worth discussing because it was a case study of only 100 children shows a fundamental ignorance of political science research methods. ... Whine whine bitch bitch I'm full of bullshit. A case study method is just as valid and worth discussing as a representative sample.

Just because it's a really good study of a small sample size that doesn't change the fact that the results are statistically insignificant. Hell you can't even disprove the geography factor. I think it's a really good indicator for what's true for the Berkley area but the deep south? It's poor scientific method through and through if you try to apply it to anything beyond Berkly.

At 3/22/06 11:38 PM, BeFell wrote: Just because it's a really good study of a small sample size that doesn't change the fact that the results are statistically insignificant. Hell you can't even disprove the geography factor. I think it's a really good indicator for what's true for the Berkley area but the deep south? It's poor scientific method through and through if you try to apply it to anything beyond Berkly.

Indeed. And what criteria were used to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative"? Was it what those surveyed consider themselves? Was it results from a questionaire? Was it by just a standard defintion of the words? If so, who's definition?

Also, where do libertarians and authoritarians fit in to this; people that are "liberal" in one aspect, but "conservative" in another? Were they neither whiny nor confident? Or were they confident and whiny?

At 3/22/06 11:38 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/22/06 11:29 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 3/22/06 11:18 PM, BeFell wrote:

Just because it's a really good study of a small sample size that doesn't change the fact that the results are statistically insignificant. Hell you can't even disprove the geography factor. I think it's a really good indicator for what's true for the Berkley area but the deep south? It's poor scientific method through and through if you try to apply it to anything beyond Berkly.

This is why there's a little thing in scientific method that calls for peer review of findings and repeat experimentations by other scientists in other areas of the country or world, done at different times and with attention to how the original results were achieved. Nothing in political science research is instant, the process is a continuing series of experiments -- especially in case study research models -- that will gradually be formed into a general theory.

At 3/23/06 12:02 AM, JMHX wrote: Nothing in political science research is instant, the process is a continuing series of experiments -- especially in case study research models -- that will gradually be formed into a general theory.

So let's hold the discussion until they're finished.

So let's hold the discussion until they're finished.

People talked about the XBOX360 far before it came out with their opinions on what it might be and what they would like to see happen.

Why not now.

At 3/23/06 12:12 AM, TheTrueMrJack wrote:

So let's hold the discussion until they're finished.

People talked about the XBOX360 far before it came out with their opinions on what it might be and what they would like to see happen.

Why not now.

You're an idiot.

At 3/23/06 12:09 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/23/06 12:02 AM, JMHX wrote: Nothing in political science research is instant, the process is a continuing series of experiments -- especially in case study research models -- that will gradually be formed into a general theory.

So let's hold the discussion until they're finished.

Sadly, I don't have that kind of time.

At 3/23/06 12:18 AM, JMHX wrote: Sadly, I don't have that kind of time.

But what's the point of parading potentially innacurate information as established fact?

You're not unconfident, insecure and generally whiny about the potential outcome are you?

Is this your excuse jmhx? That you're a whiny child?

At 3/23/06 12:20 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/23/06 12:18 AM, JMHX wrote: Sadly, I don't have that kind of time.

But what's the point of parading potentially innacurate information as established fact?

You're not unconfident, insecure and generally whiny about the potential outcome are you?

Saying I or anyone else here is an idiot based on you thinking I or anyone else here thinks this is fact makes you an idiot yourself.

At 3/23/06 12:30 AM, TheTrueMrJack wrote: Saying I or anyone else here is an idiot based on you thinking I or anyone else here thinks this is fact makes you an idiot yourself.

You're an idiot.

The point isn't that it is an established fact or not, but that it is a piece of scientific research that has obviously gone through some minimal peer-review process in order to be published. Even if it is not concrete fact yet and must be repeated by other researchers, that doesn't mean that there can't be some kind of meaningful discussion on the subject: methods to improve it, constructive criticisms or contributions, etc. Throwing something away because it has not moved from theory to fact is foolish.

I wouldn't assume that it has gone through anything like extensive 'peer review' as you put it, just because it's been published. Every week there's a new something or other that's put out and then discovered to be complete trash.

I think it's an interesting result, but ultimately not worth anything. I don't see the correlation between the two, and it's also a major problem with definitions. What defines whiny, conservative, et al. *shrug*

At 3/23/06 12:46 AM, JMHX wrote: The point isn't that it is an established fact or not, but that it is a piece of scientific research that has obviously gone through some minimal peer-review process in order to be published. Even if it is not concrete fact yet and must be repeated by other researchers, that doesn't mean that there can't be some kind of meaningful discussion on the subject: methods to improve it, constructive criticisms or contributions, etc. Throwing something away because it has not moved from theory to fact is foolish.

Now as I recall I said the study needed to involve more subjects over a wider area, then I was chastised. I never indicated the study should not be continued merely that the results until adequate verification didn't indicate a God damn thing.

I really don't see the significance of this finding, other then the slight possibility of being able to call conservatives whiney, and liberals self assured. I also find it interesting that some of my friends (who are very conservative, mind you), grew up relatively quiet children that didn't really whine about anything. According to my parents, I didn't grow up being loud or bitchy at all, and I've turned out to be a decent enough human being who happens to swing to the right in politics.

I would also like to point out the potential errors that over 20-30 years of different views in the world might have effected the results. You also have to take into consideration that these children were brought up with a nusery...not all children are brought up that way. So children brought up in a nuclear family type household might come out differently in political ideals, regardless of their bitchyness.

And once again I've ranted too far...ugh.

Basically what we used to call tattle tales or snitches. Instead of fighting their own battles or ignoring what people say, they get the authortarian types, like parents, teachers and sometimes cops to protect them.

At 3/23/06 02:42 AM, Sir_Snark wrote: And once again I've ranted too far...ugh.

I'd rather have a page full of posts like yours in a topic that a page full of Mr. Jack's bullshit.

"Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs,"

I wonder why. Maybe because this isn't a field sample test designed to proove anything... perhaps the entire purpose of this study was to *gasp* piss people off and stir up rivalries? Or to give people more fuel to fan the flames of argumentum ad nauseum?

Seems reasonable! Whining is the one thing conservatives are able to do. Besides faking election results of course.

Does anyone know anything about the source? Is it a reasonably unbiased newspaper, or is it likely to run stories like this just to annoy people?

Liberals grew up to be self reliant my ass.

At 3/23/06 10:15 AM, Dracul3S wrote: Seems reasonable! Whining is the one thing conservatives are able to do. Besides faking election results of course.

It amazes me that you're too stupid to see the irony in your post.

Well this is gaytastic!