Study: Extreme conservatives make happier people

TheHeretic

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/24/extreme_conservatives_are_happier_than_you_partner/

So I happened across a news story based on this Canadian study via a youtube vid yesterday and it got the mind ticking. The research would suggest that conservatives are generally happier than people of other social or political persuasions and I was trying to apply this to my own experience of society and personal circles to see how valid it might be.

Generally, with a little apprehension in some respects, I must say that I've found this to be more or less true from my experience and involvement with others.

It might sound stereotypical, but most conservative people, or you might say traditional, that I've known place great emphasis on family, being interested in them and their doings, helping them out, prizing participation with them and others. We all know those types of people; when family life runs well - 'All is right with the world', it's a source of pride, and when it's dysfunctional it's a source of shame. I'm not saying non-conservatives don't care about family, but it just seems that to conservatives family forms more of the bedrock of themselves and their society world-view.

Evolutionary, humans are naturally attuned to the group, to belonging and fitting in within their circle to accomplish great objectives together, and I think this gives most conservative minded people a sense of familiarity and security within themselves to allow them to be more content. 'Many hands lighten the load', and thus builds satisfaction.

I guess to boil it down, conservatives I've met tend to value association with others and respect traditions and order, whereas other political groupings, especially further left [no, I'm not attacking you] value 'going your own way' and forms of super-individuality. The problem with the latter is I've seen this go too far and become excessive, and in many cases it's actually led to a form of insecurity and dissatisfaction with the group they belong [such as Irish, European, age-group, community, school, job etc] and undervaluing their traditions and customs as a result. It makes them unhappier as they fit in less and are prone to searching for 'problems' that may or may not exist.

Not belonging or recognising the traditional or natural groupings of society actually ends up in a situation where a person questions everything, including the value of thier own self-worth, leading to unhappy straits.

Anyhow, what observations have you made on the topic similar to mine, dissimilar/other?

dd972

Political Conservatism over the last 30 odd years have led to the opposite of social cohesion, the ''**** you loser, me first'' mentality.

Grayson

dd972 wrote: »

Political Conservatism over the last 30 odd years have led to the opposite of social cohesion, the ''**** you loser, me first'' mentality.

yep. It all depends on your definition or version of conservatism. Personally I don't think half the nutjobs that rail against gay marriage and see anything progressive as evil are happier. But I can see that people who live a more conservative lifestyle are happier. To make it clear I see a conservative lifestyle as being a nuclear family with close friends. Thing is that stereo type could be applied to a gay couple too.

Guyanachronism

Ignorance is bliss.

Cody Pomeray

That's not a conventional interpretation of conservative v. progressive OP.

Conservatives tend to be associated with anti-social policies like opposition to income re/distribution, favour low government investment, and the protection of private property.

That's hardly a model of social cohesion and co-operation. It's a model that sees progress primarily in selfish acts.

kraggy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not a conventional interpretation of conservative v. progressive OP.

Conservatives tend to be associated with anti-social policies like opposition to income re/distribution, favour low government investment, and the protection of private property.

That's hardly a model of social cohesion and co-operation. It's a model that sees progress primarily in selfish acts.

That's economic conservatism. Conservatism can relate to either economical or social stances.

I'd be fairly conservative when it comes to the economy but I'm extremely socially liberal.

Social conservatives tend to be religious, anti abortion, anti homosexuality, anti immigration etc.

TheHeretic

dd972 wrote: »

Political Conservatism over the last 30 odd years have led to the opposite of social cohesion, the ''**** you loser, me first'' mentality.

But that mentality existed less pre-1960's and the counter-culture, no? At that time classical conservatism/liberalism and libertarianism had not died its horrible death.

I would see parties as the UK Tories, German Christian Democrats, FF, FG as very much neo-conservative/neo-liberal, in that they don't have much in common with the ideals of their fore-bearers. For example there are no longer any real distinctions between UK Labour and the Tories, FG and Labour [indeed they are in a coalition govt]. Politics has evolved to a point were all parties have amalgamated on the major issues, mass-politics has become the norm and the masses in general want the same thing due to popular influences. Why would any political party attempt something genuinely different only to be ridiculed?

On issues of abortion and gay marriage thr present parties may have slightly different views, but in world affairs, EU, energy policy, defense, geo-politics, economic theory, environment, trade and matters of vital importance, they are almost exactly the same, the same bland wash of neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism Kensyian capitalism & welfarism we've had for the last 60 years.

This isn't the 1950's political scene anymore, conservatism or classical liberalism aren't really represented anymore. What we have now are nothing more than hastily built parliamentary coalitions whose only interest to to keep a dying economy ticking.

We give them too much credit if we think they can adhere to an ethical and political meaning/perspective of 'conservative' or 'liberal'. They are utterly incapable.

BraziliaNZ

I was reading a study recently where they were saying that this form of mental masochism can bring about a kind of happiness. I.e. extreme conservatives can develop a mental outlook that sees any form of indulgence as disgusting or wicked. Sex, alcohol, etc.
It's the masochistic happiness of the anti-hedonist. The more frugal, austere and prohibitive life can be made the greater their happiness.
It makes twisted sense in a way.

ScumLord

Conservatives have less worries. Their view of the world is fairly simplified to "I'm right, I see no need to change, everyone else get used to my viewpoint".

When you don't have to worry about what other people are thinking or of how new things may interact with society (because new things are bad so shouldn't be allowed), then life is much simpler.

But their viewpoints put stress and anxiety onto other people which may skew the results slightly as they only seem higher compared to the other people the conservatives are making miserable.

TheHeretic

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's not a conventional interpretation of conservative v. progressive OP.

Conservatives tend to be associated with anti-social policies like opposition to income re/distribution, favour low government investment, and the protection of private property.

That's hardly a model of social cohesion and co-operation. It's a model that sees progress primarily in selfish acts.

Let's be fair, the selfishness we've seen in the past decade or two in this country occurred at a time when political conservatism was/is at it's lowest in decades. A conservative government wouldn't have socailized private debts which would go on burden the people and economy. It's against their economic principles. That can't be described as selfish.

Anyway, we're getting of topic!

TheHeretic

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss.

Are you suggesting that all conservatives are ignorant? That's ignorance in itself.

Cody Pomeray

kraggy wrote: »

I'd be fairly conservative when it comes to the economy but I'm extremely socially liberal

I'd avoid using terms like "liberal", because it can apply to conservatives or progressives.

The OP spoke about "many hands lighten the load" mentality. That is not a typical mentality of either social or economic conservatives, which can be summed up by

"The load is as light as the market dictates" and
"Stay away from my load. This is my private property you c*nt".

Finton90

Yeah conservative is probably the wrong choice of word, instead I would say that people who live a traditional lifestyle are happier in general. Nowadays, the traditional way is associated with rural living and the individualist with city living, although not always the case. As someone from the country but having lived in various cities at home and abroad I would say that country people are happier.

The tightness of communities means that imo country folk have more real friendships than urban folk and it is strong human relationships more so than anything than is the basis of happiness.

Christ the Redeemer

They say ignorance is bliss, after all.

TheHeretic

Finton90 wrote: »

Yeah conservative is probably the wrong choice of word, instead I would say that people who live a traditional lifestyle are happier in general. Nowadays, the traditional way is associated with rural living and the individualist with city living, although not always the case. As someone from the country but having lived in various cities at home and abroad I would say that country people are happier.

The tightness of communities means that imo country folk have more real friendships than urban folk and it is strong human relationships more so than anything than is the basis of happiness.

Yes, this is more of what I was getting at, the traditional aspect. I think that since the article/study is Canadian, it's more normal for them to call this 'conservative'. To us that's more of a political attitude.

Christ the Redeemer

Also, I hate that the Yank binary political stance bull**** is bleeding into European politics.

They are destroying their country because of this crap. let's not follow them down that road.

ScumLord

Finton90 wrote: »

Yeah conservative is probably the wrong choice of word, instead I would say that people who live a traditional lifestyle are happier in general. Nowadays, the traditional way is associated with rural living and the individualist with city living, although not always the case. As someone from the country but having lived in various cities at home and abroad I would say that country people are happier.

The tightness of communities means that imo country folk have more real friendships than urban folk and it is strong human relationships more so than anything than is the basis of happiness.

That's different. Being part of a family unit is a small community is basically how humans have lived for as long as they've been humans. We're still coming to terms with living in over stimulating cities, over crowding is the main problem with cities but is also it's greatest advantage.

woodoo

Liberals and leftists are uptight grouches.

rossie1977

if extreme conservatives are happy people then i guy the happiest places on earth are Saudi Arabia and yemen

TheHeretic

rossie1977 wrote: »

if extreme conservatives are happy people then i guy the happiest places on earth are Saudi Arabia and yemen

The ideology of Salafist Islamic fundamentalism is hardly the same thing as a Western social or political conservative?

brundle_fly

define extreme conservative , I imagine their are about six in all of Ireland

Femme_Fatale

Depends on the type of extreme conservative - I'd say it applies all right to the well meaning Ned Flanders type.

woodoo wrote: »

Liberals and leftists are uptight grouches.

Be more specific. I'd agree with you when it comes to people who are die-hard left-wing and can't even handle the merest hint of the politically incorrect, but people who are left of centre are just moderate in their thinking.

brundle_fly

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Depends on the type of extreme conservative - I'd say it applies all right to the well meaning Ned Flanders type.

Be more specific. I'd agree with you when it comes to people who are die-hard left-wing and can't even handle the merest hint of the politically incorrect, but people who are left of centre are just moderate in their thinking.

most people in Ireland are left of centre in their thinking so I agree

the media in Ireland and the academic class are firmly on the left however , hence the pious , preachy , pc tone we are bombarded with

Femme_Fatale

brundle_fly wrote: »

most people in Ireland are left of centre in their thinking

Most of the younger generations perhaps; not sure about those aged 55+. Urban v rural would be an important factor too I'd say.

the media in Ireland and the academic class are firmly on the left however , hence the pious , preachy , pc tone we are bombarded with

Academics definitely - don't know about the media overall, especially print.

Mike 1972

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/neonazi-italian-gp-had-bust-of-hitler-in-library-8734393.html

in other news there is a bit of a rumpus in Italy about a doctor having a bust of Hitlet in his office.

brundle_fly

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Most of the younger generations perhaps; not sure about those aged 55+.

Academics definitely - don't know about the media overall, especially print.

perhaps not socially but the over 55,s firmly expect the state to look after them , very different attitude to retirement protection etc in the likes of America , most people in Ireland are very statist in outlook

the main party of government going back the decades in Ireland were firmly centre left economically while of course being socially conservative , this is no surprise , Ireland was a deeply catholic country and classic Catholicism is on the left economically

KyussBishop

Not surprising - it's like religion: Thinking you have simple appealing answers to everything (when the world is really a lot more complicated than that) will naturally be more reassuring, and that's what a lot of conservatism is about (both economically and socially).

ScumLord wrote: »

Conservatives have less worries. Their view of the world is fairly simplified to "I'm right, I see no need to change, everyone else get used to my viewpoint".

When you don't have to worry about what other people are thinking or of how new things may interact with society (because new things are bad so shouldn't be allowed), then life is much simpler.

But their viewpoints put stress and anxiety onto other people which may skew the results slightly as they only seem higher compared to the other people the conservatives are making miserable.

That nails it pretty well - probably better than much else I've read over time.

Among all conservatives (economic and social), there is the common trend of ignoring the harm that what they advocate, will impose on other (generally less well off) people, and there is no answer they have for this whatsoever, it is usually just consciously ignored entirely, in a disingenuous "well that can't be helped..." shrug-of-shoulders kind of way (even in face of alternatives which resolve those issues, but conflict with their conservatism).

Hande hoche!

Probably explains why Glenn Beck is such a happy and relaxed individual.

conorhal

ScumLord wrote: »

Conservatives have less worries. Their view of the world is fairly simplified to "I'm right, I see no need to change, everyone else get used to my viewpoint".

When you don't have to worry about what other people are thinking or of how new things may interact with society (because new things are bad so shouldn't be allowed), then life is much simpler.

But their viewpoints put stress and anxiety onto other people which may skew the results slightly as they only seem higher compared to the other people the conservatives are making miserable.

Funny, that sound an awful lot like the ideological left to me, the Ivana Bacik's and Aidan O' Riordan's of the world.

The truth is that the hard left and libertarian right are two cheeks of the same arse, they both promote the worst kind of agressive, narsistic individualism but simply disagree on how to achieve it.
Just as classical conservatives see all change as bad, the marxist left see all change as good regardless of wether it actually is or not, you only have to look at the lefts pavlovian reaction to the arab spring, 'revolution' is good. Neither side really consider any impact of chane. That would be where classical conservatives tend to differ, in the consideration of the broader impact of change, not just 'is it good for me?' but also, is it broadly good for the cohesion of society in general.

conorhal

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not surprising - it's like religion: Thinking you have simple appealing answers to everything (when the world is really a lot more complicated than that) will naturally be more reassuring, and that's what a lot of conservatism is about (both economically and socially).


That nails it pretty well - probably better than much else I've read over time.

Among all conservatives (economic and social), there is the common trend of ignoring the harm that what they advocate, will impose on other (generally less well off) people, and there is no answer they have for this whatsoever, it is usually just consciously ignored entirely, in a disingenuous "well that can't be helped..." shrug-of-shoulders kind of way (even in face of alternatives which resolve those issues, but conflict with their conservatism).

Again, sounds no different to the ideological marxists either. At the extreme of most politics the arguments against the 'other side', (a bit like your post) get pretty reductive, where as most people in the middle generally don't suffer from that kind of tunnel vision and are capable of broadly assessing the nuances of a position.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

True conservatives, in my opinoin, tend to be the most insecure, paranoid, hate-filled, selfish, angry people I've ever met.

Not happy, though.

TheHeretic

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

True conservatives, in my opinoin, tend to be the most insecure, paranoid, hate-filled, selfish, angry people I've ever met.

Not happy, though.

Are there any more pejoratives you'd like to add to that list while we're here? The 'progressives' that have posted on this thread could also be described as the above from the bottom of the barrel material they have posted. We need to look beyond political or social outlooks to garner the real value of a person. This is something 'progressives' preach yet, never, ever, practice. Again, it would be wise to note this thread.

I think that most forms of progressivism, neo-marxism etc are quite the way you are stating, because it's not a social or economic outlook they are promoting, but a world-ideology that must be pressed into all corners of life and in all senses. They are unhappy people because of the persistent need to point out 'problems' to enforce their underlying ideology, thus this devalues everything in society that is essential to it's function and existence. Everything then is subject to Critical Theory, the process of needlessly questioning everything into submission and decay, culture, custom, institutions, values, history, economics etc. Everyone and everything becomes 'racist', 'sexist', 'tyrannical', 'homophobic', 'old-fashioned', 'undemocratic', and other recenty invented heresy terms that only serve to put people down.

Therefore we have in the modern West the persecution of the 'sinners' of this ideology of progressivism - the people who simply question and disprove it.

For example, if I implied that everyone is not equal, that people have different value inherently by saying - "A physically disabled person cannot do many of the jobs an abled person can do", I have 'sinned' to the dominant modern political mentality. I have sinned because I spoke in normal, unpolitical language, and stated the factually obvious. This isn't allowed because it undermines the utopian concepts that progressivism is based on, the blanket equality of all humans, and everything derived from that fantasy.

Progressive neo-marxists are essentially unhappy because they constantly strive to package a utopian fallacy into the real world. This creates numerous problems for them, least of all it promotes a disbelief in their own self-worth, as they have undermined their culture and the natural fabric of their own society by theorizing/questioning it to death - which represents nothing more than the demise of their own roots & social belonging.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TheHeretic wrote: »

Are there any more pejoratives you'd like to add to that list while we're here? The 'progressives' that have posted on this thread could also be described as the above from the bottom of the barrel material they have posted. We need to look beyond political or social outlooks to garner the real value of a person. This is something 'progressives' preach yet, never, ever, practice. Again, it would be wise to note this thread.

Was thinking "anti-liberal" but left it out, because that seems to be limited to Fox and AH.

I also made a point of stating "true" conservatives, because a lot of people I know consider themselves conservative but are much more liberali in their outlooks. Certainly not extreme.

I think that most forms of progressivism, neo-marxism etc are quite the way you are stating, because it's not a social or economic outlook they are promoting, but a world-ideology that must be pressed into all corners of life and in all senses. They are unhappy people because of the persistent need to point out 'problems' to enforce their underlying ideology, thus this devalues everything in society that is essential to it's function and existence. Everything then is subject to Critical Theory, the process of needlessly questioning everything into submission and decay, culture, custom, institutions, values, history, economics etc. Everyone and everything becomes 'racist', 'sexist', 'tyrannical', 'homophobic', 'old-fashioned', 'undemocratic', and other recenty invented heresy terms that only serve to put people down.

Don't agree. I think the closer you come to centre (regardless of which side of the spectrum) the less you fidn this. And most people would be more centre than anything.

Therefore we have in the modern West the persecution of the 'sinners' of this ideology of progressivism - the people who simply question and disprove it.

For example, if I implied that everyone is not equal, that people have different value inherently by saying - "A physically disabled person cannot do many of the jobs an abled person can do", I have 'sinned' to the dominant modern political mentality. I have sinned because I spoke in normal, unpolitical language, and stated the factually obvious. This isn't allowed because it undermines the utopian concepts that progressivism is based on, the blanket equality of all humans, and everything derived from that fantasy.

This sounds like a more intelligent way of saying "PC gone mad". It also depends on how you say it, because a lot of peopel say that gay people cannot adopt in the same tone of voice and, weh nquestioned, beleive them selves to have "sinned" for stating the obvious 0 which in this case is far from the obvious.

Progressive neo-marxists are essentially unhappy because they constantly strive to package a utopian fallacy into the real world. This creates numerous problems for them, least of all it promotes a disbelief in their own self-worth, as they have undermined their culture and the natural fabric of their own society by theorizing/questioning it to death - which represents nothing more than the demise of their own roots & social belonging.

This, again, could go for anyone without a centrist view. Beyond that, you'll have to define "progressive neo-marxist".

Pumpkinseeds

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. Liberal thinking has led to a reverse of that and not for the better in my opinion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

Hardly any of these are definite conservative ideas - they are right across the politcial spectrum.

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. Liberal thinking has led to a reverse of that and not for the better in my opinion.

Firrstly, what "liberal thinking"? Secondly, in what way?

TheHeretic

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think it depends on your values. 30 years ago when I was a kid, most people would have held conservative views, i.e. decency, respectability, providing for their families, having respect for themselves, treating their neighbourhoods and neighbours with respect and bringing their kids up to treat others with respect.

Even going back to the 80's teen pregnancy would have been frowned upon and considered shocking in my parents circles. Liberal thinking has led to a reverse of that and not for the better in my opinion.

You hit the nail on the head I think. The problem is the absence of common hard values shared among people at present. When you talk about anything even relatively serious, social or political, people can't even seem to agree on the terminology used to describe it, yet alone the values presented. It then becomes an argument of semantics more than anything else - a symptom of the belief in opposing values of the parties concerned.

When people can't agree on anything like this, common responsibility goes out the window as people feel that every person isn't held to the same rule of thumb. "If he can do his own thing, why can't I?" If there are no common values, this just means there is a non-recognition of common interests, and certainly yes, there can be no common future without this interest.

When an atomized society like this exists, where disagreements on basic ethics & values are commonplace, and in-fighting and power struggles are the norm, an exterior people who are united encroaches and imposes themselves. History is full of examples. The modern world is full of examples. We're no different.

Welcome to the ME, ME, ME culture.

Mark Tapley

TheHeretic wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head I think. The problem is the absence of common hard values shared among people at present. When you talk about anything even relatively serious, social or political, people can't even seem to agree on the terminology used to describe it, yet alone the values presented. It then becomes an argument of semantics more than anything else - a symptom of the belief in opposing values of the parties concerned.

When people can't agree on anything like this, common responsibility goes out the window as people feel that every person isn't held to the same rule of thumb. "If he can do his own thing, why can't I?" If there are no common values, this just means there is a non-recognition of common interests, and certainly yes, there can be no common future without this interest.

When an atomized society like this exists, where disagreements on basic ethics & values are commonplace, and in-fighting and power struggles are the norm, an exterior people who are united encroaches and imposes themselves. History is full of examples. The modern world is full of examples. We're no different.

Welcome to the ME, ME, ME culture.

Society is in a constant state of flux , to think there would ever be a time when people didn't disagree about ethics and values is unrealistic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

TheHeretic wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head I think. The problem is the absence of common hard values shared among people at present. When you talk about anything even relatively serious, social or political, people can't even seem to agree on the terminology used to describe it, yet alone the values presented. It then becomes an argument of semantics more than anything else - a symptom of the belief in opposing values of the parties concerned.

There are plenty of shared values. Heretic listed a few, but incorrectly labeled them as conservative...!

When people can't agree on anything like this, common responsibility goes out the window as people feel that every person isn't held to the same rule of thumb. "If he can do his own thing, why can't I?" If there are no common values, this just means there is a non-recognition of common interests, and certainly yes, there can be no common future without this interest.

When an atomized society like this exists, where disagreements on basic ethics & values are commonplace, and in-fighting and power struggles are the norm, an exterior people who are united encroaches and imposes themselves. History is full of examples. The modern world is full of examples. We're no different.

So... you're saying (and correct me if I;m wrong) that conformity is the way ahead? I disagree firstly that we have no shared values, and secodnly that we can not operate in an atomized society.

Welcome to the ME, ME, ME culture.

Now THAT sounds like extremism. Not nessecarily left or right, though.

Most peole seem to get along fine. They live their lives, they get along, for the most part, with one another. We are more tolerant and understanding than we were 30 odd years ago, certainly, but I wouldn't put this down to a political shift. I'd put it down to more intelligent and informed people asking questions of supposed authorities and not accepting what we're told automaitcally. THAT's the key difference.

In short, people who are centrist seem to be happier than people who are extreme anything.

TheHeretic

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Society is in a constant state of flux , to think there would ever be a time when people didn't disagree about ethics and values is unrealistic.

You know there used to be a time when 'society' meant a great collection of socially & intellectually disparate people coming together in the spirit of compromise.

Why compromise? Because it's only in this spirit that we can put aside our petty differences, to come together in our efforts & desires, and achieve something worthwhile and lasting for the greater number of people that make up that society. We call this great product of society culture. Culture leads to material, artistic & economic development.

Culture is nothing more than an agreement of values, and can't be contained or find growth in people that don't have this prerequisite. Life is flux yes, but humans have willpower and intelligence. We can choose to make efforts toward value-building and thus advancing culture and civilization, or we don't.

Alternatively we can choose to box ourselves off from others we live with, and to make our own individual-centric norms that don't require group support or input. But we do this out of ignorance, because we actually, evolutionary, socially and otherwise need the group to survive. This is fact. Such latter societies, with no values, no direction, flounder in a sea of divisiveness as ultimately they have no agreed upon spiritual or material purpose.

I think your view is a bit too superficial to make sense. Societies would not even exist if profound disagreements were normal.

Pumpkinseeds

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hardly any of these are definite conservative ideas - they are right across the politcial spectrum.



Firrstly, what "liberal thinking"? Secondly, in what way?

The conservative ideas I mentioned above don't exist in the way that they did 30 years ago. Nowadays people have a more 'Me and mine' oriented view on things. Many kids I've seen run wild and have a deplorable attitude. I see kids in my own neighbourhod from working class families kicking a football against a neighbours car or against the gable end of another neighbours house, while the parents ignore it.

I've seen people go to other neighbours houses and start a shouting match just because that neighbour told the kids to play somewhere else. When I was a kid we'd have been in trouble with our parents for doing any of those things. I know I'm opening the floodgates of personal abuse for this opinion but I'm going to state it anyway. Teen pregnancy is wrong, just because a teenager is able to give birth doesn't mean that it's acceptable for her to have a child. I have several friends who were grandparents at 40 years old, that is ridiculous.

Liberal thinking in areas such as disciplining a child is 'wrong' and therefore 'stifles' its personality and 'creativity' and 'chummy parenting', you are not meant to be your childs friend, you are meant to be their parent. Old fashioned and conservative are often the same thingt, but it doesn't make them wrong. 30 years ago most of us were taught to accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Today people expect the state to take care of their needs. People would have been embarrassed not to be able to provide for their famillies and would have felt mortified to have to ask for financial support, nowadays many people make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits and have child after child that they will never support financially.

When I was a kid you had to be good at something to be picked to do it, whether that be sport or whatever, nowadays every child gets picked, just to make sure that nobody feels hurt or excluded, that in itself is namby pamby liberal thinking. People freely expressed their opinions without fear of being labelled bigoted, racist or whatever other negative label liberal thinkers attach to anyone who isn't sporting the 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice' attitude we're all supposed to live by these days.

Christ on a bike, I will never forget seeing my Mother cover her mouth with her hand after mentioning the word black when telling me about a black person she works with. She was afraid to be labelled as a racist, just for using the word. It's no surprise that with such liberal thinking groups such as the BNP are gaining support.

Almaviva

Is the study not just stating the equivalent of 'six really is half a dozen' ?

Conservatives desire in general no change to the status quo because they are happy with it and their lot.
Non-conservatives desire change, reform or whatever to correct something in life, society, politics, or their lot - about which they are unhappy is not as they wish. So they aren't going to be conservative advocating maintaining a situation wich is unsatisfactory to them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The conservative ideas I mentioned above don't exist in the way that they did 30 years ago. Nowadays people have a more 'Me and mine' oriented view on things. Many kids I've seen run wild and have a deplorable attitude. I see kids in my own neighbourhod from working class families kicking a football against a neighbours car or against the gable end of another neighbours house, while the parents ignore it.

For the second time, these are not conservative ideas. "Me" and "mine" IS a conservative attitude, but in fairness more of an extreme one.

I've seen people go to other neighbours houses and start a shouting match just because that neighbour told the kids to play somewhere else. When I was a kid we'd have been in trouble with our parents for doing any of those things. I know I'm opening the floodgates of personal abuse for this opinion but I'm going to state it anyway. Teen pregnancy is wrong, just because a teenager is able to give birth doesn't mean that it's acceptable for her to have a child. I have several friends who were grandparents at 40 years old, that is ridiculous.

Liberal thinking in areas such as disciplining a child is 'wrong' and therefore 'stifles' its personality and 'creativity' and 'chummy parenting', you are not meant to be your childs friend, you are meant to be their parent. Old fashioned and conservative are often the same thingt, but it doesn't make them wrong. 30 years ago most of us were taught to accept personal responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Are you sure that's liberal thinking? Liberals do cherish creativity and expression, but not at the expense of respect. That seems to be a created "boogeyman" in order to try and appoint blame.

Accepting responsibility for ourselves and actions - again, this is neither old fashioned nor coservative. If anything, it's modern and liberal. Yes, there are bad parents who ignore this, but - and this is the where I believe you arguemment fallas down - you can NOT prove a link between bad parenting and their political outlook.

Today people expect the state to take care of their needs. People would have been embarrassed not to be able to provide for their famillies and would have felt mortified to have to ask for financial support, nowadays many people make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits and have child after child that they will never support financially.

Again - can you link this to a particular outlook?

When I was a kid you had to be good at something to be picked to do it, whether that be sport or whatever, nowadays every child gets picked, just to make sure that nobody feels hurt or excluded, that in itself is namby pamby liberal thinking. People freely expressed their opinions without fear of being labelled bigoted, racist or whatever other negative label liberal thinkers attach to anyone who isn't sporting the 'wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice' attitude we're all supposed to live by these days.

As I said before most of this is down to a more tolerant and well-informed populace, not a certain political outlook.

Christ on a bike, I will never forget seeing my Mother cover her mouth with her hand after mentioning the word black when telling me about a black person she works with. She was afraid to be labelled as a racist, just for using the word. It's no surprise that with such liberal thinking groups such as the BNP are gaining support.

At this point you've gone completely off the rails.

Seriously. You're painting an overly rosy picture of life 30 years ago and a bleak one of it now and then finger pointing at "liberals". I again challenge you to proe that there is a link between social change and a political group.

Ireland is still a conservative country, no doubt about it. Considerably more moderate than 30 years ago, but definitely conservative. Abortion, gay marraige are still illegal for one thing. Are you suggwsting we go back to a more intolerant and ignroant age?

I'd also like to point out I can do the same: I can point at child abuse scandals by certain groups of people 30 years ago, tut tut a few times and mutter "conservatives." Do you really want to go down this road...?

Mark Tapley

TheHeretic wrote: »

You know there used to be a time when 'society' meant a great collection of socially & intellectually disparate people coming together in the spirit of compromise.

Why compromise? Because it's only in this spirit that we can put aside our petty differences, to come together in our efforts & desires, and achieve something worthwhile and lasting for the greater number of people that make up that society. We call this great product of society culture. Culture leads to material, artistic & economic development.

Culture is nothing more than an agreement of values, and can't be contained or find growth in people that don't have this prerequisite. Life is flux yes, but humans have willpower and intelligence. We can choose to make efforts toward value-building and thus advancing culture and civilization, or we don't.

Alternatively we can choose to box ourselves off from others we live with, and to make our own individual-centric norms that don't require group support or input. But we do this out of ignorance, because we actually, evolutionary, socially and otherwise need the group to survive. This is fact. Such latter societies, with no values, no direction, flounder in a sea of divisiveness as ultimately they have no agreed upon spiritual or material purpose.

I think your view is a bit too superficial to make sense. Societies would not even exist if profound disagreements were normal.

Thanks for the the lecture on compromise , but I cant see the connection with my post. Of course people compromise and collaborate for the common good. This does not mean that they agree on everything. They compromise . The idea that everyone would agree about everything is abhorrent. I would suggest you read the words in the post and not make unfounded assumptions.

KyussBishop

conorhal wrote: »

Again, sounds no different to the ideological marxists either. At the extreme of most politics the arguments against the 'other side', (a bit like your post) get pretty reductive, where as most people in the middle generally don't suffer from that kind of tunnel vision and are capable of broadly assessing the nuances of a position.

There is no 'middle', there is what works and what doesn't, science/empiricism vs ideologically motivated nonsense (which includes painting all opponents as part of opposing ideologies, i.e. marxism), and conservatives tend to fall almost exclusively on the latter side.

It's not a partisan divide where meeting in the middle resolves the issues; you either have a respect for science and evidence-based policymaking, or you don't.

It's not uncommon to find conservatives explicitly rejecting empiricism/science altogether (usually with platitudes like "oh but a lot of us are scientists too"), particularly where it comes to economics.

Pumpkinseeds

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the second time, these are not conservative ideas. "Me" and "mine" IS a conservative attitude, but in fairness more of an extreme one.



Are you sure that's liberal thinking? Liberals do cherish creativity and expression, but not at the expense of respect. That seems to be a created "boogeyman" in order to try and appoint blame.

Accepting responsibility for ourselves and actions - again, this is neither old fashioned nor coservative. If anything, it's modern and liberal. Yes, there are bad parents who ignore this, but - and this is the where I believe you arguemment fallas down - you can NOT prove a link between bad parenting and their political outlook.



Again - can you link this to a particular outlook?



As I said before most of this is down to a more tolerant and well-informed populace, not a certain political outlook.



At this point you've gone completely off the rails.

Seriously. You're painting an overly rosy picture of life 30 years ago and a bleak one of it now and then finger pointing at "liberals". I again challenge you to proe that there is a link between social change and a political group.

Ireland is still a conservative country, no doubt about it. Considerably more moderate than 30 years ago, but definitely conservative. Abortion, gay marraige are still illegal for one thing. Are you suggwsting we go back to a more intolerant and ignroant age?

I'd also like to point out I can do the same: I can point at child abuse scandals by certain groups of people 30 years ago, tut tut a few times and mutter "conservatives." Do you really want to go down this road...?

Actually I'm pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not for a moment suggesting that things were rosier 30 years ago, in a lot of ways they really weren't. I think that you are determined to disagree with my beliefs and that's fine. Yes, I do have conservative views on somethings. I believe in deceny and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect. Basic human decency can be hard to find these days. I'm not really interested in statistics, those can be manipulated to fit whatever agena suits whatever party.

I just need to take a look around me or read any newspaper or put on any news channel to see how far wrong things have gone. There's a whole generation of 20 and 30 somethings out there with a liberal sense of entitlement, many of whom are raising kids with same obnoxious and arrogant sense of entitlement. It benefits nobody in the long term. You only have to see how unwelcome many of them are becoming in countries that the Irish have traditionally emigrated to.

You can discount my opinion on the BNP and other extremist groups as much as you like, but their popularity is soaring these days. That group and others of it's kind disgust me, but they find a niche market.

Mark Tapley

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Actually I'm pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not for a moment suggesting that things were rosier 30 years ago, in a lot of ways they really weren't. I think that you are determined to disagree with my beliefs and that's fine. Yes, I do have conservative views on somethings. I believe in deceny and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect. Basic human decency can be hard to find these days. I'm not really interested in statistics, those can be manipulated to fit whatever agena suits whatever party.

I just need to take a look around me or read any newspaper or put on any news channel to see how far wrong things have gone. There's a whole generation of 20 and 30 somethings out there with a liberal sense of entitlement, many of whom are raising kids with same obnoxious and arrogant sense of entitlement. It benefits nobody in the long term. You only have to see how unwelcome many of them are becoming in countries that the Irish have traditionally emigrated to.

You can discount my opinion on the BNP and other extremist groups as much as you like, but their popularity is soaring these days. That group and others of it's kind disgust me, but they find a niche market.

Were you being sarcastic when you said the BNP are a liberal thinking group?

Pro choice not pro abortion would make more sense.

Do you think the Irish going to England thirty years ago were greeted with open arms.

SolarFlash

Study: Extreme conservatives are happier people

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Actually I'm pro abortion and pro gay marriage. I'm not for a moment suggesting that things were rosier 30 years ago, in a lot of ways they really weren't. I think that you are determined to disagree with my beliefs and that's fine. Yes, I do have conservative views on somethings. I believe in deceny and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect. Basic human decency can be hard to find these days. I'm not really interested in statistics, those can be manipulated to fit whatever agena suits whatever party.

For the third time, these are NOT conservative beliefs!

Basic human deceny is actually very easy to find - IF you want to find it.

I just need to take a look around me or read any newspaper or put on any news channel to see how far wrong things have gone. There's a whole generation of 20 and 30 somethings out there with a liberal sense of entitlement, many of whom are raising kids with same obnoxious and arrogant sense of entitlement. It benefits nobody in the long term. You only have to see how unwelcome many of them are becoming in countries that the Irish have traditionally emigrated to.

And these are not liberal beliefs!

You can discount my opinion on the BNP and other extremist groups as much as you like, but their popularity is soaring these days. That group and others of it's kind disgust me, but they find a niche market.

I really am not convinced you know what you're talkign here on three counts:
1 - You don't accurately list conservative characteristics
2 - You don't accurately list liberal chacteristics
3 - You refere to the BNP as "liberal"

I'm not enitrely sure you have an accrate view of modern society, either. You place waaaay too much emphasis on news. which always portrays the worst element and it's warped your judgement. I don;t se the hoards of kids being pampered and undisciplined you talk of. Sure, there's a few scumbags, but no more than there were 30 years ago.

Ultimaltey, I think you're more anti-this false idea you think liberal means than pro-this false idea you think conservative means.

TheHeretic

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For the third time, these are NOT conservative beliefs!

Basic human deceny is actually very easy to find - IF you want to find it.

Was your response to Pumpkinseeds posting "I believe in decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect."


Of course these are conservative beliefs! Indeed most political opinions hold to this stance. Isn't this obvious? Just because people don't have the same stance on the economy or on social aspects doesn't mean they distrust or demonize anybody else. They can still genuinely respect others even if they don't agree. How can you deny a whole swath of people this basic principle out of spite of your own political leanings? Your attempt to take the moral high ground just doesn't make sense in this case.

This is not a very liberal attitude.

Mark Tapley

TheHeretic wrote: »

Was your response to Pumpkinseeds posting "I believe in decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect."


Of course these are conservative beliefs! Indeed most political opinions hold to this stance. Isn't this obvious? Just because people don't have the same stance on the economy or on social aspects doesn't mean they distrust or demonize anybody else. They can still genuinely respect others even if they don't agree. How can you deny a whole swath of people this basic principle out of spite of your own political leanings? Your attempt to take the moral high ground just doesn't make sense in this case.

This is not a very liberal attitude.

I think you are being obtuse. The thread is about why would a conservative be happier than anyone else. If "decency and equality and treating people with courtesy and respect" is a belief held by conservatives (which I have my doubts about) but is also held by many other groups then it does not distinguish them. Accusing people of taking the moral high ground after your patronising diatribe is a bit rich. You seem to be preaching respect and compromise whilst at the same time being divisive , which makes a nonsense of your argument.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Being young liberal and idealistic comes with a price I suppose, once you realise that you can't really change things you have to shift gears and in some ways give up. It weighs on the mind, the futility of our short existence.