Skip to main content

A new study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the right wing loon fringe very happy.  Apparently, those whiney cry babies that ran around under Miss Bush's skirt all grew up to become... well... 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.


More on da' flip.

So, the whole 'whiney liberal thing,' if I am to use my college minor correctly, is simply projection, something we've insisted on all along.  Apparently, the goddamned bastards that made school a conscription... that demanded restrictions and rebuffed personal freedom, grew up to create the conservative meme... you know, we need to be fearless in the face of the terrists... err... that is to say, "We need to eviscerate the constitution so the big bad men in the turbans don't give us all BIG FUCKING BOOBOOS.  How is freedom useful to me if EVERYONE is free?  That hardly makes it a privilege, now doesn't it?"  The 'dittohead' or whatever you want to call those people that have such narrow minded and compulsive behavior that, clearly, thinking for yourself is more than dangerous -- it's unnatural!  

But fear not neocon, for there is hope:

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.

See.. being a self righteous pussy is TOTALLY explainable!  Hooray for fewer unknowns!

Originally posted to Jeremiah on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:09 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Forgot to metion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maryscott OConnor

    I forgot to add... As a scientist, I've personally reviewed this research and found that, of all the weak kneed assholes I knew growing up, 100% of them are now weak kneed conservative assholes.

  •  Please allow me to be the first to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    dearil any possible discussion of this amusing tidbit by complaining loudly and righteously about the use of the word "pussy" as a pejorative.

    Eh, fuck it -- I hereby relinquish the word "pussy" as a synonym for "vagina" in favour of the more appropriate use of it as a synonym for "pathetic, useless, whining coward utterly lacking in anything remotely resembling BALLS."

  •  In my class... (0+ / 0-)

    The kids who behaved best were the ones with a strict disciplinary system at home.  The ones who were disruptive and "whiney" were the ones who were allowed to do whatever they wanted without punishment.  When the teachers disciplined them, they adopted the "they're out to get me" attitude.  

    In my own experience, I'm a conservative Republican.  I was one of the best behaved kids in the class, and despite putting up with bullies (and liberal teachers who thought that ignoring bullies would make them leave, and punishing me equally for fighting back), I turned out fine.  

    I'm plenty self-reliant. I rely on myself to pay for college (I use the money I earned, not student loans), I had strong discipline at home, I wasn't distruptive, and I didn't turn out "whiney" or insecure.

    And call me suspicious, but reverse the situation (study shows that whiny kids become liberals), and I bet DKOS would have numerous diaries about it with hundreds of replies apiece, all citing the study as "proof" that the work of conservative "pseudo-scientists" was behind it.

    Never have I seen such a blatantly biased, stereotypical "study."  Just because it fits into DKOS's preconceived notion that conservatives are bad or flawed, doesn't make it credible.  

    •  The exception that proves the rule? (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps in your case, good deportment at an early age was the precursor of good citizenship later on.

      It seems to me, though, that there are large numbers of Republicans who are entirely defined by their fears.  I diaried this same study yesterday, along with a poll asking what Republicans are most afraid of.  Most common answer:  people who think for themselves.  Second most common answer:  themselves.

      In a word, Republicans tend to be cowards.

      •  I don't know if he's the 'exception'... (0+ / 0-)

        But I'd like to hear exactly how this study is "biased" and "stereotypical".

        Actually, it falls very much in line with what George Lakoff talks about in Moral Politics :

        Liberals understand that the basis of liberalism is to be critical and constantly moving towards the next iteration of truth approximation. They also believe that failure (e.g. poverty, crime) has complicated roots and causes beyond the self which provide opportunity for society to help resolve.
        Conservatives understand that what is true now must have a high value and won’t move from that position unless they’re forced to by overwhelming force or proof. They also believe in the fundamental nature of personal responsibility and think societies responsibility towards personal improvement is largely limited to control of abberent behaviors.
        To a liberal, moving the position is natural, to a conservative, moving the position is admission of weakness/failure/...
        To a liberal, picking up the baby is a natural way to solve a problem and show concern. To the conservative, the baby needs to learn how to deal by themselves.
        Therein lies the problem; “Do you pick up the crying baby?”

        "...war, by its nature, is total--but the waging of peace, by our own cowardice, is partial."--Daniel Berrigan.

        by Rico on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 06:31:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Or, the rule that proves the study's bogus. (0+ / 0-)

        If you're interested, go to a conservative website and post the same question.  Let's not kid ourselves, this is a very liberal site where few conservatives or Republicans reside.  Asking a bunch of non-Republicans what Reps are afraid of is too easy and prone to preconceived inaccuracy.

        Ask some actual Republicans and conservatives what they're afraid of, and you may be amused, surprised, confused, etc. by the responses.  And while you're at it, ask them what liberals fear.  You may get a kick out of it.

        And to turn the tables, what do you fear?  And if you're a proclaimed liberal, what do liberals fear?  Or Democrats?  And yes, they too have fears.  Fear is not a Republican thing;  it's a human thing.

        And could you elaborate on what you mean by "good deportment at an early age"?

        I don't believe I'm the exception.  And you shouldn't accept this "study" as "proof" that I am.  They only studied 95 students, horrendously too few for an accurate sample.  And it was from one area, very unrepresentative to make such a vague, stereotypical assumption.  You could find 95 ______ who believe that ______ and you could create any conclusion you can imagine.  Any statistics professor will agree that this study is grossly flawed and poorly executed.  Nothing can be concluded from this "study," except some people have too much time on their hands.

        If you want to know what this Republican fears, it's not people who think for themselves, and it's not myself (whatever that means).  I fear failure, whether it be life in general or little things along the way.  Basically, failure is my biggest fear.  Uncertainty of the future unnerves me at times.


  •  This should be the new Democratic Slogan (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans are Whiney because they are insecure.
    Or net it out to just - Republicans are insecure.

    Democrats are confident and unafraid.

  •  Whininess, racism.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...rampant dishonesty.  All of the choicest bits.  If politics were a pig, today's Republican body would be a hot dog.  The by-product of the process comprised of assholes, and lips touching in closed spaces.

  •  where do whistleblowers fit in this scheme? (0+ / 0-)

    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

    by MarketTrustee on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:54:49 PM PST

  •  duh. (0+ / 0-)

    'tis common sense, but it's nice to have a study to back it up. :)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site