About Kesher Talk


NPJrecipe-sidead.jpg

Recent Comments

« Faux Klingons are Running the War! | Home | From Michael Totten in South Lebanon »

January 13, 2007

Further Thoughts On Psychology Today's "9/11 Effect" Article

Last week, I posted an item about a Psychology Today article titled "The Ideological Animal" (now fully available at the website). The article purports to explain what motivates those of us who made the post-9/11 shift from left to right and it uses my story, as well as the discussion group I started, the 9/11 Neocons, as an example.

As I indicated at the time, I have no serious complaints about the article's take on me, which I found to be generally fair. Mostly, I objected to the inaccurate use of the term "pro-war rallies" to describe my days as a counter-protester at leftist rallies. By doing so, the author, Jay Dixit, missed an opportunity to shed light on the sort of negative behavior exhibited by the left (anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism) that helped solidify my political transformation.

I also expressed some doubts as to the objectivity of the conclusions reached in the article that I now wish to elaborate on.

In short, like most psychological studies and articles examining political persuasion, conservatives are made out to be the bad guys, while liberals come off as enlightened beings. This may be because, nine times out of ten, such "studies" are conducted by liberals and are biased from the start.

Indeed, the Psychology Today article makes use of one particular 1969 study, that of leftist U.C. Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block, which has been roundly debunked in the rightwing blogosphere. Michelle Malkin and The Volokh Conspiracy provide a sampling of the criticism and it isn't pretty.

My own anonymous tipster actually knew some of the people engaged in conducting the Berkeley study and describes them as "flaming Berkeley multi-culti liberal moonbat types who set out to prove from the get-go that conservatives were inferior." So much for scientific objectivity.

The Psychology Today article's central thesis, that the move towards conservativism is based on fear of death, is questionable at best. When a true threat to one's self, family, community, country and civilization exists (i.e. Islamic fascism) and he or she responds by wanting to fight that threat, I'd call that engaging with reality, not simple fear of death. And isn't the instinct for self-preservation based on a fear of death? It would seem that those who think themselves and their civilization invulnerable are the the delusional ones, not those who understand human nature and mortality and act accordingly.

Finally, the article's closing paragraph indicating that if one is simply encouraged to "think rationally" none of this political shifting (presumably to the right) would be required, is not only silly, but insulting. It was just such rational thinking that led me to reject the left and embrace those (most of whom, it turned out, were on the right) that fully understood the dangers of Islamic fascism. If it's irrational to want to fight against the great totalitarian threat of our day, then count me in.

Other conservative-leaning bloggers have weighed in on the "9/11 Effect" article and reached similar conclusions. Red State Kids provides a hilarious (and accurate) take on my story in "Want Conservative Minded Kids? Then Scare Them to Death." Radio Nerd discusses "Why Conservatives are the True Bedwetters" and Yave Begnet isn't sure he's fully on board for the "Fear of Death" thesis. I'll add more links as I find them.


Cross-posted at CinnamonStillwell.blogspot.com.

Cinnamon | 01/13/07 at 01:28 PM | Categories: - 9-11 and its ilk

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/6039

Blogs which link to Further Thoughts On Psychology Today's "9/11 Effect" Article:

» Blogosphere Roundup on Psychology Today's "Ideological Animal" Article from Kesher Talk
I posted an item last week regarding Psychology Today's "The Ideological Animal," an article in the current issue that purports to explain those of us who made the post-9/11 political shift from left to right (or somewhere in between). Many... [Read More]

Tracked on January 18, 2007 10:02 PM

» Blogosphere Roundup on Psychology Today's "Ideological Animal" Article from Kesher Talk
I posted an item last week regarding Psychology Today's "The Ideological Animal," an article in the current issue that purports to explain those of us who made the post-9/11 political shift from left to right (or somewhere in between). Many... [Read More]

Tracked on January 20, 2007 02:00 PM

Comments

Radio host Mark Levin makes a beautiful point;
if we are to be called "pro-war", then let the leftist be called "pro-genocide". That is what will occur if we withdraw from Iraq.
Personally I would cut to the chase and call them "pro-fascist".
Hearing that might give them what AA calls,
"a moment of clarity".

Rob | January 13, 2007 05:55 PM


George Will commented on the Blocks
:

"Professors have reasons for their beliefs. Other people, particularly conservatives, have social and psychological explanations for their beliefs."

"Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason -- liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable."

Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 13, 2007 11:53 PM

Apparently, thinking about death shifts the political spectrum to the right. What is the effect of thinkling about birth?

Joseph Hertzlinger [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 14, 2007 04:03 AM

Thinking about birth, to me, means the need to defend a Free Society and those that cannot protect themselves and ensure that they may grow up to make their own decisions freely and judge ME for those actions I have taken to ensure that they have those same Liberties and Freedoms. Shifting from birth to death does not change perspective of wanting to have a society which will, indeed, stand up for having liberty so that one is not born into a Nannystate or into servitude and has, instead, the opportunity to live a good and free life and contribute *back* to society. To do *that* the society must be upheld first and foremost.

But then I am a Jacksonian and see that we get many Responsibilities being a part of the United States before we get one single Right, and then those Rights are to be applied by the given Due Process to uphold one's Responsibilities before any other thing in this society.

"Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms." - Andrew Jackson

ajacksonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 14, 2007 08:05 AM

++Personally I would cut to the chase and call them "pro-fascist". Hearing that might give them what AA calls "a moment of clarity".++

Clarity, as in realising that you're a wingnut who wouldn't recognise a fascist if he was sprinkling you with cyanide? No, actually it made me nearly fall off my chair (damn this office furniture), I was laughing so much.

Rob | January 16, 2007 08:17 PM

In case you hadn't noticed, there are two Robs commenting on this post ;>)

Rob # 2

Rob | January 16, 2007 08:18 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style and URL links.
My spam filter rejects any word containing "sex" and "poker" - use asterisks like so: "p*ker")