This Machine Can Tell Whether You’re Liberal or Conservative

Chris Mooney, Mother Jones, April 4, 2014

Thomas Jefferson was a smart dude. And in one of his letters to John Adams, dated June 27, 1813, Jefferson made an observation about the nature of politics that science is only now, two centuries later, beginning to confirm. “The same political parties which now agitate the United States, have existed through all time,” wrote Jefferson. “The terms of Whig and Tory belong to natural, as well as to civil history,” he later added. “They denote the temper and constitution of mind of different individuals.”

Tories were the British conservatives of Jefferson’s day, and Whigs were the British liberals. What Jefferson was saying, then, was that whether you call yourself a Whig or a Tory has as much to do with your psychology or disposition as it has to do with your ideas. At the same time, Jefferson was also suggesting that there’s something pretty fundamental and basic about Whigs (liberals) and Tories (conservatives), such that the two basic political factions seem to appear again and again in the world, and have for “all time.”

Jefferson didn’t have access to today’s scientific machinery—eye tracker devicesskin conductance sensors, and so on. Yet these very technologies are now being used to reaffirm his insight. At the center of the research are many scholars working at the intersection of psychology, biology, and politics, but one leader in the field is John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln whose “Political Physiology Laboratory” has been producing some pretty stunning results.

Eye tracker

Eye tracker

“We know that liberals and conservatives are really deeply different on a variety of things,” Hibbing explains on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “It runs from their tastes, to their cognitive patterns—how they think about things, what they pay attention to—to their physical reactions. We can measure their sympathetic nervous systems, which is the fight-or-flight system. And liberals and conservatives tend to respond very differently.”

This is not fringe science: One of Hibbing’s pioneering papers on the physiology of ideology was published in none other than the top-tier journal Science in 2008. It found that political partisans on the left and the right differ significantly in their bodily responses to threatening stimuli. For example, startle reflexes after hearing a loud noise were stronger in conservatives. And after being shown a variety of threatening images (“a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” according to the study), conservatives also exhibited greater skin conductance—a moistening of the sweat glands that indicates arousal of the sympathetic nervous system, which manages the body’s fight-or-flight response.

It all adds up, according to Hibbing, to what he calls a “negativity bias” on the right. Conservatives, Hibbing’s research suggests, go through the world more attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli—and then they adopt tough, defensive, and aversive ideologies to match that perceived reality.

In a 2012 study, Hibbing and his colleagues showed as much through the use of eye-tracking devices like the one shown above. Liberals and conservatives were fitted with devices that tracked their gaze, and were shown a series of four-image collages containing pictures that were either “appetitive” (e.g., something happy or positive) or “aversive” (showing something threatening, scary, or disgusting). The eye-tracking device allowed the researchers to measure where the research subjects first fixed their gaze, how long it took them to do so, and then how long they tended to dwell on different images.

{snip}

And you can see an example of a four-image collage used in the study here. One of the images is adorable, the rest are varying degrees of disgusting and aversive. Which image does your eye go to first, and how long did you focus on it?

The results of Hibbing’s study were clear: The conservatives tended to focus their eyes much more rapidly on the negative or aversive images, and also to dwell on them for a lot longer. The authors therefore concluded that based on results like these, “those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently.”

{snip}

One of the biggest differences clearly involves the emotion of disgust. Hibbing isn’t the only one to have found a relationship between conservatism and stronger disgust sensitivity—this result is also a mainstay of the very influential research of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who studies how deep-seated moral emotions divide the left and the right (see here). In one study, Hibbing and his colleagues showed that a higher level of disgust sensitivity is predictive not only of political conservatism but also disapproval of gay marriage. {snip}

That word, “primal,” helps us begin to understand what Hibbing and his colleagues now think ideology actually is. They think that humans have core preferences for how societies ought to be structured: Some of us are more hierarchical, as opposed to egalitarian; some of us prefer harsher punishments for rule breakers, whereas some of us would be more inclined to forgive; some of us find outsiders or out-groups intriguing and enticing, whereas others find them threatening. Hibbing and his team have even found that preferences on such matters appear to have a genetic basis.

Thus, the idea seems to be that our physiology, who we are in our bodies, may lead us to experience the world in such a way that basic preferences about how to run society emerge naturally from more basic dispositions and habits of perception. So, if you have a negativity bias, and you focus more on the aversive and disgusting, then the world seems more threatening to you. And thus, policies like supporting a stronger military, or being tougher on immigration, might feel very natural.

And when you combine Hibbing’s research on the physiology of ideology with waves of other studies showing that liberals and conservatives appear to differ when it comes to genetics,hormonesmoral emotionspersonalities, and even brain structures, the case for politics being tied to biology seems pretty strong indeed.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Why the pathologicalization of conservatism in this missive? Not just because it’s in Mother Jones, even the MSM articles about this have the same snarky tone.

    • Neanderthal Pride!

      The academic who wrote the paper is a libtard.

      • Katherine McChesney

        Anyone who uses the word “dude” is a libtard.

        • Alexandra1973

          Not all of us! 🙂

          (In fact one of my favorite sites is Angry White Dude.)

        • Neanderthal Pride!

          With the exception of cowboy poets and redneck intellectuals.

    • Anon

      Conservativism is in fact a deeply sick pathology just as sick as liberalism and, for the same reason. Where the liberal rejects every good and decent thing because every good and decent thing is a whites only trait (and they are anti-white), the conservative strives to be anti-white while maintaining the lie that all things good and decent are separate from being white and should be adopted to the extent they can, while still rejecting anything white. The result is a lot of lip service to these good and decent things while adopting the exact same behaviors as the liberal because, at the end of the day, the ONLY thing important is white genocide.
      At least the liberals admit they are freaks. The conservatives hold themselves out as normal. Their primary goal is to co-opt good and decent people and keep them from doing anything good or decent…..because those things are beneficial to whites. Normally, every good and decent person would be a white supremacist. Because white nationalism is the very same thing as having a nation where everyone is good and decent. In conservative lies, they are not. But in actual practice, the two are the same thing. White supremacism is the use of force to get non-whites to act like whites. To obey the rule of law, so to speak. There is no modern civilization in the world, except to the extent that people act like whites. White people do this as a standard way of being while all non-whites require various levels of force.
      Conservatives act like all these things are normal and natural and the way all races are without any socialist interference. They want normal and decent people to believe these lies while shaming them for saying the most basic truth. Which is to say these things are white. Or that power is an important part of the equation, either to keep an area 100% white or to force any non-whites present to behave.

      • That’s not what’s meant here by “conservatism.” You see “conservatism” for what it mostly really is, just another abstract ideology bordering on a political cult, organized around egalitarianism and race denial. Old Lady Jones magazine sees “conservatism” as code for our school of thought, ethnonationalism, or at the very least, social/religious/moral conservatism.

      • John R

        I see it differently. Liberals today are really anti-white Cultural Marxists. Conservatives today are really the new liberals. Conservatives’ hearts are in the right place: They deplore minority behavior, but insist, that it is only those degrading liberal programs that cause minorities to act as they do; and they feel that minorities would be good conservatives, too if only they could, “get the truth to them.” Obviously, they are not race realists, though, and we must win them over.

    • Aussie_Thinker

      I noticed the same thing reading through. It constantly mentions conservative and disgusting, or negative, etc.

      In my view, from reading the article, it seems to point out that conservatives are more or less protectors, always on the lookout for dangers and the like. I honestly can’t see how that is a bad thing, maybe because I’m ‘conservative’, who knows. Surely, if the two spectrums were physically separatednto different societies, and left to contest for their survival, conservatism would come out on top.

      • PvtCharlieSlate

        The term “situational awareness” comes to mind …

      • Pro_Whitey

        Yes, we like what we have and want to protect it from dangers. The leftists mindlessly attack and tear down. They seem to like seeing people in distress.

  • Neanderthal Pride!

    Should have used pictures of guns or jobs if he wanted to see libs react in horror.

    • The Final Solution

      Also pictures of white families. With many blonde children.

    • Xerxes22

      The sight of a bunch of ghetto Blacks moving in next door would horrify them more than anything else. They definately don’t want that kind of diversity, at least not for themselves.

  • Neanderthal Pride!

    How to spot a liberal scientifically:

    • Alexandra1973

      Liberal, you need a microscope.

    • The Final Solution

      Great bumper sticker there. Except the European brain looks smaller than East Asian. I object to that having been to East Asia – no way you can convince me that primitives in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc. are more intelligent than whites. They are among the poorest countries on Earth and their behavior definitely suggests low-IQs.

      • The Final Solution

        For example, in Cambodia families will actually sell their own children to pedophiles.

      • NorthernWind

        The East Asian populations are Japanese, Han Chinese, and Korean (sometimes Mongols are included as well).

      • Northerner

        East Asia consists of Japan, China and Korea. You went to Southeast
        Asia. There’s a big difference similar to that of Western vs Eastern Europeans.

        • The Final Solution

          The only prosperous countries in ALL of Asia are Japan and South Korea with a combined population of around 175 million. So there are BILLIONS of Asians in the world who live in what most white people would consider absolute squalor. I’m pretty sure there are far more than 175 million white people on Earth who live very well by Asian standards. So who is more intelligent? There are more than 200 million whites in the US alone and almost none of them live in the kind of poverty you find in Asia.

          • Northerner

            The U.S. is wealthier than all old world countries. Richer than any country in Europe and Asia, including China. The latter didn’t have the benefit of building a new nation from scratch on unspoiled land. I wouldn’t say this is a matter of intelligence more than it is one of circumstance.

          • The Final Solution

            Being the world’s largest economy does not make us the wealthiest. China will soon be the largest – does that mean China will be the wealthiest in a country where most live on $100 a month? Many of the old world countries are wealthier than America – all the Nordic countries, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland. These nations have a higher standard of living and higher per capita income and lower poverty rates. So you think like Jared Diamond, that circumstance and the accident of geography is what makes white people wealthy? It’s not our fault they don’t have the intelligence to figure out what to do with the riches in their own lands. China is bursting with riches and so is Africa, even Afghanistan. It’s not geography that made them too dumb to adapt and evolve.

      • Mason Gull

        That is because East Asian brains are slightly larger than European brains. That doesn’t mean that East Asians are better or have a higher standard of living than Europeans, but it is an objective fact.

    • BonV.Vant

      Is this “Golem” bait?

  • Neanderthal Pride!

    Explains why libs don’t see the danger in sub Saharans.

    • NorthernWind

      And why they idealize what race relations could be.

    • dcc2379

      Neanderthal, you need to clarify at the end of your sentence: until it is too late.

      • Neanderthal Pride!

        A neo-con is “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.”

        Irving Kristol

        • Fathercoughlin

          Well a neo-con is a Jewish Trotskyite,a believer in what they call “creative destruction” or “fixing the world”. The jew is commanded to fix the world. Theyre scum.

          • Urbane Neanderthal

            True, a neo con is still a liberal with only a few less delusions.

  • Tom Mixx

    I’m sure if the machine was set up to measure me, it’d probably break down through my views. Sometimes I think of the Klan as commie, pinko, liberals.

    • Katherine McChesney

      I respect the Klan more than I do the Congressional Black Caucus, SPLC and NAACP.

    • It would be fun to try and short one of those out, but if it caught fire, the burns to one’s head wouldn’t be much fun. I’ll bet Spartacus could do it, but we would have to get him some of the fireproof gel used by movie stunt men, just so he wouldn’t get hurt.

  • Rhialto

    I have a problem with this study. It is studying Liberals in a Liberal controlled society; it is also studying non-Liberals (referred to a “Conservatives”) in a Liberal controlled society, which to them is hostile and threatening. To be conclusive, this study would need to include Liberals living in a Liberal-hostile environment like Saudi Arabia or China.

    In other words, the Hibbing theory should be tested against the more general one, measuring the psychological effects of living in an ideologically hostile society versus living in a society that reflects an individual’s ideological state.

  • Medizin

    One thing for sure…most of us here have a “strong disgust sensitivity” towards liberals.

  • By the results of this study, liberals should be shrinking as a percent of the population due to their naivete and their rose colored glasses. Yet, that has not happened over the course of human history.

    I see the USA South as more conservative than the USA North. Yet Yankee values continue to be imposed on the whole country via the court system.

    Let me add that I see Russia and its leader as more conservative than the current USA. I hate to say it, but if the predicted war breaks out between Russia and the USA, I would be quite conflicted. Why? My conservative biology is stronger than any loyalty to a ****hole country like the USA has become in the last 20 years.

    I’ve thought about this and I would rather live under Putin’s values than Obama’s, McCain’s, Boehner’s, etc. Most of the USA’s “leaders” are corrupt, vile, traitors to natural law. Putin seems more in tune with natural law.

    • The Verdict of History

      Thank you for saying this.

      Please see my comment from a few weeks ago:

      ———–
      Putin is more aligned with the traditional values and family-oriented moral identity of Western Civilization than the MODERN West is right now.

      PUTIN is the future, not the crackpots and clowns of the EU, WTO, G7 and the US.

      Western leaders are utterly weak, stuttering, bumbling bastards and tools.

      Good riddance.

      Meanwhile, Putin is assertive, knows what he wants and takes care of business.
      I love it when he defies Obama.

      I am pleased to see that Russia is totally humiliating and eclipsing the spiritually corrupt and morally degraded West.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      “By the results of this study, liberals should be shrinking as a percent of the population due to their naivete and their rose colored glasses. Yet, that has not happened over the course of human history.”

      Yes, they should, especially seeing as how they are much more likely to not want kids than conservatives. Which leads me to wonder what other differences there might be between liberals and conservatives that might be balancing out liberal deficits.

      Does anyone know of any IQ studies that have compared white liberals to white conservatives, preferably looking not only at the averages but also at the standard deviations? If liberals have a larger standard deviation, I could see that being enough of an advantage to keep them hanging on all the way into the present, and I theorize that that this may in fact be true because liberals tend to come from either wealthy or poor families, not from middle class ones, which is what you would expect to see if they have a larger standard deviation in IQ than conservatives (who also follow the pattern in that they mostly come from middle class families as you would expect if they cluster closer to the mean than liberals).

      The differences between the two groups in r/K selection probably plays a role too. Liberal propensity towards preferring fewer children may have been advantageous in past environments, though it certainly isn’t when you know the welfare state will not let any of your children starve to death no matter how many you have.

      If it was, and if liberals are more K selected, that could also explain their seemingly anomalous continued existence.

    • Garrett Brown

      Id fight for Putin. He would be fighting against communism, after all.

    • MooTieFighter

      I agree; however, we (America in particular) do not allow for natural selection. We not only support and keep the weak alive, we celebrate it. Several generations ago we had no other choice but to live by natural selection. Several generations ago we would not been able to support so many drug addicted, non-working, lazy people. We would not have been able to give them excessive health care no matter what they did, we did not hold their hand through life to make sure we kept them alive. Free health care, government handouts, support for their children, food/shelter has allowed their population to flourish when natural selection would have taken them out.

  • MekongDelta69

    The radical left Mother Jones e-mag is somebody I always go to for ‘enlightened’ research…

    • BonV.Vant

      I think the people that write for it, illustrate it and read it still sit around and talk about “Bush”

  • Tarczan

    What a crock. I am tired of reading of one small study which pushes a political agenda being taken as proven science. If there is anything we should be aware of is that one so called study does not prove anything. In medical and scientific studies it is the results of repeated studies that make science. Look at all the studies regarding cholesterol and recently, salt. How many times has a study been contrasted by another which shows the opposite? If this study is repeated 30 times with the same results I will pay attention.

    And yet we are supposed to believe science can find the difference between liberal and conservative brains but can find none in the brains of two populations separated by ten thousand miles and fifty thousand years.

  • Anon

    Another way to say this, and much more accurate, realistic and honest is that liberals have become desensitized and can no longer tell right from wrong and won’t resist in the face of evil.
    A liberal, seeing a gang of negroes raping his daughter with his wife dead on the side with her head smashed, is primarily concerned with not being racist.

    • John R

      Thank you! So many people here can’t see what we are able to see: That this study actually confirms what people on this website have been saying all along-liberals live in a rose colored glasses world.

  • The Final Solution

    No doubt this research will be used to show how superior liberals are to conservatives. They will find a way to twist the results to cast conservatives in a negative light. Soon they will be “proving” that all conservatives are racists with low IQs if they haven’t done so already. The academic community will heap praise on the findings and in the not-so-distant future they will use this technology for witch hunts and go after anyone who “looks racist” etc.

  • Luca

    Screw this. I subscribe to Leonardo Da Vinci’s outlook on people:
    “There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.”
    I assure you LDV has a much higher IQ than the author of this study.

    In my estimation, conservatives “see”, independents must be shown to see and liberals will not see.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      I agree with you for the most part, but some liberals can see when shown. I used to be a typical liberal. I could easily have become an Obama voter if I hadn’t been shown reality. But because I was shown, and understood the evidence for racial differences to be incontrovertible, I changed my viewpoints on society and proper public policy dramatically.

      Some liberals can be saved. Perhaps not many, but some. The best way to get the ones who aren’t too far gone to come to our side is to keep the evidence out in the open and share it as often as possible. I didn’t come to our side from the first time I ever heard about IQ differences. It took multiple exposures to evidence to break through the poisonous liberal brainwashing.

      • MooTieFighter

        Good to hear I am not the only previously naïve person here. Rather ashamed to admit my past. All through high school, college I felt like whatever people wanted to do with their own lives was cool with me. I despised people lecturing or telling anyone what they should/should not do. I despised rules/regulations/laws. Fast forward to now, I realize all these liberal ideas are crushing our economy/safety/strength/morality and general well-being. We are know seeing the results of an increased liberal ideology in America, and I suspect we fall further down the slopes of a successful society into the never land of a third world country. As the takers start outnumbering the makers, we fall.

        • DiversityIsDeath

          Me too. Former stupid liberal, brainwashed by commie teachers and anti-white media. Shameful, embarrassing past which I dismiss as folly of youth.

    • Luca

      Most of us were Liberals when we were young, I was to a lesser degree. Sometimes we see on our own as we mature but the hard core ones never see and are not worth the time. They belong to a cult.

  • Holden

    In other words, liberals have more psychopathic tendencies. I mean, who doesn’t have strong emotional reactions to disturbing images?

  • je suis paganisme

    The emotion of disgust is only possible in one who takes ethical values seriously.

    This study tells me that liberals want to be in the gray area, not in the black-and-white area.

    This guy just shat in public; so the liberal rationalizes it away, pulls it back into the gray area.

    This explains their sexual promiscuity and championing of homosexuality (they do not see sex or family as sacred), their insistence on abortion as a right (they do not see human life as sacred), their egalitarianism (all people are in the gray area–no highs or lows, no better or lesser).

    In short, they see nothing as sacred.
    (Or everything. That is why many of them become Buddhists, so that they can believe that all is God, or God-energy: God “hooking up” with God. God aborting God. God not rising above God. Everything is God, or matter. The result is the same. Doesn’t matter to liberals.)

    They have no heart, no blood, no guts—until they see a conservative person who has values. Then they attack, and do not stop until they get the scalp.

  • So Northerners really are a different race.

  • That’s a better analysis, for sure.

    But I cringe when I read tripe about how much better, how much more civil politics were in the good ole days, compared to how supposedly bitter and partisan they are today. People have selective memories.

  • Who Me?

    To the possible extent that this might be true, it is likely that conservatives see and recognize the VERY REAL dangers all around us (Not “perceived” dangers.) To that end they feel threatened and are looking around for where the next shoe is going to drop. This is indeed the SURVIVAL tool called “fight or flight”. Living with induced stress being always ready to “fight or flight” leads to some Gawd-awful health problems, like heart disease.

  • Hal K

    Conservatives also tend to be more loyal to their tribal/ethnic/racial group (although for white conservatives this is only implicit). This was made clear in Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind.” It seems that the study discussed in the article overlooked the positive aspects of conservatism and phrased it all in terms of negative traits. Liberals are disloyal. Their natural instinct is to put the well being of the outsider over the well being of the group.

  • TL2014

    In other words, look at all these poor conservatives – they are merely responding to their completely irrational feelings of threat! Because black over-representation in crime, negative consequences of third-world immigration, and the ubiquity of Caposi’s sarcoma in specific populations don’t REALLY have a disastrous effect on our lives. That’s just our negativity bias talking, right?

    Un-effin-believable.

  • NorthernWind

    There are some interesting videos of Jonathan Haidt on youtube. In a number of them he even discusses the fact that both liberals and conservatives have different sacred values. He doesn’t shy away from saying that among those of liberals are race and sex equality.

    He’s not “one of us” but he says some interesting things.

  • John R

    Yes, I agree with this study: Conservatives have a more active “fight or
    flight” response than liberals and are always more attentive toward
    threats in their world. But, before I go further, let me add something: I think
    this study is only useful when it applies to Whites. Why? Because, although
    they vote “liberal” blacks are NOT LIBERALS! And I’ll bet their
    “fight or flight” response is very much easily aroused for any signs
    of real or even perceived threats, or even affronts. This also explains why so
    many White victims of black violence seem so forgiving of their attackers: It
    is the most liberal Whites that are the least attentive to their surroundings,
    and thus fall prey most easily to violence. Great article; it explains a lot.

  • Nobody will ever need a machine to tell them what I am.

  • deadindenver

    Another scientific nail indicating much behavior is inherited. This was published in Mother Jones, the real question will progressives carve out allowances for conservatives, like they have for minorities and homosexuals? because if were all born that way then technically conservatives qualify as minorities too we make up less then 50% of the population and we are born different.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      They will never make allowances, no matter how much evidence is amassed that most conservatives cannot simply choose to be liberal. Whites are a global minority, but liberals care nothing for their rights, despite the fact that whites are also incapable of changing what they are.

      And conservatives are the most hated kind of whites by liberals. They will never stop demonizing them. Even if only one white conservative were left in existence, they would make up conspiracy theories to “prove” that all evil in the world radiates from his mere presence upon the Earth and that he must thus be destroyed to usher in the coming era of harmony between “people of color.”

  • Stogumber

    It’s quite funny to see how even the Mother Jones guys jump on the genetics bus – now that they see an opportunity to prove that they are genetically superior to their opponents.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      Yes. Liberals love genetics and evolution, but only when it supports their viewpoints.

      • shawnmer

        I think what’s important to remember is that there is more genetic variation WITHIN ideologues than between them. Hence, the whole concept of ideology doesn’t exist.

        Oh, that doesn’t work here?

  • dcc2379

    Some other ways to tell one is a conservative using human responses:
    1. Brain activity on an EEG.
    2. Not asking for more during a colonoscopy.
    3. Negative response to penal plethysmograph during a video of a boys basketball game video.
    4. Wretching during a 9/11 video.
    5. Running when a mahogany mob is heard stampeding in the distance.

    Can anyone else think of tell tale signs of a conservative?

    • Let’s see:

      6. Saving money for retirement.
      7. Keeping fire-extinguishers and a good first-aid kit at home.

      • dcc2379

        10. Outside of TV or Hallmark, a child sits down for dinner with both parents after one works.

        • 11. If both parents work, grandma lives with the family and takes care of the kids during the workweeks.

  • Garrett Brown

    That picture is creepy lol.

  • Erasmus

    Did the researchers take into account that lefties are less likely to react strongly to a situation because of years of chronic drug use?

  • DiversityIsDeath

    According to the study, conservatives seem to have a stronger survival instinct, whereas liberals dismiss threats, or focus on something more pleasant.

  • BonV.Vant

    This is confirmation that jews are biologically liberal. They are a group that votes 90% for democrats, even when democrats threaten their very existence. They have a strong antipathy as well for White Christian Conservatives. Look at the hatred and vitriol that was dished out towards Bush, Reagan and every White Christian Conservative over the years and look who was doing most of the dishing. TO those who say they are disliked because of their successes I say, you are wrong. They are the one’s who dislike others.

  • BonV.Vant

    Conservatives create and sustain societies. Liberals can’t manage to do this, they are the destructive force.

  • RisingReich

    Very shortly, the case will be made for biological extermination of those with ‘conservative’ genes – read Whites.
    The real people whom would carry out genocide are on the left, not the right. Always has been this way. However, America’s real problem is that politically people are stuck in this ‘left right’ false choice. Neither one are the way out of this mess.

  • Bossman

    People who become very well educated have no choice but to be liberal on many issues. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal in his day because he did not believe in the divine rights of kings. He did not like priests too much. He did not believe in the traditional God of established religion. He believed that all men were born free.

    • WR_the_realist

      Thomas Jefferson also believed that there are fundamental differences between blacks and whites, and that having both under the same government wouldn’t work. He was right .

    • They have every choice. I’m well-educated, but none of that removed from me my ability, my right, and my absolute responsibility to decide these things for myself. I grew up in liberal Boulder, Colorado, and did my undergrad work in chemistry in ultra-liberal Santa Cruz California. Perhaps I was never fertile ground for their nonsense, but I have always been a thinker.

      I have always been an agnostic. My mother is a lapsed Methodist and my ex-father a lapsed (failed?) Catholic, but they didn’t bother having me baptised. The only church service I have ever attended was as a tourist at Westminster Abby in London, and I remained silent during the Lord’s Prayer. It thus obviously wasn’t religion that did it for me.

      I have also always been a serious hobbyist and a “hands-on” guy. When I was single, I could spend several days in the basement workshop and finally look up wondering “Why does my stomach hurt so much?” It was because I had forgotten to eat! If I scrounge some wood and metal and buy some other parts like screws or thick rod stock from McMaster & Carr, and knock myself out making something really nice, is N’Deshawntavious or Jose entitled to it after I am finished? Of course not. That thing is mine; I get to keep it.

      I view money the same way. Taxes should be used only to pay for things that are genuinely necessary, and never for things that make some people “feel good”.

  • Hal K

    This finding actually argues for spending less time bashing liberals and more time fixing the problems with mainstream conservatism. Liberals are what they are for very deep seated reasons. We are trying to save the white race, and there will always be liberals in any given population. The real problem is the wall keeping explicit white solidarity and race realism out of mainstream conservatism.

  • BonV.Vant

    Israel is a country made up of a population in which liberals predominate. A country whose population is genetically skewed to be liberal will never persist for very long.. The mistakes of Oslo will be made repeatedly until the country ceases to exist. Another example is that it took years for them to do the common sense thing of building a wall. There are groups of hews that decry that wall and say it should come down. IT is only the IMMEDIATE existential threat that Israel is under that keeps conservatives in power. Once that threat appears to subside , just a little, more liberals will be voted in and , next time, the damage they do will most likely be the fatal blow.Conservatives build and maintain countries and societies. Liberals destroy them.

    • Tarczan

      Good analysis, BVV. It is the same reason Catholics voted for O. The guy speaks to Catholic colleges with the cross covered in black.He sponsored a bill in Illinois that called for letting a baby who was aborted but born alive die.They are liberal first, religous second.

  • BonV.Vant

    It seems that what the “reeeee-serrrrrrrrrrrr’cherrrrrs” are really saying is that conservatives have the ability to think ahead to future ramifications while “lib’rahhhhls” are deficient in this area. They are saying that “lib-rahhhhhls” are rather retarded creatures of comfort , more interested in maintaining good feelings than dealing with reality. Isn’t this the way it is though? The liberals will indulge their children because that makes them both “feeeeeeeeelllll” good, but in the end they create a spiked brat that can not face life’s difficulties.

  • BonV.Vant

    half full of insanity

  • WR_the_realist

    It’s always fun to spin these things. Take that collage that the article links to. On the upper right is an image of interest to doctors. On the lower right is an image of interest to entomologists. On the lower left is an image of interest to those gardeners and farmers concerned about natural forms of fertilization. But on the upper left is an image that will be focused on by … PEDOPHILES!

    Proof that the liberals are the evil ones.

  • newscomments70

    Most white liberal males I have seen are noticeably effeminate. I don’t say this in a hateful tone, it’s just an observation. Black males, who are mostly democrat are not typically effeminate…but they are not liberal by definition. They vote for government handouts and special privileges, but they are often extremely racist and homophobic. White liberals become Hellen Keller when faced with this paradox. Back to my point: I would like to know hormone levels of white liberal males and white conservative males.

    • Budd Smith

      Good points. I’ve stated that blacks are not liberals.

  • Hunter Morrow

    Jonathon Haidt is a jew trying to pathologize healthy White men.

  • Bartek

    What score do you earn if you won’t let them scan you with their machine?

  • Budd Smith

    The term “liberal” only applies to whites. Blacks have never been liberal. A liberal is destructive to his or her fellow whites. Liberals want to help the “other” at the expense of whites. Blacks act exclusively for their own best interests. Blacks understand that they would die off in North America without massive income transfers from whites. Blacks are politically rational, liberals are self destructive and irrational.

    • Correction: Liberals want to help the “other” only at the expense of other whites. We haven’t heard Tim Wise claiming that he wants to live in a black neighborhood, or that he wants a black Section-8 welfare “fambly” living next door to him.

  • GeneticsareDestiny

    Yes, I would. Conservatives have never struck me as being very good at verbal tasks; this is one of the reasons they consistently lose in the culture war despite making up the majority of the white population.

  • Pro_Whitey

    And it was declassified not because of any advance in science or medicine, but because the homos organized, disrupted American Psychiatry (or it is Psychology?) Association meetings making demand, and then started working with leftist politicians to threaten psychiatrists that they might lose their licenses to practice. In other words, the profession was intimidated into the declassification.

  • John R

    “This Machine Can Tell if you Are A Liberal or a Conservative” sounds like the start of a political joke!

  • William Krapek

    I’ve often gone back and forth between liberal and conservative. I’m in favor of a fair deal, with everyone getting what they need. Mostly trying to find a good balance. I’m still socialist – as long as White people dominate and call the shots, for example. AND IF YOU DON’T WORK THEN YOU DON’T EAT.

    • I am a liberal on one issue: free abortion on demand. Since so many of the abortions performed in the US are for black women and white women who have been raped by black men, I think it’s great. Snuff the little critters before they grow up to be like their fathers.

      • Paul

        I’d check your statistics.

  • newscomments70

    Your making some gross generalizations. I live in a a liberal area, but most doctors, lawyers, business owners, law enforcement officers, and military personnel I know of are conservative. They are intimately familiar with the third world and have a heightened awareness. Furthermore, most are not fat and drunk. Lower class whites often vote democrat because they are pro-union and pro-entitlement. Whites in some areas do have a weight and substance abuse problem….but the other groups have this problem as well. (i.e. Michael Moore) You want to settle for a man who cannot protect you, and who may not even sexually prefer women. That is insane. I recall the story of the liberal male who was brutally beaten at a gas station in Lousiana. He was driving a prius and wearing a pink shirt. Even though his wife and daughter were with him, a black male considered him a homosexual and brutally beat him, causing irreparable damage to his skull and brain. You want to marry that???

    • newscomments70

      anon: you ignored some of my main points. lower class whites (and they do exist) are usually democrats. And an effeminate man cannot protect you, and might be homosexual. If you want to marry such a person, that is your business. You will learn reality the hard way. The majority of conservatives are not Boss Hogg on meth…it’s usually the opposite, at least where I live. I lived in LA for some years. The meth addicts, beta males, etc were all liberals. The real men (the whites portion that is) were fit and conservative. I respect my black neighbors more than I respect white liberals I know.

  • TexasVetgal

    Thats because conservatives have an enate sense of morality. Also, conservatives believe more in holding onto tradition rather than change.

  • newscomments70

    anon: you ignored some of my main points. lower class whites (and they do exist) are usually democrats. And an effeminate man cannot protect you, and might be homosexual. If you want to marry such a person, that is your business. You will learn reality the hard way. The majority of conservatives are not Boss Hogg on meth…it’s usually the opposite, at least where I live. I lived in LA for some years. The meth addicts, beta males, etc were all liberals. The real men (the whites portion that is) were fit and conservative. I respect my black neighbors more than I respect white liberals I know. Almost all successful business owners are conservative. They buy their own cars. The liberal in the Prius is likely to have a government job, possibly as a teacher. That is a form of welfare. I paid for his car.