American Liberals and Conservatives Think as If from Different Cultures

Science Daily, January 22, 2015

Political conservatives in the United States are somewhat like East Asians in the way they think, categorize and perceive. Liberals in the U.S. could be categorized as extreme Americans in thought, categorization and perception. That is the gist of a new University of Virginia cultural psychology study, published recently in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Additionally, the study indicates that thought styles–whether analytical or holistic–can be changed through training, enough so to temporarily change political thought and the way a person might vote.

“We found in our study that liberals and conservatives think as if they were from completely different cultures–almost as different as East and West,” said study leader Thomas Talhelm, a U.Va. doctoral candidate in cultural psychology. “Liberals and conservatives categorize and perceive things differently, just as East Asians and Westerners look differently at the world.”

According to Talhelm, political conservatives in the United States, generally, and East Asians, particularly, are intuitive or “holistic” thinkers, while Westerners, generally, and American liberals, in particular, are more analytical thinkers.


“On psychological tests, Westerners tend to view scenes, explain behavior and categorize objects analytically,” Talhelm said. “But the vast majority of people around the world–about 85 percent–more often think intuitively–what psychologists call holistic thought, and we found that’s how conservative Americans tend to think.”

Holistic thought more often uses intention and the perception of whole objects or situations, rather than breaking them down to their parts–such as having a general feeling about a situation involving intuition or tact.

Analytic thinking styles tend to look at the parts of a situation, and how they work together toward the whole. This involves “slicing up the world and analyzing objects individually, divorced from context,” Talhelm said.

Studies show that analytical thinkers predominate in Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies (termed “WEIRD” societies in 2010 by a team of cultural psychologists at the University of British Columbia). But they make up only about 15 percent of the world’s population.

So in a WEIRD society, such as the United States, analytically thinking liberals are “extreme Americans,” Talhelm said, in the sense that they are particularly disinclined to think in the style of a vast majority of the rest of the world, including their holistic-thinking conservative countrymen.



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.
  • I sense this is more of that debunked Authoritarian Personality bunko.

    • mike j

      It’s quite Orwellian to categorize as analytical people who think that the government can and should spend unlimited amounts of cash attempting to achieve the unachievable.

    • DonReynolds

      It strikes me as Orwellian double speak when the people who insist on doing the thinking for everyone else (Liberals) are not considered intolerant and authoritarian. Whereas, the Conservatives who put great value on individual liberty and freedom are labeled as racists and bigots. What greater racism and bigotry could there possibly be than when the majority in this country must be punished for “crimes” they never committed…..not that living in one part of the country could possibly be a crime against anyone.

    • Oil Can Harry

      I’m halfway through the Culture Of Critique and just finished the section on the Frankfurt School and their book The Authoritarian Personality.

      MacDonald doesn’t merely debunk them; he NUKES them.

      • David Ashton

        His best chapter is on Freudianism, this one is nearly as good. His section on Bolshevism is actually quite weak. But anyone, including Jews and Christian Zionists, interested in the current alleged rise of “antisemitism” (mainly Muslim) should read this book.

  • Publius Pompilius Quietus

    Since the 1960s,

    • Good point. Notice that Communism thrived in Asia. But Asians did not allow their countries to be flooded with aliens, did they? In that sense, the Chinese and Vietnamese communists were more ‘conservative” than the Republican Americans. You can really have a lot of discussion on this.

  • Chip Carver

    I concur with “Question Diversity” – this is more propaganda along the lines of the Authoritarian Personality b.s.. The article is nothing more than self-serving back slapping feel good propaganda for leftists. One big cue is the fact that they call leftists “Extreme Americans”. The left tends to name their groups as the opposite of what they stand for; think People for the American Way – which is actually anti-American, anti-white to the core.

    • Good point. “Extreme Americans”? Up until World War Two, if you asked anyone, people just assumed that America was a country for White people. If you suggested that Negroes (That’s what they called black people back then.) were as much Americans as you and I, they would look at you, get a confused expression, and burst out laughing! The only people in the 1930’s who believed in racial equality were the American Communist Party. And they only believed in it in order to undermine our society. No, the extreme Americans, if there were any, were the traditional American conservatives.

  • Mary

    So conservatives are more focused on the big picture than liberals. This explains some of our current predicament. Society is characterized by the general rule, not the rare exception so revered by liberals.

    • More than that, liberals cherry pick their rare exceptions only when it suits their ideology.

  • When I read 19th-century European books, I tend to notice many striking similarities between the East and the West. I definitely think European traditional culture and Asian traditional culture have a lot in common. I have also noticed that I can relate much more to European traditionalists than liberals. The way liberals think is truly somewhat alien to me. However, I should not exaggerate. There are many similarities between the ways liberals and communists think, so that if you have a good understanding of one, then it is quite easy to understand the other. Furthermore, East Asia is also becoming increasingly liberal.

    • Sick of it

      Really study medieval Japan and compare to medieval Europe. The similarities are startling.

    • antiquesunlight

      I have Chinese roommates. There are a lot of differences between us, obviously, but I have noticed a certain similarity in perspective. Though not identical by any means, we have similar priorities, similar values, and tend to interpret situations similarly. They are quiet and introverted, as am I; they enjoy conversation but don’t talk for the sake of talking, usually. Lots of things like that. Even on race and culture (somewhat to my surprise), they see things somewhat similarly. One of my roommates has made several comments about black people being “weird” or “funny,” and has no problem stating that black neighborhoods are dangerous and that he avoids them. Also, I almost invariably get along better with asians than blacks or hispanics, even when the asians are culturally unassimilated and speak bad English and the blacks and hispanics grew up in America. The Chinese person I am closest to (the one who thinks blacks are weird) left China in part because he hated the overbearing government. So it could be that I know some of the more conservative Chinese. Who knows.

    • WhiteGuyInJapan

      I’ll buy that. I see some similarities between conservative Americans and many of the Asian peoples. The most obvious similarity would be parochialism and, more specifically, parochial altruism. Conservative Americans tend to look at their family first, then community, then town/city, radiating out to nation. I might also include a more inward-looking perspective with stronger ingroup/outgroup distinctions being made.
      Many Asians also perceive the world as a series of concentric circles: family/neighborhood/town/prefecture/nation. Overseas Chinese merchants often preferred to do business with relatives and, failing that, did business with people from the same region of China and, lastly, other Chinese. They frequently saw Thai and Malay partners as a last resort.
      White liberals lean towards universal altruism, or concern for everybody. The irony is that their behavior is almost exclusively found in NE societies. Further irony is that the parochialism and xenophobia they demonize in conservative Whites is the norm in most of the non-Western societies they worship without understanding.

  • Fredrik_H

    You’re telling me the people who come with terms as “hatefacts” are the analytical ones? Riiiiight….

    • Usually Much Calmer

      Those people aren’t liberals. They are jokers plying their trade in the liberal camp. They aren’t very funny or wry. Their welcome is waning.

  • dd121

    They don’t know the half of it.

  • Evette Coutier

    Interesting study inasmuch as liberals claim to be holistic contextual thinkers. As an analytical conservative, I guess I have no country at all.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    Total BS liberal article stating that only liberals think logically and are superior to the rest of the world. I have to agree that conservative thinking is more Asian like though. Let’s break this down:

    If you believe in responsibility to family/group/nation and see yourself as part of a team- conservative thinking

    If you just want to do whatever you want and support other forms of deviancy- liberal thinking.

    I think most liberal social policies are more rational and therefore appeal to the more educated, intelligent. However the liberal obsession with hating white people, hating men, discriminating against whites (or men), promoting hate speech against whites, denying personal responsibility for people’s actions (blaming their failures on their race for example) and so forth are completely moronic traits made by people who think emotionally rather than logically or else people who promote such views for personal reasons but really don’t believe in them.

    So liberals and conservatives are made up of different distinct subgroups. The liberals are easiest to categorize:

    Brain turned off white: This is the white (usually woman) who sees a minority living in a ghetto and automatically wants to “fix” them or else wants to nurture the person like a little baby. They don’t bother anlayzing the real reaons why the person is a failure in life, and if the topic comes up they just blame the strong/rich/smart/society for the problem. They think totally emotionally in simplistic terms: they want to nurture the loser. When they see a dim witted minority their mothering instincts kick in.

    This is a good thing normally so long as it doesn’t manifest into a political ideology that ends up with policies of giving tax payer money to minority colleges or other such things.

    Selfish Joe: A lot of minorities fall in this category. They simply see the handouts of liberalism as in their own interests and could care less about society.

    Double Agent Schlomo: A radical Zionist who likes to “divide and conquor” goyim because he sees it as a way to elevate his own tribe.

    The Intellectual: A person who largely sees society as a system where the rich exploit the poor and the strong exploit the weak. This is true to a degree. He may have some logical social and economic policies, but also carelessly accepts some of the nonsense from the rest of his party. The intellectuals are a small portion of this group.


    Selfish rich guy/business owner: just sees the tax policies and such to be in his favor and supports it.

    Racist whites: see conservatives as a pro-white party (wrongly) and thus support it, even when the policies are not in their interests.

    Socially Responsible Thinker: This is the person who sees himself as a member of a society and not an individual. Like the intellectual liberal, he may not be as true to form and support some “compassionate” conservatism, but generally believes that criminals and morons can be damaging to society and should be kept in check somehow.

    • LHathaway

      “They think totally emotionally in simplistic terms: they want to nurture the loser”.

      Not if the loser it white.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        Well to them it’s not the poverty that you live in that makes you a loser. It’s your low I.Q. So if you are white and mentally retarded you will be accepted

  • JohnEngelman

    Political conservatives in the United States are somewhat like East Asians in the way they think, categorize and perceive.

    – Science Daily, January 22, 2015

    Nevertheless, East Asians in the United States are more likely to vote Democratic.

    • Raymond Kidwell

      That’s not true. The majority of East Asians vote Republican, although a lot of them are Democrats. Asians are the only conservative minority.

      • Reynardine

        Hardly. Look whom Hawaii elects every single year…

      • shawnmer

        Wrong. East Asians were slightly more Republican than Americans as a whole in just one election in modern history, 1992. In every year since, it’s been less Republican. Obama won the Indian vote specifically in 2012.

        Don’t know where you picked up that info.

      • JohnEngelman

        Gallup March 4, 2013

        WASHINGTON, D.C. — Asian-Americans — who were a key part, if sometimes overlooked, of President Barack Obama’s 2012 electoral coalition — solidly back the Democratic Party, with 57% identifying as or leaning Democratic, compared with 28% identifying as or leaning Republican.

        • Raymond Kidwell

          Washington Post: The 2014 electorate wasn’t just older and whiter than 2012. It also voted more Republican. By Philip Bump November 5, 2014 – it has a graph

          Yeah Asians did support Obama overall but Obama also got a lot of white votes. Overall East Asians are the only minority group that ends to lean right, although they are pretty closely split. You might get confused when they use the term “Asian” which includes your Hindus of India who are not racially Asian and who vote strongly democrat. The article I give lumps them together as well, but even doing so they vote majority republican a lot of years.

          • Around June, the Census Bureau will release its analysis of voting participation rates in the midterm. I think they will show that non-white voter participation rates were even lower than they were in 2010.

        • Raymond Kidwell

          Indian, Japanese & Chinese lean dem, Vietnamese & Koreans lean republican

  • david dorian

    Liberals analytically??? Absolutely laughable its so out of touch with basic reality.

    Liberals are manipulative, touchy feely all the way. Their policies are based on projective wishes, not reality.

    • DonReynolds

      I could probably bear Liberals if they were at least intellectually honest……you know…..consistent. But I agree with you, being led around by their feelings and “situational ethics” is by no means analytical.

      • You then have to make a distinction between “old” liberals and “New Left” liberals. The Old liberals are at least intellectually honest. The New Left-starting in the late sixties and exemplified by Barrack Obama and Eric Holder have as an ideology, undermining the “dominant oppressive” culture. That would be the White, male, Christian, heterosexual, culture. They will do this “by any means necessary” and will change arguments and thinking in any way to do this.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    Are race realists even conservative? I mean I think we’re all about social change here rather than keeping the status quo. I think a race realist is the real progressive of the modern era with bold new ideas.

    • Rhialto

      The original article does not define “conservative” or “liberal”; this makes the conclusions of little scientific value, except as an example of academic degeneration.

    • There are tons of people to different non- monolithic groups whom support race realism. I know several libertarians who do not support mass non-White immigration.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        What I mean are sites that state conservatives are just old fashioned people who can’t handle new ideas. I would say that characterizes liberals more than it would a group like amren. Just because you don’t support discrimination against whites doesn’t mean you just aren’t open to new ways of thinking. Maybe you are actually on the cutting edge of fresh ideas and the hate whitey ideologies is the one people just cling to because its the status quo

        • John Smith

          The errant assumption is that new ideas are better and I believe that conservatives are realistic to know that most actually aren’t and change for its own sake is bad.

    • 李冠毅

      Personally, I believe both the Left and Right are not 100% intellectual. The Left believes all the problems of non-Whites are mainly due to racism, while the Right believes its mainly due to innate biological differences. Both sides are wrong. Ever heard about the story of Zhou Tingting? She was a Chinese girl with an IQ of around 80. However, through hard work, she managed to excel and earn a PhD from a top university in spite of her low IQ. So even if some races have lower IQ, that probably just means they tend to learn slower and need to work harder, not that they are absolutely incapable of success. What do you think?

      • LHathaway

        I would say you’re wrong, at least on this point . . .

        “The Left believes all the problems of non-Whites are mainly due to racism, while the Right believes its mainly due to innate biological differences”.

        Those on the right would place some of the blame for non-white failure to achieve on culture, or even better yet, on liberal social and economic policies.

        • 李冠毅

          You’re correct. Culture and upbringing is quite often more important than genes.

        • Raymond Kidwell

          In my opinion though left and right politicians in America are all a circus. Firstly they lie to the people anyway then do what they want after elected, so not much use in elections. Second, big money, secret societies etc. write the policies. They are always doing the opposite of what the majority votes for anyway. The koch brothers probably have more influence on our laws and debates than a million voters put together. Money is the primary factor that votes, and the more of it you have the louder your voice. That is really how a capitalistic “democracy” like America works. Yes us poor people have a small voice, but it is quite small and doesn’t make a difference in large elections.

          Most of what we call “politics” is just entertinament for the stupid majority. That is what we hear on TV and what most people argue. It’s just a distraction. The real policies are metted out in private meetings. You either need to be connected or pay a lot of money to get into those meetings. Then of course secondly, a politician spends almost zero time actually leading. As soon as he wins one election he either goes on vacation or else starts trying to win the next. His aides and appointments write most bills and do most work.

          A case in point I know about directly. Obama ran for president originally telling people he was against free trade. But he does not even write his policies on trade (nor his speeches). He appoints a really smart educated person to do it. I took a micro economics class in college. The guy who wrote it was Obama’s economic guy. He was really for free trade. It was all over the book. At one point some rich people cancelled a speaking engagement with Obama because he was saying he would stop free trade. Obama had to tell them it was only a lie he tells to the voters. So I mean what us regular people talk about as “politics” is more like an illusion. You peel off the skin of the orange and a whole different fruit is underneath.

          • LHathaway

            “You either need to be connected or pay a lot of money to get into those meetings”.

            We need to stop paying gays so much money! That is our downfall . . .

          • Raymond Kidwell

            Being gay is promoted mostly as a method of population control. It’s also a purpose of “feminism”. They also put things in our food that decrease fertility. Unfortunately these covert methods are misguided. The problem is not that healthy people are having too many babies. It’s the welfare queen with 16 kids. Their efforts seem to mostly just reduce fertility for those people in the middle and at the top. There is definately a world wide population control agenda that is administered through a number of methods though. One method is promoting homosexuality which naturally reduces births. Other methods are used as well.

            Frankly though, it’s kind of weird in the U.S. because we take in millions of immigrants. Yet they are working on reducing third world birth rates as well. Will only be a matter of time before they invent some war to kill some more poor people in.

          • 李冠毅

            Your government is putting stuff in your food to decrease fertility? Seriously?! You’ve got to be kidding. Shouldn’t that be, you know, illegal?

          • Raymond Kidwell

            And China gets its grain from the U.S. Natural diet alone can decrease fertility. As an example, soybean has the most phylo estrogens of any plant. Phylo simply means plant. Plant estrogens. They occur naturally. In the body they act the same as regular human estrogen (female hormone). It causes less fertility in men. So here is a totally natural and healthy food. What is the problem? The problem is they put it in everything. Soy protein or soy bean is in almost every food. That is not natural. They subsidize the growth of soy and corn so that it is artificially cheap. They also have contracts where China must buy these grains from the U.S. too. in corn they have created some GMO corn that reduces fertility as well. Also plastics and other chemicals basically mimic estrogens, among other things reducing fertility. They purposely encourage a diet that reduces fertility. It just means less of a chance getting pregnant, but still possible to have a child. In high enough doses though estrogen could cause total infertility but I don’t think that is likely just from eating the food.

            Also as a bonus effect it makes people more docile. More obedient, less strong, less rebellious. Turns the population more feminine. Also high doses of aluminum is unhealthy and we drink from aluminum cans and wrap food in the foil. As well some chemical additives decrease fertility.

            Most people don’t realize this and don’t believe it when told. There is also the issue of flouride added to water which has a similar effect: lowers I.Q., lowers fertility, lowers over all health.

            It’s a very small level of toxicity. Once again, death by a thousand cuts. All the small doses add up together over a long period of time and can create large effects (shorter lifespan, less children etc.). The rich mostly eat expensive organic and healthy food. Poor people can only afford to buy the high fructose corn syrup, soy type foods. Corn also naturally has some negative effects on the body in high doses. It’s perfectly healthy in normal doses but they have brought the levels up very high in our diets by making those two grains artificially cheap. By contrast a normal European diet usually consists of bread, wheat and other such grains. Corn and soybean is not a natural basis for a diet, although the native americans largely lived off corn.

            The opposite effect happens from milk and meat. Growth hormones in it causes early puberty. We have young girls with large breasts now from drinking hormones in milk. They give the cow hormones to make more milk, it goes into their milk, our women drink it. I guess we have larger breasts as a result, but not natural for 11 year old girl with large breasts. Puberty keeps happening earlier due to those hormones.

            Food is a little better in Europe though they have laws against a lot of this.

          • 李冠毅

            Could this all be due to the high cost of growing organic food? I once read that the reason so much of our food is unhealthy is because it takes a lot of resources to, say, grow a cattle normally to produce steak. Hence, steak was once the exclusive domain of upper class people. But once growth hormones and other unnatural means of producing more cattle at a lower cost was introduced, prices dropped, and more people can afford steak. However, steak produced this way tends to be rather unhealthy, so an organic market sprouted for those who can afford the more expensive organic steak.

            In short, perhaps this is merely due to consumer demand and corporate greed, not an actual government conspiracy.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            It is because organic naturally costs more yes. However American farming is heavily distorted by government intervention. If the government didn’t subsidize farms then America would produce a lot less grain and more would be produced in a more environmentally friendly way in third world nations. However there may be some valid economic or national security reasons for America to be a “bread basket”. The odd thing is that they heavily subsidize corn and soybean and spend a lot of money telling farmers specifically what they can and cannot grow. What this does is deflate the cost in the marketplace. A good example of this is in America nearly every product is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. Technically this is a much more labor and energy intensive process than just growing sugar. It’s totally inefficient. But the government pays farmers to grow corn, which makes the price low so its cheaper to make corn syrup rather than use sugar.

            Why not subsidize wheat or sugar beats? Or cabbage for that matter. Why corn and soybean? And in China they have specific trade agreements. China must import x amount of corn every year and so forth. it must specifically be corn and specifically this much wheat etc. It’s very specific.

            It’s obviously logical that they make China import grain. In the event that China declares war on the U.S. or harms the U.S. they can create a food shortage by blocking imports. Yet again, rather strange the U.S. government is so determined to grow soy and corn in such large quantities rather than more economically efficient alternatives.

            As well this leads to some other unhealthy practices. Normally if you have a lot of empty land it would make sense to just have a cow go eat grass. Because corn is so cheap (because the government pays the farmer. The farmer is not making his money from selling corn. He makes most of his money from the government paying him to grow corn. It’s totally not free market). So now the cheap corn is used to feed cattle on giant industrial farms. The meat is less healthy than grass fed mostly its more fatty and less protein. Although sometimes they raise baby cows on low quality grass then fatten them on corn for a year or two before killing which that makes sense for cattle raised in florida, but not in the midwest.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        Hernstein and Murray point out in “The Bell Curve” that a few points difference in I.Q. does not have much of an effect on the individual. Yet it has a huge effect in groups and nations. In other words a nation with an average I.Q. of 108 will be much more successful than one with an average I.Q. of 101. Yet an individual with 108 I.Q. usually isn’t much more successful than an individual with 101. So probably low I.Q. people can perform if there are other high I.Q. people to help pick him up. But if too many of them bring down the average it becomes a problem.

        Secondly, a lot of the problems with minorities or low bred whites is not even related to I.Q. It relates to a broken mind. Many of these people have a desire to hurt others, have an instinct to lie or cheat, or do rapes etc. Criminality arises from a combination of genes and also environment.

        All of these questions are explored in The Bell Curve although they try not to sound too racist so some more interesting material is left out. But for example, they show that a person who has never seen their biological parents, and never raised in that environment still are most similar to their blood parents. Yes environment has an effect but a black child raised by white parents from the time he is born and raised in a rich neighborhood still has an I.Q. similar to the parent (and other tendencies like alcoholism, tendency towards violence etc.). Well I don’t think they go as far as violent tendencies in the book but they point out studies regarding I.Q. and other factors.

        Well most conservatives are stupid, most liberals are stupid. And most stupid people will conform to the group around them. They will not challenge the group with unpopular opinions. Amren is mostly the fringe of people who do not conform with the majority. I think most people here are not saying that genes are everything. We just say that they matter. Environment is not everything either. They have already tried everything with environment. They have thrown endless money, endless affirmative action and so forth, which has not done much to raise certain people, sometimes even reverses it and makes them less successful.

        These issues aren’t even up for debate. It has all been researched scientifically but most people ignore the science because they don’t like it.

        • 李冠毅

          Maybe low IQ people continue to fail BECAUSE of affirmative action (an article on AmRen explores this). Imagine taking all those away, and hold low IQ people to the same standards as high IQ people. They may be motivated to work harder, and end up more successful than they would have been if you just give them everything.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            This is exactly true. There are some books about it as well. But consider my life. I am happy being nobody. I only want to work at some stupid job and stock shelves and live my life. But I go to the store, work harder than others, smarter than others, and I don’t make enough money to live. I see really stupid people promoted as well.

            So I just want a little bit better job. I go to college. They prevent me from finishing my classes and say they hate white males and all this crazy stuff. So that pushed me from a goal of a two year degree, to now working on a four year.

            And it keeps working that way they force me into these positions just because they make life so hard on me. Now I look at- can I start my own group and just start buying businesses and become wealthy maybe? I also look at politics. Previously I would not care about amren or politics.

            Some people will totally break from the abuse, but some people made stronger by it. This is how Jews came to be so strong. They had no homeland so living in other nations, under hostile circumstances, they become more clever. More dangerous. Now they are turning regular white people into Jews. You beat someone down every day he just becomes a better fighter. Maybe it’s part of some plan to keep minorities weak, I don’t know. Very strange. I would be happier without it though.

          • 李冠毅

            Hmm. Maybe your politicians do indeed want to keep Blacks and Hispanics down. This will ensure that they will have a continuous stream of “victims” to promise handouts to. Not to mention the “victims” will tend to vote for those giving the handouts.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            I don’t think it is so simple. There are many complex issues. Globalism has reduced wages and increased profits at the top, along with government revenue (even though the U.S. “borrows” much of its revenue). But this necessitates more welfare. They could just artificially raise wages through minimal wages, tariffs etc. but chose not to.

            You might also consider “riot control”. So that blacks don’t burn down a city and go crazy they try to integrate them into society and give them welfare. There can be a variety of reasons and different individuals with different motivations.

            However, the pendulum turns. Affirmative action is being struck down in many states. More pro-white talk in mainstream media. More support for the “extreme” like amren. Slowly I see policies and ideas changing.

            I would say 90% of problems can be solved by saying that anyone on welfare or affirmative action must abide by a one child policy. I meet black people with 60 grand kids- all of them on welfare. It’s a little bit crazy.

            Also have you seen the Amren video about China? It is really good and on youtube.

          • 李冠毅

            Is it the speech by John Derbyshire? I don’t think he gives an entirely accurate impression of Chinese people. It’s true that China is currently uncreative and likes to steal ideas (as a northeast Asian myself, I would personally like to apologize for this behavior), but it wasn’t always like this. Historically, China has a lot of inventors and innovators, comparable to the West (gunpowder, Pythagoras theorem, printing press, etc).

          • Raymond Kidwell

            All it takes is a white guy to speak Chinese for me to be impressed. It was a cool speech to me. Like most Chinese immigrants to the U.S. coming from one place. Immigration trends, and just other interesting things I probably already forgot.

            When I was studying Kung Fu if someone told me a word in Chinese I could not pronounce it right and never remembered any of it. But I can say things in Japanese and pronounce German really well. Chinese is one of the harder languages to learn in the West because of the tonal differences.

            I just want a video of John speaking Chinese for like 15 minutes straight.

      • Jo

        “PhD from a top university” I question her 80 IQ score is accurate.

        • 李冠毅

          It’s completely true. Such stories of naturally disadvantaged people overcoming their disabilities and excelling are common in our country. It’s just part of Asian culture, which holds that effort is more important than natural talent. Whites have their share of such people too; ever heard of Nick Vujicic?

          • Raymond Kidwell

            I agree effort is more important in school. I would say talent is more important in private enterprise. Asians tend to excel above whites in effort in most cases. I’m relatively lazy myself.

          • Jo

            Overcoming disadvantages is not unusual, but a PhD from a top university with an 80 IQ? Show me research on this subject using more than one person.

          • 李冠毅

            Many studies have been conducted on this topic. Try reading “Pygmalion In The Classroom” by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobsen, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

          • Jo

            Rosenthal is a German Jewish name. Jacobsen is a Jewish name. Both, most likely liberals. Show me research done by conservative Europeans in the U.S. or Europe.

          • 李冠毅

            Okay, I admit I’m not well-versed in Jewish culture, so I didn’t know those were Jewish last names. Still, what makes you think the researchers were liberals, just because they were Jewish? If you believe that research isn’t trustworthy, what about the works of James Flynn (“Blacks are not stuck in a time warp”)?

          • Jo

            “what makes you think the researchers were liberals, just because they were Jewish?”

            Academia? Yes. Probably, 99.99999%. Rosenthal is a professor of psychology at University of California Irvine. He is Jewish. Jacobson was school principal at S. San Francisco Unified School District. She is Jewish.

            Approximately, 80% of the Jewish population in the U.S. is liberal. Quite a few of the 20% are neo-conservatives.

            “what about the works of James Flynn (Blacks are not stuck in a time warp”)?

            I wouldn’t generalize. Some are, some aren’t. They weren’t always as bad as today. Their low IQ will always be a hindrance, but mainly, they need reprogramming.

          • 李冠毅

            “they need reprogramming.”

            That’s exactly my point. Low IQ people actually have way more potential than they tend to exhibit. They just need to be motivated to try harder.

          • Jo

            Are we talking about blacks, now, or all those with low IQ’s.

            As for blacks, it’s more behavior and attitude, the liberal brainwashing and coddling, slavery, White racists, etc. If they could overcome that programming, they might want to try harder, but, I wonder if many of them are born with lazy tendencies. You assign them with more potential than they possess.

            As for others with low IQ’s, sure they can do better in low IQ jobs, but give them something intellectually difficult, they don’t have the capacity to understand.

          • 李冠毅

            We are all born with different talents and shortcomings, but I do not believe Blacks are doomed to being lazy, unintelligent scourges of society. This is mainly because many studies have shown that environment is quite often more influential than genes in shaping the way you think and act. Take for instance aggressive breeds of dogs. Studies have shown that with proper training, they can become docile creatures, though they tend to regress to their usual violent behavior when the external influence is removed.

          • Jo

            “I do not believe Blacks are doomed to being lazy, unintelligent scourges of society.”

            Many on Amren would disagree with you.

          • 李冠毅

            It’s okay to disagree with me. After all, if beliefs are not necessarily true. If something is true, then it wouldn’t be a belief, it would be a fact. In addition, did you read the following article? It points out that Black pathology wasn’t as bad as it is now.

            And since you asked, yes, I am a Han Chinese.

          • Jo

            “did you read the following article? It points out that Black pathology wasn’t as bad as it is now. www[dot]amren[dot]com/features/2014/10/irrefutable-and-ineffectual/”

            I said that in a previous post. “They weren’t always as bad as today.”

        • Raymond Kidwell

          Yes. I do not think you need a high I.Q. to finish college, but you do need at least above average. The reason is some of the work is intellectually intensive. It can’t be learned by a low I.Q. person no matter how much time put forth. As well classes are often fast paced. Slower people can go part time or take a smaller load, but at some point a low I.Q. person just isn’t capable of learning and doing well on a test regarding something like calculus or able to write a masters thesis that would be of good enough quality.

  • Robert Smith

    If conservatives are like Asians then liberals are like Martians.

  • Jo


    Liberals analytical?? They are right brain, emotional thinkers. Conservatives are
    left brain logical, analytical thinkers.

    • Kenner

      Exactly! Notice the acronym for successful white nations: ‘WEIRD’. The ‘culture of critique’ hard at work.

      • LHathaway

        They were calling leftists ‘weird’. However, if you want to attribute Western success to liberal politics, that’s up to you.

        • John Smith

          Classically Liberal politics.

  • connorhus

    Complete hogwash. 9 out of 10 Liberals don’t think, analytically or otherwise, they “Feel” they are right. It’s all about feelings with no reality included. Just something they saw on Oprah or some other Hollywood movie.

    They have no clue and that’s the way they like it. No facts intruding on their fantasy world.

  • Reynardine

    If Conservatives are like Asians, do we get to claim some sort of minority goodie bag? Oppression prizes?

    Oh wait, Asians are a model minority that doesn’t need affirmative action to get ahead, dammit.

  • DaveMed

    One such test asks participants to choose two of three items to categorize together, such as a mitten, a scarf, and a hand. Analytic thinkers usually match the scarf and mitten because they belong to the same abstract category — items of winter clothing. Holistic thinkers usually match the mitten and hand because the hand wears a mitten. When Talhelm and his colleagues matched thought styles with political leanings of participants, they found that the liberals tended to be analytic thinkers and the conservatives holistic thinkers…


    This seems like an incredibly stupid test to me.

    I have a better idea. Let’s take a look at the differences in crime rates between Blacks, Whites, and Asians. Then, let us challenge participants to think of possible explanations for the phenomenon of Blacks consistently performing more violent crimes than Whites and Asians. Those willing to consider etiologies other than “racism™” and “oppression™” (such as differences in the expression of various neurotransmitter receptors) will be deemed the more analytic ones.

    • DonReynolds

      It reminds me very much of the argument between Archie Bunker and his Meathead son-in law over the best way to put on shoes and socks. Meathead put on sock and shoe on one foot before doing the same thing to the other foot. Archie insisted that one must put on both socks first, then put on the shoes. It means nothing.

  • Bossman

    Analytic thinking is what defines Western man. If Conservatives are like East Asians, then they want to be led by a strong man. Totalitarianism and collectivism are Asiatic qualities.

    • DonReynolds

      Wrong as usual.
      Only Liberals could create the Leftist paradise, the rest of us understand as collectivism and totalitarianism.
      If Conservatives wanted to be led by a strong man, they would be following the tyrant in the White House. Truth is…..they despise his despotism.

      • JInSanD

        I think you missed his point. I believe he was saying: “IF” conservatives were really like Asians then they “WOULD” want to be led by a strong man. But they don’t.

        • Barabbas

          Nope. You have it right. Bossman was demonstrating how ridiculous it is to suggest that Conservatives are the heirs of Asians as is obvious since they dislike strong centralized power, and prefer personal independence.

  • Yes. Its as if we lived if different countries…
    Oh wait, yes. We are suppose to live in communities that as if they were their own country. We had this until Lincoln the tyrant came in and crushed it in the name of “ending slavery for Blacks.” He did want to deport all Blacks though.
    As for conservatives, I would say I support the Tea Party. But I do want to encourage civil liberties while proposing closing our borders to Africa and the Middle East.

  • B.S.

  • DonReynolds

    I am so surprised that a “cultural psychologist” would be so biased.
    Liberals are not extreme Americans and Conservatives do not think like East Asians.
    The differences between Liberals and Conservatives were not invented in the USA, they were brought here from EUROPE, from the very earliest times of settlement.
    Fortunately or unfortunately, Liberal and Conservative has a geography or geographic distribution that is regional in nature, thus we know that Southerners are very different people from Yankees….but this was pre-determined by which groups settled which ends of the various colonies.
    We have managed to live under the same government (not including a civil war or two) for 400 years with slightly over half of that time without the benefit of the British Crown. This was possible because the shared government was weak, but as the shared (national) government becomes more powerful and more intrusive, these incompatibilities will lead to more and more conflicts.
    We can seek an amicable divorce now or wait until domestic violence begins…..after which the only agreement will be at bayonet point.

    • Robert Smith

      There’s that little problem of nuclear weapons.

      • DonReynolds

        Like so many other weapons, they become pretty much worthless during domestic disturbances.

        • Robert Smith

          It’s after the separation that matters. I’m not so sure the global system will let us leave. We would be the targets of ww3

          • LHathaway

            If you’re truly worried about nuclear weapons. . would u prefer waiting till a later date . . a date where non-whites will have complete control of all of the USA’s nuclear stockpile? In which case, it would be pretty easy to eliminate all whites.

      • 1G25

        “A country boy will survive.”

        Devastating inner cites of American megalopolii will much improve the culture.

    • guest

      Yes, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are rooted in our historical evolution from Western Europe. Trying to illuminate the terms by (a) by passing their evolution and (b) relating them to Asia is about on a par with understanding egg production by studying feather beds. The conservative has due respect for tradition and for human limitations vis a vis Nature. The conservative sees humans within Nature. The left is (at various levels of intensity ) engaged in war with Nature. The respect for metaphysics is basic to accommodation of man’s place within Nature. Social stratification is also basic to that end.

    • Thomas Jefferson for example was a classical liberal and a White nationalist.

  • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

    Different cultures? Try different planets.

    Just another example of academia expecting accolades for stating the obvious, and stating it wrong.

  • willbest

    No they have a point. If you go to dkos, huffpo, or jezebel its article after article of analytical analysis. /sarc

    I think the last time I heard a liberal make a coherent argument was in law school over a decade ago.

  • antiquesunlight

    This makes some sense to me. Liberals think idealistically, theoretically whereas conservatives are much more practical and traditional. The eternal liberal delusion is that the world can and should conform to their ideas.

  • Spikeygrrl

    Could this make any LESS sense?!

    Labeling Leftists as “hyper-Americans” does them no favors. The LAST thing they want to be labeled as is ANY sort of “American.”

    Elevating piece-wise thinking over gestalt thinking is exactly backwards. Almost anyone can be taught to see the trees, but (IMO) the ability to see the forest is an inborn aptitude. You either have it or you don’t.

  • Ultimate187

    Being analytical doesn’t mean that your analysis is correct, good or even coherent. So Liberals might indeed analyze things more, but it doesn’t mean anything. Holistic, from-the-gut instincts are consistent with evolution and survival, and shouldn’t be abandoned for completely analytical thought.

  • More bunko from the Left. Analytical versus holistic thinking? What the heck is that supposed to mean? I’ll define “liberal” thinking: Side with any other group of people before my own so I will be relieved of any guilt personally, but at the same time enjoy all the privileges of being part of the group I turned on. Is that “analytical” enough for you?

    Funny how the article did admit that ” the vast majority of people around the world–about 85 percent–more often think intuitively–what psychologists call holistic thought, and we found that’s how conservative Americans tend to think.” Uhhh, yeah, buddy, it is called how societies are SUPPOSED to think. I would tend to think the figure is more than 85% by the way. People are tribal and support their own group. That is called normal, by the way.

    Nonetheless, an interesting article, and a good read about the “mental disorder” of liberalism. (Michael Savage’s favorite phrase)

  • tony soprano

    Yes here is an example of the analytical thinking liberals have about one problem crime.Since so many crimes are commited with guns.Outlaw guns and you reduce crime.Result is crime goes up since law abiding citizens will have reduced access to guns.The holistic approach was what the founding fathers decided.We should have a citizen millitia where most everyone was armed and could help enforce the law.The result is less crime.Asians also think that guns that are outlawed means few coup de tats and fewer executed dictators.They think the same way in europe too.

  • jwilders50

    So conservatives are more “Asian” as in more intelligent?

    Kind of hilarious if you think about it.

    • Weisheit77

      Considering Asians earn more than whites in the USA and Canada I don’t see where they are going with this. Well, yes, I do. It’s modern day “social science”. These peons could do research and like the university but they couldn’t handle the rigors of science and got a degree in “I hate the West” studies.

  • jwilders50

    This article is complete BS.

    Emotional based thinking is the result of brainwashing – where you program the subconscious mind. Emotional beliefs cannot be defended logically or with reason, because they are not based on reason or logic – you just ‘feel’ you are right. So to defend emotional thinking, you have only one options which is to get emotional.

    And when facts and logic confront emotional thinking, cognitive dissonance results – sparking almost psychotic emotional responses.

    Ever have a conversation with a liberal and dare to bring up facts to support your position? I think we have all experienced the emotional disaster that results – which is their only defense. And of course others in the room often blame the conservative for causing the emotional outburst in the liberal! Nuts really…

    Of course there are plenty of ‘conservatives’ in America who are also subject to emotional thinking/brainwashing – especially when it comes to race.

    But there is not a doubt in my mind that it is liberals that are the MOST programmed in their thinking.

    So I find it interesting to read an article where some smug liberal likes to claim that it is they who are the rational ones, and that it is conservatives who are somehow not fully using their minds.

    Wow and the self hate at the end is amazing. Liberals concocted a term of ‘WEIRD’ to describe western civilization – ironically in which they claim to be the most ‘WEIRD’ of all!

    • Weisheit77

      “Of course there are plenty of ‘conservatives’ in America who are also
      subject to emotional thinking/brainwashing – especially when it comes to

      I find them to be more emotional about all things American and the military. Don’t ever say “this country is dead” to an emotional conservative. Unlike an emotional leftist they actually own guns and aren’t afraid to throw a punch when by themselves. I still can’t believe I’m seeing emotional conservatives recently try to justify the Iraq war, Bush lying, or even President Bush.

  • Ultimate187

    1. Obama is President because of white votes. If an overwhelming number of whites voted against him, he would not be in office. Let’s also keep in mind that Obama was elected twice, meaning that there were plenty of white Americans who wanted him to have another four years.

    2. Romney wouldn’t necessarily be better.

    • Transpower

      It’s more because of the female vote. I do certainly think that Romney would have been much better.

  • Ultimate187

    Imperial China and Japan left their home waters, but for the most part they didn’t try to conquer the inhabitants of whatever lands they encountered. They just deemed them “barbaric” and sailed away. They kept to themselves; something which Europeans should have done more of. Even today, western nations still try to impose their will upon others more than Asian nations do.

    • fool me once fool me twice

      “Imperial China and Japan left their home waters, but for the most part they didn’t try to conquer the inhabitants of whatever lands they encountered. They just deemed them “barbaric” and sailed away. They kept to themselves; something which Europeans should have done more of.”

      Imperial Japan

      Kuril Islands – 1875 – 1945
      Ryukyu Islands – 1879 – 1945 & since 1972 [1]
      Taiwan – 1895 – 1945
      South Karafuto (Sakhalin) – 1905 – 1945
      Kwantung Leased Territory – 1905 – 1945
      Korea – 1910 – 1945
      South Pacific Mandate – 1914 – 1945
      Shandong – formerly of German Empire – 1914 – 1922
      Manchuria – 1931 – 1945
      all ports and major towns in the Primorsky Krai and Siberia regions of Russia east of the city of Chita, from 1918 until gradually withdrawing in 1922.[2]
      World War II[edit]
      Several regions in mainland China – 1938 – 1945
      Portuguese Timor – February 19, 1940 – September 2, 1945
      Hong Kong (UK) – December 12, 1940 – August 15, 1945
      French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) – July 15, 1940 – August 29, 1945
      Thailand – as an ‘allied’ state although induced – December 8, 1941 – August 15, 1941
      British New Guinea – December 27, 1941 – September 15, 1945
      Philippines (USA) – January 2, 1942 – November 27, 1944
      Malaya (UK)- March 27, 1942 – September 6, 1945
      Andaman and Nicobar Islands (India) – March 29, 1942 – September 9, 1945
      Straits Settlements (Singapore) – March 29, 1942 – September 9, 1945
      Kingdom of Sarawak (UK) – March 29, 1942 – September 9, 1945
      Brunei (UK) – March 29, 1942 – September 9, 1945
      North Borneo (UK) – March 29, 1942 – September 9, 1945
      Dutch East Indies – January 18, 1942 – October 21, 1945
      Guam (USA) – January 6, 1941 – October 24, 1945
      Imphal (India) – November 4, 1942 – August 15, 1945
      Wake Island (USA) – December 27, 1942 – January 18, 1944
      Gilbert and Ellice Islands (UK) – February 22, 1943 – January 22, 1944
      Christmas island (Australia) – May 5, 1943 – January 25, 1944
      Attu and Kiska Islands (Alaska) – June 6, 1943 – September 27, 1943
      Areas attacked but not conquered[edit]
      Air raids on Australia, including:
      Broome (Western Australia)
      Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia)
      Newcastle (New South Wales, Australia)
      Sydney (New South Wales, Australia)
      British Columbia (Canada)
      Kohima and Manipur (India)
      Dornod (Khalkhin Gol, Mongolia)
      United States
      Santa Barbara (California)
      Pearl Harbor (Hawaii)
      Midway Atoll
      Fort Stevens (Oregon)
      Seems like Imperial Japan had it’s day and I suspect Mongolia , China and nearly all of the rest of east and southeast Asia had it’s moments down through history .

      • Ultimate187

        That list is nothing compared to what European nations historically did.

        • fool me once fool me twice

          Asians did not project their power because they were not able to . Even when China developed the A-Bomb we laughed . How were they going to deliver it , in a sampan or a rickshaw ? We’re not laughing now . A good reason to never educate your enemies . The whole continent , excepting that part that contains part of Russia , had to be yanked out of their medieval malaise by the West . Beginning with Japan in 1869 .

          When young Americans arrived to fight in Korea and Vietnam respectively , essentially what they found were stone age cultures full of anachronisms like modern weapons , automobiles , modern structures and power lines . The average Chinese citizen during WW2 thought Allied aircraft were powered by demons .

          No offense intended , but if you are the defender of everything Asian and the critic of everything Western , are you sure you are on the right site ?

  • SeaMonkey Browser


  • Barabbas

    What an absolute crock. Conservatives are the ones carrying on the Western intellectual traditions and way(s) of ‘thinking’, while leftists think ‘Jewishly’, i.e., tactically, in order to benefit their own in-group while introducing and promoting toxic thinking and destructive culture in order to weaken out-groups, as you would expect from a Jewish dominated leftist culture.

  • Weisheit77

    Hello guys, I’m a “social scientist”. I’ve got a study here designed to prove I’m right, intelligent, and progressive to pat myself on the back with. Thank you, tax payers.

  • rebelcelt

    I feel like I am watching a Charlie Brown cartoon and an adult is speaking…..

  • Wing-nut.

    Science Daily takes us down the psychological rabbit hole.

  • Fr. John+

    This article is biased, even in its nomenclature, by assigning ‘Americanism’ to one ideology, rather than the race that founded the nation, ‘for us and our Posterity.’ If we deny the White, Anglo nature of the American nation as a given from the outset, the entire apparatus- and the study itself- is skewed toward Anti-White, and Anti-cultural (read, Christian) bias.

    Intellectual Lysenkoism, in short. Finding what you want to find, rather than establishing what IS, first, and then drawing conclusions.

  • barelyintrepid

    Undoubtably this study rigorously controlled for age, education, gender, and race as would be appropriate.

    I’m sure these researchers also clearly divorced analytical vs intuitive determining exercises from any poliyical context as to avoid as much bias as possible.

    …… wait. ….

    I’m sorry, I just read details of the study. The survey sample was composed of university students and “online participants” selected with minimal demographic information.

    Questions determining analytic thinking were directly tied to political subjectivity.

    This is another intellectualy bankrupt self congradulatory pile of bullshit. Never mind that the majority of STEM graduates are conservative, let’s link anti-liberal to anti intellectual.

    The cognitive dissonance of these people is astounding.

  • Paleoconn

    The liberal as analytical bogosity reminds me of either a Derbyshire anecdote where he works at a lefty paper in England and has to write a column on corporal punishment so he asks a colleague who is busily typing on a keyboard what the paper’s policy is in on corporal punishment, and the guy responds without looking up or missing a beat in his typing ‘Same as Capital’. Liberals are much more likely than conservatives to have neat, pre-packaged notions on everything, without thinking why. Pure ideology.