Science Confirms My Theory of Everything

Researchers have determined that conservatives scare easier than liberals.

In an initial experiment, subjects were shown a series of images that included a bloody face, maggots in a wound and a spider on a frightened face. A device measured the electrical conductance of their skin, a physiological reaction that indicates fear.

In a second experiment, researchers measured eye blinks -- another indicator of fear -- as subjects responded to sudden blasts of noise.

People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals after the effects of gender, age, income and education were factored out.

The logical result of this highly developed, genetic "startle" reflex is that conservatives will tend to be more oriented toward outside threats than liberals, a reflection of my previously published Theory of Everything.

The study does not deal with the liberal tendency to see the world in terms of personal moral failure, but I don't think it's too big a leap to assume that if you're not bugged much by images of maggot-infested wounds, you're probably focused on something really important. Like, for example, understanding why muggers do what they do and wishing you could do something about the personal trauma that obviously causes them to hit other people on the head and take their money. Maybe a hug would help.

The inward/outward preoccupation is the fundamental disagreement between liberals and conservatives. It infests every aspect of our political discussion, but is nowhere more important than in perceptions of the War on Terrorism. Conservatives are so wound up about a few empowered jihadis that they'll suspend the Constitution and put everyone with a mustache in jail in order to buy themselves a little personal security. Remember back at the beginning of the War On Terror, when anyone who objected to giving President Bush absolute power was subject to lectures like this:

These are people who cut people's heads off with knives! I'd say having someone look up your anus with a flashlight before you can board a plane is a small price to pay for not having your head chopped off! Maybe we should put two lines at airports. In one, trained professionals look up your anus with a flashlight. In the other, you get your head chopped off with a dull knife. I think I know which line you'll pick then, buddy.

I used to get email all the time linking to videotape of actual beheadings. The emailers were convinced that if I would just watch a few more beheadings I'd understand why habeas corpus is a luxury we can no longer afford. I watched. It was horrifying. I still think that today's Republicans are authoritarian bordering on fascist.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to dwell on the actions the United States was taking, and were pissed that conservatives just didn't seem to realize how some of those actions might cause the crazies to get even crazier. I'd cite some comedic examples of liberalism here, but I'm a liberal and generally don't find liberals all that amusing, at least until they go around the bend of self parody, like the lesbians who think they can stop the war by showing their breasts to complete strangers.

The Theory of Everything, which has yet to receive the worldwide acclimation it deserves, notes that these basic inward/outward tendencies inform every significant disagreement between conservatives and liberals.

This is not to say that one side or the other is flawed. A functioning society needs both types of people, those who are attuned to exterior threats and those who are attuned to internal failings. I'd make the argument that we're looking at evolution (or design, take your pick) at it's finest. A society that only had one or the other group of people would be weaker than a society with both, since both sets of challenges are very real and need to be recognized as early as possible.

There are, of course, scientists who dispute the conclusions of the research, just as there are those who dispute my Theory of Everything. They will eventually be humiliated in the public marketplace of ideas. And, since I am a liberal and a Christian, I will forgive them.

Comments

[Sylvia Kirkwood]

I do enjoy the way you think as I enjoy your blog, glad you're back home.

[S]

I'm a supporter of your Theory!

[PhoenixRising]

Welcome back!

...and where are the lesbians you've referred to above located? That was a very interesting tangent to your theory which deserves its own investigation. Count on me.

[Squidley]

"...understanding why muggers do what they do and wishing you could do something about the personal trauma that obviously causes them to take other people's money."

Typical liberal claptrap.

There is a statistical correlation between intelligence and crime. The very dull, like the mentally retarded (or whatever the mot du jour is), are "protected" from committing crime by their low intelligence. Perhaps they lack the brains to put together a dastardly criminal scheme. Once we get above them, though, crime takes off. Those of low intelligence are most likely to engage in crime. However, as intelligence increases, crime rates fall, and the most intelligent are rarely, if ever, involved in crime.

And yes, that's with controlling for race, socio-economic background, etc., etc., etc.

[Pursuit]

They obviously included such "conservatives" as Sully. Take this wretched terror junkie out of the equation and you get a whole new distribution.

[Adam]

Nah.

If there is a functional difference of perspective, I think it lies with whether people believe people have free will or not.

For Christian Protestants, they talk about it in terms of Arminianism versus Calvinism, generally, but the Pharisees and Sadduccees argued the point before them (though I forget who fought for which), and likely others before them. Ayn Rand labeled the terms "Romantic" and "Naturalist".

For Liberals/Naturalists/Whatever, the fact that a murderer had a bad childhood is considered The Root Cause, and even if we have to lock him up for his own good, the big issue is the societal problems that led to it.

Believers in evolution usually fall on this side, as their view ooften necessitates this point of view that people are ultimately miraculously complex input/output machines.

For Conservatives/Romantics/Whatever, the fact that he had a bad childhood is probably one of the reasons he HAD for doing what he did, but ultimately he still chose to do what he did. The ultimate blame does indeed go on the victim.

Take the subprime mortgage issue. Tom has posted several times about how the banks fed more alcohol to drunk alcoholics out of greediness; I tend to blame the irresponsible people who borrowed money they couldn't pay back, as well the government that encouraged the irresponsible practice of giving money to irresponsible people.

And I do indeed blame alcoholics for every drink, including the ones they take after they're too drunk to know any better.

I believe in Free Will, thus Choice, and the rest follows from that, as Free Will followed from God.

[Frank]

I've been mulling around several responses to this whole theory of everything, but I think Adam just did it for me.

I agree with him 100% on this one.

[Sparticus]

Excellent analysis, Adam. I'm on board, too.