Flutterby™! : Politics of fear

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Politics of fear

2008-09-22 01:29:53.901783+00 by Dan Lyke 3 comments

People with strong reactions, measured as skin conductivity and eye movement, to unexpected noises or pictures of threatening situations tend to endorse political positions that emphasize group protection over individual liberties:

Hibbing defined those "protective policies" as more defense spending, more government resources directed at fighting terrorism and tighter controls on immigration. "People in this group are more willing to sacrifice a little of their privacy to protect the social unit," Hibbing said. "On the other hand, the subjects who reacted less strongly to the stimuli were more likely to favor policies that protect privacy and encourage gun control."

Times Online article, ScienceNOW article, Via MeFi and other places.

[ related topics: Politics Privacy Psychology, Psychiatry and Personality Current Events Guns ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-22 15:11:01.876662+00 by: other_todd

Um, so, jumpy twitchy people are nervous and see menaces around every corner? This strikes me as fairly self-evident.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-22 16:54:08.67691+00 by: crasch

"On the other hand, the subjects who reacted less strongly to the stimuli were more likely to favor policies that protect privacy and encourage gun control.

How is gun control not a "...sacrifice a little of their privacy to protect the social unit"?

I think it's quite possible that political beliefs are influenced by one's genetics, but so far, all the studies I've seen have been poorly run and blatantly biased.

This post covers a lot of the problems with this study:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richar...seudo-science-and-conservatives/

#Comment Re: made: 2008-09-22 23:01:44.23196+00 by: andylyke

The line "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" has been around for a long time. It's interesting how wonderfully adaptable it is.

On the right, the derided "security" means social security, unemployment insurance, universal health insurance ... and "freedom" means retaining all one's "earnings".

On the left, "security" is read as TSA, USAPATRIOT Act, ... and "freedom" is read as unimpeded movement, speech, etc. Unfortunately, the political discourse has destroyed any meaning in words, and bumper stickers have replaced thoughtful consideration.

I don't know whether to be glad that I'm old and that my end is near, or sad that I'll miss the restaurant at the end of the universe (figuratively speaking, of course) 42.