Connection between testosterone-related behavior, Nietzsche's Master Morality and Conservatism?

I learned some years ago that liberals and conservatives are hard-wired to think in very different ways. Here's a brief synopsis of an article on the subject:

Quote:

---

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

---

Source article: Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain - latimes.com

So I'm not talking strictly about political conservatism, though in the US of course, as long as you're white and most likely upper class they're almost the same. Republicans (the US conservative party) of course favor the wealthy and white, so a conservative black man or poor person would tend to vote Democratic here. See the difference? I've known a lot of black people I'd call very conservative who not surprisingly vote Democrat.


Well, some months ago I was thinking about Nietzsche's Master Morality and Slave Morality (Link) and realized the Master Morality sounds a lot like a Conservative agenda where as Slave Morality is very Democratic (again, not politically but in the original meaning of the term - as in rule of the people by the people and for the people rather than favoring the richest or most powerful).

Then just the other day, in response to something here on the board, I was re-reading a part of Sagan's Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors and it mentioned that pretty much all across the spectrum of mammalian species testosterone changes a male so that he believes in rule by strength rather than rule by compassion, and that those who are lower in testosterone tend toward the democratic. I know it's a common joke among Conservatives that they're winners and Liberals are whiners.


I don't know, is this well-known and I'm just the last to find out?

I guess the people who do the study were liberal then, because they felt comfortable with a great deal of ambiguity in the test. I suppose its the conservative(or scientist?) in me that wants structure. If you really want to understand the issue, conservative vs liberal is a poor choice with far to much ambiguity. Especially if your in the US where the words can mean the same thing if you use historical context instead of more modern ones.

Quote:

---

If you really want to understand the issue, conservative vs liberal is a poor choice with far to much ambiguity.

---

But what I want to understand is why some people are conservative and some are liberal. Or rather how the distinction between the two might match up with other distinctions. The conservatives I've known tend to favor their own opinions and just keep re-asserting them with contempt even when evidence shows them to be wrong, whereas the liberal-minded people I know are much more apt to reconsider when shown new evidence.

Most of the conservative males I've known also seem to be pretty high testosterone. They view liberals as weak and passive and therefore unfit to rule. This seems to go hand in hand with the whole idea of Master Morality.

Question - would you say your testosterone level is high or low?

(Mine is low - I'm definitely a nerdy guy who kept quiet in school)


And before anybody asks - I think the way conservative women fit in is possibly that they favor high-test males.They do tend to be old-fashioned and to like their men manly.

I have no idea how someone is supposed to know their testosterone level, without a blood test. Saying you are kind of a nerdy person, isn't really a sufficient test for testosterone levels. I could say I have a large penis and grow a beard quickly, but really that isn't a valid test either.

I don't think being a meat head is really an accurate test for levels of testosterone either. Though if they are super aggressive that could be a sign of having way to much(and possibly a result of steroid abuse).

Ok, I'll put you down for "undecided" then. :cheeky:

I don't think it's hard to tell if a guy is high-test or low-test by behavior, at least in many cases. The more extreme ones especially. In a school the bullies and jocks are generally high testosterone, the ones they pick on (who get labeled nerds) are low. Tesosterone basically dictates aggressiveness and sexual dominance. So, to put it bluntly, the guys who like to fight and fuck. And, as Sagan pointed out so clearly in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, the males with high concentrations of testosterone tend to not cooperate well with others, to go so far as to even disrupt those who are trying to cooperate (in animal tests) and they are a lot lower in intelligence generally.

At the other end of the spectrum - extreme case for low-test males. They tend to be very cooperative and helpful, either friendly or shy but not very aggressive generally. They tend to get in a lot less fights and get laid a lot less than the high-test ones.

Looking at these extremes helps us to understand the tendencies of each side, even when it's not crystal clear. By knowing what tendencies to look for it becomes easier to see it even in those who are closer to the middle ground.

I think it's pretty clear which of these two groups would favor rule of the strong over the weak, and which would favor a more democratic system where power and aggression isn't rewarded in undue measure. So I think it's quite clear that Nietzsche (who strongly favored Master Morality and hated democracy and the "love your neighbor" aspect of Christianity) was probably high testosterone and also conservative. He favored a very aggressive rhetorical style that included insults directed against his opponents.

When I watch conservative news programs I see a lot of opinionated aggressive posturing and contempt aimed against the left, and in liberal news programs I see a lot less of that.

I would agree in extreme cases, but most people are not extreme. If you are in the normal range, I don't think it really effects behavior. After all if your testosterone is at a level that it stunts brain development, that is a very high level.

I think its a bit of an oversimplification and stereotypical to assume things like that however. If testosterone was a major factor in politics however, I suspect you would find people switching parties as they get older and testosterone levels drop, however you do not see this. Also you would expect to find young people who are full of testosterone to favor conservatives, when generally its the other way around and they favor liberals.

Nihilism stands at the door. Whence came this uncanniest of all guests?

All good points, thank you. Lol, at one point I did consider re-wording the OP to say "extreme conservatism" rather than just conservatism.

And of course, there are other factors that can make people aggressive or opinionated besides just testosterone, and ones that can make people shy or timid besides low testosterone.


Your main point seems to be that I'm talking in generalities. Well of course, I freely admit that. Anytime you're trying to look at major trends in social anthropology or anything similar you have to deal in generalities. Simply breaking people up into groups labeled liberal and conservative is a generality, but it serves a valid purpose and enables you to look at large scale trends that would be impossible to see if you didn't use generalities.

Thinking about extremely conservative people I've known I do see a certain trend toward aggression and opinionatedness (is that a word?) and contemptuous disregard for facts and evidence or pretty much any ideas that aren't aligned with theirs. And again, I'll freely admit I could be just flat wrong.

The reason I'm even thinking about this is that, ever since discovering the fact that liberalism and conservatism are more than just political stances, and that they're hard-wired into us and affect every aspect of our behavior, I've been fascinated with the idea and have been interested in what other factors might play a role. It's just so frustrating that the issues are so polarizing... why does it seem to be impossible for liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers to get together and agree on so many things??!! :(

It may or may not have something to do with testosterone, but there sure is a definite correlation between the effects of high testosterone and the way extreme conservatives (at least the ones I'm familiar with) act. One of the most extreme ones I've ever known is a truck driver who's all macho bluster and bravado and tough-guy swagger and he refuses to even listen to any opposing viewpoint to his own. Testosterone might not be the connecting factor - but I'm interested in trying to figure out what it might be, or what other factors might also be involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Nihilism stands at the door. Whence came this uncanniest of all guest?

---

Can you explain? Oh wait - you just said you were drunk tonight... :cheeky:

I'd say it's easier to see it in physical characteristics than behavior. You never know what led someone to act a certain way (it's much easier in mice) but you know how they got that protruding brow and tall, broad shouldered, muscular body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Can you explain? Oh wait - you just said you were drunk tonight... :cheeky:

---

It is the first line in the posthumously published book "The Will to Power" where Nietzsche first talked about master/slave morality (which he stole from Hegel!!) and also it has nothing to do with the topic, can you forgive me Darkmatters?

Ok, you're forgiven!! And I'm facepalming @ myself for not getting it! Of course... Nietzsche is in the title of the freakin' thread!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I'd say it's easier to see it in physical characteristics than behavior. You never know what led someone to act a certain way (it's much easier in mice) but you know how they got that protruding brow and tall, broad shouldered, muscular body.

---

That's also not a sure thing - those traits can be caused by a glandular condition.

But, I feel like if you're able to talk to somebody for a while and observe them - IRL or online or whatever... especially if you've known them for a long time - you can form a pretty sound judgement. Maybe not as to their actual level of testosterone, but aggression/opinionatedness/sense of arrogance etc.

These are traits that are generally in accordance with high-testosterone behavior. I know I'll lose a lot of people right here because in the OP I stated the word testosterone and now I;m saying "the general traits associated with...". But I'm not pushing a prescribed agenda, this is meant to be exploratory. I'm wondering WHY extreme conservatives tend to show these same aggressive opinionated contemptuous tendencies that we also associate with high testosterone.

Earlier Alric, you said that if testosterone were responsible for conservatism then people would turn liberal as they get older. In thinking about it, I realized that people who have been aggressive etc all through their adolescence tend to stay that way as they get old... I don't usually notice that behavior fading - at least not until they become extremely old and feeble (if even then!). Possibly the behavior becomes entrenched? Or maybe testosterone didn't have anything to do with it at all... maybe they were just aggressive and mean because they were always grumpy people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

I'd say it's easier to see it in physical characteristics than behavior. You never know what led someone to act a certain way (it's much easier in mice) but you know how they got that protruding brow and tall, broad shouldered, muscular body.

---

Actually, I've heard that all bald men have excessive testosterone, even if they're gay, short, etc. That's what baldness is caused by.

this is what i've taken away from this thread:

• republican = master
• democrat = slave
• republican = too much tess
• democrat = not enough

lol, am i wrong?

I'd agree liberalism and conservatism are hard wired to an extent, and by that I mean no matter how one is conditioned, they will revert to the hard wired stance. There are liberals who are brought up in conservative households who end up liberal, there are those who are brainwashed by liberalism in schools, in the media and by liberals in society than revert to conservatism. I'd actually say liberals are less open-minded than conservatives, to become a conservative in todays society with all the social stigma you've gotta be pretty open minded.

I'm a conservative yet im very open-minded. Using the logic than liberals are open minded and conservatives are closed minded should ende up with the conclusion that everyone eventually drifts towards conservativism.

It's times like this I wish I knew something about politics, because this sounds interesting.

Wow.

Pretending to ride this hardwired idea, what is the deal with libertarians crossing into conservativism and vice versa?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Actually, I've heard that all bald men have excessive testosterone, even if they're gay, short, etc. That's what baldness is caused by.

---

Well, again, there are other factors. Genetics can make a man go bald early in life. But keep in mind, I'm not saying conservatives actually HAVE high testosterone, just that they value high-test traits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

this is what i've taken away from this thread:

• republican = master
• democrat = slave
• republican = too much tess
• democrat = not enough

lol, am i wrong?

---

Well, if you switch Democrat and Republican for Liberal and Conservative, add Morality after Master and Slave (and actually read the article!) take out the smarmy tone and think less reductively about it, that's essentially what I'm suggesting, yes. Not that conservatives necessarily HAVE high testosterone, but that they value high-testosterone traits in their males. Strength, aggression and sexual dominance. Aren't these traits valued by "old-fashioned" people,and isn't "old-fashioned" another way of saying conservative? Liberals on the other hand value compassion for the weak and the elderly and all minorities - very democratic principles which don't favor strong masculine males.

Thatperson, it's funny that you, the most close-minded person on the board, would suggest conservatives are open-minded. They're actually characterized as being xenophobic and resistant to change and clinging stubbornly to their own opinions even when they've been shown to be wrong.

Great - Somii is here to stomp on my ideas... I guess the party's on now! Somii, Greenhavoc, Thatperson - I'd characterize all 3 under conservative for purposes of this discussion (which uses only conservative and liberal as opposing sides, and remember does not refer to political parties but a mindset).


Conservatives seem to believe in rule of the strong and screw the weak and minorities. This attitude is reflected in conservative ideas about welfare for instance - strongly conservative people seem to think "screw the weak and underprivileged - if they can't earn their own way they don't deserve any help... it'll make 'em strong!" - whereas the liberal view on welfare is that we should help the weak and underprivileged. Liberals favor a rule by compassion for all, conservatives seem to favor rule of the strong and to hell with the weak and helpless.

Darkmatters, why on earth am I the most close minded on the board? I consider myself very open minded. What do you actually mean by open minded?

I always assumed open-minded meant willing to consider ideas that are not your own openly without prejudice. I wouldn't say I'm resistant to change per se, in the 1950's I would have been resistant to change, but now we are in 2012 I'm up for quite a lot of change. change is not always good, because if ain't broke don't fix it. However 2012 is quite broke and does need fixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Darkmatters, why on earth am I the most close minded on the board? I consider myself very open minded. What do you actually mean by open minded?

---

Well, you're the only one who does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I always assumed open-minded meant willing to consider ideas that are not your own openly without prejudice. I wouldn't say I'm resistant to change per se, in the 1950's I would have been resistant to change, but now we are in 2012 I'm up for quite a lot of change. change is not always good, because if ain't broke don't fix it. However 2012 is quite broke and does need fixing.

---

Resistant to change in yourself - not in society! Geeze.. way to deliberately misunderstand!

Very interesting... this thread seems to have attracted the attention of a bunch of conservatives who don't like the way conservatives are portrayed so they're actively attacking it. How very aggressive!! Meanwhile, I'm assuming the more liberal people are mostly staying away because they don't like the way liberals are being portrayed (or maybe they simply dislike the fact that anyone is being portrayed in what might be considered a negative way.. ).

@Darkmatters I didn't really participate in this thread because I detest politics. I used to hate people who were apathetic about politics but now I just don't care (I know its a wonderful attitude but what can ya do?). I think this thread is extremely clever and being somewhat well versed in Nietzsche (in high school, I cannot stand him now) I almost died laughing while reading this thread last night. I think your observation (with the exception of the testosterone assertion, I have no comment on that) was spot on. Nietzsche categorized two kinds of ethical positions (that were present in 19th century Germany) the master morality and the slave morality.

Master morality was the ethical positions of the "strong willed" people who unapologeticly get what they want from life without being held back by the have-nots (like I said I think your connection between master morality and conservatives was a spot-on observation). The Greeks according to him were the exemplification of this ethical position. They believed the good to be the strong, the beautiful, etc. Look at Greek art for instance.

The slave morality was equated with the weak, the have-nots, the meek and egalitarian. To him Christians exemplified this morality. Which is unusual because conservatives (who are ubiquitously Christian) do not respect these values in the slightest, they indeed tend to fall under the category of master morality. They are not egalitarian and generally are apathetic about the lower class. It is unusual to say the least. Remember South Carolina booing Ron Paul for referencing the golden rule?

I don't know what implications can be drawn from this but it is a really interesting thread.

I think I'm more liberal than conservative. Please don't group me with those members, simply because I somewhat see otherwise. If anything, I wanted more exposition from this subject to see it more clearly.

I liked the party joke.

Thank you! (@ Stormcrow)

About the testosterone connection - the idea was brand new in y head when I made the post, and shortly afterwards I revised it. I no longer think actual testosterone has anything to do with it, but I do believe Conservatives/Master Moralists favor strong aggressive male behavior, which essentially means high-testosterone type behavior. And actually now that I've boiled it down to that wording, I guess it's pretty obvious.

I suspect most Conservatives aren't religious in a real sense, but use it more as a social powerhouse. The Moral Majority is a powerful force and is based on determining and decreeing what's moral and right.

Another connection that occurred to me recently that seems to support this - there are certain societies that are aggressively conservative and that obviously value masculine aggression and sexual dominance - such as ghettos and barrios and 3rd world countries at the extreme end of the scale and a little less strongly Hispanic societies in general. In these societies males are taught - the hard way - to be aggressively masculine or they're gonna get their asses beat every day. It's definitely the rule of the strong over the weak and there's no mercy for the weak. This is hardly a democratic (liberal) principle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malac Reborn

I think I'm more liberal than conservative. Please don't group me with those members, simply because I somewhat see otherwise. If anything, I wanted more exposition from this subject to see it more clearly.

I liked the party joke.

---

Ok, I don't really know much about you Somii (Malac Reborn). I only said that because I consider you strongly aggressive, but I don't know enough about you to really say.

Greenhavoc on the other hand - very conservative attitude toward women, and I think I got some testosterone on me just looking at his picture!! :lol:

I personally think it works better if you use neo's vs the old versions. Meaning neoliberals, and neoconseratives. Which is interesting since the neos of both parties, hijacked their respected parties and hold a lot of sway despite generally holding views different from most people in their parties.

The generalities kind of fall apart when you talk about libertarians who generally call them self conservatives but are obviously liberal. The reason being, they are both conservative and liberal in the historical sense, but neither in the modern sense.

I especially care about that, since I myself am a libertarian. I would say they have a peaceful slave like morality of live and let live. On the other hand there is no doubt they are extremely aggressive and hold strong opinions, but again they don't force that on people.

I want to stress that I'm trying here to boil down the essence of what characterizes 2 very different and opposing trends in human thought/behavior - and no actual political party is purely one or the other. Probably calling them Liberal and Conservative is misleading... but I'm at a loss for what terms might work better.

This is similar to trying to define what are masculine and feminine traits or characteristics - when of course everyone has some of both in them in reality - nobody is purely masculine or purely feminine.

What I'm interested in for the sake of this discussion is those pure essences distilled down... what tendencies define liberalism and conservatism in their most pure forms. The political parties of course have elements of both mixed in.

When you boil it down to the true meanings, liberal is supposed to be liberty and equal rights. While conservative means to try to keep things as they are. In the US(and this makes a big difference in where you are), the old fashion values and the founding of the country was based on liberty and equal rights. Which means both are the same thing.

It isn't like liberal means freedom, and conservative means control. If you wanted to put them on a line it isn't really left and right, its more like left and up, which is why comparing them as opposites give weird results. Freedom and old fashion are not opposing in any real sense. Especially since our country was founded on freedom.

You would probably do better with something like totalitarianism vs anarchy. People will often not admit they are for totalitarian government however, even when they are promoting huge taxes and excessive government control.

I still don't think you're grasping that I'm talking about abstractions here.

You seem either unable or unwilling to let go of the political meanings of the terms. Forget about that!!!

Think about the core values of people who are extremely liberal and people who are extremely conservative. What are the beliefs and traits that characterize them? One way to really observe this is to look at how each makes fun of the other... this is a way to see an exaggerated version of what one side hates about the other.

Here:

Quote:

---

SHORT JOKES ABOUT LIBERALS

Question – What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

Question – What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President?
Answer -A competent liberal President.

Question – Who was the first liberal Democrat?
Answer -Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going,got there not knowing where he was,left there not knowing where he’d been and did it all on borrowed money.

Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?
A: At least ten, as they will need to have a discussion about whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

Q:How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:None. Liberals wouldn’t actually change the light bulb, but they would show compassion for it by talking a lot about how terrible it is in the dark and more funding is needed to improve dim, 60 watt bulbs up to bright and productive 100 watt bulbs.

---

Ok, I can't find a similar page of jokes about conservatives, but you get the point. Notice these anti-liberal jokes emphasize that liberals are compassionate and caring to a fault, weak and whining, or totally indecisive (sense of direction) and the fact that conservatives think that's funny and contemptible says a lot about the conservative mindset. It means conservatives value strength and decisiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, you're the only one who does.

---

Well what do you consider being 'open-minded' Becuase I always assumed I fall into that category. It seems that open-minded is jsut slang for liberal, and closed-minded is just slang for conservative when this isn't the case.

Look, we already know you refuse to acknowledge your close-mindedness. Everyone else on the board who has read your posts knows you're close-minded, and the fact that you so stubbornly refuse to admit to it only strengthens my point!

Have you ever changed your viewpoints one iota due to conversation here on the board with people who disagree with you? Not from what I've seen.

They believe the same thing though. At extreme levels both conservatives and liberals want to use force to impose their values on he population at large. Conservatives want to use force to make sure everyone acts morally and liberals want to use force to make sure everyone shares economically.

I know they have different goals, but you brought up the master and slave morality thing. I admit I don't know a lot about that but i looked it up and it appears to be talking about methods more than final goals. When you look at the methods of conservative and liberals, the methods are identical, which is using big government to force everyone into doing what you want.

So you have two master type groups with differing opinions on the end result they would like, they both use very aggressive style methods however, where the ends justify the means.

Darkmatters: Yes, I used to be a liberal, and due to conversation with people i disagreed with, changed my view more than just 1 iota.

You were probably fairly young and undecided on a lot of issues at the time. Most young people consider themselves liberal. I'd say you already had the seeds within you to be conservative and those seeds just hadn't been properly watered yet.


But again - the discussion is about the ideals of liberalism and conservatism, and I've several times now acknowledged that people don't usually fall completely within either ideal. So your arguments are irrelevant.

But that makes me open minded, most young liberals i know are staunchly entrenched with their views and wouldn't move 1 iota. I wasn't that young when I became a conservative, and I wasn't undecided at all. It seems you can only be open minded if you are willing to consider liberal viewpoints, and not the other way around.

Ok, so you feel that the study was flawed. Noted.

You're still arguing for your own individual beliefs, and not tendencies of conservatives in general. So maybe you don't fit the overall mold for conservative. That doesn't affect a conversation about the abstractions of pure conservatism and pure liberalism.

I can say that I'm a man but I have traits that are considered feminine. That doesn't negate the ideal of what are considered masculine and feminine traits... it simply means that individual people don't conform completely to the ideals.

I was asking why you think i'm closed minded, but like everyone, anytime I make anypoint ever, you're just avoiding it,because you're a closed minded bigot and you know im right

Just gonna throw this out there. If conservatives are defined by their reluctance to change the structure of the (American) government from its primordial origins (hence the popularity of statism among conservatives and well hence the name conservative), then wouldn't by definition they be considered close-minded?

Also for a conservative you sure are a whiny pussy liberal. (no offense ThatPerson) Im just giving you a hard time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I was asking why you think i'm closed minded, but like everyone, anytime I make anypoint ever, you're just avoiding it,because you're a closed minded bigot and you know im right

---

... Which is completely off topic. This thread is not about how open-minded Thatperson is. I'm avoiding answering your question because all it would do is derail the topic. Start your own thread if that's what you want to talk about!

Thatperson,

Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. Europe for everyone. What does this mean?

If one is either extremely or even averagely conservative or liberal, would that not make one automatically less open minded, on average? The further from the middle you get, the less likely you are to be open to ideas from either side. You seem to view the political spectrum, from left to right, as open minded to close minded. I see it more as close minded to open minded to close minded. During junior high and right up until about freshman year I was more conservative, but during high school and up through now I am much more liberal. Having been friends and family with people on both sides, I can say that my concept on the open mindedness of the spectrum is backed up by a lot of observation. My father, for instance, claims to be libertarian, but in truth is very conservative. Every time he watches Fox or CNN, he usually shouts at the TV about the "damn liberals." My friend's fiancee is very liberal, and doesn't care what conservative republicans have to say because "they're all pompous asses." In both cases, the othersides' viewpoints are completely cast aside for totally irrational, and in many cases, undeserved causes (it's all the damn liberals fault vs. all conservatives are pompous asses).

So, what does having more testosterone have to do with being more conservative? I think having more testosterone, if it had any major impact, would make you more likely to go to either of the opposite ends of the political spectrum, or in essence further from the middle. I've seen both sides not give two shits about the facts because the facts are coming from the other side, I've seen both sides be stubborn and bullheaded. So, the real question is how is testosterone related to open-mindedness or, in the realm of politics, how in the middle you are?

Damn, now those are very good points!!!

My initial reaction was "Hey it's not me who said conservatives are close-minded, it's the study!"... but I'd better double-check that... I might have sort of added that on myself.

My secondary reaction is that extreme liberals might begin to demonstrate traits that according to the study are considered conservative. I do believe the most sensible position is somewhere near the middle, probably merging aspects of both sides, and that extremism is to blame for a lot of problems.

But this is good stuff that deserves further pondering.

My third reaction - there are other factors that can make a person stubborn and bullheaded... especially when engaged in an argument or debate. These situations have the tendency to polarize people. I think it's only natural and completely human for a strongly liberal person to get riled up and angry at a strongly conservative person... this doesn't necessarily reflect the ideals on either side but only human behavior when under stress. It still seems that, even if individual liberals are prone to anger and aggressive behavior they still believe in the principles of compassion for all including minorities and even your own enemies, which runs counter to what conservatives believe in. Just as a white conservative might have friends who are minorities but still believe generally that minorities don't deserve the same rights as whites.

Also, let's not forget that anger tends to raise testosterone levels temporarily.

But I will think about it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Greenhavoc on the other hand - very conservative attitude toward women, and I think I got some testosterone on me just looking at his picture!! :lol:

---

that's only because i'm online, in the real word i'm shy around boobs. grody

Lol I don't know, you look like a manly man to me, ya hairy bastard! :cheeky:

Oh guys, all this manliness is getting me hot and bothered, lets take off our clothes and talk about Nietzsche (while lifting weights). Especially you greenhavoc.

Nietzsche was so manly look at that stash
http://www.iep.utm.edu/wp-content/me...he-274x300.jpg

(I Liked that cause it was funny... not cause I agree... :lol:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

(I Liked that cause it was funny... not cause I agree... :lol:)

---

I see. But you are still taking off your clothes right?

Ok I'm sorry I screwed this thread over and for that I am very sorry. No more off topic from me.

Oh of course... I'm naked right now!!

I think a thread like this needs a dose of humor every now and then.

someone start a manly man thread, post photos of manly man stuff.
here's our theme song: Orgazmo - Now You're A Man

:cowbell:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Darkmatters, why on earth am I the most close minded on the board? I consider myself very open minded. What do you actually mean by open minded?

I always assumed open-minded meant willing to consider ideas that are not your own openly without prejudice. I wouldn't say I'm resistant to change per se, in the 1950's I would have been resistant to change, but now we are in 2012 I'm up for quite a lot of change. change is not always good, because if ain't broke don't fix it. However 2012 is quite broke and does need fixing.

---

You can't be conservative AND open minded. It's an oxymoron. Conservative means wanting to stick to the "old ways". If you're really open minded, you're liberal.
Which means you're willing to accept new ways of doing things.

I'm neither "excessively manly" nor "excessively feminine." I'm more of a middle-of-the-road male.
I'm a libertarian, but technically that would make me "liberal" in the classical sense; since many libertarian ideas are staunchly opposed by all of those in our government, "conservatives" and "liberals" alike. They are "progressive" things like small government, legalized drugs, marriage equality, etc.

Is it the person's brain that makes someone conservative, or is it their conservatism/liberalism that help develop their brain?

The majority of people follow politically from their parents, even though there is always the occasional "rebel" to the family's political views... Although that could also be stemmed from the brain. It's an interesting subject (just my thoughts.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

They believe the same thing though. At extreme levels both conservatives and liberals want to use force to impose their values on he population at large. Conservatives want to use force to make sure everyone acts morally and liberals want to use force to make sure everyone shares economically.

I know they have different goals, but you brought up the master and slave morality thing. I admit I don't know a lot about that but i looked it up and it appears to be talking about methods more than final goals. When you look at the methods of conservative and liberals, the methods are identical, which is using big government to force everyone into doing what you want.

So you have two master type groups with differing opinions on the end result they would like, they both use very aggressive style methods however, where the ends justify the means.

---

Alric, I apologize - I completely missed this post until now. And I do partially agree with the first part of it, which is very similar to what Snoop said a little later. However "At extreme levels both conservatives and liberals want to use force to impose their values on he population at large." - what you're talking about is politics, not personal mentality. When I say conservatives have a tendency to be aggressive, I don't mean politically as a group, I mean as individuals, in all their dealings with other people. With their wives and children and their friends. I'm talking about personal traits, not political strategies.

And I wouldn't call Master/Slave Morality methods so much as ideologies. It's pretty clear that the two ideologies are mutually exclusive and polarizing - people who favor one would definitely not also like the other. A person who believes in strength and willpower would favor Master Morality, and obviously the opposite is true as well. This isn't because of their political affiliations, but because of deep-seated personal beliefs. This is the level I'm interested in with this thread - what is it that makes some people tend toward Rule by Strength and Conservatism, while others tend toward Rule by Compassion for all and Liberalism? As The Preserver just said, which is the cause and which the effect, or are they maybe both effects of some other cause?

I'm just curious.

Conservatives are more attached to their method or tradition, they are the preservation side of evolution, the troops on the ground who follow their training without asking questions, the Apollonians. Liberals are more aware of their surroundings and adaptable, they are the scouts that learn the tactics and figure out the best course of action, the Dionysians.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/q...conchart-1.jpg

Well spake brother Omnis!

I wasn't even going to bring the whole Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy in, figured it would just make people scratch their heads, and this was already complicated enough seeing as it consists of 3 parts. But I completely agree with you.

I've had a couple of thoughts that help clarify a couple things about the potential Testosterone connection.

Since I've already said that I;m mainly thinking about testosterone-type behavior rather than actual hormonal level, it's only one simple step to say "Conservatives tend favor traditional masculine behavior in their men". Once you put it that way, I don't think anybody would argue. They also favor traditional feminine behavior from their females.

So, what's at the root of traditional masculine behavior? What else... our friend testosterone. Makes you strong, aggressive, confident, sexually potent etc.

Now, testosterone levels can change according to certain things. About 10 years ago I was pretty seriously into weightlifting and that raises testosterone significantly. During this time, people used to tell me pretty regularly that I was an asshole. I thought they were full of shit - I just thought I was being funny and they were a bunch of losers. But lo and behold - I injured my shoulder and had to stop lifting, and pretty soon, I assume as my testosterone levels were dropping, I could see what they meant... I WAS being an asshole! My jokes were actually insults - some velied some not so much. And I didn't even realize it - I literally just thought I was being funny. But as I was in transition back to low-test me v 1.0 again, I could see it, and after a while I no longer made those asinine jokes and didn't feel compelled to.

I must say though, I felt fantastic at the time. My muscles were always sore, but I felt really good inside and had soaring self-confidence. So I can say from experience that when my personal testo level was raised I did behave in more traditional masculine/conservative ways.

Another situation that raises testosterone levels - guys, think about when a hot girl shows up among you and your friends. If she's a real go-er, know what I mean? Nudge nudge wink wink.
Suddenly friends get extremely competitive. The rut is on. lol and think about that in conjunction with it - rutting animals. Yeah, testosterone is responsible for aggressively masculine behavior alright!!

Really though, when you break it down like this none of it is surprising. I think I just came at it from a weird angle with the testosterone thing rather than starting with "Conservatives obviously favor masculine behavior in males". As soon as you put it that way it all falls into place.

alright, well, I'm glad we had this little discussion!! Personally I feel I've learned a few things, or cleared a few things up for myself anyway.

Testosterone plays a significant role in this dichotomy because it causes people to be more self-confident, and thus less cautious and less aware of their surroundings. In certain situations, you need that purposeful confidence because you need to complete the task at hand. The sperm that stops to see if the coast is clear doesn't get to the egg faster than the sperm that just goes for it with abandon. Much the same way, your soldiers won't take any ground if they're too afraid to take a couple bullets on the way. This is a metaphor for the mind. It all comes down to shitting or getting off the pot. Use your awareness to make decisions, but complete those decisions as though you could not fail.

Resurrecting my old thread to add some new info. Heh and no, I don't actually think about master/slave morality a lot, though it might seem like it! Was just reading a bit about Nietzsche which sparked it up again, and that led me to this PDF file comparing his philosophy to that of Ayn Rand.

Very clear and well written, and it really helped me to understand Nietzsche as well as (more importantly) providing an alternative that's a lot less harsh. What I mean by an alternative is - it was Nietzsche's master/slave morality that explained a lot to me about different kinds of people and their motivations in life, but his ideas connected to it are extremely harsh and brutal - he sees only these 2 extremes with no common ground or compromise in between, and in his view they are always locked in mortal combat and can't co-exist peacefully. Rand agrees that the extremes do exist, but she has a much less brutal viewpoint in which they actually get along cooperatively and in fact need each other for survival - after all, what is a leader without followers, and Nietzsche's masters are of course leaders (politicians, military and religious leaders, business owners etc) and his slaves are the huddled masses of ordinary folk - the alphas and the omegas if you will.

I don't know if anybody else around here is interested this stuff like I am, but I highly recommend reading the PDF file I linked at the top if you are. Fascinating if you ask me. I love finding stuff like this that suddenly makes things click together and make sense.

I have met some open-minded liberals, but they are exceptions and not the norm. Most of them are chronically angry, hyper-judgmental even in casual conversations that are not even about politics, and about as narrow-minded as it gets. There are a lot of conservatives like that too, but I have always had an easier time getting along with conservatives who disagree with me than with liberals who disagree with me. About half of the liberals I have known hated me on a personal level for disagreeing with them about anything.

I am a libertarian, so in American politics, I'm a half breed. That puts me in an interesting position for analyzing the common liberal and conservative mentalities. Something that has cracked me up since I was a teenager is that both liberals and conservatives tend to be so caught up in their opposition that they think anybody who disagrees with them on any broad issue is automatically part of the other side. Conservatives have always called me a liberal, and liberals have always called me a conservative. That is a manifestation of tribal thinking that goes way back in human evolution. I have had liberals lose their minds while talking to me and calling me a conservative after I agreed with them on 20 issues but then mentioned that I don't support gun control or that I think the invasion of Iraq was necessary (which I have changed my mind about since then). When conservatives find out that I think all drugs should be legal, they immediately label me a "liberal," overlooking the fact that I think the federal government needs to be drastically shrunk and that the welfare system has got to go. What I am getting at here is that I don't think the masses on either side tend to be open-minded about political issues, though I have met a fair number of individuals who are. They also tend to be very resistant to changes in political beliefs.

This is where things really get bizarre. In 2014, I think it's no longer the case that Democrats and liberals are the same or that Republicans and conservatives are the same. The two major parties are just big government parties that support almost all of the same stuff, but to slightly different degrees. As far as I am concerned, the Democratic and Republican parties are just big cults. Their members tend to put their parties before anything else. Democrats were so gung ho against sexual harassment in the 90's until Bill Clinton got sued for flashing one of his former employees. After that, sexual harassment was no longer a trendy issue for liberals. Republicans at that time were fanatical about shrinking the size of government and majorly reducing spending, and their mantra was, "Get government off our backs and out of our lives!." So what did they do when Bush II signed the Patriot Act and drove the national debt up several trillion dollars? They praised him as a patriotic hero.

My message here is that levels of open-mindedness and willingness to accept change are just a matter of what liberals and conservatives talk about and what Democrats and Republicans talk about. When it comes to what they actually do, in most cases, they side with their cult... no matter what. Politicians are very aware of that, and they use it well to their advantages. I think that is the root of dysfunctional politics and the downfall of the United States.

Completely agreed. I started this thread when I was only beginning to become somewhat politically aware, and I now understand things very differently than I did then. I now realize there's very little difference between today's republican and conservative parties. The democrats use civil rights issues to make republicans look bad, but their actual policies don't help any of the disenfranchised people they want to be seen to support - it's all just to present themselves as the party who stands for the oppressed when really it's all a show - the democratic leaders use it only for political gain and exploit the people they pretend to be helping. And today's republican party seems to just support the wealthy and pay lip service to Christianity and what they consider traditional family values, but again it's really just a false travesty of it. They're both ridiculous caricatures who seem more intent on gaining political power and destroying the other party than on anything real.

As I think many people do, when I first became somewhat politically aware I considered myself a liberal - and the only thing that made me take any interest at all in politics was that idea that there's a liberal and a conservative brain - it played to my interest in brain science. I've since come to realize it isn't true at all - it was liberal propaganda just trying to make liberals seem smarter than conservatives, which works on the unwary because scientists mostly tend to be liberal atheists and conservatives today tend to be Christian fundamentalists (broadly speaking at least). But as soon as you realize these are just broad generalities and that the parties themselves are jokes now, the illusion falls apart. I think the truth is there's a moderate and an extremist brain. It's the moderate brain that can tolerate ambiguity and weigh alternatives non dogmatically. Though I do believe there are tendencies that make people fall into either the liberal or conservative camp, i.e. to subscribe to either master or slave morality. But neither of those are inherently 'smart' or 'non-dogmatic'. I think the smarter, less dogmatic people are the ones who see through the party lines.

As to what you said about liberals actually being more dogmatic and pissed off than conservatives, I've seen that too. I think it has a lot to do with what both Nietzsche and Rand said - to the effect that slave morality tends to breed repressed resentment and hatred. It's an underdog mentality; the huddled masses; the Omegas (aka the losers) massing together and pointing the finger of righteous indignation against the Alphas (the winners) who tend to be wealthy business owners and leaders. Personally I'm an Omega, not an Alpha. I've always been aware I'm a much better follower than leader. But I refuse to buy into the spiteful democratic party line that tries to take advantage of that to make me a mindless clone in their clone wars, because rather than respond emotionally and viscerally I can think about issues.

Incidentally I think these ideas fall in line neatly with a thread I made recently about the Frankfurt School, a socialist think tank that designed ways to bring down a modern liberal democratic capitalist country by playing the 99% against the 1% through a strategy of convincing most people that they've always been oppressed, though ironically they've managed to convince everyone that it's not the 1% that oppressed them but anyone who's not a member of their own special victim group that deserves revenge. And if you can give people simple catch phrases that fire them up emotionally and give them what seems to be a legitimate enemy to blame all their problems on you can use the resulting hatred to manipulate them. This "let's blame everything on straight white males" attitude has unfortunately become the democratic party's battle cry.

Man, if you just started becoming politically aware 2 1/2 years ago, you went a very long way fast. You hit the nail on the head.

The Democratic Party is very much about class warfare and other forms of social warfare. They talk about peace, love, open-mindedness, compassion, and tolerance, but they are really a shit stirring organization that thrives on creating hate and plotting social groups against each other.

^ well said. Of course that's the politicians themselves, and as has been said on other threads, the people who tend to make it in politics are often sociopaths or something similar. I suspect a majority of democratic voters are mostly unaware of this behavior and take it all at face value. They buy into the love and compassion angle and don't see or are willing to ignore the more vicious stuff underlying it. In a lot of democratic voters I can see a wounded child inside very close to the surface, who loves fluffy bunny rabbits and wants to save trees because they identify with underdogs and hate 'exploiters' (because they feel like they've been exploited - they were the kids getting beat up in the schoolyard by the future republicans). Wow, that came out really harsh lol!! I don't mean that's what all democratic voters are like, just a certain group of them. The politicians, especially the more unscrupulous ones, know this makes them easy targets, people like this can be manipulated through emotion quite easily.

I remember when I was reading up on the ideas about a republican brain and a democratic brain I kept seeing that republicans are supposedly the more emotional, while the democrats tend to be scientific and logical, but I see a lot of democrats whose eyes well over with tears of emotion as they wail "But what about the Chiiiilllllldreeeeeennnnn??!!!!" or some such, willfully ignoring the fact that the policies enacted by their leaders don't actually benefit the children or anybody except for the leaders themselves in their careers.

And meanwhile republicans get bent out of shape about a supposed war on Christmas and the evils of pot smoking and gay marriage. Now if only I understood the mechanics of how such ridiculous pseudo-parties happened, and why so many people are willing to buy wholesale into their platforms without ever examining them..

Come to think of it I guess that's the way the majority of the population has always been - not wanting to think too deeply into anything but just go with what they like. Join whatever group they feel an affiliation with and then shout the battle cries as loud as they can to show their allegiance. No wonder most people weren't allowed to vote in the beginning!

You expressed several of my views on American politics. It was as if I was reading a post I wrote.

A large percentage of liberals and Democrats think the way they do because of feelings of personal persecution, and those usually come from experience with being persecuted. That gives them underdog mentalities, which give them the view that a political group or party that supports major success and power of individuals is a party that supports persecution because the persecuted saw their persecutors as successful and powerful. That means they have a prejudice, which is ironic because they put so much into opposing so many forms of prejudice. They make an exception with rich people and anybody who supports the rich, including conservative poor people. They will go on and on about how much they care about the poor but then turn around and say that anybody who disagrees with them is a backward ass, ignorant, trailer trash, hillbilly, redneck moron. That mentality involves extreme prejudice against a faction of poor people. It's some of the most bizarre hypocrisy there is.

One of the big problems with liberals and Democrats is that too many people in that wing make such an extreme assumption that their views on what methods should be used are correct, and as a result, they assume that anybody who doesn't agree with their methods doesn't agree with their goals. For example, I really believe that the welfare system keeps masses of people down and exacerbates poverty instead of reducing it. Because I am anti-welfare, I have been accused of wanting people to starve to death. A huge chunk of the left thinks that way. They can't take in the idea that I want to end poverty too but have a different view on how that can be done. Another problem with a big portion of liberals and Democrats is they assume that if somebody is against the government forcing people to do something, the person is against its being done at all. I very much believe in charity and have given charity, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of the government forcing people to give to charity. A lot of liberals and Democrats think my lack of belief in such force proves that I am against anybody giving charity at all. A statistic that I think inadvertently makes a mockery of that view is that the average Republican gives more in charity than the average Democrat.

The downfall of conservatives and Republicans is the stuff you mentioned about war on Christmas hysteria and their fixations on pot smokers and gay marriage. If they would accept the fact that religion, sexual preference, marriage, and personal vices are not the business of the government, they would win over millions of people they have alienated. I think their nonsense on those issues is one of the major forces that drives people to being liberals and Democrats. Fortunately, I think the right is catching on to that. There is a lot of pressure in the Republican party to move toward libertarianism, and a lot of people who call themselves conservatives have joined the Libertarian Party. That gives me a lot of optimism. If conservatives and Republicans would give up their position that the government should be our parents and the idea that the U.S. is the police force of the world, they would win over a lot of people, including me.

I don't know much about Libertarianism, but then I guess there isn't much to know - small government, keep them out of our business, no taxes… did I miss anything? In principle it sounds good, but it seems pretty extreme. I am definitely a Ron Swanson fan though:

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/up...ncing-head.gif

Most libertarians believe in taxes. I think we need them, but I think we should switch to a small sales tax instead of an income tax. Ron Paul, who is a libertarian in Republican clothing, thinks we should have other forms but not an income tax. A lot of anarchists call themselves libertarians, but only with a lower case "l." The Libertarian Party is not an anarchist organization. We are a Constitutionalist organization. We support very strict interpretation of and adherence to the Constitution, while the Democratic and Republican Parties seem to think it's just a set of suggestions. We are much more liberal than most Democrats on social and foreign policy issues and much more conservative than Republicans on economic issues. We are also against all forms of gun control.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Well worth the read to anyone interested in politics; and in my opinion one of the most politically enlightening debates ever recorded:

Elliot: Virginia Debates on Ratification of Constitution

It is advisable to read through the US constitution first and the bill of rights, as well as the articles of confederation, though not absolutely necessary to understand the discussion.

Perhaps I will have something to say regarding this thread later, but I have not read through all of the posts yet.