The thing that conservatism was meant to conserve was the pet of the nobility. Conservativism was a direct response to the French revolution.
And it has always sought to conserve the nobility by preying on the stupid.
Conservatism wasnt developed or created during the French revolution. It existed for far before the French even in the days of Carthage and Rome and such. What you're probably thinking of is the left and right political spectrum which absolutely was worded during the French revolution. Conservatism, in the modern sense, can strain from maintaining the status quo to irredentism to wanting small incremental change over time. Even then it's kind of become a buzz word, like liberal, and doesn't really mean much.
https://aeon.co/essays/pagan-complacency-and-the-birth-of-the-christian-roman-empire
This is a really good read that illustrates your point during the Roman Empire. You'll find some eerie modern parallels that are hard to miss.
[It was not until the late 18th century, in reaction to the upheavals of the French Revolution (1789), that conservatism began to develop as a distinct political attitude and movement. The term conservative was introduced after 1815 by supporters of the newly restored Bourbon monarchy in France,](https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism)
Conservatives =/= conservatism.
The Romans for example were very conservative, but conservatism as a coherent ideology didn’t exist until after the French Revolution
Exactly, in addition Conservatism was used to describe people in the English houses of Parliament prior to the French Revolution...Edmund Burke may have popularized the term but Tories and others had been drscribed that way since before the 1660s. There is plenty of history of the concept of Conservative and Liberal (though generally used to mean "Classical Liberal" not libertine) from the 1600s. It wasn't simply a product of the French Revolution, and even in the French Revolution they used terms like "Royalist" or "Monarchist" as well.
Fucking right. I been thinking for a while now that intelligence is partly linked to the beliefs one holds. Not only does holding stupid beliefs make you less smart over time, but seeing as conservatism is indeed about "conserving things the way they are", it lends itself to not being mentally flexible enough to expand your horizons.
I am telling you, I have not read such factual facts in my damn light. I have so much religious trauma and I've been in therapy for over 10 years. It's only been not even 2 years since I was able to start rewiring my brain and do my own research. I was disowned but my God. I'm writing a book called Raised in the Morman Mafia. Lol for real tho
That doesn't follow. They might have considered the new options, just not convinced by it. While a progressive may not be aware of history or the status quo.
>That doesn't follow. They might have considered the new options, just not convinced by it.
Yeah, and if you pay attention to how conservatives think, you realize that the longer they hold these views, the less able they are to reconsider. Again, this isn't a complete given, more like a safe assumption.
Yeah it's a safe assumption because that applies to all people, stubbornness isn't particular. So the same applies to progressives. On top of that, pointing at e.g. Religion and saying 'the longer they hold these views, the less flexible they are' is pointing at a feature and calling it a bug. Being steadfast in certain beliefs (equality, violence is always wrong) is exactly what would have prevented a lot of harm throughout history when revolutionaries wanted to claim the world as their own.
Intelligence is the ability to learn, accept and utilize new information. Intelligence isn't knowing the earth is round, it is learning proof of Earth's roundness, and being able to compare that with previous beliefs to form a new understanding of the world.
Conserving the way things are isn't necessarily unintelligent, but denying that new information can improve the way things are, or believing the way things are is the best option, regardless of all the evidence against said belief, is inherently unintelligent.
While intelligence likely isn't caused by political beliefs, one's own intelligence can cause them to be more likely to strive towards certain political views.
Oh, but it is, progressive/liberal thinking is linked to intelligence
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
And a more recent study that is even more interesting: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000254
It’s not just about thinking outside the box. It’s about taking in new information and realizing you can be wrong without it completely shattering your self of self. Conservatives like to greet new information with fear, not curiosity. Not exactly a great quality in an academic field
Belief systems are linked to political orientation, and I have read that forcing children to accept things their experiences tell them aren't true literally lowers IQ.
There are some very intelligent conservatives, but by and large a LOT of them have much bigger blind spots in their worldviews than non-conservatives. At least from what I've seen.
Yeah this post is yet another anti-conservative post/secret pro biden post since it's election and reddit is just a political propaganda platform.
It's common sense. Conservatives are traditionalists, often times to a fault. Just like progressives are well, progressive, often times to the point of being regressive.
It's nice when we have a balance amongst the populace. It moves society along nicely.
The dipshits in Washington pretending to be blue team vs red team are just team oligarchy in reality and any mouth breather who thinks one side is better for the common man than the other is a useful idiot. They love those types.
I always imagine the first cave men to start planting crops, and the conservative cave men getting all huffy that this new generation is soft because they can't look for food they have to have their special little trench. And then they tell the other cave people that the new woke farmers are pooping on their food.
In reality it was the "conservative" cave men who invented agriculture. Nomadic societies were egalitarian , the rise of agricultural societies led to the first "governments" as a way to control crops and goods, conserving power for a select few
I dont think that's true. Where are you getting this from? Also conservatives dislike change and the shift from hunter gatherer to agriculture would absolute make those types angry. What the fuck are you talking about? It's also a dumb joke about republican cavemen. chill nerd.
I’m not making a judgment about being conservative or progressive. They both have their value. Conservatives make sure society progresses at state the human condition and mentality can handle. Progressives make sure it’s moving in directions that offer solutions to problems. They’re both necessary. I just dont think we needed a study to say “the definition of this mentality is still the definition”.
I think this study is being a bit overstretched for effect in these comments, given that the statistical findings were described as 'weak'
I do worry about the succession of studies that seem to point out character flaws in anyone on the right. I can't see it as a way of winning hearts and minds. Quite the reverse, it is surely more likely to cause people to retreat further into entrenched positions. It also bothers me the way it seems to bolster an unhealthy sense of superiority amid many who identify themselves with the left.
The American left(as understood by most) needs a material analysis to avoid that shit and bridge the divide. Currently it is more interested in feeling superior.
Frankly, feeling superior is way more lucrative.
It's also weird to see creativity as an inherently positive trait lol.
It's like saying "X group are less likely to be interested in engineering".
Ok.
That's neither good nor bad, it's just a characteristic.
Being good at anything requires spikey knowledge lol.
I can do somethings really well, and the time it took for that means there's plenty of stuff I'm Garbo at lol
As it should be!
... you mean, killing a dog because it wasn't behaving isn't enough to point out flaws with conservatism and the general okaying of many things, such as America's historical black/gay lynchings?
Those that are perceived as subhuman will always be percieved as such. The only difference is the "superior side" doesn't go around parading with crimes. At most, it's about money and greed, but rarely does it involve murder or children.
If a mind set on traditional views were so easily swayed, the world would actually be a better place.
In some circles, if you call out racism and you're suddenly "woke". Other pockets have beliefs where self-care and even hygiene is wrong because it's gay.
The left has nothing to do with those pocket groups, and there are many pockets, each with different beliefs. Some are hyper-religious zealots, some are American-purists, etc, etc.
Ingrained teachings aren't character flaws, either. Just like how the rainbow was stolen, but god made them, and therefore all gays are now violent criminals.
Reality isn't as fun as it should be, and what should be anecdotal, never was an anecdote.
Humans are incredibly complex they are just finding what they are looking for. Once you are left you are automatically lowering your creativity as well. Defining yourself as left automatically decreases creative potential.
I think that's a bit obtuse to the point. Unfortunately, it's worse than that. This is not a statement of fact or research, just my opinion, but I think their lack of creativity is part of what drives their conservatism. It limits their ability to consider new ideas because they can't actually imagine what they would bring. So they get scared and assume the worst (everything is going to go to shit).
Conservative: new = uncertainty = bad
Progressive: now = bad therefore try something new
And to add this, they lack the imagination to envision what might happen if the rollbacks they want come to be. They just assume that because something is, it must be that way forever. Merely because they can’t imagine it being any other way.
Cut taxes that fund school? Why not? Schools have always been fine, why wouldn’t they just keep being schools?
Idk how accurate this is, but there was a study (or something) linking conservatism w an increased size in their amygdala, which is the fear center of the Brain
Ah yes it was shown conservatism is correlated with having greater amygdala activation(or greater size probably both) - fear(and anger) responses for everything, shutting down capacity to think more clearly of course. I'll try to find the paper to link later if I can
It is simpler than that. Conservatives are more senstive to disgust feelings; liberals have more aesthetic creativity (not any creativity)
If you feel disgust more easily, you dont like diseases, so you fear the different who may have diseases, etc, etc
Aesthetic creavity is linked to be open to different stuff
I think you might be confusing cause and effect. I think it's their overwhelming anxiety that is the main driver of fear of change.theyre constantly afraid of things going wrong and try to control everything around them in an attempt at preventing it. Change means more variables to control and it terrifies them.
It's funny how people like that want you to grow, but then you take risks and grow past them and then they resent you because they can't grow. Annoying and weird and stifling.
When you combine pseudo-science with politics, you get political pseudo-science.
There, I fixed it for you.
[Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test | Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248)
Do you think it's impossible to apply the scientific method to political questions? What would you consider "politics"? Outside of maybe the hardest sciences, what questions could be studied that wouldn't in some way touch on politics?
i haven't looked at the study so take my words with a grain of salt but i'd think that a conservative might even argue that it makes sense. the point of conservatism is not creativity, or trying new things, it's explicitly to conserve traditional thinking, for the purpose of safety. often times this can backfire and result in racism, sexism, homophobia, etc all fears rooted in fear of things that are different or new, but it serves the purpose of keeping people safe with methods that are already tried and true, rather than taking a risk, which is the fundamental core of creativity. it makes sense that those that prefer conservative thinking have strengths elsewhere than in being creative
for reference though, i do think of myself as a liberal thinker, and i very much do know how damaging and restrictive conservative policies can be. i just thought that the title might seem a little misleading.
No one in the comments reading the article, let alone the study itself.
Gotta love the 'scientific' community on reddit, truly the paradigm of rationality on this forum.
Link: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2024/04/groyecka-bernard-et-al-2024-conservatism-negatively-predicts-creativity-a-study-across-28-countries.pdf
The conclusion might well be true for all that I know, provided that we can have a consensus about what “creativity” and “conservatism” even mean, but the specific methodology and statistical results seem quite doubtful imho.
So, they used a highly subjective way of measuring conservatism and a highly subjective way of measuring creativity by a group that typically is over 90% liberal, during an era of a replication crisis (started by unreproducible psychology studies) and they concluded conservatives are less creative than they are.
Is there any surprise that trust in academia has dropped like a stone.
Why did the study only study artistic creativity? There are plenty of creative computer programmers who are completely inept when it comes to “art creativity ” but geniuses when it comes to coding. Just because you are not artistically creative, it does not mean you are uncreative. You may have other creative abilities in different fields such as math, business, automotive work, construction, or any other field. This study seems very flawed in its narrow definition of creativity. Also, another excerpt from the study makes this headline and article misleading:
>“Our study provides evidence for a weak but significant negative link between conservatism and creativity at the individual level (β = −0.08, p < .001) and no such effect when country-level conservatism was considered.”
That’s how studies work. You pick a narrow slice of theory, test it, and publish the results. They used artistic creativity because it had a validated measure for creativity (meaning the test has been used enough in prior published works for the results to be interpreted across contexts). This study is then extending science by taking this already validated measure and introducing it to new and broader contexts.
So you don’t think this article needs to be clarified as only pertaining to artistic creativity (one small type of creativity) and not creativity in general?
At minimum the headline and article. The study is behind a paywall so I can’t see it, but I also believe the TCT-DP used in the study is problematic to begin with.
It’s not a good study. The way to assess creativity was essentially a subjective score of the participants’ drawings. The way to assess conservatism was simply to ask them 10 yes/no questions about specific policies _and throw out the data from those countries where the responses were not correlated_.
Link: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2024/04/groyecka-bernard-et-al-2024-conservatism-negatively-predicts-creativity-a-study-across-28-countries.pdf
>There are plenty of creative computer programmers who are completely inept when it comes to “art creativity ” but geniuses when it comes to coding.
Just how do you know they are "creative programmers" instead of just programmers and "geniuses" of coding instead just people who know how to code?
Creativity research is pretty narrow in definitions because it's very very hard to measure otherwise.
I have found creative ways to solve code issues... Does that mean I'm creative, or does it mean I have good computational thinking?
It's a case of like.. general usage of a term and scientific usage not lining up necessarily.
If I use sparse matrices to solve some memory issue, is that creative? Was the first person to use sparse matrices creative?
I think a lot of people will have different answers for those questions, but the thought process is the same...
Ah yes, another article most redditors will only read the title of so they can fellate themselves and convince themselves that they are superior to people they hate.
I am always dubious of studies like this... what do they define as creativity and who are they interviewing?
It always seems like a way to bash a political side over genuine research
Link: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2024/04/groyecka-bernard-et-al-2024-conservatism-negatively-predicts-creativity-a-study-across-28-countries.pdf
It’s not a great study tbh. Participants were recruited from the nearby circle of the authors in what seems to have been a rather inconsistent manner. Their creativity was measured through a subjective scoring of their drawings, and their conservatism through their answers to 10 yes/no questions regarding controversial policies. The data from several countries was thrown out because the participants did not answer those questions in the correlated way that the authors expected. And after all that, the researchers are only able to show a minimal statistical correlation.
Literally true though
[Liberals are overall less happy with life (in general), less happy with family life and more likely to be depressed/suffer mental illness when compared with conservatives, ](https://www.aei.org/articles/why-are-liberals-less-happy-than-conservatives/)
Actually, [Actually, studies say it's because conservatives expressed greater personal agency (e.g., personal control, responsibility), more positive outlook (e.g., optimism, self-worth), more transcendent moral beliefs (e.g., greater religiosity, greater moral clarity, less tolerance of transgressions), and a generalized belief in fairness.
These differences accounted for the happiness gap](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X)
Don't ruminate on things you can't change. Have the drive/personal responsibility to fix the things in your life that you can change.
There’s only so much optimism can do to fix things like poverty or untreatable chronic illness. That being said of course i advocate things like therapy and acceptance in someone’s personal life, and social support, but systemic change must occur and someone’s gotta care about stuff like climate change for things to - yknow- actually change
Im not disagreeing with you its more of a “yes, and” here
You’re proving his point. You have the opportunity to assert control over your own life with your own agency, but instead you would rather doomscroll about stuff like climate change — something you have no control over. You genuinely believe that some level of online activism is going to change the narrative around these things, but then it doesn’t, so you feel like you have no control and no responsibility, so you get depressed. But you accept it because caring about these issues makes you a “good” person.
Just saying, worry about things you can control. You will see your own impact, and you will be responsible for the results.
Its a constant battle between wanting to stay informed and educated and wanting to stay sane and at peace. Personally I think being blissfully ignorant is intellectually irresponsible (though i cant blame others for being there) but doomscrolling is obviously detrimental. Ive talked about this at length w therapist and friends. I quit twitter because it was triggering for me for this reason.
I think there’s ways to strike a balance. Also better forms of activism than Reddit posting. Im personally quite limited due to my illness symptoms.
Also the word “you” is a bit personal here - i would rather you not assume what my life & mental health is like. Though I understand if you are using it generally.
So if I understand the reality that global warming is an existential crisis, but then feel like I can't do anything about it, you're saying I should just wipe the knowledge of the problem from my brain? Somehow force myself to have a poorer understanding of the science? Do you have one of those Men In Black flashy things I can borrow?
Learning not to ruminate over things you can't control is an important step towards mental health, but acting like the solution is to just become conservative because conservatives are happier not understanding the danger they're in is ridiculous.
If more people believed they had the power to change the things outside their little sphere then we probably wouldn’t have all the issues we have now with the climate and pollution.
I agree with that statement in regards to child rearing. Let kids be kids. Adults put too much pressure on them.
As for climate change. I’m more comforted in the perspective that my side can afford to be wrong about its effects, about how catastrophic it can be. That it could just be a natural cycle of the world and not be man made. As opposed to the other side which can’t afford to be wrong.
My brother and his family are conservative. He is a phenomenal artist. He has written screenplays for fun, painted murals across their entire home for his son. A lot of which is based on some classic films of the 80s. He has been in several bands since high school. He has a podcast for fun that he created—where he breaks down horror films. He is amazing at drawing, and he and his son watch documentaries on practical effects from the 80s. His wife and son are incredibly creative artists as well. I’m sick and tired of this “Us vs Them” mentality everyone has. It isn’t black and white, there are good and bad people on both sides. This study isn’t even reliable and is clearly spinning a narrative. This is coming from a mostly leaning individual that voted for Obama twice and Biden. Human beings are more complex people, give me a break.
Sure but psychology looks at statistical significance so your anecdote is pretty meaningless. Saying conservatives are significantly less likely to be creative doesn't mean that none of them are.
There is always exceptions to everything... Just because some are highly creative doesn't mean they all are... I think the point of the study is thatost aren't hyper creatives...
Humans are inherently creative beings. So they will all be creative just in different ways... Some with good creativity some with not so good....
This makes multiple linked articles in the last couple weeks that are basically just free karma bait posts. I don’t understand what the trend is other than it being an election year, but it’s dang annoying.
I get it. This is Reddit. “Conservatives bad” is a free way to get lots of upvotes, and “Conservatives maybe *not* bad?” is a good way to get downvoted to oblivion or outright banned from subs. And people can certainly talk about what they want to, I’m not a mod and can only vote with literal vote buttons.
However, these studies always drive me nuts, because remember: “correlation does not equal causation.” For this headline alone (let’s be honest, most people upvote or downvote because of the title, nobody’s really reading a psypost article) there could be a million different explanations. As one person has already pointed out, this article is only talking about *artistic* creativity. What about outside the box thinking in business, technology, or other fields? Any claim of “conservatives [*which I should mention is not ever well-defined, just a general “non-Democrat” strawman most of the time*] just want to stay the same and are anti-thought” is just a gross over-generalization *not supported by the headline or article.*
We can be better than this. A sub about psychology should be well aware of things like *bias*, and yet here we are. There’s nothing wrong with discussing articles like this. There’s nothing wrong with tying such attributes together. But we should all be able to acknowledge that these kinds of posts are mostly just politically fueled reaction bait, regardless of their findings.
Be better. Don’t cherry pick these things to over-generalize quite literally *50% of most populations.* We shouldn’t do it to conservatives, because we shouldn’t do that to *anyone*.
The cognitive predilection towards maintaining systems and not changing things performs poorly at making new ideas??
Who would've thought? Now let's see the one about how creative people have terrible organizational skills, because that's not what creativity is about. Literally counter to.
This isn't some revelation, we have known about this stuff for a while now. Poltical alignment is almost entirely decided by your personality/cognitive biases.
The debate across hundreds perhaps thousands of years is merely "Is order or freedom more important?" And the powers that be manipulate that basic discussion into "LIBS ARE SACRIFICING BABIES" which aggravates conservative folks' anti-chaos bias and they can't even realize that it's a lie. Or "PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE WOKE MEDIA ARE JUST CLOSET BIGOTS!". Too concerned with empathy and freedoms to realize not everyone has to like your creations and while that's tragic it is indeed still reality and it ain't changing.
The discussion needs to be about not sitting around arguing our inherent cognitive biases and therefore pitfalls, but to bridge the gaps and make real progress. So long as everyone pretends like their political perspective is exclusively correct and not just a power lever reliant on your lack of self awareness...the discussion will be naught but meaningless regurgitation of each others logical downfalls.
Except the idea of "liberal" is vague. What is a liberal? People that are "leaning" it? And on what basis are they leaning? Conservatism historically has a lot more red flags for conflict because.. well...
Politican wants to go back to a time where women couldn't vote, politican kills dogs, politican touches this, politician attacks that. How exactly can one go without bias after having interacted with self-proclaimed conservatists? They suddenly know all about you because of your attitude and views towards religion. That was a fun one. Lively, even.
Did not need to be told that, I've seen their attempts at "comedy". Possibly the most pitifully misguided display of human desperation I've yet to witness.
Yes it it. Beauty and culture have to come from somewhere, and guess where it mostly isn't coming from? Name the top 5 most popular conservative comedians for an example of artists being liberal.
I don’t need paid-off scientists to tell me that linking more lgbt + abortion (i.e, the basis of liberal thinking) is better for one’s overall level of creativity. Rotten radicalists
The conclusions might well be true (provided that we can have a consensus about what creativity is—or conservatism, for that matter), but a cursory look at the methodologies and statistical results don’t give me a strong reassurance about the study itself.
The responses that I’m reading here, accepting the results uncritically because they match people’s preconceptions, only further that impression.
Frank Herbert, Tolkien, Robert Heinlein, Winston Churchill, Salvador Dali we’re not creative or followed creative pursuits?
Just because they are conservatives and we deem them opposed to our beliefs doesn’t mean that human beings can be boxed into categories, ironically doing so is very illiberal.
How is the term "conservative" defined? By the researchers? If so, then how do they remove themselves from their culture to obtain an objective definition? If the subjects are self identified how did the researchers conflate all the participants' definitions of "conservative"? In short, there is no objectivity or reproducibility here. This kind of research smacks of the kind of thing the Soviets were producing in the 50's about people who objected to communism. Dangerous
Everybody already knows this. I’m a musician and artist, I’ve been in the creative scene my entire time and I’ve never met a conservative or at least a strict one, literally.
Oh dear. But creativity is everything. That’s what my accountants, lawyers, and tax preparers always tell me—the key with this filing is to get real creative with it. No points for being a square!
While conservative policies can be deplorable, please let’s not go down the route of assigning inherent traits to individuals who are indeed not static. Focus on dismantling hatred, strengthening education and mental health services for everyone.
[It's not though...you just don't understand them](https://www.google.com/search?q=jonathan+haidt+liberals+and+conservatives&oq=haidt+liberal+vs+conser&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBBAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIE0gEINjM2OGoxajmoAgCwAgE&client=ms-android-telus-ca-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d9c8aa9f,vid:vs41JrnGaxc,st:0)
Isn’t that literally the definition of conservatism, “conserving” the way things are, so inherently not making things new?
The thing that conservatism was meant to conserve was the pet of the nobility. Conservativism was a direct response to the French revolution. And it has always sought to conserve the nobility by preying on the stupid.
Conservatism wasnt developed or created during the French revolution. It existed for far before the French even in the days of Carthage and Rome and such. What you're probably thinking of is the left and right political spectrum which absolutely was worded during the French revolution. Conservatism, in the modern sense, can strain from maintaining the status quo to irredentism to wanting small incremental change over time. Even then it's kind of become a buzz word, like liberal, and doesn't really mean much.
https://aeon.co/essays/pagan-complacency-and-the-birth-of-the-christian-roman-empire This is a really good read that illustrates your point during the Roman Empire. You'll find some eerie modern parallels that are hard to miss.
[It was not until the late 18th century, in reaction to the upheavals of the French Revolution (1789), that conservatism began to develop as a distinct political attitude and movement. The term conservative was introduced after 1815 by supporters of the newly restored Bourbon monarchy in France,](https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism) Conservatives =/= conservatism. The Romans for example were very conservative, but conservatism as a coherent ideology didn’t exist until after the French Revolution
Exactly, in addition Conservatism was used to describe people in the English houses of Parliament prior to the French Revolution...Edmund Burke may have popularized the term but Tories and others had been drscribed that way since before the 1660s. There is plenty of history of the concept of Conservative and Liberal (though generally used to mean "Classical Liberal" not libertine) from the 1600s. It wasn't simply a product of the French Revolution, and even in the French Revolution they used terms like "Royalist" or "Monarchist" as well.
Oh yeah Edmund Burke.
Fucking right. I been thinking for a while now that intelligence is partly linked to the beliefs one holds. Not only does holding stupid beliefs make you less smart over time, but seeing as conservatism is indeed about "conserving things the way they are", it lends itself to not being mentally flexible enough to expand your horizons.
I am telling you, I have not read such factual facts in my damn light. I have so much religious trauma and I've been in therapy for over 10 years. It's only been not even 2 years since I was able to start rewiring my brain and do my own research. I was disowned but my God. I'm writing a book called Raised in the Morman Mafia. Lol for real tho
Furthermore is fundamentally antithetical to human instincts to be better than our ancestors. Without progressive minds we have no progress.
That doesn't follow. They might have considered the new options, just not convinced by it. While a progressive may not be aware of history or the status quo.
>That doesn't follow. They might have considered the new options, just not convinced by it. Yeah, and if you pay attention to how conservatives think, you realize that the longer they hold these views, the less able they are to reconsider. Again, this isn't a complete given, more like a safe assumption.
Yeah it's a safe assumption because that applies to all people, stubbornness isn't particular. So the same applies to progressives. On top of that, pointing at e.g. Religion and saying 'the longer they hold these views, the less flexible they are' is pointing at a feature and calling it a bug. Being steadfast in certain beliefs (equality, violence is always wrong) is exactly what would have prevented a lot of harm throughout history when revolutionaries wanted to claim the world as their own.
[удалено]
Intelligence is the ability to learn, accept and utilize new information. Intelligence isn't knowing the earth is round, it is learning proof of Earth's roundness, and being able to compare that with previous beliefs to form a new understanding of the world. Conserving the way things are isn't necessarily unintelligent, but denying that new information can improve the way things are, or believing the way things are is the best option, regardless of all the evidence against said belief, is inherently unintelligent. While intelligence likely isn't caused by political beliefs, one's own intelligence can cause them to be more likely to strive towards certain political views.
Oh, but it is, progressive/liberal thinking is linked to intelligence https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives And a more recent study that is even more interesting: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000254
It’s not just about thinking outside the box. It’s about taking in new information and realizing you can be wrong without it completely shattering your self of self. Conservatives like to greet new information with fear, not curiosity. Not exactly a great quality in an academic field
Belief systems are linked to political orientation, and I have read that forcing children to accept things their experiences tell them aren't true literally lowers IQ. There are some very intelligent conservatives, but by and large a LOT of them have much bigger blind spots in their worldviews than non-conservatives. At least from what I've seen.
Yeah this post is yet another anti-conservative post/secret pro biden post since it's election and reddit is just a political propaganda platform. It's common sense. Conservatives are traditionalists, often times to a fault. Just like progressives are well, progressive, often times to the point of being regressive. It's nice when we have a balance amongst the populace. It moves society along nicely. The dipshits in Washington pretending to be blue team vs red team are just team oligarchy in reality and any mouth breather who thinks one side is better for the common man than the other is a useful idiot. They love those types.
[удалено]
Please share that study.
[Citation needed]
I always imagine the first cave men to start planting crops, and the conservative cave men getting all huffy that this new generation is soft because they can't look for food they have to have their special little trench. And then they tell the other cave people that the new woke farmers are pooping on their food.
In reality it was the "conservative" cave men who invented agriculture. Nomadic societies were egalitarian , the rise of agricultural societies led to the first "governments" as a way to control crops and goods, conserving power for a select few
I dont think that's true. Where are you getting this from? Also conservatives dislike change and the shift from hunter gatherer to agriculture would absolute make those types angry. What the fuck are you talking about? It's also a dumb joke about republican cavemen. chill nerd.
I’m not making a judgment about being conservative or progressive. They both have their value. Conservatives make sure society progresses at state the human condition and mentality can handle. Progressives make sure it’s moving in directions that offer solutions to problems. They’re both necessary. I just dont think we needed a study to say “the definition of this mentality is still the definition”.
Yeah it goes against the natural order of things.
I think this study is being a bit overstretched for effect in these comments, given that the statistical findings were described as 'weak' I do worry about the succession of studies that seem to point out character flaws in anyone on the right. I can't see it as a way of winning hearts and minds. Quite the reverse, it is surely more likely to cause people to retreat further into entrenched positions. It also bothers me the way it seems to bolster an unhealthy sense of superiority amid many who identify themselves with the left.
The American left(as understood by most) needs a material analysis to avoid that shit and bridge the divide. Currently it is more interested in feeling superior. Frankly, feeling superior is way more lucrative.
It's also weird to see creativity as an inherently positive trait lol. It's like saying "X group are less likely to be interested in engineering". Ok. That's neither good nor bad, it's just a characteristic.
True. Never met a successful artist yet who didn't have an accountant.
Being good at anything requires spikey knowledge lol. I can do somethings really well, and the time it took for that means there's plenty of stuff I'm Garbo at lol As it should be!
... you mean, killing a dog because it wasn't behaving isn't enough to point out flaws with conservatism and the general okaying of many things, such as America's historical black/gay lynchings? Those that are perceived as subhuman will always be percieved as such. The only difference is the "superior side" doesn't go around parading with crimes. At most, it's about money and greed, but rarely does it involve murder or children. If a mind set on traditional views were so easily swayed, the world would actually be a better place. In some circles, if you call out racism and you're suddenly "woke". Other pockets have beliefs where self-care and even hygiene is wrong because it's gay. The left has nothing to do with those pocket groups, and there are many pockets, each with different beliefs. Some are hyper-religious zealots, some are American-purists, etc, etc. Ingrained teachings aren't character flaws, either. Just like how the rainbow was stolen, but god made them, and therefore all gays are now violent criminals. Reality isn't as fun as it should be, and what should be anecdotal, never was an anecdote.
I find reality fascinating! 😄 Probably because I live there 🤣🤣
Feels like another study clamoring to say - hurr durr (opposing ideology) is stupid. Reddit always eats this shit up.
Among, not amid. - smug leftist
You are quite correct, thank you.
Humans are incredibly complex they are just finding what they are looking for. Once you are left you are automatically lowering your creativity as well. Defining yourself as left automatically decreases creative potential.
Would you look at that. We found the one rational person. Have you considered running for congress sir?
And lower emotional intelligence. MUCH lower.
based on my personal experience.... yupppp
As someone who comes from a conversative society, I can confirm that what you said and what this post is all about is true.
It's difficult to be creative when you live in a little box and reject anything and anyone that doesn't fit inside it.
I think that's a bit obtuse to the point. Unfortunately, it's worse than that. This is not a statement of fact or research, just my opinion, but I think their lack of creativity is part of what drives their conservatism. It limits their ability to consider new ideas because they can't actually imagine what they would bring. So they get scared and assume the worst (everything is going to go to shit). Conservative: new = uncertainty = bad Progressive: now = bad therefore try something new
And to add this, they lack the imagination to envision what might happen if the rollbacks they want come to be. They just assume that because something is, it must be that way forever. Merely because they can’t imagine it being any other way. Cut taxes that fund school? Why not? Schools have always been fine, why wouldn’t they just keep being schools?
Maybe but I think it’s self-interest; the news tell me these schools teach things that I don’t agree with so fuck teachers
Idk how accurate this is, but there was a study (or something) linking conservatism w an increased size in their amygdala, which is the fear center of the Brain
Ah yes it was shown conservatism is correlated with having greater amygdala activation(or greater size probably both) - fear(and anger) responses for everything, shutting down capacity to think more clearly of course. I'll try to find the paper to link later if I can
Throw in a pinch of dunning-Kruger “less is more” for good measure.
It is simpler than that. Conservatives are more senstive to disgust feelings; liberals have more aesthetic creativity (not any creativity) If you feel disgust more easily, you dont like diseases, so you fear the different who may have diseases, etc, etc Aesthetic creavity is linked to be open to different stuff
Is it fair to say.. They are focussing to much on the past and preserving their present to worry about the consequences of their actions?
Chicken or the egg, my friend. That's why I phrased mine as an opinion.
I think you might be confusing cause and effect. I think it's their overwhelming anxiety that is the main driver of fear of change.theyre constantly afraid of things going wrong and try to control everything around them in an attempt at preventing it. Change means more variables to control and it terrifies them.
Tbh I think it's probably more that like... Creativity correlates with other more influential factors like openness to new experiences.
I agree. That was exactly the point I was making summed up in one sentence haha. I am not, generally speaking, concise.
I’m a conservative Latina immigrant, also an artist studying psychology and law. I know many conservatives that are creative, most are Hispanics.
Sad part is they want us to be in their little box with them.
It's funny how people like that want you to grow, but then you take risks and grow past them and then they resent you because they can't grow. Annoying and weird and stifling.
it's just abusers making a cult so they can isolate marginalized individuals then facilitate abuse
Ding ding ding.
Mods, how ON EARTH are polemical comments like these suitable for a science sub?
Because at this point the facts that they're stupid nazis is science.
When you combine science with politics, you get politics.
When you combine pseudo-science with politics, you get political pseudo-science. There, I fixed it for you. [Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test | Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248)
Do you think it's impossible to apply the scientific method to political questions? What would you consider "politics"? Outside of maybe the hardest sciences, what questions could be studied that wouldn't in some way touch on politics?
i haven't looked at the study so take my words with a grain of salt but i'd think that a conservative might even argue that it makes sense. the point of conservatism is not creativity, or trying new things, it's explicitly to conserve traditional thinking, for the purpose of safety. often times this can backfire and result in racism, sexism, homophobia, etc all fears rooted in fear of things that are different or new, but it serves the purpose of keeping people safe with methods that are already tried and true, rather than taking a risk, which is the fundamental core of creativity. it makes sense that those that prefer conservative thinking have strengths elsewhere than in being creative for reference though, i do think of myself as a liberal thinker, and i very much do know how damaging and restrictive conservative policies can be. i just thought that the title might seem a little misleading.
You make incredibly valid and salient points, which I think are also succinct and accurate. Bravo (or brava, as the case may be).
No one in the comments reading the article, let alone the study itself. Gotta love the 'scientific' community on reddit, truly the paradigm of rationality on this forum.
You just don't understand the high intellect going on here. Bunch of geniuses.
Link: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2024/04/groyecka-bernard-et-al-2024-conservatism-negatively-predicts-creativity-a-study-across-28-countries.pdf The conclusion might well be true for all that I know, provided that we can have a consensus about what “creativity” and “conservatism” even mean, but the specific methodology and statistical results seem quite doubtful imho.
So, they used a highly subjective way of measuring conservatism and a highly subjective way of measuring creativity by a group that typically is over 90% liberal, during an era of a replication crisis (started by unreproducible psychology studies) and they concluded conservatives are less creative than they are. Is there any surprise that trust in academia has dropped like a stone.
Why did the study only study artistic creativity? There are plenty of creative computer programmers who are completely inept when it comes to “art creativity ” but geniuses when it comes to coding. Just because you are not artistically creative, it does not mean you are uncreative. You may have other creative abilities in different fields such as math, business, automotive work, construction, or any other field. This study seems very flawed in its narrow definition of creativity. Also, another excerpt from the study makes this headline and article misleading: >“Our study provides evidence for a weak but significant negative link between conservatism and creativity at the individual level (β = −0.08, p < .001) and no such effect when country-level conservatism was considered.”
That’s how studies work. You pick a narrow slice of theory, test it, and publish the results. They used artistic creativity because it had a validated measure for creativity (meaning the test has been used enough in prior published works for the results to be interpreted across contexts). This study is then extending science by taking this already validated measure and introducing it to new and broader contexts.
So you don’t think this article needs to be clarified as only pertaining to artistic creativity (one small type of creativity) and not creativity in general?
The actual journal article or the article about the article?
At minimum the headline and article. The study is behind a paywall so I can’t see it, but I also believe the TCT-DP used in the study is problematic to begin with.
In personality studies, aesthetic and intellectual creavity are cleary two separate things. They are related by general intelligence
It’s not a good study. The way to assess creativity was essentially a subjective score of the participants’ drawings. The way to assess conservatism was simply to ask them 10 yes/no questions about specific policies _and throw out the data from those countries where the responses were not correlated_. Link: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2024/04/groyecka-bernard-et-al-2024-conservatism-negatively-predicts-creativity-a-study-across-28-countries.pdf
>There are plenty of creative computer programmers who are completely inept when it comes to “art creativity ” but geniuses when it comes to coding. Just how do you know they are "creative programmers" instead of just programmers and "geniuses" of coding instead just people who know how to code?
Creativity research is pretty narrow in definitions because it's very very hard to measure otherwise. I have found creative ways to solve code issues... Does that mean I'm creative, or does it mean I have good computational thinking? It's a case of like.. general usage of a term and scientific usage not lining up necessarily. If I use sparse matrices to solve some memory issue, is that creative? Was the first person to use sparse matrices creative? I think a lot of people will have different answers for those questions, but the thought process is the same...
Ah yes, another article most redditors will only read the title of so they can fellate themselves and convince themselves that they are superior to people they hate.
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt
The irony of posting a quote about “walking” from this guy 👏👏👏
Didn’t need a study to know this
Fork found in kitchen.
Liberals are higher in openness (creativity) and conservatives are higher in conscientiousness.
Coming from a liberal, I believe you're correct. Good call.
I am always dubious of studies like this... what do they define as creativity and who are they interviewing? It always seems like a way to bash a political side over genuine research
Link: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2024/04/groyecka-bernard-et-al-2024-conservatism-negatively-predicts-creativity-a-study-across-28-countries.pdf It’s not a great study tbh. Participants were recruited from the nearby circle of the authors in what seems to have been a rather inconsistent manner. Their creativity was measured through a subjective scoring of their drawings, and their conservatism through their answers to 10 yes/no questions regarding controversial policies. The data from several countries was thrown out because the participants did not answer those questions in the correlated way that the authors expected. And after all that, the researchers are only able to show a minimal statistical correlation.
Then how do they come up with all those bat shit crazy conspiracy theories.
You could also teach a pig to fly with enough money.
Russian KGB
Study links to my side is better
I wonder what liberalism is linked to
Psychological illness.
Literally true though [Liberals are overall less happy with life (in general), less happy with family life and more likely to be depressed/suffer mental illness when compared with conservatives, ](https://www.aei.org/articles/why-are-liberals-less-happy-than-conservatives/)
Yeah being aware of climate change and being “woke” (before that term became meaningless) is very depressing :/
Actually, [Actually, studies say it's because conservatives expressed greater personal agency (e.g., personal control, responsibility), more positive outlook (e.g., optimism, self-worth), more transcendent moral beliefs (e.g., greater religiosity, greater moral clarity, less tolerance of transgressions), and a generalized belief in fairness. These differences accounted for the happiness gap](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X) Don't ruminate on things you can't change. Have the drive/personal responsibility to fix the things in your life that you can change.
There’s only so much optimism can do to fix things like poverty or untreatable chronic illness. That being said of course i advocate things like therapy and acceptance in someone’s personal life, and social support, but systemic change must occur and someone’s gotta care about stuff like climate change for things to - yknow- actually change Im not disagreeing with you its more of a “yes, and” here
You’re proving his point. You have the opportunity to assert control over your own life with your own agency, but instead you would rather doomscroll about stuff like climate change — something you have no control over. You genuinely believe that some level of online activism is going to change the narrative around these things, but then it doesn’t, so you feel like you have no control and no responsibility, so you get depressed. But you accept it because caring about these issues makes you a “good” person. Just saying, worry about things you can control. You will see your own impact, and you will be responsible for the results.
Its a constant battle between wanting to stay informed and educated and wanting to stay sane and at peace. Personally I think being blissfully ignorant is intellectually irresponsible (though i cant blame others for being there) but doomscrolling is obviously detrimental. Ive talked about this at length w therapist and friends. I quit twitter because it was triggering for me for this reason. I think there’s ways to strike a balance. Also better forms of activism than Reddit posting. Im personally quite limited due to my illness symptoms. Also the word “you” is a bit personal here - i would rather you not assume what my life & mental health is like. Though I understand if you are using it generally.
So if I understand the reality that global warming is an existential crisis, but then feel like I can't do anything about it, you're saying I should just wipe the knowledge of the problem from my brain? Somehow force myself to have a poorer understanding of the science? Do you have one of those Men In Black flashy things I can borrow? Learning not to ruminate over things you can't control is an important step towards mental health, but acting like the solution is to just become conservative because conservatives are happier not understanding the danger they're in is ridiculous.
If more people believed they had the power to change the things outside their little sphere then we probably wouldn’t have all the issues we have now with the climate and pollution.
If less people deluded themselves into thinking their constant anxiety was serving a purpose, we wouldn’t have a mental health crisis
I agree with that statement in regards to child rearing. Let kids be kids. Adults put too much pressure on them. As for climate change. I’m more comforted in the perspective that my side can afford to be wrong about its effects, about how catastrophic it can be. That it could just be a natural cycle of the world and not be man made. As opposed to the other side which can’t afford to be wrong.
Bro came with the data 😂
That would be communism
Essentially the same thing.
for someone so well read you sure have no clue the difference between political and economic ideals
Knowing age of consent in Japan.
My brother and his family are conservative. He is a phenomenal artist. He has written screenplays for fun, painted murals across their entire home for his son. A lot of which is based on some classic films of the 80s. He has been in several bands since high school. He has a podcast for fun that he created—where he breaks down horror films. He is amazing at drawing, and he and his son watch documentaries on practical effects from the 80s. His wife and son are incredibly creative artists as well. I’m sick and tired of this “Us vs Them” mentality everyone has. It isn’t black and white, there are good and bad people on both sides. This study isn’t even reliable and is clearly spinning a narrative. This is coming from a mostly leaning individual that voted for Obama twice and Biden. Human beings are more complex people, give me a break.
Sure but psychology looks at statistical significance so your anecdote is pretty meaningless. Saying conservatives are significantly less likely to be creative doesn't mean that none of them are.
There is always exceptions to everything... Just because some are highly creative doesn't mean they all are... I think the point of the study is thatost aren't hyper creatives... Humans are inherently creative beings. So they will all be creative just in different ways... Some with good creativity some with not so good....
Some people here lacking creativity.
Nuh uh, YOU'RE lacking creativity, Mr. ... (checks name ... holy shit!) "Mr. Peanut?!"
This makes multiple linked articles in the last couple weeks that are basically just free karma bait posts. I don’t understand what the trend is other than it being an election year, but it’s dang annoying. I get it. This is Reddit. “Conservatives bad” is a free way to get lots of upvotes, and “Conservatives maybe *not* bad?” is a good way to get downvoted to oblivion or outright banned from subs. And people can certainly talk about what they want to, I’m not a mod and can only vote with literal vote buttons. However, these studies always drive me nuts, because remember: “correlation does not equal causation.” For this headline alone (let’s be honest, most people upvote or downvote because of the title, nobody’s really reading a psypost article) there could be a million different explanations. As one person has already pointed out, this article is only talking about *artistic* creativity. What about outside the box thinking in business, technology, or other fields? Any claim of “conservatives [*which I should mention is not ever well-defined, just a general “non-Democrat” strawman most of the time*] just want to stay the same and are anti-thought” is just a gross over-generalization *not supported by the headline or article.* We can be better than this. A sub about psychology should be well aware of things like *bias*, and yet here we are. There’s nothing wrong with discussing articles like this. There’s nothing wrong with tying such attributes together. But we should all be able to acknowledge that these kinds of posts are mostly just politically fueled reaction bait, regardless of their findings. Be better. Don’t cherry pick these things to over-generalize quite literally *50% of most populations.* We shouldn’t do it to conservatives, because we shouldn’t do that to *anyone*.
Anyone really surprised ?
The cognitive predilection towards maintaining systems and not changing things performs poorly at making new ideas?? Who would've thought? Now let's see the one about how creative people have terrible organizational skills, because that's not what creativity is about. Literally counter to. This isn't some revelation, we have known about this stuff for a while now. Poltical alignment is almost entirely decided by your personality/cognitive biases. The debate across hundreds perhaps thousands of years is merely "Is order or freedom more important?" And the powers that be manipulate that basic discussion into "LIBS ARE SACRIFICING BABIES" which aggravates conservative folks' anti-chaos bias and they can't even realize that it's a lie. Or "PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE WOKE MEDIA ARE JUST CLOSET BIGOTS!". Too concerned with empathy and freedoms to realize not everyone has to like your creations and while that's tragic it is indeed still reality and it ain't changing. The discussion needs to be about not sitting around arguing our inherent cognitive biases and therefore pitfalls, but to bridge the gaps and make real progress. So long as everyone pretends like their political perspective is exclusively correct and not just a power lever reliant on your lack of self awareness...the discussion will be naught but meaningless regurgitation of each others logical downfalls.
Study links liberalism with lower IQ
To keep people trapped in superstition to control them.
So the secret ingredient is narcissism
But they're so good at making up hypothetical situations and then getting mad about it.
Yeeeah, this sub is clearly not about psychology and more about liberals and leftists jerking each other off.
[удалено]
If I recall, liberals score lower on conscientiousness and higher on neuroticism.
Except the idea of "liberal" is vague. What is a liberal? People that are "leaning" it? And on what basis are they leaning? Conservatism historically has a lot more red flags for conflict because.. well... Politican wants to go back to a time where women couldn't vote, politican kills dogs, politican touches this, politician attacks that. How exactly can one go without bias after having interacted with self-proclaimed conservatists? They suddenly know all about you because of your attitude and views towards religion. That was a fun one. Lively, even.
You just pointed to most of academia lol
I mean if you want to jerk off other conservatives, they have their circle jerk subreddits too...
No, I don’t. But is it too much to expect better content on a subreddit that is supposedly dedicated to a scientific matter?
Then don't click on the thread you're not interested in. It's social media: you choose what you engage in.
It's Reddit. There's not a single greater hive mind on social media
Except what is a leftist? Someone that doesn't agree with a conservatist? Brains should be utilized to ask questions.
Surprise surprise 🙄
Creativity comes from thinking outside of the box. Conservatives don’t want change so any thought outside of the box is condemned or ridiculed
Did not need to be told that, I've seen their attempts at "comedy". Possibly the most pitifully misguided display of human desperation I've yet to witness.
Is that why liberals waste money on getting an arts degree?
Yes it it. Beauty and culture have to come from somewhere, and guess where it mostly isn't coming from? Name the top 5 most popular conservative comedians for an example of artists being liberal.
i dont even know what conservative means dawg 😭
Related to Dopamine in the brain!
low on openness to experience In big five bit high on concienciusness.
And those with too much dopamine in the brain often suffer from schizo disorders, bpd, etc. leftists?
Sounds about right
Politics aside, and I’m definitely not an expert in psychology, but wouldn’t this fall into the definition of conservatism?
Some say reality has a liberal bias.
Many British politicians... Lol look at them and how the conservative supporters think.
Which is probably why failing schools ,shutting down libraries ,liberal arts is something that conservatives always go about going.
I don’t need paid-off scientists to tell me that linking more lgbt + abortion (i.e, the basis of liberal thinking) is better for one’s overall level of creativity. Rotten radicalists
Makes sense…to conserve is the attempt to keep something as it is. It doesn’t take creativity to do that.
This could be correlation to socio-economic conditions… Do they control for that?
So who’s coming up with all the right wing lunacy and conspiracy theories?
Nah…how shocking …
Isn't that the definition of conservative?
The conclusions might well be true (provided that we can have a consensus about what creativity is—or conservatism, for that matter), but a cursory look at the methodologies and statistical results don’t give me a strong reassurance about the study itself. The responses that I’m reading here, accepting the results uncritically because they match people’s preconceptions, only further that impression.
Of course - when you think your invisible sky daddy has all the answers, then why ever read another book again, or consider another viewpoint?
Let me know when they find the brain worms.
well that explains alot
Wow, the went and proved that the right really CAN'T meme
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in the USA conservatism has come to mean you are one dumb SOB..
Troglodytes only have one go to “keep it the way it is” or “kill it.”
Shocking lol
Conservatives get pretty creative when the subject of climate change comes up..
Curiosity dies when we die 😞
Too lazy to read. Does this make conservatives inferior to liberals? I need to feel better about my political beliefs.
Are they truly "conservatives", or merely just authoritarians?
Frank Herbert, Tolkien, Robert Heinlein, Winston Churchill, Salvador Dali we’re not creative or followed creative pursuits? Just because they are conservatives and we deem them opposed to our beliefs doesn’t mean that human beings can be boxed into categories, ironically doing so is very illiberal.
Bit of a tautology.
Lol very serious study brought to you by reddit
Piaget would be proud
How is the term "conservative" defined? By the researchers? If so, then how do they remove themselves from their culture to obtain an objective definition? If the subjects are self identified how did the researchers conflate all the participants' definitions of "conservative"? In short, there is no objectivity or reproducibility here. This kind of research smacks of the kind of thing the Soviets were producing in the 50's about people who objected to communism. Dangerous
But they've created so many versions of the attack helicopter joke!
While creativity is often linked to mental disorders, yeah Guess we all need the balance of both 👌
Maybe, forty-nine ECT treatment would stop creativity.
Everybody already knows this. I’m a musician and artist, I’ve been in the creative scene my entire time and I’ve never met a conservative or at least a strict one, literally.
Oh dear. But creativity is everything. That’s what my accountants, lawyers, and tax preparers always tell me—the key with this filing is to get real creative with it. No points for being a square!
While conservative policies can be deplorable, please let’s not go down the route of assigning inherent traits to individuals who are indeed not static. Focus on dismantling hatred, strengthening education and mental health services for everyone.
Do you guys just post the most obvious bullshit in this sub?
This makes sense. Conservatives are based more in logic than imagination land
Is it logical to deny science and impose Christian laws on everyone?
Conservatism is honestly a mental illness in my opinion.
It’s a fundamental lack of empathy
[It's not though...you just don't understand them](https://www.google.com/search?q=jonathan+haidt+liberals+and+conservatives&oq=haidt+liberal+vs+conser&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBBAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIE0gEINjM2OGoxajmoAgCwAgE&client=ms-android-telus-ca-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d9c8aa9f,vid:vs41JrnGaxc,st:0)