Wednesday, January 17, 2007

"Liberals have more books"

In Psychology Today's article, "The Ideological Animal", we are treated to such nuanced observations as follows:

Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics.
And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

Really, how scientific is this? Evangelicals with empty (but extremely clean!) bookshelves? Effeminate male liberals crying during "chick flicks"? Yeesh... This article reads more like caricatures of both ideologies than a substantive examination of differences between their adherents. (Besides, on a purely anecdotal level, who can't think of a million exceptions to these profiles?) I'd be curious to read the full publication of this study to see if its conclusions are as cartoonish as this summary implies (surely not, I hope!).

3 comments:

JM said...

Hmm... I wonder what they would make of this liberal male.

I do like romatic comedies, have a messy and colorful home, and have oodles of books.

I also though love bluegrass music (and really am not that big a fan of classical, unless I'm in the mood for it) and generally like art that actually looks like something instead of most abstract art.

But all the same, the stereotypes are interesting because they have a thread of truth to them. I know plenty of exceptions to the rules, but I also know a fair number of folks who really do fit those stereotypes to a T.

k said...

>>But all the same, the stereotypes are interesting because they have a thread of truth to them.

But you're proving my point! There's a thread of truth to *either* side for any individual. For example, while you might have a messy and colorful home, it's still pretty conventional (IE--you don't have a sofa made out of grass or any furnishings really outside the norm). And while you like books, you don't care for abstract art. I can't think of a single person I know who would qualify entirely under one category...can you?

I guess my main beef with this article is that it feeds the 'us vs. them' mentality that's already running rampant in politics. Every human being has some degree of emotional and intellectual complexity, more gray than merely black and white. And we should acknowledge that, rather than reducing folks to overly simplistic labels.

And after all, can you imagine what these researchers would make of someone like me?! ;]

JM said...

hehehe, I think you would make their head spin. I always have a hard time describing you to friends because all of the convenient stereotyped shorthands don't work for you. You definitely are an individual which is pretty cool.