Why Kalm Needs to Drink More

[kalm]

It turns me into a conk!

Can Drinking Make You Conservative? (and Other Questions About the Political Brain)
POSTED: March 26, 10:30 AM ET | By CHRIS MOONEY

So, a group of political psychologists walks into a bar …

… and no, I’m not going to finish the joke. Enough of them have been told already (even in German) about a provocative study in the latest issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin – the conservatism-and-alcohol study.

When the scientists collated the results, it turned out that, on average, the higher the subject's blood alcohol level, the more likely he or she was to express conservative opinions. This was true of liberals and conservatives alike; both groups appeared to shift to the right. (Study here.)...

The eighty-five people in the current study are not, admittedly, a very large number – so the latest research should not be thought of as the last word on this. That being said, its conclusions are in line with previous findings; and the psychologists also ran several other related tests, finding that it wasn’t just alcohol consumption that shifted people to the political right. So did being under time pressure, being under cognitive load (once again), and simply considering of a variety of words in a cursory, rather than a careful and deliberative, fashion. So it’s important not to get too hung up on the booze angle; blood alcohol was really a proxy for something else.

Many liberals will be tempted to cite the latest research to argue that they’re in some way superior, while conservatives may feel insulted by this new assault from academics (who, they’re already convinced, are radical socialists). But in truth, neither interpretation seems to be the correct one. The real upshot, it seems to me, may be that conservatives have a built-in political and communications advantage, simply because human beings, in their busy lives, cannot be expected to be in "liberal" mode all the time, or even most of the time. Or as the study authors conclude: “Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural."

In other words, you could argue that liberals are really the outliers here. They’re the ones in the position of having to spin out complex, nuanced explanations for their views – explanations that, to much of the populace, feel like so much fancy-pants posturing. And while this may work for academia and wonkland, it can also get in the way of political effectiveness and leadership.

No wonder another recent study finds that liberals, on average, drink more alcohol. Perhaps they just need to escape from their liberal brains sometimes. To me, that sounds pretty understandable

.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... z1qKAGTKP5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

You wouldn't be the first kalmunist to turn to distilled potato juice under intellectual stress.

Now where's that picture of Yeltsin?

[ASUG8]

Not getting political insight from Rolling Stone might be another step in the right direction.

[kalm]

Not getting political insight from Rolling Stone might be another step in the right direction.

Ask Stanley McChrystal whether RS has a serious political department.

Why don't you go educate yourself and read the "The Great Shark Hunt"

[Wedgebuster]

Yep, confirmed. I am the biggest and best drunk I know, but the conservative side of me tells me to buy bulk and consume at home.

[ASUG8]

Not getting political insight from Rolling Stone might be another step in the right direction.

Ask Stanley McChrystal whether RS has a serious political department.

Why don't you go educate yourself and read the "The Great Shark Hunt"

I don't read it, but a San Fran based mag founded on liberal politics.....

Rolling Stone is a US-based magazine devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture that is published every two weeks. Rolling Stone was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner, who is still editor and publisher, and music critic Ralph J. Gleason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

.....wouldn't be my goto for objective reporting. Citing a Thompson book from the late 70's doesn't really point to the current direction of the mag either, so I'll pass.

[Baldy]

Not getting political insight from Rolling Stone might be another step in the right direction.

Ask Stanley McChrystal whether RS has a serious political department.

A seriously left-wing political department.

[kalm]

Ask Stanley McChrystal whether RS has a serious political department.

Why don't you go educate yourself and read the "The Great Shark Hunt"

I don't read it, but a San Fran based mag founded on liberal politics.....

Rolling Stone is a US-based magazine devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture that is published every two weeks. Rolling Stone was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner, who is still editor and publisher, and music critic Ralph J. Gleason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

.....wouldn't be my goto for objective reporting. Citing a Thompson book from the late 70's doesn't really point to the current direction of the mag either, so I'll pass.

Wait, are you saying RS is liberal?

Of course it slants left, which has nothing to do with whether or not someone like...oh I don't know...Matt Taibbi's reporting has been accurate and fairly non-biased. He's skewered the dems and Obama a ton and in a style that is reminiscent of Thompson.

Go read my "No Rolling Stone" thread which is full of analysis and commentary from economists and former bankers who echo nearly everything Taibbi reports on. I encourage you to challenge it as last time I checked there wasn't much of one.

[bluehenbillk]

If drinking can make you more conservative someone please explain Ted Kennedy...

[polsongrizz]

If drinking can make you more conservative someone please explain Ted Kennedy...