
Yale researchers conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals - daegloe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/11/22/at-yale-we-conducted-an-experiment-to-turn-conservatives-into-liberals-the-results-say-a-lot-about-our-political-divisions/
======
moyix
FYI, Bargh (the author of this editorial) has been pushing these sorts of
priming effects for a long time. Many of these (most famously the "priming
people with elderly-related words makes them walk slower" study) have not held
up under subsequent replications.

Clearly this doesn't mean that the studies Bargh is describing here are
similarly flawed – but he has shown a strong resistance to admitting his
mistakes, and so I'm less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here,
particularly when the original studies aren't linked anywhere.

Further reading:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/1...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/18/primed-
by-expectations-why-a-classic-psychology-experiment-isnt-what-it-seemed/)

[http://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/12/priming-effects-
replicate...](http://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/12/priming-effects-replicate-
just-fine-thanks/)

[http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-
he...](http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-
winds-have-changed/)

~~~
Top19
Thank you for pointing out the issues behind “priming”. The cult of believers
that’s grown up around Daniel Kahneman and others (including many in the
Positive Psychology) field is distressing. To Kahneman’s credit, even he
recognized issues within the field back a couple of years in an online post.

Some issues that come to mind in this field are 1). Scientists who want to be
famous, do TED talks, and get that sweet sweet consulting money instead of
humbly contributing to the field and 2). The ethical issues all of this has
when these findings are applied to things like Facebook, various apps, etc.

Also to take a page from the gender movement, what’s with the binaryness of
liberal and conservative? Those were handy labels at one point, but they’ve
utterly failed to catch up to the world we’re in. A lot of liberals are now
arguing for a more aggressive foreign policy, while conservatives are starting
to back unions (conservatives and unions tends to unite every 60 years or so
around the issue of immigration). These labels are old and useless.

~~~
wocka
> A lot of liberals are now arguing for a more aggressive foreign policy...

Would you please provide your evidence for this? Or do you mean a lot of
Democrats are arguing for a more aggressive foreign policy?

~~~
Top19
I should have said Democrats you’re correct, I used “liberals” as a tenuous
shorthand. Look at Clinton’s approach to Russia vs Trump, although confusingly
this is reversed in the case of China.

~~~
wocka
Thanks for clarifying.

------
quizotic
The article argues that conservative views are correlated with fear/concern
over physical safety, and that increasing the feeling of physical safety moves
conservative views toward more liberal views.

If true, it makes me wonder whether the balance of conservative and liberal
populations confers survival value to the whole population. Surely there are
times when there is more or less risk to our physical safety. Perhaps the
liberals tend to be more blind to it when risk is more probable; and perhaps
the conservatives overestimate it when it is less probable. Might we need the
presence of both views to keep us safe when we're at risk and to loosen the
reins for exploration when we're in less danger?

~~~
tenpies
Yes, this is a very accepted theory. A country with only Liberals would cease
to exist because they would be invaded or be unwilling to enforce any sort of
borders or law. Even if no external threats exist, it will eventually succumb
to the tyranny of minorities.

A country with only Conservatives would die of stagnation, forever condemned
to follow tradition and existing dogma. New ideas would be quickly squelched
and the country would succumb to the tyranny of majority.

The interesting thing about the United States is that you get to see almost
both ends in different states. In some places, police departments are
essentially unwilling to enforce the law lest they be called
racist/sexist/ableist/anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim/anti-poor. In other states,
an individual can not only openly carry a firearm but also stand their ground.
Cross another state border and misgendering someone could constitute a hate
crime. Another border over, a KKK or Neo-Nazi rally is not only occurring, but
actively allowed under the idea that free speech triumphs over hate speech.

It is a fascinating place and time, and I wish I could be around in 200 years
to see how the experiment evolves.

~~~
Fjolsvith
\- actively allowed under the idea that free speech triumphs over hate speech

I thought that as long as it was speech, it was allowed, period. Seem to
remember something about a first amendment...

~~~
cannonedhamster
SCOTUS has routinely smacked down the notion of unlimited free speech without
consequence. Hate speech is legal and generally allowed on public property as
with any speech. Speech that incites violence against others is not.

So for instance it's legal in the US to say "Group X is subhuman and shouldn't
be allowed to marry" but it's not oka to say "We should go murder Group X
now.", especially when you have the means and motivation to do it. For
instance while it is very common to make threats against the US president
regardless of party, it's often seriously reviewed for obvious reasons and is
not considered protected speech.

------
BurningFrog
This is a single, non replicated experiment in human psychology, with a viral
result.

These are all prime risk factors for studies that turn out to impossible to
replicate.

Doesn't mean this _has_ to be one of those, but I wouldn't change any major
life philosophy until this has been confirmed a few times.

------
jeffdavis
I don't see a clear mapping of fear to either side in particular, more that
they fear different things. For instance, a liberal might be more fearful of
guns, while a conservative might be more fearful of foreigners. A liberal
might be more fearful of economic hardship, while a conservative might be more
fearful of crime.

These are just generalizations, of course.

~~~
cannonedhamster
The article said the "study" was specific to physical threats versus other
threats. Conservatives were more likely to sway towards liberal positions if
their physical safety was secure.

------
tootie
Back in the days of high crime rates, they used to say a Democrat is a
Republican who has never been mugged. Maybe they were on to something. Same
way George W Bush had an approval rating over 90% in the days after 9/11.

~~~
jostmey
A republican was someone who was the victim of a crime. A domocrate was
someone falsely accused of a crime.

~~~
yodon
Yes, you have huge amounts of karma, so yes, you’re right that you don’t need
to care about the downvotes. That said, someone who has been here as long as
you have and has accumulated as much karma as you have presumably does
actually understand how to raise the level of the discussion, even on complex
political topics where it’s frequently difficult to do so.

------
andrewl
For more on suggested influences on political position, see New York
University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt's TED talk _The Moral Roots of
Liberals and Conservatives_ :

[https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind)

------
StanislavPetrov
This entire study is based on the completely false and contrived idea that
politics is binary. There is not some sort of line with "liberal" and
"conservative" ends that people fall along. Its a false paradigm created and
perpetuated by those with vested interests and/or those who have been
conditioned to believe this is the case.

For example, take the most important of all issues - war. If you are against
war, is that a liberal or a conservative position? Most American "liberals"
hail Obama as the the great liberal champion. From Afghanistan (where his
first act in office was to triple the number of troops) to Libya (where he
launched countless bombings and missiles and toppled the central government)
to a massive increase in robotic drone assassination globally, he was a big
proponent of war. Is being against war a conservative position? A brief look
at our last "conservative" president (not counting our current president who
seemingly has no coherent ideology) George Bush destroyed Iraq with his
illegal invasion, invaded Afghanistan and massively expanded our global
military footprint.

The same question can be asked about a wide variety of the most important
issues. Are you a liberal or a conservative if you oppose the police-state
(constructed by "conservative" Bush and massively expanded by "liberal"
Obama). If you are against central banking and a centrally controlled economy,
does that make you a liberal or a conservative (the same group of supply-side
economists have been running the FED, the SEC, and every other lever of the
economy since the 90s, throughout all administrations - including currently
with "liberal" Gary Cohen running things for Trump).

The simple truth is that there is no ideological definition, because the terms
"liberal" and "conservative" have virtually no meaning in modern society, and
simply morph into matching whatever positions are currently held by Democrats
and Republicans. Pretending that ideology can be pegged along this binary
Democrat/Republican paradigm is very useful if you are a Democrat or a
Republican, but not useful at all if you seek to understand the human pysche.

------
rothbardrand
Interesting, this resonated with me. I'm a "conservative" from the view of
modern liberals (strictly speaking I'm a classical liberal or libertarian- I
support gay marriage, the end of war, the end of drug wars, the elimination of
income taxes, hard money, open borders freedom of speech and gun rights) ...
and I will openly admit that the primary motivation for many of these beliefs
is a feeling of a lack of safety.

I don't like humans being abused, physically or mentally, and I feel that
happens way too much in our society, and all of those positions in one way or
another are attempting to end abuse.

I know many liberals feel their positions are based on similarly wanting
freedom (at least when I was a liberal that was my motivation)... which is why
I think the great divide is largely due to wedge issues being shoved down our
throats.

~~~
beager
I think wedge issues are perverted to be the centerpieces of modern
conservatism to create an easier path to adhere out of fear. Reasoning about
the issues you mentioned is much more difficult than bite-sized strawmen
("sharia law is coming to america!").

I think the issue comes down to a conflict of motivations between the
politicians and the voters. The voters may desire safety, but the politicians
who offer them safety have no accountability to deliver on that, nor do they
tend to actually do so.

------
dominotw
Other way round would have had equally interesting outcomes. Wonder why they
choose this particular direction.

------
bayonetz
Disclaimer: it's hard to take any effect seriously anymore until it's survived
meta-analysis. Having said that, I'll bite...

1\. Some of the most conservative people I've known were my sports teammates
(football, baseball, and basketball). Due to their above average physical
abilities and training, these were also the people least at risk for being
bullied, physically harmed, etc. Seems at odds with the study's effect right?

2\. I'm quite liberal in my political and social ideals and yet I'm deeply
skeptical and cynical when it comes to trusting other people, groups, nations,
etc. to safeguard my best interest, i.e., I feel "conservative" in many ways
too. Bernie Sanders is sort of my spirit animal. How should the study's effect
play out for people like me?

------
nabla9
Similar observation has been made in the Wall Street.

When people get their "Fuck you money" (subjectively enough money that they
feel safe and can keep their lifestyle and status) they turn more liberal.

------
dominotw
> the amygdala, is actually larger in conservatives

This[1] seems to be the source study on 90 "young adults"

Seems like( not sure if same name or what) this paper is authored by british
actor colin firth who seems to have no actual research qualifications on his
wikipedia page.

These people clearly have an agenda. Gross!!

1\. [http://www.cell.com/current-
biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)0...](http://www.cell.com/current-
biology/abstract/S0960-9822\(11\)0..).

------
CM30
Interesting experiment, though part of me wonders how different countries and
their general political leanings are affected by this. Why are both American
political parties more right leaning than their European counterparts? Would
such an experiment have different results based on where/what culture it was
being held in?

And what about the fact politics has multiple dimensions to it? What makes
someone more libertarian or authoritarian?

~~~
chesimov
One difference might be that continental US have not been invaded in modern
times. Within living memory, most of Europe was invaded and occupied by
foreign powers. This may be part of the reason that nationalism and pride in
the military etc (perhaps until recently?) has been much less prominent in
northern Europe.

------
btown
It's important to note that the original paper
([http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2315/fu...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2315/full)
\- sadly behind a paywall, though it may or may not be available on scihub)
specifically caveats the finding as only related to social progressivism, not
economic:

> As predicted, making Republican participants feel physically safe increased
> their liberalism on social issues, but their stance on economic issues was
> unaffected. Contrary to predictions, however, Democrat participants’
> attitudes (both social and economic) were unaffected by the prime. This is
> presumably because Democrats (and liberals) are chronically lower on threat
> perceptions than Republicans (and conservatives). This pattern of results
> mirrors that found in prior work, which has shown that experimentally
> inducing threat does not affect conservatives’ responses, but causes
> “liberals to think like conservatives” (Nail et al., 2009).

Still an important result and (IMO) something worth researching further (EDIT:
especially given questionable replicability of the researcher's previous work,
as posted by other commenters in this thread), but less impactful.

------
divs1210
This bears an uncanny resemblance to the "Great Operation" from We[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_\(novel\))

------
mmaunder
I know many who fall in the conservative end of the spectrum and who are
entrepreneurs and have taken tremendous risks for extended periods. "Fear
makes you conservative" is catchy though.

~~~
jchw
Even if the article is bunk, I think you're conflating different kinds of
fear. You can be afraid of the dark without being afraid of heights.

------
bmh_ca
Make them judges. Almost all judges become less conservative and more liberal
over time on the bench.

------
localastronaut
For some reason “60 out of every 1,000” sounds a lot worse than “6 out of 100”

~~~
chesimov
Would it be correct to say that '60 out of 1000' has more predictive power
than '6 out of 100'?

------
kapauldo
What did they do? Force them to read?

------
throwanem
So the genie just grants _me_ invulnerability to physical harm? What about
everyone else?

------
standupstandup
If conservatives are people who are dominated by physical fear, why are so
many American soldiers conservatives?

~~~
charonn0
> If conservatives are people who are dominated by physical fear

That's not what the article is saying at all.

------
moomin
As always with these announcements from academia, I’ll remind people that it’s
going to take years before we can industrialise this process.

------
beager
This is interesting, but doesn't feel like anything new, at least in
retrospect. Fear is a well-worn tool in the conservative political playbook.

Where this is interesting to me is in the possibility that fear generally
drives a swing toward conservative attitudes, regardless of the alignment of
the politician that wields it. In that case, left-leaning political campaigns
could be self-sabotaging by engaging in dirty pool or attack ads. If this
dynamic described in TFA is really repeatable, you might see a campaign that
doesn't attack and just cranks up the optimism to 110%. Whether that's viable
in this modern world is up for debate.

There has definitely been an element of this at the _core_ of the Obama,
Sanders, and Clinton campaigns, but on the outskirts you continued to have
attack ads and fearmongering over the GOP candidates (or over primary
challengers).

