Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:51AM (11 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:51AM (#606536)

    Ah yes, the "conservatives are mental" meme again. Oh well, guess it is a slow news day?

    Instead of trying to unperson your opponents, why not allow a really radical notion into your noggins? There are people who disagree with you. They aren't shills, they aren't astroturf, they aren't insane, they aren't ignorant. They have read you literature, marinated in your mass media. They still don't agree with you. They don't want what you want, in fact they are convinced what you want can't exist and the attempt to attain it will destroy civilization. Ponder that. Discuss.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Disagree=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:58AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:58AM (#606544)

    There are people who disagree with you. They aren't shills, they aren't astroturf, they aren't insane, they aren't ignorant.

    Here is the core problem: this is just not true. They actually are shills, astroturfers, Koch-suckers, insane, and ignorant, not to mention racist, misogynist, and religious and ammosexual. Funny jmorris would show up just right on cue, though.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:29PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:29PM (#606795) Journal

      My friend, it is not a good sign when jmorris is coming off more level-headed and reasonable than you are. Rhetorically, it's quite bad.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:17PM (#606874)

        I think the issue is that there are more shills on the republican side willing to get paid to spread their alternate facts, than there are on the democrat side willing to spread their version. The dems only do it for free, and there are new iphones to buy and instafacegrams to post of that downtown shopping spree.

        Worshipping capitalism wins when it pays to do so. doing something for free doesn't get you paid back if the efforts fail, but paid shills.. get paid regardless of the outcome.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:09AM (#606554)

    Of course, khallow alone can only generate that much impact.

    A jmorris intervention is required. Except that, interestingly enough, the attack angle denies the use of one of jmorris'es strongest point of 'patriots, be prepared for blood letting. Anyone who is liberal is not American'.
    In his present comment, he's showing a sort of a compassionate side, you know? Like he's the defender of the underdogs which, unlike liberals, are humans not unpersons.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:16AM (#606561)

    Instead of trying to unperson your opponents, why not allow a really radical notion into your noggins? There are people who disagree with you. They aren't shills, they aren't astroturf, they aren't insane, they aren't ignorant. They have read you literature, marinated in your mass media. They still don't agree with you. They don't want what you want, in fact they are convinced what you want can't exist and the attempt to attain it will destroy civilization.

    Just out of curiosity, how much are the Russians paying you to post this shit? Just asking.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:55AM (#606586)

    really radical notion

    Is that what the kids are calling bullshit now?

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:30AM (1 child)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:30AM (#606659) Journal

    I don't think you're insane; I think you're evil. You're sane, intelligent, clear-sighted, and evil. There is a difference, and it will become apparent to you a few seconds after what I will charitably refer to as your soul parts ways with that sack of dirty water and bones it's driving around. Fairly be ye warned.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:45AM

      by Sulla (5173) on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:45AM (#606679) Journal

      We just suffered eight years of doubling down on war with Obama, why would we want to stay the course insted of try something new in vain? All the shitty foreign policy decisions that would have been done by Hill have been done by Trump, the only exception being that we stopped funding the Syrian rebels and allowed Russia/Iran/Syria to bring some peace back to the region.

      Republicans and democrats alike have done everything possible to double down in war, and trump has been dragging his feet due to incompetence, being bought off, or lack of will. Regardless of why less death is always better than more death.

      Hell he just said that a two state solution is still the best option,

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:44PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:44PM (#606830)

    To claim that conservatives and liberals have "read you literature, marinated in your mass media" of each others is not true. You never heard of echo chambers? Really?

    Yes, conservatives and liberals want different things. Could that be because they are different?

    You are the one that says conservatives are mental. Is that an admission? The FA just listed 5 qualities that science has attached to Trump voters. Why is that so hard to believe? Just out of curiosity, did you vote for Trump? Which of the 5 do you think you do and don't exhibit?

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:26PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:26PM (#606879) Journal

      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/ [scientificamerican.com]

      "In the same way, social scientists should eschew the quest for truths about human behavior. They should instead focus more intensely on finding answers to specific problems, whether our current economic woes, the inefficiency of our health-care system or our reliance on military force to resolve disputes."

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:36PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday December 07 2017, @07:36PM (#606958)

        Or maybe they can just STFU until they learn to stop saying stupid crap like "or our reliance on military force to resolve disputes" since force or the threat of force is pretty much the ONLY thing that solves a dispute. Think about it. Even when a court "solves" a dispute it is the threat of overwhelming force backing the legal system that causes the losing side to accept the decision. The entire basis for the State is it holding a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The only difference between police force and military force is military force is violence between nation states to create an international order vs internal enforcement of order.

        Violence solves problems. Every solution to a problem tends to plant the seed of a fresh problem but properly applied violence solves problems. The only Nazis left are a few LARPers because violence solved them. Capital Punishment 100% solves the problem of recidivism and if swiftly and uniformly applied would do wonders at deterrence.

        And the idea of social scientists trying to solve economics is comedy gold.