Sorry error on my part, they cited a meta-analysis.
A recent meta-analysis finds that an insecure attachment in early childhood
strongly predicts the onset of major depression in childhood and adolescence.
The results—summarized in meta-analyses—are clear: Authoritative parenting predicts fewer
mental health problems and delinquent behavior, both at the time of measurement and in
the future. Both harsh and overly permissive parenting predicts higher risk of mental health
problems and problematic behaviors, as does neglectful parenting.
Usually, I’d look for the evidence, but not today.
It’s in the study.
But the meta-analysis didn’t say that conservative people and children to tend to be happier and have fewer issues with mental health. It said that an authoritative parenting style predicts fewer mental health problems and delinquent behavior.
That suggests the questions: Are conservative parents statistically more likely to employ an authoritative parenting style? If yes, then we could conclude that kids of conservatives are less likely to have mental health problems. But that question was neither asked nor answered by anything I’ve read today.
The study is not about happiness. Happiness is defined in the positive, actively having and experiencing a particular feeling or set of them. Thus, a lack of mental health problems, which the study is about, is not happiness.
For once, I genuinely learned something useful here. The research call it the conservative-liberal happiness gap or the ideological happiness grap, and it’s…it’s true. It exists and is well-documented.
To paraphrase, conservatives are less concerned with equality of outcomes and more with equality of opportunity. While American liberals are depressed by inequalities in society, conservatives are okay with them provided that everyone has roughly the same opportunities to succeed. The latter is a more rosy and empowering view than the deterministic former.
They found that conservatives “expressed greater personal agency, more positive outlook, more transcendent moral beliefs, and a generalized belief in fairness” compared to liberals.
Conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, in general… report better mental health and fewer mental and emotional problems (all after controlling for age, sex, income, and education), and view social justice in ways that are consistent with binding moral foundations, such as by emphasizing personal agency and equity.
This is my default position. I will never take anyone’s word if I can understand something myself.
Yeah, I found the research that tried to tease out the causes. I think this paper was the best one I read. Section 6.6. Evaluative connotations was probably the best out of the paper:
According to philosophers of science, meaning is never found directly in the data; meaning is provided by interpreting the data from specific theoretical perspectives. Different perspectives can imply different evaluative connotations.
So the bits you quoted from realclearscience.com, from another perspective, could support the idea that conservatives are delusional in their belief that everyone has roughly the same opportunities to succeed. Perceived social mobility has declined after all, so, the idea that their happiness derives from the view that inequality doesn’t matter would then be false, i.e., delusional.
I’m not trying to make that argument, mind you. I’m just saying these studies that say conservatives are happier still seem suspect to me fundamentally even though I must admit their conclusions. I don’t think they’re wrong, per se…just…not objective? universal? right? idk.
another perspective, could support the idea that conservatives are delusional in their belief that everyone has roughly the same opportunities to succeed
For the most part, we do. That’s why so many people flock here from other countries. I grew up poor, I joined the national guard, paid for my undergraduate, graduate degree, they paid for most my medical school. Between the national guard and army, I came out owing next to nothing from college.
I went into technology and made even more money. I worked at a swat doctor to supplement my income.
The opportunities are there if you are willing to work hard and a reasonably intelligent.
Now yes the wealthy may have it easier but anyone can come wealthy if they just do something of value and expand on something.
Liberals want the government to hand them success. Conservatives want the chance to build their success
It’s funny that we have a similar story and have ended up with different political ideologies.
I went into the Navy, had them pay for my undergrad and now my job is paying for my MBA. Still plan on going back to school for something more interesting than business since I have some of my GI Bill left.
The government has quite literally handed me my success, same for you, though we earned it.
But the liberal part of me wonders why that isn’t just part of the social contract anymore. I’m not opposed to people having to work for their benefits, but the stark contrast in the value of remuneration in the past to now isn’t justified in any way.
It was possible for grandparents to work at an ice cream shop and pay their way through college. That’s literally impossible now. Manufacturing jobs used to be able to support whole families on a single income. Also impossible.
So I don’t disagree that people should have to earn their opportunities. I disagree that they should have to work so hard for so little these days just to survive, let alone thrive. Opportunities seem fewer and further between and there’s far more competition for them. And there’s no real justification for the the disparity between now and then.
It was possible for grandparents to work at an ice cream shop and pay their way through college
Companies use to pay for college. I knew people who started at IBM after high school. The company thought they had potential and sent them to college. They paid for college, and I think half their salary.
In return they’re stay at IBM and become management or some other job that needed a degree.
I think that’s one of the largest changes I’ve seen
Sorry error on my part, they cited a meta-analysis.
A recent meta-analysis finds that an insecure attachment in early childhood strongly predicts the onset of major depression in childhood and adolescence.
The results—summarized in meta-analyses—are clear: Authoritative parenting predicts fewer mental health problems and delinquent behavior, both at the time of measurement and in the future. Both harsh and overly permissive parenting predicts higher risk of mental health problems and problematic behaviors, as does neglectful parenting.
Oh, yeah, I read that.
But the meta-analysis didn’t say that conservative people and children to tend to be happier and have fewer issues with mental health. It said that an authoritative parenting style predicts fewer mental health problems and delinquent behavior.
That suggests the questions: Are conservative parents statistically more likely to employ an authoritative parenting style? If yes, then we could conclude that kids of conservatives are less likely to have mental health problems. But that question was neither asked nor answered by anything I’ve read today.
The study is not about happiness. Happiness is defined in the positive, actively having and experiencing a particular feeling or set of them. Thus, a lack of mental health problems, which the study is about, is not happiness.
That is a large part of happiness.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/research-finds-conservatives-are-more-happy-generous-and-purposeful-than-liberals/
From that article
https://ifstudies.org/blog/conservatives-happier-at-home-worried-for-the-nation
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550618768241
They have plenty of links in the articles.
It is very well known conservatives are happier than liberals, they give more to charity and have better sex lives.
https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2022/01/04/aoc-is-wrong-conservatives-have-better-sex-lives-than-leftists-n501484
For once, I genuinely learned something useful here. The research call it the conservative-liberal happiness gap or the ideological happiness grap, and it’s…it’s true. It exists and is well-documented.
Obvious question is why?
This has rabbit hole potential…
I explained why but let’s not take my word for it. Let’s look at the research.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2022/08/27/why_are_conservatives_happier_than_liberals_849615.html#!
This is my default position. I will never take anyone’s word if I can understand something myself.
Yeah, I found the research that tried to tease out the causes. I think this paper was the best one I read. Section 6.6. Evaluative connotations was probably the best out of the paper:
So the bits you quoted from realclearscience.com, from another perspective, could support the idea that conservatives are delusional in their belief that everyone has roughly the same opportunities to succeed. Perceived social mobility has declined after all, so, the idea that their happiness derives from the view that inequality doesn’t matter would then be false, i.e., delusional.
I’m not trying to make that argument, mind you. I’m just saying these studies that say conservatives are happier still seem suspect to me fundamentally even though I must admit their conclusions. I don’t think they’re wrong, per se…just…not objective? universal? right? idk.
For the most part, we do. That’s why so many people flock here from other countries. I grew up poor, I joined the national guard, paid for my undergraduate, graduate degree, they paid for most my medical school. Between the national guard and army, I came out owing next to nothing from college. I went into technology and made even more money. I worked at a swat doctor to supplement my income. The opportunities are there if you are willing to work hard and a reasonably intelligent. Now yes the wealthy may have it easier but anyone can come wealthy if they just do something of value and expand on something. Liberals want the government to hand them success. Conservatives want the chance to build their success
It’s funny that we have a similar story and have ended up with different political ideologies.
I went into the Navy, had them pay for my undergrad and now my job is paying for my MBA. Still plan on going back to school for something more interesting than business since I have some of my GI Bill left.
The government has quite literally handed me my success, same for you, though we earned it.
But the liberal part of me wonders why that isn’t just part of the social contract anymore. I’m not opposed to people having to work for their benefits, but the stark contrast in the value of remuneration in the past to now isn’t justified in any way.
It was possible for grandparents to work at an ice cream shop and pay their way through college. That’s literally impossible now. Manufacturing jobs used to be able to support whole families on a single income. Also impossible.
So I don’t disagree that people should have to earn their opportunities. I disagree that they should have to work so hard for so little these days just to survive, let alone thrive. Opportunities seem fewer and further between and there’s far more competition for them. And there’s no real justification for the the disparity between now and then.
Companies use to pay for college. I knew people who started at IBM after high school. The company thought they had potential and sent them to college. They paid for college, and I think half their salary. In return they’re stay at IBM and become management or some other job that needed a degree. I think that’s one of the largest changes I’ve seen