May 21, 2020, 1:46 PM (and higher disgust) Conservative states tend to have higher levels of life satisfaction because they have lower levels of neuroticism compared to liberal states, according to new research from a psychologist at Cape Breton University. The study, published in the journal Psychological Reports, helps explain why there is a correlation between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. “I have had longstanding interests in social, personality, and political psychology,” explained study author Stewart J. H. McCann. “My special interest in personality and its state-level correlates was sparked in 2008 when Dr. P. Jason Rentfrow of the University of Cambridge and his colleagues produced average scores for each of the 50 states on each of the five main personality dimensions—openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—based on the responses of 619,397 residents of the USA to a widely used 44-item personality questionnaire. “Since that time, I have published 17 research articles showing relations between state-levels of these personality variables and various other important differences between states such as political attitudes, work satisfaction, illness, mortality, residential mobility, creativity, volunteering, emotional health, smoking, and obesity.” “Previous research by others had shown that conservatives generally were happier and more satisfied with their lives than liberals. But why?” McCann told PsyPost. “Three different explanations had been put forward by others. However, I thought that there might be a fourth and more convincing explanation.” “Existing research demonstrated that there are associations not only between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction but also between lower neuroticism and higher life satisfaction and between lower neuroticism and higher conservatism. Perhaps if neuroticism was statistically controlled or effectively held constant, the association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction would vanish.” “The relation between conservatism and life satisfaction might be dependent upon neuroticism levels. The present study was conducted to test this possibility in a state-level analysis.” McCann analyzed data from Rentfrow’s study, Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, U.S. Census Bureau, CBS News and the New York Times polls, and the presidential election results from 2000 to 2008. He found that differences in the levels of neuroticism in each state could account for the state-level association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. Other factors he examined, including socioeconomic status, did not account for the association. “The results of the present study strongly suggest that there is nothing inherent in a conservative worldview as opposed to a liberal worldview that promotes greater happiness and life satisfaction,” McCann explained. “Rather it is the underlying higher neuroticism that tends to be more likely in liberals and the underlying lower neuroticism that tends to be more likely in conservatives that accounts for the greater happiness and life satisfaction in conservatives.” “For example, higher neuroticism is characterized by higher levels of vulnerability, self-consciousness, depression, tenseness, moodiness, angry hostility, impulsiveness, nervousness, anxiety, worry, emotional instability, and poor stress management. Clearly, such a constellation does not bode well for happiness and satisfaction with life.” The study used a cross-sectional methodology, meaning McCann cannot make inferences about cause and effect. He believes, based on previous research, that higher neuroticism fosters lower life satisfaction and that lower neuroticism promotes higher conservatism — but the reverse could also be true. His study has another caveat as well. “Readers must understand that this was a study carried out with the 50 states rather than a sample of individuals as the cases,” McCann explained. “What was found is that state levels of resident neuroticism can account for the relation between state levels of conservatism and state levels of life satisfaction. “I am assuming that the state-level relations are dependent upon parallel individual-level relations. Caution must be exercised in making such cross-level extrapolations. However, some comfort is taken from the fact that other researchers (Burton, Plaks, & Peterson, 2015) also have found the same dynamics in an individual-level analysis and reached the same conclusion regarding why conservatives tend to be happier and more satisfied with life.” The study was titled: “State Resident Neuroticism Accounts for Life Satisfaction Differences Between Conservative and Liberal States of the USA”. Source: https://www.psypost.org/2017/09/study-suggests-lower-levels-neuroticism-explain-conservative-states-happier-49627 DEFINING NEUROTICISM Neuroticism Neuroticism is one of the Big Five higher-order personality traits in the study of psychology. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. People who are neurotic respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification. Neuroticism is a trait in many models within personality theory, but there is a lot of disagreement on its definition. Some define it as a tendency for quick arousal when stimulated and slow relaxation from arousal, especially in concern to negative emotional arousal; others define it as emotional instability and negativity or maladjustment, in contrast to emotional stability and positivity, or good adjustment. Others yet define it as lack of self-control, poor ability to manage psychological stress, and a tendency to complain.[6] Various personality tests produce numerical scores, and these scores are mapped onto the concept of “neuroticism” in various ways, which has created some confusion in the scientific literature, especially with regard to sub-traits or “facets”.[6] Individuals who score low in neuroticism tend to be more emotionally stable and less reactive to stress. They tend to be calm, even-tempered, and less likely to feel tense or rattled. Although they are low in negative emotion, they are not necessarily high on positive emotion. Being high in scores of positive emotion is generally an element of the independent trait of extraversion. Neurotic extraverts, for example, would experience high levels of both positive and negative emotional states, a kind of “emotional roller coaster”.[7][8] (Impulsive) Neurotic <-> Calm (Agency) ======= STUDIES 1) State Resident Neuroticism Accounts for Life Satisfaction Differences Between Conservative and Liberal States of the USA Stewart J. H. McCannFirst Published August 11, 2017 Research Article Find in PubMed https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117725072 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0033294117725072 Abstract Past research indicates associations between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction, lower neuroticism and higher life satisfaction, and higher conservatism and lower neuroticism. Qualified deduction led to the following hypothesis: Neuroticism can account for the association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. The 50 American states served as the units of analysis. Responses of 619,397 residents to the 44-item Big Five Inventory in an internet survey conducted from 1999 to 2005 provided mean neuroticism scores for each state. Conservative-liberal leaning of over 84,000 respondents to CBS News/New York Times polls from 1999 to 2003 and the percent voting Republican in each state in the 2000 to 2008 presidential elections combined to form a conservatism score for each state. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index provided life satisfaction scores for over 1,000,000 respondents, transforming to a 2008 to 2010 composite score for each state. In a sequential multiple regression equation with life satisfaction as the criterion, state socioeconomic status and white population percent entered first as a block, conservatism entered second, and neuroticism entered third, the demographic controls accounted for 45.7% of the variance, conservatism accounted for another 10.4%, and neuroticism accounted for an additional 10.6%. However, with the entry order of conservatism and neuroticism reversed, neuroticism accounted for another 19.6% but conservatism accounted for only an additional nonsignificant 1.4%. Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Three alternative explanations suggested by other researchers were not supported in the state-level analysis. 2) Why Do Conservatives Report Being Happier Than Liberals? The Contribution of Neuroticism Caitlin M. Burton*a, Jason E. Plaksa, Jordan B. Petersona [a] Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/117/html Abstract Previous studies suggest that conservatives in the United States are happier than liberals. This difference has been attributed to factors including differences in socioeconomic status, group memberships, and system-justifying beliefs. We suggest that differences between liberals and conservatives in personality traits may provide an additional account for the “happiness gap”. Specifically, we investigated the role of neuroticism (or conversely, emotional stability) in explaining the conservative-liberal happiness gap. In Study 1 (N = 619), we assessed the correlation between political orientation (PO) and satisfaction with life (SWL), controlling for the Big Five traits, religiosity, income, and demographic variables. Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and religiosity each accounted for the PO-SWL correlation. In Study 2 (N = 700), neuroticism, system justification beliefs, conscientiousness, and income each accounted for PO-SWL correlation. In both studies, neuroticism negatively correlated with conservatism. We suggest that individual differences in neuroticism represent a previously under-examined contributor to the SWL disparity between conservatives and liberals.
Source: Original Site Post
-
May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— F
May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM
—“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH
Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciproal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils. === UPDATE === To answer AunMarie Grooms’ question – P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”
-
May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— F
May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM
—“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH
Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciproal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils. === UPDATE === To answer AunMarie Grooms’ question – P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”
-
I Can only Unite the Libertarian, Conservative, and Religious if I Restore Responsibility of The Militia
May 22, 2020, 7:05 AM
—“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle
-
I Can only Unite the Libertarian, Conservative, and Religious if I Restore Responsibility of The Militia
May 22, 2020, 7:05 AM
—“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle
-
The Marriage of Masculine Aristocracy and Feminine Christianity
May 22, 2020, 11:06 AM
—“Love all the work you’ve done with John Mark. I’m just learning more about propertarianism, so far I’m pretty impressed. I hope your alliance with Christians are not just one of convenience. I think there’s a lot to be achieved with reformation Christendom that lines up nicely with the biblical model of good government.”—
We are all western and as such we are all christian. We just practice our christianity differently. Of our ‘five religions’ christianity is the lowest in my priority and it’s the highest in others. Those religions are, in order of their evolution: Heathen Nature and Ancestors, Pagan Heroes, Aristotelian Science, Christian Deism, and Enlightenment Humanism. Masculine(Dominance) < Paganism < Heathenism < Aristotelianism <- Humanism -> Christianity > The Feminine (Submission) But the age of religious rule never came to be in the west, never could come to be, and never can come to be. The faithful required an aristocracy in Rome. They required an aristocracy in the middle ages. And they required and aristocracy in modernity. And the faith was far more corrupt than the state or burghers could ever seek to be. The faith teaches one to be a good citizen for the aristocracy. For those of us who are aristocracy first and christian second, we understand this is necessary. Christians have always been conquered and destroyed without the aristocracy. Why? Christianity is a feminine religion. The aristocracy could USE christianity to justify their aryanism. But christianity was spread by women and slaves, and even today is largely a religion of the lower classes, not the upper. So, western civilization is a marriage of masculine (dominant) aristocracy and feminine (submissive) christianity. And this is our (my) solution: to continue delivering to caesar and to Jesus as we have in the past.
-
The Marriage of Masculine Aristocracy and Feminine Christianity
May 22, 2020, 11:06 AM
—“Love all the work you’ve done with John Mark. I’m just learning more about propertarianism, so far I’m pretty impressed. I hope your alliance with Christians are not just one of convenience. I think there’s a lot to be achieved with reformation Christendom that lines up nicely with the biblical model of good government.”—
We are all western and as such we are all christian. We just practice our christianity differently. Of our ‘five religions’ christianity is the lowest in my priority and it’s the highest in others. Those religions are, in order of their evolution: Heathen Nature and Ancestors, Pagan Heroes, Aristotelian Science, Christian Deism, and Enlightenment Humanism. Masculine(Dominance) < Paganism < Heathenism < Aristotelianism <- Humanism -> Christianity > The Feminine (Submission) But the age of religious rule never came to be in the west, never could come to be, and never can come to be. The faithful required an aristocracy in Rome. They required an aristocracy in the middle ages. And they required and aristocracy in modernity. And the faith was far more corrupt than the state or burghers could ever seek to be. The faith teaches one to be a good citizen for the aristocracy. For those of us who are aristocracy first and christian second, we understand this is necessary. Christians have always been conquered and destroyed without the aristocracy. Why? Christianity is a feminine religion. The aristocracy could USE christianity to justify their aryanism. But christianity was spread by women and slaves, and even today is largely a religion of the lower classes, not the upper. So, western civilization is a marriage of masculine (dominant) aristocracy and feminine (submissive) christianity. And this is our (my) solution: to continue delivering to caesar and to Jesus as we have in the past.
-
See? Christianity Will Play a Vital Role
May 23, 2020, 7:56 AM by Lloyd Grainger (hey everyone I’m reposting this…) Listen people. My brother and I are strong Evangelical Christians. Unbeknownst to myself and my brother we are also Aryan, due to Curt Doolittle’s definition. Also as soon as the reset button is pushed by someone we are ready to start the fight. We will extinguish any and all liberals/leftist, including those who claim to be Christian, until there are no more or we are killed in action. Petty bickering is fruitless. Anybody that is a true Christian revels in the possibility of reciprocity. And natural law. To exterminate all parasitism and rent-seeking even in the church. I was very concerned about how Christians and the natural law of reciprocity can coexist. So I searched for religion and any and all documents on the properterian institute website. And studied all the videos about Christianity that CD posted. And have came to the conclusion that Christianity and the church will play a vital part and the new reconstructed natural law Constitution 2.0. Curt admits that there is no way possible to legislate what someone thinks and believes. We can only legislate the negatives for what somebody cannot do through word deed or display. All this is very possible, but the problem will be in many cases from our dogmatic legalistic leaders. That want to force our society to be a Christian only society. And have all our laws based on Christianity. This is not possible under reciprocity. But seriously, after all the parasites, rent seekers, liars, cheats, and any other term you want to use are eliminated. The matter of conforming our Christianity and to the natural law of reciprocity in word deed and display will not be a problem. I don’t fully understand how it will all play out; but I have no doubt but it will work out. After all if we truly believe that God is in charge, then what would we be scared of. Thanks everybody. Due to me being a Navy chief petty officer I tend to not be very touchy-feely. So I hope you catch the spirit of my message, and not necessarily how I say it.
-
See? Christianity Will Play a Vital Role
May 23, 2020, 7:56 AM by Lloyd Grainger (hey everyone I’m reposting this…) Listen people. My brother and I are strong Evangelical Christians. Unbeknownst to myself and my brother we are also Aryan, due to Curt Doolittle’s definition. Also as soon as the reset button is pushed by someone we are ready to start the fight. We will extinguish any and all liberals/leftist, including those who claim to be Christian, until there are no more or we are killed in action. Petty bickering is fruitless. Anybody that is a true Christian revels in the possibility of reciprocity. And natural law. To exterminate all parasitism and rent-seeking even in the church. I was very concerned about how Christians and the natural law of reciprocity can coexist. So I searched for religion and any and all documents on the properterian institute website. And studied all the videos about Christianity that CD posted. And have came to the conclusion that Christianity and the church will play a vital part and the new reconstructed natural law Constitution 2.0. Curt admits that there is no way possible to legislate what someone thinks and believes. We can only legislate the negatives for what somebody cannot do through word deed or display. All this is very possible, but the problem will be in many cases from our dogmatic legalistic leaders. That want to force our society to be a Christian only society. And have all our laws based on Christianity. This is not possible under reciprocity. But seriously, after all the parasites, rent seekers, liars, cheats, and any other term you want to use are eliminated. The matter of conforming our Christianity and to the natural law of reciprocity in word deed and display will not be a problem. I don’t fully understand how it will all play out; but I have no doubt but it will work out. After all if we truly believe that God is in charge, then what would we be scared of. Thanks everybody. Due to me being a Navy chief petty officer I tend to not be very touchy-feely. So I hope you catch the spirit of my message, and not necessarily how I say it.
-
Can We Recreate ‘european Thinking’ and ‘european Sense Making’
May 23, 2020, 12:23 PM I dont know how many times I read through the entire Encyclopedia Britannica but I am pretty sure it’s the best general education you can still get. The question is, can we recreate ‘european thinking’ and ‘european sense making’ now that the (((program))) to undermine european thinking and sense making has been as successful using the second abrahamic revolution in deceit as it was in the first abrahamic revolution in deceit.