« Russia Gave Saddam Our War Plans | Main | Pensacola Lost a Legend Last Night »

March 24, 2006

Somehow I Don't Think That Kids In Daycare In Berkeley...

...are indicative of the general population:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

I would imagine that, in fact, everyone in Berkeley was out to get the conservative kid...

Whenever I read stuff like this I'm reminded more and more of the old Soviet Science Academies and the 'facts' they would churn out.

But maybe I should just quit whining...

Update: I see Ken was up whining even earlier than I was.

Update and bump: Michele Malkin has a scoop on this center that was studied:

Well, the Harold E. Jones Child Study Center is only open to children of U.C. Berkeley faculty and staff:

The University Preschool offers full-day developmental child care for preschool-aged children of UCB faculty and staff.

(The "Preschool" is a subset of the "Child Study Center.")

In other words, ALL of the children in that study were the offspring of U.C. Berkeley professors, lecturers, and staff members.

Gee, ya think that might have some effect on the 'study'?

Posted by Mr. Bingley at March 24, 2006 09:52 AM

Comments

Self-reliant liberal - isn't that an oxymoron?

I'd also like to see a correlation between the self confidence and the actual abilites of the liberals. In my experience, there is usually not a huge connection between the two.

Posted by: John at March 22, 2006 09:48 AM

Using "self confidence", "actual abilities", and "liberals" in the same sentence should be declared a crime against humanity.

Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at March 22, 2006 09:50 AM

Oh gosh, I'm sure Begala and Carville were not whiners as kids.

Goodness no.

And Ted Kennedy?

"Mommie! Jack and Bobby stole my ice cream again!"

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at March 22, 2006 09:51 AM

JeffS - in an affirmative declarative sentence, yes, but not in a question.

Posted by: John at March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

In other words.... "See? See? It's those guys who complain all the time! I'm normal! Told you so, you big meanie!"

Swift himself would give up the pen faced with this sort of thing.

Posted by: Nightfly at March 22, 2006 12:29 PM

I dunno what the researchers were smoking, BUT the "confident, resilient, self-reliant kids" are sounding pretty petulant to me.

As the Senate prepares to tackle the most sweeping immigration reforms in years, a top Democrat vowed Wednesday to do everything in his power, including filibuster, to thwart Majority Leader Bill Frist's proposed overhaul.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would "use every procedural means at my disposal" to prevent Frist from bypassing the Judiciary Committee. Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear the Senate will take up his proposal next week if the 18-member committee fails to complete a broader bill.

"If Leader Frist brings a bill to the floor that does not have the approval of the Judiciary Committee, it will not get out of the Senate," Reid told reporters at the San Ysidro border crossing, a few steps from Tijuana, Mexico.

"I'm gonna take Barbara Boxer and go home."

Posted by: tree hugging sister at March 23, 2006 01:41 AM

I do not know a Liberal who ever truly "grew up".

The hallmark of an adult is realising that actions have consequences and as an adult you take responsibility for your actions.

Liberals tend to try to weasel out of any responsibilities for themselves nor do they take responsibilty for their actions. They want the Euronanny state way of doing things so they never have to be responsible for themselves and they invented the culture of "victimhood" along with 2948747594 "psychological disorders" to weasel out of being responsible for what they do.

Posted by: Nahanni at March 23, 2006 09:31 AM

What is the definition of "confident, resilient, self-reliant" in a preschooler? Could it be that the spoiled and indulgenced children were defined as this? Were they confident because they knew they always got their way? What was a whiney kid? some child who didn't like being beaten up by his self centered companions?

Posted by: lucretia at March 23, 2006 11:56 AM

Welcome folks!

And well said.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at March 23, 2006 12:09 PM

Here is what the study said about nursery school girls who grow up to be LIBERAL:

Is a talkative child,
Behaves in a dominating manner,
Expresses negative feelings openly,
Is verbally fluent,
Teases other children,
Seeks to be independent and autonomous,
Is self-assertive,
Attempts to transfer blame to others,
Is aggressive (physically or verbally),
High standards of performance for self,
Tends to be judgmental of others,
Can admit to own negative feelings,
Likes to compete,
High intellectual capacity,
Is curious and exploring,
Is self-reliant, confident,
Tries to be the center of attention,
Is resourceful in initiating activities,
Tends to dramatize, exaggerate mishaps,
Is emotionally expressive.

And here is what the study said about nursery school girls who grow up to be CONSERVATIVE:

Indecisive and vacillating,
Is easily victimized by other children,
Is inhibited and constricted,
Keeps thoughts, feelings, to self,
Prefers non-verbal communication,
Is neat and orderly in dress,
Is shy and reserved,
Anxious in unpredictable environment,
tends to yield and give in,
Is obedient and compliant,
immobilized when under stress,
Is fearful and anxious,
Looks to adults for help and direction,
Tends to go to pieces under stress,
Has a readiness to feel guilty,
Likes to be by him/herself, Cries easily.

The “liberal” traits that are perceived as appealing to the researchers I see as: bullying, willfully imposing themselves onto others, disrespectful of others, domineering, careless, cheater, complainer, unjust, self-centered, disruptive, rude, and more than anything: SELFISH loudmouths. Read the list again. Those kids were the jerks. The “conservative” traits that are seen as negative I see as: respectful of others - particularly elders and those in authority, careful, organized, thoughtful of others, obedient, desires to please, desires to do the right thing, does not cheat, reliable and honest, well behaved, does not want to impose on others, sensitive, seeks guidance in order to do the right thing, does not pretend to know more than she does, is not full of herself- sees the world as something other than herself.

I would love to have a conservative child!

Huge holes in the study:

-23 year olds are not politically mature. They know nothing yet of the world. They have not yet truly worked and earned their way. Their politics are largely formed by teachers/professors, media, and cultural influences – all of which are, especially in S.F., liberal. It is a false to conclude in this study that childhood personality can predict adulthood political affiliation because these 23 year olds will not necessarily remain true to their current political leanings. Liberal S.F. certainly influenced these young adults' politics.

-Many of the study’s perceived “well-balanced” 23 yr old liberals would not be liberal if they grew up in a different cultural environment (anywhere but S.F. – look at European kids – similar cultural influence, similar politics). Those liberals would be conservatives if they were properly introduced to conservative thinking.

-Roughly 100 kids, all from S.F., is NOT a representative sampling.

-Bias of those Berkley grad students who evaluated the young children. Did they know the childrens’ parents? - any bias find its way into unfavorable evaluations of the disliked/liked parents' children? Or did those (undoubtedly liberal) grad students see behaviors in the children they themselves had and parlayed them into favorable traits? Were these grad students qualified to evaluate child personality traits? They weren’t doctors. They hadn’t raised children. What do they know?? Could it be too that the self-absorbed liberal researchers of this study describe the traits of the young and adult liberal subjects in glowing terms because they themselves share these traits?

Posted by: Jan at March 23, 2006 11:34 PM

Jan,


There are severe holes in your arguments.


"23 year olds are not politically mature. They know nothing yet of the world. They have not yet truly worked and earned their way. Their politics are largely formed by teachers/professors, media, and cultural influences – all of which are, especially in S.F., liberal. It is a false to conclude in this study that childhood personality can predict adulthood political affiliation because these 23 year olds will not necessarily remain true to their current political leanings. Liberal S.F. certainly influenced these young adults' politics."


Uh...have you seen the data? Political affiliations are remarkably stable over time. The relative ordering of conservatism at age 23 would probably correlate around .8 or higher at any later point in the lifespan.
Yes, the liberalness of the Bay Area could reasonably influence mean levels of conservatism in the sample. The author does point out that the sample as whole tended to be liberal. But this fact has little bearing on the individual differences WITHIN the sample, which is what the study is concerned with. I don't have the energy to explain, but please do take a course on research methodology if you want to understand why. BTW:
Last time I checked, 23 year olds are adults. Most are probably living away from their parents' house with a full-time job and several years of work experience. I take it you are quite a bit older than 23?


"Many of the study’s perceived “well-balanced” 23 yr old liberals would not be liberal if they grew up in a different cultural environment (anywhere but S.F. – look at European kids – similar cultural influence, similar politics). Those liberals would be conservatives if they were properly introduced to conservative thinking."


Your first sentence is actually somewhat intelligent (assuming one can equate S.F. with Berkeley and Oakland-where the research was actually carried out- but anyone familiar with the Bay Area would not). If you read the article (either the original or the one printed in the Toronto paper), you will note the authors do mention how context could moderate the observed effects. Perhaps you have heard of the "nature vs. nurture" debate?

Your second sentence is hopelessly value-laden and just flat wrong. There will always be individual differences, and it is quite difficult to sway people from their political ideologies, regardless of how "proper" your conservative indoctrination is.


"Roughly 100 kids, all from S.F., is NOT a representative sampling."


No, really? The authors never claim the sample is representative. Can you imagine trying to do a twenty-year longitudinal study with a representative sample of Americans? Also see my response to your complaint #1.


"Bias of those Berkley grad students who evaluated the young children. Did they know the childrens' parents? - any bias find its way into unfavorable evaluations of the disliked/liked parents' children? Or did those (undoubtedly liberal) grad students see behaviors in the children they themselves had and parlayed them into favorable traits? Were these grad students qualified to evaluate child personality traits? They weren’t doctors. They hadn’t raised children. What do they know?? Could it be too that the self-absorbed liberal researchers of this study describe the traits of the young and adult liberal subjects in glowing terms because they themselves share these traits?"


Different researchers evaluated the children at time one and at time two. It is conceivable that some of the researchers (who were Ph.D.s and advanced graduate students with training in clinical and personality assessment-it's all in the article, which you should probably read before additional public rantings) knew some of the parents at time one, but it is unlikely. Remember, the assessments were conducted by Berkeley-trained researchers, not nursery school teachers or administrators. But you are right in pointing out that Block does not assure us that the clinical assesors had no contact with the parents. Nevertheless, how do you explain a correlation between these "favorable" liberal traits and later, self-reported levels of conservatism? Surely you are not suggesting the liberal researchers at time one influenced later levels of conservatism?


Your last sentence is again somewhat intelligent. Indeed, one is naturally suspicious when liberals cast other liberals in a favorable light. I felt the Toronto piece did a good job in pointing this out, too.

Posted by: Kevin at March 24, 2006 03:58 AM

Possibly in a question, John. But I have yet to meet a self-confident (let alone self-reliant) liberal, although some have put up a good show. Granted, my data are anecdotal and limited in sampling, but my opinion remains. Using those terms in any grammatical construction should be considered a crime against humanity.

Although I would settle for a felony conviction.

Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at March 24, 2006 11:46 AM

I gew up in Palo Alto and was basically a Communist until I was over 35. I wasn't anywhere near becoming a conservative until I had faced some real life experience issues, and even then it was years of denial before I recognized the absolute failure of Liberalism.

Posted by: -keith in Silicon Valley at March 24, 2006 07:33 PM

Is it me, or are Kevin's comments just one long extended version of the classic "appeal to authority" fallacy? And an especially condescending one at that?

Posted by: Dave J at March 24, 2006 11:44 PM

DaveJ, I’d say its less an appeal to authority than selective presentation of data. Take this for example:

“ Uh...have you seen the data? Political affiliations are remarkably stable over time. The relative ordering of conservatism at age 23 would probably correlate around .8 or higher at any later point in the lifespan.”

This is an example of sloppy methodology by choosing the wrong variable to study. Political affiliation may have a high correlation with conservatism / liberalism in large metropolitan areas (I’d hazard a guess that’s more true for Democrats than Republicans, since the South Park Republicans tend to be big city types). But it does not highly correlate in the heartland – ever hear of “Reagan Democrats”? In my own extended family, we were the only Republicans, and got teased for being half-Yankees, but we all, Democrats and Republicans, voted for Reagan. Breaking a party affiliation breaks with more than just the ideology of the people at the top, it is a severing of social contacts on the local level – especially in small-town America. While I am well aware that the plural of anecdote is not data, I would also point out that I have slid from a social and fiscal conservative in my teens and twenties to a fiscal conservative and social libertarian in my thirties. How is this study defining “conservatism”? Social or political? Is a libertarian (or Libertarian) a “conservative”? I am a registered Republican, but I self-identify as a libertarian. Why did I not change party affiliations? Because I want some influence on the party whose platform is closest to my beliefs, but is most likely to actually win an election.

Or take this other example of sloppy methodology, for example:

“Yes, the liberalness of the Bay Area could reasonably influence mean levels of conservatism in the sample. The author does point out that the sample as whole tended to be liberal. But this fact has little bearing on the individual differences WITHIN the sample, which is what the study is concerned with.”

It is a rough, rough rule of thumb that you need about thirty members of a set in a sample before you can make statistically valid generalizations about them. I need to get this paper to make sure (it’s on order), but I suspect that there were fewer than thirty social conservatives in that 95-person sample. Some sample size problems can be partially solved with fancy math, but not if the sample is too small. I am very troubled by the admissions of the researches that the sample skewed liberal, without any percentages or raw numbers attached. That's key information. So I want to see the raw data.

In addition, the fact that everyone belonged to the same geographic area where the dominant political paradigm is liberal introduces a huge confounding variable - social pressure and it’s effects on a child’s personality. That does have bearing on the differences WITHIN this sample, and anyone whose taken a course or two in research methodology, and actually paid attention to the parts of the course that cover sampling, would note this.

What I find interesting is the lack of people blasting this as an ad hominem argument. If, and I’m not willing to concede this, but lets play devil’s advocate here, conservatives were in general whiny kids, does that invalidate their political arguments as adults? A hell of a lot of scientists were whiny kids, too, but that has no bearing on the validity of their research results. Many of them are very nasty people as adults, too, but that also has no bearing on the validity of their arguments within their field.

Posted by: John at March 25, 2006 08:03 AM

Ad hominem is what you get from Liberals when their other whiny arguments fail - it's what I was taught as a Libral kid anyhow, when in doubt attack character and social standing.

Posted by: -keith in Silicon Valley at March 25, 2006 01:58 PM