Discussion on:

Infographic: How being a liberal or conservative shapes your life

Conservative are "Rural" Stockbrokers, businessmen, judges... ???

So, according to this chart, a Liberal's Goal is "Personal Freedon", but a Conservative's beliefs are that "Others must not interfere" with his rights.

Then, again, according to this chart, a Liberal's belief is that "Freedom is freedom from power abuse and inequality" but that "Equality - a level playing field" is better than Freedom.

Again according to the chart, Liberals interfere with social lives while Conservatives do not. And yet, the chart says that Liberals are the ones who believe in personal freedom and that Conservatives don't? WTH?

A Conservative believes that society is based on morals, while a Liberal instills morals (and a Conservative doesn't) ???

There is other bias:
Liberals = "Fulfilled"; "Respect and Trust"
Conservative = "Fear", "Strict", "Votes for Aggression", "Social Progress = the Status Quo" WHT??

Does David McCandless even know any American conservatives? Sheesh.

Please read "False Dichotomy" by sboverie above. I agree with him...I have only one friend who I consider a total extreme right wing conservative with no deviations in her thinking. Everbody else seems to be "conservative", in varying degrees on some issues, and liberal, in varying degrees, on other issues. I myself am that way. And, although I may disagree with friends on some issues, we have lively debates when we do, and often they result in both of of us understanding one anothers issues and finding a compromise. This is probably because we respect one anothers beliefs even when we disagree. We are all Americans, we love our country, and we just have different ideas about some things. Tolerance and respect are needed for those who are of differing politcal views. That tolerance and respect is something that sadly seems to be lacking in many of our fellow Americans these days.
these days.

The idea that people are either purely conservative or purely liberal is a false dichotomy. There may be a few individuals who fit the descriptions but most people have traits of both. The idea of pushing the left/right characteristics does more to confirm pre-set ideas than to show diversity. Most people tend to adapt their views based on what people around them talk about.

The problem with studies like this one is that people will use it to justify their prejudice as well as to use that prejudice against others. This is an example of creating catagories to put people in so that it appears to be scientific but is not.

Phrenology was the psuedo scientific study of the bumps on the skull. Some bumps were deemed to show criminal nature and others to show leadership. Phrenology was a big deal in the early 20th century but was found to be flawed and useless by mid century. Phrenology was an example of judging someone by a surface appearance rather than observing that person's behavior.

Actually, the study above is behavioral based.

So the behavioral basis for the study doesn't matter, and I happen to feel sboverie WAS paying attention based on his response. There is no "left vs. right." The chart should be completely rebuilt along ALL the dimensions of sociopolitical belief, not artificially jammed into one.

It's important to remember that this graphic isn't substantiated (as far as I could determine) by any actual data. It's more a colorful and interesting way to look at many of the popular ideas about the way that liberals or conservatives are: how the live, the kind of jobs the like, how they raise their children, etc. When I looked at this a year ago (it seems like) I remember feeling like it was almost certainly created by a liberal because, as a conservative, I didn't find its portrayal of me and those I know to be very accurate...Which wasn't surprising since it wasn't actually based on anything real. It's just a graphic to inspire controversy and support the liberal perception of conservatives as the next worst thing to Neo Nazis.

Caution must be exercised though when viewing this graphic as anything more than entertainment or mildly interesting. Make a graphic like that based on REAL ACTUAL data and *THAT* would be interesting indeed.

To reiterate, this graphic isn't an "infographic" because infographics--by definition--must be substantiated with data. That is, a true infographic uses effective, interesting graphics to convey information. This "infographic" uses effective, interesting graphics to convey propaganda.

The Leftist draws the poster because he/she/it is the "only" one with a true sense of "fairness." And those rural folks can't make such pretty graphics...

I crack up every time I see the word INCLUSIVE attached to the word LIBERAL. Liberals are some of the most intolerant people I know.

In the great liberal state of Massachusetts kids are banned from wearing visable jewelry with crosses on it in public schools. Churches are encouraged to remove crosses from the outside of their buildings because it offends people. To put a Republican bumper sticker on your car will get your tires slashed in many quiet suburban towns. To question president Obamas policies will get you shouted down with cries of racism.

To think the politics of JFK would have him on the red side of this chart is a sad commentary on the state of the Democrat party in the US.

And for the record. I am a JFK Democrat proudly on the right side of this chart.

Added 7/27- Thanks for the negative vote. That is real inclusive of you.

There is still a solid liberal slant in the infographic. What is the political persuasion of your "expert," Stefanie Posavec? Conservatives are war-mongers? Have you forgotten the Vietnam conflict? The US involvement there was courtesy of Kennedy/Johnson... How hypocrytical of those liberals! And conservatives raise there children based on fear -- really? What households did you poll for that tidbit?

It's getting there, but the infographic needs another round of editing to bring it a little closer to reality...

As much as i read i should be grate at spelling but im not. So hear goes. As isee it the demos want to give the country away. The rep . want to keep it for them selves. We have a two partty systom .To give and take by compermise. We have given away our wealth for to poor countrys. And thear still poor. Thear leaders have stolen tha money and run.We Have fought the comies And lost each time. Give them time and thay fale With no help from us. We droped the ball after WW2 we flooded our market with things from thoes countrys with no tarif . .We destroyed our prodution. and our economie And our ability to produce by doing so. If we had taxed them At near cost to produce hear we could have survived. One last thing our retirment was radded for thoes wars. And outher things. I am old and tired and hate to see my country going down the tubes..

The label "liberal" has been dirtied and demonized by Rush Limbaugh thus the vitriol by the "dittoheads" we see above. Currently, no meaningful comparison can be made when that label is used.

I am quite "liberal" myself (live and let live, government has a very active role in the lives of it's citzens, single-payer healthcare should be made available to all citizens, etc.) but I hold on to many "conservative" values (tough love for offspring, the death penalty--the Oslo killer essentially said 'my work is done, I'll just spend the rest of my life in jail', in your face libs). This infographic is indeed a false dichotomy (sboverie).

live and let live, and
the government has a very active role in the lives of it's citzens
are contradictory

Only if you see what I said your way which seems to equate "active role" to oppression. I don't think military service, paying taxes for police and fire, and constructing state and national parks and maintaining them for the citizenry are oppressive. When I say live and let live I mean there are certain areas the government and dangerous, murderous wackos have no business such as personal medical decisions. Are you advocating anarchy?

Do people who have a particular way about them tend to gravitate towards a specific political bent? Or does a specific political bent tend to shape the way people behave? The data doesn't answer *THIS* question!
This is most definitely a chicken and the egg issue here!

It's not just "left vs. right." I strongly believe in regulating corporations and revoking charters and licenses when they break the law too severely. However, I also believe in proper enforcement of existing laws rather than drafting new more draconian measures so that legislators can justify their existences. That's just one example where a simple "left vs. right" breakdown of sociopolitical beliefs is utterly worthless.

I am a deist (one who believes that the supernatural is not yet fathomable, but that the universe did not appear without acts of creation). However, I also strongly favor small business. If someone is a staunch Christian (associated with the "right" on the chart), but believes in completely socialized commerce, are they to the "left" or to the "right" of me? They're certainly not the same as me, but such an erroneous conclusion is possible using this broken "info"graphic.

This chart is the Body Mass Index of sociopolitical measurement: oversimplified to the point of utter uselessness.

It is a rather simplified demonstration of political differences, and how they relate to people, but I feel underrepresented as I support some traits of both, being a Libertarian.

Here they go again, wanting to ban more crosses. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=14268

I read the article and it is about atheists protesting a cross to be made a part of the 9/11 victims' memorial; a memorial paid for by US tax payers. This is not about liberal tolerance; this is about the government spending money to put up a cross; a religious symbol for one of many religions in memoriam for the victims that include Muslims, Hindus, Jews and other non christian beliefs. This more of a group using the government to build in religious symbols in what should be a secular memorial honoring all of the dead.

After the excitement regarding a mosque NEAR ground zero and getting that shut down, people want to put a large cross at ground zero. This should be done by a private organisation and not the government.

It was steel recovered from the site that broke into the shape of a cross. It is very appropriate for it to be placed there.

You better get a big box of explosives and be ready to destroy tens of thousands of memorials nation wide that have crosses on them or part of them if you wish to enforce that statement.

I can think of over 20 war memorials dating back to the Revolutionary War that are on government land within a 10 minute drive of where I sit. They all have crosses and other religious devices as part of them.

And get your facts right.

99% of the people opposed to the Ground Zero mosque said they had every right to build a mosque, but felt it was inappropriate. The other 1% are the usual nut jobs.

They were responding just as many Jews felt it was inappropriate for a group of Roman Catholic nuns to build a convent near Auschwitz. The nuns intended to pray for the souls of those who died there, but they agreed with the outcry and moved a few miles away.

First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The atheists (not liberals) were protesting the use of tax money to pay for the cross to be included in the memorial. If a mosque could not be built two blocks away on private land, why should christians add a cross to public land? This could be interpreted as the government being pro-christian and anti-muslim.

The constitution provides for freedom of religion and it would help that we can have freedom from religion, as in not having someone's beliefs forced onto them.

In either case, if a cross is allowed, why not a religious symbol from every religion? And, if used in its original Hindu context, why not a swastika?

I am not a muslim, I am an agnostic.

99% of the people opposed to the Ground Zero mosque said they had every right to build a mosque, but felt it was inappropriate for that site.

These people are saying a piece of one building that was destroyed on 9/11 cannot be returned to the site, which has no comparison to building a mosque nearby.

There are also rumors the steel was cut into a cross shape or manufactured off site from steel not even from the World Trade Centers. Both ugly rumors spread by people who are just plain miserable about their own pathetic lives and want to harm others.

To dispel another false rumor, the steel was not cut to the shape of a cross. Engineers that have looked at it cannot explain why it failed in a manner to produce a cross shape.

If having it in the memorial is a healing element to the families who lost loved ones there than let it be.

No one is trying to force a religion on anyone by putting this there.

I am far more offended by a government hell bent on socialized medicine than I am about a cross in a memorial to nearly 3,000 people killed in 1 day.

And it needs to be noted that most agnostics have a cult like obsession with forcing their non-religion on others. http://www.meetup.com/seattle-atheists/

Deny having a religion, but cult = religion in my book.

It is not how this bit of wreckage came to be in this shape, it is the awe of the mystery that matters. I find it interesting that this piece of steel was used as a religious symbol at a church while plans for the memorial were being worked out. The last article I read indicated that the lawyers are certain that there is no merit to the atheists' case or the two Jews who also objected involved in this case.

I usually agree with you but this does not support calling all atheists liberals. Global statements tend to not actually apply globally; it is just a lazy way of making a point. The article was about the differences between liberal and conservative, and it was made of global statements that are not completely true. I am neither fully liberal or fully conservative; I believe we need both the right and left to move forwards instead of the two party shuffle (a step to the right followed by a step to the left repeated until we get it right)

I followed the link to the blog post and found that first of all, this was meant to portray the UK--although I don't know how he made sure his online "data" was only from the UK. Secondly, it was his second attempt at the poster; after much criticism he condeded that his own liberal leanings had created a bias in how he characterised conservatives.

of course it's silly--all it does is illustrate media stereotypes. As soon as he stated that political leanings "caused" all the other behavior it was obvious that this was not an academic endeavor. Correlation (if there is any) does not equal causation.

We humans are liberals when it suits us, or conservatives when it suits us. Or we can be both things at once. Those persons who are one way all the time are the fanatics and are in the minority. Most radical liberals and conservatives can't even define themselves without stuttering and becoming flustered. I would estimate that 97% of the people I deal with are fair and honest centrists. I don't hang around with radicals because they're scary, and boring.

Labeling "liberals" as heroes and "conservatives" as mean-spirited haters is non-sense. While liberals are considered to be giving and empathetic, according to IRS records, the opposite is the case. Some of the highest earning, public profile liberals give the least to charity. In fact as a whole, liberals contribute less as a percentage of income to charity than self-identified conservatives. Beyond these simple facts, this chart is nothing more than hateful crap.

Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli chat sesli sohbet