Are conservatives more of a monoculture than liberals?

[bascule]

Fascinating analysis of liberal versus conservative tendencies of their userbase by the creators of the OkCupid dating site:

 

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/

 

OkCupid, if you're unfamiliar, matches users based on a large and open ended set of survey questions, trying to determine similarity between users and whether they'd be compatible.

 

Their conclusions about political similarity, culled through anonymous statistical analysis of their userbase, is that liberals are a far more diverse group than conservatives, who are largely a monoculture:

 

As you can see, conservatives of both stripes get along with each other better than liberals do with themselves, even on non-political issues. We calculate match percentage by posing a series of questions to our users.

 

Matches were computed "political compass" style, weighing social/economic viewpoints and grouping people as liberal/conservative and libertarian/authoritarian.

 

According to their analysis, conservative libertarians were much more likely to be in agreement with conservative authoritarians than liberaltarians were likely to be in agreement with liberal authoritarians.

 

Several distributions of viewpoints are shown, correlating political positions with stances on particular issues. The results when comparing social conservatives to social liberals give the expected mirror image, but the results comparing economic conservatives to economic liberals are often, shall we say, asymmetrical:

 

 

 

As the intro to the article states:

 

Time and again in American politics, Republicans have voted as a unit to frustrate our disorganized Democratic majority. No matter what's on the table, a few Democrats will peel away from the party core; meanwhile, all Republicans will somehow manage to stay on-message.

 

What do you think?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think part of it is that Republicans value "sticking together" more than do Democrats, and also that Democrats are a majority and so ought to be more diverse statistically speaking.

[Pangloss]

Isn't the tea party movement an indication that Republicans are OFF message, and untrusted by fiscal conservatives?

[bascule]

Isn't the tea party movement an indication that Republicans are OFF message, and untrusted by fiscal conservatives?

 

I think it's an indication that Glenn Beck is really good at riling people up.

 

At first I think there was a fringe of truly fiscally conservative libertarians who were genuinely upset at things like TARP taking place under a Republican president who was urging it on. But then came Glenn Beck, and the 9.12 Project, and the movement gained momentum but its original message was lost.

 

What was left was a bunch of extremely partisan Republicans who loathe Democrats and hate the fact they're in power right now. A common trait seems to be they're not particularly informed and confused by what the government is and how it actually operates.

[jryan]

I think that is a bit of a stretch based on the evidence provided.

 

The only real conclusion I can draw from that is that the majority of fiscal conservatives are pro-life, and to a lesser extent anti-gay marriage.

 

What do the curves look like for affirmative action, or CO2 emissions, or any number of other social issues for which the skew is most likely in the other direction?

[Sisyphus]

Isn't the tea party movement an indication that Republicans are OFF message, and untrusted by fiscal conservatives?

 

If the Republicans were in power and there was still a tea party movement, your point would have more weight. However, as is, it may as well be organized by the RNC. (Not that I'm saying it is.) They might not be satisfied with the Republican party, but they only seem to be targeting Democrats, and Republicans are lining up to co-opt the movement. (Now that they're out of power they seem to care a lot more about the Constitution and financial responsibility.)

 

Also, I don't really think it's about fiscal conservatism. I think it's about social conservatism and populism (that is, anti-elitism) in general more than it is about any particular platform.

[bascule]

I think that is a bit of a stretch based on the evidence provided.

 

Did you read the article? These plots were perhaps the most telling:

 

 

People who tend liberal tend to fall into two very distinctive age groups (the very young and the very old), and the total area covered by the liberal plot is much larger than the area covered by the conservative plot.

[ParanoiA]

People who tend liberal tend to fall into two very distinctive age groups (the very young and the very old), and the total area covered by the liberal plot is much larger than the area covered by the conservative plot.

 

So then liberals are made up of people who are too young to know anything yet or too old to remember any of it?

[ecoli]

So then liberals are made up of people who are too young to know anything yet or too old to remember any of it?

 

Just the ones that are trying to date...

 

Could mean the apparent republican "monoculture" are the only ones who are still single.

[bascule]

Could mean the apparent republican "monoculture" are the only ones who are still single.

 

LOL, yes there are many ways okcupid is something of an unrepresentative sample of the population as a whole. You might as well factor in "people who are smart enough to use the Internet"

[jryan]

I've just read the article now as it was blocked at work.

 

Now I see what you are saying. Though I still am having a hard time believing there is any meaning to the graphs for the population at large, rather than just the population that uses a particular online dating service, or even dating services in general.

 

On a side note: Has there ever been a study as to the accuracy of dating site data versus real world people? Wouldn't there tend to be a biased towards ages being higher than reported, and ideological responses trend towards desire bias (ie. "this is what the ladies want to hear")?

 

That is to say, while the study is neat, I wouldn't necessarily hang my hat on OkCupid personal ads, or statistics derivatives there of.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

LOL, yes there are many ways okcupid is something of an unrepresentative sample of the population as a whole. You might as well factor in "people who are smart enough to use the Internet"

 

Or desperate enough to use internet dating sites.

[Moontanman]

It has always bothered me that because I do not agree with all Conservative or Republican ideas that I am immediately labeled a Liberal or Democrat (as though there are only two possible ways of thinking) and that as a Liberal I am automatically assumed to believe everything Liberals are supposed to stand for.

 

Conservatives are more of a mono culture and Liberals are more of a jumble of different cultures or ways of thinking. But I do not think either party represents everyone no matter what culture they affiliate themselves with. I do know people who are Conservative who do not agree with all Conservative view points.

 

In a sane political system there would be several parties (at least) who would share power through coalitions instead of one group opposing another.

 

Far too many people do not really fit into either extreme for either party to really represent everyone. Several different parties would better represent everyone and allow for power sharing instead of constant dead locks between two opposing parties.

[bascule]

So then liberals are made up of people who are too young to know anything yet or too old to remember any of it?

 

Yes, and the Republicans are made up of hypocritical ex-hippies who put deadhead stickers on their Cadillacs. (okay that reference is a bit dated at this point. How about Moe stickers on their Mercedes?)

[toastywombel]

It has always bothered me that because I do not agree with all Conservative or Republican ideas that I am immediately labeled a Liberal or Democrat (as though there are only two possible ways of thinking) and that as a Liberal I am automatically assumed to believe everything Liberals are supposed to stand for.

 

Conservatives are more of a mono culture and Liberals are more of a jumble of different cultures or ways of thinking. But I do not think either party represents everyone no matter what culture they affiliate themselves with. I do know people who are Conservative who do not agree with all Conservative view points.

 

In a sane political system there would be several parties (at least) who would share power through coalitions instead of one group opposing another.

 

Far too many people do not really fit into either extreme for either party to really represent everyone. Several different parties would better represent everyone and allow for power sharing instead of constant dead locks between two opposing parties.

 

I agree with this, the Republicans seem to be group A, and the Democrats seem to be a bunch of groups against group A. This is of course a generalization. But it is unfortunate, I'll often have political debates, in which I question a Republican tactic or ideology and they immediately start attacking Pelosi and Reid, as if I am supposed to be a big fan of them.

[ParanoiA]

I agree with this, the Republicans seem to be group A, and the Democrats seem to be a bunch of groups against group A. This is of course a generalization. But it is unfortunate, I'll often have political debates, in which I question a Republican tactic or ideology and they immediately start attacking Pelosi and Reid, as if I am supposed to be a big fan of them.

 

Oh I hear ya. This happens to me almost daily. What I always get is "yeah, well the <other team> did blah blah blah" - as if that's a retort to my initial criticism of one or the other. I mean, without spending a second of silence, they counter with some 'yeah-well-the-other-team' argument without even thinking or even pausing to consider that I may not be on either team.

 

And of course, this pisses them off because then they can't use their canned arguments and oversimplified association labels to marginalize me. Well they do anyway, and it puts me on the defensive - having to defend yourself against baseless assumptions, particularly due to intellectual laziness, is just annoying as hell. Why do I have to prove I'm not a conservative just because someone else assumed I was?

[Sisyphus]

It's like taking "if you're not with us you're against us" one step further, to "if you're not with us you're with them." Aww, do I have to be?

 

The cause seems to be a tendency to focus on what you don't like about the other guy more than what you do like about "your side." And probably a result is that people disagree a lot less than they think, if they think that elected representatives are... representative of half the country.

[Pangloss]

Not to interrupt but just to toss another question out that's related to the thread, is there anyone here who believes that one cannot be conservative in America unless one is a fundamentalist Christian? Or would anyone like to take up that argument to any degree (say a lesser degree of religious adherence)?

[iNow]

Not to interrupt but just to toss another question out that's related to the thread, is there anyone here who believes that one cannot be conservative in America unless one is a fundamentalist Christian? Or would anyone like to take up that argument to any degree (say a lesser degree of religious adherence)?

 

Must one be a fundie Christian to be conservative of the brand we're seeing most vocal in the US today? No, absolutely not.

 

However, if one were to draw a Venn diagram where one circle represented fundie Christian belief and the other circle represented the type of conservative we're seeing most vocal in the US today, I suggest the overlap would be rather profound.

[ParanoiA]

Not to interrupt but just to toss another question out that's related to the thread' date=' is there anyone here who believes that one cannot be conservative in America unless one is a fundamentalist Christian?[/quote']

 

Must one be a fundie Christian to be conservative of the brand we're seeing most vocal in the US today? No, absolutely not.

 

However, if one were to draw a Venn diagram where one circle represented fundie Christian belief and the other circle represented the type of conservative we're seeing most vocal in the US today, I suggest the overlap would be rather profound.

 

Agreed. Rush Limbaugh refers to conservative non-religio fundies as blue blooded republicans and he sneers at them.

 

I think conservative non-fundamentalist christians or atheists tend to fall more libertarian. Because it's usually the appeals to religious morality (which I think is encoded in "traditional american values") that fuel the exceptions religious conservatives use to work around their own principles. When you remove the religious component, and the subtending morality engineering to recreate "traditional american values", you're left with a more libertarian model.

 

Not to be confused with the 'blue blooded' republicans up North. I don't think there's anything remotely libertarian-like about them, they are more of the hybrid democrat/republican type - fiscal conservative, social liberal.

[JohnB]

A thought occurred to me over the weekend.

 

Since OkCupid is a dating site, then the people involved are probably single.

 

So we could conclude from the data that Liberals are at their most annoying between the ages of 18 and 34 and when over 55. While Conservatives are most irritating between the ages of 35 and 55, hence the lack of partners.

[bascule]

To anyone suggesting sampling bias, no excuse... this "study" is rife with it

[ParanoiA]

A thought occurred to me over the weekend.

 

Since OkCupid is a dating site, then the people involved are probably single.

 

So we could conclude from the data that Liberals are at their most annoying between the ages of 18 and 34 and when over 55. While Conservatives are most irritating between the ages of 35 and 55, hence the lack of partners.

 

Now there's a sound conclusion.

 

For the record, I did get married long before I reached my most irritating. Sometimes you have to trick them into it.

[ecoli]

To anyone suggesting sampling bias, no excuse... this "study" is rife with it

It depends how you frame the study. You can't use it to form conclusions about the general population, but it does tell us something useful about OKcupid users.

 

The second step is a common reporting error in main stream presses, even if researchers know exactly what their data set represents.

[Sisyphus]

It depends how you frame the study. You can't use it to form conclusions about the general population, but it does tell us something useful about OKcupid users.

 

More specifically, it tells us something about how OKcupid users describe themselves.