Is Being Conservative Really the Ticket to Happiness?
I can see it in your eyes. I can see it in your smile.
Back in 2015, David Brooks wrote a scathing review of the Republican Party in The New York Times. Following “a long chain of rhetorical excesses, mental corruptions and philosophical betrayals,” Brooks wrote, the GOP has “abandoned traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism” and “the jaw-dropping incompetence” of figures like Donald Trump and Ben Carson. The turn away from true conservative principles has been accompanied by a disavowal of cool-headedness and an embrace of a “rhetorical tone [that] has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic, and imbalanced.”
Brooks’ portrait of Republicans is deeply grim. Yet its central contention might be a touch hyperbolic itself. Is it really the case that Rush Limbaugh is responsible for ushering in an era of hotheaded radicalism and sweeping out measured, austere, true conservatism? Were conservatives ever such dependable purveyors of wisdom and gravitas?
However we construe the meaning of conservatism, one data point has been rather consistent across the past couple of decades: Conservatives are happier than liberals. Brooks’ hand-wringing misery to one side, surveys consistently find that the political is personal: Your politics can have a measurable effect on your happiness. A Pew research survey in 2006 found that 47 percent of conservative Republicans reported being "very happy," compared to 28 percent of liberal Democrats. In a 2007 study, for example, Jaime Napier and John Jost found that “right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being.” They attributed the ideological happiness gap to “the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function” to soften the bad news that constantly erupts. Conservative ideology may be a balm to the soul.
When researchers report that conservatives are happier than liberals, they base that claim on survey respondents’ self-reported happiness levels. But there are a number of reasons to worry that this data is not perfectly dependable. As Rob Hoskin writes, self-report data could be tainted by a number of factors: outright dishonesty or image management, limited “introspective ability,” misunderstanding of the questions, and artificial rating scales, to name a few.
Still, one might say that these problems apply to everybody across the board and thus are no reason to think they would skew data out of shape in any systematic way. When we consult self-reported happiness levels, then, we might be getting noisy or imprecise data, but we shouldn’t expect the noise will result in gross errors one way or another.
That assumption may be wrong. A study published a few months ago suggests that political happiness research may contain a fundamental flaw that does, in fact, color the results. The typical finding that conservatives are happier "is fully mediated by conservatives’ self-enhancing style of self-report." In short, conservatives may be lying — or, more charitably, might be mistaken — when telling researchers they’re happy. Liberals might misrepresent their happiness, too, but in the other direction: lefties are happier than they say they are.
How do we know this? By watching how liberals and conservatives actually behave. It turns out that in their smiles and their language, liberals show signs of greater well-being than do conservatives. Sean Wojcik, a researcher in social psychology (and, by the looks of things, a happy guy) conducted several studies that bore out this conclusion. Here Wojcik explains his study to Christie Aschwanden at FiveThirtyEight:
What we found is that conservatives evaluate themselves in a more favorable way across the board. In psychology, we call this “self-enhancement,” and most people engage in some degree of it. ... We looked at two things — smiling behavior and linguistics. We assessed smiling through something called the Facial Action Coding System or FACS, which looks at the two muscle groups associated with smiling. For the linguistic analyses, it was just counting words, and we used software called LIWC [Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count] that has a ton of support in the psychological literature. Basically, it’s a word-counting program that comes with dictionaries of words related to important psychological characteristics and emotions. We used LIWC to count the frequency with which people used words from the positive and negative emotion scales.
So conservatives smile less often (and less genuinely) and use glum words more often when they talk. The trends are evident in the behavior of members of Congress:
In the second study, we assessed the emotional content of speech for each of the members of Congress in the year 2013, and we observed more frequent positive emotional language among liberal politicians than among conservatives. We thought maybe there was something peculiar about the year 2013, so we also looked at the ratio of positive and negative emotionality for each party over the past 18 or so years in the congressional record. What we found was that Democrats used a higher ratio of positive to negative emotion words over that span of time.
We also assessed the smiling behavior of members of the 2013 Congress by looking at the congressional pictorial directory, which is a little booklet of official-looking photos of every member of Congress. I don’t know if anyone but me reads it, but we had a FACS-certified coder go through and analyze smile intensity in every photograph. We found that liberal politicians smiled more intensely than conservatives overall and this was especially true in the muscle orbiting the eye, which indicates more genuine smiling, often called Duchenne smiling. Both of those together suggest that liberal politicians express more positive emotionality than conservative politicians.
The same holds for regular people, if you consider people who use Twitter “regular.” Liberals are sunnier in their 140 characters than are conservatives, and their smiles are broader and more genuine. Although all of his studies point in the same direction, Wojcik warns that the matter is deeper than either self-reporting or smile-observing can plumb: “[W]e’re not saying that liberals are happier than conservatives,” Wojcik says. “We’re saying they behave happier, but conservatives report being happier, and we don’t know which of those is more important or more valuable or more predictive of the things that ultimately matter.”
Steven V. Mazie is Professor of Political Studies at Bard High School Early College-Manhattan and Supreme Court Correspondent for The Economist. He holds an A.B. in Government from Harvard College and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan.
Follow Steven Mazie on Twitter: @stevenmazie
What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.
- Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
- Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
- Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
The 'People Map of the United States' zooms in on America's obsession with celebrity
- Replace city names with those of their most famous residents
- And you get a peculiar map of America's obsession with celebrity
- If you seek fame, become an actor, musician or athlete rather than a politician, entrepreneur or scientist
Chicagoland is Obamaland
Image: The Pudding
Chicagoland's celebrity constellation: dominated by Barack, but with plenty of room for the Belushis, Brandos and Capones of this world.
Seen from among the satellites, this map of the United States is populated by a remarkably diverse bunch of athletes, entertainers, entrepreneurs and other persons of repute (and disrepute).
The multitalented Dwayne Johnson, boxing legend Muhammad Ali and Apple co-founder Steve Jobs dominate the West Coast. Right down the middle, we find actors Chris Pratt and Jason Momoa, singer Elvis Presley and basketball player Shaquille O'Neal. The East Coast crew include wrestler John Cena, whistle-blower Edward Snowden, mass murderer Ted Bundy… and Dwayne Johnson, again.
The Rock pops up in both Hayward, CA and Southwest Ranches, FL, but he's not the only one to appear twice on the map. Wild West legend Wyatt Earp makes an appearance in both Deadwood, SD and Dodge City, KS.
How is that? This 'People's Map of the United States' replaces the names of cities with those of "their most Wikipedia'ed resident: people born in, lived in, or connected to a place."
‘Cincinnati, Birthplace of Charles Manson'
Image: The Pudding
Keys to the city, or lock 'em up and throw away the key? A city's most famous sons and daughters of a city aren't always the most favoured ones.
That definition allows people to appear in more than one locality. Dwayne Johnson was born in Hayward, has one of his houses in Southwest Ranches, and is famous enough to be the 'most Wikipedia'ed resident' for both localities.
Wyatt Earp was born in Monmouth, IL, but his reputation is closely associated with both Deadwood and Dodge City – although he's most famous for the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, which took place in Tombstone, AZ. And yes, if you zoom in on that town in southern Arizona, there's Mr Earp again.
The data for this map was collected via the Wikipedia API (application programming interface) from the English-language Wikipedia for the period from July 2015 to May 2019.
The thousands of 'Notable People' sections in Wikipedia entries for cities and other places in the U.S. were scrubbed for the person with the most pageviews. No distinction was made between places of birth, residence or death. As the developers note, "people can 'be from' multiple places".
Pageviews are an impartial indicator of interest – it doesn't matter whether your claim to fame is horrific or honorific. As a result, this map provides a non-judgmental overview of America's obsession with celebrity.
Royals and (other) mortals
Image: The Pudding
There's also a UK version of the People Map – filled with last names like Neeson, Sheeran, Darwin and Churchill – and a few first names of monarchs.
Celebrity, it is often argued, is our age's version of the Greek pantheon, populated by dozens of major gods and thousands of minor ones, each an example of behaviours to emulate or avoid. This constellation of stars, famous and infamous, is more than a map of names. It's a window into America's soul.
But don't let that put you off. Zooming in on the map is entertaining enough: celebrities floating around in the ether are suddenly tied down to a pedestrian level, and to real geography. And it's fun to see the famous and the infamous rub shoulders, as it were.
Barack Obama owns Chicago, but the suburbs to the west of the city are dotted with a panoply of personalities, ranging from the criminal (Al Capone, Cicero) and the musical (John Prine, Maywood) to figures literary (Jonathan Franzen, Western Springs) and painterly (Ivan Albright, Warrenville), actorial (Harrison Ford, Park Ridge) and political (Eugene V. Debs, Elmhurst).
Freaks and angels
The People Map of the U.S. was inspired by the U.S.A. Song Map, substituting song titles for place names.
It would be interesting to compare 'the most Wikipedia'ed' sons and daughters of America's cities with the ones advertised at the city limits. When you're entering Aberdeen, WA, a sign invites you to 'come as you are', in homage to its most famous son, Kurt Cobain. It's a safe bet that Indian Hill, OH will make sure you know Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, was one of theirs. But it's highly unlikely that Cincinnati, a bit further south, will make any noise about Charles Manson, local boy done bad.
Inevitably, the map also reveals some bitterly ironic neighbours, such as Ishi, the last of the Yahi tribe, captured near Oroville, CA. He died in 1916 as "the last wild Indian in North America". The most 'pageviewed' resident of nearby Colusa, CA is Byron de la Beckwith, Jr., the white supremacist convicted for the murder of Civil Rights activist Medgar Evers.
As a sampling of America's interests, this map teaches that those aiming for fame would do better to become actors, musicians or athletes rather than politicians, entrepreneurs or scientists. But also that celebrity is not limited to the big city lights of LA or New York. Even in deepest Dakota or flattest Kansas, the footlights of fame will find you. Whether that's good or bad? The pageviews don't judge...
Average waiting time for hitchhikers in Ireland: Less than 30 minutes. In southern Spain: More than 90 minutes.
- A popular means of transportation from the 1920s to the 1980s, hitchhiking has since fallen in disrepute.
- However, as this map shows, thumbing a ride still occupies a thriving niche – if at great geographic variance.
- In some countries and areas, you'll be off the street in no time. In other places, it's much harder to thumb your way from A to B.
Technology may soon grant us immortality, in a sense. Here's how.
- Through the Connectome Project we may soon be able to map the pathways of the entire human brain, including memories, and create computer programs that evoke the person the digitization is stemmed from.
- We age because errors build up in our cells — mitochondria to be exact.
- With CRISPR technology we may soon be able to edit out errors that build up as we age, and extend the human lifespan.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.