Conservatives have greater subjective life satisfaction than liberals, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Two New York University researchers performed three studies to find out why. Christie Nicholson reports.

Scientific American wrote:Conservatives are happier than liberals. This according to a 2006 Pew Research Center survey cited in a paper published this month in Psychological Science.

But New York University researchers set out to isolate the reasons why right-wingers would have greater subjective well-being than left-wingers.

They collected data from nearly 1,200 people from the 2000 American National Election Study and found that above the effects of gender, marital status, income, religion and age, the reason for this happiness disparity can be distilled to the separate ideologies of liberals and conservatives.

The authors argue that a conservative belief acts as a psychological buffer in a world of increasing inequality. The idea is that conservatives tend to rationalize inequality as the result of a fair process in a meritocracy, whereas liberals tend to see inequality as inherently unjust.

Analyses with data from 9,000 people across 10 countries uncovered the pattern that, not only do right-wingers report greater life satisfaction across cultures, but the gap widens in those countries where quality of life is low.

Finally, the authors looked at U.S. data spanning the past 30 years, and found that increasing economic inequality is associated with the decrease in the nation's overall happiness. But noted they found that liberals' self-reported happiness decreased more steeply than that of conservatives.

- Christie Nicholson

Who'd'a thunk that people who tend to use drugs are not very happy with their lives?

There was no doubt in my mind that conservatives were happier because they tend to have absolute moral values: living a life according to your beliefs, finding self-fulfillment in work and family is a sure way to be happy. Liberals tend to have relative values. It is impossible to live according to beliefs that are always changing with the Current Truth(TM). That's why many liberals are guilt-ridden nervous wrecks who seek happiness in drugs, trying to forget the horror of facing reality. Drugs may give them a temporary surrogate of happiness but make real happiness even more distant.

The NYU scientists, however, find different explanations to their findings - and their explanations betray their ideology better than "I only sleep with Democrats" T-shirt.

But the most interesting part is the comments section, where liberal readers of Scientific American express their unhappiness with the scientists who suggest that liberals are an unhappy group of people. In that they are similar to the Muslim protesters who get angry at those who suggest that their religion is angry.

I posted this comment:

It's funny how most of the comments here prove the point of this article - that liberals are generally unhappy, whining people and sore losers. Especially sore losers. In addition, the commenters prove another point not mentioned in the article - the liberal disconnect with reality. Observe them describing themselves as smart and conservatives as stupid - without stopping to think that by doing so they simple-mindedly illustrate the point of the article, like lab rats in a scientific experiment. Not the smartest thing to do, especially for those claiming to be "smarter than thou."

That way liberals are an endless source of fun for conservatives, adding to their overall happiness.

(Karakter Off)

I completely agree. And it's endlessly entertaining to comtemplate how unhappy liberals are with the report stating what they already have observed about themselves. It's doubly unfair!

Just a quick read of liberal and conservative blogs proves their premise. While both sides have their unhinged foamers on the fringe, most of the wacked-out comments come from the left. Most conservatives clearly benefit from a world view rooted in absolute values, and are undoubtedly happier.

Now if the Obamessiah would just step in it again with some soothing words of hope and change, and attempt to unite us as only he can. He could then proclaim conservative values as somehow harmful and ignorant, and the blowback would fan the flames of liberal depression. Here's hoping by the July 4th weekend, the liberals will be gnashing their teeth over another major Obamagaffe.

Perhaps, happy people are that way because of a rational mindset that leads to an outlook that some categorize as "conservative." Unhappy people are also that way because of an irrational mindset that some categorize as "liberal."

Equality as a precondition to personal happiness? That's very funny. People are all born different - tall, short, blonde, brunette, bald, hairy, pasty, swarthy, handsome, ugly, smart, slow. If cutting them all to size is what would make liberals happy, they are not different from fascists. I'd rather they continue to remain sore losers.

"...conservative belief acts as a psychological buffer in a world of increasing inequality."

It amazes me that someone can believe that the world is increasing in inequality. Remember when the Czar had those millions of serfs? Remember that inequality? Remember the inequality between slaves and their masters? Remember when Jews couldn't get into country clubs? Remember 'white only' waterfountains and beaches?

But no, we're much more unequal than that now, huh. Sheesh. I just wish liberals would learn to think with their brains rather than just feel with them.

//Karakter_Off

That's the point of the persistent "revisionism" so prevalent on the left. If the masses are allowed to remember and compare history and the current situation, they may begin to put two and two together and figure out that things are actually pretty good - we can't have that.

For example, the left has successfully buried the fact that about half of those interned by the U.S. government during WWII were white (Mostly Italian-Americans and German-Americans), not "only" Japanese, as we are taught in school. And of those interned Japanese, 3/4 gave up citizenship voluntarily, who were then interned as enemy aliens.

And yet, only the Japanese internees are recognized, and activists have succeeded in winning financial compensation from Congress on seven separate occasions, to the tune of $20,000 to each former internee and relocated person of Japanese descent.

Needless to say, no white internees have received money, an apology or a monument in Washington D.C, and their sufferings have been erased from history.

How is the left supposed to keep up the facade that America is an evil, racist country if people actually remember that whites were interned too?

\Karacter

This reminds me of the recent Gallup poll which shows that Republicans are more mentally healthy than Democrats (which, I have a sneaking suspicion, correlates strongly to statements about conservatives and liberals). A really beautiful piece, if you haven't read it. Some of my favorite quotes:

Gallup wrote:... one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican ...

And the clincher

Gallup wrote:[T]he key finding of the analyses presented here is that being a Republican appears to have an independent relationship on positive mental health above and beyond what can be explained by [other] types of demographic and lifestyle variables.

Send it to any libs you know, and you'll probably get a reaction like, "Well, Republicans must be delusional." At least that's what I got. If you want to get them really riled, remind them that self-reported mental health is the best indicator of mental health.

-Pav

I have a brother who is consistantly unhappy. He is a conservative and by the standards of the community he lives in quite affluent. A medical doctor with a number of pretty good kids, a big brick house set on a nice wooded lot with 40 acres in every direction between him and the nearest neighbors. But he is almost always unhappy about something.

I've thought a lot about his unhappiness. We come from the same family, same parents, raised in the same place and manner. He's got a bigger house, more stuff, and he doesn't wake up alone every morning like I do, yet I am far happier with life, the universe, and everything than he is. But there are two basic differences in our personalities that I think are key: he relies on others for his validation as a person, and he believes that he is a victim of circumstance.

I think that may be an element of general liberal unhappiness. It isn't enough to do something and be satisfied with the self-knowledge of a job well done; it has to be recognized, given a smiley face and a gold star, and tacked up on the fridge with a magnet for all to see. Others must acclaim the accomplishment and validate the existence of the person who did it for it to have any value to them; conversely, if nobody pats them on the back and tells them what a wonderful person they are, then they have no validation and are unhappy about it. This is why, I think, that the term "smug" is often used as an insult by liberal writers. It describes the satisfation of a person who knows who they are and who values who they are without the need of outside validation.

Red Square wrote: Equality as a precondition to personal happiness? That's very funny. People are all born different - tall, short, blonde, brunette, bald, hairy, pasty, swarthy, handsome, ugly, smart, slow. If cutting them all to size is what would make liberals happy, they are not different from fascists. I'd rather they continue to remain sore losers.

Red, did you ever see the move Enemy at the Gates? Just in case the answer is no, it's about famous Russian sniper Vasily Zaytsev in a fictional duel against a German sniper during the battle for Stalingrad. In it, his friend, a Commisar, falls in love with the same woman that loves him (it's a fairly weak story arc in a good movie). Commisar Danilov makes a couple of attempts to put Vasily into a situation that would get him killed later in the movie, so that she will forget about Vasily and embrace him. At the end, after she is cut down by shrapnel helping someone evacuate the city. Danilov comes to Vasily, who is held up in his sniper position trying to draw out the German, and delivers the news. It's a great little speech.

Commisar Danilov wrote: Man will always be man. There is no new man. We tried hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there is always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there was always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

If you haven't seen it, I recommend it, and I'd be interested in your opinion on it.

RIK

My favorite comment:

Why conduct these polls? Fine. Okay. What's up, are the conservatives pissed because we enjoy making love more, so they have to find something they're better at? Okay, so they can be happy, while we have good sex. We're even, so there, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah. Whatever.

What maturity and insight!

The whole thing goes quite well with Red Square's recent posts about the truth in humor and satire, and how liberals' response to what he wrote only proved his point.

Marianimus wrote:Why conduct these polls? Fine. Okay. What's up, are the conservatives pissed because we enjoy making love more, so they have to find something they're better at? Okay, so they can be happy, while we have good sex. We're even, so there, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah. Whatever.

I love how liberals constantly delude themselves about their sex lives, and percieved sex lives of us coservatives. Just because we save our hot-monkey love for the bedroom and don't feel any need to parade it around for the general populace. Liberals are like that dude in the locker room who lies about his sexual exploits to garner false respect.
This is Marianimus' profile

Now let's look at the only other post she has made. I didn't read the article, just some of the other posts that insinuate that you if you don't live in a dung heap hut, free of any and all scientific innovation, the you are a hypocrite for not signing on to dogmatic Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Mary wrote:I don't think it should be approached like that -- rather, we just need to speak our mind and heart. -- without rudeness or insistence.

There's a lot of 'talking points' going on, so we have to be aware of that, even if others aren't. We have to realize that people have absorded that stuff, as they, and we, go about their, and our, daily lives.

Darwin had no conflict with the fact that the evolutionary/ life process can be brutal. However, he also had no problem with accepting the fact that it often produced gentle and kind creatures.

All of the __ologists have verified this, I tihnk, at this point.

I'm so tired of the endless arguments.

I just want a boyfriend and a job!(emphasis mine)

Mary

I guess Mary is about as sexual satisfied as the women from Sex and the City. Poor Mary, all that claimed education and she has no job.

RIK

Seems that the poll indicating that conservatives are happier than liberals is another reason for liberals to be unhappy....

Rikalonius, ROFLMAO!!!!! So much for all that good sex she's having. Not to mention all those fancy degrees and she still can't write a coherent sentence.

This makes my day.

Blogagog wrote:"...conservative belief acts as a psychological buffer in a world of increasing inequality."

It amazes me that someone can believe that the world is increasing in inequality. Remember when the Czar had those millions of serfs? Remember that inequality? Remember the inequality between slaves and their masters? Remember when Jews couldn't get into country clubs? Remember 'white only' waterfountains and beaches?

But no, we're much more unequal than that now, huh. Sheesh. I just wish liberals would learn to think with their brains rather than just feel with them.

It's not just a matter of learning to think w/ their brains,rather than just feeling with them. I believe it's willful ignorance. This is how they WANT to view the world because it fuels their sense of victimhood. Rational thought goes the way of the smoke curling from their "cannabis cigarette". It's just a nuisance to them.

Ivan Betinov wrote:I think that may be an element of general liberal unhappiness. It isn't enough to do something and be satisfied with the self-knowledge of a job well done; it has to be recognized, given a smiley face and a gold star, and tacked up on the fridge with a magnet for all to see. Others must acclaim the accomplishment and validate the existence of the person who did it for it to have any value to them; conversely, if nobody pats them on the back and tells them what a wonderful person they are, then they have no validation and are unhappy about it.

Betinov, remember when you went to school, and if you had perfect attendance for the WHOLE YEAR, not just a three month segment, then all you got at the end of the year was a certificate to take home to your mom?

12 year old wins car for perfect attendance

And it's not just Chicago; they do this where I live, too. Read a book for a slice of pizza, and get a free trip to Sea World for not getting arrested again while out on bail.

And it's not just Chicago; they do this where I live, too. Read a book for a slice of pizza, and get a free trip to Sea World for not getting arrested again while out on bail.

Yep, no concept of doing something because the act of doing it is in itself good or beneficial down the road. The gratification must be instant and overwhelming. That works great for potty training, but it seems that a lot of folks never get out of the two-year-old mentality of the toddler who gets a cookie for piddling in the pot.

Well, crud. I don't know about you, but I never got a cookie for that! My mother didn't believe in rewards. She was more into threats and objects made out of wood.

Well, crud. I don't know about you, but I never got a cookie for that!

Ah, but males require a bit of aim and a steady hand, whereas ladies, as it is my understanding, more or less just have to manage to sit without falling off the bowl. Actually, I don't remember my toilet training, which, out-of-character, I deem to be yet one more proof of a loving and merciful God. That and Krispy Kreme Hot-n-Nows.

What is all this senseless bantering about?

The Party has long known that keeping the masses off balance and happy (in a gulag way) makes them far more moldable. Since our appeal is to the unsatisfied Liberals - it only makes sense that we are appealing to the poor masses being oppressed by the Right. Look at all of the countries in the Southern Americas (DAM YOU OLIVER NORTH! WE'LL GET OUR REVENGE!) and the teaming hordes of Africa killing each other just to enjoy our happiness - now that they've succeeded in shedding their bourgeois, conservative European roots. Have no fear comrades...

Liberal unhappiness is success for the State!

Gravitate to The Cube! Be one with us!

Rikalonius wrote:If you haven't seen it, I recommend it, and I'd be interested in your opinion on it.

I've seen Enemy at the Gates and I was pleasantly surprised that it had a very authentic feel to it, in sharp contrast to most Hollywood BS movies. Then I checked the credits and realized that it was written, produced, and directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, and edited by Alain Godard (there were some other French names in the credits). I don't want to put down American movie makers, but Europeans are probably closer to the reality of that story, and Hollywood does seem to be in decline due to ideological inbreeding and nepotism.

Not to mention that they are a bunch of folks whose general unhappiness is only interrupted by brief moments of joy and lucidity following a snort from the looking glass.

(Karakter off)

I know it's been said here, but it's funny how us conservatives are generally happier. I get disturbed more than anything as to how hyppocritical liberal mentality truly is. If you want an example, just Private Message me.

Red Square wrote:I don't want to put down American movie makers, but Europeans are probably closer to the reality of that story, and Hollywood does seem to be in decline due to ideological inbreeding and nepotism.

Why don't you want to put them down? They are largely reprobate narcissists. I'm glad you told me the origins of the movie's creators. I had never looked that far into it, but it makes sense given the celluloid schlock that normally comes out of Hollywood editing rooms. Either the subject matter is completely trivialized, or the worldview of the director is jammed into your face, history be damned. The example that immediately jumps into my head is Kingdom of Heaven. I was skeptical of a Crusades movie in the first place, given the current climate, and the almost endemic world-view that the Christian crusaders are "A number one" in the list of aggressive, blood-thirsty, and genocidal organizations the planet has ever known. I was told by many acquaintances and even some friends, that this was a great movie and I should see it, being the history buff I am. So I finally got it on DVD. I was very displeased when the final credits rolled.

It was everything I thought it could be, and more. Muslim good, enlightened, fair, merciful, and only pushed to violence by Christian aggression. There is even a disgusting, vomit inducing scene at the end where Saladin holds up the cross and weighs it in his hand, then places it back upright where it fell, as of course, a sign of his tolerance. It was so very much like the scene from Inherit the Wind, where Spencer Tracy holds up On the Origin of Species and the Bible as equal but different. To the contrary, in KoH, Christians are largely barbarous, superstitious war-mongers with less than a rudimentary knowledge of science; the most evil among them, proudly wearing the Knights Templar's colors to further exacerbate the stereotype.

Well seems I have hijacked the thread to get off on a rant. Sorry about that, lemme get myself back to character.

(karaktor in question and subject to alteration)
When the Murrah Building bombing occurred it was the "unhappy" liberal Left that blamed the bombing and killings on hate talk radio.

That claim vaulted Talk Radio and the conservative voice to the forefront....IMHO.

The Left's treasonous goal was to snuff the conservative voice and free speech like a cigarette in an ashtray.
Ironically, it was the Left's insistence that "Hate Talk" and perhaps websites like this one incite Americans to kill ... that inspired me to listen in the first place.

Funny thing I have noted ... conservatives seem willing to live and let live with those of opposing views and philosophies.
Not so with others of our same species.
Radical Islam and the Liberal Left in America have a lot in common.
Whereas the first chooses to remove heads with a sword, the second wants our ass in bound in the chains of socialism.

Frankly, I agree with a top psychiatrist who concludes liberals are clinically nuts!
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder:

Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder. (there is more......)

Here is the link:
https://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

Watching a country going to hell in a hand basket is like watching someone with a mental disorder repeatedly stab themselves in the eye with a salad fork and starve.

Our politicians are not the problem... It's the salad fork challenged folk who vote.
Radical Islam is a threat to the world .... but Liberalism is radical Islam's inspiration for our genocide.

Well said, Navigator!

And Rikalonius - this thread is meant specifically for rants like yours, which I enjoyed.

To our cause! Here's looking at the collective!

This is why Zoloft sells so well.