How to Understand the Well-Being Gap between Liberals and Conservatives

Uncategorized 3 Minutes

Source: American Affairs.

Every now and then you’ll hear someone say that reality has a liberal bias. The idea is that reality proves the objective truth of liberal ideology. It is a curious fact of life that those who possess this objective truth of liberal ideology are as a group measurably and distinctively prone to mental illness:

The well-being gap between liberals and conservatives is one of the most robust patterns in social science research. It is not a product of things that happened over the last decade or so; it goes back as far as the available data reach. The differences manifest across age, gender, race, religion, and other dimensions. They are not merely present in the United States, but in most other studied countries as well. Consequently, satisfying explanations of the gaps in reported well-being between liberals and conservatives would have to generalize beyond the present moment, beyond isolated cultural or geographic contexts, and beyond specific demographic groups. This essay has explored some of the most likely and well-explored drivers of the observed patterns:

  1. There are likely some genetic and biological factors that simultaneously predispose people towards both mental illness/ wellness and liberalism/ conservatism, respectively.
  2. Net of these predispositions, conservatism probably helps adherents make sense of, and respond constructively to, adverse states of affairs. These effects are independent of, but enhanced by, religiosity and patriotism (which tend to be ideological fellow-travelers with conservatism).
  3. Some strains of liberal ideology, on the other hand, likely exacerbate (and even incentivize) anxiety, depression, and other forms of unhealthy thinking. The increased power and prevalence of these ideological frameworks post-2011 may have contributed to the dramatic and asymmetrical rise in mental distress among liberals over the past decade.
  4. People who are unwell may be especially attracted to liberal politics over conservatism for a variety of reasons, and this may exacerbate observed ideological gaps net of other factors.

The amount of observed variance that each of these theories explain relative to one another is, at present, empirically unclear and hotly contested. However, the general pattern is clear: conservatives report significantly higher levels of happiness, meaning, and satisfaction in their lives as compared to liberals. Meanwhile, liberals are much more likely to exhibit anxiety, depression, and other forms of psychic distress.

Critically, these facts don’t tell us anything about which worldview is morally correct. Outside of Randian objectivism, it is widely acknowledged that what is maximally advantageous for oneself is not necessarily the most moral thing to do. Doing the right thing instead regularly imposes risks and costs on those who step up. Consequently, the fact that conservatism has practical advantages for adherents while liberalism may undermine well-being doesn’t necessarily tell us which ideology is more ethical to hold. Those are questions better suited for theology and philosophy than social science.

Likewise, the facts explored here tell us nothing about which worldview best helps us to most accurately capture reality. It’s not clear that there’s a tight correspondence between truth and well-being. In fact, as Nietzsche repeatedly emphasized, deep commitment to “the facts” may be an impediment to flourishing. Hence conservatism being more congenial to individual well-being may be perfectly compatible with claims that “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Again, that’s a type of question that’s beyond the scope of this research.

Put another way: it’s a scientific fact that conservatives tend to be happier and more well-adjusted than liberals, and ideological gaps in well-being have expanded since 2011. The implications and applications of these realities remain wide open to interpretation.

In my own experience, the main difference between conservatism and liberalism lies in how the two ideologies tend to process assumptions. Conservatives tend to question assumptions whereas liberals tend to assert them as facts. I don’t know why this is so (it could be genetic), but it seems obvious to me that questioning assumptions is a more healthy habit.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

36 thoughts on “How to Understand the Well-Being Gap between Liberals and Conservatives”

  1. “The idea is that reality proves the objective truth of liberal ideology”

    Uh, no that is not what the phrase “reality has a liberal bias” refers to. Ideologies are not statements of fact. They have no objective truth. They are neither true nor false.

    What the phrase refers to that in discussions of policies involving science, history, economics, etc. liberals rely on objective truths to make their points while “conservatives” rely on what are called “alternative facts.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Liberals rely on objective truths?

      So, Socialism has led to poverty, oppression and war every time it has been tried in the past, but THIS TIME it will work.

      People will act for the good of the community against their own family’s interests if you make them feel guilty enough?

      30 years of consistent failure of climate projections doesn’t mean that this year’s projections, based on the same models, aren’t true.

      Those objective truths?

      Like

      Reply

      1. “So, Socialism has led to poverty, oppression and war every time it has been tried in the past, but THIS TIME it will work.”

        What are you even referring to? Fascism under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao maybe? If that is not what you are referring to, then what?

        And what “socialists” do you think you are addressing – people who support public education maybe?

        No, I will stick by what I said. “Conservatives” CONSTANTLY rely on “alternative facts” to make their arguments. Liberals don’t. And that is the meaning of the phrase “reality has a liberal bias.”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. RE: “What the phrase refers to that in discussions of policies involving science, history, economics, etc. liberals rely on objective truths to make their points while “conservatives” rely on what are called ‘alternative facts.'”

      Semantic deflection. Typical.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Semantic deflection. Typical.”

        I actually stated that I accept the findings you are sharing so how is this “deflecting?”

        I confess to a preference for words being used according to their meanings. In this case, the phrase “the objective truth of liberal ideology” simply makes no sense if you understand what the words mean.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. RE: “I actually stated that I accept the findings you are sharing so how is this ‘deflecting?'”

        Because you failed to notice that the oxymoron could have been deliberate and chose, instead, to change the subject.

        Like

        Reply

  2. I, for one, am willing to believe that people with greater understanding of the world and who are more keenly aware of its injustices (“woke”) pay a measurable emotional price that manifests itself in anxiety and/or depression.

    There is a reason that the village idiot is usually portrayed grinning. The simplistic world of “conservative” stereotypical thinking (another finding of science) is less stressful. It involves less ambiguity, less contradictory evidence to process, less empathy to feel. Altogether easier. Just ask this happy fellow . . .

    https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/7/7f/Alfred_E_._Neuman.webp/revision/latest?cb=20220520164214&path-prefix=protagonist

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “I, for one, am willing to believe that people with greater understanding of the world and who are more keenly aware of its injustices (“woke”) pay a measurable emotional price that manifests itself in anxiety and/or depression.”

      Good for you, especially as one who relies on objective truths, but interestingly “emotional price” isn’t one of the four explanations the paper derives from its survey of the research.

      Like

      Reply

    2. I think you have the cart before the horse. I don’t think that a greater awareness and empathy lead liberals to dismay, I think that there is something in the liberal mind that drives them to seek out drama, guilt, fear and anger.

      Ask any liberal and he will assure you that the climate is trying to kill us all, and we must do penance to atone. But if you refer to the exhaustive list from Willis Eschenbach I posted yesterday, the climate has not gotten significantly worse in any category. There is no crisis.

      You would think liberals would be happy as that frees enormous resources to help the world’s poor, but they just double down on policies that will perpetuate those ills.

      I am afraid they just have a need to be miserable and angry.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Ask any liberal and he will assure you that the climate is trying to kill us all”

        Not everything is about Trump, uh, I mean the climate.

        With that said, your statement is false or, I suppose, just a hyperbolic straw man. Ask me . . . I will not assure you that the climate is trying to kill us all. I would say the climate impact of AGW is already killing a lot of people and will – in the years ahead – be killing a lot more.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Well, there you go again.

          That list you apparently haven’t looked at pretty much establishes that AGW has not harmed anyone and is unlikely to do so in the future.

          But instead of breathing a sigh of relief you cling to disproven theories because there has to be a boogeyman to fear.

          Like

          Reply

          3. I could EASILY find dozens of cites from reputable scientists and organizations saying that the harm from AGW is already extensive. And my cites would not fly in the face of common sense.

            And here is a pro tip on critical thinking . . . Categorical statements such as “AGW has not harmed anyone” are very easy to prove wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Find one that refutes any of the claims in the list I provided.

            Go ahead, not one of them has been refuted.

            The problem is that you are relying on organizations that would cease to exist if the “crisis” went away.

            That’s not to say there are no problems, but nothing as bad as the solutions proposed.

            Like

          5. Do your own research. Since you complain that most of climate science is “corrupt” because they do not agree with you, you should have not trouble finding evidence that AGW has harmed people. Here is one to get you started . . .

            https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/07-11-2022-statement—climate-change-is-already-killing-us–but-strong-action-now-can-prevent-more-deaths#:~:text=Extreme%20temperatures%20accounted%20for%20more,over%20half%20a%20million%20people.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Except had you looked at that list, you would know that none of that is actually happening.

            There’s your problem you sit there at google looking for cites that support your religion, but you have no understanding nor do you apply any critical thinking,

            Consider, if people stopped fearing climate change, would Climate Signals exist in a year? Climate change is an industry an order of magnitude larger than big pharma(which at least produces something useful), yet you uncritically swallow every claim.

            Like

          9. “Except had you looked at that list, you would know that none of that is actually happening.”

            You are the one who is constantly cherry-picking outliers and crackpots to support what you want to believe. Not me. According to you, almost all climate scientists, all governments and the U.N. are “corrupt.” All the concern is part of a “hoax” by Chyna to sap our vital bodily fluids, I suppose.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Yes, I read the article. It beat up a series of straw men – the most out-there predictions mainly by political figures. And where he could not totally pooh pooh a problem he said that climate change was only part of the story. Or could not be verified to be the DIRECT cause of this or that disaster. Well, alrighty then.

            From the article . . . “Does this mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Not at all. ”
            The author then goes on to cite his concerns about mass extinctions.

            And there is nothing in any of it to support your claim that “AGW has not harmed anyone.”

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “I am afraid they just have a need to be miserable and angry.”

        The research that suggests a genetic explanation intrigues me. An implication would be that anti-conservative elements of liberal ideology are essentially racist.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I wouldn’t go that far.

          I think it may be organic, but in a more indirect way. I suspect it’s an imbalance in the fight-or-flight circuitry. They are so used to being afraid of the bear outside the cave that if there isn’t one there, they have to manufacture one

          Like

          Reply

          1. “They are so used to being afraid of the bear outside the cave that if there isn’t one there, they have to manufacture one”

            Your lack of self-awareness as you indulge in this nonsense is quite something. Look in the mirror. There you will see a fellow afraid to go to the Olive Garden without his “little friend”- a guy who spends half is time worrying that the gubmit is coming for his gun and “socialists” coming for his purse.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. You are mistaken. I am not at all afraid.

            My boat is carefully maintained, so a fire at sea is very unlikely. But a fire at sea is a very grave danger if it does happen so I carry a fire extinguisher, PFDs and satellite beacon.

            That’s not fear, I doubt I’ll ever have a fire, it’s just a precaution a responsible person takes.

            The same applies to my handgun, if I were going someplace I thought I might need it, I wouldn’t go. I carry it in the event of a very unlikely need that would be impossible to fulfil at the moment.

            But I am unafraid in part because I do take precautions where possible.

            Like

          3. “You are mistaken. I am not at all afraid.”

            Well, neither am I. In spite of your silly pop psychology.

            And, unlike you, I am NOT afraid to go to the Olive Garden without a gun. You obviously are. Some “thug” is always just around the corner just waiting to catch you off guard. Call it it “insurance” if that floats your boat, but you know, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “Yet you are afraid the world will end if we do not condemn billions of people to abject poverty.”

            (a) No, I am not afraid the world will end. I fully expect that the world will survive and human civilization will survive but, in the process, millions of people will die who might have been saved if we had been a little less selfish during OUR lifetimes.

            (c) Your predictions of billions of people living in abject poverty because the world transitions to renewable sources of energy is laughable. Completely bonkers.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Ross Douthat, one of the modern day opinion writers, shares his take on the American Affairs piece. Only sharing this to add to the discussion.

    Still haven’t figured out the tiny url thing. Sorry. But the long code is needed for gifting.

    It should be “gifted”

    Like

    Reply

    1. Tiny url

      1. Copy the address to be shortened to the clipboard
      2. Navigate to tinyurl.com
      3. Paste the address into the white box
      4. Click on the Make TinyUrl! button
      5. Click on the Copy button

      The tinyurl is now on the clipboard and can be pasted where you need it.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Adam Green Cancel reply