From Political Behavior in 2012:
The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives
Casey A. Klofstad • Rose McDermott • Peter K. Hatemi
Abstract: American politics has become more polarized. The source of the phenomena is debated. We posit that human mate choice may play a role in the process. Spouses are highly correlated in their political preferences, and research in behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and endocrinology shows that political preferences develop through a complex interaction of social upbringing, life experience, immediate circumstance, and genes and hormones, operating through one’s psychological architecture by Hatemi et al. (J Theor Politics, 24:305–327, 2012). Consequently, if people with similar political values produce children, there will be more individuals at the ideological extremes over generations. This said, we are left with a mystery: spousal concordance on political attitudes does not result from convergence over the course of the relationship, nor are spouses initially selecting one another on political preferences. We examine whether positive mate assorta- tion—like seeks like—on non-political factors such as lifestyle and demographics could lead to inadvertent assortation on political preferences. Using a sample of Internet dating profiles we find that both liberals and conservatives seek to date individuals who are like themselves. This result suggests a pathway by which long- term couples come to share political preferences, which in turn could be fueling the widening ideological gap in the United States.
The authors hypothesize that notable differences would be apparent up after 5 generations.
Posts
28 comments:
Are there that many truly liberal white nuclear families? White lib seeks out white lib on the online meat market, falls in love, marriage, baby carriage.
I think what happens next depends mostly on where they live. If they live in blue states, they'll mouth off liberalism to keep from being social pariahs, but then behave implicitly conservatively. If they live in a small blue island of a red state, they'll sprawl to a red suburb and gradually shift from blue to red in their personal politics.
The solution to reduce political polarization (that liberals so often decry) is to return to the gold standard of assortative mating -- dating based on power differentials. When bosses date their secretaries, the bond created by the sexual polarization reduces the societal friction caused by ideological polarization.
Doing my part to make the world a better place.
if it were true, why don't we observe it in europe? pretty sure we have more than 5 generations worth of data from there.
what about other nations with a long recorded history? is there ANY observed, long term divergence in political thought between the chinese or japanese, whereby over 5 generations time, they end up divided into 2 groups who are at each other throats? no. no, there is not. india? nope. among the jewish populations of the world? nada. what about the egyptians? what group of humans ANYWHERE with a written history which we could use as data, show that such a scenario (division into 2 political groups via assortive mating) is a naturally emerging situation?
this polarization stuff is a completely new phenomenon never observed before in the history of man. because liberals and cultural marxists are a completely new phenomenon. never before has there been behavior widespread that was so extremely detrimental to a group's survival.
greg cochran would describe the hypothesis that liberalism is a long time, naturally occurring human behavior which, over time, organically divides a previously homogenous group into 2 competing factions trying to eliminate each other, as 'pure bullshit'. or some other such curt, to the point expression. he would ramble on about the 'huge fitness hit' that liberalism and cultural marxism would take on a group's reproductive success, and why it would never be selected for, and why it would always be selected out.
and he would be correct. which is why we have no other examples of it in history. and why the current example, will also be the last. the europeans who want to eliminate 'the other europeans' will probably end up succeeding in eliminating almost all the europeans, after which time the other groups will simply take over the land and resources previously controlled by the europeans. and that will be it. there will be no spreading of liberalism or cultural marxism to the other groups.
How about class?
Would a rich liberal prefer to marry a rich conservative or a poor liberal?
Would a rich conservative prefer to marry a rich liberal or a poor conservative?
It seems plenty of rich cons are dilly-dallying with the urban rich sophisticated hip crowed -- sophipsters -- and becoming like them. Look at Christopher Buckly.
And don't ideologies change over time? Democrats used to be the Labor and Union party. Now, it's basically the party of the rich elites in rich cities who look down on the working class.
And conservatives used to be about God and Country, but now, they're mostly about serving Wall Street and Israel.
Overall though, it seems like the elite circles are mostly liberal, so most people at the top, even if conservative, must play at being liberal to fit in.
If you're a liberal at the top, you can find lots of smart liberal spouses. But if you're a conservative at the top, you're not gonna find smart ones.
The wives of Dan Quayle and Bush II were so-so women. Clinton married Hillary, a smart woman.
Also, as liberal women are more ambitious, they tend to reach higher than conservative women who just wanna find someone to marry. So, it's easier for liberal elite men to find liberal elite women than it is for conzo elite men to find conzo elite women.
Also, even conzo elite women, once they enter elite circles, turn liberal out of social pressure.
This assumes your genes lead you toward a particular ideology. Perhaps. It may just as well be that they incline you toward extremism of any sort. I suspect there are more than a few examples of extremist right-wingers flipping to the extreme left (and vice versa).
Or it may also be (perish the thought) that political beliefs are adopted, in large part, out of self-interest.
Even those who don't benefit financially from liberalism can benefit from it socially, by appearing to be compassionate, tolerant, etc., while in reality behaving otherwise. Sounding compassionate while behaving selfishly can ofttimes get you a lot further than sounding selfish while behaving compassionately.
Has the phenomenon of regression to the mean ceased to apply? It would certainly tend to be operational in the progeny of Hill and Hillary.
But then, who says Hillary is smart?
Jody, there are PLENTY of examples of extreme political/social polarization. Because history did not begin yesterday. Examples: Roundheads/Cavaliers in 1600's England; Protestant/Catholics in 1500's and 1600's Germany and Czechoslovakia, Protestants and Catholics in 1500's France.
More recent examples include the very heavy regionalism between the Catholic German south and Protestant North, Ashkenazis vs. Sephardic Jews in Israel, Catholic vs. Protestant Irish, Catalans vs. the Castillians, Northern vs. Southern Italy. To name just a few. Here in North America, Francophone Quebecois don't like Anglophone Canadians.
In some respects political polarization will be enhanced by the rise of single motherhood and abandonment by the White middle classes (that's where the trendline goes) and the nuclear family relegated to the extreme Upper Classes as wealth concentrators.
Clearly women prefer short-term sexual satisfaction by caddish bad boys they don't marry, to wealth husbanding EXCEPT at very high levels, because the baseline of wealth and security has met even the needs of welfare single mothers. Who are not exactly starving nor are their kids.
Which means most guys will want to keep their money to spend it on gaming chicks, and most women will want a massive welfare state for themselves and their Alpha-sired spawn. So there's your polarization right there.
The authors hypothesize that notable differences would be apparent after 5 generations.
Well, if we use the 2006 estimates [which have probably gotten even worse since then]:
Typical GOP Couple: 2.08 children
Typical DEM Couple: 1.47 children
Now if you assume that those numbers stay more or less constant over time, then, as a very good approximation, after each generation, you will have:
GOP generational multiplier: 2.08 / 2 = 1.04
DEM generational multiplier: 1.47 / 2 = 0.735
And after five generations, you'd be looking at:
GOP multiplier: (1.04) ^ 5 = 1.2167
DEM multiplier: (0.735) ^ 5 = 0.2145
So over the next century or so, GOP voter ranks would grow very modestly, by about one fifth, whereas DEM voter ranks would absolutely collapse, to ONE-FIFTH of their original number.
Ergo the urgent need to decriminalize 40 million Mexican illegals and their anchor babies.
PS: Don't even waste your breath about "But but but the DEM professors will convert all those GOP kids when they get ahold of them in college blah blah blah blah blah."
Romney won a MASSIVE landslide over Obama amongst college-educated whites.
re: "...after 5 generations"
Hello! America doesn't have 5 generations.
I don't think it will last 8 more years. If the media and the cheating democrats get hold of the house and senate in 2014 the collapse will come within the next two years. If the RINOs get the senate in 2014 their Milquetoast policies there combined with Boehner's fumbling will be demonized enough by the Democrats and their propaganda arm, the main street media, to ensure a democrat sweep in 2016 resulting in a Democrat Presidency, Senate of Reid and House of Pelosi to ensure a collapse before 2020.
Then what? Civil War 2 or worse?
In actuality and probability given 5 generations from now what was the USA will be mainly speaking Spanish, Ebonics and Pidgin English in a wreckage resembling Brazil in demographics and Detroit (if lucky) in appearance.
Dan Kurt
Anonymous wrote:
Don't even waste your breath about "But but but the DEM professors will convert all those GOP kids when they get ahold of them in college blah blah blah blah blah."
I respond:
Bingo. College indoctrination works on young adults in college. It usually wears off once they get out of college and into the real world, and is totally gone when parents hold their newborn first child for the first time.
The only age-sex demos among whites where Obama beat Romney were both white men under 25 and white women under 25.
All these studies could be made so much better if they could sort it by race. (subdividing the whites)
"The only age-sex demos among whites where Obama beat Romney were both white men under 25 and white women under 25."
... who are the future of America.
Also, while Obama won HUGE with blacks, browns, yellows, Jews, and homos, Romney didn't win so big with whites.
If anything Romney's 60% white vote was due to South voting overwhelming AGAINST the black guy than for him. Southern whites weren't so much voting for the Mormon Wall Streeter but against whom they saw as the icon of black power, Obama. And since huge amounts of white votes are necessary to stave off black power in the South, the white vote tends to be artificially skewed toward the GOP in the South. But without the black threat in the South, it might have been quite different.
But look at white votes in areas outside the South. It barely favored or broke even for Romney or went overwhelmingly for Obama in rich northern and western states.
So, it's more accurate to say that outside the extreme case of the deep south, Romney got maybe 52% of the white vote, and lost among the young ones.
Also, look at the most powerful and influential whites in America in big urban cities where the wealth and power are concentrated and in college towns, where ideas are generated. OVERWHELMINGLY for Obama, the puppet of the globalist Jews.
GOP is hopeless.
"But then, who says Hillary is smart?"
Well, smarter than Marilyn Quayle, Sarah Palin, Laura Bush, and the rest of the gang.
There are dumb liberal wives too. Al Gore's wife for example.
But if you're a lib male at an elite college, there are tons of lib females. But if you're a con male, you better play very moderate--like David Brooks--or stay in the closet and pretend to be liberal or independent.
"Romney won a MASSIVE landslide over Obama amongst college-educated whites."
Given that college education has been universalize, this doesn't mean much. But among white college grads who went to the best schools, have the best jobs, pull in the most money, and etc. you will see that they are almost all Libs.
Agreed that any mention of Romney's wins among white blocs has to account for Southern whites almost all voting Republican. Romney couldn't win whites by enough in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Wisconsin. In Iowa, he couldn't win whites at all.
Young whites have always been more liberal. Then they grow up.
The big difference this time around is going to be demographics.
... who are the future of America.
Christ. How many times we gotta go over this? Young whites are always the future. They always lean stupid/left. They always turn smarter/right as they age.
The older whites moving right today were further left in their youth. Zzzz... Oh, sorry, I dozed off there.
If anything Romney's 60% white vote was due to South voting overwhelming AGAINST the black guy than for him.
You strike me as the sort who just has to open his mouth, even when he has nothing to say. Like in the previous quote.
But without the black threat in the South, it might have been quite different.
And that one. Yes, we know that liberalism's consequences move people to the right.
Given that college education has been universalize, this doesn't mean much. But among white college grads who went to the best schools, have the best jobs, pull in the most money, and etc. you will see that they are almost all Libs.
Yes, we know that the further people move up from median income, the more immersed they are in the culture of the establishment, the more insulated they are from the consequences of their actions, the more liberal they become; so they can fit in with their lib oligarch masters. Zzzzzz... Oh, sorry, there I go again.
Anon = synonym for boring.
I have to take issue with the premise, "nor are spouses initially selecting one another on political preferences." When I used online dating web sites in the early 2000s I always listed my political views as "conservative" and I got more than one reply containing the phrase "REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL."
Conservatives don't tend to veto potential liberal mates on the basis of political ideology, but the reverse isn't true of liberals.
This doesn't seem to square with other data that show the gap between R and D voting between married women and unmarried women is wider than the gap between all women and all men. This would seem to indicate that married women become more conservative over time. Also, people tend to trend more conservative as they age. This would also seem to drive the appearance of women becoming more like their more conservative husbands over time.
"if it were true, why don't we observe it in europe? pretty sure we have more than 5 generations worth of data from there." - the difference here in America already exists and it is a fundamentally ethnic one.
"And conservatives used to be about God and Country, but now, they're mostly about serving Wall Street and Israel. " - So a different god and a different country?
When I used online dating web sites in the early 2000s I always listed my political views as "conservative"
That's a big no-no right there, from an online dating game perspective. Real rookie move.
You should have put "alpha".
Before the days of the internet, red state/blue state divide and the rise of the cosmopolitan class, liberal women were just as, if not more so, likely to be attracted to traditional men. Everybody took it for granted that men tend more towards conservative world view and women tend to be more liberal, and it was no big deal. The sexes were different and it was not a big deal for most. I don't remember political affiliation being a big deal a generation ago.
"Dai Alanye said...
But then, who says Hillary is smart?"
I have never seen any evidence that she is particularly smart.
"Anonymous said...
""But then, who says Hillary is smart?""
Well, smarter than Marilyn Quayle, Sarah Palin, Laura Bush, and the rest of the gang."
I don't think that Hillary Clinton is smarter than Marilyn Quayle or Laura Bush. At least, I have never seen any evidence for that contention. I don't know that she is necessarily smarter than Sarah Palin. She (Hillary) is not smart enough to realize that her shrill, off-putting personality is shrill and off-putting. And as an actual actor in the public-policy world (both as first-lady and afterwords), Hillary Clinton pretty much f**ked up everything she ever touched.
Hillary is a rohrshach blot for liberal, feminist women. They project whatever they think they would like to be on her.
heartiste said...
The solution to reduce political polarization (that liberals so often decry) is to return to the gold standard of assortative mating -- dating based on power differentials. When bosses date their secretaries, the bond created by the sexual polarization reduces the societal friction caused by ideological polarization.
David Brooks discusses this at length as does Charles Murray. In the past, it was more common for beautiful, but poorer women to marry wealthier, higher status men. This did, indeed, act as a social stress valve by bringing people from different socio-economic backgrounds (not only the couples but also their extended families).
However, BoBos/cognitive elites increasingly do not mate this way. Now, high IQ (presumably high status/wealthy) males tend to seek out and marry high IQ females and vice versa. High IQ elites want to (subconsciously) reduce the effects of regression to the mean in their progeny. In other words, doctors no longer marry nurses -- they marry other doctors (or lawyers instead of paralegals).
This tends to both create a growing IQ/success gap between cognitive elites and non-elites AND increase socio-economic friction and alienation by self-segregation (Murray's super zipcodes vs. everyone else).
I am guilty of this as well. I am an Ivy League graduate and have advanced degrees. So does my wife. When I was younger, I could not, for the life of me, date women who could not talk about substantive topics. I certainly could not imagine having children with such women.
I now (only half jokingly) tell my wife of many years that I find attractive, sweet women of lesser education more acceptable. In turn, she tells me that, in retrospect, she should have stopped after university, work a few years and then concentrate on taking care of the children and me.
Better late than never, eh?
JN
Anonymous said...
This doesn't seem to square with other data that show the gap between R and D voting between married women and unmarried women is wider than the gap between all women and all men. This would seem to indicate that married women become more conservative over time. Also, people tend to trend more conservative as they age. This would also seem to drive the appearance of women becoming more like their more conservative husbands over time.
Data show that married women DO vote more Republican than single women. One study I read on this was quite interesting. It showed that when the women divorced and became single again, they leaned Democratic and when they married again, they yet again leaned Republican. In other words, unmarried women see government as a husband. When they find a real one, they see government as a parasite.
It is also true that women become more conservative as they age.
However, weighed against these sets of data are other sets of data that certain historical events (e.g. depression, war, sexual liberation movement, what have you) strongly shape young people and their ideologies, which then persist more strongly through their older years.
In other words, the naturally conservative-leaning tendencies of marriage/children and old age AND indoctrination during very impressionable years both have strong effects (though by what margine, we do not know yet).
JN
I wonder how James Carville and Mary Matalin are getting along?
Post a Comment