Self-reliant people more satisfied in life

Shocker.

https://www.livescience.com/63094-conservative-meaning-of-life.html

Meaning is personal to each of us. However, a new study published June 15 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that some people might be better at finding that meaning than others — and the difference may come down to politics.

According to the study, which compiled survey results from more than 50,000 participants in 16 countries, people who identified as political conservatives were more likely to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives than liberals were.

Political conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, a finding that has been labeled the ‘happiness gap’ in media reporting,” a team of psychologists from the University of Southern California (USC) wrote in the new paper. “One conservative commentator even described it as ‘niftily self-reinforcing; it depresses liberals.'”

 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

K-shifting majority

Propaganda has its limits.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36982/new-book-more-80-americans-reject-pc-culture-emily-zanotti

They should study spiral of silence on social media and classist attitudes to the poor in “caring” Democrats.

We’ve lost a sense of dignity in society and the idea of the inappropriate. Some etiquette must come back e.g, talking about your sex life is repugnant, people don’t want to know, much like bowel functions. Bragging about bodily functions is the lowest of the low. It’s subhuman when the only thing you can talk about is animal impulses. Politics is disgusting normal people.

When you normalize conversations and pre-watershed depictions of degeneracy, it will get worse. Look at “music”, it’s basically an audio book of porn now. Bring back the film and TV code, please. It isn’t censorship because people can seek it out online. Society must have standards.

Why are there no age restrictions on products e.g. porn and smartphones? There’s a wealth of evidence of addiction.

Liberals hate themselves

Unhappy, same thing.

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/liberals-likely-unhappy-people-yoga-edition/

Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.

Trying to tear down the happy just makes you more miserable.

The guilt rots them from the inside, it’s great to watch, you can trace it on their features. First smug, then concerned, then doubtful, disillusioned, hopeless, angry, depressed, sullen.

So capitalists are smarter, happier, donate to charity more and are better-looking?

Shit, I’d want equality too!

Socialists, the small-time dishonest

Oh, you might try to pretend this video doesn’t apply to you.

Like you’re too good to need a boost.

It applies to everyone, don’t lie.

Oh, but you might say, this has nothing to do with the half-way slide from socialism to Communism, which killed hundreds of millions of people.

Well, aside from missing the point, they have studied it.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/socialists-are-cheaters-says-new-study

An ideology pushed by rationalizing thieves, which produces more of the same.

Until, eventually, the bandwagon effect means the whole system collapses.

All producers become parasites.

Communism and socialism are great ways of burning up resources.

Problem is, you can’t stop it. Don’t blame the hedonic treadmill, it’s rentseeking group competition. It’s a thieve’s arms race. One group gets X, your group needs, nay, DEMANDS, X+1. Because the resources are still finite so you not only have no choice (WORKERS’ FREEDUMB!) but to participate but you must also be aggressive (immoral).

Communism kills jobs via the security of the labour itself (no trade unions if there’s no boss to depend on) and the fruit (income, savings).

Why so many champagne socialists?

Well, they believe the workers are too dumb to take advantage or they could outcompete. An argument to IQ.

This would be correct if numbers were not worth more in such a system.

You have one man stealing 1 million from the workers.

You have a thousand men stealing a thousand. Which represents the greater problem in society?

Sure, both. But one caused another, didn’t it? Eventually it’s dog eat dog, every man for himself and his family. This sounds like capitalism but too corrupt to have true signals. There is no full rebound. I wonder how that feels…

What about the quality of people involved in this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520657/Troubled-kids-likely-favour-radical-socialist-policies-adults.html

Mentally maladapted for the world, they cannot honestly compete.
So far, so r-select.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/least_surprising_academic_study_of_2017_physically_weak_men_tend_to_be_socialists.html

Yep.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tories-attractive-socialists-conservatives-labour-study-wealthy-good-looking-a8186836.html

TOLD YA SO.

Study: physiology and political psychology

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/640.full?sid=95b65067-2a89-4cfa-abbf-a30069789213

It seems this one was skipped.

Oh, politics is biological?

Like a type? Or a Darwin thing maybe?

Which, which one has more children?

And that would be the simplest way to divvy, wouldn’t it?

approach-avoidant spectrum

maybe label it with letters or something I dunno

“we find that greater orientation to aversive stimuli tends to be associated with right-of-centre”

realistic

“greater orientation to appetitive (pleasing) stimuli with left-of-centre political inclinations.”

fantastical

hmm

 

Male beauty correlates to right-wing position

Strong men aren’t much into helping the weaker competition, since your genetic looks are an advertisement.

(You could argue lifting weights is ‘lying’ about your natural somatoform and strength level, much like applying excess makeup to alter bone structure, fake masculinity and fake femininity, much like muscle implants or breast implants give off false cues about fertility and chemical dimorphism.)

PDF:

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30390-7/fulltext

You might disagree with my use of the term ‘male beauty’ but if we’re studying female constantly it follows there must also be a standard for men even if you prefer to call it handsomeness… it’s still beauty.

I love how the method is biased but the result came shining through.

“Both the simple and complex social bargaining models received partial support: sociopolitical egalitarianism was negatively related to bodily formidability, but unrelated to other measures of bodily/facial formidability/attractiveness; and a formidability-wealth interaction did predict variance in support for redistribution, but the nature of this interaction differed somewhat from that reported in previous research. Results of the experimental manipulation suggested that egalitarianism is unaffected by self-perceived formidability in the immediate short-term. In sum, results provided some support for both the simple and complex social bargaining models, but suggested that further research is needed to explain why male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.”

Now a study about the women, to make it scientific.