I recently read (in The Economist) about a study showing that over the course of the last 30 years, conservatives have consistently claimed to be "very happy" more often than liberals. Many people try to use this data to say that conservatism directly causes happiness… but before arriving at a conclusion like that, we need to examine the causality.
So, like I always do, I decided to parse the data about the demographics of liberals vs. conservatives. I found a study included 9 overall groups; there were three major groups for liberals, conservatives, and moderates and each had three subgroups for different socioeconomic backgrounds. They surveyed the different groups and published the data, which seems to be very telling.
I think there are a few interesting explanations for why conservatives are happier:
Graduate degrees Among the 9 political groups in the study, the most liberal people were the most likely to be highly educated (postgraduate degree); as everybody seems to agree, "ignorance is bliss" so a more educated person is less likely to be satisfied with the world.
Bachelor's degrees Among people of a lower socioeconomic status, conservatives were more likely to be moderately educated (undergraduate degree) than liberals; this suggests that less advantaged conservatives are more likely to be successful than less advantaged liberals, which would probably make the conservatives happier.
Wealth Conservatives are more likely to be wealthy (income over $75,000/year) than moderates or liberals. Liberals are more likely to disagree with the statement "paying the bills is not generally a problem" and to agree with the statement "I often can't make ends meet." Without the added stress of working overtime and falling behind on bills, I think it's obvious that a group would be happier on average. Money may not buy happiness, but lack of money does lead to unhappiness.
Family Conservatives are more likely than moderates/liberals to be married and have children; companionship tends to make a person more content with their life.
Optimism Among people with a relatively disadvantaged socioeconomic background, conservatives are far more optimistic than liberals. This group of people was told that "people can get ahead with hard work"; conservatives agreed in 76% of cases, while liberals agreed in only 14% of cases. A similar trend was clear with less disadvantaged liberals/conservatives, but it was less drastic.
Religion Conservatives are the most religious of the three groups and liberals are the least religious, suggesting that conservatives are more likely to believe that God will solve all of their problems.
Future Conservatives are more likely to be stock traders or small business owners, suggesting that they perceive themselves to be in control of their own future.
Pride As one would expect, conservatives tend to display the American flag more often than liberals. This leads me to believe that conservatives are more proud and more satisfied with their country.
I think these 8 factors explain why a typical conservative is happier than a typical liberal. Now we can look at the causality: is the political viewpoint causing the happiness or vice versa? In other words, would you be happier if you became more conservative?
Based on the data, I don't think so. It seems like the causality follows an indirect trend; certain variables lead to both conservatism and happiness, and neither the political viewpoint nor the happiness can predict one another. Optimism and pride seem to cause life satisfaction and conservatism; higher education and pessimism, meanwhile, seem to cause dissatisfaction and liberalism.
Personally, I think it's better to have more people who are unsatisfied with the status quo this will lead to change and, eventually, improvement. Of course, we also need plenty of satisfied people to balance them out, so that we're not constantly changing everything. Overall, it seems that this two-party system (which, as many Americans don't realize, most countries don't have) is keeping the US in a delicate balance that has probably contributed greatly to the nation's success.
Shan-ul-Hai, the chief author of Globally Rational, is a self-described cosmopolitan scientist. His articles typically involve the application of evidence-based logic to some of the world's most interesting and thought-provoking affairs. His background as a Pakistani-American supplements his training as a scientist and his skill as a writer, leading to a myriad of of unique perspectives.
» left by James P Krehbiel(1,326) James P Krehbiel (164 days 9 hours ago.)
Shan, This is a satire right? You don't really believe this stuff do you? "Conservatives are more likely to be wealthy, stock traders, married, religious? Wow. It must be true, you got a helluva rating!
» left by Shan-ul-Hai(177) Shan-ul-Hai (164 days 9 hours ago.)
I'm no conservative, but if you follow the link to the study I cited, you'll see that conservatives are definitely more likely to be "wealthy, stock traders, married, religious". It's not my opinion; it's a proven fact. Respond to this comment
» left by David Tanguay(6,645) David Tanguay (157 days 12 hours ago.)
A conservative is one who is as happy as a pig in s---. where a liberal is one who must clean up after them.
» left by Jeff Brown(5,353) Jeff Brown (156 days 20 hours ago.)
I'm confused. When I was non-political (had no idea as to whether I was conservative or liberal) I was near suicidal. Then I thought I better get political so I became an Independent. At that time I was so-so in my happiness. Then I realized that Independents don't have much of a voice so I decided my leanings were more conservative and became Republican. Now after 8 years of George Bush and with McCain as "our choice" I'm ready to bail to become "non-political" again. Funny thing is that as I get ready to jump ship, I'm the happiest and wealthiest I've ever been. Hmmmmmm . . .. As a long-time educator who teaches critical thinking, keep in mind this statement about statistics: there are lies, outright lies, and then there's statistics. Even facts aren't cast in stone. Hell, it used to be a fact that Pluto was a planet. Whoops!
» left by Shan-ul-Hai(177) Shan-ul-Hai (156 days 19 hours ago.)
The study doesn't say that "conservatives are always happier than
liberals", it says that "conservatives are more likely to be happy".
You can't use personal experience as a counterexample when we're
comparing trends... plenty of liberals (such as myself) are happy and
plenty of conservatives (including some of my friends) are unhappy.
The "statistics" are validated by professors of economics. You can say
that they're possible to manipulate, but if you look at the data, it's
very conclusive. The point is that this is just the average. I can find plenty of exceptions, and I'm sure you can too. Statistics can tell you a lot, but not everything... for instance, if the average college student is 22 years old, that doesn't mean that there are no 40 year-old students. Respond to this comment
» left by Jeff Brown(5,353) Jeff Brown (156 days 18 hours ago.)
I don't care about trends because I'm an individual. And that's how most think, especially those less rigorous in their thinking, which is most, which is why these studies go unheralded most of the time. It's why millions go to the movies but only a few observe a treatise, say, Alan Newell's treatise on artificial intelligence at Harvard. But we humans are prone to err. For example, oftentimes I hear candidates toss around varied statistics and "facts" to benefit their values, their oftentimes unexpressed, unexamined, unknown values. But the largest problem lies in man's unrealistic belief in himself, the problem lies in our ignorance (all equal in our infinite ignorance). And until humans know all existing knowledge, knowledge to come, can apply it objectively-removing fallible subjectivity-applying said theory in an absolute manor with all outcomes know to the end of time (ie: string theory not even being "wrong," because of its limitless outcomes), and when an individual can stand in the middle of a large library and regurgitate on queue all the volumes of knowledge-line upon line, precept upon precept-then, and only then, will I put great stock in "man's" analysis. Until then, I'll be over here helping old ladies cross the street and water their flower gardens. Sigh . . . . Happy hunting. ;=)
» left by Shan-ul-Hai(177) Shan-ul-Hai (156 days 18 hours ago.)
I'm not saying that the trends need to define our lives... I just think it's interesting to try to decipher this one. I think people are taking this article too seriously... I really just meant it as an interesting analysis of established data (there's no real broad societal statement here). Also, many trends (although not this one) are important when you're making policies for the greater good. They're also very useful in medical research, which is my profession... For example: Antibiotic A works for 40% of sepsis patients Antibiotic B works for 60% of sepsis patients So, you'd be inclined to select Antibiotic B. But, consider more trends: Antibiotic A works for 90% of patients with Gram-negative infections. Antibiotic B works for 60% of patients with Gram-negative infections. If you know that the patient has a Gram-negative infection, you suddenly want to use Antibiotic A. Of course, this is an oversimplified example... but the point is that trends are important. Respond to this comment
» left by Jeff Brown(5,353) Jeff Brown (155 days 16 hours ago.)
See, my point is proven. Of the articles in this catagory, this one sparks the least interest. Just like my real estate or more "factual" articles / essays. People are mostly of the heart not the head. Just thought this was interesting to point out. Thanks ;=)
» left by Shan-ul-Hai(177) Shan-ul-Hai (154 days 21 hours ago.)
So your point is just that this article doesn't spark interest? Just because you're not interested doesn't mean that nobody is. Also, people may be mostly "of the heart", but I'm not. I like to think with my head before anything else, and I think that keeps me moving forward in life all the time. If you read my articles, they will almost always be "of the head"... I'd go as far as to say that's the theme of my blog, globallyrational(dot)com. Respond to this comment
» left by Jeff Brown(5,353) Jeff Brown (156 days 20 hours ago.)
Oh, one thing more. I think the happiest people are hybrids, for I'm an educator (with many degrees: undergraduate / graduate), business owner, investor, religious, family man with a plan. And I love my country, but it seems that if you criticize you're anti-American. There are those like Howard Zinn and James Loewen (Lies My Teacher Told Me) who tell the ugly truth but get labeled as America haters. I don't think they are in the least. Read their stuff. America is great, the greatest but it's far from perfect. If you ignore the truth as an individual it can be disastrous to your growth and relationships. Imagine what dishonesty does on a large scale. As far as hard work is concerned, those who really get ahead (business owners, investors) understand that working hard is not a part of the equation. It's more about your money working hard not you. It's more about leverage, multiple steams of passive income, and an understanding of tax law basics (Bill Gates stated this was his "secret to success"). But it's true that liberals are oftentimes "anti wealth." Conservatives very rarely petition state or federal government for hand outs, they go and get the money they need themselves. There I agree, for with the death of pensions, social security, and with Medicare and Medicaid's future being so unstable, it would be financial suicide to rely on anyone but yourself to get it done financial. Keep writing, Shan!
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
