You know that Bush-apologists say crazy things. They get cited, chastized and mocked for it every day on the liberal blogs, after all. You may have also wandered, by mistake, onto comment threads on Little Green Foodballs, or The Corner, or other nasty Right-wing blogs and suspected that those people are not really ‘all there’. And you may be aware that there is actually quite a large body of scientific evidence that Conservatives are Crazy and Dangerous, er, that conservative/authoritarian ideology correlates strongly with a number of (environmentally induced, i.e., through upbringing and socialization) traits usually associated with at least deep emotional problems if not outright mental ilness. Bulk of that literature has been reviewed and meta-analyzed in these two nifty papers:
Still, most of those studies involved analysis of more-or-less normally functioning people, free to roam around, work, have families, run for office, or preach in church. Today, however, Archy discovered a brand new study of real psychiatric patients (OK, outpatients, but still):
A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.'”
And before you start weaving conspiracy theories about ‘liberal academia’, the findings emerged from data-mining and were not the reason the study was performed in the first place. Furthermore, the author is no flaming liberal:
For his part, Lohse is a self-described “Reagan revolution fanatic” but said that W. is just “beyond the pale.”
Update: As expected, many liberal bloggers took the press report of the study at face value. I hope you did not think I did – my point was to place it in the context of previous studies, alert teh blogosphere to its existence, and provoke a discussion hoping that, once the actual paper comes out we can get the opportunity to dissect it. Nobody has seen the actual study yet, so we cannot say if it is any good or not (although it is consistent with previous research) until it is released. Orac has already written some criticisms of the study from what it could be gleaned from the news article, although I think it is premature at this point. We can use his post as a guideline what to look for once the paper becomes accessible, though.