Hans Eysenck and Political Values

June 22, 2006

Despite widespread interest in politics, the general public has relatively little actual understanding of the scientific discoveries into the field of political values. Typically discussions of a political nature are ideologically motivated and serve the purpose of advancing a specific political platform, often by casting opponents in unfavorable terms or by associating alternative perspectives with unpopular past movements (fascism is a common tool for attempts at creating guilt by association, and the absurd reductio ad Hitlerum has become so ubiquitous as to warrant its own entry in Wikipedia. Because Millennium, like most religions, has political overtones, those browsing this site may find it useful to see some discussion on politics provided here; this article will therefore consider the field of politics especially as it relates to religion.

Readers may be familiar with a number of existing political models which include a variety of dichotomies such as right/left, authoritarian/libertarian, corporatist/ecologist, chauvanist/feminist, racist/egalitarian, and so on. The trouble is, of course, that the importance of a single issue in the political arena does not always point to the existence of a genuine political orientation, and the popularity of a given political platform does not always mean that a person's sympathy towards one aspect of the platform dictates sympathy towards others; politics often makes strange bedfellows - sometimes so strange that it may seem as though the entire discussion is meaningless.

Consider for example the Republican and Democratic parties of mainstream America: The Republican party is supposedly where religious voters find a home, yet Catholics vote strongly Democratic; Democrats are cast as the defenders of racial and sexual minorities, yet West Virginians claim primarily Democratic allegiance; and again the Republican party is often thought of as the party of smaller government, yet with control over the House, Senate, and Presidency, the Republicans have only increased spending over the last five years.

These contradictions are in many ways more apparent than real, however, and can be resolved with an understanding of the actual value complexes which have been uncovered through scientific study. In research carried out during the early part of the 20^th Century, Ferguson (1939) found and then confirmed two factors of political values, which he labelled "Religionism" and "Humanitarianism;" Eysenck confirmed this analysis, but rotated the factors 45 degrees to attain the commonly understood left-right axis, and another dimension which he called "'tough mindedness v. tender mindedness." (For more information, see Structure, Determinants and Political Consequences of Political Attitudes.) By 1975, this two factor model had been replicated numerous times in the United States and Great Britain, and had been confirmed in other countries such as Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, and Iran, but one question remained. Eysenck found that, although the middle classes tended to vote more conservative, they scored as more radical (and more tender-minded) than the working class, and he believed that this could be explained if there was an economic dimension of conservatism that he hadn't previously separated from the social dimension. Since his study is unavailable online, the most relevant passages from his study will be quoted here, followed by discussion; the formatting of Eysenck's report has been changed to aid legibility.

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects of the investigation constitute a reasonably random sample of the urban population. They were collected from a commercial firm, following simple quota sampling procedures; only inhabitants of London are represented. It is not claimed that this is a truly random sample; such samples are probably unobtainable for investigations of this kind. However, there were few refusals, and we have found in the past that on personality inventories given to similar samples the means and variances were very similar to our population means and variances. The numbers involved are shown in Table 1; groups 1 and 2 are higher and lower middle class, group 3 is skilled working class, and groups 4 and 5 are working class. The classification was carried out according to the detailed instructions furnished by Research Services (1966), as outlined in their Field Manual. There are in all 368 subjects, 153 male and 215 female.

Table 1. Number of subjects studied

Questionnaire

All subjects were administered a questionnaire containing 88 questions covering a wide range of social, economic and political issues. The questions were taken, or adapted, from several dozen published studies concerned with conservative and liberal/radical dimensions of attitude; an attempt was made to avoid duplication of questions, but to cover all the regions shown to be in any way salient. In this way it was attempted to provide a random sample of questions from the whole universe of possible questions; undoubtedly this sample is even less random and representative than that of persons, but the attempt was probably worthwhile...

We must now turn to the 'superfactors' which emerge from the intercorrelations between the primaries. The first of these is clearly very similar to the conservative-radical (R) factor of our previous work. It can best be described in terms of the items which characterize it, i.e. which have loadings of above 0.40; these are listed below, in order of size of loading.

Social Conservative Value Statements

More severe punishment of criminals will reduce crime

criminal violence should be punished more severely than just by imprisonment

compulsory military training in peace-time is essential for the survival of this country

the greatest threats to this country during the last 50 years have come from foreign ideas and agitators

strikes should be made illegal

the sight of young men with beards and long hair is unpleasant

it would be best to keep coloured people in their own districts and schools, in order to prevent too much contact with whites

'my country right or wrong' is a saying which expresses a fundamentally desirable attitude

children today need more discipline

it is better to stick by what you have than to be trying new things you don't really know about

life in the old days used to be much more pleasant than nowadays

coloured people are innately inferior to white people

permissiveness in our society has gone much too far

we spend too little on our armed forces

production and trade should be free from government interference

persons with serious hereditary defects and disorders should be compulsorily sterilized

it is only by returning to our glorious and forgotten past that real social progress can be made

the welfare state gives too much help to people who refuse to do a proper day's work

the government is spending too much money on social welfare and education

the 'free and easy' play-way of teaching youngsters results in poor reading and writing, and

any formal international government is impossible.

Older people are more conservative: r = 0.38.

Factor 2, equally clearly, is the tough-mindedness v. tender-mindedness factor (T); again the main items, with loadings above 0.40, are given below. Items are stated in the tough-minded direction, except when the word 'reversed' is given after the item; this means that the item loading had a negative sign for tough-mindedness. The items are:

Tough-Minded Value Statements

men and women have the right to find out whether they are sexually suited before marriage (e.g. by trial marriage)

the church should attempt to increase its influence on the life of the nation (reversed)

the universe was created by God (reversed)

most religious people are hypocrites

religious beliefs of all kinds are just superstitions

permissiveness in our society has gone much too far (reversed)

the laws against 'soft' drugs like marijuana are too strict

there is no harm in traveling occasionally without a ticket, if you can get away with it

coloured people are innately inferior to white people

sexual immorality destroys the marriage relation, which is the basis of our civilization (reversed).

To these may be added a few more items with loadings between 0.30 and 0.40, to round off the picture:

There is no survival after death

pro-euthanasia

life is so short that a man is justified in enjoying himself as much as he can

divorce laws should be altered to make divorce easier

Jews are as valuable citizens as any other group (reversed)

we should recognize that one has duties to society as well as rights.

Age has a negative loading on this factor: r = -.35; in other words, older people are more tough-minded [sic; older people are less tough-minded; as the negative correlation suggests, and this is corroborated in Ruch and Hehl, (1985) and Eaves et al, (1989)].

Factor 3 looks very much like the predicted one contrasting politico-economic conservatism with socialism. Items having loadings higher than 0.40 are the following, with socialist views having positive loading.

Socialist Value Statements

Ultimately, private property should be abolished and complete socialism introduced

'free enterprise' is another way of saying 'exploitation of the workers'

speculators and financers have been responsible very largely for our economic difficulties

royalty and nobility encourage snobbishness in a country, and are not compatible with democracy

no one should be allowed to buy privileges in education or medical care for his family

it is clearly unfair that many people should acquire large incomes, not through work but through inheritance

tradition has too big an influence on this country

in strikes and disputes between workers and employers I usually side with the workers

true democracy is limited in this country because of the special privileges enjoyed by business and industry

capitalism has worked well in this country and should not be changed (reversed item).

Socio-economic conservatism correlates as expected with social class, but only to the extent of -0.20; this is perhaps less than one might have expected. The R factor has only insignificant correlation with social class, in the sense that middle class people are more radical. Working class people are significantly more tough-minded (r = 0.13) and men are more tough-minded than women (r = 0.17).

The three factors are oblique, but correlations between them are very small. The conservative-radical (R) factor correlates with politico-economic conservatism only 0.07, which is quite insignificant. The two factors correlate with T -0.16 and -0.07; both are negligible, although the former is significant statistically.

The analysis was repeated on sub-samples of the population. It was thought that there might be differences in attitude structure between middle-class and working-class samples which would not become apparent in an overall analysis using all our subjects. Accordingly, matrices of intercorrelations were prepared for the middle-class groups (1 and 2) and the working-class groups (4 and 5) separately, and factor analyses were performed in exactly the same manner as on combined groups. The factors which emerged were very similar to those already discussed, and to each other; similarly, the intercorrelations between the factors were very similar. Another analysis was made in which only the first three principal components factors were taken, and then rotated into oblique simple structure; this type of analysis usually gives similar results to that outlined above (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969). It did so again on this occasion; the correlation between the two conservatism factors was reduced to -0.001. In all material aspects these reanalyses gave results similar to those of the main analysis...

The discussion of the results can be kept short as the data speak for themselves...

It was suggested at the beginning of this article that the failure of our first studies to find three major higher-order factors might have been due to the fact that only middle-class people made up the sample investigated. In light of the present findings this does not seem a likely explanation; class-linked attitudes were again found, but the relationships were not strong enough to give rise to the discrepancies in factorial solution found. It seems more likely that these differences were caused by the small number of questions in the original questionnaire relating to politico-economic conservatism; a factor can only be isolated if there are sufficient items relating to that factor in the inventory. The early work was done before the days of computers, and utmost economy in the number of items analysed was essential. With present-day facilities, such economy is no longer necessary, and hence a better coverage of the area can be accomplished. This seems a more likely explanation of the original failure to find this 'third dimension.'

Possibly the most interesting aspect of Eysenck's analysis is the factor which he identified as "tough-mindedness." In many ways the label is counterintuitive, given that tender-minded individuals are "tough" on drugs, alcohol, abortion, or racism. Perhaps "coldness" or even "callousness" would have been a better name, given the association tough-mindedness has with abortion, euthanasia, and racism, and especially considering the relationship which appears under factor analysis between questions designed to tap into tough-mindedness and questions designed to measure Machiavellianism (Eysenck & Wilson, 1978).

(Readers may also notice that of the statements given above to represent the tough-minded pole, almost all seem to reflect political leftism as well; this observation is puzzling to the current author. It may be because Eysenck already listed the tough-minded conservative opinions (pro-punishment, pro-war, etc.) earlier on and didn't wish to repeat them, but it could also be that his factors here correspond more closely to Ferguson's original Religionism and Humanitarianism than to his own rotated Tenderness and Radicalism. This second possibility may be more likely, since few apparently tender opinions appear in his list of social conservative value statements.)

Those familiar with the larger body of Eysenck's writings (see especially Eysenck, 1954) will recall that Eysenck, in line with contemporaries who were interested in understanding political 'authoritarianism,' labeled tough-minded individuals as authoritarian. Yet a brief perusal of the tough-minded questions listed above, and a more thoroughgoing investigation of individual items from other questionnaires, shows that this is a poor interpretation of the data. It is generally conservative values which are the most authoritarian, whether tough or tender in orientation. Although tough-minded individuals are more likely to believe that people have duties to society as well as rights, their favorable attitudes towards permissive child rearing, trial marriage, abortion, and soft drugs, could hardly be considered 'authoritarian.' Part of this confusion probably stems from earlier failures to distinguish social and economic conservatism; communists were identified early on as tough radicals, but their apparently dogmatic and authoritarian attitudes probably stems from their pro-socialist attitudes, which must be enforced by larger government and more economic restriction, rather than their tough-minded attitudes per se.

So in clearing up earlier confusions which arose from interpreting the previous two-factor model, these three factors provide a satisfying explanation for most political variation found throughout the Western world, allowing a theoretical classification for a wide variety of political platforms. For instance, most people would be unsurprised to hear that vegetarians are often leftist in their political views, but early studies found that vegetarians are especially tender minded with only a slight tendency towards Radicalism (Eysenck, 1944) and would be more likely to endorse the United Nations or the notion of an inborn conscience than abortion or more other tough leftist causes (Eysenck, 1976). Likewise, religious fundamentalists and members of private militias may both be conservative extremists, but they are hardly alike - one group is tender-minded, with attitudes favorable to traditional religion, and the other group is tough-minded, with attitudes favorable to ethnocentrism and war.

Also useful is the third dimension which Eysenck's study uncovered, as it coincides quite nicely with popular distinctions between a 'social conservative' and an 'economic conservative.' Frequently, ideal governmental size discussed in the political arena, and this issue appears to be well encapsulated by the two factors of political conservatism and economic socialism, with political conservatives (R-) preferring more spending in the military, police force, and penal system, and economic liberals (S+) preferring more governmental regulation of business and industry, and more social welfare programs aimed at reducing class disparities. By including questions designed to tap into these areas (though sadly with a small item pool which neglected questions that would investigate issues related to toughness or tenderness) a very recent factor analysis of British political values uncovered both of these two factors.

Combining the third S factor with the R factor offers a theoretical understanding of different attitudes towards government, with conservative socialists representing statists, and radical capitalists representing libertarians; this interpretation is commonplance in political schema which include the R and S dimensions. But the addition of a T dimension to R and S also points out a theoreticaldifference between a tender minded theocracy (perhaps corresponding to the Amish community) and a tough minded fascist state, even though both would be conceptualized as socially conservative (R-) and economically socialist (S+).

Some questions still remain, of course, regarding values not included or only peripherally included in the political surveys, and regarding the possibility of finding further dimensions of political values by including still larger item pools than those used in Eysenck's 1975 study. Based on existing information, it is easy to make educated guesses about how many particular values or beliefs not included in the survey might load on the three factors; for instance, tender-minded radicals would probably be most favorable to animal rights and UFOs, tough-minded radicals would probably be most favorable to plastic surgery and bioengineered foods, tender-minded conservatives would probably be most in favor of seat belt laws and speed limits, and so forth. But it is less easy to settle on this three-factor model as definitive - after all, Eysenck also championed a three-factor model of personality, which was eventually outmoded by the use of much wider item pools that, when submitted to factor analysis, gave five factors of personality, rather than Eysenck's earlier three.

Still, the state of research is constantly advancing, and it would be futile to discard existing results in favor of results which have not come in yet. Eysenck's model may not be perfect, but it appears to be more effective at explaining political behavior and more grounded in solid empiricism than any other methods employed to date, and it is probably worth considering issues through the lens provided by Eysenck.

One of the first things many people notice about large ideological movements is the amount of debate which occurs within them; a one-dimensional model for political attitudes could not really explain these problems, except to say that some individuals would always desire a more extreme or 'true' form of the ideology while others would push for a more moderate position. With three factors, however, it becomes easy to see why some people will emphasize some aspects of an ideology or religion over others.

Consider the Christian religion; while the faith attracts primarily tender-minded conservatives, it is mainstream enough to include individuals from almost all political orientations. How might different sorts of Christians behave? Those who are more socialist might donate more than those with a more capitalist mindset, and those who are more radical would have a greater tendency to accept homosexuals or tolerate unusual fashion choices of nonconformist members. And of course readers will recognize tough-mindedness in those churches which focus on Old Testament law and stress hellfire and damnation.

Given the young age of Millennium itself, it would be premature to speculate about splits within the religion at present, so a discussion of the broader eugenics movement will probably be more meaningful. One interesting observation regarding the modern eugenics movement is its substantial overlap with libertarianism. This will very likely confuse many readers who erroneously associate eugenics with National Socialism, a conservative movement, and believe that eugenics presumes some sort of totalitarianism. In actual fact, early studies found eugenics to be a tough-minded, radical movement (Eysenck, 1944), and eugenics in the modern era remains a non-coercive philosophy with an ultimately progressive character, as a thorough examination of this website will demonstrate.

Still, there is no definitional reason why eugenics and libertarianism would be related, and this is what makes the overlap between them interesting. As pure ideologies, they need not be related at all, but the underlying attitudes, tendencies, and patterns of thinking which predispose individuals towards one philosophy will encourage them to gravitate towards the other, as Eysenck's framework suggests. Granted that the eugenics movement seems more concerned with tough-minded issues and the libertarian movement with radical and pro-capitalist issues, but on inspection they both seem to be radical, capitalist, and tough-minded; here are a few examples of the way explicitly different rationales lead ultimately to the same positions:

1. Both groups oppose welfare and affirmative action, libertarians because they are interpreted as a restriction on economic freedom and eugenists because these programs are seen as ultimately dysgenic in nature

2. Both support birth control and abortion, libertarians due to the issues of sexual freedom and eugenists as a method of negative eugenics

3. Both oppose laws against homosexuality, libertarians because they believe that sexual choice should be protected, eugenists because they claim that criminalizing the behavior will simply force it underground and encourage the foundation of unhappy 'cover' marriages which perpetuate the trait in future generations

4. Both loathe political correctness, libertarians because political correctness is seen as an attack on free expression, eugenists because political correctness demonizes eugenics and halts discussion on dysgenesis

5. Both oppose the expansion of monotheist religious organizations, libertarians because these organizations are seen as authoritarian, and eugenists because these organizations are seen as opposed to evolutionary and genetic theory

Indeed, marriage between libertarian and eugenic theory is so easy that Prometheism has incorporated both into its religious platform.

But is tough-minded, capitalist radicalism really what Seekers should be pursuing? Perhaps not - or at least, not without reservation. The moral precepts of Millennium encourage a variety of things, among them the survival of the religion itself. Can Seekers, in good conscience, fail to encourage future generations towards rational, objective, flexible thought which is free from dogmatic compulsion and continues to check itself for errors? The question is usually framed as a eugenic or recruiting issue, rather than a natalist one, yet the natalist position is much more salient at this stage. Seekers, and eugenists in general, have far too little political clout to bring about large scale eugenic change. In order for Millennium's philosophy to have any effect on the genetic quality of future generations, it needs a solid, stable core - it must expand its membership. Presently Millennium occupies a very shaky position, given its small and scattered number of devotees and the lack of commitment on the part of its more peripheral members.

The general introversion and passivity which characterizes most Seekers probably makes them more fair-minded and better at applying the Method, and also likely serves as a protection against a sudden conversion undertaken out of a whimsical desire for a nameless 'something more' which monotheistic religions claim to provide. But this apparent introversion means that Seekers are not good recruiters, because that would require outgoing salesmanship and a dominant, assertive personality. Can someone who questions his own involvement in a religion - indeed, is admonished by that religion to question his own involvement in it - undertake a sustained mission to convert others?

Moreover, there are also problems on the part of those who are willing or even eager to become Seekers. Millennium is so different from outside society in the patterns of behavior it requires such as intellectual humility, carefulness, doubt, avoidance of instinctive emotionality, positional flexibility, self moderation, neutrality of perspective, willingness to concede, and curiosity that it often takes months, or, as in the case of the present author, years to fully incorporate the Method into himself. It is no simple matter to convert to Millennium; one must also convert out of the groundless and unsubstantiated beliefs of the mainstream and carefully cultivate the habits of reason, objectivity, and self doubt which are morally necessary for an honest Seeker to apply through his life.

Yet despite these problems with recruitment, Millennium is not exempt from the rule which governs all religions: Millennium must acquire new members or disappear. This is not a merely philosophical point, but rather a pressing and even urgent one when considering the fact that most new religions fail.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to both campaigning for eugenics and recruitment, and that alternative is the middle ground of natalism. Rather than attempting to encourage strangers to practice the Method or pushing for outsiders to accept and apply eugenic principles, it is far more sensible to provide for the continuation and expansion of this religion and the improvement of mankind as a whole by focusing on childbirth and child rearing practices and ultimately raising the Seeker birthrate.

Unfortunately, natalism involves a shift in attitudes towards a more tender-minded value set. While the antiauthoritarian and communicative rearing styles associated with radicalism may help to foster free-thinking attitudes in children, the hedonism and cold attitudes towards life and death which govern tough minded radicals are poorly compatible with high fertility rates, as evidenced by the high fertility of tender minded conservatives. Children do not appreciate violent or pornographic media nor cynical perspectives on fantasy and the supernatural, and casual attitudes towards divorce, abortion, travel, and wife swapping probably don't make for the stable marriages necessary to raise many children in a safe and friendly environment. Indeed, based on simple observation, it seems that children are probably fundamentally more tender-minded than adults. While statements about children's values are perhaps overly speculative, females themselves are consistently found to be more tender-minded than males (Eysenck, 1954; Eysenck, 1975), and a natalist religion must be compatible with the values of women.

Therefore, it may be necessary for Seekers to cultivate a variety of attitudes which are more child-friendly and more woman-friendly. Millennium is probably by its very nature a socially radical religion, and its members, who tend to be high in two traits which encourage individuals towards radicalism, namely intelligence and Openness (Brand, 1987, McCrae, 1996) will therefore inevitably dislike punitive militarism, strict regulation, mindless patriotism, authoritarianism, or orthodoxy; insofar as Reason, Objectivity, and Self Doubt are Radical notions it is probably best for Radicalism to remain in most Seeker's value sets. But Millennium does not appear appreciably tough or tender minded, and a more moderate stance on issues related to the T-dimension will hopefully be more compatible with high fertility rates. Specifically, then, it may be important for Seekers to cultivate:

1. Tolerance for (though not necessarily endorsement of) supernaturalism

2. Tolerance for censorship of violent content

3. Avoidance of harsh punishment

4. Greater pacifism and opposition to military aggression

5. Moderated use of and opinions towards birth control and abortion

6. Increased respect for life, with discouragement of suicide and euthanasia

7. Commitment to marriage with divorce viewed as a last resort

8. Moderated use of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs.

Bear in mind that the above is merely a list of suggestions, and may create friction with the core structure of Millennium if taken too far. Many tough minded attitudes are important, specifically those related to eugenic principles and racial differences; it is precisely by failing to adopt a sensible position on each of these two issues that mainstream society is bringing about its own slow destruction, and Seekers should remember this in order to prevent Millennium from meeting a similar end.

References

Brand, Chris (1987). 'The importance of general intelligence.' In Modgil & Modgil's Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy (pp. 251-265). New York: Falmer

Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., and Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, Culture, and Personality: An emperical approach. Academic Press, San Diego.

Eysenck, Hans (1944). 'General Social Attitudes.' Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 207-227.

Eysenck, Hans (1954). The Psychology of Politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, Hans (1976). "The structure of social attitudes." British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 323-331.

Eysenck, Hans (1976). "The structure of social attitudes." Psychological Reports, 39, pp. 463-6

Eysenck, Hans and Wilson, Glenn (1978). The Psychological basis of ideology. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Ferguson, L. W. (1939). "Primary social attitudes." Journal of Psychology, 8, 217-223. Ferguson, L. W.

McCrae, Robert (1996). 'Social Consequences of Experiential Openness.' Psychololigcal Bulletin, 1996 Nov;120(3):323-37

Ruch, W. and Hehl, F. (1985). "Conservatism as a predictor of responses to humor I. A comparison of four scales." Personality & Individual Diufferences 7, 1-24.