The locus of control imbalance causes a tremendous amount of suffering.
> There are ways to frame these findings sympathetically to liberals: for instance, that liberals are more conscientious about the suffering of other people or the conditions of the world, whereas conservatives are happy but selfish.
There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations. Evangelical conservative megachurches are designed to foster a sense of belonging and community for those who can believe their teachings. Progressive churches celebrate the questioning mind and search for meaning, which actively does not create a culture of conformity, and hence raises the barrier to allow people to feel like they belong.
We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting. Leftists also have a problem with gatekeeping, contrast this with evangelicals who design easy paths in to their churches for folks who "haven't done the required reading"
Additionally, the active suppression of liberal/leftist and queer groups (e.g. McCarthyism), the AIDS crisis, leftist infighting, and leftist distrust of authority mean a lot of young progressives are starting from scratch or facing large headwinds in finding any sort of social group. The Internet is helping combat this, but the lack of elders, advisors, and established routes to leadership mean that there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Contrast this with conservative groups which have generations of experience, leadership routes, training, etc. Individual evangelical colleges matriculate thousands of students while progressive religious programs are lucky to number in the 30-50 range.
Source: anecdotes and personal experience, as someone with leadership experience in a progressive religion :)
> There are progressive churches out there, for example, but they see much smaller membership overall than other denominations.
You don't need a church to have something to belong to. I'm not going to believe in gods just so I can sing kumbaya with others. The whole point of belonging is that you can be yourself and be accepted as you are. That's key. If you're going to pretend you're just fooling yourself.
Also, churches tell you how to feel, what to do, what to think. Another thing that doesn't go down very well with most progressives. I don't think that this causes an extra barrier to belong though. The key part is finding a group that suits you.
Or do you mean these 'churches' are more like enlightenment classes of self discovery? In that case I wouldn't call it a church due to all the negative associations that brings.
> We know that hazing rituals, shared uniforms and appearance, and groupthink create strong bonds, but also lead to little-t and capial-T traumas, especially for queer or neurodivergent folks who may never truly "fit in" without heavy masking or closeting
As a neurodivergent kinda queer leftist, I absolutely hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority. But it's not like I'm desperately trying to find a group to belong to. A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around. They're easier to find than you think. Just chat to someone wearing a rainbow band and they'll tell you what's good in the area. Or someone with blue hair or extravagant clothing. Our communities aren't strictly organised and regulated or formalized but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
In fact that's something that conservatives tend to project on us. They think there's an LGBT or 'woke' 'agenda'. They project their own need for leadership and organisation on us. In reality this isn't the case at all. Everyone makes up their own goals. And that's great. Progressiveness is all about embracing different.
For me I have found such places such as makerspaces and more spicy places, all of which ended up being full of neurodivergents like me :) And definitely all progressive. But they share no elements of churches other than being a community.
I do think neurodivergents are often less happy because we have more difficulty in life where most others are neurotypical.
> there aren't many organizations to even join, and the ones that do exist are often run poorly.
Most makerspaces are really badly run :) But it doesn't matter. It's not about being successful. It's about making cool stuff with others.
I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
> A group I belong to has to fit me, not the other way around
I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
I'm not saying you have to go to church, or that a makerspace or spicy setting can't be a community. And I do think a lot of them can foster relationships that turn into real community. But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully. Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
I too hate hazing rituals and uniforms and authority, although I'm starting to soften on that last one (authority), as I find progressive spaces that vet and hold accountable their leadership. Without a web of trust and accountability we are all just off on our own, pulling in many different directions at the same time, while conservatives have figured out how to get everyone working on the same few problems, regardless of minor differences.
I'm obviously exaggerating and using metaphor, but what else makes a good story :)
> I forgot to mention that I'm an atheist. I call myself "religious but not spiritual". I was super reluctant to go to anything called "church" until my partner dragged me along 10 or so years ago, and the religion I belong to now has no particular theological creed. Reclaiming religious language (like "church") and disassociating it from the baggage of conservative organized religion is something very interesting to me. It's like the word "god", which can mean a big white dude in the sky, or it can just mean the way the universe works. (Aka monotheism and panentheism).
Ah I see. I'm open to spiritualism. But calling something a church leads to an insta-pass from me. Which is a kinda personal hangup. But yes definining something yourself is a very typical progressive point. Try that in a conservative church, there you really have to stick with established dogma, colour within the lines. But anyway you said the same thing in different words I think.
> I think this is one of the major sticking points a lot of progressives have that lead to shallow relationships. Deep community often takes work, change, and sacrifice. I don't mean changing who you are - just how you interact with others, how you open up, and how/what you are willing to give.
> Without buy-in (monetary, skills, helping others, etc.), it's not really a community. It's just a social interest group, and that's not going to provide the kind of psychological safety and deep connection that contributes to well being.
Ok this is a point where we really differ in opinion :) I feel the complete opposite. A community where I have to change isn't really 'real' to me. Because it's not really me that is a member, it's a twisted role I'm playing. It just becomes a mindless ritual then, not something worth anything to me. I don't feel invested because I'm just playing some role.
I used to live in a pretty conservative place and it was hard to find a place to belong, but now I live in a big city and my life has become so much more full. My connection to friends is much deeper. We talk about deep personal problems and insecurities, about sex, about traumas. We really open up and show our real selves (and often bodies). I've never really had that before. Things are more fluid yes, sometimes I'm really close to one friend or group and sometimes to another, but it doesn't matter. We're all on our own journey but we travel together with the people that align with us at the time. I feel I'm really progressing in my life now and living it more fully. In the conservative place I couldn't do that because so many things were taboos or just frowned upon.
And yes we help each other too. If someone is moving house we all show up to help, if a friend has a computer problem they tend to come to me. And the others help me with things I can't do on my own. <3
Talking about some shared ideology that is set in stone (tablets :) ) or books would never bring that to me. Because I change over time too, even if I align at one point I will not later. And the world changes too.
> But in my (biased) experience, there are few multigenerational progressive spaces designed to encourage kids, elders, adults, etc. to connect meaningfully.
I have deep connections with people ranging from 18 to their 70s. Embrace different includes not allowing ageism.
> Contributing further to the lack of structure, wisdom, and leadership that can allow an organization to do big work.
See, this is the part that does not matter to us at all. Doing stuff some leader wants done is not something we care about at all. We don't have a shared agenda and we don't want one. Some organisations do, but they tend to be made up of different people over time, that align with the mission at that point in life. It's rare for them to stay in there for their whole life.
The shared goal thing is definitely a huge difference between conservative and progressive communities, as you mention. But my point is the lack of that doesn't matter. I do think it is one of the reasons that conservatism is so succesful in the world. Because they do have an agenda and the means (also financial) to push it through. Our communities are always struggling with money, but it's also because that's not a thing we find really important.
They are having fun with it, you mean. If it weren't an enjoyable activity to them, they'd drop the issue already.
Does that explain everything? No, not by a long shot. But I think it has a significant effect.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-3-po...
Furthermore, the very act of caring about state- and world- level issues, of believing that climate change, sexism, racism, and other discriminations are rampant and big issues - is stressful. This would additionally explain why women are most affected - because misogyny directly affects them as a group.
As someone else pointed, the "self-reported" part is important too. Liberals are much more likely to talk about and admit to mental health struggles, while conservatives are more likely to tough it out and save face - because, somehow, even mental health has become politicised in the US.
Typically that is the case in large cities, but the opposite is generally true elsewhere. The least fortunate communities in the US are by and large hardcore right-leaning.
But perhaps you accidentally stumbled upon the real significant factor? We do, after all, know that rural/small town dwellers are happier than large urban dwellers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/17/peopl... Their philosophical leanings may have nothing to do with it; just mere correlation.
I’m quite confident the conservatives I know are fairly unhappy and unstable people, so is there a population of well-adjusted conservatives I never meet, or is this self-report bias?
I’m waiting until I get some concrete examples of what this happiness gap looks like in practice before I take these results too seriously.
k310•3h ago
Ask me about my incredible biceps, triceps, abs and buns of steel. :-)
And that I.Q. ...
bfung•3h ago
tony_landis•3h ago
cortesoft•1h ago
The question asked the respondent to evaluate their "mental health". This is oversimplifying, but the conservative view is often that worrying about mental health makes you 'soft', and that people complaining about their mental health are whiners who need to toughen up.
If this view is accurate, it would make sense that conservatives would not state that they have poor mental health, because they believe they should just toughen up and deal with it.
Now, whether this means that conservatives are actually more happy or not is not clear, but an alternative explanation would be that conservatives are in denial about their mental health issues, and will describe themselves as not having any, and instead cope in unhealthy ways (drinking, getting angry at minorities and immigrants, abusing their spouses/kids, etc)
Of course, the alternative alternative explanation is that conservatives are right, and liberals are just whiny naval-gazers who will complain about everything even though their lives are objectively better than previous generations.
barbazoo•1h ago
Which also might not even be true either anymore.
> Americans are less likely to earn more than their parents
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/09/social-mobility-upwa...
Llamamoe•1h ago
9rx•42m ago