[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=njtosd]
I think it probably works as well as other dichotomies, such as extrovert/introvert feeling/thinking or the other Myers Briggs categories. [/quote]

I don’t agree with that because, taking introvert vs extrovert for example, it’s just a linear spectrum between two extremes regarding one issue.

“Conservative” vs. “liberal” means a million different things, depending on what issue you are talking about… that’s why it’s useless to argue based on “teams” as seems to be peoples’ general tendency. Each issue should be debated on its own merits, not what two (just two, for a million issues!!) teams think about it.

I think the Scientific American article is cool and the thing about innate tendencies sure seems plausible. But I do not agree that “liberal” vs “conservative” is anything like a single topic, linear spectrum such as “introvert” vs. “extrovert.”[/quote]

I see your point – I think perhaps what people are getting at is “the people who more often than not vote for the Democratic candidate” vs. “the people who more often than not vote for the Republican candidate”. I come from very Irish roots – relatives had a tendency toward knee jerk allegiance to a particular party (can you guess?) and that was often in conflict with many opinions that I saw bandied around. In the end there is a “chicken or pasta” sort of decision to make and most people choose one or the other even though they would rather have guac and chips (or whatever).

It would be more fun if we had the variety of political parties that other countries have – and I think there is room for a party that supports those who try to balance economic practicality with support for social issues. I used to think it would be difficult for such a group to get donations – but Bernie did a great job getting smallish donations from a large number of individuals. . . So, maybe.