<p>Maybe mental health is related to spirituality. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Arthur</a> C. Brooks on Democrats & Atheists on National Review Online](<a href=“http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmZlMjc1MzU2NDdkYTg0MTc5YzA1YjA5ZTU1NWI0NDg=]Arthur”>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmZlMjc1MzU2NDdkYTg0MTc5YzA1YjA5ZTU1NWI0NDg=)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Relationship</a> Between Maternal Church Attendance and Adolescent Mental Health and Social Functioning – Varon and Riley 50 (6): 799 – Psychiatr Serv](<a href=“http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/6/799]Relationship”>http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/6/799)</p>
<p>Haven’t read all this thread, but did they control for income? Higher mental health means better ability to hold a job - greater chance to have high income - greater chance to be fiscal conservative - greater chance to be Republican.</p>
<p>The thing about crazy people is they don’t generally sit around wondering if they’re nuts. They’re not sane enough to realize they’re crazy.</p>
<p>Self-reporting is obvious bogus, since there is going to be a big cultural taboo for some communities to talk about such things publicly. If one actually wanted objective data, you need things like alcoholism and suicide rates to assess mental health from an objective criterion rather some fantasy-world self-assessment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not trying to give you a hard time, but income information was in the very first post on the thread. I can understand not reading an entire thread, but why comment if you haven’t read the first post?</p>
<p>Rugburn, Gallup is usually a pretty reliable polling organization. The study never claimed to be controlled – it’s clearly labeled as a self-reported study. Maybe you have issues with the validity of the results, but I think the results are interesting nonetheless. Who defines mental health? Most psychologists use some variation of functioning in the real world. Under that criteria, this is both valid and significant.</p>
<p>Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe - I don’t think anyone’s mind is going to be changed here. But while people can lie, suicide rates can’t. And conveniently enough, here is [data</a> on suicide rates and state-based party affiliation](<a href=“http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/suicides.htm]data”>http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/suicides.htm).</p>
<p>So if you desperately want to believe party affiliation is not just a voting preference, but some deep-seated reflection of one’s moral character and mental health, be my guest. I personally don’t put much stock in that, because it just seems rather cultish to me. But if Republicans have such great mental health, they sure have a bizarre of expressing it with such a high suicide rate.</p>
<p>Rugburn, I don’t think this is such a serious matter. I don’t “desperately” need to believe anything about politics. I just thought the original article was interesting.</p>
<p>Only responding to the title of the thread…I am sure that there are many thoughtful posts. This isn’t one of them:</p>
<p>Republicans report better mental health because…they are living in a fantasy world!</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Ha, this article is hilarious: Republicans report much better mental health than others. </p>
<p>That fits in exactly with how Republicans are: they think their s*** doesn’t stink; when they are absolute kooks they think it’s 'cause the rest of the world is crazy (why are Bush’s approval ratings so low? Because Bush has taken on the hard challenges and taken big risks, they say. In time he will be seen as a profoundly courageous leader says deluded Republicans. Like when Rumsfeld stepped down as by all accounts a thoroughly disastrous mismanagement of the Iraqi War – all can agree on that – he said the problem is that the war was too complex and confusing for people (message: I am sane and all these people are dumb and crazy), and they think that people don’t think like them are morally defective and in fact insane.) This is the message that I take from this posting, since it wasn’t apparently entirely meant to entertain judging by some of the follow-up posts – though it does entertain: Republicans in fact tend more than Democrats to delude themselves.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t tout this article too much if I were a Republican, especially when there are plenty of studies showing that people dramatically misjudge themselves. For instance, the Cornell study that showed that the most competent people were most likely to be self-critical and say that they weren’t all that. And really incompetent people often think they’re great:</p>
<p>[Why</a> we overestimate our competence](<a href=“http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate.html]Why”>Why we overestimate our competence)</p>
<p>Be careful about polls. They reflect perception, not reality. Apparently there may be a very great divide between Republicans’ self-perception and reality. But some of us already knew that. ; )</p>
<p>A follow-up to this post, given the news today, this example of Republican mental health quality seems particularly relevant to this discussion. It is the ultimate example of accurate self-perception on the part of Republicans:</p>
<p>[Senator</a> Larry Craig (R-ID) Chastises Bill Clinton](<a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3173510620352568148&q=larry+craig+on+bill+clinton&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]Senator”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3173510620352568148&q=larry+craig+on+bill+clinton&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)</p>
<p>And here’s a bonus track:</p>
<p>[Senator</a> Larry Craig signs with Dipset!](<a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7634225493159941034]Senator”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7634225493159941034)</p>
<p>Bedhead, your attempts to find ANYTHING to show negative information about Republicans seems to be a little bit of an over-reaction. Don’t you think that’s unhealthy?</p>
<p>Quoting you:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess not.</p>
<p>You didn’t find post #32 funny? Wow…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, now sjmom2329: tell us what you really think. You can’t really have it both ways: on the one hand telling us to have a sense of humor and on the other hand marshalling all sorts of posts to suggest that there may be something valid here. You’re acting downright schizophrenic! (I am aware I used that word inappropriately.)</p>
<p>Do you really believe that you can suggest that mental health is higher in another party on the basis of whether a bunch of people report themselves to be mentally healthy? It appears that you do. I know you claim to be joking, but it’s hard to read your posts that way. I am just reflecting back for you, to balance your imbalanced self-perception if you think your posts come across as all frivolity.</p>
<p>So, if you’re going to marshal a poll to this end and claim it’s from a reputable organization and therefore must have some validity, I am going to poke holes in what you said on a serious level (since it indicates a real lack of understanding about self-perceptions and polling and is pretty daffy) and I am also going to rib you with the obvious potshot of “wide stance Larry,” today’s headlining Republican who exquisitely lacks self-perception. After all, it’s topical; he’s in the news today:</p>
<p>[The</a> Associated Press: Paper: 8 Men Claim Encounters With Craig](<a href=“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnzMHYGd-aXQbgughBA40pWNvlxQD8T9UU2O0]The”>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnzMHYGd-aXQbgughBA40pWNvlxQD8T9UU2O0)</p>
<p>He’s a nasty, bad, naughty boy. He’s a ho, he says “Idaho.”</p>
<p>Craig does not represent all Republicans. The fact that you continue to bring him up as an example strikes me as homophobic.</p>
<p>The article is what it is. It is mildly amusing, the kind of thing people chit chat about over coffee or something. I hardly think it’s worth getting so worked up about.</p>
<p>Like almost everyone else, including you probably, I think that people who share my point of view are smart, charming, perceptive and well-balanced. Probably good-looking, too. That’s just human nature. Isn’t that why you can’t let go of this thread? Somehow you feel threatened by this non-controlled Gallup poll? And since you can’t argue with the data Gallup presents, you strike out at me. Again, how healthy is that?</p>
<p>You seem to need to have the last word. So go ahead – have at it.</p>
<p>
I recognize this as a common trait among conservatives - constantly reinforced by a steady drumbeat from the right wing media (listen to Rush Limbaugh sometime as he practically lapdances for his listeners because - being his listeners - they must be “smart, charming, perceptive and well-balanced.” Except, of course, they’re not. But they do return the love-bombs. Megadittos, baby!)</p>
<p>There was an exchange here a while back about a study which concluded that conservatives generally were less comfortable with ambiguity than liberals. I noted that, while individuals don’t necessarily reflect the generality, I found that statement to be true. I think that both the Gallop poll and Sjmom’s use of it correspond to that fact. Conservatives tend to ignore ambiguity, which leads to a simple approach to life - and less stress. “What, me worry?” is a great approach to a life of self-perceived mental health. (Do you ever wonder if that explains GWBush’s uncanny resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman? But I digress.) They also like to put things into black and white, so the concept “agrees with me” is easy to equate to “good person”, which leads to “every good person agrees with me, so we must be right. Being right makes me happy!” Frankly, I find lots of people who agree with me as to the conclusions I’ve reached on many social issues to be just as annoying as those who disagree with me - and for many of the same reasons. But that’s the kind of an ambiguous perspective on things which is likely to lead to a diminished sense of self-perceived mental health, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Anxiety is a adaptive mechanism, just as pain is. When there is something to worry about, it’s better to worry. This seems to me to be kluge’s point, too, if I’m not mistaken.</p>
<p>I’m striving for the kind of mental health that allows me to listen to opinions much different from my own, even those that seem ill-informed and irrational, without becoming irrational myself.</p>
<p>Our country is more divided than at any time since the Civil War, but somehow we must learn to live together because . . . .we do live together.</p>
<p>I gladly accept a layer of neurosis if that’s what my rejection of religion brings me. I am comfortable not knowing all the answers.</p>
<p>Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go deal with all my anxiety. Shanti shanti shanti om…</p>
<p>LOL, mythmom!
Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, I’ll oblige. </p>
<p>You’re like the schoolhouse bully who puts someone down, and when they take umbrage or fight back you say, “Geez, don’t be so serious.”</p>
<p>I don’t have one homophobic gene in my body. And I find it absurd you’d hide behind that. C’mon anybody would be amused at a man who was so sanctimonious as to say the things he did on Meet the Press about Bill Clinton – it’s downright hilarious to hear him call Clinton a “nasty, bad, naughty boy” in a tone that in retrospect seems like it almost comically verges on being vaguely masturbatory or celebratory or like dirty s** talk in a “I’m going to punish you you naughty boy” kind of way – and then have him get busted for soliciting sex in public places with men.</p>
<p>What isn’t funny, though, is a) the self-hatred he demonstrates and b) the hypocrisy of a man who scratches that itch in secret on the side and is animatedly against equal rights for gays in public.</p>
<p>It’s hypocrisy pure and simple, different in its object, but very similar to someone who says</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and then proceeds to follow up her initial posting with a number of articles and posts indicating she actually believes the palaver she thinks is a trifle. </p>
<p>It’d be one thing if you laughed it off, but you didn’t. Thus, as I said, you can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>I can laugh it off because I did just about burst out laughing when it seems someone was actually daft enough to believe self-reported perceptions of self as reflecting reality. But I was laughing at you, not with you.</p>