My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Right

My point was that if you started with no parties at all, then developed parties, that there should be an even split -- if no other factors were involved. Right, this is a religious belief you have. It is a belief for which you've provided no evidence to support. You're making an assumption here. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) I really don't see how going back in time helps your argument at all. The nature of political parties and how Americans understand them has changed significantly over time, to say nothing of the demographics of the group we call scientists. Going back in time raises a whole lot more questions than it answers. To that the best I can come up with is to take at look at early American politics, when the parties first developed after the founding of the government. At that time it was a pretty even split (as far as I have been told) Absolutely, and stupid people have done precisely that. But I've read Altermeyer's book and there are lots of researchers who are careful. The Wikipedia link I gave above gives a good summary. In brief: - the issue is not that conservatives are stupid; there's no correlation between authoritarian tendencies and intelligence - lots of conservatives are not authoritarian at all - most (almost all) authoritarians who have political preferences are conservative