Peter Schweizer's statistics come from the General Social Survey, a large representative sample survey of Americans that has been conducted annually/biannually since the 1970s. Those who are interested can double-check Schweizer's statistics online

In the first statistic he gives, I found a serious misrepresentation:

Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.

...

Peter Schweizer's statistics come from the General Social Survey, a large representative sample survey of Americans that has been conducted annually/biannually since the 1970s. Those who are interested can double-check Schweizer's statistics online

In the first statistic he gives, I found a serious misrepresentation:

Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.

The use of the second person indicates that liberals are saying that they believe THEY are less obligated to care for a seriously injured loved one. In fact, the question did NOT use second-person. The actual wording of the question is:

Sometimes people are asked to make great sacrifices for others in their family by caring for an elderly parent or a spouse who is seriously ill or injured. When someone is asked to give such care, is it their obligation to do so, or should they give care only if they really want to?

(see the question wording for the OBTOHELP item)

Liberals are less likely to say that people are obligated to give care for loved ones, but they are NOT saying that they SPECIFICALLY are not obligated.

To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.

Again, Schweizer is misrepresenting the question. The AGAPE2 question was actually:

I cannot be happy unless I place the one I love's happiness before my own.

55% of extreme conservatives say they "agree strongly" with this statement, compared to 20% of extreme liberals.

I guess if you think being a doormat for your boyfriend/girlfriend constitutes being "nice" (friendly, honest, well-adjusted), then this question would make sense to y...

To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.

Again, Schweizer is misrepresenting the question. The AGAPE2 question was actually:

I cannot be happy unless I place the one I love's happiness before my own.

55% of extreme conservatives say they "agree strongly" with this statement, compared to 20% of extreme liberals.

I guess if you think being a doormat for your boyfriend/girlfriend constitutes being "nice" (friendly, honest, well-adjusted), then this question would make sense to you. I think one can be nice without being a doormat, so this question as a measure of "niceness" does not work for me.

And Schweizer is guilty of cherry-picking here. If he expanded his analysis to not just the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives but to also the "liberals" and "conservatives"--and if he also considered the "agree somewhat" response--he would have found that 64% of liberals agree and 78% of conservatives agree--a much smaller difference than the one he reported.

This author of the article you clipped is doing a sloppy literature review. Taking several research studies, all of which I have read, and putting forth a thesis without providing sources. He is not interpreting many of the studies correctly, all of the counter-findings are missing, and he is at a place with an agenda. He is at the Hoover Institute, a famously conservative think tank, that caters to the whims of its benefactor source. Just like the Heritage Foundation, they produce scholars who are not taken seriously by most other scholars because of their famously inaccurate analysis and interpretation of data, their deliberate exclusions of thousands of studies in their discussions of res...

This author of the article you clipped is doing a sloppy literature review. Taking several research studies, all of which I have read, and putting forth a thesis without providing sources. He is not interpreting many of the studies correctly, all of the counter-findings are missing, and he is at a place with an agenda. He is at the Hoover Institute, a famously conservative think tank, that caters to the whims of its benefactor source. Just like the Heritage Foundation, they produce scholars who are not taken seriously by most other scholars because of their famously inaccurate analysis and interpretation of data, their deliberate exclusions of thousands of studies in their discussions of research, and their subtle, but clear-cut contempt for minorities and the poor. See Sheldon Danziger, any book or article on poverty, for an actual scientific source.

In other words, many of the studies cited, I am familiar with and they are not being presented accurately in the article. But then how could you know that since you can't go check the sources?

Besides, are you familiar with how certain newspapers and TV stations put out anti-liberal propaganda that is so ridiculous I have trouble even getting up the energy to respond. Well anyway, the Daily Mail is just an unreliable source.

I don't believe in bias either way. I want what's fair, i.e. I want both sides stating their view and I'll decide what I'll decide based on that. Part of the problem with most media today (and it is liberal mostly... and here's a simple proof - do you think Obama, aka the Messiah, would get the attention and drooling he gets if the media was conservative? just apply pure logic for the answer. We're dealing with a card-carrying socialist here... he wouldn't know how to spell 'right wing' if his life depended on it)... anyway, back to the sentence - the problem with the media is that the journalists are pushing their bias forward, instead of just reporting the facts. I realize that there ...

I don't believe in bias either way. I want what's fair, i.e. I want both sides stating their view and I'll decide what I'll decide based on that. Part of the problem with most media today (and it is liberal mostly... and here's a simple proof - do you think Obama, aka the Messiah, would get the attention and drooling he gets if the media was conservative? just apply pure logic for the answer. We're dealing with a card-carrying socialist here... he wouldn't know how to spell 'right wing' if his life depended on it)... anyway, back to the sentence - the problem with the media is that the journalists are pushing their bias forward, instead of just reporting the facts. I realize that there are commentators, whose job it is to comment... but there are plenty of reporters that don't. Like I said - I have no interest in just watching a TV show where everyone there is right wing or left wing. I like to see both make their peace and I'll take it from there.

Anyway, don't be like me and spend sleepless nights working and doing a little of CM - get a good night's sleep. Whatever the ideologies are, left, right, etc. - none of it is worth losing your health over, that I'm positive of. Take care!