« Visited countries | Main | Bonuses lead to more wage inequality »

Does politics reflect personality?

A new article in Psychology Today suggests the following:

•    Liberals are messier than conservatives. Their rooms have more clutter, more color.  Conservatives’ rooms are better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional.  Liberals have more books and their books are on a greater variety of topics.
•    Compared to liberals, conservatives are less tolerant of ambiguity, a trait researchers say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider."
•    Conservatives have a greater fear of death.
•    Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.
•    Conservatives are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, rule-following, duty, and orderliness.
•    Conservatives have a greater need to reach a decision quickly and stick to it.
•    When people are prompted to think about death—a state of mind  psychologists call mortality salience—they actually become more conservative.
•    Conservatives are more likely to have been insecure as kids, whereas liberals are more likely to have been confident as kids.

I can assure you my room is messy, and I wonder if more finely grained categories would have been useful.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 11, 2007 at 06:08 AM in Political Science | Permalink

Comments

Isn't this just another "liberal=hip" meme that has been around for decades.

I would also assume that the author manages to find a way to exclude almost all blacks and hispanics from the "liberal" category even though they are overwhelmingly Democratic party voters.

Posted by: superdestroyer at Jan 11, 2007 7:18:42 AM

I can't help but to roll my eyes at this study. we've all heard this before. liberals not only have more sex, but better sex. they not only attend more parties, but more exclusive ones. hilarious stuff.

Posted by: younghov at Jan 11, 2007 7:43:44 AM

My liberal friends tell me I'm very conservative, yet not one of them would support the notion that my desk was ever neat (save for the first and last hours at it in my career). More, in a recent move, my books required about 50 boxes and covered a lot of topics from math and statistics through economics and history, as well as an assortment of fiction.

And that last item sounds like that bogus study done at a particular California day care center.

And some wonder why Psychology has a reputation for vapidity.

Posted by: Paul McMahon at Jan 11, 2007 7:45:03 AM

According to the article- "As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics."

In other words, conservatives are more risk averse. I wonder how this applies to current political climate, where liberal policies seem more about hedging risk.

Also, from the article - "Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men." Guess that makes me conservative :)

Posted by: Smithy at Jan 11, 2007 7:55:33 AM

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to publish self-congratulatory studies.

Posted by: J. at Jan 11, 2007 8:23:45 AM

I don't really buy this -- at my school in the deep south, the rare liberals were definitely the ones being victimized, and I would assume there are opposite biases in other regions.

But if I did buy it, IMHO there is no shame in being picked on in school, or fearful or offended or otherwise vulnerable. And in any case, no real liberal would hold it against someone. Liberals are supposed to be on the side of the victims, right? If I had a dollar for every time a liberal had told me that I was conservative only because I was privileged and didn't know what it was like to be a victim, well, then I could afford to pay much higher taxes.

Posted by: DK at Jan 11, 2007 8:34:33 AM

Tyler, you are NOT a conservative, although, despite your protests, you ARE a Republican! (Voting for GWB, WPE, is sufficient)

Funny the reactions here. I do not how reliable this test is, but it would not suprise me, but I thought this was a libertarian-ish site, which would thoroughly reject the more general conservative mindset, which is obviously, protect me from change, and provide order. Libertarians, despite their silliness standing awthwart history, would be, in this type of categorization, on the liberal side of the ledger, so you guys get to have the good sex too!

Posted by: theCoach at Jan 11, 2007 8:39:55 AM

hmm, I am tempted to add on the basis of this thread that "conservatives are more inclined to believe that they can refute statistical analysis with anecdote". But of course, that would be an anecdote.

Surely these guys have just rediscovered the f-type personality, which experimental psychologists have been doing roughly once every three years since Adorno?

Posted by: dsquared at Jan 11, 2007 8:48:25 AM

Conservatives have a greater fear of death

Whoa. That doesn't make sense. As conservatives are more religious than liberals, they should have less fear of death.

Posted by: Peter at Jan 11, 2007 9:09:35 AM

What about libertarians?

Posted by: josh at Jan 11, 2007 9:11:15 AM

I'm just seconding "theCoach" here, but
Tyler, you are not Conservative.

Steve Sailor wrote

"There are three obvious ways to get rich as a nonfiction writer.

Flatter conservatives that they are more moral, patriotic, and practical-minded than liberals.

Flatter liberals that they are more ethical, cosmopolitan, and high-minded than conservatives.

Give people advice, especially on how to make more money."

I think that that summarizes fairly well.
If you are more flattered by being called ethical, cosmopolitan, and high minded than being called moral, patriotic, and practical minded, your a liberal. Your just a bit confused about the liberality of the current administration vis-a-vis the Democrats.

It actually reminds me of WWII US propaganda and Japanese propaganda. Both sides agreed on the main points. The US is individualistic, diverse, etc, and the Japanese are cooperative, united, etc. They just differed in what they were and wanted to be. It's the same with conservatives and liberals. The cultural conflict is very real, and much older and deeper than the politics, dating to well before the English Civil War.

Posted by: michael vassar at Jan 11, 2007 9:17:47 AM

Unless psychology has changed the definition of conservative, Joseph Stalin is still a member of the right wing.

Posted by: Matt at Jan 11, 2007 9:18:08 AM

Or perhaps, Peter, Conservatives are religious *because* they fear death.

Posted by: AWT at Jan 11, 2007 9:22:43 AM

"and more conventional": hang on, he's just defined two different conventions and then said that one mob is "more conventional" than the other. Bollocks - oops, I beg your pardon, he exhibits an internal inconsistency in his logic.

Posted by: dearieme at Jan 11, 2007 9:43:33 AM

So, basically, the "study" implies that "conservativeness" is a result of a series of psychological problems while liberalness is composed of cool, messy, open-minded and fearless people...

yeah, right!

Posted by: paulo at Jan 11, 2007 9:47:35 AM

hmm, I am tempted to add on the basis of this thread that "conservatives are more inclined to believe that they can refute statistical analysis with anecdote". But of course, that would be an anecdote.

You could also add defensive.

Also, keep in mind that the study may not be wrong just because you are messy, have a lot of books and are conservative. It didn't say ALL liberals are messier and have more books.

Posted by: dsk at Jan 11, 2007 10:39:14 AM

"When people are prompted to think about death—a state of mind psychologists call mortality salience—they actually become more conservative."

My wife's breast cancer has caused her to go from a socialist liberal to a values conservative.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher at Jan 11, 2007 10:40:59 AM

"Unless psychology has changed the definition of conservative, Joseph Stalin is still a member of the right wing. "

Stalin was a moderate and then a left-wing communist. I think that categorizes him as left-wing overall.

Posted by: liberty at Jan 11, 2007 11:11:57 AM

Also keep in mind that conservatives who read this site (and liberals, for that matter) probably lean more towards libertarianism that the majority of their party. Considering this is not the mainstream Republican position (especially in today's GOP), haven't conservatives who espouse more libertarian tendencies already demonstrated a greater open mindedness and intellectual curiosity than is normal, as opposed to simply toeing the party line?

My point being that conservative readers of this site are probably more likely to be outliers and thus able to present counter factual anecdotes.

Posted by: Van at Jan 11, 2007 11:14:39 AM

So liberals are more like Hawkeye Pierce and conservatives are more like Frank Burns? Astounding.

I wonder what other types of research you can do from watching M*A*S*H re-runs.

Posted by: Mike Moffatt at Jan 11, 2007 11:54:19 AM

Isn't this study just an ad hominem argument done the modern way? Actually not so modern - I remember liberal critics claiming that Barry Goldwater's philosophy was due to early (strict) toilet training.

Posted by: Rich Berger at Jan 11, 2007 12:25:22 PM

Peter:
Whoa. That doesn't make sense. As conservatives are more religious than liberals, they should have less fear of death.

I thought the same thing, until I read the other point about death. Maybe conservatives fear death more because they think about it more, and thinking about it more makes them conservative.

Posted by: Brandon Berg at Jan 11, 2007 12:29:30 PM

dsquared, I think it is blog commenters who are more likely to believe that anecdotes can trump data.

Posted by: DK at Jan 11, 2007 12:31:55 PM

Which persuasion is less likely to close an HTML tag?

Posted by: Anderson at Jan 11, 2007 12:34:03 PM

Oh, BTW-

Mike M - that was good. Mike V - oh, yeah, that's right, WWII was just a clash of perceptions. Where was Rodney King when we needed him?

Posted by: Rich Berger at Jan 11, 2007 12:37:25 PM

Posted by: liberty at Jan 11, 2007 1:28:17 PM

To sum up:

Liberalism is the logical result of optimism, however foolish it may be. Conservatism is the logical result of fear, however prudent it may be.

Posted by: cllam at Jan 11, 2007 2:00:00 PM

So how come so many of us war babies, who were terribly insecure in childhood (fear of Japanese bombs anyone? Fear of living under a Nazi regime?) are lifelong liberals, whereas a fair chunk of the people born in the placid 1950s are raging right wingers?

Posted by: Pat Mathews at Jan 11, 2007 2:03:19 PM

Posted by: liberty at Jan 11, 2007 2:13:13 PM

Liberty,

Most psychological studies place Stalin in the right-wing/conservative camp because he's authoritarian. Basically every dictator is a right-winger according to them. The fact that he so obviously is not by any standard political definition shows that these studies, while they may describe personality traits, fail at linking them to political positions.

Posted by: Matt at Jan 11, 2007 2:18:03 PM

Using today's terms, what if I am fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? Can I just pick the ones I like? I am open to that, but would like a little less ambiguity about it.

Posted by: Patinator at Jan 11, 2007 2:42:07 PM

Patinator-

I'll bet you're willing to do just about anything with anybody, but unwilling to pay for it. Or maybe you are a Psychology Today moderate.

Posted by: Rich Berger at Jan 11, 2007 3:54:48 PM

Sounds like the sample size for this study was limited to the two characters in Apple's "Get a Mac" adverts.

Posted by: anon at Jan 11, 2007 4:37:03 PM

Okay, am I the only person who found the article's initial question of "Why did people become conservative after 9/11?" more than a little absurd? Err, possibly, maybe, by some chance, reputation on defense issues?

Posted by: Bill Dalasio at Jan 11, 2007 5:25:55 PM

'Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity...'

Obviously they've never met a lefty econ blogger.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Jan 11, 2007 5:45:57 PM

Rich B,

I would be willing to pay for the your good one liners but not too much and as long as you never mention death.

Posted by: Patinator at Jan 11, 2007 6:01:50 PM

Wow, I'm a liberal on every account and I've never once voted for a Democrat.

Posted by: Paul N at Jan 11, 2007 9:19:03 PM

The psychologist mentioned in the article, Sam Gosling, has been doing these personality studies for years. He also conducts research on animal personality: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/Gosling/Current_Research.htm

Posted by: bcd at Jan 11, 2007 9:26:59 PM

Rich Berger, you are an illiterate moron. I said the exact opposite of what you claimed I did, e.g. that WWII was NOT a clash of perceptions but rather that both sides shared common perceptions but disagreed about actual fundamental values. Ditto with conservatives and liberals.

Posted by: michael vassar at Jan 11, 2007 10:11:46 PM

Generalizations are generally not true.

Posted by: Scott W at Jan 12, 2007 12:03:09 AM

Of course politics reflects personality. But this article perhaps does a bad job of generalizing this -- just about any self-defined conservative or liberal (both touchy terms to define already) will look at that list and say "okay some apply, but some don't."

Posted by: Brian Moore at Jan 12, 2007 9:49:39 AM

Well i notice this comment:

"When people are prompted to think about death—a state of mind psychologists call mortality salience—they actually become more conservative."

Now *that* might well account for more of the "dangerous professions" like police/firefighter/soldier having more conservatives. (which they certainly do).

Although, there's a bit of a trend among "conservatives" i know to actually be Libertarians (with a small "l" usually). I'm not sure how that fits the article's premise. Whats more, the libertarian type conservatives I know have a number of the "liberal" traits described.

-jcp-

Posted by: Joe P. at Jan 12, 2007 9:56:44 AM

Not only are generalizations generally not true, the anti-dogmatic ones tend towards dogma.

Posted by: General at Jan 12, 2007 12:31:24 PM

*Conservatives have a greater fear of death*

Oh. So that explains the land-office rush to join Alcor, and other cryonics societies.

Posted by: cool dood at Jan 12, 2007 12:33:27 PM

Superdestroyer proclaimed:
Isn't this just another "liberal=hip" meme that has been around for decades.

No, not at all, this is a much more scientifically rigorous work than what you describe. Not only does this prove that liberals are open minded, generous, accepting of differences, and thus all around more gooder than conservatives, if you dig into the study you find that liberals are rubber, while conservatives are glue...

Posted by: Stuck at Jan 12, 2007 12:35:07 PM

dsquared proclaimed:
hmm, I am tempted to add on the basis of this thread that "conservatives are more inclined to believe that they can refute statistical analysis with anecdote". But of course, that would be an anecdote.

C'mon, it's a psychology study, the kind of work where the plural form of "anecdote" is called "data". Therefore, given enough anecdotes...

Posted by: chisquared at Jan 12, 2007 12:39:32 PM

I would also assume that the author manages to find a way to exclude almost all blacks and hispanics from the "liberal" category even though they are overwhelmingly Democratic party voters.

Well, on average, they're not really cultural "liberals" in the same way that White liberals tend to be, are they? On social issues, my recollection is that surveys have majorities of both Hispanics and Blacks coming out in roughly Republican/Conservative territory. Those would be issues like gay marriage, abortion, religion in public life, etc. On the other hand, majorities of both Blacks and Hispanics support (I think) government mandated redistribution and other liberal economic policies. In any event, excluding Blacks and Hispanics from the "liberal" category, if the study authors did in fact do this, doesn't seem particularly indefensible. Conventional liberals may constitute the mover-shaker elite of the Democratic party, but that doesn't mean that the people under them who vote for Democrats are particularly liberal in that sense.

Posted by: Taeyoung at Jan 12, 2007 2:30:40 PM

The idiots at Psychology Today are confusing the personality traits of Openness and Conscientousness with Republican and Democratic party idealogies, when both those parties really represent an alliance of not necessarily compatible interests.

Posted by: Half Sigma at Jan 12, 2007 2:56:53 PM

I don't put much stock in these studies because the premise that there is a intrinsic ideological division between conservatives and liberals rather than that the groupings are the result of historical processes that is incorporated into their design is spurious. The point about musical preference in particular seems like it simply stems from the geographic distribution of conservatives and liberals, which doesn't have much to do with the intrinsic characteristics of the ideology, and the point about media format preferences could also largely be attributed to what outlets each group has historically had a lot of commentators in.

It's also necessary to consider how local politics and in-group/out-group dynamics work. Take the daycare center study for example - if the center was in the bay area (which would be expected if the profs are at Berkeley), the poltical norm the children would experience growing up would be liberalism, so children who don't fit in will be more likely to relate to conservativism, by virtue of it providing an identity which justifies their rejection of the dominant social structures they experience. I wonder if there may actually be a systemic bias introduced by virtue of college towns and their immediate surroundings having predominantly liberal politics? Also, the interest in these types of studies seems to rise and fall with how much authority conservatives have in the contemporary government, which may skew the body of results in the published literature regarding conservative attitudes towards authrority.

Finally, attitudes towards authority need to be separated from attitudes toward ideology, which has almost never been done in these studies. On the contrary, these studies tend to categorize deference to authority as a trait of conservative ideology, then beg the question by arguing a correlation between conservativism and authoritarianism. Adorno is bad about this and Altemeyer is even worse - the traits they group together for their descriptions of authoritarian personalities tend to include a mix of questions about policy, moral positions, and attitudes towards authority. Some of the question begging is ludicrous - one of the traits said to stem from a RWA/F-type personality homophobia, for example, but one of the questions you find on an F-scale test (see example here http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm) asks directly about attitudes towards homosexuality Another questions are either directly or partially about about strength of religious belief, which strongly correlates with conservativism on its own right. The sneakiest ones are those statements which an agreement could stem either from ideological, religious, or authoritarian attitudes, which get counted as a manifestation of all 3.

Posted by: MattXIV at Jan 12, 2007 4:43:39 PM

Reading the Psychology Today article, arousing memories or visions of fearful events in the lab increases the likelihood of voting conservative.

That seems to be a robust and stable result.

Alot of the rest seems to get lost in the confusion between 'libertarian' and 'conservative'.

If you graph political opinions on 2 dimensional matrix, with the Y axis being attitude to government control of the economy, and the X axis being attitude to government intervention in society (or traditional social norms) then I think you get a better understanding of personal political beliefs.

Modern conservatives *tend* to be free market in their approach to the economy, but conservative in their approach to social questions.

Modern liberals tend to be less free market in their approach to the economy, and more radical (more liberal for want of a better word) in their social prescriptions.

Smaller groups of conservatives, called libertarians normally, are very free market, and very free on personal values (drugs, different forms of religion, freedom to have abortion, etc.).

Very old fashioned leftists (the sort of communist now represented by the Far Right in much of Europe eg Le Pen's National Front in France, which has subsumed the white working class communist voter) tend to be pro government intervention in the economy, but anti social liberalism.

Whether these mappings of ideology stably map onto psychological preferences I don't know except (see above) for the lab work I have seen presented re fear and voting preference.

It is certainly interesting, at least in the US and UK, that liberals live in cities and inner suburbs, by and large, and conservatives live in outer suburbs and the rural areas.

Interesting at age 3, I would have been that archetypal conservative. Indeed I describe myself as a conservative (of the sort that Thucydides, Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli would have recognised). However my policy prescriptions now (eg on global warming) are what are now termed 'liberal'.

From my own experience of debating global warming, I will say that politics seems to be an identity statement, rather than a coherent set of beliefs. In other words it is like religious belief, logic isn't something that has a big impact on it.

Posted by: Valuethinker at Jan 13, 2007 10:14:11 AM

I'd add to that that one thing that did come out of the Kerry v. Bush Campaign (as the article notes) was the liberal-conservative stereotype split: Bush as the decider, faith-driven and firm in his believes, and Kerry as the (overly) thoughtful and perhaps indecisive (shades perhaps of Jimmy Carter).

That was more important to the electorate than the thing which I thought said more about John Kerry's psychology than anything. Tired of being pot-shotted by enemy gunners in his Swiftboat in the Mekong Delta, he methodically planned an ambush response. The next time a B40 rocket launcher took a potshot at him, he beached the boat, and pursued the gunner into the jungle and shot him down. Whatever else Kerry was, and is, he was a cold-blooded killer. Everything about the guy said 'low reacter' and if you've ever worked with one of those in a crisis situation, they can do quite incredible things. They're strange to work with, as you never really feel you can engage with their emotions. They only come alive when it really hits the fan.

Posted by: Valuethinker at Jan 13, 2007 10:20:02 AM

Well, these things are always tendencies. so no one should get hung up on specific examples.

However, I think that there is a general fear of the unkown that almost by definition goes with being conservative. The question is how you aquired that fear.

It could be genetic - some people just have more fear receptors.

It could be taught - some people's parents told them to fear the other

It could be from childhood experience - some people were beat up by the other

It could be from adult experience - some people have simply seen pie-in-the-sky ideas fail.


I think as a libertarian, I fall into the last category. I am not afraid of change in the way that I would be afriad of a Tractor Trailer about to crash head on into my car, but I am wary of it. I simply feel that things usually don't work out exactly the way you intended and you should aware of that before you start.

Posted by: Karl Smith at Jan 13, 2007 11:18:41 AM

From barely skimming the article it looks like the root research was a metaanalysis of a bunch of psychological studies. In some ways those tend to have much better methodology than research performed in the other social sciences (economics included) because psychologists do actual experiments. However, the experimental subjects tend, to be undergrads and graduate students taking psychology classes - not exactly a representative sample of the population. So the generalization to "conservatives" and "liberals" generally is problematic.

Incidentally, aren't conservatives much more likely to believe in the doctrine of Hell? The prospect of eternal torment could easily make you more afraid of death. Even the conservative evangelical protestants who believe in salvation by faith alone usually believe that people can lie to themselves about whether they have real faith in Christ, the result being that you can never be really sure that you're not going to Hell.

Posted by: Elliot Reed at Jan 13, 2007 2:39:27 PM

"However, I think that there is a general fear of the unkown that almost by definition goes with being conservative. "

Huh? What in the hell are you talking about?

Posted by: buzz at Jan 14, 2007 2:01:37 AM

Elliott

Your definition of Conservative (ie as particularly religious) strikes me as more of an American thing than a European one. Even amongst the mainline churches in Europe (aligned with Christian parties in some cases) I wouldn't think a personal fear of hell is a big factor. That strikes me as more of an evangelical/born again thing.

Karl

Fear of the unknown. Or perhaps fear of change.

There are complexities. I often think of the environmental movement as the most conservative group of people I know. Basically, they fear the loss of any species, and the degradation (change) of any natural environment.

(it's been interesting in that context to see some of the US outdoors groups ie pro hunting and fishing, begin to make noises about global warming, and also some US evangelical groups).

So we could argue (in your framework) that those who don't think global warming is a worry, are basically welcoming change, and those who do, fear it?

However that wouldn't align with conventional conservative-liberal politics re global warming.

Posted by: Valuethinker at Jan 14, 2007 4:19:08 AM

I would score identically on many of those categories if tested today, when I'm pretty conservative, as I would have five years ago, when I was pretty liberal.

Posted by: Scott Scheule at Jan 14, 2007 5:53:05 PM

I think the study has merit...Liberals are always thinking of creative ways to take money from people (conservatives) who worry about the future, plan and act accordingly in order to clean up the messes they, the liberals, make of their lives and futures.

Posted by: Mike at Jan 15, 2007 12:05:14 PM

"Conservatives are more likely to have been insecure as kids, whereas liberals are more likely to have been confident as kids."

Bullsh88. The other points may or may not be true, but this one is pure bullsh88.

Posted by: Dave at Jan 15, 2007 7:43:10 PM

I grew up in a conservative family, but I've always had a liberal approach to life. Generalizing the views in this article and assuming that 100% of liberals or conservatives behave in certain ways would be foolish. We all know that there are many shades of gray between black and white. However, the truth is that a lot of the facts mentioned here are true. From experience, I would say that many conservative people are more structured, have more rigid routines, go to church religiously, fear death?, yes because they are thought that after death comes judgement, and because there is uncertanty about going to hell or heaven.
Many children may be less self-confident because the notions of sin and punishment are so strong that insecurity seems to weaken the eagernes for discovery and exploration of new things.
Sex may be less enjoyable for some conservatives because it may be consider taboo or because nudity may be viewed as something very private.
On the other hand, for many liberals rigid routines and one-sided points of view may not be the best approach to life. Messiness may be considered a sign of freedom or creativity. Liberal children are most likely to be thought the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors or actions in different social circles, giving them the flexibility to adap, explore and discover.
Sex may be more enjoyable for some liberals because they may see it as something natural, spiritual, good for the body and soul. Nudity is probably more acceptable too.
At one point I felt oppressed by conservationism, but as years have passed I have been able to find a healthy balance between liberalism and conservationism. Nevertheless, I still feel more comfortable with my liberal points of view. By the way, I am not comfortable with rooms where everything is in place, almost like if nobody lives there!!!!

Posted by: Sharon at Jan 21, 2007 1:17:10 AM


liqingchao 07年8月17日

google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling

china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
鼓风机
风机
风机
货架
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪

超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
仓库
仓库
仓库出租
仓库出租
物流园区
物流园区
集团电话
集团电话
四环素牙
口腔常识
口腔常识
口腔医生
口腔医生
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
监控系统
监控系统
门禁
门禁
门禁系统
门禁系统
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
牙周炎
牙周炎


Posted by: wslmwps at Aug 17, 2007 1:29:18 AM

Hi
Best wishes
Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.
常年提供高、中、低压锅炉无缝管、流体无缝管、结构无缝管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化无缝钢管
地质钢管、液压支柱钢管
合金钢管
无缝管
无缝钢管
论文发表资讯/刊物信息,协助客户制定论文发表方案.
xicao loves
lovesxicao
网站优化
google优化
网站优化
搜索引擎优化
网站优化
搜索引擎优化
百度优化
SEO

Posted by: 钢管无缝钢管无缝管 at Nov 20, 2007 9:10:26 PM

这家翻译公司|f深圳翻译good深圳翻译公司|优秀同声传译

Posted by: 翻译公司 at Feb 13, 2008 10:22:15 AM

Post a comment