Slashdot Mirror
Red Brains vs. Blue Brains?
eLoco writes "From the NYTimes (reg. req.): The Political Brain -- "Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically? Perhaps it's all in the head." Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives. According to the article, studies of stroke victims "have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly? [DISCLAIMER: this is not a troll; I am a liberal]. Regardless, this seems to have implications for more than just politics. Favorite quote: "Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function.""
Is anything anyone's fault or decision anymore? Damn I remember when people were fat, drunk, gay, disruptive and Communist of their own volition. Now everything is a malady, issue and disease.
This
I don't think this is true... I think political views can develop, and change. It's not something that you have when you're born...
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
That's funny... I rarely make that distinction.
---- http://www.opedog.com/
So are we going to start using a Party sorting CAT scanner? [please not slitherin... please not slitherin...]
"Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."
This just in! People relate with people who are similar to themselves! What shocking news, I never would have guessed that similar ideas and ways of thought would pull people together...
I'll pull another shocker out of the air too, while we're going for blatantly obvious descriptions of human behavior--people tend to congregate with other people of similar intelligence levels.
Liberals come from cities, Conservatives come from rural areas.
I think it is the lifestyle of where you live that governs the formation of the brain.
Look at this county map. Here is a equally hi correlation to rurality=convervativeness.
Maybe conservatives are inbred, not born? (Laugh, it's a joke, not a troll.)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
What about libertarians? I call bullshit on this simplistic non-scientific pap. Slashdot might do better posting articles on the scientific basis for spiritualism.
So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly?
No. It is, however, flamebait and fodder for the conservatives to jump over.
I'm a liberal. I also am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and in fact own multiple firearms. Why? Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence. I look at my intellectual forbears like Samuel Adams, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi (not as peace as you believe!), Malcolm X, and other political agitators. Frequently changes can come about through peaceful means, but when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled.
In no religious or political tradition is the forceful opposition of tyranny considered a sin or a crime. This is very much a liberal train of thought, in the "power to the people" sense, the fundamental democratic sense. The liberals who founded America did so by violently opposing British tyranny, and they were wholly justified in doing so.
The question is: empathy towards who? I am empathetic towards the oppressed, the poor, and those who do not get treated justly by their governments. I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day. If violence is required to make it happen, then so be it. I hope it does not come to that, but if it will, I will not run from it.
Well, the article summary interested me, so I conducted my own unbiased, completely unfunded research on this issue.
Within a matter of seconds, I found that people who agree with me on political issues are rather brainy. On the other hand, I found that people who disagree with me on political issues are extremely braindead.
This, indeed, is good new for libertarians everywhere.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
lol, that's just politics man. if you honestly believe that conservatives are politically worse than liberals, or vice versa, you're just silly. politics are politics. doesn't matter which side you're on.
One thing I've never understood about neuro-sciences (and it is truthfully because of my ignorance) is how exactly do we determine causality in the brain?
:-p
How do we know that emotional people don't have a more active amygdala because they don't control their emotions as much? How do we know that people who have a less active amygdala aren't simply controlling their emotions better?
are chemical imbalances a sympton of depression, or a cause?
it seems like a lot of brain stuff is chicken and egg like that, but this is probably a very stupid post
...is like internal medicine several hundred years ago. We have some things figured out, we know how to check the pulse and we've learned how to amputate, but we're also on the level of leeches, cauterization, and bloodletting. There are smart men advancing the field, and they are outnumbered by phrenologists, patent medicine salesmen and outright quacks.
To pass this study off as if it can suggest conclusions, of any kind, about the way one kind of party member thinks versus another is exactly the kind of grandstanding, irresponsible and basically incoherent brain science I am sadly used to hearing about.
We don't really understand the role of the amygdala in our consciousness - in fact, we don't understand consciousness even slightly. Even if we don't hear an apologetic revolution in a year or two stemming from one of the many competing theories about other parts of our brain anatomy that may be equally important to our "limbic system," the methodology of the study itself may easily be flawed, if for instance those operating the survey (interviewing and handlnig subjects) or the survey materials (questionaries, etc) caused subjects from one party to feel differently than the other during examinations...
Were it not for the matte gloss of UCLA science, this article would be a much more obvious fit in the New York Post or the National Enquirer than the New York Times.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Look, being compassionate doesn't have to mean helping people through government programs. I think the defining difference is whether you believe you should run towards government as the first solution to a problem. Conservatives don't generally argue that the poor shouldn't be helped (okay, some wacko conservative commentators aside); they argue that government programs are hurting instead of helping and that private efforts might be more effective. That only makes them uncompassionate if you believe that government is the only way to help them.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Thinking that both sides are equally reprehensible. Then I realized I was just parroting what I had been taught, letting cynicism and previously held (but never questioned) beliefs lead me in my thought. So I started doing research, asking questions like "Which party has had more criminals in the past 30 years?" and similar questions. I encourage you to make up your own questions and do your own research. Don't let cynicism get in your way.
from my perspective, I'm going to have to call bullshit on this.
i, started out a radical liberal. But then, as I got older, smarter and grew up, I discovered the simple undeniable fact... that liberalism (in the form of its formalized political ideology of Socialism) does not work, and removes freedom... and those other nasty things like being completely opposed to human nature (the nature to progress, to have incentives to do better)... Socialism removes these incentives.
So, this concept is total bullshit.
Oh yeah, I'm conservative, but I am more compassionate than most liberals. The DIFFERENCE IS I DON'T NEED FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME TO BE COMPASSIONATE!
That's the difference -- liberals want to be absolved of their own responsibility to be compassionate and put that responsibility in the hands of a large powerful central government so they don't have to worry about it.
sad robot making broken music
Basically, my entire adult life, up into my 40s, I was conservative. I came from a quite conservative west texas ranching family. However, even though I have always been a very avid reader, I had not really been directly exposed to deliberately and overtly leftist writings until I got on the Internet in the mid 90s. And I really got into the Internet and computers once I was exposed to them (even picked up a second degree, a BS in Comp Sci).
So for the last 8 years or so, I gradually became more and more exposed to direct contact with leftist thought--but only through the Net. I basically rejected leftism, however, but really out of habit. By 2001 or so, I still had not really taken the time to really delve into the deep background and rationale of leftism.
However, my acceptance of radical life extensionism (cryonics, etc), and my acceptance of atheism made me ready to accept a radical change in worldview, I suspect.
Also, the events of 9-11 and its aftermath, and the Iraq war and the media propaganda drive associated with it made me much more aware of just what was going on, with respect to media manipulation. I had come across the ideas of Noam Chomsky in about 1989, but had rejected them--although I had been exposed to them only second hand, through an establishment filter.
These prior events set me up for a move to leftism. THat, and my research into a possible move to another country. I quit my W-2 job last year and went contract. And when contract work died down, I had time to do even more research.
By late last year, I was a confirmed leftist. And I will never look back.
THere is an old saying that a husband will not leave a wife unless he has someone else already waiting for him to make him a comfortable home. In other words, even if his current wife has some real problems, he will not take action unless he can walk right into a better situation.
THe Net offers a leftist community, one that was not possible in meatspace USA, outside of certain locations. With a community of leftists ready to accept strayers from the establishment pack, I think more and more will go Left. Join us!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Storke victims prefer Bush... the irony is that he would strip them of their healthcare and social security benefits if he could. A lot of young people don't know what it was like before the (rather weak) social safety net was put in place during the depression. My father who began child rearing when he was a bit older, and is in late 70s now imparted the benefit of that knowledge unto me. He says that when he was a kid it was common to see Senior Citizens in the streets and homeless. Back then if you grew too old to work, you had to rely on your children. If you didn't have children, or your children didn't want you, you'd end up homeless.
Today though Social Security goes a long way to preventing that sort of thing from happening. Now the large portion of homeless here in California are the mentally ill. During Ronald Reagan's time as Governor of California he closed down all of the Asylums and just dumped the crazies out into the streets. We've been living with that here in California ever since. It's just typical right-wing nut behaviour though. "Screw everybody who isn't me."
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
To a Socialist in Europe, the main US parties are both conservative. (US right wingers will deny this, since they like to denounce the Democrats as socialist, but it's clear that the Democrats would never consider many policies supported by socialist parties in other countries.)
So what happens when you do the same tests in countries with a real left? Are the results more extreme, or do they just map to a different range of political views?
Still with me?
Ok, here goes...
Why is it seen as courageous to support war (any war, as US republicans often do) when all you risk is, at most, a slight tax increase. You don't even have to get your fat ass out of your comfy chair! Just order some flags and stickers over the internet (got to "Support The Troops") and watch the fireworks on FOX!
Pay someone to fight and die somewhere far away, destroying someone elses country in the process.
This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.
The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP.
If the common voter had a real possibility of having to directly bear the burden of the decisions of the leaders (like the entire population of $INVADED_COUNTRY will) in the event of war, maybe we wouldn't see any cases of going to war on faulty intelligence?
Ask yourselves: How many "brave" conservatives would support a war if it was going to be fought in their hometown?
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Maybe the way we think alters the physical structures of our brains. Just like if we exercise certain muscles they get bigger.
How does that deny free will?
Feeling more fear doesn't mean that you're cowardly. In fact, if you feel no fear, it's impossible to be courageous, since courage is the overcoming of fear.
The person who is afraid and acts anyway is the courageous one. What's the old saying?
Nick
Every time I hear Americans choose between the far right wing and the even further right wing I shudder.
Illegal detainments in Iraq and Cuba.
Vast expansion of secret police powers via "Patriot Act".
World's biggest Military budget (thats a guess) and a military commander chosen in hail of controversy.
If any of the above scares you, and you are American, break the two party system that makes it too easy to buy your government.
Think twice when you are sold something by a fear mongering right winger (of either party).
LS
If it's the fucking miracle you folks think it is, then there should be plenty of private research by those who seek to profit from it.
Of course there are not many private companies willing to fund development for something that could possibley cure so many different ailments. After all, the money is in the medicine, not the cure. Instead we have researchers at universities forced to recreate their labs off campus, wasting so much money and allowing the US to fall years behind the rest of the world when we were once pioneers in the field.
Time makes more converts than reason
Heh. While you raise some valid points,
.. and as a side note, do you think that
I'd also like to point out that:
1) Universities (well, mine, at least) are places of extreme education and knowledge. There is more free thinking and intellectual curiosity about here than any of the crazy "real world" places I visit. In fact, my professors and most of my peers are more educated on the status of the nation and world than pretty well anybody else I come across (admittedly, I spend most of my time with academics).
2) Most professors I know aren't quite so "seperated from reality" as you would like to think. Most own homes and live just like normal people. Most have worked in private industry if that is possible in their field, and if not, have
made an extensive and immersive study into their chosen field. The only exception is my classics professors, and they are still more intelligent and informed than your average citizen by leaps and bounds, and are certainly no less qualified to have opinions just because they happen to work at a school during the day.
3) I think Universities are also slighly liberally biased because I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher. (Compassionate people also tend to be pulled to teaching, all jokes aside) So, liberals are drawn to education, making it not unreasonable for schools to be liberal.
Universities get too much funding from the government? That they shouldn't get any?
I'm curious. I think government funding of
education is a positive thing.
In my mind, the main difference between liberals and conservatives is a preference for nature or nurture. This ties in to your idea abou the loss of free will. Disclaimer: I consider myself a conservative, athough I think I have a good understanding of how liberals think because a lot of my friends are liberals and I like to talk about politics. I'd love to hear feedback on this idea to see how valid it is.
Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature. Some people are just good and some people are just bad. Nothing can be done to change or fix the situation- it's just how they are. Good people tend to obey the law, pay taxes, go to church and be good citizens. Bad people don't. When a bad person does something bad, it's because he's a bad person and therefore likely to do bad things.
Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured. We're affected by what goes on around us and the things we see and experience. Bad people are bad not because of some intrinsic difference between them and good people; they're bad because of their childhood or the atmosphere they live in. A bad person does something bad because there was some sort of external influence upon him, causing him to be bad.
To illustrate my point, consider gun control. Conservatives are generally against it - and this makes perfect sense considering their ideas on how people behave. Good people should be allowed to own guns becuase they're good. They'll only use them for self defense and as a result society will be safer. Bad people on the other had, don't have any respect for the law. They'll get their hands on guns regardless of the law, and use the guns to do bad things because they're bad. To a conservative, gun control simply punishes good people and prevents them from defending themselves from the bad people.
Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.
Poverty is another example of the difference. There is obviously some sort of connection between poverty and crime. Most of the nations involved in terrorism are not particularly wealthy, and crime is ramapant in poorer urban areas. Why?
Ask a conservative, and most likely she'll tell you that crime causes poverty. No one wants to start a buisness in a crime-ridden city. Because crime prevents economic activity, it causes poverty. To fix the poverty situation, just crack down on the crime. Once you've made the neighborhood safer, jobs will show up and poverty will go away. Note that no attempt is made to explain crime. The Conservative uses crime to explain poverty.
Ask a liberal, and most likely he'll tell you that the poverty causes the crime. If you grow up in a situation devoid of any opportunity for a job and a good life for yourself, you've got a good chance of turning to crime because of the hopelessness and despair of your situation. To fix the situation, you need to get rid of poverty. Try to lure companies in to provide jobs, and the crime will go away once the people have an opportunity for economic advancement. Unlike the conservative, the liberal uses poverty to explain why there's crime.
How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are.
My blog
You only use 2% of your DNA
..this "opposition" Democrats vs Republicans is quite funny.
:o)
I'm french, and you U.S.A. citizens wouldn't believe how different a far left representative (say Lutte Ouvrière, very far left of the communist party) and a far right representative (say Front National, just a little bit left from Adolf H.) are.
Much like the distance between New-York and Washington (Democrats vs Republicans) compared to the distance between Earth and the Sun (LO vs FN).
From this side of the Atlantic Ocean, political life in the U.S.A. seems very strange indeed
Could decades of political thought in one direction or the other result in chemical changes in the brain?
We do lots of other things that cause chemical changes in our body, lifestyles that cause certain substances to be more or less abundant in our bodies. Are our brains off limits to such things?
This may be a stupid theory, I don't know; but it seems to me that it would be VERY difficult to establish any causality either way.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I wish I had mod points to mod you up (don't know why you got modded down). Interesting research by Andrew Newberg (University of Pennsylvania) used imaging techniques to study the differences between the brains of laypeople and religious clergy-type people (Franciscan nuns and Buddhist monks). He found that certain brain regions were stronger in those who meditate often than in the laypeople. He also studies their brains when meditating (or, in the case of the nuns, chanting), and he found an increase in the brain areas during that time period. Coupled with the idea of neural plasticity, it could be that the actual practice does increase those areas (like your exercise analogy).
Newberg has a book out entitled "Why God Won't Go Away." I haven't read it, but I did have the pleasure of seeing him give a seminar at my school last year. There's also a documentary that's being screened called "What the Bleep Do We Know." It's kind of a "Sophie's World" docu/fiction hybrid, but it has interviews with mystics and neuroscientists and philosophers detailing modern ideas about the mind. Again, I haven't seen it (hasn't shown in South Carolina...go figure) but it sounds really interesting.
Republican brains are more of a liability than any help at all. Here's a list of things you have to believe to be a Republican today:
- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
- Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
- The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
- A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
- Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
- The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
- If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
- A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
- Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
- HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
- Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
- A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
- A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
- The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
- Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
- You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
- What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
--
make install -not war
I would say that temperment determines political affilitation more than anything.
In the old Kiersey temperment sorter, there are four traits that determine temperment, (Extrovert/Introvert, Sense/Intuition, Thinker/Feeler, Percieving/Judging). Our political parties divide mostly along the Thinker/Feeler line. conservatives are the "thinkers", liberals are the "feelers".
Don't believe me? The best evidence of this is the types of insults one side hurls at the other. Traditionally, conservatives have called liberals foolish, softies, bleeding-hearts, etc. while liberals have called conservatives mean, insensitive, cruel, etc.
Also look at the ways each side tries to win over people. Conservatives tend to use logical arguments. (Note: An argument can be logical and still be utter nonsense. I am making no statement as to the validity of their arguments.) Liberals tend to use emotional appeals.
Terrorism works. Terrorism causes fear, and the people whom terrorism works best on are those who fear the most and are most able to emphatize with victims. This has been aided by modern media, which is able to deliver maximum shock images instantly via a worldwide television network.
I will be moderated down for saying this, but it's on-topic, it's factual, and it's my well reasoned opinion. Not good material for Slashdot, but my conscience dictates my actions.
If we lived in a world of people who were reasonable, no actions would have been taken as a result of the Columbuine killings. Eleven dead teenagers in a nation of hundred of millions equals an inconsequential cause of death. Thirty teenagers had died the previous day in car crashes, but no one stopped driving. The reason Columbine made an impact is because of people who are capable of becoming afraid, and empathizing with victims. They are able to irrationally magnify their fear outside the actual scope of the threat - again with the help of mass media. Hence we got a million people marching on Washington to ban guns, when lightning strikes and airbags both killed more children that year than school shootings.
Irrational fear leads to irrational behaviour. Terrorism works.
So now we have these same people, genetically gifted with empathy and able to feel irrational, choking amounts of fear, banding together to form a political movement. You can call them "liberals" if you want but I'm not really into name-calling. This isn't surprising. The article is full of hokum when it speculates that "people who think alike form political movements". DUH.
The question we need to ask ourselves is: should people who are irrationally ruled by fear decide the fate of our nation? Is this wise?
Perhaps gene therapy will provide a cure for this in the future; for now we have a choice to make on Nov. 2.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Skinner is my favorite psychologist. I recommend reading "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" and "Walden Two".
But he wasn't talking about biology as being the determining factor on behaviour.
He was all about conditioning. If you raise a child in a specific manner, the adult will behave in a specific manner. Unless their environment changes (environment meaning just about anything, not just the weather).
He said that behaviour is physiological responses to external stimuli.
And contrary to what people may read on the 'web, his daughter did not commit suicide.
Of course you haven't heard a politician claim he'd "strip them of any benefits" that would be political suicide. You can instead see it in the initiatives that are put forward (privitization of social security), and the bills that are voted for by Republicans (the medicare bill being a prime example.)
You mean the way of saving for your retirement by investing the stock market? The way that so many of the readers of this site saw their 401k go up in smoke after the dot-com bubble burst? Private investment of Social Security funds is risky. I was listening to an investment show on the radio the other day and one of their analysts said something I had never heard anyone admit to, "well street is very good at figuring out who the smart investors are, and who the stupid investors are, and then treats them accordingly."
You cannot tell me that with that sort of ideology the majority of Americans would be better off with their money privately invested with so many sharks in that investment pool?
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Oh well thats just what I think
P.S. when did "family" values start to mean "christian" values?
I think of Republicans as blue-bloods and Democrats as leftist reds.
A couple elections ago TV networks started using the opposite convention in their maps and the colors stuck. Now people use these map colors as a metaphore for national sentiment.
In many instances, morons waste all their time arguing about whether some outcome is a choice or whether some behavior is right. Your post is a call to the real issue.
Wake up, dumbasses all around! What made men who like to play with their peepees together turn out that way is not very important. The real issue is what we ought to do about it. As with most issues, the answer is obvious to the non-retarded minority.
Treat them as justly and humanely as we can.
Actually, there's plenty of federal funding for research that uses adult stem cells. There's even funding for research that uses several preexisting lines of embryonic stem cells; the law only prohibits federal funding of research involving new lines of embryonic stem cells.
Who was the president who signed the bill that provides this funding? George W. Bush.
While adult stem cells hold promise for such things as generation of transplantable organs and tissues that won't be rejected (in a sense, you would become your own donor), the outlook for embryonic stem-cell research has been nowhere near as promising. Nasty cancers known as teratomas have often formed where embryonic stem cells are injected...in one experiment involving rats, they formed in one out of five test subjects.
That said, there's no law that prohibits use of private funding toward any sort of stem-cell research, whether using adult or embryonic stem cells from either preexisting or new cell lines. Some people, unfortunately, have found it easier to engage in demagoguery and impute malicious intent to those with whom they disagree than to follow a more rational course. Since it's easy for the nightly news to get soundbites from them, they're paid far more attention than they deserve, and before long, their distortions of the true state of affairs get accepted as truth.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I live in Iowa, my grandfather and uncle are farmers, and they're both liberals in every sense of the word, but they vote Republican.
Why? Farm subsidies. The Republicans are VERY big on keeping farmers and their farms in business(to get their votes, of course), and keeping the ridiculous pork-barrel subsidies going for as long as possible. Farmers are a HUGE constituency for the Republicans. Many, MANY farmers rely on those subsidies.
I think that most people [except the ones on /. of course ;-] don't decide on their political affiliation using their reason, analyzing the agenda of each political party with thier pros and cons, they make a moral or emotial judgement anyway. In other words it is more moral issues like abortion, stem cell research that poeple will pay attention too rather than budget planning or tax cuts.
I would be considered a "Liberal" on most people's scale.
But I'm pro-gun. And I favour a strong military (but I oppose "Star Wars" because I don't think it is necessary now nor do I believe that it would work even if it was necessary). I also believe in more State's rights and a reduced federal government.
"Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature."
I also believe that. But I also believe that the way they were raised affects their choices. Someone who craves power can go into politics or religion or financials or just be an abusive husband.
"Some people are just good and some people are just bad."
Good and bad are personal evaluations. Saddam is "bad" but the US government thought Saddam was "good" when he was fighting Iran.
Personally, I thought one tin-pot dictator was fighting a authoratarian theocracy and I didn't see any "good" in either side.
"Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured."
But our environments do shape the choices we have. It takes someone with a LOT of self-focus to overcome the obstacles of his environment.
So, someone with a lot of character (an internal trait) can overcome his environment, but most people do not have that and become products of their environment.
"To illustrate my point, consider gun control."
I'm completely in favour of the 2nd Amendment.
-but-
I'm also in favour of a waiting period. I don't want someone buying a gun because he just found out his wife is cheating on him. I'm also in favour of registering guns which includes ballistics. A bullet pulled from a murder victim should be traced back to the gun that fired it and the person who purchased it.
I believe that 99%+ of the people who own guns are responsible gun owners and no threat to themselves or society.
But I also believe that a responsible gun owner would register his weapons, properly secure them and immediately report any that were stolen. This is his responsibility to society. When you exercise certain rights, you take on certain responsibilities.
So, is that "Conservative" or "Liberal"?
"Poverty is another example of the difference."
Easily answered by my previous statement about character and environment. Those with weak to average character will end up as products of their environment. Those with strong character will overcome those obstacles.
Now, take Enron and such. Crime does not depend upon poverty.
"How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are."
Which is why I am not a Conservative.
"Liberals, on the other hand, attempt to explain bad behavior. They say it's a result of our upbringing or our environment. By attempting to explain it, they don't leave a lot of room for free will to say that the people made the choice to be bad."
I believe that people do make their own choice.
Here's an example: Exercise.
Everyone (Conservatives and Liberals) knows that you should exercise. Yet not many people do. Is that because they are "bad" people who have chosen not to exercise? Or is it because the parents didn't love them enough?
I believe that it is because most people do not have the character to force themselves to do what they know is good for them and would rather take the easy way.
As in the exercise example, so as in Life.
If its the former, then you're racist; fine. If it's the latter, however, one could argue that, seing as it was this nation's fault for creating the situation, we should do something to fix it.
So maybe we should fund public universities enough that anyone with the will to succeed (grades/test scores) can attend. The alternative is to write a large check, which just won't work - witness the majority of poor lottery winners: BK within 5 years.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Exactly.
/. --- although it IS on topic just this once...
It's not about creating a permanent underclass or some other conservative propaganda. It's about how some people a few centuries back fucked up really badly and were extremely unjust, and we're still trying to fix the mess from back then.
Many of us _are_ descendents of those people. It doesn't make it our personal responsbility, because, a child should not be held accountable for his/her parents' crimes, but, it does make it a responsibility of our society. Of course, I don't think the government should be big enough to run its own welfare program, but I think there ought to be a few non-profit organizations doing these and getting free access to private and government resources beacuse of it.
"Helping yourself" my ass. Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden both help themselves to what they want. Not to suddenly start trolling, but, is helping yourself and turning a blind eye to everybody else really the best thing you can do for society? If you are truly *helping yourself*, you realize that you are a member of society, and it affects you. Ignoring problems is only going to perpetuate your daily headaches. When there are inner city teenagers (I'm not implying that these are only black people, mind you; there are plenty of white, Indian, Native American, Hispanic, and micro-Asian people who need help!) working at McDonald's who don't give you correct change because they don't have basic math skills, *That Affects You*.
I don't like the liberalist propaganda I hear about how the government needs to be very big and intrusive in order to take care of its citizens. I can take care of myself; I don't really need to be watched, except for the occasional helpful police officer (but in some parts of the country, helpful and peace-promoting ones can be hard to find; but I digress) to make sure I don't get too pissed off and do anything stupid and nobody else does anything really desperate or violent with me as a target. But, on the other hand, I can't take the stuck-up attitude pervading the conservative propaganda. If the stuck-up republicans (which is actually *not* the majority of republicans, but they do seem to be the ones that open their mouths the most) shelled out the money to make most college education free, society would get a lot better very quickly. Some people with money do create scholarships and foundations to aid education (for example, this is the only context where I actually take a liking to Bill Gates! Not sure what his affiliation may or may not be, though), but, more ought to, rather than complain how much they're getting taxed.
Hoping I don't get modded down for getting too political on
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
If liberals have a heightened sense of fear, then why do all of the censervatives seem to think that America needs to attack any country that has muslims in it before the muslims start a Jihad/Holy war/WW3?
There is this right wing guy at work that never stops saying 'Life is like a dark alley'.
Everything that the government is doing points to a (wolfovitz doctrine themed) neo-conservative doctrine of 'hit them before they have the chance to think about pondering whether they might like to begin to have the capability to hit us'. And the liberals are the scared ones?
George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
Interesting question. Why do blacks tend to have such a single parent percentage as a whole? I think perhaps a possible that there really is a flaw in today's 'black culture' in the US. I've actually heard something that is very sad....very smart, movtivated young black men and women, that are derided by their peers saying that getting an education and trying to work and better themselves, they are accused of acting 'white'. I don't know where this comes from...I know there are a great many bad role types that are put up for today's youth, particularly in the black community, that portray violence, acting like a thug, and having no respect for women is the 'cool' way to be. It doesn't...it leads to a quick death or internment in prison.
The sad thing is...when you hear someone say things like this...even if they ARE black, like Bill Cosby has done recently...they are either crucified publicly...or shushed to the side by the media. This is something that needs to be addressed publicly...to promote getting an education IS the thing to do. This is, IMHO, not a problem that can be solved by throwing money, public or private at it. It needs to be addressed by leaders in the black community itself.
There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself...
As far as some people having a head start...sure, that's a fact of life. Not everyone gets the same starting place...but, this is a free country. I've seen plenty of those starting from nothing, do what it takes and succeed. I've seen plenty of those starting out quite wealthy...and go nowhere and end up with nothing. This is life we're talking about here...it isn't fair...but, you gotta play with what you're dealt.
I don't think we should stand in anyone's way...and all opportunities should be as open as possible to all to make their own success. But, in a society inhabited by biological beings...not all ARE created equal. Some are smarter than others...so, are larger/stronger than others, some are more attractive, some are more naturally gifted in some areas than others. That's irregardless of race or sex...just how nature works. So, strive more for a system and society that allows for us all to gain according to out abilities and aspirations. But, don't create a welfare state where it becomes nothing more than a wealth redistribution system that creates voting blocks of those who are voting to keep 'on the dole'. I believe we need to have basic society safety nets...the elderly, the handicapped and the seriously infirmed...sure. But, anyone that is able bodied...needs to be working and earning a living.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Appology accepted.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It wasn't a right wing consiracy to be mean to the mentally ill, but rather, another mis-guided liberal program to "free" them.
Look up "deinstitutionalization", "main streaming", and "community integration". All happy-happy emotional terms for "dumping the crazies on the streets."
Everyone knows that right-wing nuts would be more than happy to keep undesireables locked up.
Liberals will pave the road to hell with good intentions, and Conservative contractors will be right there, looking for the constuction contract.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Could it be that our education system is programming native-born blacks for failure? That is the opinion of many notable successful black entrepreneurs and authors. Check out the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, both brilliant economists, and both happy they got their educations before our system was "improved" for blacks in the 60s and 70s.
For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say - but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.
Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed. If we truly moved to Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society, these powerful people would be out of work... Who would listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, if they weren't screaming discrimination at every turn?
Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long. When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".
The solution? Let's put an end to teaching blacks and other minorities that we expect less from them, just because they're not white. Let's stop giving people crap jobs to fill quotas to keep the race merchants from shaking your company down for "donations".
Wrong. Between 1973 and 2002, the US accounted for less than 1% of all Iraqi arms imports. And the WMD that he did use wasn't from us, either. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concluded that the weapons used were either from Japan or Germany:
The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.
Say what you will about Florid, but that is exactly what we have. There is a program called "Florida Bright Future Scholarships" where a high school GPA of 3.5 or higher and a Florida high school diploma gets you 100% of a state school's tuition, and 3.0 gets you 75%. Florida state schools include the University of Florida, which is a very good school, and even if you only get the 75%, tuition is still quite reasonable in state. Look here and here for info.
And EVERYONE was disadvantaged when they came here. Georgia used to be an English penal (prison) colony, with WHITE prisoners, and, like Australia, turned out just fine.
I believe you have it backwards. Bill Cosby was accussed of acting white because he encouraged young blacks to get an education.
The parent post is referring to Dr. Cosby's assigning culpability to the black community for perpetuating a culture that derides academic and financial success. Jesse Jackson was there too and heard the message, but sadly many in the audience were miffed because Dr. Cosby wasn't just blaming "the man", but instead told them to take some personal responsibility. This happened a few months ago, IIRC.
"There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself..."
Probably shouldn't point this but you are engaging in the very kind of thinking that causes the problem you are lamenting. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.
Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.
It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.
You may choose to forget it but America, especially the South, was practicing something resembling apartheid barely 40 years ago. The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil. Its kind of naive to think blacks are going to jump from deeply oppressed, and in social tatters, to a level playing field in the space of a couple of generations.
If you grow up knowing all this chances are you too would be toting animosity to people whose ethnicity gives them every advantage. I'm guessing your ethnicity has always puts you at a advantage so you really have no clue what the problem is like. Someone black in America can succeed but they are going to have to work at least twice as hard to just reach parity. Someone who is affluent and white can fail too but they have work twice as hard at it too, and they can succeed without really trying or deserving it.
Here is a case study. There is this white guy I know. He was an academic disaster, intellectually challenged, squandered his youth partying, was arrested for Cocaine possession, failed in every business he tried excepting wealthy friends of his family baled him out every time. How did he make out in life. He is President of the United States. How did this happen you ask, he was born in to a white, privledged, wealthy, powerful family. If he'd been poor and black and and made the same life choices he would have ended up packing an M-16 in Vietnam and probably the rest of his life in prison.
Its all nice to bang the drum about how free America is and anyone can succeed but its a lot freer for some than it is for others, and it sure helps being born in the right place at the right time and the right color.
@de_machina
In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful.
In 1976, I was told I was free as a result of reaching 18 years of age. All I was given was instructions that I needed to go out and join the job market... even though I'm white, I was given no property, and no special birthright. While I did not suffer under slavery (some of today's kids might think the tight discipline of my youth was slavery, but it was not), the "meaningfulness" of my freedom was entirely tied to what I was willing to make of it, just as the "meaningfulness" of the 1863 slave's freedom was. Today, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring, based upon a variety of criteria, unless they're a white male under the age of 50. Most of these people never owned a slave, and were never in a position to have denied someone else a job because of the color of their skin. And the unfairness of that makes it damn hard for them to accept the idea that someone will less education or less skills has priority over them... or that anyone from these "privileged" groups who didn't need the special programs to succeed really did make it on their own.
Walter E. Williams once related that, when faced with a choice of doctors where he only knew the age and race of the doctors, how he would make his choice. If they were both in their late 50s, and one was black, he'd take the black doctor, because he knew that this man had worked hard to get where he was.
But, if they were in their 30s, he'd go with the white doctor, because he would have no way of knowing if the black doctor had gotten through on his skills, or the need for the university to fulfill its quotas.
This is not the desired result of affirmative action, but it is the common one. It only gets worse when people use the argument that removing race-based quotas hurts blacks, purpetuating the myth that blacks aren't smart enough to succeed on their own.
Just thought I would add my 2 cents plus some personal experience. I am always wary of explanations that ignore societal factors. Yes, blacks on average are notably poorer than whites and a small part of that may have to do with so called 'black culture' (black culture is not a monolith, there are multiple parts to it but the media potrays only the bad/dysfunctional sub cultures) but if one is trying to claim that the disparity is not due to a large part on discrimination and exclusion then you are sorely mistaken.
I am a black african who grew up middle class at home and I now work in hi-tech (software engineer) in the Boston area. I have faced discrimination in the past but as one climbs the social/financial ladder its effects become less pervasive (but still as painful). However, every once in a while its pervasiveness becomes apparent. My girlfriend and I were recently looking for an apartment and since I was the one who had a lot of free time we had a number of interesting experiences
1. Spoke to a realtor and when we showed up the first thing out of his mouth was that we should look for low income housing (huh?)
2. Had a realtor I spoke to (people sometimes mistake my accent for British or something) and made an appointment to see quite a few apartments. Spoke to him multiple times (called him from work and he stated he had quite a few places to show us). When I showed up he suddenly got this look when he saw me. First words out of his mouth were "So, do you work?" (this after I had spoken to him by calling him from work and stating that I would be leaving work early to meet him. He them claimed that he really had nothing to show us and hurriedly left (this one I shall be reporting to the BHA)
Had realtors just yank my chain, treat me rudely etc. I got to the point where I would joke with my girlfriend (who is white) that maybe she should do all the looking and booking and then I would show up at the end.
We eventually gave up and decided to do Craigs List and only do for rent by owner, since by doing this we were dealing with young enlightened people, we had much better luck .
On the whole my experiences with realtors is very disheartening. Now, I have only had to deal with this (and the occasional N word yelled, treated suspiciously by policeand people etc) for only a few years and also not during my formative years. If I had to deal with this all my life I can tell you I would be a very different person.
As far as affirmative action goes, I whole heartedly support it. I know that I have benefited from it (I know jobs that I would have never gotten even to the initial interview unless the companies involved were not afraid of not looking as if they were following certain mandates. Also for the longest time when job hunting I would make sure that my first few interviews were over the phone (but then again, a study done last year in the Boston and Philadelphia area found that job applicants with black sounding names were called back 50% less than job applicants with white sounding names (this after controlling for education).
As far as the black intelligence argument that is used as an explanation all I can say is give me a break!. I remember that in the Bell Curve it was stated that the average I.Q of Africans was something like 75 or 80 (borderline retarded). The fact tha such a book could be greeted with anything but scorn says everything you need to know about race relations in the U.S
Take a look at what http://fundrace.org/ reports for the zip code 87544 (Los Alamos New Mexico). It seems that most of the people and money there support democrats. In addition, the big Bush money in Los Alamos comes from not from scientists who work at the lab but from realtors, etc. I'm not sure what to make of it.
My guess is that people who think and re-think things for a living (folks like myself) oppose Bush's unreflective faith based decision factory approach.
Abortion is murder (simple biological fact, aborted human life == dead human)
And what does it matter?
We have laws against killing *mature* humans in place specifically because a society where killing mature humans is allowed is much less effective -- if I have to run around with a gun and be suspicious of everyone, I get a lot less done. Most people have no problems with killing cows or pigs, say. Zillions of sperm die each day. The only people that have a problem with killing a fetus are those that have chosen as a fundamental value that killing a fetus is unacceptable. I'm all for letting people decide that killing *their* fetus is unacceptable, just as I am all for letting people pray in the direction of Mecca. What I take issue with is when people try to force their values on other people, values which have no pragmatic backing.
gay marriage is just a continuation of our unelected judges writing law in clear violation of their Constitutional restraints
I'm lost as to what you mean. First, the primary people allowing gay marriage have been *elected* *administrators*, like the mayor of San Francisco. Second, the role of the judge is to interpret law. Neither the law nor the US Consitution forbids gay marriage. In the United States, unless something is specifically made illegal, it is legal. Judges have looked at our legal code and said "nope, nothing banning it". The only way they'd be writing law is if they decided in the *other* direction.
Conservatives have *tried* to push through national law banning gay marriage and it has been shot down by the bulk of America. This is just the majority speaking, nothing more.
sex ed shouldn't be entrusted to the government education monopoly
I'll call bullshit again. You are free to send your child to a private school, to homeschool them, or what-have-you. Sex ed is an *extremely* PC process that makes no value statements. The question is simply whether or not children should remain ignorant of something that has huge social impact and is a significant chunk of our biology.
social programs should be funded by voluntary contributions and not tax money confiscated by force (try not paying your taxes sometime)
We tried that, early on in the United States. The federal government had no power to ensure itself any income. It didn't work, because not surprisingly, nobody wanted to fund it.
a rather large subset of Muslims have declared war on all Americans who don't think and act as they do (that includes you)
"Rather large subset"? There are *millions* of Muslims in the United States *alone* that aren't out "declaring war". And how did you manage to forget about abortion clinic bombings and shootings?
and we have to deal with that, and we shouldn't make environmentalism a substitute for traditional religion.
There are people who irrationally support environmentalism -- "we can't hurt the cute fluffy kitties in the rainforests!" However, there are very clear and accepted economic, game-theoretic reasons for supporting environmentalism -- it's a public-good problem, where it is in the interest of individuals to damage the environment for short-term profit, even if it winds up hurting everyone down the road. Environment-protecting laws were not made by legislators looking at fluffy kitties.
Most atheists are frauds who find substitute deities (environmentalism, Communism, heck just look at all the Castro worshippers).
No. Neither environmentalism nor communism is a religion. They are a set of techniques and analysis for dealing with a public good and government, respectively. There are no fundamental, axiomic values that must be accepted as a part of either, as is necessary to be a Christian.
May we never see th
No, he has presented evidence that Bush is a very poor public speaker. He has not proven that he is, and he didn't even suggest, never mind prove, that Bush is highly intelligent.
Personally I would be interested in any compelling evidence of Bush's intelligence. He has never struck me as one of the leading intellectuals of the administration.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
The sheer subjectiveness of both the classification and evaluation methods in a non-double blind study put this on the level of a pub debate rather than science. Note that the "research" has not been completed and has not been reviewed and published by a journal. Not that the pseudo-science matters, it is obvious that the reason the story was picked up was to stir up the old right versus left debate (as evidenced in the posts here)
However, I fear that the fact that so many people just assumed the science is true because it was convenient to believe, reflects the recent and scary trend of promoting or supressing "scientific facts" depending on how they fit into one's belief system. The classic example was Lysenko in the Soviet Union who demolished Soviet genetics due to the promotion of "nurture" type Lamarckian inheritance in concordance with communist beliefs. Harmless enough, until millions die from crop failures - at least in some small part due to choosing the wrong strains of wheat. Simularly, while red vs blue brains may be fun to believe - remember that electroshock, lobotomies, split-brain "therapies" still exist largely because of an uncritical public. Or to paraphrase Douglas Adams - it's OK to think that white is black - until a car hits you at a zebra crossing..
The US political system, no matter which side you are own, has its share of corruption and its share of Hero. If you cannot see that it you are probably as biased as I and most of the others of us who have a favorite politician.
I'm a graduate student in neuroscience. After reading your post, I performed several searches on PubMed, which is a search engine for all peer-reviewed medical and biomedical research journals. I found that nothing has been published on activation of the amygdala in Democrats vs. Republicans, conservatives vs. liberals, or any number of other searches. The New York Times article you referred to also did not quote any published papers or show any data. Before you start arguing about the significance of fundamental brain differences between liberals and conservatives, you should consider that there is no scientifically vaildated data on this. The New York Times certainly isn't a bastion of scientific criticism or a valid scientific source for that matter. Maybe UCLA researchers have gotten some prelimiary data that people are excited about, but unless the research has been peer-reviewed, published and hopefully confirmed by multiple groups, it's just an unverified claim. 9 times out of 10 these unpublished (but sometimes highly publicized) data turn out to be bogus.