Slashdot Mirror
Brain Differences In Liberals and Conservatives
i_like_spam writes "Scientists from NYU and UCLA report in Nature Neuroscience that the brains of Democrats and Republicans process information differently. This new study finds that the differences are apparent even when the brain processes common information, not just political topics. From the study, liberals were more likely to be accurate and showed more brain activity in the region associated with analyzing conflicts. A researcher not affiliated with the study stated, liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.' Moreover, 'the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry... as a flip-flopper.'"
Breaking News!
Liberals and Conservatives are different!
Who Knew?
Like... Whoa!
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A young person who isn't a liberal has no heart. An old person who is has no brain.
So could it be that the mental flexibility of youth makes them more susceptible to liberalism (in the modern usage of the word) than the more experienced minds of the older generations?
Thanks a bunch kdawson.
(I've shown considerable restraint in pointing this out in the last 10 similarly crap stories, but enough is enough.)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I'm a liberal and I've always had great difficulty convincing Republicans that I'm right and they are wrong. Thankfully this study tells me that it is because I am smart and they are stupid. Since I am white and male, I look forward to further studies proving women and other races are also inferior to me to explain why they are similarly disobedient. Soon, I hope we shall return to the happy days of the 19th Century where science explained why some people the rulers and others are the ruled. Perhaps we could have a rule where Republican votes count for 3/5ths of Democrat votes, like we did with Negros before the Republicans stirred things up. Or perhaps they could be barred from voting completely, like we used to do for women.
I also hope that when the country has universal health care it will be be possible to abort fetuses with these cognitive disabilities, just like we do for babies with other developmental defects.
No, just kidding. This looks like awful science, just like the 19th Century studies that confirmed the experimenter's prejudices that black people and women were inferior.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If there were, then there should be also in Linux and Windows users, as well as in Slashdotters and the rest of the universes.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Water-borne gene-therapy to cure you of your genetically inherited political leanings.
Is my tin-foil hat secured tightly enough?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
On the contrary, when you look at that New Testament in depth, most of the ideas put forth were not terribly new, but were actually pointers to older ideas.
One highly subjective, criminally over-simplified take on the whole liberal/conservative question is: it boils down to one of modeling society. If you want "one big family" then you lean to the left, and want more socialized policies. If you question whether people scale well and want more individual responsibility and less safety net, then you might prefer conservative policies.
I'm looking forward to further research that correlates liberal/conservative preference with population density. It seems that the more urbanized people are, the greater the comfort level with shifting responsibility/authority to the government.
Good news, bad news: who can say?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
On most games the M-key would open up a map, and the W-key would more your character forward, so... what video game are they playing again?
1) Liberals are more likely to smoke pot
2) Pot smokers are more likely to sit around the house
3) People who sit around the house are more likely to play video games
4) People who play video games are more likely to have better hand-eye coordination
5) ???
6) Profit!
Where the character played by Lukas Haas is originally a rabid republican, until the doctors find that he has a tumor in his head. Once the tumor is removed, he's instantly converted (back) into a left-wing liberal - just like his entire family.
Quotes:
(father) - How did I end up with a kid on the other end of the political spectrum? How did I fail? Steffi, get me a copy of my will... and an eraser.
[... after a long while, right after tumor removed]
(father) - Honey! Bring down a copy of my will... and an eraser!
imdb link here
(Please take the text below as a non-serious, jest.)
If "liberal" brains are more capable of dealing with changing circumstances, would that not be a trait that increases the change of survival and thus be an trait that is selected-in over time?
In other words, is the conservative brain a recessive trait that, if natural selection were occuring in humans, eventually fade away?
(Remember, I'm saying this in jest.)
The only reason you have a black and white Liberal - Conservative divide in the US is the mathematics of how your electoral system works. Other countries with sane electoral systems actually have shades of grey.
Deleted
well when the head of a nation is a brain-dead puppet....
Having said that. I don't think there are any religious ideas of signifcant value. Buddhism I'd class more as philosophy.
Deleted
They used Ron Paul. And while he refused to press any keys at all, he had plenty to say about the government wasting taxpayer money on junk science.
The study concluded that those in the control group, would be recieving very few campaign contributions, from companies that will produce scientific studies to order.
..just gonna sit back and watch this unfold. Honey! Bring the popcorn!
Liberals are out of touch with reality and conservatives are evil.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Don't forget this quote:
"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
So yeah, you can flame them as much as you want, they're not going to change that easily.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Deleted
I would like to request that similar standards are applied in terms of testing methodology and foundation for the conclusions drawn and reported when it comes to detecting or disproving any differences between men and women or racial groups.
I am under no illusion what so ever that similar standards will be applied.
I've got a theory: All the 'editors' are actually just Taco in disguise. When he wants to post a certain type of story, he chooses a certain name. When he wants to post a worthless story that everyone will yell about, he posts as kdawson.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
You assume one way is better than another. How un-liberal of you.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
How come kdawson posts a story like this to slashdot when another study of equivalent academic value (none) shows that $racialgroup1 is more intelligent than $racialgroup2? Because kdawson is a bigot.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
So, this study wouldn't be valid in say... Canada?
You know, there are republicans who may be liberal and democrats who may be conservative. Being one doesn't necessarily mean being the other, like, being chaotic-neutral in D&D.
Also, how does this study work when there's more than just two parties? How are Socialist people different from the Worker Party? How's this make the Green Party Candidate? And what about in countries where there isn't any kind of democracy?
Somehow, I just can't buy this "study".. Is this some kind of Sept 11th joke, like April Fools pranks to celebrate that?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The linked site is scarce on details - the paper itself is more interesting. First, David Amodio (lead researcher) is not obviously flaming. I'm no expert in neuroscience -- but the data looks good, and he has a track record on usage of scans for similar tasks (most of it race-bias related, but that's another subject).
Here's an interesting part of the experimental design:
I think that there are two ways in which the experiment may be flawed. One is that 43 persons are not enough to extrapolate to the whole US population; and more importantly, no details are given on how they were chosen. If they were chosen among colleagues in an academic setting, where most people (your mileage may vary) are left-wing, you may have problems finding people which self-describe as conservative. These few would be most resistant to changing their viewpoints, I would guess -- since otherwise they may have flipped from exposure to liberal arguments.
Another way in which I think the study may be flawed is by asking people to self-define their position in the political spectrum -- a one-dimensional political spectrum. What guarantees do you have that participants really are "conservative" or "liberal" (whatever that means to you), and have actually thought about the political issues involved in each "choice" (as if there weren't many, many greys)?. A 2-dimensional political positioning would provide more insight. A short questionnaire where participants actually had to think, instead of "choosing their favorite color" would have been even better.
This is assuming that the researcher knows what he's doing, and the
conflict-related ACC activity was indexed by two ERP components. ERPs are scalp-recorded voltage changes reflecting the concerted firing of neurons in response to a psychological event. is actually a good measure of resistance to change or willingness to accomodate it. No details are provided on the exact activity, other than stating that parcicipants were offered the choice of two actions, "Go" and "No-Go".You can find the full article at the author's lab website.
Liberals aren't the folks who got so wound up in paranoia and fear that they cheered on the POTUS to invade a country that had fark all to do with any attacks on the US. Liberals aren't the ones constantly bleating about terrorists and alert levels and all the other nonsense.
But yeah, it's liberals that are the wussy scaredy cats....
Right.
You may want to do some reading before using the term. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism.
Why bother.
Fine submissions like these cause me to wonder if perhaps the recent upswing in anti-kdawson sentiment isn't entirely unjustified...
The headline and summary was so priceless that I just had to read TFA. I assumed that TFS had as usual grossly mischaracterized TFA. This was, however, not the case (yay L.A. Times!). The thing that jumped out at me was that this study was conducted on a bunch of college students (i.e. undergrads looking for extra credit in intro psych classes) at UCLA and NYU. If you consider the percentage of liberal students at UCLA, I wonder if there might not be just a tad of selection bias inherent here...not to mention the libertarian objection that the political spectrum is poorly characterized in a linear fashion.
Although I couldn't find the original paper, this other article (no registration with google referrer) was more informative, quoting someone who actually was connected with the study, and another psych professor who points out that this study (of 43 students) might not be the pinnacle of statistical rigor.
On the other hand, I guess we can feel fully justified in drawing conclusions about conservatives students NYU and UCLA ;). I know that my own alma mater can count Ann Coulter, for one, amongst the 15 or so of its alumni who were strongly republican as undergrads...Ironically, this study will probably promote its own conclusion, though, when Prof. Amodio becomes the core of a republican talking point on the apparent liberal bias of America's university faculties.
You know, its funny, but liberals are only open minded to their own ideas, just as much as conservatives are, and there's not a damn bit of difference between the two on that score.
It's just that liberals are more likely to be religious fruitcakes when it comes to their own "religion" of PC whereas conservatives are more likely to be cheating on theirs. Whose more screwed up in the head, the enviro-liberal who really does recycle the potato skins into blankets for baby, or a conservative that says fags suck and then, ya find out that he's a fag that does.
This is my sig.
http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2007/09/liberal_and_conservative_anter.php
There's a study I'd really like to see: how, if at all, does the brain function differently in the significantly religious and schizophrenic? I've lived in close proximity with both and do not see any difference. In both, there's a point at which no amount of reason or evidence can penetrate the delusions. This is not a matter of intelligence otherwise, but at some point their ability to reason simply stops, and is replaced by "magic knowledge". My observations, however, are not a proper study. Brain imaging during a process of exposition that leads to a conclusion contrary to the subjects' beliefs might expose similarities (and differences) in regional usage.
What about the fact that the liberals in America (Democrats) tend to be composed at a higher percentage of racial and social minorities than the conservatives? Wouldn't having a diverse pool of thought on various issues cause liberals to consider alternatives, whereas conservatives tending to have less division as a group make it easier to stick to a viewpoint?
Free porn, no Bullshit - thebestlinklist.com
I have a prediction concerning this story.
Liberals will like it. Conservatives will not. Just the wording of the story shows bias.
Considering the source of the study, NYU, I'm having difficulty in believing their sample was unbiased.
Suppose the story said that liberals were 81.37% more likely than conservatives to have ADD, what then?
Or that "intellectuals" are smart people who can't do math. Engineers are smart people who can.
If ever an article deserved to be flagged troll, this is it.
... if you even have any. No matter how sound the research, if you immediately follow it with conjecture about how it relates to George Bush's decision-making process (or lack thereof) it leads me to believe you have an agenda (and you're just masking it by throwing in the Kerry thing). Leave out the conjecture altogether.
Another way to blow your scientific credibility: use today's weather as an example of how the global climate [is | is not] changing. I can see it coming from the corner grocer (as in, on a cold day we hear "Weahs da global wawmin'?"), but I can;t believe how much of it I hear from actual scientists (although, many are not climatologists).
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
The deal is not so much that conservatives like corporate leaders, it is that conservatives believe that if they work hard, and get a bit lucky, they can form their own business as well, and achieve a degree of independence. On the other hand, a socialist system offers no independence at all.
Really, conservatives place such a high premium on independence and freedom and that they are willing to accept a lot of other shitty things to get it. As much as conservatives talk about God and Jesus, really, they are all fixated on Dante's Devil, proclaiming, "It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"...
This is my sig.
I would like to see the results from a comparative study of the people here in Denmark (which is a capitalistic democracy, despite the public healthcare system, free scholls and stuff like that) - compared to the politicians here the liberals and democrats are both right-wing conservatives.
-- A good compromise leaves everyone mad. --Calvin and Hobbes
Both NYU and UCLA are rather liberal leaning schools of indoctrination. The results are no news here. But really, the main parent post topic is a polarizing troll from the start. Yawn.
If American politics are like nowhere else on the planet, and Democrats and Republicans are jarringly similar to most Europeans, what does this say about Americans?
Here's a link to that article via Google for Libertarians who don't want to register. Greens can click the "Print" link for the ads free version.
This is a dupe but it has been so long that probably nobody remembers.
I even commented already.
Republicans still say "you are wrong" and cut it. They really plainly say only this - without any arguments : "you are wrong".
logic and perception doesnt help you there.
Read radical news here
This story was obviously submitted so that you would see something like an "501 of 896" posting count. It is 100% pure flamebait or perhaps on a higher level a poorly written satire.
I am not in the middle of this Liberal/Conservative "war," and I can tell you honestly that liberals can be very stupid, and conservatives can be very astute.
'the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry... as a flip-flopper'
... :)
Bush's single-mindedness isn't the results of thinking in 'republican' mode but because he thinks what he is told to think. As for republicans and democrats having different brain processes this is quasi-science at it's worst. Perhaps the subjects acquired such traits after joining and reading the manifestos of the respective parties. Perhaps lots of closet liberals choose to join the republican party as they have internalised the media's aversion to all things non-republican. Perhaps the long hair liberals all smoke dope, that usually frees up inhibition.
ps: Did you know that on the campuses of the US the worst thing an undergraduate could call another is REPUBLICAN
davecb5620@gmail.com
Also, are we talking about ideals, financial, or strictly both to qualify conservative or liberal? My ideals are conservative, but I'm financially liberal; were these things weighted? I'd say my socio-economical class doesn't much lean either way (white male, middle-middle class, 23), so is the question just which side I relate to more?
FWIW, I don't think binary labels are a good tool for representing an analog chunk of an analog spectrum without assigning weights to aspects that are of a social nature. Does anyone else feel that this entire study ended up with a group of people standing around grinning at their excessive cleverness at the end of the day, while no actual scientific work was accomplished?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
There's a difference, you know, between conservatives, and the deeply Wilsonian liberal neocons.
Being a constitutionalist, I might get pigeonholed as a conservative, but it actually makes me a classical liberal: I want people to be free to live and work and trade however they see fit.
Regardless of what this study "proves" or "finds," it does not mean that Socialism (a product of the New Left) is anything but totalitarianism with a great big stoned flower-child grin.
This study is likely evidence of the brainwashing which has occurred at the GOP. In order to solidify their power, the neocons have waged a very intense war against the minds of their base.
If the results here are based on self-identification as either liberal or conservative, that in itself would be a large potential flaw with this study.
Most people here assume just accepting new ideas at face value (which is all the study suggested) is a good thing. The article did not in any way indicate that it tested what the evaluative processes that liberals vs conservatives go through before they integrate new ideas into their view of the world. That's a critical thing to know. Frankly, I want people in charge and those voting to have some initial skepticism and to analyze new ideas before they accept them. Just because you hear it or have an initial thought doesn't make it true or valid.
On another note, the article indicated that they chose "very liberal" or "very conservative". It's entirely plausible that the extremes are there for biological reasons and those who dont "identify" with their political orientation choose that orientation for different reasons (former biological, latter rational thought)
Obviously experiments like these tend to hugely oversimplify the workings of the mind, but it might be interesting to try this experiment around the world -- because it might show that in many cases political opponents think the same way.
For example, in Iran you could run the test on Muslim fundamentalists and democratic reformers; in Russia on democratic reformers and die-hard Communists. I suspect when you put it next to these results from the US you would find that those who most deeply hate each other were also tending to think the same way.
And then of course there are other examples which break established norms. In the late 70s you could also have tried it for example on Mrs Thatcher and left wing union leaders: in that case, you had a "right-wing", "illiberal" leader who was bringing about radical change, and "left wing liberals" who were defending the status quo. I guess you could try it now on Sarkozy in France and his left-wing opponents. In this case, who "could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas"? It's more complex than just left-wing or right-wing. And if tests like these help us see that, then, for all their over-simplification, they might have some value.
Just go work for Hillary, we don't want you here.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
What the hell, since when do we have Republican and Democrats categories??? :-D
Oh, and I have no idea what the 2 logos mean? Some care to enlighten me?
a/c sums it up pretty well
I think the first few words in the article says it all: "Scientists from NYU and UCLA...". I'm sure their findings are completely apolitical (not). I wonder who flipped the bill for that study?
So, this study explains why Bush did not understand why this argument is wrong.
All terrorist are Muslim.
All Iraqi's are Muslim
Therefore, all Iraqis are terrorists
Now, I chose to leave out little bits like Sunni or Shia, some Iraqis are Christian, yadda yadda yadda. I didn't want to overload the brains of conservatives that read Slashdot.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Sorry, but polling COLLEGE STUDENTS does NOT reflect the general populous. Is this stat a little rigged? Very rigged? Think for a minute here--aren't college students naturally more open to doing things? I have seen an awful lot of college students go from "mad liberal" to moderate in a matter of a few years as I am in a "spectatorial" position where we hire guys fresh out of school and watch how they change throughout their careers.
--parasonic
A quick browse through the comments on this story, and an application of the conclusions of the study in the article would imply that most slashdotters are extremely conservative. The vast majority of posters didn't read or understand the article.
Article Summary:
People who identify as liberal are better at pressing a key when the letter "m" is shown, and not pressing it when the letter "w" is shown, than people who identify as conservative. Liberals were "2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." The study also tracked the activation of the anterior cingulate cortex - currently thought to help decide between habitual behaviors (like pressing the key) and unique situations requiring different actions (not pressing the key).
Discrediting the study based on the comments of the "researcher not affiliated with the study." Sure, blast the LA Times for getting the unwarranted comments of another unaffiliated researcher - but don't mistake external comments for the biases of the researchers. In fact, from the article, one of the actual researchers said: "The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation,"
In addition, people blast the study on a few other unrelated tangents:
The study was based on a 10 point self-reported scale of liberal vs conservative, and this is all the groups the study makes claims about - people who report themselves to be differing degrees of liberal or conservative. It doesn't matter what you wish the study's criteria were.
Liberal politics in Europe are certainly further left than in the US. This has nothing to do with the study or its results, kthx for the info though!
Truly bad science, indeed. How large of a sample could they possibly have used? What methods for a control group? What kinds of brain scans? MRI? CT? Who funded this study? It is interesting that lumped in with being a Democrat is flexibility in just about everything - social ideas, political ideas, and even (amazing) religious ideas. But, extreme flexibility can also be viewed as an inability to take a stand on something in which you truly believe, since you don't truly believe in anything. You can open your mind so far that your brains fall out, you know? No - I'm sure that no reputable Journal will do anything but scoff at that so-called study.
Pop culture politics now takes on the guise of legitimate science!
I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore fans are thrilled and whooping up a storm over this.
Next time around elections will be held in a reality TV format, much like Survivor.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
be surprised that they used the letter W? Isn't that a letter associated with GWB? Could it be possible that this affected the results?
Look at his voting records for Pete's sake!
He IS and DOES flip-flop routinely!
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53306
Right, because of what I do I am used to ask questions along the lines of "but how do we know that it was actually one of the neutrons we detected or not a cosmic ray, error in my program, the detector, the circuits, thermal noise, random coincidence, small sample size, etc etc ..." Once that is dealt with ,typically giving a certainty of "this might be plausible", you start considering which of the five million or so possible nuclear reactions could have produced a neutron. Finally you write something along the lines of "This experiment seems to suggest that isotope-x has a higher level of activity ... but the uncertainties are quite big...blah blah blah".
Then the press gets hold of the story, makes a headline saying "Nuclear power more dangerous than thought!" and then you get to have great fun trying to explain to "ordinary people" that you are not at the payroll of the nuclear power industry and that the media actually doesn't have a clue about physics. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't think this story is worth the time it took me to write this comment, but I'm bored and have nothing better to do.
I'm a native English speaker, in that I'm an English native and can speak. I say "maths", as does everyone else around here.
Carry on!
In Australia we pronounce you moron. We've called it maths for decades. AFAIK, math is an American thing.
The abstract of the article can be found here: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html If someone is willing to pay :)
Hmm... lets see..
Observation 1- Based on my experience computer/console gamers tend to have much better hand eye coordination
Observation 2- People who have a liberal mindset tend to play video games more
Note: the above observations are based on my personal experiences, your experiences may conflict
Result 1- Liberals will, in general, do better at this sort of test
Result 2- Liberal tester sees that liberals have better hand eye coordination and instantly says 'we liberals are better!', doesn't consider any of the factors as to why one group did better on this test
Result 3- Liberal tester does as a liberal usually does and reads into the test a political statement that has nothing to do with the test, in the process spouting several liberal ideas, most if not all of which have failed everywhere they are attempted
To a liberal the above is following their version of the scientific process, which has little to do with finding the truth, and more to do with spreading their ideas, that have all been tried many times before in other parts of the world, and have all always failed.
--- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
And proved it nicely.
Liberal, socialist and communist are all very different things.
And no, TFA says you're a liberal because you're open to considering new ideas, and a conservative because you don't or can't.
old joke, liberals see it as new and IMproved conservatives see it as new and UNproved.
Funny that; as an Englishman, pretty much everyone I've ever met says "Maths". The concept of calling it "Math" only appeared when dealing with American media. You might find it's more accurate to say that only native American (you know what I mean) speakers say "Math".
Actually, it's "maths" because it stands for "Mathematical Anti-Telharsic Harfatum Septomin".
So there.
(Serious answer: mathematics is plural, meaning "the mathematical sciences", so should be shortened to maths.)
Nomen est omen BadAnalogyGuy!
QED
Only non-native English speakers says "maths". It's "math", or if you must "mathematics" Carry on.
What you mean non-native English speakers like people who live in England? "Math" is an American English thing and sounds off to a native English speaker.
Some may call this flamebait. Perhaps they have been looking too long at flashing "W"s and "M"s.
Can we seriously not expect any bias from the generally left-leaning university academics? Or the LA Times? Seriously! TFA basically says that "Liberals are smarter than conservatives." I am calling bullshit on this one.
Please. The article is not news, is it a troll.
Let's get back to some real nerdy topics.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
When I was young, I had no heart and I supported right-wing ideas. Today, older and wiser, I have also developed more of a heart and I mostly support left-wing ideas. Whoever made that statement about old person being a liberal having no brains is obviously wrong.
Meh.
The people here seem to think they can judge the quality of a study based on what they read of it in popular news coverage.
More importantly,what is the comparison to the Libertarian mind?
Where did the conservative and liberal fall short of being complete?
Why are Libertarians still of the same freedom loving mind as our forefathers,yet
conservatives and liberals are content to lose freedom for safety and let their leaders do their thinking for them?(inevitably lying to further their political aspirations)
Oh,the humanity!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
A study from two universities in states which are predominantly liberal (based on voting history) finds that liberals are "more flexible and accepting of new ideas". Shock of shockers!
Whereas I do wholly believe that there are differences in cognitive style between people are distinctly different personality types (which often gets expressed in political views), I don't give a lot of credence to the findings of a study where they base it on seeing one of two letters, and one of them is the letter associated with the leader of a particular mindset.
Then the immediate conclusion drawn uses two things the democrats tend to want to harp on , being Bush in Iraq, and that Kerry was "swift boated".
Unfortunately it smacks of an agenda from the word go IMHO.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Personally, I think there are more than two.
(The variation I prefer is "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't!")
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The central thrust of the test is that if you flash a bunch of M's and the occasional W, the conservatives blow off the W and the liberals don't. But, in the real world, ignoring the occasional W is the right thing to do most of the time, as it was for the test. There was no consequence for ignoring the W. While most liberals just parrotted the M or W, and called themselves smart, conservatives thought it through and realized that the M was the signficant part of the test, it was most efficient to ignore the W, and got through it.
Honestly, the test proves what we conservatives know all along: liberals are good at getting tripped up and make themselves feel smart by parroting useless things, but conservatives can assess the value of knowledge and "get er done!"
This is my sig.
Big whoop, there's no surpise here. As you progress up the socio-economic ladder, people tend to go from economically social and civil-rights-ly conservative to the opposite, where people are economically more conservative and are more liberal about people's rights. Granted, this is just by aggregating the classes, not saying that each individual person is like that within each class.
Only non-native English speakers say it's "math". Because only Americans say it's "math".
Native English speakers. That'd be those from England and the nearby related nations say "maths".
Deleted
If either "liberal" or "conservative" meant a goddamn thing, this study might actually mean something.
There's not a whole lot that's "conservative" about wanting to invade a country that did not attack us first, nor is there much "liberal" about maintaining a status quo of corporate influence and control of political discourse.
"Right","Left","Conservative" and "Liberal" are terms used by a media elite to keep us divided and in a continual state of anxiety and impotence. By presenting us with an intractable division, we are encouraged to believe that there's "nothing we can do about it", that there are "always two sides to every story". These are lies so big and so harmful to the body politic that they have taken the discussion completely out of the hands of people and have put it in the hands of media hacks, who simply serve their corporate masters.
The dirty little secret is that most people agree on most issues for the most part. And when allowed to present their opinions openly and in a respectful forum, will end up sorting out the areas in which they don't agree. This is why the big corporate money will always go to politicians who represent a minority that represents the most extreme view. Because if people ever realized just how poorly represented we are and just how badly we're being misused by our corporate masters, we'd run them all out of town tied to a rail.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I love how the strength of people's biases filter through to so control how we think and act in this world. The majority of responses here seem to complain about Democrat or Republicanism or some hardly veiled tack. Take a look at TFA, it purely distinguishes between liberals and conservatives (small l and small c) not Democrats and Republicans. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. And to assume or extrapolate otherwise is a hugely incorrect step on all our parts. As a matter of fact, the word Republicans isn't even mentioned in the report! Strangely, the word Democrat appears once describing John F. Kerry (which is the most douchebagish way of saying John Kerry...), but regardless. Another important issue, is we cannot link directly to the ACTUAL study in question" (for a separate reason: due to the controlled access of knowledge by academic institutions, which sucks). How do we know truly what the study entails, how the methodology is controlled, etc., without access to the actual paper. This is only possible if you have $30 for the article entry, btw. Nonetheless, as long as Americans continue to automatically draw the line between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, black and white, etc., as the article quotes the author of the study: "liberals and conservatives are never going to agree". And articles like this do nothing to help. But ultimately, its all our faults for drawing lines in the sand and being so damned stubborn to the detriment of life, society, and wellbeing.
...and it should be known by now
>> Perhaps we could have a rule where Republican votes count for 3/5ths of Democrat votes...
.75 of a vote, they would have power proportionate to the population they represent.
For senate races, that would probably be about fair.
Consider that the 49 Democrats in the Senate represent about 165M people, while the 49 Republicans represent about 123M (165M vs 125M, if we spot them a Lieberman, but I won't). So the average Republican senator represents 2.5M people, while the average Democratic senator represents 3.3M. So if you nerfed the average Senator(R-XX)'s vote down to about
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The study was not about Republicans and Democrats, it was about liberals and conservatives. Do you think these findings only apply in the US?
I saw a FA at New Scientist about this the day before yesterday and submitted it. In a nutshell, they took 43 people and gave them a questionairre to determine if they were liberal or conservative. Then they had them stare at a computer and decide within 1/2 second whether a letter on the screen was an M or a W, with one letter showing 80% of the time.
Liberals did better at the test.
-mcgrew
I have my own interpretation. The problem is the researcher is a liberal. So that skews the interpretation. Here is mine, a conservative view.
The game that was supposed to test responses has no consequence. A conservative knowing that pressing 'M' when a 'W' appears has no consequence on his wealth, well being or utility in general will be more prone to mistakes. Make it worth their wild and watch the mistakes drop.
The liberal on the other hand will be more than oppressed. Yelling "THE WORLD WILL END IF I PRESS 'M', HOLY HELL DO NOT PRESS THE 'M' KEY. PRESSING 'M' IS THE MAIN CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING AND POVERTY IN AFRICA". Doesn't matter if thats not true, they won't press the 'M' key in fear for causing more turmoil.
So my conclusion is, conservatives don't need change when what works, works. Liberals want change for no other reason than having pioneered change.
I have lived my entire life as an immigrant, a family of defectors running from the Czech communists.
My whole life I've had jingoist assholes hate me because I was not born where they were born. I've had redneck racist assholes stutter with confusion when they discover that just because I am white doesn't mean I am 'from around here' and share their racism.
I've spent my whole life trying to learn languages of where I am living and I've got to tell you languages aren't my thing I'm no good at any of the ones I speak. I've then had racists hate me because I spoke English with accent different from their accent... and they can barely speak ONE language.
Both my girlfriend and my daughter have had racists hassle them based on skin colour and accent in the US and not in Europe.
You have a whole branch of your family gone? That doesn't does make you special, that makes you average... well over half of members of my family who were living in the 30's were killed either during WWII or shortly after and you don't hear me using as an excuse to hate.
You say "the gov't wants me to let go of my culture and my country to a bunch of pricks that can't even follow the simplest of laws to get into the country!" This is the height of racist BS. No immigrant wants you let go your 'culture' (such that it is) they want to rid you of your hate. The US government does not want people to abandon culture or country affiliation, they have simply forbad you commit crimes motivated by the hate you have. People like you make me glad I took my family and my money to Europe.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
They've been targeting him for years, it's ingrained habit by now. Not a fair study when one side has had 7 years of training. :D
It seems like a large portion of science articles posted on slashdot regard studies qualifying what I thought to be common knowledge or even common sense. Isn't the defining trait of a conservative supposedly adherence to traditional practices and values? And aren't liberals neccesarily open to new ideas and the incorporation of progressive thinking? Conservatives are more likely to be older, because as one slashdotter said - you have to have experience to know how important having experience is. Liberals should tend to undervalue traditional practices, seeing them as outdated. Conservatives should tend to overvalue traditional practices, seeing them as reliable.
Conservatives are mean and nasty and close-minded.
Liberals are nice and sweet and open minded.
Conservatives are antisocial and ugly!
Liberals are fun to be with and pretty!
Conservatives are dumb!
Liberals are smart!
Now insert "Jocks" and "Nerds".
Gimme a fucking break here people. This kind of self-serving crap, solely to justify one's political and personal leanings helps nobody and nothing. It doesn't even take into account the fact that one's position as a liberal or conservative must be judged on an issue-by-issue basis, as few people are conservative or liberal on EVERY issue.
What's worst? This kind of bullshit inhibits attempts to come to a consensus because "that person is weird and doesn't think like me!"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Two things: 'illegal' immigration is not a crime right now (at least until the law is changed).
Second, past wrongs do not justify for the future ones (just 'cause your family was killed doesn't mean others have to be).
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I hope we did not pay those idiots millions for the report that they could have got from the Enquirer for .50! I needed hip waders to avoid the crap that is filling the floor when I read this article. Everyone know that liberals are idiots. Take a look at Hollywood and then look at their books titled "Books for Dummies".
And the last time I heard the "N" word was when I lived in a "blue" state in the mid-west. I'm sorry, but the regional stereotypes on racial acceptance do not match up. Minorities have more acceptance in the south than anywhere else I have lived. It's easy to live harmoniously with minorities when you have them as thoroughly ghettoized as they are in the typical "blue" state.
Just my observations. They will be wrong often, as I can only speak anecdotally.
... the letter W? I think that could've influenced the results.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
it is not about new ideas generally, it is about critical thinking. that's why "liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts".
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
That's all fine and well and your story makes me weep, but the reality is that with your emotional diatribe, you've neglected to mention that these people are not in the USA legally. So, if these "victims" can't even be bothered to follow the laws of getting into the country, why would they even be reliably expected to follow the other laws of the country as well. And you know what, they -don't-.
So please, don't keep on lying. Immigration and illegal immigration are two entirely different things. Legal immigrants are invited to this country, and improve it. Illegal immigrants are invaders.
This is my sig.
Yes, but depending on the college, the prevailing political opinion may be heavily slanted towards one side. That would certainly skew the results, as people who couln't make their minds for themselves would be answering with locally "righteous" ideology, and cases of those who did not cave in would be more extreme (either because they felt strongly about their options, or because they stuck to their choice out of being stubborn). My wild guess is: predominantly liberal college, few conservatives to choose from, most happened to be headstrong.
Repeat the experiment with a different distribution to check for this bias, or quiz people on their political views instead of allowing them to tick a box.
That's the whole point. It is against the law to enter the USA without following certain procedures, and therefor, those that do not follow those procedures, are breaking the law, and are criminals. It's pretty cut and dry.
This is my sig.
I was absolutely amazed to be subjected to this sort of hate
Try being an American on foreign vacation.
It's been interesting watching my oldest nephew "grow up". In his teens he was a DIE IN THE WOOL liberal...to the point my mother said that there will be NO political discussions at family gatherings (I'm conservative). The older he gets (he's 31 now) the MORE conservative he becomes. In his teens, he was for MORE taxes, MORE government. When he got out of school, & got a JOB, he realized that even thought he made x dollars an hour, the government took away 1/3 of his paycheck, then the state government took some more, healthcare took more. in his late 20's, he bought a house, and here was the government with its hand out for more money. That's why, to me, young people, who live at home, don't have any "expenses" have a more liberal slant to their views. Do in part to the brainwashing they receive from government schools, this just reinforces their "belief" that liberalism/socialism is a good thing. When they get out in the REAL WORLD and come to the realization that you need MONEY to survive this world, and the government takes & takes & takes, it causes a reevaluation of their belief system. They figure it out (if their brains are not so polluted) that liberalism (to an extent is a form of socialism in a political sense) is not a good thing to survive....unless you want to drive yourself MAD trying to believe in a failed view of the world. Socialism breeds LAZINESS. Why should you work harder than the next guy, when it does not matter, because everyone is "equal"? The only way to better ones self is to try to be better than the next guy, which causes the next guy to do better and so on. Look at all the achievements in this world that were caused by the drive to do something that has not been done before. Capitalism & conservatism should go hand in hand. Unfortunately, the current crop of so called Republicans, in the last 6 years, acted more like liberals in their spending habits than the liberals EVER did. They want to know why they got handed their heads in the 06 election? A LOT of it did NOT have to do with anything associated with Iraq. It was because of all the pork barrel spending they did, along with thumbing their nose at the constitution.
sounds good to me!
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
In the first split second. That in no way implies it doesn't happen later. Basically, we now know how liberals vs conservatives respond if they have only an instant to think about it - we know nothing about how the process routes afterwards.
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
The differences between the brains of liberals and conservatives is probably inconclusive. Why? The differences between the beliefs of liberals and conservatives aren't even consistent. Many people that consider themselves liberal hold some conservative beliefs and vice versa.
This study makes about as much sense as studying the difference between the brains of blonds (that bleach their hair) and brunettes.
Question everything
You live in Austria. Austria used to be ruled by the Hapsburgs. Spain used be ruled by the Hapsburgs as well. Mexico used to be ruled by Spain.
Therefore you, sir, are a wetback.
If we needed any proof, Real Americans only speak the American, you speak German, so you are not a Real American quod erat demonstrandum.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There are only two choices. Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.
Keep an open mind - but not so wide open that your brain falls out.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
This is funny. I always thought the distinction was bleeding heart issues. Aren't liberals more bleeding heart than the rest? Aren't conservatives more realistic?
Aren't liberals more emotional? Isn't this why they love trees? And furry animals?
What does accuracy in recognizing a letter with a certain time frame have to do with anything? One person reported that the test in part was to distinguish between an M and a W while given less than 1/2 second to do it. If so - then one has to somehow record the answer. How? By pressing a button? If so then wouldn't this test eye hand coordination with a dyslexic tending toward the conservative camp?
------------------
What is really funny about this is that I always thought of myself as a right winger - a strong right winger.
In fact I don't like many of the policies put forward by our Canadian Liberals and the USA Democrates at all.
Yet - my son who has studied some political science says I'm far more liberal than conservative.
One of the many programs I do support however is universal medicare. I just don't think it benefits society at all and certainly not the family for instance to literally ruin the financial well being of a family if someone gets sick. I consider it a form of insurance and I'm all for insurance too. Is insurance liberal or conservative? Hmm. I dunno. I do know that many people would opt out of insurance if they were allowed too. Poor people would especially opt out because they have nothing to lose. So in an accident they could just declare bankruptcy... right? Is bankruptcy liberal or conservative?
The thing is that we don't legally allow people to drive without insurance. Yet at the same time we allow people to live without medical insurance. Which is worse? Is this a liberal idea or a conservative idea that one is ok and the other is not. IMHO clearly someone who lives without insurance imposes the greater risk on others.
Then the system gets stacked to make it virtually impossible in for instance the USA for a huge percentage of the population to even afford proper medical insurance and I've been lead to believe this is republican thinking and that it aligns with conservative thinking.
What about free enterprise? What about small business and small businessmen. Are they liberal or conservative? I always thought that enterprenarially inclined folks tended to be conservatives. I always thought that socialistic minded people and those looking for an iron rice bowl tended to be liberals.
As such - it would be the liberals through unnecessary laws and support of unions and socialistic ideas who would tend to create an unhealthy business environment which would leads to the destruction of the very jobs their retoric seeks to create for the little guy.
But now... am I worng? Its is really that they have more attention to detail? If liberals have more attention to detail does this means conservatives see a bigger picture?
What if you can both see a big picture because you are a visionary and at the same time can handle much more detail that others?
What of computer programmers? I can think of few professions who can handle as much detail as a computer programmer handles. Good computer programmers can handle prodigious amounts of detail with ease. So do they tend to be liberals? Some computer programmers have a tremendous amount of vision as well... But I don't know which could distinguish between M's and W's fastest.
The short of it is there are so many undefined premises here that the study makes no sense whatsoever. Hense I would think the researchers are biased. They probably are looking either for a cushy research post or yet another grant and in both cases I think this would tend to make them liberals. If I'm right - then a conservative would never waste his/her time in such a pursuit... unless maybe they are a private consultant in search of yet another cushy research contract? Hmm. It boggles the mind.
it could be bunnies
It is one of those forms of science that annoys me. If I agree with the statement then I give credit for it. If I disagree and point out that say I am a conservative and I think this science is bubkiss then it only proves the science only further. Remembering this is only science and there is statical deviation where most conservatives show a trend of this and liberals show a trend of that. Doesn't mean that a conservative is unable to have a brain the functions like a liberal and vice versa, just more of a trend towards that direction. Sometimes a person is conservative because they spend a lot of time thinking about it and they see the direction that the liberals give is more flawed and in the long run will cause more problems then gains. E.g. Is spending more taxes on a service that has a marginal value vs. not paying the extra taxes and have the person use it towards something that offers better value. Or the opposite can be true, Eg Person A believes that there should be more taxes for government services because they grew up taking handouts from government services and that is the only life they know.
As for a general trend I would agree with the data but you need to be sure not to go to someone with a republican bumper sticker and assume they are hard nose and cannot learn, or someone with a Democrat bumper sticker(s) (Normally the case with liberals who tend to have more bumper stickers then conservatives) you can assume they will collect information easily and can grasp new concepts easier. Because a trend doesn't equate to people falling into stereotypes, just the fact the dice is weighted slightly to one side.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A scientific study by researchers at two universities declare that some people think differently than others. I realize this study (and nearly all similar) are designed to quantify data, but really, is this a surprise to anyone?
In my opinion, this is yet another reverse correlation. All people accept and react differently to the world around them. This is why some people choose the Democratic party, others choose the Republican party, and yet others bitch about everyone else.
My post and my family have nothing to do with illegal immigrants however racists
You know, that's enough. You can go on and call me racist as much as you want, but, given that 30 million people in the USA are estimated to be here illegally, its pretty reasonable to think that someone who doesn't "look like us" might actually be an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigration dwarfs legal immigration by a fairly wide margin.
I mean seriously.. if you see a gang of people in an aging Ford Econline Van without license plates, I think it is reasonable to ask if the people there are here legally. It's just an epidemic. I'm sorry you got caught in the crossfire, and it was wrong for people to accost you the way you did, but suspecting someone might be here illegally is really, the most logical course of action until this country secures its borders properly.
This is my sig.
It's always important to consider the source of the information, and the likely biases of the researchers.
The study was conducted by "researchers" from New York University and UCLA, two very liberal institutions.
The analysis is provided by "experts" at UCLA and Berkley.
The article is published in the LA Times, one of the most left leaning big papers in the country.
With the above information you don't even have to look at the study to know what the results and conclusions will be.
Now consider the science. "Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." Excuse me? Where was there any measurement of brain circuits? These were just people pressing keys.
This is nonsense, pure junk science. The only thing proven by this study, and the people here who think it proves something, is that the left is really, really gullible.
Seriously, the LA Times publishing an article about a study which at least from reading TFA seems roughly equivalent to Cosmopolitan attempting to determine whether blondes really DO have more fun is not that surprising to me. The motivation behind the study is dubious at best, and the methodology is bunk; if I had tried to pass this off as research in college I would've been kicked out. But my favorite part of the article is this little gem:
"Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."
They extensively quote a totally unrelated researcher (not a professor, incidentally) from Berkeley (not UCLA, where the study was conducted) who broke out the thesarus to say what amounts to, "this proves that conservatives are big, dumb, stupid ol' dummies." This has about as much credibility as Oral Roberts University performing the same study but swapping out "homosexual" or "atheist" for "conservative." If you wonder why people believe there is bias in the media, wonder no longer.
And meanwhile, cancer hasn't been cured yet, right? Isn't there more important research to do?
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
Why are you implying that German people are better than Spanish people? It's not the country of origin that is the problem, it is the method of entry. Your whole argument is "how dare you assume that I'm spanish, when I'm really german, and therefor, I am a racist." Sorry, I'm not going to fall into your racist nonsense. If your family is German or Spanish and is in the USA illegally, then, off to the Deportation land with you! Race is NOT a factor.
This is my sig.
Eavsdropping foils bomb plot in Germany on /. , nope...
/. , nope...
/. , nope...
/.
Latest OBL tape on
Patraeus report on Iraq on
Liberals smart, Republicans stupid, YES!
go
I guess this means liberalism is a mental disorder. ;)
Funny! "In advance even"... that's awesome.
This is my sig.
10-to-1 this study was conducted by Liberals. By the way, the study is COMPLETELY invalidated due to poor procedural set-up.
The selection of M & W are an example of exceedingly poor scientific implementation. Why? Because almost every Liberal I know reacts extremely strongly to the letter "W" ever since the Presidency of George W. Bush. Therefore selecting the one letter of the alphabet that a liberal is going to over-react to if seen individually creates an inherent bias in this test. (Not even included the fact it's such a narrow scope with broad conclusions.)
This test needs to be re-conducted with the following letters. "b", "d", "p". That said, it does not prove anything conclusive. In fact, all this might do is prove that conservatives, or at least those conservatives in their study, had a higher tendency of dyslexia. Of note, not all forms of dyslexia correspond to learning disabilities. Some aspects tend to also correspond with those of higher intellect and creativity
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,5376455.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
What this study does prove is that those who conducted it are failing to utilize intelligence.
SLASHDOT....can we stop with the constant "conservative bashing".
He'll probably just think you can't spell "sweeten" and wonder what you're talking about.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No, but giving it a simple moment of your thought to see if it's worth it to go further into investigating this "new idea" is indeed a good thing.
Hard-line conservatives just shut anything different out completely. There's a reason why people call them narrow-minded. I'm not talking about conservatives, I'm talking about hard-line conservatives. You know the ones.
Internet: Serious Business
Thats the only way to properly cook a hamburger.
unless YOUR THE GUY FROM THE HAMBURGER TRAIN.....
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
... that women and men think differently. No, really. This study is a bunch of crap. HTH HAND ----- Proud Card Carrying Member of the "Decline to state party".
The biggest problem I see with this is that there is no definition for liberal or conservative. For all I know "liberal" respondants all had a college education and were bery keen on fast twitch activities, while all "conservative" respondants were born from 3rd generation incestious relationships and had no arms or legs.
Without knowing this, the whole thing comes off as, "We are right, you are wrong and we have broad generalizations of history to proove it. STFU!".
This is a very good point indeed.
However, the first split second is apt to be very important if we are talking about emotionally charged subjects, since emotional states tend to be refractory. Conservatives and liberals in the past have been able to cooperate on policies that have been hashed out at length between them; this is probably a good thing. It's the hot button issues that will always divide them most strongly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Are you suggesting that Carter didn't? I know that a lot of conservatives hated his policies, rightly or wrongly, but his character is the best of any president in my lifetime. Seeing as how I was born in 1970, during the first Nixon administration, that's sort of damning with faint praise, of course. I think the funniest compliment/insult I've ever heard about Carter is that he makes such a great former President that he should have skipped straight to that job.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The probability of a Liberal thinking clearly is right up there with the probability of finding an honest politician - slim, fat, and none. You will notice that the study was done by "institutions of higher learning", which are nothing if not liberal. That they are also fascist and oppress free speech by suppressing anyone who does not agree with their point of view only means that junk "science" like this will go unchallenged in the mainstream media, and become accepted as gospel. That the study is also a self-serving "pat on the back" to their force-fed liberal constituency is just a bonus - or maybe the main purpose of the study?
Come on, they used a "W". To any conservative a "W" is just a letter. To any Liberal, a "W" means "George W. Bush" to which they have an adrenaline rushed response to any mention or sight.
In fact, the study almost proves this fact. For both conservatives and liberals their reactions to the letter "M" were nearly identical. Liberals only excelled in targeting the letter "W".
We pretty much already know that Liberals are very good at targeting George "W".
Bah!
***
This is some of the worst science. Thankfully, it's anti-conservative therefore Slashdot will readily post it in it's slide away from a "science" log to a "politics" log.
Rube Goldberg....
... "Then you have the Slashdot brain. Never click on anything and lots of activity"
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Just tell them that you're descended from Good King Wenceslas. If you're Czech, you probably are.
Also, tell them if they kick you out, you're taking their Budweiser with you. Never mind that America's idea of a Pilsner is watered down rat-piss, they don't have to know.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Now consider the science. "Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy." Excuse me? Where was there any measurement of brain circuits? These were just people pressing keys.
EEG readings have long been accepted as an accurate way to read brain activity. It doesn't suddenly become 'junk science' simply because you don't happen to like the results.
-FL
It took everyone this long to realize republicans don't have a brain???? like George W. Bush!
But is that worse than being spineless like democrats!? Probably!
Relying on students in a small region who self-identify themselves politically without any control mechanism to place them politically and then extrapolating meaning from button presses in a single experiment doesn't seem to be scientific to me, the non-thinking conservative. It seems to be a shitty experiment good for grabbing a headline for left-wing circle-jerks.
"To work for libertarianism -- to oppose the growth of government and aid the liberation of the individual -- used to be
>> Most people here assume just accepting new ideas at face value (which is all the study suggested) is a good thing.
That's really not what the study is saying. I worry about extrapolating this very preliminary study too far, but insofar as it says anything, it's saying something very different.
It isn't saying that liberals (whether critically or uncritically) integrate new findings into their worldview faster or more completely than conservatives. Instead, it may be indicating that the "conservative mind" is less on the lookout for information that defies its expectations. Of course, the experiment only covers a situation where a snap judgment is required.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Wow. Give that man a cigar! Freud would have dug into that one with both sets of claws. Lift that mask of sanity half an inch. . .
-FL
That had never occurred to me. By Jove I think you're right!
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"....no longer definitions of political ideology but epithets"
Not the first time it's happened.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You don't need a no stinkin' study.
the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war... Real explanation: He's not too bright.
and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry... as a flip-flopper. Real explanation: He was/is.
If we're unwilling to discuss the hot button issues, yes. But that works both ways. If you tend to latch on to any idea that comes your way (without discussion) youre completely subject to the whims of chance as to whether youre right or wrong. Basically, relying on an instant decision is fatally flawed in both cases. Thats why experience is such a big deal in leadership situations - sometimes mental muscle memory will override your natural biological reactions in split second scenarios.
The US had all ready labeled the French as cowards way before they disagreed with our policy. April 30, 1995 Groundskeeper Willie "Bonjourrrrr, yah cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys!"
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Okay, all jokes aside:
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.Isn't the first sentence pretty much the DEFINITION of conservative vs liberal? So what's surprising? Even so, I think they made a mistake in using too homogeneous a pool of participants:
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative."At college age, most people are just starting to form their own opinions about things and typically see the opinions they were taught at home as "conservative" and the new ones they are exposed to at school as "liberal". So yes, among college students, I would expect the "liberal" ones to be "more open to new ideas". But many college students change their positions at some point in their lives. Is that because the way their brain processes information changes? I think if the study was done on a wider age range they might get different results.
Another problem is the difference between the dictionary definition of liberal and conservative vs. the political definition. Like I said, being open to new ideas is one definition of "liberal", but it may have nothing to do with believing in specific "liberal" political ideas (especially since most of those ideas are not so new anymore). The latter meaning is probably what the students were referring to in identifying themselves as liberal or conservative.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
The really scary part is that it makes sense.
It would certainly explain why the world is blowing apart at the seams today. Muslims, Sunis. . ? What's the difference? --They all have brown skin and talk funny, so they must all be in it together. Bomb them all!
Only people who remain ignorant of the details believed that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Saddam was anti-Muslim on principal. He certainly wasn't about to give them guns. They might have threatened his leadership. But Bush is a monkey, so he kept punching that 'W' key without blinking.
Psychopaths need to be expunged from the world. This is probably why Bush is so anti-science. If we ever worked out a test for psychopathy, we could live in a paradise.
-FL
This is one of the mmost rediculous studiesm I have ever heard of. The results esentially say mwe are still in iraq because mrepublicans aren't good button pushersm. This ism all based off one test,m a poorly selected msample group, and mwas conducted by very biased institutions. mm Good thing Berkely is here to explainm the results to us simple mindedm republicans. mThey aren't liberal at all over there.m
This reminds me of the "scientific" studies back in the 1800s that were used to prove blacks were inferior to whites. Somehow I think political thought has more to do with upbringing and life experience than how our brains are wired.
How about a compromise? We Americans will agree to start calling it "maths" if you Brits will agree to say "went to college" instead of "went to university."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Of course, the experiment only covers a situation where a snap judgment is required.
Hence the next sentence I posted: The article did not in any way indicate that it tested what the evaluative processes that liberals vs conservatives go through before they integrate new ideas into their view of the world.
You said: Instead, it may be indicating that the "conservative mind" is less on the lookout for information that defies its expectations.
I disagree somewhat. I would consider myself conservative (kindof sortof), but I do good work in information and data analysis. It doesn't seem to be what the brain is on the lookout for, merely what path it takes on its way to further analysis. The study doesnt cover whether or not that information was accepted for further processing, just that it wasn't acted on immediately by conservatives.
The whole evolution of our species has revolved around our ability to create metaphoral/symbolic constructs above and beyond what our initial biological reaction would have us do...it would be really surprising to me if we found that 50% of the population couldn't accept new information easily vs just processed it differently.
When you say "sold out" are you being literal or figurative? If literal, do you have any evidence that they gave him any money? If figurative, how is it any different from the many ways that Reagan sold out? I had a friend from Nicaragua who told me a lot about what Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal cost him and his friends. I very deliberately stayed away from policies, because it's easy to misconstrue them.
As "incompetent" as you think he was, do you deny that Carter was the most wholesome president in the last 40 years (never divorced, no adultery, no Contra-gate-like scandals that I'm aware of) — or is your hatred of him too strong to admit that?Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Republican != Conservative Democrat != Liberal
See my response here (second to last para): http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=293603&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20552799#20553161
For the people approving articles, do you have to post verbatum what the submitter sent you? We have had too many articles approved lately with bad summeries.
What a crock of self-serving shit
I'm honestly sorry to hear about your experience, but I don't think Europe is the utopia you make it out to be. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are 95% white or more, and I found them to be significantly more racist than at least the northeast of the US. Czech people regular talk about gypsies with disdain and it is quite accepted and common. My friend was telling a story about him being robbed on the tram, and the immediate reaction was "It was a black man, right?" Black people in especially eastern Europe are often assumed to be criminals.
Neo-nazi groups are exceedingly common in ex-Yugoslavian countries like Croatia and Serbia (you can check wikipedia/etc), so I'm glad you have found a place you are comfortable, but I don't think it's free of its own problems.
Oh, please. Spare me. This is just more liberal bs. Conservatives just can't understand the arguments and are just too sloppy with their handling of facts to be able to understand what comes from our side of the aisle. What a load of self-serving crap. Can anyone really be dumb enough to actually believe this stuff?
Most people here assume just accepting new ideas at face value (which is all the study suggested) is a good thing. The article did not in any way indicate that it tested what the evaluative processes that liberals vs conservatives go through before they integrate new ideas into their view of the world. That's a critical thing to know. Frankly, I want people in charge and those voting to have some initial skepticism and to analyze new ideas before they accept them. Just because you hear it or have an initial thought doesn't make it true or valid.
Yeah, but before you can think skeptically, you need to actually be able to read and understand the data available. If a person can't tell an M from a W, then how the heck can that person be expected to have any rational insights on M's and W's in order to know which is the best option?
Measuring new ideas carefully before accepting them is very important, I agree. But installing a leader who automatically filters out the fundamental possibility of even making a choice isn't a solution. It's the result of brain damage.
It's ridiculous to think that Liberal thinkers are somehow inferior because they have the ability to make choices. That's like saying, "I prefer to be color blind because I don't want to get distracted."
Though this is understandable to a degree. --You can't expect people who have a decreased capacity for choice to necessarily recognize the value of choice. In a world filled with blind people, the guy who can see is the one they think is nuts, because his behavior doesn't appear to make any sense.
-FL
And that means you support restrictions on immigration? I take it you didn't like your family that much...?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
The situation is worse than that, and in my opinion is one of the reasons that it is practically impossible for a member of the Legislative Branch from running for President. Kerry didn't take a single issue and change his mind a couple of times. Rather what happened was that the issue in question was a rider which was tacked onto three different other bills. What Kerry did was to vote yay or nay on the actual bill and the rider was, well, just along for the ride. Kerry was not voting against sending body armor to the troops, he was voting against making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but someone with an agenda can take that vote and make it look like Kerry was giving the troops the middle finger.
Every single legislator who has ever voted on a bill has the same exact voting record if you're willing to dig for it. When you can tack arbitrary riders to other proposed bills that is the situation you get. If you take a bill proposed to aid war veterans and tack on a rider to club baby seals there simply is no good way to vote on that bill. You either hate veterans or you hate baby seals.
John Kerry was a "flip-flopper", not because he was a liberal. Rather, he was a unfortunately typical politician with his views blowing with the popular wind.
Hilary is the same, perhaps worse. Republicans often behave the same, though the popular views that they follow are more narrow. Though both parties often align with corporate views more than popular views.
You know, the guy who got better grades than John Kerry, and didn't flunk out of college like Al Gore? But who liberals (and leftists worldwide, for that matter...) ridicule as stupid?
Is the US making fun of the French any more appalling than the rampant ad hominem crap "tolerant progressives" spew at Bush?
And it's not just Bush. Just go look at the racist attacks from the left at any black person in the US who dares to leave the "thought plantation" that supposed to define how blacks in the US are "supposed" the think. Google "Richard Steele blackface" just for starters.
-- I might be stupid, but you have to be good at something.
If we limit the scope to just college students, the research may still have some explanatory power. I've had the impression over the years that the smartest conservatives used to be liberals. If we consider that liberals may consider a broader range of possibilities and are more liable to change their minds, then it is not to surprising that some would end up adopting conservative positions when they are exposed to them at school. On the other hand, conservatives, who are stuck in a rut, are simply holding onto older liberal positions such as the idea that tyrants are are bad that are no longer contoversial. Their exposure to ideas in school can have little traction. They won't often notice when an idea is in conflict with their beliefs. So, the heart of the conservative intellectual ferment is supported by the conversion of liberals who find older liberal ideas more congenial than new liberal ideas. They have the strength of thier convictions rather than just the force of habit and thus exert greater influence on the foundations of conservatism. But, since the foundations of conservatism are fundementally inertia, that influence is likely to be small though they may discover broader justification for the older liberal concepts than these had initially.
--
Rethink solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
Not like there isn't a constant glut of deep politics all over the web. Slashdot continues it's slide from geek/tech site to a political spam site.
CAN WE PLEASE STOP AND GET BACK TO GEEK/TECH/REAL SCIENCE.
If Slashdot continues to post crud like this they're going to give cracks a good name.
I WANT MY SLASHDOT BACK!!!!
No, but giving it a simple moment of your thought to see if it's worth it to go further into investigating this "new idea" is indeed a good thing.
True in many circumstances; perhaps even most. However, not necessarily universally true under all conditions.
The conservative response (stick with the old idea) is generally gets to be of more benefit if the cost of decision analysis is high (EG, an O(2^n) algorithm), the potential cost of an incorrect dismissal is low, and the potential benefit of the new idea is low. The modern era has been marked by large numbers of new ideas where the benefits have been high (allowing new capabilities for humanity, such as the ability to work with larger amounts of energy at higher thermodynamic efficiency) and relatively low risk in trying them (due to a comparatively large surplus production beyond that needed for subsistence-level survival), making liberalism advantageous. The liberal approach is also generally beneficial in highly dynamic conditions, where previously advantageous methods become ineffective, and the value of previous experience to predicting what is going to happen is low.
HOWEVER, in the full course of human history, this may be prove a brief (thousand year) atypical aberration in the state of things. In an essentially static society, with limited surpluses, and limited room for improvement, those who experiment are more likely to end up dead than rich; evolution tends to diminish such tendencies.
Given the still generally dynamic state of the present era, conservatism is an evolutionary legacy, and deserves a certain amount of mockery. If anything, we may face an even worse period of change, with the possible effects of global warming. On the other hand, we are also facing resource depletion; geologic deposits of oil are becoming rarer, and (abiogenesis kooks aside) will not become more common again — once changed, it will not change back. Barring the Singularity, we face the Limits to Growth.
Now, for a really depressing thought: in Larry Niven's short story "Limits" speculated on the effect human mortality has on our view of the universe. We seek limits, and push at them. The lightspeed limit. The limiting strength of materials. Godel's theorem, on the limits of perfectability of mathematics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, limiting the amount of information one can have about a particle.
What if there is a fundamental, provable limit to intelligence?
In the really long haul, the conservatives may have the correct approach.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
The summary--particular the bit about Bush--is so laughably unprofessional that this can't be considered useful. It is simply a reflection of the childish, uber-simplistic mentality of the "researchers". If the results had come out differently, the more "progressive" participants would be lauded for their reluctance to accept everything at face value and for their tendency to challenge the orthodoxy.
/. for posting it.
In other words, it's crap, and shame on
Why do you think anything you just said has any bearing on illegal immigration?
Or are you so deluded by your lifetime of "being hated" that you automatically assume those people who decry illegal immigration must be "racist"?
It takes an exceptionally closed mind to presume that a denouncement of illegal immigration has anything at all to do with racism or jingoism.
Your bigotry and racism is showing, and you can't even see it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the points made in the article! Great job, Mr. Conservative!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
That said,So it's OK if I commit crimes motivated by greed?
So you think that Reagan was able to secure the release of the hostages based purely off his stupendous foreign-relation skills within minutes of being sworn in? MacGuyver and Norris have got nothing on him!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The experiment: if one letter appears on the screen, hit a key. If another letter appears on the screen, don't hit a key.
The result: self-identified liberals accurately press or don't press the correct key. Self-identified conservatives do not accurately press the key.
The conclusion: liberals are more open-minded.
Wait...what?
Alternate conclusions:
* Liberals are more likely to continue to do boring things for praise (more likely: how many PhD and Masters' candidates are left-leaning?)
* Conservatives have a short attention span (also likely: watch Fox News)
Extrapolating brain function from keypresses (or lack thereof) is a stretch.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict. Maybe some people perceived Kerry as a flip fopper because he was caught on tape repeatedly saying ridiculous things like "I actually voted for the war before I voted against it". Maybe "scientists" and "researchers" shouldn't try to overreach and extrapolate individuals hitting an "M" and "W" and translate that into dubious conclusions about political results in order to placate their fellow partisans.
In my case, I want to enforce our immigration laws. (Though I recognize there are some tricky problems involved, particularly with how we deal with the children of illegal immigrants.) But I support making immigration easier. It takes too long & it's too expensive. I can't really blame illegal Mexican immigrants for bypassing the system; many people are in hard situations, and don't have good options.
Think about that one for a second, buster.
This country was made great by immigrants, whether they came here across a land bridge or on a airplane. It's become great by being an open, fertile ground for hard-working people of any origin to come and make a future for themselves and their families. We lose sight of that at our peril.
Should everyone here speak passable English? (Probably for their own economic well-being, yes.) Should everyone do their best to tread lightly on communal resources? (Sure, but how many of our tax dollars go to fighting foreign wars and how many to making sure kids have good nutrition regardless if their first name is John or Jose?)
(And just for the record, I'm as stereotypically white bread American as you can get.)
is the Answer! Mathematical proofs of lower regret index scores and essays on why RV will save us all Here.
There are many futures and only one status quo. That is why conservatives mostly agree and radicals always argue.
--13 June, p. 133
From the book "Brian Eno, A Year, with Swollen Appendices (diary and ruminations)"
This is some slashdotter's signature, and it's never been more appropriate.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they 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." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.
Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."
Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false. [flame suit: on]
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"A researcher not affiliated with the study stated, liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.'"
:p
Well, this is true by the very definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative', but this axiom doesn't shed light on whether there are "brain differences". It contributes nothing to the article.
That said, there probably are "brain differences". Doesn't everything come down to chemical reactions anyway, which themselves are based on atomic and even sub-atomic reactions? Which would mean that Man has no "free will", but what can you do?.
More serously, from what I've experienced, "liberals" tend to be "smarter" than "conservatives". Not that they have a higher IQ, but liberals have a greater intellectual curiosity about the world and are more likely to approach matters from an intellectual standpoint than a "from-the-gut" standpoint (though doing such doesn't always lead to the "right" answer). Is it do to "brain differences"? Maybe. But it also could be due to environment (e.g. the influence of the parents (or guardians, whatever) that raised one as a child)). You know, the whole "nature vs nurture" thing.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Is being conservative a disability?
They don't even get articles up in a timely manner anymore--I've already seen everything on other sites by the time its on slashdot nowadays. Perhaps everyone is too busy reading DailyKos and Democratic Underground to do their jobs and get content up?
A Conservative is a Liberal that has been mugged. All those wonderful, creative, new ideas on social engineering to make the world a more loving place sound wonderful(liberal)....Until you realize that they are full of crap and don't work(Conservative). A Liberal is an idealist. A Conservative is a realist.
And yet you want them forced at gunpoint back into those hard situations?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
So we've finally proven with the power of science what everyone knows:
Liberals tend to be wishy-washy, conservatives tend to be hard-headed.
Congratulations, the only bigger waste of time are all the liberals going "Haha! We're smarter!" and conservatives going "This is a bullshit liberal agenda!" in the comments here.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Studies like this are begging the question.
Also, the study may be immoral to do in a society where this will be spun and spun by the media...scientists do not have the unique privilege of ignoring the predictable consequences of their actions (however humble the researchers may be in their conclusions).
Beyond that, the world is not divided into "liberals" and "conservatives", however much people like Ann Coulter would like us to believe that. The liberal-->conservative spectrum of opinion in the U.S. is a very narrow one, certainly not representing my views or those of many people I know.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
For nearly seven years, the W has been a bumper sticker in itself, with one version set in a classy serif face on a plain black field, and another version in fascist angular red white and black.
He should have chosen less loaded symbols, like SEX and TAX.
This "study" wouldn't, or shouldn't, pass in a sixth grade science class.
Do we have another Sokal affair here? Somebody just trying to find out if editors are asleep?
And something that bugs me is this constant denial that some people do, in fact, choose to fail.
.
Absolutely. Some people do choose to fail. And many have no other choice.
Being born into privelege gives you strong advantages over those not born into privelege. The system is not set up to give everyone a fair chance. Consider our education system: in many (if not most) cases, schools are funded by property tax. This translates into per-student funding in ratio to average income. This biases education in favor of upper-middle-class and above, leaving middle-class with an "average" education, and the poor with, well, poor education. This tends to reduce the opportunity of the poor, while favoring the rich.
Consider healthcare. Almost a third of Americans have essentially no health coverage. If someone gets cancer, they have no way to pay for treatment. This leads to others staying home to take care of them as they die.
I could go on about how the system is stacked against a *large* number of Americans, but why bother? I've seen how those with money don't care, and those without don't have the opportunity to make the choices to make a better life for themselves.
I think there should be numerous opportunities given to people to succeed . .
And that is the crux of the matter. Millions of people in the US are never given an opportunity to succeed, by any reasonable definition of "success." And the worst part is, the system is designed that way.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Any Republicans win that? Didn't think so."
"Henry Alfred Kissinger (born Heinz Alfred Kissinger on May 27, 1923) is a German-born American diplomat, and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize laureate."
Oh my, how embarrassing for you.
So, will you be a man and admit you were wrong, or pretend you didn't see the replies that prove it and hide?
I'm Canadian. I remember Degaule's "Vive le Quebec Libre" speech in Quebec City.
[...] As far as I'm concerned, the French don't get half the ridicule that they deserve. No you don't remember that: that was in Montreal. You remember your hate of Quebec, your hate of their French ancestors, and you mingled the two.
But you don't actually base your hate on reality, you just pretend like you do.
Do you remember ever yelling "speak white!" to french speakers? That used to happen a lot... Because just speaking a different language from the majority makes one THAT easy a target of hate from people like you, just like being a different colour would.
You can pretend like the targets of your prejudiced hate deserve more hate, you can even hate an entire people for comments one of them made in the 60's, but they don't actually deserve your bile, you're just a racist with a lot of justifications and rationalizations.
And, seriously, "Long live free Quebec" is your reason for this hate? A desire for FREEDOM, of all things?
You hate them for their freedom, and you make that comment on this date? Good grief!
You can't take the sky from me...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
And yet you want them forced at gunpoint back into those hard situations?
1.) There are no simple answers.
2.) I honestly don't know the best way to handle people who are already here. It might work to simultaneously make the immigration process easier and then require illegal immigrants to go through it if they want to stay. Or something along those lines.
3.) By "hard situations", we're not talking about war-torn refugees, we're talking about lower standards of living. Depending on how low...possibly, yes.
4.) That their desire to bypass the system is understandable doesn't mean eliminating the system is the best thing. I sympathize with a poor man who steals food to improve his hungry family's situation, but my solution is not to make it effectively legal to do so--my solution is to ensure there are better ways for him to help his family. (And yes, to exercise discernment and mercy in the punishment.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
> maybe you should go talk to General Betray Us and see how astute he is
You know, I'm actually happy as hell Move On bought that ad. Because if that wasn't 'questioning his patriotism' then I really don't know what it would take to qualify. So now that Move On has officially (buying a full page in the NYT is about as overt an act as one can imagine) declared their belief that questioning the patriotism of a highly decorated general who, to date, was 100% free of taint to his professional reputation is now fair play. I certainly can't see how they can object when we now take the obvious next step.
I now put on the table for discussion THEIR patriotism. This ragtag band of misfits, losers and socially dysfunctional turds, living in their mothers basements, blogging in their underwear that calls itself the netroots (nutroots) has more in common with UBL (did you actually READ that idiot kostard's rant?) than anything American. If you f*cking Noam Chompsky reading, Hugo Chavez lovin' socialist morons hate America so much, why don't you migrate? We are trying to build a wall on our Southern border to keep people OUT, but we certainly wouldn't try to keep yer sorry butts IN.
Democrat delenda est
Despite having lived in Atlanta for a number of years in the past, I was absolutely amazed to be subjected to this sort of hate.
Don't be. This sort of hate is being pushed from the highest levels of government as the latest distraction from a disintegrating economy, lack of a good health care system, an unwinnable war in the middle east, and the fact that our music sucks.
You, sir, are nothing more than a distraction from the real problems in America.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Your assumption of a .712 on some fictional absolute scale having to have the same stances as another who scored .712 is ridiculous. It's a matter of how many of your views tend to be liberal or conservative. It's not like if you're a little conservative, you're going to have the same stance on a particular conservative issue as someone else who is a little conservative.
Political leaning is a part of a human behavior. Everyone leans in one way or the other. Why is it so crazy that those who tend to lean towards one direction tend to think a certain way? True, maybe some time in the future political leanings will be more defined than just a 1 dimensional spectrum, but there will still be some similarities of those that shared the same side of the spectrum and that was the characteristic that was influencing this study.
On an off-topic note, more than two parties is dangerous because you run the risk of the majority of people not voting for the winner. If you have candidates x, y, & z where y & z share a lot of similar views except one, you can get a situation where 3/5 of the population are split amongst those two. Now, 2/5 of the votes went to x, which 3/5(obviously) of the population did not vote for, but even so, he got more votes than the other two (the other two both getting 3/10 of the vote, whereas (if you can't do math) he got 4/10). That's why more than two political parties is illogical. You can get a winner who can possibly share no views with the majority of the population.
I think its interesting that a pattern emerged amongst those who tend to think one way as opposed to another. It's not bad science. It's noticing a pattern. That's all. You could very well be an outlier who doesn't fit their model, but that doesn't mean their study lacks any merit.
You realize all this study is saying is that those who define themselves as liberals/conservative tend to share a similar way of thinking as others who label themselves as liberals/conservatives. At what point does this all of the sudden become A) that surprising, and B) that upsetting?
If liberals are able to process "new religious ideas" so much easier, how come they hate Christians so much?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In the late 1800's and early 1900's, the free-market economies of the West showed an alarming tendency to reward people based on their individual merit and notbased on who gave birth to them. People from the lower classes and non-European races kept bubbling up the economic and social ladder in historically unprecedented numbers. Something had to be done. Fortunately, people claiming to be scientist rode to the rescue. They claimed to demonstrate that certain groups of people inherently lacked the mental faculties to function as free citizens. As such, restrictions on their political and economic freedoms were perfectly justified. Today, we see that the free-market of ideas has not rewarded a certain segment of the political spectrum in the manner it once did. The masses no longer kowtow to a intellectual elite as they did in the mid-20th century. Something had to be done. Now we see a large number of supposed scientist. linguist, political scientist and journalist producing works that explain that that modern Leftist fail in the political marketplace not because their archaic ideas no longer work but rather because the rest of the population is so stupid and easily led. The point of these works isn't to understand how people think but rather to reinforce the belief in intellectual superiority on which modern Leftism rest. I predict they will end up on the ash heap of embarrassments to science just as the works of the previous century's bigots did.
Liberals would be more likely to something when they see a W.
Don't be inane.
What is this "Brain" you speak of?
> Iran never attacked US sovereign territory.
Embassys are soverign territory of the guest country. This is an ancient and accepted rule of International Law. By attacking our embassy and seizing our nationals from said US territory, Iran did indeed commit an overt act of war. Had we been inclined we could have declared a formal state of War over the incident and been 100% compliant with all International Law and the UN would have had to just sit on the sidelines.
Personally, considering the chaos in Iran at the time I'd have cut them a small amount of slack. But once a new government was in place I'd have laid down the law, as in "Ok Khomanani[sp?] you say you are now in charge, so be it. Return our people or I swear to my God I'll have your head on a pointy stick. and your Allah won't be able to save you from my wrath."
Democrat delenda est
In the short term, in America, "right-wing" and "conservative" overlap.
In general, conservatism is an attempt to preserve existing state, liberalism an attempt to change it, or at least an openness to change. That people who are open to change are open to change is not a surprising result.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
What they fail to conclude is that conservatives have made a clear distinction between right and wrong before the time of conflict. This minimizes the time spent on the conflict and ensures sound judgment when conflict arises. Liberals live in a gray land that has not clear distinctions of right and wrong and therefor must waffle around with the decision when they should have already made it. It seems to me that the conservatives are far more efficient in conflict than liberals who can't make simple decisions.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Wow...
Thus, the experimental universe was most likely to include moderately bright conservatives and brighter liberals. Had they instead chosen college-age people who were not in college, the experimental universe would probably have included conservatives of mediocre intelligence and liberals who were stupider. I think that in that case, the results would have been reversed.
Nonetheless, the results of the study were so strong that there does seem to be something meaningful happening. A better designed test with many more subjects and more dimensions of political beliefs would be enlightening. A downside of better knowledge in this area would be helping lying politicians to better fine-tune their messages.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So in other words, Conservatives are more conservative in their thinking and Liberals think more liberally?
Okay, so let me get this straight:
Liberals tend to consider new ideas as they're presented, changing their reactions based on new information, whereas conservatives are more likely to do what they've done before because it worked then, so it should work now?
So the Liberals are more 'liberal' in their views, whereas Conservatives tend to act more 'conservatively' based on past experience?
I'm shocked, just shocked.
The reason Bush can stick to his positions so easily is that his positions amount to a pack of carefully packaged lies.
Take the Bush tax cuts for example. He wanted the tax cuts, and he wanted them slanted to favor the very rich. We know that much, if only because that's exactly what he got. But his position (lie) was (depending on the day):
. We're running huge surpluses far into the future. In that light, it's immoral to collect so much in taxes.
. We're in a recession, only tax cuts for will save the economy. (and only the *same* tax cuts for the rich that happen to be the least efficient at fighting a recession)
. I'm giving a few hundred dollars in cuts to lots of middle class families, so most of my tax cuts go to middle class families. (even though in total dollars most of the money goes to the top few percent by a huge margin)
. Taxes on dividends amount to immoral double-taxation (even though Corporations take enough deductions to never pay taxes on the money).
. Repealing the inheritance tax will save family farms that would otherwise be lost.
On any given day, Bush's position was for tax cuts. But his rationale was all over the map. Likewise, his rationale for invading Iraq was all over the map (i.e. he was lying). The only difference is the *real* rationale isn't quite (oil?) as obvious (oil?) when it comes to (oil?) Iraq.
I was listening to Bill Kristol the other day explaining how invading Iraq was *still* the right thing to do, because the sanctions were going to come off. What the interviewer neglected to ask him was "who was pushing for the sanctions to come off and why"? I never heard anybody publicly call for that, but I'll bet some big Oil patch donors wanted it. So what Bill really meant was Republican beneficiaries of Oil interests were unable to resist their benefactors' requests to remove the sanctions, so we needed to go to war to destroy the regime so it was safe to remove the sanctions.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Personally I think it is better to learn to be open than closed.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
We have a proverb around here (translated) "you can become wise, but your only certainty is that you are getting old". Most people don't want to devaluate the value of experience, but getting OLD does not mean you are more WISE or more EXPERIENCED, and it is proved that your cognitive function deteriorate with age.
Most people when they get older , only get older and don't really learn from life, just as they did not learn from their youth when they got adult, or did not learn from their peer as adult. Furthermore there are exception : I knew a few people which were wiser than most old people when they were young/adult.
In my own experience, most old person don't become "wise" it is more than they don#t care anymore.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
... is that liberals are far more suited to assembly line work.
in a series of repetitive tasks, ie identifying a letter, the liberals were more likely to spot a change in the stimulus than a conservative.
I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that thing Don Rumsfeld is the devil himself...or at least he was until he left. But what they couldn't tell me....none of them, in fact, was what he did _wrong_. There was nothing, in fact: just the media trying it's best to demonify each and every thing the Bush Adminsitration did. I got "He's not one of us" and "He's not American" and "I forgot", but clearly this was nothing more than programming.
Carl Rove: same thing. Tom DeLay, same thing. In fact almost each and every person, drawn to such passion as if to spit on me, just because I asked the question, couldn't respond with an answer.
Guys, they're selling it as "First Amemendment Radio" and "The Truth" and all that, but there are some things you need to know.
1. There are no "Neo-Cons". There is, and has always been only one kind of Conservative. Use of the word helps me spot 'bots' every time.
2. The Gulf War was shut down by the UN, who called George Senior, and was told "You're angering the Arab street" by killing their entire army in the pass....so Senior told Schwartzkopf to end the fighting....and that's where it lay, all the way through the Clinton Administration, with a cease-fire. However, Saddam fired 492 SAM missiles at our aircraft, any one of which could have restarted the war, but Clinton was a very 'don't rock the boat' kind of administration.
3. Yes, Oil was a big part of the war. But face it: without oil, we'd all live on farms. Because of oil, we get to live other lives, and the oil brings the food to us in various forms. Do you know how we stopped Hitler's armies? Not by hitting the factories, but by stopping the flow of oil to the Panzers. It will stop all of us, too, if it stops. There's nothing wrong with this. (Other than we're so dependent on it.)
4. Oil profits was not what the war was about; oil was cheaper when we didn't have to fight for it. Had we been 'French' about Saddam's rage against the common man, the mutilation and us looking the other way, fuel would have been cheaper. But stopping the man that could stop the flow of oil at competitive rates- that had to happen.
5. We didn't just go to war; our men sat in tanks that were 130 degrees out in the sun for EIGHT MONTHS getting 'permission' to go to war. And Senator Rockefellor went out to the Middle East, talking to, of all people, Saddam Hussien, saying "He's going to war; we're not gonna be able to stop him!" So what's so freakin' hard to understand that Saddam moved his NBC materials to Syria, where he sent his Foxbats, hoping to outlast the war? How is that so hard to believe, and instead we should think it was merely a lie? It wasn't a lie when Kerry, Hillary, Bill, dozens of other senators all said the same words, leading up to the attack on Saddam that never came....
6. No, not an inside job. You just can get 30-40 people to open holes in concrete, wrap retaining wires around structural parts of the building, planting dynamite, and have business go on inside, completely unaware. It would take weeks. To think this possible is just insane.
The power of this programming is so powerful that Sean Penn took himself all the way to Iraq and stand in front of weapons stashes, not school kids, to be a human shield. (He came home with his tail between his legs when he learned the truth...) And Rosie O'Donnell has screamed, "It's an inside job: fire doesn't melt steel!"
(But...is there anything *else* that melts steel?)
My point in this is that despite the Democratic National Committee and George Soros, they're trying to split us apart again. On 9/11 we were unified. But the DNC doesn't need us all being happy Americans- it needs Democratic voters. So, Bush became the terrorist, Saddam wasn't such a bad guy, and calling things a "failed policy" (while we've paid off most of the war debt AND cut the defecit by 50% at the same time) doesn't make it 'failed'. We're winning. And the Democrats had nothing to do with it, but get in the way.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
A lot of new ideas are just plain wrong. Accepting every new idea that comes along just because it's new throws out knowledge and wisdom that has properly withstood the test of time. I'd rather stick with what works, than fall for every new scam that comes along.
Keep an open mind, and a lot of garbage will be thrown into it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The liberal mind is the warped and distorted mind that thinks a trans-sexual bum and an iranian terrorist are just "alternative lifestyles" never to be judged and certainly no less valid than any other.
Liberalism is a mental disorder, and slashdot proves it by going to any length of promoting liberalism as a theme of the site. This is not a tech site, this is a liberal site where liberals can feel "safe" because ideas that don't agree with the majority are removed from the field of vision.
Tapping a W when supposed to be tapping a M makes you "dumb?" What a fucking joke. If you ask me, anyone who can see how a W could be an M (but upside down) is MORE open minded, MORE creative. Someone capable of seeing both sides of an issue.
And this is a joke to "liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas."
Come visit the San Francisco Bay Area. The liberals here just as intolerant and just has condeming as an conservative. Liberals here hate religion, refuse to accept science that conflicts with their beliefs, and refuse to accept that some lifestyles are OK even if they are undesirable.
Its more of a matter of who is the dominant group. Dominance demands conformity.
*
btw I am not a Republican if you were jumping to conclusions.
Scientists from NYU and UCLA have developed a new kind of science, where the conclusion comes first, then the research comes 2nd. When asked 'What if your conclusion is wrong?' they responded. We cannot be wrong, we are scientists!
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
I've wondered about the same issue, but I think it's a question of misidentification more than anything else. If you look at "Progressive" blogs - DailyKos, MyLeftWing, etc. - you'll find a significant portion of the posters who are quite happy to bash Christianity and Judaism while turning a blind eye towards Islamic fundamentalism.
I wouldn't say that those self-declared "Progressives" are actually "Liberals" - they remind me of the folks in the 1950's who would argue that Stalin was a great man. All purpose-activists who don't recognize their own hypocrisy.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
When it came to WWII, we really solved a problem we had created. If the US and the UK had been willing to back France and put real teeth in the Treaty of Versailles, a second world war wouldn't have happened in Europe. Instead, we let the Weimar politicians (and later Hitler) get away with bucking the treaty in both letter and spirit, the inevitable happened, and France (a victim of two previous wars of German agression in the last hundred years, and the top candidate for "bloody charnel house" in the third) said the equivalent of "Fuck you guys."
I will concede the point regarding Soviet aggression, however. I remember reading that the Soviets were contemplating an invasion of Western Europe as late as 1983, but backing off after the UK's strong showing in the Falklands.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Seems like a recursive self-referential parody - so for these findings to be accurate, the researchers are revealing they are liberals, who can change their minds easily.
No, that's not a laugh track running in the background - it's in your head.
Your assumption of a .712 on some fictional absolute scale having to have the same stances as another who scored .712 is ridiculous.
I didn't say that. I used it as an example of what's wrong with the simplification. It's like using a "strawberry vs chocolate" metric to find out what you like to eat. Politics should be about taking stances on issues. Political marketing is about convincing you that it's all reducible to "us vs them", and that the only thing you should worry about is cheering your team or bashing the opponents.
It's a matter of how many of your views tend to be liberal or conservative. It's not like if you're a little conservative, you're going to have the same stance on a particular conservative issue as someone else who is a little conservative.
So you say there is a full "conservative" view and a full "liberal" view of the world, and that both of us can agree on what an ideal conservative and an ideal liberal would say on any topic?. That's plain wrong. Hard problems do not have unique "left" and "right" viewpoints.
[...] Political leaning is a part of a human behavior. Everyone leans in one way or the other. Why is it so crazy that those who tend to lean towards one direction tend to think a certain way?
Because I think that oversimplifications are dangerous; and I do not think that the paper supports this particular generalization. I also think that "liberal" and "conservative" are moving targets, and to that extent are more like marketing brands than real products.
[...] On an off-topic note, more than two parties is dangerous because you run the risk of the majority of people not voting for the winner. If you have candidates x, y, & z where y & z share a lot of similar views except one, you can get a situation where 3/5 of the population are split amongst those two. Now, 2/5 of the votes went to x, which 3/5(obviously) of the population did not vote for, but even so, he got more votes than the other two (the other two both getting 3/10 of the vote, whereas (if you can't do math) he got 4/10). That's why more than two political parties is illogical. You can get a winner who can possibly share no views with the majority of the population.
You are describing a "winner takes all" approach. AFAIK, that's very rare. In my country, x&y would have to join forces, or x&z or y&z. Government requires 50% +1 support to be elected. If no agreement is reached, voting is repeated. There's a whole theory on voting out there, and it *is* possible to get multi-party democracies off the ground. In fact, most of the democracies of the world work that way (at least nominally; many are de-facto 2-party systems). Start by checking wipedia.
The bad part about only 2 parties is that you either vote for one, for another, or abstain. You always end up voting "lesser evils", and the system lives on. If there were credible contenders, with which alliances could be formed, you could vote for co-alligned "y" and thus transmit a message to "x" that yes, you are mostly co-aligned, but somehow pissed at them. If there's only "x" and "z", you'd have to either abstain or vote "z". Abstaining and voting blank (marginally better) are too similar, since there are too many ways to interpret what your goal was when doing so. Two-party systems also promote finding where the "middle ground" is and appealing to it (since that is what decides an election if you manage to get everybody nicely layed out in a 1-d spectrum). That gives you reactive, poll-driven politicians which have no real opinions, instead of active politicians who can stand for the ideas you voted them for.
[...]You realize all this study is saying is that those who define themselves as liberals/conservative tend to share a similar way of thinking as others who label themselves as liberals/conserva
Just a quick note, but we're not _all_ assholes. At least not to the degree you've seen.
Sorry about the crap you've had to endure.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
More recently our butchers have been capitalists- No one called Saddam or Milosevic socialists, and the brutal genocides in Africa weren't done by socialists either. History is filled with butchers, killing people for political ideas, religious ideas, race, and profit. Sure, the Chinese are still killing dissenters, but they've pretty much gone capitalist now, and aren't butchering people by the millions, just thousands. The problem is with Totalitarian systems, not which type of system (Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchies, Communism, etc.) is being totalitarian. Even a democratic capitalist state could become a tyranny of the majority without protection for the rights of the minority. (If you don't believe me, check out the history of slavery in the U.S.) On the other hand, a democratic socialist state could be a decent place to live, as evidenced by the many European countries that are pretty socialist at this point.
People like George Orwell (who hated Stalin, Mao, and all the totalitarian madmen who controlled Communist States) still described themselves as socialists, specifically as democratic socialists. Plenty of Democrats in our modern age are socialist (or close enough). Certainly our current economic system is a mix of socialist and capitalist ideas, with plenty of government interference in the economy. Now, I personally think that less government interference is in my best interests, and the best interests of the country as a whole, but that doesn't mean the socialists don't have a few good points and ideas somewhere in their philosophy.
All I'm trying to say is that placing all socialists in the same category of butchers as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao is like saying all atheists are butchers, or all males are butchers. The problem isn't socialists, the problem is people who have the power to kill off everyone they find inconvenient.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
A good point I saw elsewhere about this article: Liberals are more likely to be women than conservatives are. Thus, a simple liberal/conservative split would probably introduce a sexual bias into the measurements, and there are major differences between how men and women process information. Was this test controlled for gender?
There are racial and social class drivers of political ideology as well... there's a number of potential problems with this test.
However as a non American I must ask what did you think of the treatment of the French. Who disagreed with US policy and have the American media and public ridicule them as a country of cowards and idiots.
:-)
:) ) I found this behavior fairly appalling.
Let me begin with it is really the French government and elites that many Americans have problems with, as is the case with many of those who have problems with the US. It is not simply the disagreement over Iraq. It is a persistent notion among French elites that it is France's role to oppose the US, as publicly admitted by the previous administration. While Americans understand France's desire to regain a position of respect and leadership in the world community, many find this particular strategy to be rather insulting given the American blood shed for France, twice. Competing on superior ideas would be one thing, riding anti-American sentiment is another. Given the results of the French presidential elections it seems that the French people were not too fond of anti-American elitists either.
The French government also lost moral credibility to Americans by continuing to arm Iraq after their use chemical weapons on civilians. The previous French government seemed to be "in bed" with Saddam. France's willingness to use lethal military force against Greenpeace - killing one member, but not Saddam, is the sort of hypocrisy many American's expect.
"The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Operation Satanic[1], was a special operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE), carried out on July 10, 1985. It aimed to sink the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior, while she was docked in the port of Auckland, New Zealand, to prevent her from interfering in a nuclear test in Moruroa.
Fernando Pereira, a photographer, drowned on the sinking ship. Two of the French agents were subsequently arrested by the New Zealand Police on passport fraud and immigration charges. Following questioning, they were subsequently charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As part of a plea bargain, they eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years, just over two of which they served.
The ensuing scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu, and the subject became so touchy that it was not until twenty years afterward that the personal responsibility of French President François Mitterrand was officially admitted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/rainbow-warrior-bombing/spy-story
IIRC, France requested that their agents be allowed to complete their 10 year prison sentences in French territory. France violated the agreement and freed them soon after arrival.
Even tho I dont like the French(Ive had to work with them
I've worked with the French for many years. While Parisians have a certain reputation/stereotype, much like New Yorkers, I've had friendly business relationships with them. I had noticed that those from the country side were more willing to engage in off-time recreational activities. However these activities were predominantly outdoor activities and perhaps it was simply an urbanite thing.
While traveling in Paris, and only being able to speak a few words of French - poorly, I've always been treated very well. This includes fancy restaurants and random bars off the tourist tracks. I don't rule out good luck. However I keep in mind something I heard at a marketing seminar, people are three times more likely to share negative experiences compared to positive experiences.
- Sober or stoned
- Straight or gay
- Just got off a 12 hour shift or a living on a trust fund
- Athletically talented or clumsy as hell
- Man or woman
That they call this 'science' makes me want to quit my job and start selling cars..."Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Assuming both c and l types can make the appropriate decision given enough time, we can then say the only time it really matters is under pressure.
,and only if, you see 'X', and yet, this is the test that c types did worse than l types.
I can not think of a situation that is more black and white than push the button if
Sadly, the real world only gets more complicated than this.
The entire left vs. right spectrum is an oversimplification of political beliefs. Everyone has been led to believe that you either have to be a liberal or conservative. There's a big difference between Bush's neo-conservatism and traditional conservatism. There's also a big difference between the present day liberals, who are a stone's throw away from being socialists, and the classic liberals.
I hate the generalization of all Democrats being Liberals and all Republicans being Conservatives. I am a democrat, I drive a car when I could easily bike to work, waste plenty of electricity, and still believe in personal responsibility (I'm not even going to get into that one). In other words, I'm not a Liberal, please don't call me one.
And thanks for being a biggoted prick and painting with a broad brush. Great job, Mr. Liberal!
I swear, political discussion in the US has degenerated into a bunch of name calling horse shit that has the tone a fans taunting each other at a football game. Blah blah blah, conservatives stupid, blah blah blah, liberals evil, blah blah blah. Fucking political fanbois.
Both conservatives and liberals suffer from "If everyone just" disorder. (IEJD)
.. "if everyone just did this or if everyone just felt like that then the world would be a perfect." Sometimes people go so far as to use force to get people to do what they feel is "right".
For some reason people think
No! This is wrong. Everyone will not just think a certain way, they will not "see the light", they are not you and they will come to their own conclusions about things. I know this because I don't have this disorder.. I'm a Libertarian.
"What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven."
~Friedrich Holderlin
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Also, your definition of "liberal" and mine are bound to be quite different; I happen to think it is a gross oversimplification, which fits nicely into a two-party system where many end up thinking there's only two possible stances on each subject (and furthermore, that the one espoused by their "team" is the right one). I think it is obvious that it would be more accurate to quiz people for key issues where "left" and "right" differ, and see where they actually end up when you map the answers to the scale. Or even better, try to correlate with particular stances on particular issues. Asking "conservative or liberal" when neither is clearly defined is, IMHO, flawed.
Kerry wasn't being a politician, he was being a pollitician. (as in poll) Change your day to day behavior to capture the most votes. He technique seems useless, seeing as he was not to be able to create a land slide victory over an ape like GW Bush, how sad for him.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What I think is ironic about the entirety of this whole topic is the fact that one of the most critically liberal institutes in the US did the study, and then analyzed the data to reflect their own liberal dominance. But that isn't uncommon, if a liberal FEELS the world is flat, ITS FLAT. Liberals are morons, a complete zoid of logic.
The only mistake made was that they used the wrong titles. It should say, "Those Who Think They're Liberal" and "Those Who Think They're Conservative." That would fix most of the problems that you find in this study. The other problems would be fixed if you just didn't take the media's word on a study and interpreted the results yourself. The study boiled down to "People who chose A over B tend to think in format X. People who chose B over A tend to think in format Z." There's nothing wrong with a study like that.
This is just a study that found a pattern correlating the way certain people behave and think. The pattern may be part of some much more complex pattern and this is an extremely simple view, but its a pattern nonetheless. I'm sure there are error margins and everything. I'm sure not every liberal fit their model and not every conservative fit their model.
Having a problem with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
So if we know what the difference is between liberals and conservatives...
Does that mean we can finally fix the conservatives?
This is far from a test of intelligence people need to stop reading that into it. "They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W." So extreme liberals follow orders and are more naive than extreme conservatives. Extreme conservatives are more stubborn and traditional extreme liberals. Remember they are not testing moderates or even libertarian groups here, these are more dyed in the wool straight ticket people. The people who are interpreting only one side of this study are really showing their own level of intelligence.
Furthermore this study tell us nothing we didn't already know and works more at polarizing this country more than it does bringing any common sense to the world. Your tax dollars at work.
Read through all the user comments on the article... The vast majority of them are COCKSURE. It's a human tendency that we should try to overcome. Conservatives tend to exhibit this headlong stubbornness more so than liberals. But, it exists in all of us. "Don't let overconfidence consume THEE!" (+10 pts to whomever remembers what old Mac video game that quote is from) Quick thinking is rarely a sign of wisdom. I think wisdom and critical thinking are best measured by a person's ability to put on the brakes when they think they have formed a conclusion and continuously go back up their decision-tree to revisit assumptions. And, put their ego aside. No one likes to be wrong... just watch how angry I get when someone trolls this post.
So they've "proven" higher cognitive function based on hitting keys on a keyboard? ROFL. That an overreaching generalization if I've ever seen one.
Could this difference be indicative of a human species difference (or more SciFic Physics/Reality)?
... I am better, I am christian ... my god is good ...). Central HSS personality characteristic is adelophobic (an irrational fear of the unknown). HSS requires exclusive mythology/dogma self-perception and self-centric reality/world definition for marginally sane (truth+lies) functionality, and there cannot be doubt/question. Favoring traditional views and values fixated with preventing change that would potentially introduce possibly uncontrollable unknowns. This may apply to many politicians today, but I would not consider a "Conservative" as HSS unless they are dogma fixated for mental and emotional stability, which is proof of their psychological disability. [Binary: 1-0, on-off, yes-no ...]
... It can or It cain't). Only real (no myth) repeatable results dispel dogma, dread, doubt and have value to life, purpose, and survival. Favoring traditional views and values (art, philosophy, myth/religion ...) by respecting and preserving culturally significant icons/objects for meaningful social functions and posterity inheritances. All unknowns are personal and community adventures for HSP endeavors seeking improvement. This may apply to far to few politicians today, but I would not consider a "Liberal" as HSP unless their mental and emotional stability are fixated on discovering the unknown, which is proof of their psychological ability to use change (the real fact of life) as a tool for enhancing the complete human-family/species condition. [Imaginary: -1sqrt-isqr, APES-Virtual, no-maybe-yes ...]
HomoSapien-Neanderthal (HSN): I never knew a HSN and cannot provide comment except to say that extinction implies something very obvious.
HomoSapien-Sapient (HSS): Limitless hindsight learning capability with strong conformist functionality. HSS is best at good social survival skills, and focusing on prevailing mythology spin/revisionist justification/validation (I am rich
HomoSapien-Prescient(HSP): Limited foresight and insight learning capability with strong iconoclast functionality. HSP is curious, and best at provoking questions/proposals for change/reform, open/tolerant to change/progress, and focusing on replicating and predicting real provable results (I is or I ain't
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W"
seeing as how we didn't vote for him either time, I would tend to agree.
(ba da bump)
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
We don't. But its good for a politician to point to us and say that we hate you. It divides us and that makes us more controllable. Liberal politicians do the same to you guys.
actually, the tfa says nothing like that. It says liberals tolerate ambiguity better, and conservatives think in a more structured manner. Which is better (if at all) would depend on the situation.
I'm rather surprised that they didn't report what major the subjects were (it seems they were all UCLA/NYU college students). Various studies and common knowledge have shown that people in engineering and the hard sciences tend to be more conservative/libertarian than people in arts, social sciences, and the humanities. Of course, people in engineering/science also tend to think in a more structured manner, and I wouldn't be surprised if all the "conservatives" they had happened to be in the sciences.
Science/engineering aptitude might be an even better explanatory factor for their results than political perspective.
This is just bad science again. The major difference between an M and a W is that one has been spun around 180 degrees. They are the same symbol. This became an issue for me over the past year, as my 3 year old started reading. He would confuse "b", "d", "p", and "q". He would also confuse "6" and "9". Why? because he would look at the symbol and recognize it, irrelevant of it's orientation. This also means he can read a book whether it is upside down, sideways, or right side up. It also means that he is very good at puzzles. When he sees a puzzle piece, he sees it as it's shape. Not it's orientation.
Clear thinking is as much about disregarding the irrelevant, as it is about recognizing the relevant. Just play the "Why" game with a small child to find out why in the end you must disregard irrelevant information. The fact that conservatives pressed the button on W more often doesn't tell us anything useful. I can think of several reasons this could happen just off the top of:
*Conservatives recognize that M and W are the same shape, while the liberals don't.
*Conservatives act more out of habit than liberals.
*Conservatives have faster reaction times, so they are pressing the button before anyone can recognize the symbol
*Conservatives are slower to recognize the orientation of the symbol so they guess at the button in the amount of time the liberal recognizes it
*etc, etc, etc...
It is just as likely that liberals are easier to confuse and disorient. Thus, they used the confusion as an internal trigger to indicate when to press the button when the orientation changes, as it is that the conservatives couldn't tell the difference. If that is the case, it is actually the "liberals" that have the more rigid thinking, and inability to accept new ideas.
Of course, since that wouldn't fit with the "researchers" biases, it is not likely to be the explanation they use in their paper.
Lets not forget that peoples political affiliation is often influenced by community, and thus geography. This could also explain a difference in reaction time. Are people raised in a rural area more likely to be conservative, AND dismiss orientation than people raised in a large metropolitan area?
Excessive Liberalism is a disease of the mind. In any case there is no excuse for anyone not being able to assimilate new ideas unless they too are sick in the head. Unfortunatly we as a species were reliant for a long time on latching to certain ideas that allowed us to function efficiently. All of this was based on limited knowledge, we all act and think on limited knowledge however and must realize this and always look for for new information to change our ideas and opinions no matter how conlficting they are with our current views. The internet has helped me in this respect as my views are now shifting like an gelatenous entity not from lack of knowledge and fear but from being exposed to other smart people and new facts on a constatn basis. I'm conservative but only after drifting into the sickness of unconditional liberalism which is just as dogmatic and destructive as an ignorant conservative.
I find (via personal unscientific observation) that the whole liberal/conservative thing more often than not falls along the lines of what is best for the given person, or at least what they perceive is the best for them. If they believe that they have less than most people, they tend to be liberal, if they believe they have more, they tend to be conservative. More or less they tend to accept the philosophy that they believe would be likely to get them more personally. After all, if you really have and make much less than most people, then a more socialist system, which is associated with a liberal stance at least in the US, would be likely to get you more. More even distribution of wealth, which you'd be on the receiving end of. Likewise if you have and especially if you make a lot then a more free market system would let you keep more of that, and thus have more.
I think you are right that this is the fundamental reason behind the age divide. The older you are in general the more you are likely to have.
I really think this accounts for at least the economic part of ideology more often than people want to admit. They haven't thought through what they really think would work the best overall, in part because it is an exceedingly complex issue. Rather they take their personal situation and want to make it better, and as such project it to society at large and base their stance on that. It is more about greed than a genuinely well thought out belief in how to make things work better.
Often people argue that isn't true that a conservative (meaning in this case free market) view is greedy and a liberal (socialist) one is altruistic. However that is too simplistic. A "You keeps what's yours and only get what you earn," view is greedy coming from a billionaire, but not coming from someone earning minimum wage at McDonalds. When you have little saying "I may not have much, but I have what I've earned and that's all I'm due," is quite unselfish. In that situation it is actually greedy to say that things should be more evenly distributed so that you get more. Not wrong necessairily, just greedy. You want a system that will give you more, that is self serving.
I really think that political stance on economics very often simply comes down to what a person believes will help themselves the most.
I don't mean to troll here, but what exactly was the point of linking to the Wikipedia article about England? I didn't see the word "maths" anywhere on that page. So again, I'm just wondering how exactly that supports your argument. Is it common knowledge in England that people in England use the word? I've never heard anyone say "maths" nor had I seen anyone write it before I started reading /.
/. I never realized how much people enjoyed over using the phrase "order of magnitude". Now I read that phrase so often that I can't help but suspect this is all the work of Dr. Klahn and his fighting force of "extraordinary magnitude".
Then again, before I started reading
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
...asking Philip Morris to do a study on the health effects of smoking.
Seriously, there is a major academic freedom crisis on campuses across the country. If you aren't a 100% Marxist, they laugh at you, ruin you, humiliate you, and censor your work. I've been there. I know.
Yes, there are plenty of sheepish conservatives. There are plenty of sheepish liberals, too. Remember the MTV sheep and "B.J." Clinton in the 1990s? I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives who feel that wars for spreading democracy are justified. Despite the fact the Bush and his cronies are the furthest thing from "conservative" since FDR.
Personally, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, meaning that I want to hold the government accountable by allowing multiple competing governments. I'm conservative in that I favor smaller government and traditional Judeo-Christian values, yet I am liberal in that I favor radical political change and allowing people to make their own decisions about their lives and their values. Am I a sheep, or am I open to new ideas? Or am I just my own person?
Just my two cents.
Could this explain some of the so-called "media bias" - that the media leans left because the majority of successful media personnel must readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas?
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
someone should moderate the f articles these dayz ...
Are you saying that intelligent people are naturally luckier than stupid people? That they have fewer morals (I guess this could be argued about both sides by the other side)? That more intelligent people are born rich? This can't be true. Luck is, well, not definable. And even if more children who are born to rich families that are intelligent as opposed to rich stupid families, that doesn't necessarily mean that their children will be intelligent.
In America, at least, people make their own luck for the most part, and virtually anyone can become successful if they work hard enough and make intelligent decisions. I know plenty of people who make more than they should if income equaled intelligence (me included). Conversely, plenty of my friends are extremely intelligent and choose to be teachers or nurses or in one case a construction worker because it makes them happy. I have no doubt that if the latter group wanted to be more financially successful, they could be. Being rich has very little to do with luck, being born "privileged", or having fewer morals. Intelligence and hard work are certainly much bigger factors.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
Perhaps conservatives dislike "ambiguity" because they desire logical rigor. Maybe conservative brains are wired to prefer consistency, while liberal brains "tolerate" contradictions and absurdities. Maybe.
Society is nothing but collaboration.
Conservatives who favor abortion are a lot like liberals who favor low taxes because they're all libertarian. Glad this guy knows what hes talking about...
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
First thing I said when I read the story summary was "kdawson must have posted this"
It's scary when I'm right.
(You can mark this as off-topic all you'd like. I'll still say this site is no place for this kind of political BS.)
It's Political Science!
This is all in spite of what science understands about Earths Geologic History but because Conservatives are less likely to espouse the Global Warming "truth" if not outright deny its existence, Liberals must take the opposite position even if it is contradictory to scientific truths...
1) the earth has been warmer before, much warmer
2) there have been increased CO2 levels in earth history during both hot and cold cycles
What does this have to do with this topic, everything, and it is the perfect example of Science in the hands of Liberalism and Liberals!
They have crowned their King, AL Gore without merit and here in this "experiment" they have proven how scientifically capable they really are and its no wonder the US lags behind academically.
Academia or rather its socio-political biases our the Achilles Heel of their scientific method and how could you expect these institutions of "higher learning" to produce anything beyond robots parroting bad science.
The sophistry at work here is of a scale unimaginable and its audience is being led to the slaughter and these "children" they are indoctrinating will find themselves in a world where they can't compete and this "experiment" and its "science" highlights exactly why.
But the best example for the here and now is how here on Gashdot you have many who have even considered this as being worth discussing and have posted so called "meaningful" hypothesis of their own to substantiate the claims made.
Its no wonder, you are the children of these same institutions and are now fullfilling your pre-programmed destiny of mundane and mediocre science, thats why your posting her in regard to this you dopes!
get back to work
Two sides of the same corrupt political machine that WILL NOT allow the existence of a viable third party!
Outside of third world banana republics and Communist dictatorships this kind of political repression and manipulation is unknown.
Vote for a THIRD party! Not the incestuous and utterly ridiculous "Two Party System" that only fools the elderly (80+) and the worlds stupidest electorate!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
He should have linked to this
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
As evidenced by a Google search of UK academic sites:
"math" site:.ac.uk vs "maths" site:.ac.uk.
Note how many site names are www.maths.___.ac.uk.
Comparing US edu sites:
"math" site:.edu vs "maths" site:.edu
Most are www.math._____.edu.
I have a difficult time believing that this comment was labeled "insightful."
Traditionally, conservatives are considered resistant to change and interested in maintaining the status quo. This notion is in league with the ideologies of most old (or older) individuals: it isn't a lack of "cognitive function" as much as it is the desire to maintain things as they were.
Besides, one needs to be very careful regarding studies that suggest one particular subset of the population is inferior in contrast to another. Remember what happened during the 1930s and 1940s... Jews were touted as inferior. Subscribing to the notion that those whose inherent ideologies--perhaps even their philosophical world view, interests, and so forth--are different from your own is dangerous.
He who has no
You might be right...
I mean, they didn't even have the announcement of new iPods until it was all over the web. I think Slashdot was almost the last site I read to post about it.
What a reversal...
The truth is, if this is the trend than Slashdot will lose readers & advertisers. Some other site will be founded to take it's place.
I am reminded of all the Nazi science proving the superiority of the German races and the sickly and inferior nature of the Jew.
Modern liberal colleges have become havens of left-wing hate speech (much of it against Jews!), and institutions that censor free thought with onerous speech codes, and whose open minded liberal student bodies protest and shout down any conservative visiting speakers while lauding every left-wing lunatic.
One of studies like this are not to be trusted -- the devil is in the details, which are actually rather lacking. The report of the results shows clear bias against conservative ideas. So -- how can we trust it? How much longer before this kind of crap science is used against those who will not conform to the prevailing Zeitgeist? Re-education camps anyone? Force sterilization? Refusal of life-extension tech?
Think carefully before you dismiss me as a nut case.
I think that ability to not have a knee-jerk reaction has very little to do with how one handles conflict. It has nothing to do with the fairness, perception, or authority required for conflict management. I've heard some liberals blame a teen's bad behavior, for example, on everything from school to movies to games to social pressure but never ever their absentee parenting and wishy washy ways.
It also does not imply mental flexibility regarding social situations. I know many liberals who instantly knee-jerk any group who was "oppressed" as "equals/superiors/deserves special treatment" even if the group is perpetrating heinous crimes. They also knee-jerk "unhealthy activity" or "possible risk" with "the government should ban that" for everything from video games to guns to carbs to SUVs to books where a nuclear family is represented to nuclear power (word reminded me of it).
And also it's retarded considering that they say where the studies came from. Surely there's NO liberal bias when they obviously span the whole country.
And college students- that's really a fantastic study group. Seriously.
Thanks for clarifying that you're pandering to provincialism. IMHO, that's just as bad as the douchebag who "corrected" you for using "maths" instead of "math."
Just because England is where the language originated doesn't make your particular dialect any more "correct" than any other dialect. English is a family of languages. I shouldn't need to point out that American English is in many ways a version of the language that was frozen in time -- many idioms that died out in the UK persisted in the colonies.
There's actually evidence to suggest that the spelling in England was changed sometime after the Mayflower set sail. Quite a long time, actually; please see this article, which states:So "maths" is a neologism here, and "math" is the older form.
This isn't much different from the history of the spelling (and pronunciation) of "aluminum" vs. "aluminium" -- Sir Humphry Davy settled on "aluminum" in 1812, and an anonymous contributor to a British journal objected to this because (paraphrasing) it didn't sound right. We actually used "aluminium" in America for quite some time, until the early 20th century. Kind of odd how we reverted to Davy's choice of spelling while the British insisted on keeping that extra syllable.
I guess I must be a hippy-dippy liberal, because it's times like these I just want to say, "Can't we all just get along?"
In case you didn't notice the line: THE CONSERVATIVES MADE MORE MISTAKES! The conservatives WERE WRONG! There's no two ways about this: the LIBERALS RESPONDED TO THE TASK AT HAND **CORRECTLY** WHILE THE CONSERVATIVES FAILED! Nobody is 'susceptible' to liberalism because of age -- and you're only susceptible to conservatism IF YOUR BRAIN STOPS BEING ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE REALITIES IT IS PRESENTED WITH FOR WHAT THEY ARE and / or YOU BEING TO RESPOND INCORRECTLY. (Now, conservative and liberal are in need of defining in any discussion of the two. But, in general, we know what we're talking about here, and given those common-understanding definitions, what I wrote is true. And now we have the science to back it up. Bush is an idiot monkey sitting there banging on a keyboard while he's looking at a losing war, even though he was instructors [logic] to take a new tact. This is because, just like the subjects in the study, the Conservatives are UNABLE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS AND RESPOND ACCORDING TO THEM.)
"90% of psychological research is done with college students."
Source this please, because I know it's false and I'd like to watch you attempt it. ( you won't, you'll pretend you didn't see my post and avoid sourcing anything)
+5 insightful for a made up statistic...
No, that wasn't Churchill.
Churchill was a conservative when he was younger, and a liberal when he was older. Why would he call himself brainless and heartless?
I don't even have to read TFA to know it is flawed. A Republican and a Democrat are not the automatic equivalent of "Conservative" or "Liberal".
Actually one of the symptoms / characteristics of extremely low IQ (developmental disability) is rigid thinking. Job coaching DD clients is quite challenging, as once they get a concept in their heads it is extremely hard to dislodge, they fixate on it. Much like many conservatives I know. I'm just sayin'.
Actually, math in a non-counting noun; therefore, both "math" and "maths" are correct. It is a matter of preference, or as demonstrated by other replies, cultural arrogance.
Apologies about any racial slander or degration that your family faced in America. This is all linked to the age synopsis of liberal/conservatism. I am 22 and live in SF and I have not experienced racism with my generational peers- but once I talk to selective people in the older generations (people >40), there is multiple uses of slander against Russians, Czechs, Blacks, Mexicans, Hmongs, transgenders, homeless etc. Generation Y&X in America were/are raised to love the differences: my roommate teaches kindergarden in the poorest neighboorhood, and knowlege on different cultures is apart of her MANDATORY cirriculum. Hopefully racism will be wiped away as a family value, and America can open its doors to all immigrants (or maybe that's just the liberal in me talking:)
The majority of us are not racist, everyone just tends to remember the rare evil remarks from strangers.
Granted, Kerry wasn't the best candidate. By far. But being able to reason out various thoughts and change your decisions if the situation merits it is a sign of intelligence
The same John Kerry who got worse grades than Bush at Yale? C'mon. Bush ain't no nuculur scientist, but "Kerry" and "intelligence" in the same sentence? Please, Kerry is merely as amoral and narcissistic as Bill Clinton, but with about half the IQ.
So when Kerry - in the same 24-hour period - went to an environmental group and bragged that he didn't own any SUVs (Theresa did, nice obfuscation), then went to a UAW rally and bragged about owning SUVs, that was intelligence? Seems to me it was the opposite of intelligence.
Of course, the greatest flip-flop of them all was starting his political career as an anti-war guy, telling the Senate that US GIs were all baby-killers akin to Ghengis Khan, then having the audacity to actually run on his war record 30 years later ("John Kerry reporting for duty"). And then complaining when the Swift Boat Veterans - still burning from his slander of Vietnam vets - pointed out his shameless political opportunism.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
While the old stereotypes are hard to kill off, country club Republicans vs. Union member Democrats, the shifting economy of the past twenty years and the changing workforce has DRAMATICALLY changed the political orientation. While a few populist Democrats are out there (Edwards comes to mind), if you look at the big leaders, they are the "New Democrats" and they have gotten tremendous support from Wall Street and the people of means. The Republican Party has increasingly become the middle class party, while the Democrats have become the dominant party of the rich and poor, and some of it is self interest.
:)
While the "old money" rich remain the country club Republicans, concerned about preserving their wealth, you see the spoiled children and the reckless hedonism that is only availble to the rich doesn't really jive with the Christian values wing of the GOP. So what explains the divide?
Democrats tend to be better for the stock market. While the media likes to use the Dow (with an easy to understand number) as a barometer of the economy, it isn't. The Dow is 30 stocks, and the broader and more useful S&P 500 is 500 stocks, there are something like 10000 publicly traded securities in the US and many times that in terms of private businesses. The Democrats tend to be pro-safety net, and general pro protections for the "little guy." The net effect of these regulations is to raise barriers to entry of business, even if that isn't intended. Since the S&P 500 is really the performance of the top 500 companies (more or less), it indicated a concentration of wealth more than anything else.
The well to do care more about "the economy" (as in, the stock market) for their wealth increasing than care about their jobs and incomes (and therefore taxes), which pushes them into the Democratic Party camp. The regulations increase the returns to big businesses. For all the whining about Sarbox, the cost of compliance to S&P 500 companies is a rounding error, the cost to smaller companies is massive, which means that fewer small companies go public, which keeps the capital chasing fewer companies and increases the market.
The Republican Party is made up of the self employed and small business owners, who care about taxes and their earnings FAR more than they care about the stock market, and middle-class rural and exurban America. For them taxes are a real burden, and their livelihood, not their investment portfolio, determine their quality of life. The middle-class Republicans see that Democratic plans to "help the poor" tend to help people below them on the social ladder, which creates competition for them and their children, and feel that their taxes go to help others. They feel squeezed, they KNOW that the rich don't care about the tax burden, they figure that they don't pay it, and know that the burden falls on them. On social issues, they see that the left-wing embraces social changes that they don't like, and don't identify with.
The Democratic Party sees a shrinking middle class as a source of panic, despite the fact that long term surveys show that the middle-class is shrinking by the top part moving further up. The stock market, replacing pensions, has meant that anti-corporate rhetoric isn't helpful... The workers aren't slaves to the Kapitalists, the workers now own the means of production, albeit in a diversified way through mutual funds...
As people get older, their potential for future income increases drops... People in their 20s may jump jobs for a 20% raise, but less so in their 30s or 40s, but their 401(k) balances are slowly getting bigger. Once your "earnings on investments" exceed your "contributions" your wealth is determined less on what you do and more on what the market does, which is causing a shift in thoughts.
Bush slashed tax rates by 2%-3% and it was "one of the largest tax cuts ever," but real people who see that their wages normally increase by 1% - 2% a year over inflation suddenly saw a 3%-5% increase in o
dude, was that intentional?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Wasn't it the Dems saying that all of those potential Gore votes were lost due to confusion over the ballot? I didn't hear conservatives making that argument.
I can push buttons way better than my liberal friends in PC games like Unreal Tournament 2004 and Battlefield 2. I am smarter, yay!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
TFA is not about democrats and republicans. That's kdawson's bit.
I read a recent poll which showed that 40% of Repulicans NOW continues to believe that Sadam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack on the USA.
I'm scared pantless that these people will be voing for the next president....
Maybe conservatives actually have balls and brains. We know what we believe and don't have to go with the flow of Edwards hair to make up our beliefs. Liberals are all about feelings and how do you feel right now. This is junk science. Liberals think more? Really well maybe that's because they are too busy smoking the weed and worrying about their hairstyle rather than real life like us conservatives. Bin Laden just released another tape about how the US must convert to Islam and all you Liberals can say is surrender. Wake the hell up!
So a liberally biased newsrag reports on a study in which typing more accurately supposedly equates to a better understanding of the world in general? And this is news? Maybe it just means liberals should all be in the typing pool taking notes for conservatives. Maybe it means the self-described conservatives were more likely to daydream, or to think, "gee, this is a silly little exercise to study". Maybe it means liberals pay more attention to visual differences (maybe even like skin color, height, weight, age, etc).
I'm at a loss to follow how even if they prove that liberalism vs. conservatism is tied to visual acuity and fine motor skills that they go on to tie that to religion, politics, and social beliefs.
Since I heard it on BBC, I've taken to calling it maths as well. Much less clumsy than mathematics.
I love reading different newspapers to see which articles are printed and how they are written. I enjoy reading the LA times daily, but I wonder what this story would look like if it was printed in the Salt Lake Tribune.
I'm just here for the sigs
I think the article makes quite a leap in judgment from the results to the conclusion. An undisclosed number of college students who identify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" (whatever that means) took a hand-eye coordination test and the "liberals" won. ...somehow that means that George Bush is single minded and John Kerry, who had lower college grades than GWB, has a more intelligent and agile mind!? WTF!? I think the real morons are the people are providing the ridiculous analysis.
So, what was the breakout of gamers to non-gamers? Perhaps "conservative" students spend more time on school work while "liberals" spend more time playing games.
I wonder how the results might be different if this study had been done 30 or 40 years ago. Since the early 1980s the Republican party has consistently use cultural hot button issues to recruit "social conservatives" into voting for their candidates.
A typical mayor, governor, representative, or even president has limited (but not zero) ability to influence things like teaching of evolution, abortion, or prayer in schools. They do however have significant practical influence on economic or "pocketbook" issues. For a middle or lower class person to vote for republicans they must ignore their own economic interests and vote for emotional or non-rational issues. Since the republicans have been very successful in exploiting this dynamic in the last 30 years the party has gone from getting votes primarily from the affluent to getting votes from a wide economic cross section of people, but primarily from people who make decisions on a "gut" basis.
I suspect that the critical thinking bias has probably moved from one party to the other in the last 30 years but that the relative willingness to accept social change has been a consistent hallmark of the democrats.
-- QED
Funny that. Most people in South East England call it "maffs." Most people in the UK live in South East England... (or you might think so from the cultural media bias).
Stick Men
So, what the study really proves if you look at what they recorded is that the liberals in the study had to think a lot harder just to press the correct key. While the Conservatives massive brain power was barely taxed.
...
Not only that but pressing the key was seen as so important by the liberals that they blindly dedicated themselves fully to pressing the key with 100% of their puny brain power going to the task of only pressing the key. Without questioning why they were pressing the key to begin with or checking the faulty data that suggested pushing the key in the first place.
While again, the conservatives barely taxed their massive processing centers. While waiting for the Ms and Ws to show up on the screen they were also busily thinking about how they could work harder to pay for all of the liberals wonderful new social programs and why in the world they were wasting time pressing Ms or Ws on a keyboard. All that and only using 10% of their available brain power.
Why is this even news? It certainly doesn't appear to be a strong scientific study. Oh, wait - it's from the liberal press the same people that buy Global Warming hook line and sinker without fact-checked data. Like the fact that many temperature stations across the country are right next to additional heat sources. The article also doesn't mention how many people were in the study or other determining factors of the participants. Where is the control group? The fact that they are liberal or conservative may not even be the correlating factor to the measured brain activity. However, my above analysis, even though I didn't take part in the study is certainly salient. Also how did they determine who was a liberal or conservative for the study? What a joke and in the LA Times none the less.
Liberal: noun: a person so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
A new study says that Liberals are better at trolling while hiding behind psudo-scientific studies! More details are available at the Daily Kos, where you can pat your fellow socialists on the back for their political beliefs and demonize those you disagree with rather than debate them!
Yes, it was.
> You know, that's enough. You can go on and call me racist as much as you want, but, given that 30 million people in the USA are estimated to be here illegally, its pretty reasonable to think that someone who doesn't "look like us" might actually be an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigration dwarfs legal immigration by a fairly wide margin.
It may be "reasonable" to think that, but do you know what it feels like?
Do you know what it feels like to have everybody look down on you, even though you DID follow the rules? Do you know how it makes you feel like there's no point in following the rules if you're going to get punished even if you do follow them?
This is why people get so upset. No one bothers to try and understand. And if you challenge them, no one wants to say they might have been wrong. No, they'll just parrot meaningless slogans at you.
I'm fascinated by the number of posts saying this somehow shows conservatives are 'less smart' then liberals.
"M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter."
Let's take that for example. Now "W" is only shown 20% of the time, that means "M" is shown 80%. With 80% odds, it seems likely that "M" will be the next letter to show up. Maybe a conservative will go from his past experience to try and predict the letter will likely be an "M", thus getting ready to hit the space bar as soon as the letter appears. And maybe the liberal has to sit and analyze the situation every time the letter is displayed, not taking into account the past. Much like they seem to do politically. Who would be less intelligent in this circumstance? I would say neither, because learning from the past AND paying attention to the present are both important. Although using this reasoning I think you could formulate that the liberals are neglecting the past, and therefore are inherently dumber, because everyone can see the difference between a "W" and an "M" even the conservatives, but they are attempting for speed not as much accuracy. I don't believe that myself, but I'm saying that reasoning the other way around is completely possible.
Oh, and just having fun. The conservatives seem to think about the problem less and go with instinct. However, in the majority of the posts I've seen, the liberals are doing the same thing. Simply pointing out that they are intellectually superior without even thinking if this could mean anything else.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
then they should try being a conservative sometime.
Pushing a button when seeing a letter on screen = intelligence. This is what passes for science today? Here is proof of liberals 'intelligence': Throughout history various governments have been involved in the *overwhelming majority* of misery, mass murder and human rights violations. Therefore liberals idea is to entrust EVERYTHING to the government! Brilliant! After all the government is so efficient at everything (schools, DMV, Social Security, Medicare,etc ) why shouldn't we entrust them with our medical care? It makes perfect sense.
Anyone who labels themselves is by definition NOT open-minded, no matter what the label is.
I would have expected hard-core liberals to remove the W key from the keyboard altogether.
Colleges in the UK (outside of oxbridge) tend to be vocational establishments for adult learning. They aren't simply tertiary education organisations. To say one went to college would be inaccurate for the majority.
Deleted
I see this as a fundamentally flawed survey, as it's basically a US thing to have just "liberals" and conservatives. The Nolan political political chart is certainly not definitive, but along one diagonal it ranges from liberal to conservative (liberals on this test score high on personal freedom and low on economic, whilst conservatives score the opposite.) But, along the OTHER diagonal, you have libertarians which support economic AND personal freedoms, going to stateists who want maximum government control (low personal or economic freedoms).
So, having a survey that just asks people if their liberal or conservative is pretty limiting -- I really don't know how I'd answer it since I'm not.
Holy crap what a stupid study.
Liberal parties are called Liberal parties in Commonwealth countries because capitalism was originally a liberal ideology, as opposed to the state-controlled merchantilist economies that preceded it. These were not socialist, but probably what you'd consider even more "capitalist"; government supporting particular large corporations for the purposes of consolidating power in the hands of the ruling elite of the nation in question. Free market capitalism arose as a part of the general liberal movement against government authority; that sort of pro-market attitude which was classically called liberalism is today also known as (surprise) "classical liberalism" or, in the United States, libertarianism. Newer movements have since co-opted the name "liberal" for themselves, despite promoting often illiberal agendas, and labeled the older liberal movement (accurately) "conservative"; though in the US at least, large portions of those classically liberal conservatives have somehow become entangled with the sort of authoritarian conservatives that the original liberalism was rebelling against.
Liberal and Conservative are not antonyms. "Liberal" just means in favor of liberty, and its antonym is "authoritarian". "Conservative" just means in favor of the status quo, and its antonym is "progressive". When liberal democracies first started arising out of the mire of medieval monarchies and aristocracies, the liberals were progressive, because the status quo was highly authoritarian, and so authoritarians were rightly called conservative. Thus the terms "liberal" and "conservative" functioned like antonyms for a time; but only because the liberals happened to be the new guys (the progressives) and the conservatives (the establishment) happened to be authoritarian.
Eventually the progressive liberals mostly won out, but the societies they built still weren't satisfactory for everyone (viz. the pitfalls of so-called "actually existing capitalism", as opposed to the peaceful, voluntarist, competitive free markets that classical liberal authors dreamt of). So new movements, mainly socialism, continued to push for further change, in many ways changing back away from liberal ideals to more authoritarian ones, just intending to use that authority more benevolently. But the terminology didn't keep up with that. The people pushing for more authority (to be used benevolently) still call themselves "liberals". Further confusing the issue is that in addition to the liberals who are now conservative in comparison to socialists, there are still also the old elitist authoritarians who are even more conservative - though I guess a more apt term for them would be "regressive", as they want to change many things back to how they used to be long ago. Still adding further confusion to the issue, in America at least, is that the "progressive" socialists and the "regressive" old conservatives have made enough headway by now that the people who originally called themselves "conservatives" (now more often called "libertarians"), wanting to keep this country liberal as it was founded, are now in many ways progressive, or even regressive; wanting to change things from the now-authoritarian status quo, back to the liberal way things used to be. And all of this hides the issue that both libertarians and authoritarians can be subdivided on the issue of egalitarianism (though the split between the old aristocratic authoritarians and the new socialist authoritarians hints at this).
I find that the simplest way to clear up all the confusion is to stop all the talk about progressive or conservative, as those terms are entirely time-relative and imply different things now than they did a hundred years ago, and have even less in common with what they implied two or three hundred years ago, even though the words literally *mean* the same thing in all those times (i.e. someone who is in fact [not self-labeled] conservative now holds an ideology very different from someone who was in fact conservative 100 years ago, because the status quo now is very
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
First, an unattributed quote... and then, no egregiously bad analogy?
You're letting me down, man. A BadAnalogyGuy post without a bad analogy is like.. a car without one of those little hooky things for attaching car seats! Think of the children!!!!
Dude, hate is their culture. Get rid of the hate, and they'd be empty shells. Which would be an improvement, sure. I'm just saying... kinda a poor culture some folks got in this country.
What's interesting here is both the bashing and aligning that goes with politics and ideology. Ironically, neither "conservative" or "liberal" is really correct or useful on it's own. An ideally suited person would have characteristics of both:
1) On well established and understood principles, they would be conservative
-however
2) They would realize the limits of their own abilities and be open to new ideas discussions about how their established principles and views are incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise require modification.
That's basically how a lot of science works, right? For example, Newtonian laws of physics are reasonably "conservative" and apply quite well in specific (well established) contexts. However, a real scientist has to be open to the ideas of Einstein; otherwise, they are simply limiting their own abilities.
Wouldn't it be better if we could learn the best from each other's ideology instead of creating a divide between the two?
Tellysavalliskojak Johnson, of Bartholomew, Illinois. He was born to a crack whore in a squalid apartment on fourth street. (His sister, Imaginemyjoy, also had no opportunity.)
There. I've named two.
Out of millions.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hey hey, not so fast :-)
Thanks for clarifying that you're pandering to provincialism. IMHO, that's just as bad as the douchebag who "corrected" you for using "maths" instead of "math."
Just because England is where the language originated doesn't make your particular dialect any more "correct" than any other dialect.
By hinting at exactly which meaning of "native English" I was referring to, I was acknowledging that there are actually other meanings of that phrase that are equally valid—I wasn't saying that mine was more correct (and if it came across like that, I apologise!) Mathematics (pl.) originally denoted the mathematical sciences collectively, including geometry, astronomy, optics. Math is the Amer.Eng. shortening, attested from 1890; the British preference, maths is attested from 1911. So "maths" is a neologism here, and "math" is the older form.Who said anything about neologisms? I only said it was an Americanism—that is, a word or phrase commonly used in American English but not other dialects: nothing wrong with that (and after all, there are plenty of Britishisms; I usually discover this when my American friends start looking at me oddly after I've said something!). It's what makes language interesting :-).
(Though I'd dispute that that evidence is conclusive proof that "math" is older than "maths"—only that it survives older in print. It's entirely possible that at that time such shortenings were more acceptable in American publications than British ones—that sort of thing seems to come in and out of fashion periodically...)
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
Given a post both accusatory and pedantic, I feel you are neither "hippy-dippy", nor geniunely desire to "just get along"!
That's exactly what I was arguing. A good comparison is to the way many Brits hate how their government has been caving to the US government's demands, but that doesn't mean they hate Americans.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There are many kinds of math, hence maths. The field is known as "mathematics," not "mathematic." Growing up in the U.S., as a person who enjoys math (what I call it), I noticed a strong aversion to math among my peers: being smart was not cool. Hence, the tendency to lump all studies of mathematics into one simple term, "math." That's my theory, and I'm sticking with it.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Conservatives more likely to be conservative! Liberals more likely to be liberal! Because of BRAINS! Fascinating stuff, really.
My ideals are liberal, but I'm a fiscal conservative. By this study, you and I are polar opposites, one of us is stupid and the other is lazy. I guess we have nothing in common and are destined to be enemies. Sorry. This works well for me as I've mentally noted the statistical chance of where we both stand on the issue of "the right to bear arms". Umm... You're not one of those pro-gun liberals, right? Right?!
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Assuming you're right (just for the sake of discussion), there's a huge difference between having farms of greater than 10 acres confiscated, and being hung up by your fingernails while your testicles are branded. That doesn't mean either of these things are right, but I'd much rather have my land confiscated. Giving funds to the Contras directly helped them torture citizens who were now being forced to choose between being tortured by the Sandanistas or being tortured by the Contras. Of course, there's also the little thing about it being illegal.
OK, now that I'm done assuming you're right, I'd also like to point out that you're wrong. During most of the Carter administration, Nicaragua was led by Somoza. In 1979, the Sandanistas came to power through violent means. If you want to read about Carter's role in this, check out Wikipedia. If you think Carter had Marxist sympathies, then you know nothing about the man.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'm sorry, but this article fails on it's own premises. Following the argument to its logical conclusion requires accepting that conservatives have functioning minds, and that's obviously a fallacy. Sorry folks. The researchers have to go back to the drawing board.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
That's what it sounded to me like, anyways. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Actually, it's "maths" because it stands for "Mathematical Anti-Telharsic Harfatum Septomin".
It is true, I saw it in an educational video!
Look around you!
The Slash-dot report used this phrase: "From the study, liberals were more likely to be accurate and showed more brain activity in the region associated with analyzing conflicts." I could find nothing in the LA Time article linked to that had anything to do with "accuracy." What I DID find was that conservatives were rated as being more "single minded" and liberals more "tolerant of ambiguity."
;-)
If you're going to report on something like this, at least you could try to be "accurate," (or was this summary written by a conservative?
I was trying to get that comment in quickly and tried to spell it populus (Latin style), and my stupid spell check changed it to populous and didn't warn me about it.
I would like to see how people who have switched political sides during their lifetimes would be handled.
But the real question is: will anyone read my post after 1000 posts in this thread?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Wouldn't there be more English speakers in China than the UK?
Shouldn't we ask them?
Or does it depend on who invented it?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
I am 20 years old and I consider myself to be conservative. I don't think it is solely based on age nor the lack of processing information, but rather thinking it trough more thoroughly. Liberals tend to jump to new ideas without thinking them trough thoroughly. throughout history, you can see how this can spark revolution or spark failure. Sure, John Kerry agreed with everyone's points of view at the drop of a hat because he is a politician, but he is also more of a risk taker. Fundamentally, liberalism is about change and trying new things; while conservatism is about staying with proven concepts to limit the possibility of unforeseen problems. The war in Iraq is for a good logical reason; it was just poorly implemented and unplanned. Then of course we did not ask for terrorists to hijack our planes and crash them into innocent people.
...I get it.
Jeez. Enough already with the "studies".
It's "math" in Canada.
Okay, okay, I stirred up a hornets nest with my over generalization. That'll teach me. I've lived in the state of Ohio in the USA all my life, so what do you expect :) I'm a mathematics major, or maths major if you must.
We say moths, myths, sixths, truths, fifths, sixths, so why don't we say maths ? Beats me.
By the way, my cbunix23 handle refers to CB/UNIX 2.3 which I used when I first started working at AT&T in Columbus, Ohio. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB_UNIX
I think red-headed left handed boys between 16-24 are way logical. And everyone else has no valid opinion. This "information" is perhaps the most wishful thinking that I have read sans something from my 9 year old..
Bah
Bet a $1,000 that the scientist(s) conducting the experiment are liberals. Increasingly one sees it over and over in science - experiments structured to confirm not a hypothesis, but a political point of view (dare I say prejudice). Global warming, HIV, reading ability, intelligence etc. etc.
Announcer: After a series of staggering defeats, The Republicans assembled in the recording studio in late 2007 for a session with famed producer Bruce Dickinson. And, luckily for us, the cameras were rolling.
..and I'll be doing myself a disservice -- and every member in this band, if I don't perform the hell out of this.
Bruce Dickinson: Alright, guys, I think we're ready to lay this first track down. By the way, my name is Bruce Dickinson. Yes, the Bruce Dickinson. And I gotta tell you: fellas.. you have got what appears to be a dynamite sound!
Eric Bloom: Coming from you, Bruce, that means a lot.
Buck Dharma: Yeah. I mean, you're Bruce Dickinson!
Alan: It's incredible!
Bobby: I can't believe Bruce Dickinson digs our sound!
Bruce Dickinson: Easy, guys.. I put my pants on just like the rest of you - one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make gold records. Alright, here we go. "Don't Fear the Ron Paul" - take one.
Eric: Okay! Wait! Wait! Bruce, could you come in here for a minute, please?
Bruce Dickinson: That was gonna be a great track. Guys, what's the deal?
Eric: Are you sure that was sounding okay?
Bruce Dickinson: I'll be honest.. fellas, it was sounding great. But.. I could've used a little more Ron Paul. So.. let's take it again.. and, Gene.
Gene Frenkle: Yeah?
Bruce Dickinson: Really explore the studio space this time. I mean, really.. explore the space. I like what I'm hearing.
Eric: Okay, wait! Stop! I'm sorry. Bruce, could you come back in here, please?
Bruce Dickinson: Fellas.. now, we just wasted two good tracks! That last one was even better than the first!
Eric: Well, it's just that I find Gene's Ron Paul playing distracting! If I'm the only one, I'll shut up.
Buck Dharma: It was pretty rough..
Gene Frenkle: You know, I could pull back a little. If you'd like.
Bruce Dickinson: Not too much, though! Fellas, I'm telling you - you're gonna want that Ron Paul on the track!
Gene Frenkle: You know what? It's fine. Let's just do this thing.
Eric: Come on, people!
Bruce Dickinson: That.. that doesn't work for me. I gotta have more Ron Paul!
Alan: Don't blow this for us, Gene!
Bobby: Yeah, quit being so selfish, Gene!
Gene Frenkle: Can I just say one thing?
Bruce Dickinson: Say it, baby. Say it.
Gene Frenkle: I'm standing here, staring at Bruce Dickinson!
Bruce Dickinson: The cock of the walk, baby!
Gene Frenkle: And if Bruce Dickinson wants more Ron Paul, we should probably give him more Ron Paul!
Bruce Dickinson: Say it, baby!
Gene Frenkle: And, Bobby, you are right - I am being selfish. But the last time I checked, we don't have a whole lot of songs that feature the Ron Paul.
Bruce Dickinson: I gotta have more Ron Paul, baby!
Gene Frenkle:
Bruce Dickinson: Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more Ron Paul!
Gene Frenkle: Thanks, Bruce. But I think, maybe if I just leave.. and, maybe I'll come back later, and we can lay down the Ron Paul.
Bruce Dickinson: Aw, baby..
Eric: Gene, wait! Why don't you lay down that Ron Paul right now. With us. Together.
Gene Frenkle: Do you mean that, Eric?
Buck Dharma: He speaks for all of us.
Gene Frenkle: Thank you.
Bruce Dickinson: Babies.. before we're done here.. y'all be wearing gold-plated diapers.
Alan: What does that mean?
Bruce Dickinson: Never question Bruce Dickinson! Roll it!
Eric: 1, 2, 3, 4.
We gotta have more RON PAUL.
In 5 years, see who is still referencing this study, and who isn't, and then tell me who is open to changing views, and who locks into one view and sticks with it.
Who better to criticize war than a veteran? Nobody. But when thatsame veteran runs on that same war record 30 years later - after essentially calling everyone in that war baby killers, even admitting to committing atrocities himself - we've got a flip-flopping opportunist.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Great! Now we only have to find the damned Repubblican gene. After that we can add it to the prenatal screening togheter with other fatal genetic disease. Imagine a world without repubblicans....
How about that... let me fund a study and find out perhaps that liberals are 10x more often gay... KDAWSON, will you post the results?
They also did the experiment in reverse, with M being the uncommon letter and W being the common one, and got the same results. Just FYI in case somebody thought the parent post was trying to be anything other than funny.
I always say 'Maths' as an abbreviation, or the longer words 'mathematics' and 'mathematical'.
You're right, I am an native English speaker and I was born in England.
Does it make any difference that 'mathematics' is one of my favourite subjects?
-Nivag
Your historical knowledge is wrong incorrect and your analysis is weak, wrong, and self-contradicting. YOU are the victim, and a purveyor of, the very programming you seem to hate.
> 1. There are no "Neo-Cons". There is, and has always been only one kind of Conservative. Use of the word helps me spot 'bots' every time.
Though I'm no liberal (certainly not in any modern American definition), the term "Neo-Conservative" does indeed refer to a specific subset of political thought. It is not some mere slanderous epithet slung by touchy-feely socialists because free markets, fear-mongering, or small government anger them. It refers specifically to a subset of thinkers' foreign policy ideas mostly within the U.S. Republican party over the last 20-40 years.
There are, and have always been, many kinds of Conservative. You'd know that if only you read a bit about conservatism, or a about little thing called Classical Liberalism. You can claim that the world is flat, but that won't make it so and you'll lose a lot of face by making a claim that's so patently false.
> 2. The Gulf War was shut down by the UN, who called George Senior, and was told "You're angering the Arab street" by killing their entire army in the pass....so Senior told Schwartzkopf to end the fighting....and that's where it lay, all the way through the Clinton Administration, with a cease-fire. However, Saddam fired 492 SAM missiles at our aircraft, any one of which could have restarted the war, but Clinton was a very 'don't rock the boat' kind of administration.
One of the best parts about George senior as a politician was that he was a diplomat (typically anyway; at least he had the ability) who understood The Principle of the Objective. You misunderstand his (the Commander In Chief's) objective in that war: it was to liberate Kuwait, not to topple Saddam's government. Saddam had received U.S. support in his war against Iran only a few years earlier! It may be your OPINION that Bush should have ousted Saddam, but it's merely opinion even if it's shared by others. Incidentally, that opinion was and is held by the so-called "Neo-Conservative" subset of the Republican party; the very label you so flippantly and unpersuasively dismiss.
As for "don't rock the boat"-style presidential administrations, Dwight Eisenhower's was also seen that way, and he was considered a poor, do-nothing president in his time. That has begun to change in recent decades, and given the conflict during those decades, I think it's likely that people are finding new respect for a president who can maintain peace in. Conflict seems to seek you out, and avoiding it takes skill that George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and Eisenhower all possessed and used to great effect.
> 3. Yes, Oil was a big part of the war. But face it: without oil, we'd all live on farms. Because of oil, we get to live other lives, and the oil brings the food to us in various forms. Do you know how we stopped Hitler's armies? Not by hitting the factories, but by stopping the flow of oil to the Panzers. It will stop all of us, too, if it stops. There's nothing wrong with this. (Other than we're so dependent on it.)
First, your premise is wrong. War-profiteering and oil conquest is only a happy coincidence in the eyes of even Bush Jr. Gulf Wars 1990 and 2003 were both fought for other causes to which their respective presidents were committed: defending justice by militarily repelling rabble-rousing invaders (1990) and spreading American influence abroad (2003). Incidentally, there's that tenet of Neo-Conservative thought again.
Also, your factual command of WWII history is verifiably wrong. Germany's supply of oil was indeed severed, but it was military production that failed Germany. Factories all over the territory, especially the Ruhr Valley, were literally bombed into the ground. The industrial centers of every major German city were bombed out of operation (or existence) long before they were taken by ground forces, and long before its oil supplies dwindl
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." The quote presumably falsely attributed to Churchill
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Germany has about 5 parties above the 2M voters watermark, many of which run local administrations. They can freely organize themselves into coalitions (that is, co-aligned parties can pool their votes together after an election) to achieve majorities when required. Voters have more choices, and there's not that many coalitions a party can enter unless it actually gets voted. Spain also has quite a few major parties. Don't want to vote for Socialist Party (social democrats in europe are like liberals in the US)? -- vote for the United Left party; they have similar goals and are likely to form a coalition if neither can rule by itself. Not that the system is perfect, but you do get slightly more "competition for ideas" and accountability than with a party system where minority parties don't get to play at all. There's lots of ways to organize a parliamentary democracy.
The actual study demonstrated that, for a given population (details on the selection of which were not provided), those that self-described themselves as liberals (whatever that label means) reacted differently to a situation (monitored by a certain measure of neural responses) than those that self-described themselves as conservatives. That part is "good science", though I may find it inconclusive. The bad part is where the study itself (from here) concludes that
Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission.This is only true within the experimental population, conservatism and liberalism where asked (instead of "measured"), and the neurocognitive sensitivity can depend on a host of other factors (mostly dependent on the selection of the experimental population), which may better explain the differences between subject's reactions. This part I find wrong.
When you read it, you find this:
a study that found a pattern correlating the way certain people behave and think There may be a pattern that correlates the way people think and their "left vs right" positioning -- but I will refuse to understand that "conservatives just can't help being hard of head" (tempting though it would beThus, returning us to the topic of the article. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I suppose in your world a lot of Jews themselves (the ones that have problems with Israeli foreign policy) are Jew-hating rednecks. Right?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
> liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.'
Stated another way, they're less sceptical, less discerning, more gullible.
But more likely the study is just bunk.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
However, it seems that you're saying that these Jews are Jew-haters — just not rednecks.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The problem with this study is they chose only complete moron republicans to put against the liberals.
Only a republican who is a complete idiot wouldn't see what this study from NYU and UCLA was trying to prove, and hence only idiots on the republican side volunteered.
It's "maths" here in Australia, and I believe in New Zealand as well.
Besides, it's not one thing so "maths" makes more sense. Is anyone arguing that arithmetic and differential calculus and algebra are all the same branch of the philosophy of mathematics? They're distinct, but related, pieces, so the plural form makes sense.
We're a bit off topic here though...
According to the tests I took while in college (Purdue), I use the left and right side of my brain equally; and I am a Conservative. I work in a company in which 40% of the employees are artists, and the Conservative/Liberal split is almost 50/50. This study is initially flawed in that it assumes liberals and conservatives always follow the same left or right brain dominance, and that dominance on one side is somehow better than the other.
Stereotypically speaking, liberals tend to be right side dominant, and conservatives tend to be left side dominant. The left side of the brain is thought be logic driven, while the right side is creative driven. This shows another of the test's bias - it was a pattern recognition test, which focuses on the right side of the brain.
Try re-running the test with rapid fire logic and math questions and see the results.
What a silly study.
I am Slad.
"A researcher not affiliated with the study stated, liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.'" So does this mean that liberals are more gullible, or that conservatives are more bone-headed? :-)
...your arrogance sickens me.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Plus, it's wrong to torture people. It's against our word as a nation, and our constitution. If you want more examples of how our current administration is eroding our rights, just ask.
Please stop stalking me, bro.