Slashdot Mirror
Empathy Represses Analytic Thought, and Vice Versa
hessian sends this quote from a Case Western Reserve University news release:
"New research shows a simple reason why even the most intelligent, complex brains can be taken by a swindler's story – one that upon a second look offers clues it was false. When the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows us to empathize, it suppresses the network used for analysis, a pivotal study led by a Case Western Reserve University researcher shows (abstract). ... At rest, our brains cycle between the social and analytical networks. But when presented with a task, healthy adults engage the appropriate neural pathway, the researchers found. The study shows for the first time that we have a built-in neural constraint on our ability to be both empathetic and analytic at the same time. The work suggests that established theories about two competing networks within the brain must be revised. More, it provides insights into the operation of a healthy mind versus those of the mentally ill or developmentally disabled."
[spock]Fascinating.[/spock]
So this is why girls aren't good at math?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Can I have my Phd now?
Makes sense why sales pitches given in the context of "hands-on" training work so well...
(they are evil I tell you)
come on fhqwhgads
this
Just swap empathetic with emotional (Yeah different, but related definitions.) and all I have to do is look/listen to my spouse in the morning to see what wife I will spend the day with.
If she is overly emotional, no amount of logic or analysis with help with anything. It's gonna be a rough day for me.
If she is overly analytical of what I do or say, there is nothing I can do or say, even gifts of chocolate, will not sway her from her incorrect analysis of my mistakes.
Women, you can;t live with 'em.
(Posting as AC becuace my spouse reads slashdot and this post will cause her to fly off the handle.)
So people that work in IT gain less and less empathy for their users? Hmmmm....
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior. So if you want good things to happen to the most people, which most empathetic people would, then you should eschew empathy and be as rational as possible.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Never send an important e-mail when you've just been coding for several hours.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
"New research shows a simple reason why even the most intelligent, complex brains can be taken by a swindler's story – one that upon a second look offers clues it was false."
So that also explains Sales. Even a half-wit like me knows that when Safeway does a "buy one, get one free" sale, they went around jacking up all their prices before the event, like we would not notice. It is simply amazing just how much quarterly profit Safeway has made since the economy went poof.
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
I think your proof falls apart with your first statement "Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior." This might be evidence of the opposite. That empathic behavior is more likely to get you laid and produce children than rational behavior.
See all of you kept crying about how all our C?O and Political leaders are psychopaths were wrong. You should be happy about that. They are better at thinking than you are and no doubt producing more optimal solutions than you could.
Thank goodness we have these unfeeling psychopaths to lead us.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I'm sure that con artists have been subconsciously using this for millennia.
Ezekiel 23:20
Then how do you explain Rethuglicans?
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Most religious conservatives are NOT analytical thinkers. The same is true of conspiracy nuts (ex: birthers). The majority of both are Republicans.
That's why the nerds on Slashdot are all assholes.
It seems a faulty jump to go from the observations that the study participants did not use the two elements of cognition together to the assertion that one cannot use both capacities at the same time. At the very least it should be theoretically possible for neural connectivity to be established between the two sub-networks and as a result to activate both capabilities concurrently. Certainly we should be able to imagine circumstances where having such an ability would be advantageous, such as the processing and understanding of the experience but also wise and healthy reaction within the emotional interactions we engage in with our loved ones.
Actually if you note their campaigning methods you'll see that they spend most of their time attempting to play to emotions rather than facts and logic. It is no coincidence that their talking points focus on issues more likely to provoke a visceral reaction in the public such as religion, abortion, don't tread on me, and military/defense.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Empathy also heightens big picture thinking.....
The more analytical, the more detail oriented. The less analytical, the more 'big picture' thinking..
that's the fact, jack...
I guess that explains the constant focus on fear by conservatives. If you focus on that most powerful emotional response, people lose the rational ability to question the long term consequences of those actions. Like say, for example, starting a useless protracted war in a middle east nation, or cutting back at personal liberties to 'protect from the terrorists'.
Well, except that it doesn't.
If it were as you suggest, emotional, non-rational appeals to tradition, religious values, nationalism, etc., would be particularly ineffective in motivating conservatives. In the real world, both groups are diverse and include both more-analytical and and more-emotional thinkers. There are plenty of studies showing indications of various cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, but the particular one you suggest isn't one of them.
Conservatives, so the old tradition went, have heads but no hearts. Liberals have hearts, but no heads.
Somehow, somewhere, something went terribly wrong.
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
I can only assume that either:
A) You are illustrating your vast intellect and knowledge of American political parties
B) You are quacking out an automated emotional response from the canned set of approved Republican put-downs (Call them the DEMOCRAT party so they won't sound like they're democratic - i.e. believe in democracy).
I hope it's B. That means you're a puppet and I can make you dance when I pull the strings. Here boy! Socialism! Socialism! Big Government! Tax the Rich! NO NUKES!!!
I think you might be mixing up feelings and emotions with empathy.
Empathy is the ability to recognize the feelings experienced by others.
So
Liberals tend to have more feelings and emotions and be more empathetic to others, so they make illogical and unreasonable decisions based on feelings and emotions..
Conservatives think more with their own feelings and emotions but their level of empathy is lower, so they reason out a logical solution from unreasonable and illogical starting points.
You've conflated "disagreeing with me" with "irrational response". The truth is always more in the middle.
As someone who played eve many years as a scammer (of the variety that didn't spam local chat), I can tell you that both empathy and anger have the effect of making people dumber. I went for empathy when I was trying to get someone to give me stuff. After they fell for the scam and realized they'd been had, I'd switch over and do everything I could to make them raging angry. Once they were sufficiently mad, I'd block them and then figure out a way to get them to to meet my other character in what appeared to them to be a chance encounter, then appeal to their sense of anger and convince them to take out a bounty hunter contract with me to "kill" my first scamming character.
If you read the abstract of the article then it states that the tasks presented to the subjects where -"tasks requiring social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons, and tasks requiring physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects". Social reasoning does not equal empathy. Empathy requires one to share and understand others feelings while social reasoning is something a sociopath could do.
If you look at some rhetorical theory (ie, theory of rhetoric), you'll find that there are three main kinds of arguments, which are effective against three different categories of people.
Amongst your supporters, logical arguments have the most significant impact.
Amongst the undecided, emotional arguments are more likely to sway their decision.
Amongst your opponents, moral arguments are just about the only thing that can have any effect.
Ask yourself who they're trying to win votes from when they campaign, and I think you'll have the answer as to why it's all full of emotional arguments.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
I can only assume that either:
A) You are illustrating your vast intellect and knowledge of American political parties
B) You are quacking out an automated emotional response from the canned set of approved Republican put-downs.
You left out C) not a mindless pedant who thinks playing semantic games somehow makes them appear smarter than another person.
(Call them the DEMOCRAT party so they won't sound like they're democratic - i.e. believe in democracy)
So, let me get this straight - you think someone dropping the "i" and "c" from "Democratic" is an evil plot to somehow confuse Americans into believing that Democrats don't believe in democracy?
Your tinfoil hat - it appears to be on just a bit too tight.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Zing! Election is only a week away folks.
Actually, it does do a fair job of explaining why most voters seem to eschew reason in their decisions, as well as why it's so easy for politicians to distract from real issues that need analytical thought applied, by appealing to voter emotions.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Someone less intelligent won't do that as much, or as well. Thus, they need all the loose ends in whatever the lie is neatly tied up for them. When there's a lot of them, they realize that something is fishy. Whereas the smarter person just kind of automatically fills in those cracks.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
How can you all debate this study from Case Western! We have to do something!!!
Gently reply
The existance of conservative Republicans proves there must be an additional factor, something that suppresses BOTH empathy and analytics...
"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).
I'd point at vaccine alarmists, PETA, and other left leaning extremists too. Extremist views thrive on empathetic arguments not analytic ones. *Correlation/Causation warning*
Let's change this to be a bit more accurate:
That explains the thought process of different political groups.
People who disagree with me think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic.
People who agree with me think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.
I am officially gone from
Yes actually. http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/08/16/gop-strategists-christen-democrat-sic-party-and/136406
Frank Luntz said so.
I have a simple solution. The least productive people in the world will starve to death. People who have 17 children and can't feed them will soon have much less than 17 children. Problem solved.
First off, in my experience the "least productive people" in this world sit on various Boards of Directors, and I highly doubt a damn one of them even know what starving is.
I think a more accurate term for the socioeconomic demographic you are (quite blatantly) attempting to denigrate would be the "most desperate," or possibly "least fortunate."
So, your "final solution" seems contingent on the idea that the most desperate/least fortunate do not possess an inherent will to live.
That is not the case. A more likely circumstance would be that the most desperate people would do what they felt they must to survive, even if that means ending the lives of others. 17 mouths are a lot to feed, but they're also a lot to have to fight off to keep your own food supply secure.
It seems, in the course of posting your comment, that you've failed to use either analytical or empathetic thought pathways. I therefore assume you are either A) a sociopath, or B) an idiot.
Leanin' towards B.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...the "Gregory House Paradox"
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
It's a standard label that I gather has been kicking around since the mid 1850s or so. For a long time now, a lot of people having been unwilling to grant the party that particular rhetorical advantage.
Including your own, of course
Definitely have first-hand experience with this. At a party this last weekend, in fact?
Met someone who seemed like a really nice person in emotional distress, and my heart immediately went out to them. Their story sounded awful, and they really did seem like they were in a lot of emotional pain. Me being a sympathetic person, I started giving them a little more attention, watching, listening, seeing if maybe they might be interested.
Later in the evening, after they'd consumed several beers, the nitty-gritty details start coming out. It turns out they're actually a total monster. Someone who is as close as I've seen in a long while to a genuine psychopath. I'm listening to the conversation between them and my friends, and my brain is doing loop-de-loops.
My empathetic side is going, "You poor soul!", and wants to wrap them in a hug and take them home.
My logical side is going, "Are you nuts? AVOID! AVOID!! AVOOOIIIID!!! " And logic almost lost.
I may be looking for a relationship, but I don't wanna be used like a condom, thank you very much. Thank God I hadn't been drinking much.
Yes actually. http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/08/16/gop-strategists-christen-democrat-sic-party-and/136406
Frank Luntz said so.
All that proves is that modern journalists (or rather, what passes for a 'journalist' these days) are idiots.
*thinks about election year conversations he's had with "regular" people*
Ok, considering... maybe you've got something there...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The moment she starts crying, any bullshit she's been putting you through instantly goes out the window.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
--Georges Clemenceau (approximately)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
vaccine alarmists are usually libertarians
9/11 truthers...libertarians. What do psychics and homeopathy have to do with conspiracies?
Most people who disagree with you no longer bother with a logical point-by-point rebuttal, because you ignore any arguments that don't suit your viewpoint. From past discussions, your argument boils down to a purely emotional claim that individual freedom is absolutely and unconditionally above anything else, in any case - so your claim to be logical is absurd. You're a fanatical believer in a single dogmatic idea, and all your rationalization is centered around that dogma. To that extent - since you keep posting that kind of drivel regularly - the only meaningful way to reply to it is to mod it down as Offtopic (which it almost always is) or Troll (which it universally is, even if you actually believe what you write yourself).
Conservative economic plans are as bad as liberal.
This is because almost all economic ideas, of any school, are disastrous in the long term, and most are unverifiable in the short to medium term (many of the ones that are verifiable are verifiably bad). Economics is a fucked field.
I would say conservatives tend to have empathy issues to some extent, but I do not think that primarily drives those issues. Those issues tend to be related to conservatives being, well, conservative (literal meaning), and liking strong central authority (strong central authority, in turn, tends to like lots of very personal rules to help keep that authority). Also see: alliance of different types of conservative under one banner, combination of personal and economic ideas under one axis
The liberal issue you cite, I would say have an underlying origin in liberal collectivist tendencies, elevating the concern for the group, rather than the individual, and taking solutions that are implement by the group, rather than the individual.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Really? I've never seen any evidence of that.
Okay, what about the notion that rape is what god intends? That the female body just shuts down in case of rape? What about all the people who believe the earth is 6000 yrs old? that dinosaurs and man coexisted? and ignore science fact. That evolution is "just a theory" with no evidence to support it? That they insist on less government EXCEPT when it comes to enforcing their moral beliefs and dogma on everyone else?
(ie, caring for the poor/disadvantaged/discriminated against). As it's a quality that I've personally always recognized as the fatal flaw of Liberal Ideology
The best way to experience empathy is by personally going through the hardships that others have been through, in which case, you will understand their pain. Don't think it can't happen to you. I was poor a few years ago, largely because of outsourcing and the state of the economy. There was really nothing I did (or neglected to do) that put me in that situation. I had to bust my ass to climb out of it and return to financial stability and independence. So, what's wrong with having empathy? I strive to be balanced. I empathetic. I'm also analytical...and you'd be hard pressed to argue against that, knowing that I'm a successful electrical engineer and software developer. I really don't understand how you can call empathy a weakness but, if you enjoy being a robot who doesn't get laid, knock yourself out.
Actually, it doesn't, since its about "social cognition" not "emotions"; while there may be other research findings about emoting inhibiting analytical thought, this research is about social cognition ("reasoning about the mental states of other persons") inhibiting analytical thought (or, rather, inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.").
I think you replied to the wrong message, dude.
I know. I know. This is /. Nonetheless... the article is talking about social and mechanical reasoning. Not empathy vs. logic. Not Repub vs Dem. Not women vs men.
It's about two types of problem solving: reasoning about causal relationships of inanimate objects and reasoning about the mental states of other persons. Those are the two that are, according to this research, neurologically mutually exclusive.
By racing off into stereotypes, the most obvious implication has been missed. At least one of them has. Using a phone or social media (social cognition) is mutually exclusive to driving (physical cognition).
It'll be fun to time how long it takes that inconvenient point to sink in against motivated cognition.
Not in any sense relevant to TFA. What the informal popular media article linked in TFS characterizes as "analytical thought" is actually (from the abstract of the actual research paper linked in TFS) "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." Which might be a reasonable use of the term "analytical thought", but certainly has nothing to do with "the simplistic attempt to measure who is tough and 'able'."
The actual finding is about "social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons" inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." "Emotionally driven behavior" is not at issue in the research.
Social cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the mental states of other persons. Physical cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.
Neither liberals nor conservatives are rational. The only difference between the two is who they choose to empathize with.
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
Yes they do, it's instinctive behavior for most primates, and the more the stranger looks and acts like a member of your "tribe" the more empathy they get. But who's talking about strangers? - This finding goes a long way to explaining why I tolerated my ex-wife for 20yrs. ;)
Empathy travels in both directions, although I suspect your question was rhetorical, the fact that you asked it reduces the initial empathy I had for you. This is probably because at 53 I'm the "silverback" of my own little tribe and subconsciously judge you as a prospective associate from a similar tribe. Competition for resources (particularly territorial resources) dictates nobody can have the same level of empathy towards everyone but the tribe is always looking for social/political alliances to boost their standing in the neighborhood. You can see the same thing at work in the royal families of Europe both past and present, they were so busy using their children to seal territorial alliances that many of their descendants now suffer complications from inbreeding. In many ways our brains simply were not built to handle the civilizations we create, for example most of my tribe live more than an hour's drive away. Excluding my parents my own tribal elders live on the other side of the planet and are more or less strangers to me. I can't even name all my Uncles and Aunt's, I just know I had ~20 of them somewhere in the UK, I've met a few and a few are already dead. As a child these people were replaced by adult neighbors and family friends, in fact back then children were expected to address adult family friends as "Uncle" or "Aunt" as a sign of respect, similar as to how US kids today address adults as "Sir", etc.
Citation: The Monkeysphere
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Social vs mechanical reasoning may be programmed at birth.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21571/1/Psychosis%20and%20autism%20as%20diametrical%20disorders%20of%20the%20social%20brain%20(LSERO).pdf
The research is about social cognition vs. mechanical cognition--reasoning about other people's beliefs vs reasoning about physical situations. Both of these are highly analytical tasks! This has nothing at all to do with empathy vs. analyticity, in fact this might be the worst quality science reporting I have ever read.
The journalists who reported on the story this way have harmed the general public's understanding of psychology in a particularly pernicious way by reinforcing stereotypes. Unfortunately their behavior is typical and they probably would have been fired if they had given an accurate summary of the research.
The summary is that empathy - which you have basically none of - represses analytic thought. You claim this to be "obvious", which would indicate you agree with it and are analytical.
The only problem with that is that you fail at analytics, too. You just regurgitated a bunch of right-wing talking points that any person with the most basic analytical skills could see are distorted to the point where a monkey could pilot a 747 straight through them. The claims you make from your (unsourced, of course) statements are not supported by the statements themselves, as the statements are not even vaguely thorough analyses of anything.
Hence in one post you showed that you have neither empathy* nor analytical skills. How on earth you could then conclude the statement that one suppresses the other to be "obvious" is puzzling.
* the conclusion that you have no empathy is also supported by the fact that your first account had its karma knocked to abysmal, and rather than show some empathy for fellow human beings (which would help bring your karma back up) you set up a new account to pursue the exact same aims.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
" Economics is a fucked field."
no it isn't. Media protryal, and peopel who aren't economist having theior opinion spew out to the general public as if a non expert opinion is as valid as an experts opinion.
This nis why people thing there are large economic rifts. There aren't. There are detail that can be different. But people on one side don't liste when it's time to adjust economics in a way they don't like.
This is why people think AGW is still in debate when its a fact.
This is why people think evolution is in debate when it's a fact.
You get idiots like Palin holding a book about economics and claiming it proof of what we should do when she is clearly stupid and/or hasn't even read the damn book. But she gets air time becasue groups like News corp doesn't care about economics, they only care to misinform enough people where they get what they want.
I can't help but point out the Canada wasn't barely hurt at all by the global crisis. This was due to good regulations and social(liberal) policies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Considering that Republicans use emotional arguments for their supporters, moral ones for the undecided, and incoherent ones for their opponents... well, that looks like they're trying to keep their supporters convinced and are trying to bludgeon the undecided, and that they therefore don't actually believe anyone is their ally.
In other words, they're acting exactly like sociopaths would - they're convinced that given half a chance, their "supporters" will screw them over in a heartbeat, just because they'd do the same thing.
he said it better anyway:
"Anyone who isnâ(TM)t a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnâ(TM)t a conservative by age 40 has no brain."
-Styopa
Virtually all economic ideas are based on an assumption of a continually growing economy. On a finite planet, with limited prospects for getting out, or importing significant amounts of material in, that right there is enough to make those theories spectacularly stupid.
On somewhat shorter time scales, some theories seem to be better than others (liberal, as you say), but show me proof they work. Where are the rigorous studies? There aren't any cause you can't double-blind nation-state economics! You can't even do multiple, controlled variable, repeatable tests! No science here!
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Always be analytical but fake emotions as appropriate. Also never be open with what you are thinking, nobody wants to hear the truth.
Examples:
wife: (some inane story about something that happened during the day that I'm not interested in)
incorrect answer: I have no interest in what you were just talking about
correct answer: thats interesting
My wife: (some inane story about something that happened during the day that I'm not interested in)
Me: You know I have no interest in that topic; can't we talk about xyz that we both like?
My wife: Sorry hon, my bad. But I actually don't like xyz, how's abc?
Me: abc? Cool, yeh!
The secret to a good relationship is not lying all the time... one day, that'll fall down like a house of cards and you'll end up hating each other. My wife and I knew from the start we've got our differences and we accept those. We can then spend our time together REALLY enjoying each others company instead of one of us faking it and resenting the other.
Note that I generally suck at empathy. I require my wife to tell me if I'm being an arse; or boring; or otherwise inappropriate. She'll happily do so; and I learned to happily accept her doing so. It works out better for both of us that way.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I read nothing of problems presented which require both types of thinking. Common problems involving both like seating arrangements for a wedding or which family member to ask to borrow money could be used for this. In the test discussed in the article the participant is going to catch on to the pattern after a few questions and instinctively switch their thinking to an optimal mode. In my opinion the resulting brain activity they're reading isn't empathy/analytics, it's bound and unbound thought. Empathy isn't imagination. It's the experiences, memories, and emotions of oneself and everyone they've known recalled abstractly. Asking someone to answer "social question" without personal context not only unbounds the process, but simultaneously removes analysis. This is caused by a) the need for one to imagine the contextual characters necessary to fill in the gaps and b) the inherent throw-away nature of those virtual characters. It all sits in short-term memory.
Real empathy requires actual people to empathize with because it involves more than words. It includes body language and so many other factors. All that's been invoked here is structured imagination, and these questions would inherently exclude analytic thought in that test characters must be taken as-is. On the other side, analytic thought requires mental sandboxes. Analyzing a hypothetical question presents it's own sandbox which excludes imagination, and relies solely on ones training & short term memory. The fact that the subjects know they are being tested at all seems to be the originating flaw.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
I would say that this summary is a little (not exacly but just a little) the same as saying "when a person walks into the kitchen, they are no longer in the living room.. and vice versa".
More likely: C) Give a gentle tug on the Democrats' strings and watch them dance. You certainly fell for it, didn't you?
The "if you're not a Republican then you must be a Democrat is one of the biggest strings of them all.
I'm not sure about any of this - has it ever been reported before in neuroscience ?
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
Emotional arguments? Like think of the children? Like what about the poor? Like what about the uninsured?
Ya. Republicans really have an exclusive lock on those.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
False dichotomy. False statement. No leftist is ever irrational? No liberal is ever illogical? No conspiracies ever originate on the left?
Let me FTFY. Most heavily biased people people are not analytical thinkers, left or right, religious or athiest.
You disprove your own statement because a lil analytical thinking would reveal that you yourself are failiing to employ it in making such a false blanket statement.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And here's where we see that you have nothing useful to say, that you project your own irrationality and lack of analytical thinking onto others. you are safely disregarded.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Thank you and well said. If I only had mod points today.
And to expound a little bit, very few people are about forcing the mother to do anything, or about forcing everyone to conform to their dogma. Again, the vocal minority phenomona (spelling).
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Conspiracy nut, n; Someone with conspiracy theories different than my own.
I come here for the love
He cares a lot about the freedoms of other people. Of ALL people even (even when scientific research indicates the average person can only keep in touch with about ~200 people - friends, family, etc)
No, actually he very much does not. Read his frequent comments about how he doesn't want people to go to school, or be paid for their work. Read his frequent comments where he discards opinions that do not fit his worldview by telling people that they are stupid, rather than having an actual discussion with them. He supports corporate repression of regular people and the sale of the rule of law to for-profit institutions as well. That does not support freedom.
He cares a lot about the economy. Again, EVERYONE's economy instead of just his immediate surroundings
No. If he cared about the economy, then he would show concern for the ability of EVERYONE to progress in the economy. The model that he preaches, however, provides a lot of opportunity to a very small number of people and no opportunity to the vast majority of people. The model he preaches also very directly endorses human slavery. That is not caring about "everyone's economy" in any meaningful sense of the world.
He displays much emotional attachment to the concept of freedom for all
Not if you actually read his comments, he does not. He claims to, but the text he actually writes contradicts that directly.
In short, he looks at the "big picture" or the "greater good", something far beyond just himself
Now I'm more convinced than ever that you are making some kind of odd joke.
Caring so much for more than just yourself is the definition of having empathy.
Except he doesn't care for more than himself. Hence, he has no empathy. Thank you for supporting my point.
Furthermore, roman_mir has repeatedly say he is against tyranny, oppression, loss of freedom, etc.
Really, I would say roman_mir/udachny is the most empathetic person on slashdot.
I am not familiar with this strange new sense of "empathy" that you are applying here. I am used to seeing highly conservative people try to redefine every word they can, but here you seem to be applying exactly the opposite of empathy as your new definition of it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Thank you for illustrating my point of "incoherent arguments for the opponents", since nowhere in the GP did I say that the Republicans were the only ones using emotional arguments, or anything similar to that.
You can't learn to empathize if you consider kindness a weakness that must be purged from your being. Some people who go through hardships just get more jaded, cynical and angry because they refuse to help or be helped by others. The idea you can break someone by throwing them into a bad situation is a little silly, it depends on the person, and there are enough people out there who would rather die than give up what they consider to be their pride.
The Tea Party proved there are more than enough people out their steaming mad enough to cut their nose off to spite their face *coughchristineodonnelcough.* A different approach for them is perhaps required.
I think you meant to say "something I pulled out of my ass without even doing a cursory review of the existing knowledge".
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Canada isn't heavily regulated at all, it's #6 in economic freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/canada
Another cite: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/canada-rises-to-top-five-in-world-economic-freedom-ranking-as-u-s-plummets-to-18th/
Canada fared well because its businesses/banks/consumers/government did not overleverage, whereas in the US, all 4 did.
It's also questionable to call modern Canadian policies "liberal" in the traditional sense (which means "federal social policy"). Canada is heavily province focused. The provinces collect more taxes than the federal government (the way it should be). In that aspect, the provinces choose to be liberal whereas the federal government remains conservative small government (exactly what many Republicans want in the US).
The omnipresent fear-mongering works against the image of a spock-like conservative as well.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Which is...*drumroll*...an illogical and emotional response.
I also like how he claims to be logical and then trots out endorsements of Reaganesque economic theories right in the face of all historical evidence of their effectiveness.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Tetragrammaton Council also approves.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yeah, my initial comment had some rebuttal to those ideas, using analysis and evidence, to show that one can make any argument convincing, either emotional or analytical, by picking one's words and/or evidence carefully. But the main problem, I think, with all our discourse, is the idea that "disagree with me" equals "stupid" or "enemy" or "unpatriotic" or "emotional" or some other ad hominem that doesn't do anything to bolster the argument.
Oh wow, a whole discussion based on an assumption that "rational" means "selfish".
Rationality, by itself only works within some set of goals, otherwise nothing can be "rational". Goals, on the other hand (whenever they are not based on more general goals) are determined by instincts, emotions, and communications within society. A psychopath, who is also a member of the local Libertarian club, works as a lawyer for MPAA, and runs a spam company, probably has selfish goals, so for him rational behavior will be selfish. For someone else, goals may be completely different, and could be based on his feelings toward other people -- then it would be irrational for him to emulate the aforementioned lawyer-spammer.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1. If you kill somebody, you did it in self-defense, if you're my family member.
2. If you kill somebody, you should be hanged, if you're not my family member.
Casteism
Wow, so rather than manage himself in a civil manner, he created a second account, and you suggest he should be applauded for that?
I'm not suggesting we applaud him for that. I'm saying this shows how much he cares.
He constantly tries to champion "free market solutions" for everything he sees as wrong with the world. Here, he had a free market solution right in front of him that he chose not to exercise . He could have paid as little as five dollars to slashdot to become a subscriber, and he would have had an additional point that he could have added to every message he writes. Instead, because he's a damned hypocrite looking to spend as little of his own money as possible on everything, he opened a new account instead.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.