Conservatives vs. Liberals - Odors and Soap

[xBiffx]

Although the actual article has little to do with odors and soap it still plays an interesting role in decision making.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/o...ors-and-soap.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The comments section is actually worth noting because it seems to be playing out what is said in the article which is pretty neat.

One quote that really caught my eye:

Little of this is a conscious or intellectual process. Indeed, Haidt cites research that a higher I.Q. doesn’t lead people to think through their moral positions in a more balanced, open way (although they are more eloquent in defending those positions).

 

[woolfe9999]

An interesting read. I'm highly curious where "libertarians" fit into that research and the concepts being discussed. Libertarians aren't any bigger on "sanctity" than are liberals, perhaps less so. The research seems more applicable to those who are socially conservative versus those who are socially liberal.

 

[DominionSeraph]

 

[werepossum]

Hmm. People find images of a person eating worms to be disgusting. When people have been exposed to something disgusting, they get more conservative. Rick Santorum wants people to be more conservative, therefore voting for him. Conclusion: Rick Santorum needs to produce a television advert where he eats worms.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Hmm. People find images of a person eating worms to be disgusting. When people have been exposed to something disgusting, they get more conservative. Rick Santorum wants people to be more conservative, therefore voting for him. Conclusion: Rick Santorum needs to produce a television advert where he eats worms.

Or release a two hour documentary on the other meaning of his name. That'll make people super-conservative.

 

[Thump553]

I agree with wolfe, a very interesting article, thanks for linking it.

I just don't see how loyalty is a conservative value, however, and would argue exactly the opposite.

 

[xBiffx]

I agree with wolfe, a very interesting article, thanks for linking it.

I just don't see how loyalty is a conservative value, however, and would argue exactly the opposite.

I don't think the values are a la carte. It's loyalty combined with obedience for instance. Sure some have one or the other but he is trying to say that a conservative possess both. That's what I got out of it at least.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I agree with wolfe, a very interesting article, thanks for linking it.

I just don't see how loyalty is a conservative value, however, and would argue exactly the opposite.

As a liberal, I associate loyalty far more with conservatives. Liberals have the stereotype of being told to question everything, being the ivory tower educated types, resisting authority, etc. Conservatives have the stereotype of following dogma, whether religious or political. You can see it play out in Congress all the time; the Democrats never seem to agree with each other, but every Republican votes lock-step with the party every single time. That's loyalty.

 

[xBiffx]

As a liberal, I associate loyalty far more with conservatives. Liberals have the stereotype of being told to question everything, being the ivory tower educated types, resisting authority, etc. Conservatives have the stereotype of following dogma, whether religious or political. You can see it play out in Congress all the time; the Democrats never seem to agree with each other, but every Republican votes lock-step with the party every single time. That's loyalty.

I get partially what you are saying but I think you are somewhat confusing loyalty with a herd mentality. Loyalty indicated a devotion or a duty to do something. Many I think just do things because they are told or they follow others like sheep. It has nothing to do with their individual values and their own decision making ability. But like I said, I see what you are saying.

 

[werepossum]

Or release a two hour documentary on the other meaning of his name. That'll make people super-conservative.

Although maybe too sick to vote.

 

[OutHouse]

As a liberal, I associate loyalty far more with conservatives. Liberals have the stereotype of being told to question everything, being the ivory tower educated types, resisting authority, etc. Conservatives have the stereotype of following dogma, whether religious or political. You can see it play out in Congress all the time; the Democrats never seem to agree with each other, but every Republican votes lock-step with the party every single time. That's loyalty.

???? what planet do you live on? the democrats resisting authority? wtf dude they are the ones imposing that "authority" like obama care. education? libs are the "ivory tower education types"?? wtf does that mean? that they are the wise old professor sitting in a chair at Princeton smoking a pipe giving out wisdom? AND the democrats vote party line every single time as well.

damn are the sheep from both sides ever going to wake the fuck up and see that both parties are destroying this country?

 

[Ausm]

???? what planet do you live on? the democrats resisting authority? wtf dude they are the ones imposing that "authority" like obama care. education? libs are the "ivory tower education types"?? wtf does that mean? that they are the wise old professor sitting in a chair at Princeton smoking a pipe giving out wisdom? AND the democrats vote party line every single time as well.

damn are the sheep from both sides ever going to wake the fuck up and see that both parties are destroying this country?

Don't forget the trans vaginal probing that the Rabid right gets off on.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

???? what planet do you live on? the democrats resisting authority? wtf dude they are the ones imposing that "authority" like obama care. education? libs are the "ivory tower education types"?? wtf does that mean? that they are the wise old professor sitting in a chair at Princeton smoking a pipe giving out wisdom? AND the democrats vote party line every single time as well.

damn are the sheep from both sides ever going to wake the fuck up and see that both parties are destroying this country?

I was speaking in terms of broad, sweeing generalizations and stereotypes. Authoritarian laws don't really translate to loyalty though. Let me see if I can further clarify my thought process:

When I think of conservatives, I think of the Republicans adherence to Reagan's "11th Commandment," aka don't speak ill of other Republicans. The Party comes first; loyalty. You don't see a similar mindset amongst Democrats; sure, they tend to stand together against Republicans, but they'll also call out each other. That's not loyalty to the Party in the same vein as the GOP.

When I think of conservatives, I think of a "love it or leave it" mentality with regards to the United States. I think of people being accused of "blaming America first" when they point out flaws within our country. The USA can do no wrong; loyalty. There's never been a stereotype that liberals are loyal to the United States; half the time, they're sympathizing with terrorists, and half the time they're trying to turn our country over to the immigrants (stereotypes, mind you). Jingoistic nationalism may not be the best trait to espouse, but it certainly applies more to a conservative archetype than a liberal one, and that's indicative of a sense of loyalty to the country.

Keep in mind, these are just stereotypes; I don't know that I buy that liberals aren't loyal. But strictly based on the stereotypes of each group, I get where the author is coming from.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Hmm. People find images of a person eating worms to be disgusting. When people have been exposed to something disgusting, they get more conservative. Rick Santorum wants people to be more conservative, therefore voting for him. Conclusion: Rick Santorum needs to produce a television advert where he eats worms.

I have a brilliant idea; Fear Factor: Rick Santorum edition.
Anyone know people at the network? It's gold I tell you! GOLD!

Very interesting article though.

 

[Thump553]

I forgot to mention: Best line in the linked blog by far:

"(One lesson of the book: If you see Haidt approaching with a clipboard, run!) "

One of those laugh out loud moments.

 

[bfdd]

???? what planet do you live on? the democrats resisting authority? wtf dude they are the ones imposing that "authority" like obama care. education? libs are the "ivory tower education types"?? wtf does that mean? that they are the wise old professor sitting in a chair at Princeton smoking a pipe giving out wisdom? AND the democrats vote party line every single time as well.

damn are the sheep from both sides ever going to wake the fuck up and see that both parties are destroying this country?

One would hope, but it doesn't really look that way.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm interested in why certain members of a side seem predisposed to a persecution complex.

My assumption is that it has to do with hyper-aggressive fathers.

 

[Moonbeam]

The link seems to have just gone dead

 

[Rainsford]

I always find studies like this interesting. It suggests that the liberal/conservative split isn't just a matter of disagreeing on certain issues. We really have significantly different underlying personalities, views of the world and even ways of processing information. In some ways, that's kind of sad, since it makes discussion somewhat less useful. After all, if we're not even thinking about something the same way, how do you convince anyone to take a different view? It also helps explain why emotions can run high in political debate, since from our point of view, the other side just looks unreasonable

I was interested by the result that conservatives could predict liberal reactions better than liberals could predict conservative reactions. Although I'm wondering how they normalized how easy the various reactions were to predict. You'd need liberal positions that were objectively as easy to predict as conservative ones. Or maybe it means liberals are easier to understand. Or conservatives are better at seeing the other side. Or that conservatives make no sense Whatever the reason, definitely interesting...

 

[Rainsford]

I'm interested in why certain members of a side seem predisposed to a persecution complex.

My assumption is that it has to do with hyper-aggressive fathers.

I don't think what people call a "persecution complex" really has as much to do with honestly feeling beat down as it does with finding some appeal in the idea of being the noble individual standing against the oppressive masses. Everybody loves the underdog stories, and if you can cast yourself as the underdog without having to actually have the downside of BEING the underdog, all the better.

 

[dank69]

"fart spray"

 

[Ninjahedge]

The worst that I see now is the misinterpretation and distorted appelation these terms have evolved into.

"Liberal" literally means 'accepting of differing views'. In general, they are willing to, at the very least, listen and consider what is being said before dissecting or rejecting it.

"Conservative" means 'to hold on to what is currently in place, an unwillingness to change', which can also be good if applied properly (the whole concept of "sticking with what works" and having them as a social damper that slows radical change to prevent pendulum swing and possible dangerous backswing).

The problem is, Liberal has been used as an epithet to describe someone that does not agree or wants to change everything. That is NOT what the word means, but it is the stereotype it has become. From the relatively small, but highly publicized and now romanticized/villified 50's beatnik and 60's flower child and the resented 'intellectual' that was detested because not only was he smarter, but many of the things he said was annoyingly correct, this was something that was easily warped to serve political purpose to channel the hatred of difference and peoples fear of inferiority into issues that bore little connection to it.

Conservatism has, ironically, been warped into retrograde devolutionary regression. Somehow, people that stood for keeping things that worked are being convinced that things need to be rolled back to times where they have themselves forgotten what SUCKED about the world they lived in. They are told that they not only have to protect "American Values", but ignore some that the country was founded on (acceptance of immigrants being one. The SOL for crying out loud!!!). They see the 1950's as "the good old days" without seeing the lack of luxuries that many modern families now enjoy, and the lack of freedoms that many minorities, as well as women, can now hold.

So whenever I see this "Conservative vs. Liberal" crap I have to take a deep breath and realize that most of the people using this connotation have forgotten what they truly mean.

 

[Craig234]

As a liberal, I associate loyalty far more with conservatives. Liberals have the stereotype of being told to question everything, being the ivory tower educated types, resisting authority, etc. Conservatives have the stereotype of following dogma, whether religious or political. You can see it play out in Congress all the time; the Democrats never seem to agree with each other, but every Republican votes lock-step with the party every single time. That's loyalty.

We have a different definition of 'loyalty'.

What about someone who is 'loyal' to a fault putting their country or family ahead of others so they behave immorally to others for the benefit of their 'side'?

Liberals might be more 'loyal' to humanity.

I'd say questioning to find when your country is wrong and fighting to improve it is more loyal to it than 'lock-step'.

You seem to be calling 'enablers' of doing wrong things loyal.

Read a book, "Super-Patriotism". Here's a summary of the book:

Superpatriots are those people who place national pride and American supremacy above every other public consideration, those who follow leaders uncritically, especially in their war policies abroad. Superpatriotism is the nationalistic hype propagated by officialdom, the media, and various flag-waving groups.

Michael Parenti demonstrates how superpatriotism attaches itself to religion, sports, the military, the schools, and big business. He questions whether its top politico-economic propagators are themselves really patriotic, given how they evade taxes, export our jobs, pollute our land, and plunder the public treasury.

With incisive probing, fine style, and humorous touch, Parenti treats such urgent questions as: What does it mean to love one’s country? Why is it so important to be Number One? What determines America’s “greatness?” And are we really God's gift to humanity? He examines how US leaders and the corporate media fan the flames of fear to win support for huge arms budgets, global aggrandizement, and the suppression of political dissent at home and abroad.

Finally, Parenti poses an alternative to superpatriotism, arguing that the real patriots are those who care enough to educate themselves about our country’s history and its present plight. He reminds us that it is not “anti-American” to criticize unjust social conditions at home or oppose global policies pursued by our rulers. Rather it is our democratic right and patriotic duty to do so.

Table of Contents
What Does It Mean to Love Our Country?
“America—Love It or Leave It”
The Importance of Being Number One
Military Patriotism: For Flag and Missile
“USA! USA!” Sports for Superpatriots
The Divine Politicos
Messianic Nation
Follow the Leader
Patriotic Fear
The Menace Within
Are the Plutocrats Patriotic?
Support Our Troops (Cut Their Benefits)
Rulers of the Planet
“Why Do They Hate Us?”
Real Patriotism

 

[Jadow]

"fart spray"

QFT

 

[SilthDraeth]

"fart spray"

That's "wet fart spray" to you!