i: Alright, so now define conservative.
M: No need. The subjects self defined themselves.
i: I wonder if these studies and those who follow them without question or insight take into account that ~80% of the nation does not solidly fit the current partisan definitions of either "liberal" or "conservative". However, many people will still say they are "liberal" or "conservative", either ignorantly or applying their own personal definitions.
M: Again, the subjects self defined, but speculation can be interesting. Those so self defined showed different kinds of brains. What we know then is that folk who think they are conservative, whatever that may actually be, are more delusional, frequency wise at least, than self defined liberals.
i: The bottom line is that these studies currently have little practical meaning; many even admit that as part of the study. Yet the lefty posters here and elsewhere seem determined to say that they do.
M: This is your contention and assumption it looks to me to be a rather conservative one for that reason, because you bring no scientific evidence to support your contention. This may just be another example where a conservative is incapable of seeing meaning where there is meaning. Don't forget that the evidence of brain differences between liberals and conservatives has got to mean something or it wouldn't be there.
i: Which, ironically, goes along with your link perfectly.
M: How so. I am not persuaded by purported irony.
i: If you actually comprehend that, it says conservatives are "more susceptible to confusing "is" and "ought"". It openly states that liberals do it to, and not with less severity, just with less apparent frequency.
M: This would be worth some scientific study, study you haven't done so it remains conjectural and perhaps even a stretch since severity and frequency often mean the same thing. The weather is more sever where there's a hurricane a day rather than one a year.
i: Which can be analogized as saying "this serial killer shot 5 people, and this serial killer shot 4 people." If it places liberals above conservatives in any way, it does so by the slightest possible margin. But here and elsewhere, the loony left is eagerly chanting: "Look! Conservatives warp the facts! Science says so!" Once again proving that critical component of the study right: they do it to.
M: Ah me, analogy is to scientific theory as imaginative thinking is to evidence.
You are telling yourself a story you want to hear. The margin can't be slight and stand as science. The evidence has been adduced to be scientific fact. You don't want to accept it which puts you in the conservative camp. Sorry.
M: No need. The subjects self defined themselves.
i: I wonder if these studies and those who follow them without question or insight take into account that ~80% of the nation does not solidly fit the current partisan definitions of either "liberal" or "conservative". However, many people will still say they are "liberal" or "conservative", either ignorantly or applying their own personal definitions.
M: Again, the subjects self defined, but speculation can be interesting. Those so self defined showed different kinds of brains. What we know then is that folk who think they are conservative, whatever that may actually be, are more delusional, frequency wise at least, than self defined liberals.
i: The bottom line is that these studies currently have little practical meaning; many even admit that as part of the study. Yet the lefty posters here and elsewhere seem determined to say that they do.
M: This is your contention and assumption it looks to me to be a rather conservative one for that reason, because you bring no scientific evidence to support your contention. This may just be another example where a conservative is incapable of seeing meaning where there is meaning. Don't forget that the evidence of brain differences between liberals and conservatives has got to mean something or it wouldn't be there.
i: Which, ironically, goes along with your link perfectly.
M: How so. I am not persuaded by purported irony.
i: If you actually comprehend that, it says conservatives are "more susceptible to confusing "is" and "ought"". It openly states that liberals do it to, and not with less severity, just with less apparent frequency.
M: This would be worth some scientific study, study you haven't done so it remains conjectural and perhaps even a stretch since severity and frequency often mean the same thing. The weather is more sever where there's a hurricane a day rather than one a year.
i: Which can be analogized as saying "this serial killer shot 5 people, and this serial killer shot 4 people." If it places liberals above conservatives in any way, it does so by the slightest possible margin. But here and elsewhere, the loony left is eagerly chanting: "Look! Conservatives warp the facts! Science says so!" Once again proving that critical component of the study right: they do it to.
M: Ah me, analogy is to scientific theory as imaginative thinking is to evidence.
You are telling yourself a story you want to hear. The margin can't be slight and stand as science. The evidence has been adduced to be scientific fact. You don't want to accept it which puts you in the conservative camp. Sorry.