Do Conservatives really wish liberals would die?

[Moonbeam]

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.

 

[bfdd]

I would hope neither "liberals" nor "conservatives" wish for the other to die just for existing. That's silly.

 

[her209]

Not only do they wish it, then want to be the ones perpetrating it. See the whole thing about "Its time to water the tree of liberty". Then you have these right wing militia groups that want to take their country back.

Of course there's you typical minority church bombings/arson cases. As well as the typical bombing/arson of abortion clinics and murder of doctors who perform abortion.

 

[werepossum]

I wish both sides would leave everyone alone and mind their own business.

I wish everyone who uses the terms "liberal" or "conservative" as an attack would die. Get over the ridiculous partisanship people.

I was going to post that conservatives merely want liberals to grow up, but you two have shamed me so I'll just say THIS to both. Except not die, obviously.

I can still use "proggie" as an attack though, right?

 

[Atreus21]

Not only do they wish it, then want to be the ones perpetrating it. See the whole thing about "Its time to water the tree of liberty". Then you have these right wing militia groups that want to take their country back.

Of course there's you typical minority church bombings/arson cases. As well as the typical bombing/arson of abortion clinics and murder of doctors who perform abortion.

I know, these abortion clinic bombings, they're so common I just ignore the billowing flames on my way to work now. Just bored with them.

 

[irishScott]

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.

And so are you. Margins can't be slight and stand as science? What world do you live on? Margins can mean a great deal, even small ones. Especially in psychology. The only reason marginal results are usually discounted in science is because they're usually a result of uncontrolled variables and are not repeatable. A repeatable margin, even a slight one, is very scientifically valid.

But regardless, that article made no mention of the specific magnitude, so I applied an arbitrary one. As you are also doing to make your point. Can't take looking in the mirror that easily can you? If my point is invalid on grounds of ambiguous magnitude, then so is yours.

The analogy, like most analogies, was put there to add succinctness to the argument. All analogies are inherently inaccurate, but those who have an argument take the intended point and continue. Those who have no argument simply attack the concept of analogies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Explain this to me. What about people who switch parties? If one political side has a brain defect, what if they switch parties? It happens all the time. Are they taking that defect with them, because the brain cannot re-generate cells to replace any defective areas.

Do you know that the head of the Marine Corp who was totally against open gays in the military a year ago has said he was wrong? After one year all the dire predictions about the disaster that would happen if gays served openly have proved to be totally false. This guy's position was totally conservative but he has a liberal brain because factual evidence and not hand me down wisdom was the stronger of the forces that affects his mind. Of course, he may have changed his mind for perhaps egotistical and or tactical reasons, not wanting to lead the Marines and also be seen as a Neanderthal. The best leaders should strive to be respected.

There is, of course, much more that is worth looking at here, and I respect your question as a good one deserving, itself, of much more, but you have proven to be very dismissive of seriously thought out and heartfelt answers I have given you in the past. So I think it's time you start to show some reasons why I should bother at all with you. Sorry.

 

[Matt1970]

Do you know that the head of the Marine Corp who was totally against open gays in the military a year ago has said he was wrong? After one year all the dire predictions about the disaster that would happen if gays served openly have proved to be totally false. This guy's position was totally conservative but he has a liberal brain because factual evidence and not hand me down wisdom was the stronger of the forces that affects his mind. Of course, he may have changed his mind for perhaps egotistical and or tactical reasons, not wanting to lead the Marines and also be seen as a Neanderthal. The best leaders should strive to be respected.

There is, of course, much more that is worth looking at here, and I respect your question as a good one deserving, itself, of much more, but you have proven to be very dismissive of seriously thought out and heartfelt answers I have given you in the past. So I think it's time you start to show some reasons why I should bother at all with you. Sorry.

I thought as much.

 

[Moonbeam]

irishScott: And so are you. Margins can't be slight and stand as science? What world do you live on? Margins can mean a great deal, even small ones. Especially in psychology. The only reason marginal results are usually discounted in science is because they're usually a result of uncontrolled variables and are not repeatable. A repeatable margin, even a slight one, is very scientifically valid.

M: That's great news. Now I am certain that we can both agree that the slightly elevated frequency of delusional thinking among conservatives means the difference between being bat shit crazy and capable of rational thinking. Those tiny little differences sure add up, scientifically speaking.

i: But regardless, that article made no mention of the specific magnitude, so I applied an arbitrary one.

M: But it did mention a specific magnitude, namely frequency so any other was truly arbitrary and made no sense.

i: As you are also doing to make your point. Can't take looking in the mirror that easily can you? If my point is invalid on grounds of ambiguous magnitude, then so is yours.

M: Sorry but frequency is a magnitude and it carries weight as I accurately stated with hurricanes.

i: The analogy, like most analogies, was put there to add succinctness to the argument. All analogies are inherently inaccurate, but those who have an argument take the intended point and continue. Those who have no argument simply attack the concept of analogies.[/QUOTE]

M: I didn't attack the concept of analogies, I don't think, but your analogy. You know there can be false analogies but an appeal to the inherent inaccuracy of analogies isn't an excuse for a bad one.

 

[Moonbeam]

I thought as much.

As I thought you would be dismissive and sure enough....

 

[irishScott]

irishScott: And so are you. Margins can't be slight and stand as science? What world do you live on? Margins can mean a great deal, even small ones. Especially in psychology. The only reason marginal results are usually discounted in science is because they're usually a result of uncontrolled variables and are not repeatable. A repeatable margin, even a slight one, is very scientifically valid.

M: That's great news. Now I am certain that we can both agree that the slightly elevated frequency of delusional thinking among conservatives means the difference between being bat shit crazy and capable of rational thinking. Those tiny little differences sure add up, scientifically speaking.

i: But regardless, that article made no mention of the specific magnitude, so I applied an arbitrary one.

M: But it did mention a specific magnitude, namely frequency so any other was truly arbitrary and made no sense.

i: As you are also doing to make your point. Can't take looking in the mirror that easily can you? If my point is invalid on grounds of ambiguous magnitude, then so is yours.

M: Sorry but frequency is a magnitude and it carries weight as I accurately stated with hurricanes.

i: The analogy, like most analogies, was put there to add succinctness to the argument. All analogies are inherently inaccurate, but those who have an argument take the intended point and continue. Those who have no argument simply attack the concept of analogies.

M: I didn't attack the concept of analogies, I don't think, but your analogy. You know there can be false analogies but an appeal to the inherent inaccuracy of analogies isn't an excuse for a bad one.

So frequency is the only magnitude that matters? How does that work? For the purposes of the study yes it only studied frequency, but in terms of practical effect that number could very well be meaningless.

Say a "conservative" is also a literal, biblical creationist. They are shown carbon-dating, fossils, geological studies, astronomical studies, etc but still maintain their creationism. The social effect of that is largely within their own skull or immediate peer group.

Now say a liberal strongly believes that Lenin-style socialism is the answer to all our problems, in spite of similarly contravening evidence. But said liberal goes out to an Occupy Wall St protest, vandalizes a building and gets arrested. The social effect of that is much more harmful than the above.

And you could readily reverse the situation with different examples where the conservative does more damage than the liberal. Point is unless the frequency is drastically different, it is not the sole determining factor of practical effect.

And honestly, for all we know the frequency of "moral coherence" is entirely accounted for by the tendency of conservatives to be religious. By definition religion entails denying some physical manifestations and placing them in an illogical context. That would obviously increase the numbers on the "moral coherence" scale. But speaking as someone who was raised by religious people and who's relatives are devoutly conservative southern-Baptist, I never suffered for it. In fact, although I no longer attend church or believe in Christianity, I considered the times I was forced to go as a kid a net positive.

This all goes back to my original point, which is that these studies, while interesting conceptually, don't determine anything of much practical value.

 

[boomerang]

Do Conservatives really wish liberals would die?

Hell no. I want you guys shining up the rimz on my new Mercedes that I bought from the profits I made on the sweat of your labor. I want you trimming my trees and picking up my trash. Use some common sense - if you have it.

 

[Steeplerot]

Meh, they lose everytime. Why fear righties? They always listen to themselves too much to be effective or have a gauge on where their strengths are.

If they did get violent again we know how it always ends for them. Limbaugh and Beck in a bunker huddled rocking back and forth ranting and swearing the American public is with them knowing the teaparty reserves are just a few miles outside of the fox HQ, -its just taking a minute for them to recharge their wheelchair batteries.

 

[Moonbeam]

irishScott: So frequency is the only magnitude that matters? How does that work? For the purposes of the study yes it only studied frequency, but in terms of practical effect that number could very well be meaningless.

Say a "conservative" is also a literal, biblical creationist. They are shown carbon-dating, fossils, geological studies, astronomical studies, etc but still maintain their creationism. The social effect of that is largely within their own skull or immediate peer group.

Now say a liberal strongly believes that Lenin-style socialism is the answer to all our problems, in spite of similarly contravening evidence. But said liberal goes out to an Occupy Wall St protest, vandalizes a building and gets arrested. The social effect of that is much more harmful than the above.

And you could readily reverse the situation with different examples where the conservative does more damage than the liberal. Point is unless the frequency is drastically different, it is not the sole determining factor of practical effect.

M: Nobody said that frequency is the only magnitude that matters only a magnitude that does matter, that conservatives are more frequently occupants of an altered reality than liberals are. What you want to do is now imply that liberal delusions may be worse is some objective way than conservative ones overcoming the frequency factor. But what the research shows is that liberals are less frequently deluded than conservatives and more easily persuaded by reason that they are delusional.

i: And honestly, for all we know the frequency of "moral coherence" is entirely accounted for by the tendency of conservatives to be religious. By definition religion entails denying some physical manifestations and placing them in an illogical context. That would obviously increase the numbers on the "moral coherence" scale. But speaking as someone who was raised by religious people and who's relatives are devoutly conservative southern-Baptist, I never suffered for it. In fact, although I no longer attend church or believe in Christianity, I considered the times I was forced to go as a kid a net positive.

This all goes back to my original point, which is that these studies, while interesting conceptually, don't determine anything of much practical value.

M: Apparently for you they do not because of the way you reason or think. The evidence actually suggests that the reason that conservative ranks are so much more replete with religious fundamentalists is because the the same brain anomalies detected in conservatives also make religion appeal to them:

=============
Plead Ignorance
A once-great nation being crushed under its own weight.

Saturday, March 17, 2012
Angry (or Fearful) White Men
I am always interested in why we humans perceive and respond to the world the way we do. How is it that our brains are comfortable with attaching significance to one set of facts, yet conversely be dismissive (or even ignorant) of contradictory information?

No where do these perceptual differences appear so pronounced (or have such effect directly on our lives) than in the political arena. Here we have candidate Rick Santorum stating with absolute certainty that Global Climate Change is a “hoax” or that a college education essentially amounts to nothing more than Liberal indoctrination. The latter a remarkably absurd statement coming from a religious adherent … religion quite literally wrote the Book on indoctrination!

Liberals certainly are not immune to thinking errors or political gaffs, but why do we associate the prevalence of apparent rational-less ideology so strongly with Conservatives? It sometimes seems that Conservatives are almost living in their own separate reality.

Recent research, it turns out, is revealing that this may indeed be the case. A multitude of psychological studies reveal that Conservatives tends to hold more of a “defensively based” ideology; or more to the point, Conservatives view political issues on an emotional level within a context of threat.

I recently read a news article suggesting that the GOP party establishment is attempting to encourage their candidates to shift the campaign focus less on threatening and fear-inducing commentary and instead more toward what the party visions as their platform for the future. Indeed, the 20-some odd public debates seem to be all about demonizing Obama and each other rather than laying a foundation for sound governance. The GOP's menacing portrayals regarding social issues such as gay marriage, access to contraceptives and religion in politics, appear to be running headlong into a wall not shared by most Americans... even among many other Conservative voters.

The data in these studies show that Conservatives tend to have strong adverse reactions when presented with negative images. "The aversive in life is more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right."[1]

Liberals, on the other hand, appeal more to an open, exploratory philosophy; trying things out and seeking multiple and contradictory information in comparison. Liberals feel less visceral responses to stimuli because they question whether it is true or if there may be another different or more complex explanation. This philosophic approach has the effect of dispelling fear by considering other possible information.

I notice this fear-based response to topical issues is common among strong religious adherents as well. Evangelicals, who tend to view issues in stark black-and-white terms generally tend to also be Conservative in their thinking. For these folks, belief in god is based on fear of reprisal (hell) for not following the rules, fear of death, even fear of being ostracised by one's peers, all of which plays into acceptance of dogma, or comfortable rationalism, to assuage the threatening consequences.

Back on the political spectrum, this is probably why unsubstantiated, not clearly defined and scary adages such as “redistribution of the wealth”, “Socialism”, “entitlement society”, and “Big Government” to name but a few, seem to resonate as somehow meaningful to Conservative minds.

The down side of acknowledging this theory, regarding the psychology of fear and belief, has the discouraging implication that it may be difficult or impossible break through to minds which appear to be "hard wired" to view the world through the context of fear or threat.

To these folks, as Stephen Colbert has suggested: "The truth has a Liberal bias".
===========

One study of brain differences between liberals and conservatives is here:

http://blog.psico.edu.uy/cibpsi/files/2011/04/brains.pdf

 

[Moonbeam]

My bad....didn't realize there was a 2nd page to the article. This part was interesting....again, bolding is mine.



I totally agree with you Moonie...it really is too bad personal opinion and scientific fact can be so different. Case in point.

Have the brain scan studies been refuted? I am going to go not with on opinion but what seems to be the preponderance of evidence as suggested in my above post excerpted here:

"Liberals certainly are not immune to thinking errors or political gaffs, but why do we associate the prevalence of apparent rational-less ideology so strongly with Conservatives? It sometimes seems that Conservatives are almost living in their own separate reality.

Recent research, it turns out, is revealing that this may indeed be the case. A multitude of psychological studies reveal that Conservatives tends to hold more of a “defensively based” ideology; or more to the point, Conservatives view political issues on an emotional level within a context of threat.

Here is another way to think about it. Are the Taliban living in an altered reality? Most folk who didn't grow up steeped in Wahabi Islam from early youth think they are and they see it with absolute certainty.

 

[Greenman]

Well gentlemen, you've done it. You have completely changed my mind on a topic that I never thought I might be wrong about. It took a lot of hours of reading here in P&N, and many more hours reading linked study's. You see, I always believed liberals and conservatives had pretty much the same ideals, the same goals, just different way's of approaching problems. After reading this post, and many others with the same theme, you've convinced me that liberals are simply stupid.

Well done.

 

[Steeplerot]

So frequency is the only magnitude that matters? How does that work? For the purposes of the study yes it only studied frequency, but in terms of practical effect that number could very well be meaningless.

Say a "conservative" is also a literal, biblical creationist. They are shown carbon-dating, fossils, geological studies, astronomical studies, etc but still maintain their creationism. The social effect of that is largely within their own skull or immediate peer group.

Yet in the real world the only extreme example of crime come from exactly this group in the form of hate crimes, neo nazi christian groups, abortion terrorism etc, not some made up leninist USA strawman that never even existed.

We are speaking of reality.

There have been all of a few dozen windows broken out in the USA in the past year. Yet how many right wing bombing/shootings massacres have been going on?

Too bad if this is un-pc but it is a sick truth that should not be ignored, although I do not fear such morons.

Billions stolen by wall st tycoons. And the American Left has broken a few windows and you think it's some type of comparison to actual terrorism.

 

[OCGuy]

Are people still trotting out that BS brain study? I thought I pretty much debunked that in my first post in this thread, which pointed out that what is considered "liberal" or "Conservative" is completely fucking different depending on where you are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well gentlemen, you've done it. You have completely changed my mind on a topic that I never thought I might be wrong about. It took a lot of hours of reading here in P&N, and many more hours reading linked study's. You see, I always believed liberals and conservatives had pretty much the same ideals, the same goals, just different way's of approaching problems. After reading this post, and many others with the same theme, you've convinced me that liberals are simply stupid.

Well done.

Exactly, the more a conservative is shown to be wrong, the deeper his delusions become.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are people still trotting out that BS brain study? I thought I pretty much debunked that in my first post in this thread, which pointed out that what is considered "liberal" or "Conservative" is completely fucking different depending on where you are.

Have you read any of the thread. No standard of liberal or conservative was used in the experiments other than self reporting. It doesn't make a fig of a difference what either of them are, the evidence shows that those who think they are conservative whatever that means to them, and those who purport to be liberals, whatever that might be, have different brain scans and differ in their thinking. And what the fuck else would liberal or conservative be than what people who purport to be one or the other think conservative or liberal to be.

 

[MrColin]

The answer is, unequivocally yes, and they've taken such action already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting





Resident ATPN conservative, Arkaign, noticed this sentiment amongst other conservatives in his area:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28025862&postcount=53



Remember that scene in American History X when that white supremacist 'curb stomped' the black guy and killed him? Well, our own resident spidey seems to echo that sentiment against liberals:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32608744&postcount=280



Remember, the Republican party is the party that cheers on immoral wars, torture, and no doubt killing of their political enemies. They are the party of violent sociopaths.

You can't have death marches, ethnic cleansing, death camps, and other mass exterminations without a large standing force of conservatives. It just wouldn't work out.

 

[piasabird]

Statistically there are crimiinals and murderers in all social and financial and religious organizations. Why would conservatives or liberals be any different? I think maybe you might suffer from misunderstandings. So many things are reported in the news about crimes that you might misinterpret it as crime is rampant. Times are tough right now and many people are desperate. So tensions are running high.