Off the cliff.............

[Moonbeam]

I remember awhile back he posted this as proof:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

After which I posted this. From the same author:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...re-more-intelligent-conservatives-why-are-lib

I believe also that it is just good common sense to happy rather than not, right?

Here's something to consider: http://www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html

 

[chucky2]

Clearly you are having trouble buying into a theory because of what you feel. snip

No, I have trouble buying into the theory because there isn't sufficient understanding of the variables (the human brain) to make buying into the theory a proper thing to do or not. When they've figured it out far more than they have, it can be revistited - if necessary at that point.

I'm not willing to rush to conclusions to go on an ego trip to bash people that don't feel like rushing off to support the latest craze like I want to. Rather than worry about why I know you (and it seem dank) in this thread are irrational, you should instead worry about why you're irrational.

Chuck

 

[dank69]

No, I have trouble buying into the theory because there isn't sufficient understanding of the variables (the human brain) to make buying into the theory a proper thing to do or not. When they've figured it out far more than they have, it can be revistited - if necessary at that point.

I'm not willing to rush to conclusions to go on an ego trip to bash people that don't feel like rushing off to support the latest craze like I want to. Rather than worry about why I know you (and it seem dank) in this thread are irrational, you should instead worry about why you're irrational.

Chuck

How much have they currently figured out, and how much more do they need to figure out before you will trust these types of studies?

 

[chucky2]

Not enough, and more than they have now. When they can isolate thoughts and information, track them, determine how they form, etc etc. then perhaps something like this will be worthwhile. Until we approach that level of understanding, running into a thread trumpeting that conservatives have a brain defect zomg! to make oneself feel better about themselves is pretty...rediculous.

You could think of it this way if you don't agree with me: The author of the study so trumpted has already said people with brain defects figure things out better than mental elitist liberals.

What does that say for throwing in with liberal thinking?

 

[dank69]

Not enough, and more than they have now.

In other words, "I don't know anything about what I'm talking about so I'll just make up some random things now.

When they can isolate thoughts and information, track them, determine how they form, etc etc. then perhaps something like this will be worthwhile. Until we approach that level of understanding, running into a thread trumpeting that conservatives have a brain defect zomg! to make oneself feel better about themselves is pretty...rediculous.

You could think of it this way if you don't agree with me: The author of the study so trumpted has already said people with brain defects figure things out better than mental elitist liberals.

What does that say for throwing in with liberal thinking?

It says that you don't even understand the claims that Moonbeam has been making. The claim is that liberals and conservatives think differently and each way has advantages in certain circumstances and disadvantages in others.

 

[chucky2]

In other words, "I don't know anything about what I'm talking about so I'll just make up some random things now.

In other words, you don't either. You take it on blind faith that they're at that point so you can make your ego boosting claims on the back of that faith. Congrats.

It says that you don't even understand the claims that Moonbeam has been making. The claim is that liberals and conservatives think differently and each way has advantages in certain circumstances and disadvantages in others.

It says that I understand that Moonbeam has a severe self confidence problem with the need to feel superior, resulting in rediculous posts (not rediculous because I don't understand them, rediculous because they're rediculous) about conservative brain defects. You will notice how many times he's referenced conservative brain defects, and how many times he's reference liberals being stupid. Only when someone posted a link from the same author does the advantages/disadvantages cop out come up.

This reminds me of a certain someone actually trying to defend Biden on his brilliant home defense advice. That road is going to be gone down again in this thread?

 

[BoberFett]

It says that you don't even understand the claims that Moonbeam has been making. The claim is that liberals and conservatives think differently and each way has advantages in certain circumstances and disadvantages in others.

That has never been Moonbeam's claim.

 

[ivwshane]

That has never been Moonbeam's claim.

In fact it has.

 

[dank69]

That has never been Moonbeam's claim.

That has always been Moonbeam's claim, you are just too blinded by hatred to see it.

 

[dank69]

In other words, you don't either. You take it on blind faith that they're at that point so you can make your ego boosting claims on the back of that faith. Congrats.

No. When I don't know details about something I defer to experts. When you don't know details about something you ignore experts that tell you what you don't want to hear.

It says that I understand that Moonbeam has a severe self confidence problem with the need to feel superior, resulting in rediculous posts (not rediculous because I don't understand them, rediculous because they're rediculous) about conservative brain defects. You will notice how many times he's referenced conservative brain defects, and how many times he's reference liberals being stupid. Only when someone posted a link from the same author does the advantages/disadvantages cop out come up.

He has always said this for as long as I have been here.

This reminds me of a certain someone actually trying to defend Biden on his brilliant home defense advice. That road is going to be gone down again in this thread?

Not sure why you feel this is relevant but if you want to have another good laugh about how conservatives railed against Biden for saying what he did and then defended a woman who did exactly what he said, have at it.

 

[OverVolt]

Which college teaches conservative psychology again?

 

[chucky2]

No. When I don't know details about something I defer to experts. When you don't know details about something you ignore experts that tell you what you don't want to hear.

No, you assume "the experts" have "the details" to begin with. This assumption is wrong: They don't. This is the entire problem with having religous faith in science, as if science actually has it all figured out to the degree necessary to make factual statements.

He has always said this for as long as I have been here.

No, he hasn't.

Not sure why you feel this is relevant but if you want to have another good laugh about how conservatives railed against Biden for saying what he did and then defended a woman who did exactly what he said, have at it.

Have at what, the strawman you just created? Telling some to just shoot through their door, meaning, shoot through their main door, which isn't a screen/glass door, is beyond F'ing stupid. The woman didn't shoot through her main door, she shot through the secondary door. LOL at even trying to equate the two. Holy sh1t I cannot believe you've tied your horse to Biden again on this.

Maybe this guy does have a point, we're seeing some serious liberal "smarts" in this thread, one can only wonder what the future brings...

Chuck

 

[dank69]

No, you assume "the experts" have "the details" to begin with. This assumption is wrong: They don't. This is the entire problem with having religous faith in science, as if science actually has it all figured out to the degree necessary to make factual statements.



No, he hasn't.



Have at what, the strawman you just created? Telling some to just shoot through their door, meaning, shoot through their main door, which isn't a screen/glass door, is beyond F'ing stupid. The woman didn't shoot through her main door, she shot through the secondary door. LOL at even trying to equate the two. Holy sh1t I cannot believe you've tied your horse to Biden again on this.

Maybe this guy does have a point, we're seeing some serious liberal "smarts" in this thread, one can only wonder what the future brings...

Chuck

Liberal smarts that dismiss science as requiring religious faith. Liberal smarts that add words like "main" to what he thinks Biden said because without it his argument falls to pieces. Liberal smarts that thinks my post is a straw man when a straw man requires the user to pretend that the straw man is the opposition's position and I did no such thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I have trouble buying into the theory because there isn't sufficient understanding of the variables (the human brain) to make buying into the theory a proper thing to do or not. When they've figured it out far more than they have, it can be revistited - if necessary at that point.

I'm not willing to rush to conclusions to go on an ego trip to bash people that don't feel like rushing off to support the latest craze like I want to. Rather than worry about why I know you (and it seem dank) in this thread are irrational, you should instead worry about why you're irrational.

Chuck

Hehe, it is irrelevant whether I am irrational or not. I didn't do the 16 peer reviewed studies delineating the differences between liberal and conservative thinking nor collect the scientific data making those 16 cases. What you are saying is that like conservatives everywhere, you can't believe there are 16 peer reviewed scientific studies that show these differences exist because you prefer the truthiness of your own opinion. So 16 scientific studies point in a direction you don't like so there and you can't believe yourself to be so irrational as to deny it so you rationalize your opinion behind such crap as 'too many variables in the human brain'. Of course, if you knew anything at all, peer reviewed science doesn't get to be peer reviewed science if it doesn't account for variables. That conservatives rationalize away what is painful to their egos is settled science among the cognoscenti.

 

[Moonbeam]

In other words, you don't either. You take it on blind faith that they're at that point so you can make your ego boosting claims on the back of that faith. Congrats.



It says that I understand that Moonbeam has a severe self confidence problem with the need to feel superior, resulting in rediculous posts (not rediculous because I don't understand them, rediculous because they're rediculous) about conservative brain defects. You will notice how many times he's referenced conservative brain defects, and how many times he's reference liberals being stupid. Only when someone posted a link from the same author does the advantages/disadvantages cop out come up.

This reminds me of a certain someone actually trying to defend Biden on his brilliant home defense advice. That road is going to be gone down again in this thread?

I love to refer to them as brain defects because the nature of the defect is excessive defensiveness. You have tried to suggest there's something wrong with me. I don't care. There are 16 peer review studies I can turn to in order to learn about myself. Why would I worry about your opinion. I know also that you see me as pretending to be superior owing to a sever self confidence problem, the exact thing conservatives have that I call a mental defect. You see in me the truth about yourself. The difference between us is very slim. I just have 16 peer reviewed studies that say you are talking about yourself, not me.

 

[Moonbeam]

That has never been Moonbeam's claim.

I know you're a meat tornado. I just didn't know the meat was in your ears.

Here is a post I just made in another thread:

"I hope that liberals remember that those defects this thread verifies to exist in conservative brains are founded on deep moral principles that were and are a part of why human beings have had a winning survival strategy. These brains are more deeply committed to group think than liberals are and when the group is under attack it is the groups with the greater conservative collective loyalty to their group that more often allows its members to pass their genes to the next generation.

The fact that these folk see Obama not as the President of their group but a foreign enemy player that makes them dangerous at this time in history. This is going to cost them membership because a human group also needs reason to survive. So in our current condition of lack of external threat, reason tells us to ignore conservative morality and paranoid thinking, but we have in future as in the past to be ready to hear these cackling geese. paranoia is valuable when enemies abound.

Don't forget that we are evolutionarily equipped to compete with other groups and to see them as threat as we evolved into larger and larger collectives, carrying with us the potential seeds of our own destruction, seeds if fully eliminated might lead to another kind of destruction. That is why the thrust and function of human conscious evolution today must, in my opinion, be the inclusion of all of humanity as a single human group. The aim and goal of conscious evolution should in my opinion be, learning how to see the other as the self. We can't teach conservatives brotherhood if our aim is to destroy them. They are us and we are them.

Conservatives are good people who have a limited notion of the value of others. They have problems liking others because they have some problems liking themselves. They love members of their own group and are outstandingly loyal and generous to them. They are people, whom if they like you, you can trust. They feel that liberals are a threat to that and that is why they oppose us. To love your neighbor is good and it's that notion they defend. But to not know who your neighbor really is, is kind of sad. We are all the same and we have all been deeply hurt. To love is to also love yourself and the more you love yourself, I think, the more you will love the other.

So conservatives are motivated by a morality of good that can get even better. All they struggle to protect and defend can never be taken. The only thing that change and the evolution of thinking brings is that the good gets bigger and bigger."

 

[michal1980]

I know you're a meat tornado. I just didn't know the meat was in your ears.

Here is a post I just made in another thread:

"I hope that liberals remember that those defects this thread verifies to exist in conservative brains are founded on deep moral principles that were and are a part of why human beings have had a winning survival strategy. These brains are more deeply committed to group think than liberals are and when the group is under attack it is the groups with the greater conservative collective loyalty to their group that more often allows its members to pass their genes to the next generation.

The fact that these folk see Obama not as the President of their group but a foreign enemy player that makes them dangerous at this time in history. This is going to cost them membership because a human group also needs reason to survive. So in our current condition of lack of external threat, reason tells us to ignore conservative morality and paranoid thinking, but we have in future as in the past to be ready to hear these cackling geese. paranoia is valuable when enemies abound.

Don't forget that we are evolutionarily equipped to compete with other groups and to see them as threat as we evolved into larger and larger collectives, carrying with us the potential seeds of our own destruction, seeds if fully eliminated might lead to another kind of destruction. That is why the thrust and function of human conscious evolution today must, in my opinion, be the inclusion of all of humanity as a single human group. The aim and goal of conscious evolution should in my opinion be, learning how to see the other as the self. We can't teach conservatives brotherhood if our aim is to destroy them. They are us and we are them.

Conservatives are good people who have a limited notion of the value of others. They have problems liking others because they have some problems liking themselves. They love members of their own group and are outstandingly loyal and generous to them. They are people, whom if they like you, you can trust. They feel that liberals are a threat to that and that is why they oppose us. To love your neighbor is good and it's that notion they defend. But to not know who your neighbor really is, is kind of sad. We are all the same and we have all been deeply hurt. To love is to also love yourself and the more you love yourself, I think, the more you will love the other.

So conservatives are motivated by a morality of good that can get even better. All they struggle to protect and defend can never be taken. The only thing that change and the evolution of thinking brings is that the good gets bigger and bigger."

The defect is, that you actually believe what you write.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That has always been Moonbeam's claim, you are just too blinded by hatred to see it.

or as Moonbeam would say -- he is too blinded by his own self-hate....

 

[JEDIYoda]

The defect is, that you actually believe what you write.

I take it comprehension is not one of your strong suits...

 

[BoberFett]

In fact it has.

That has always been Moonbeam's claim, you are just too blinded by hatred to see it.

False. Moonbeam has always tried to claim that conservatives are entirely defective, not that liberals and conservative personalities have both advantages and disadvantages.

At least dank's reply made me chuckle. shane is just his usual idiotic drivel.

 

[dank69]

False. Moonbeam has always tried to claim that conservatives are entirely defective, not that liberals and conservative personalities have both advantages and disadvantages.

At least dank's reply made me chuckle. shane is just his usual idiotic drivel.

Defective in a way that is useful in some situations but a detriment in others.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interestingly enough I actually know what I believe and it's fascinating that dank's presentation of what I say in my posts say is so much more like what I think I say than my detractors here. It's nice to know that some people can actually hear what is said and intended. It's almost as if conservatives filter reality to suit one of their own creation.

 

[ivwshane]

False. Moonbeam has always tried to claim that conservatives are entirely defective, not that liberals and conservative personalities have both advantages and disadvantages.

At least dank's reply made me chuckle. shane is just his usual idiotic drivel.

Oh I'm sorry, did I need to elaborate on how wrong you are? Did I need to restate danks opinion but in my own words? Or did you want me to throw a nice insult in there to pile on to whining baby?

 

[1prophet]

You know that nobody actually researches stuff like this right?

Freud was useful in that he spun off the branch of psychology as a legitimate field but it was just the ramblings of a crack addict afterall.

Actually Freud was very useful to his nephew Edward Bernays, he used his uncles psychology research to manipulate the common people which he profited off handsomely from the corporations who used and continue to use his techniques to manipulate the masses.

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

One of Bernays's favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway", he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat heavy breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as an ideal heavy breakfast, and superior for health to the then traditional breakfast of tea (or coffee) and toast.

One example for today, how to get the so called intellectually superior liberal sheep to believe that Warren Buffet's secretary should be pitied because she is an example of the little people paying too high of a tax rate compared to the rich.

WASHINGTON — President Obama last night kicked off an election-year battle over taxing the rich by inviting billionaire Warren Buffett’s secretary to his State of the Union speech.


The stunt, seating secretary Debbie Bosanek behind First Lady Michelle Obama, was a reminder to the national TV audience that rich guys like Buffett pay lower tax rates than secretaries and clerical workers.


“Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households,” Obama said as cameras turned to Bosanek in the gallery. “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”


Bosanek became the poster girl of Democrats who want to raise taxes on the rich after Buffett wrote a newspaper column last summer lambasting a system that would have her pay higher tax rates than he does.


“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense,” Obama said.

Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod...y-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/

I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffett is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

While the conservative brain may be primitive and easily manipulated, the liberals are just as manipulated using their own sense of intellectual superiority and smugness against them.

 

[chucky2]

Liberal smarts that dismiss science as requiring religious faith.

I can't help that you must have religious faith in the science to make statements as you've been making. Really that's your problem, not mine.

Liberal smarts that add words like "main" to what he thinks Biden said because without it his argument falls to pieces.

That really is the only way to understand Biden's comments. How many people use only a screen/glass main door to secure their house? Zero/Close to zero? When firing through doors, did Biden instead mean interior doors?!?! I mean, you've completely left the reservation here on any realistic interpretation of Biden's statements, fill us in on what you think Ol Two Barrels was talking about. Because when I listen to what he said, I'm taking it to mean he means firing through the main door or my secured house that criminal(s) are at to warn them off. Otherwise, his statements...make absolutely zero sense. Sort of like the level of sense you're using to post. Coincidence?

Liberal smarts that thinks my post is a straw man when a straw man requires the user to pretend that the straw man is the opposition's position and I did no such thing.

See above. You created a straw man in equating the two things as the same, when they are clearly not, to then defeat the evil people bashing Biden, thereby sticking up for someone who apperently is your hero. In zero way could any rational person equate the two things.

Good lord man, do you actually believe what you're posting here or are you just trolling? If so, seek help. Seriously. If trolling, ya got me.

Chuck