On liberals and conservatives

[Jhhnn]

The better predators and their prey survive. The perps provided socioeconomic status and promises about the afterlife, and the prey provides the votes. The lot made for a successful ecosystem.

Yeh, and then a bunch of assholes came up with egalitarian democracy.

 

[interchange]

I'm sure you've read academic papers or such from time to time, and usually the first part surveys what's already been done and explains what this piece adds to or supplants in the existing puzzle. So what does psychoanalysis say about individual motivation for political affiliation that isn't already covered? I'll list some things already covered:

1. Kids are taught beliefs/behavior from parents or other authorities
2. Various people naturally prefer traditionalist or progressive roles
3. Our social environment encourages division along those lines

For example, the case/situation in the US might be that people more interested in progress their own livelihoods are prone to moving to urban areas, and these populations further distinguish themselves by educating their spawn the same way, and these proclivities conveniently map to political parties.


The humans of now are more or less those using stone tools.


Hopefully not doctors that rely on self-reporting.


It helps when how one feels things work, like the physical process of psychoanalysis, is same as the objective fact of how it's done.


It's pretty obvious above I'm not the one suffering from a lack of information.


I have no idea what you're talking about here but it's a matter of fact that psychoanalysts weren't the first ones to ask these questions, and certainly not the ones using the most reliable methods.

Now, there's certainly a time and place where individual feelings & motivations are important, but hardly in broad demographic and social trends already more clearly visible.


It's rather undeniable that political arguments/motivations & such aren't heavy on science. They are instead rather heavy on rationalizing/justifying instinctive behavior, the rationalizing part the only one particularly unique to the human experience. For example, traditionalists would as matter of definition instinctively resist systemic change, so it all rather makes sense arguments attuned to them would beg the question that what's coming is bad.


How does it make you feel if that revealed humans are often hardly smarter/better than other members of the animal kingdom?



There's hardly any ulterior motive necessary to point out how anyone feels about facts isn't as reliable as reasonably straightforward facts themselves, if this conversation/thread is presumably based on factual accuracy and not how we feel politics works. Can you observe and infer why you prefer analyzing ephemeral feelings instead?

You have written a lot of words here. Some of which might be worth exploring, but I am at this time only inclined to point out the following from what you have suggested:
1. People form political opinions from "feelings" rather than "facts"
2. When examining political motivations, we ought consider "facts" instead of "feelings"

Quotations are to point out another false dichotomy.

And, lastly, I will put my post in an important context:
I am not conducting scientific inquiry. I am an adult at play and this is one of my playgrounds. I am not playing here with colleagues or patients. These topics are outside of the scope of my clinical or teaching or research work. I am not here to work. I may be riding a rusty dinosaur on this playground, but I choose for you not to push me off it.

 

[agent00f]

You have written a lot of words here. Some of which might be worth exploring, but I am at this time only inclined to point out the following from what you have suggested:
1. People form political opinions from "feelings" rather than "facts"
2. When examining political motivations, we ought consider "facts" instead of "feelings"

Quotations are to point out another false dichotomy.

People often act based on feelings, but hopeful we base analysis on something more reliable than how they feel about whatever. For example, observably traditionalists hate change from some previous ideal, which can evidently be taken advantage of. Notice this particular analysis isn't predicated on the validity of those feelings, even though it observes them clearly. It's to your benefit to understand what the terms refer in this process.

And, lastly, I will put my post in an important context you seem to be oblivious to:
I am not conducting scientific inquiry. I am an adult at play and this is one of my playgrounds. You are not my colleagues. You are not my patients. These topics are outside of the scope of my clinical or teaching or research work. I am not here to work. I may be riding a rusty dinosaur on this playground, but I choose for you not to push me off it.

I don't insist that this has to be some kind of science. I only brought it up to point out that evidence & reason is different than self-reported feelings of how things are.

 

[interchange]

People often act based on feelings, but hopeful we base analysis on something more reliable than how they feel about whatever. For example, observably traditionalists hate change from some previous ideal, which can evidently be taken advantage of. Notice this particular analysis isn't predicated on the validity of those feelings, even though it observes them clearly. It's to your benefit to understand what the terms refer in this process.

What do you think 38% of polled Americans are planning on voting for Trump based on?

And do you imagine that the 62% of Americans planning on voting otherwise are basing their analysis on something different?

 

[agent00f]

What do you think 38% of polled Americans are planning on voting for Trump based on?

Traditionalists/right-wing/conservatives throughout history are incline toward strongmen who promise to return them to some former greatness or whatever, same as various animals are inclined towards certain pack organizaton/orientations. The latter doesn't require some individual psychological need other than what's sufficiently explained by the fact certain orientations increase survival rates, like the ability of pack tard strength in many circumstances to crush a bunch of hesitant nerds.

To clarify, you might've noticed these folks are particularly immune to facts or analytical reasoning, not necessarily due to some childhood trauma but because at the individual level loyalty and obedience can increase likelihood of survival. Worth pointing out I'm not making any value judgement here, other than perhaps some of these organizational tendencies become more outdated than others as civilizations advance.

And do you imagine that the 62% of Americans planning on voting otherwise are basing their analysis on something different?

Most all people vote based on some perception of self-interest, perhaps rationalized in some way to be "the greater good". For example liberals usually think a pluralistic society where various minority/differing attributes are accepted or even celebrated is good for everyone else too, and the same for conservatives with unyielding strength or whatever--with all the "greater good" attributes generally coinciding with what folks perceive themselves to possess.

The point is throughout history some portions of the pack/group for whatever seemingly biological reason favor certain attributes/orientation/etc over others. Other data points of amygdalas & such rather fit into the whole rather well. The genes that promoted anxiety/insecurity (or a suitable mix with insubordination/creativity in others) caused themselves to perpetuate, just like for any other species.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f : People often act based on feelings, but hopeful we base analysis on something more reliable than how they feel about whatever. For example, observably traditionalists hate change from some previous ideal, which can evidently be taken advantage of. Notice this particular analysis isn't predicated on the validity of those feelings, even though it observes them clearly. It's to your benefit to understand what the terms refer in this process.

M: I don't think this analysis is correct. Say traditionalists don't like change and that this can be taken advantage of. Note that while that analysis doesn't take into account the validity of those feelings it is also a useless analysis without doing so because traditionalists will resist positive as well as negative change, and if the change they are resisting is a negative change anybody trying to take advantage of that natural resistance will be doing them a favor. You continue to look at the surface and refuse to look deeper. We must strive to understand the validity of our feelings and to do so we need to know why we feel what we feel and before we can even attempt to do so, we have to know what we feel. If. as I say, we are motivated not to know what we really feel, it would be obvious that you might wish to resist this idea.

a: I don't insist that this has to be some kind of science. I only brought it up to point out that evidence & reason is different than self-reported feelings of how things are.

M: There are many people who are terrified of feelings. They can be irrational, violent, and terrifying. They can also be joy and love. I believe that what you think of as feelings and what I think of them are two different things.

When a mind is exposed to data, lives in information and strives to make sense of it, the analytical mind seeks to understand it linearly while another unconscious process seeks patterns. This, I think, if what got Archimedes up naked running through town shouting Eureka!

Furthermore, there are many levels of self reporting, some you may not have experienced, say the reliving of some childhood traumatic event. In therapy that focuses on feeling what you feel, one can relive events from the past as if they were actually happening and everything that happens will be as real as real can be. One will know ones own history with accuracy and understanding that allows for not the slightest doubt that what happened was real and was repressed. All the unconscious avoidance of that memory will disappear and with it the behaviors associated with it. Such a person will have stepped our of one aspect of his emotional prison and be healthier and happier for it. Not the slightest form of scientific validation of the event will be required because one will have absolute and unshakable certainty. I know this to be a fact.

 

[interchange]

Traditionalists/right-wing/conservatives throughout history are incline toward strongmen who promise to return them to some former greatness or whatever, same as various animals are inclined towards certain pack organizaton/orientations. The latter doesn't require some individual psychological need other than what's sufficiently explained by the fact certain orientations increase survival rates, like the ability of pack tard strength in many circumstances to crush a bunch of hesitant nerds.

To clarify, you might've noticed these folks are particularly immune to facts or analytical reasoning, not necessarily due to some childhood trauma but because at the individual level loyalty and obedience can increase likelihood of survival. Worth pointing out I'm not making any value judgement here, other than perhaps some of these organizational tendencies become more outdated than others as civilizations advance.



Most all people vote based on some perception of self-interest, perhaps rationalized in some way to be "the greater good". For example liberals usually think a pluralistic society where various minority/differing attributes are accepted or even celebrated is good for everyone else too, and the same for conservatives with unyielding strength or whatever--with all the "greater good" attributes generally coinciding with what folks perceive themselves to possess.

The point is throughout history some portions of the pack/group for whatever seemingly biological reason favor certain attributes/orientation/etc over others. Other data points of amygdalas & such rather fit into the whole rather well. The genes that promoted anxiety/insecurity (or a suitable mix with insubordination/creativity in others) caused themselves to perpetuate, just like for any other species.

I like you @agent00f. You are a smart person. And you do not back away from a challenge. You are aware of many things. And you seem to be someone who is involved in some capacity in life as to widen the light cast from our streetlamp. It is something noble and worthwhile and will do the world much good. I feel we will never succeed in illuminating so much that we will find our keys in the light, and so I have chosen to separate myself from this path (or from it in totality), but I would not judge you negatively for choosing otherwise.

And I think you would do quite a bit better in life if you learned greater to appreciate in yourself your proclivities to rationalize and intellectualize, and to start that search by wondering what compels you so much to identify these behaviors in others. Before you get pot & kettle on me, this advise only comes from the recognition that this is where I have started myself.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f : People
often act based on feelings, but hopeful we base analysis on something more reliable than how they feel about whatever. For example, observably traditionalists hate change from some previous ideal, which can evidently be taken advantage of. Notice this particular analysis isn't predicated on the validity of those feelings, even though it observes them clearly. It's to your benefit to understand what the terms refer in this process.

M: I don't think this analysis is correct. Say traditionalists don't like change and that this can be taken advantage of. Note that while that analysis doesn't take into account the validity of those feelings it is also a useless analysis without doing so because traditionalists will resist positive as well as negative change, and if the change they are resisting is a negative change anybody trying to take advantage of that natural resistance will be doing them a favor. You continue to look at the surface and refuse to look deeper. We must strive to understand the validity of our feelings and to do so we need to know why we feel what we feel and before we can even attempt to do so, we have to know what we feel. If. as I say, we are motivated not to know what we really feel, it would be obvious that you might wish to resist this idea.

"Feelings" are a more universal biological trait which we as humans uniquely attribute & rationalize anthropomorphic causes to, for the evolutionary advantageous purpose of justifying linguistic arguments I've previously mentioned.

Consider why a dog might similarly feel "happy"/content. Using your powers of observation & inference instead of internal feelings on the matter, you might figure that motivation to seek contentment would lead it on course of action beneficial to survival, instead of what the dog might be repressing from its youth, etc. In fact you might even figure that what some owners might believe to be the internal dialog of their pets based its feelings is rather comical and irrelevant to the existence of that species.

This isn't to say that a dog might not share some of the same internal experience we do, ultimately causes it do what it does, sans its ability to verbalize or otherwise convince us of this. The brain is very complicated and we don't even begin to understand it; even relatively sophisticated tools like the latest fmri's are incredibly crude instruments.

a: I don't insist that this has to be some kind of science. I only brought it up to point out that evidence & reason is different than self-reported feelings of how things are.

M: There are many people who are terrified of feelings. They can be irrational, violent, and terrifying. They can also be joy and love. I believe that what you think of as feelings and what I think of them are two different things.

When a mind is exposed to data, lives in information and strives to make sense of it, the analytical mind seeks to understand it linearly while another unconscious process seeks patterns. This, I think, if what got Archimedes up naked running through town shouting Eureka!

Furthermore, there are many levels of self reporting, some you may not have experienced, say the reliving of some childhood traumatic event. In therapy that focuses on feeling what you feel, one can relive events from the past as if they were actually happening and everything that happens will be as real as real can be. One will know ones own history with accuracy and understanding that allows for not the slightest doubt that what happened was real and was repressed. All the unconscious avoidance of that memory will disappear and with it the behaviors associated with it. Such a person will have stepped our of one aspect of his emotional prison and be healthier and happier for it. Not the slightest form of scientific validation of the event will be required because one will have absolute and unshakable certainty. I know this to be a fact.

There's compelling if not indisputable evidence that the brain hardly sees world like a video camera or medium that can be replayed. Our ability to capture & remember detail is poor, yet we tend to be convinced that the interpolation/extrapolation our brains do to make up for it is just like the real thing. The level of conviction doesn't alter the basic reality of it, which can be tested empirically: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/mar/02/psychology-neuroscience

There are certainly many things that can make us as individuals more happy/content, and very few of them are related to being factually correct though quite a few are related to feeling right. That's why I suppose millennia of people believed they were right preceding the very recent generations which are actually starting to get somewhere using much better tools. We usually find our ancestors were often not very right despite similar levels of conviction.

I like you @agent00f. You are a smart person. And you do not back away from a challenge. You are aware of many things. And you seem to be someone who is involved in some capacity in life as to widen the light cast from our streetlamp. It is something noble and worthwhile and will do the world much good. I feel we will never succeed in illuminating so much that we will find our keys in the light, and so I have chosen to separate myself from this path (or from it in totality), but I would not judge you negatively for choosing otherwise.

And I think you would do quite a bit better in life if you learned greater to appreciate in yourself your proclivities to rationalize and intellectualize, and to start that search by wondering what compels you so much to identify these behaviors in others. Before you get pot & kettle on me, this advise only comes from the recognition that this is where I have started myself.

To put myself in the same context, I've seen that it takes certain uncommon personality which is only content with the pursuit of some best possible answer along with related values. It's the kind of personal attribute that can be surveyed and there's always some small minority of any general group inclined toward it.

It makes sense the more these attributes are prized at a place for some practical end, the more these people are culled from wherever they can be found, so it's no surprise when such people these days are typically employed at otherwise quite "diverse" workplaces.

Personally I'm not particularly motivated to consider the psychology of people other than what had compelled me, since even supposedly smart/rational peers are subject to human nature to also pursue their own self-interests which a younger more naive me was poor at guarding against. Nietzsche's cynical treatment of what we say vs what we mean helped a lot to illuminate the contrast between the inner beast vs how enlightened we portray ourselves as.

 

[interchange]

To put myself in the same context, I've seen that it takes certain uncommon personality which is only content with the pursuit of some best possible answer along with related values. It's the kind of personal attribute that can be surveyed and there's always some small minority of any general group inclined toward it.

It makes sense the more these attributes are prized at a place for some practical end, the more these people are culled from wherever they can be found, so it's no surprise when such people these days are typically employed at otherwise quite "diverse" workplaces.

Personally I'm not particularly motivated to consider the psychology of people other than what had compelled me, since even supposedly smart/rational peers are subject to human nature to also pursue their own self-interests which a younger more naive me was poor at guarding against. Nietzsche's cynical treatment of what we say vs what we mean helped a lot to illuminate the contrast between the inner beast vs how enlightened we portray ourselves as.

When my nieces were young and I was a teenager, we would sometimes play with coins at my home. They would regularly trade a quarter for 2 pennies.

You are right that my character is one who has held so many compromises we have all been forced to make as ego-dystonic. Perhaps all of them. And that is not common. Perhaps, though, the world might benefit more from a quarter despite the fact that what it wants is 2 pennies.

 

[Moonbeam]

+

When my nieces were young and I was a teenager, we would sometimes play with coins at my home. They would regularly trade a quarter for 2 pennies.

You are right that my character is one who has held so many compromises we have all been forced to make as ego-dystonic. Perhaps all of them. And that is not common. Perhaps, though, the world might benefit more from a quarter despite the fact that what it wants is 2 pennies.

Well if you had two nieces I can see their wisdom. A penny for each girl and a quarter for their big uncle. Makes perfect sense to me. I do see one potential problem, however, I played all day yesterday with my two young nieces and they had eyes only for my IPad.

 

[MongGrel]

When it comes to economics it's probably the reverse - liberals tend to see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people from whom the "little guy' needs protection, to be provided by those same liberals of course. Another important dividing line is whether the person prizes fairness of process or fairness of results.

There is a reason police, firemen, teachers, and many trades have unions.

But of course that is just based on some odd socialist conspiracy theory I suppose.

 

[OverVolt]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...time-lies-may-desensitise-brain-to-dishonesty

Twenty-five of the volunteers played the game while having their brain activity monitored by an MRI scanner. This showed that the amygdala, a part of the brain linked with emotion, was most active when people told their first lie. But while the untruths escalated in magnitude, the amygdala’s response gradually declined - and larger drops in brain activity predicted bigger lies in future.

It all makes sense now. Thats why the democrats have gotten themselves tied up in so much hypocrisy.

 

[OverVolt]

+

Well if you had two nieces I can see their wisdom. A penny for each girl and a quarter for their big uncle. Makes perfect sense to me. I do see one potential problem, however, I played all day yesterday with my two young nieces and they had eyes only for my IPad.

Blue light is basically a drug.

 

[Moonbeam]

Blue light is basically a drug.

Have you ever seen people undergoing a psychotic break or hysterical paranoid state. It is a reaction driven by a profound state of fear and struggle to repress feelings one has on idea one has. At any rate, it is accompanied by a form of mental racing, an associative process on steroids where one idea is associated with another as if the connection were somehow meaningfully real. That is what I hear when you tell me that blue light is a drug after I mention the IPad. What is addictive to my nieces are the games they can play on it. You, I believe, have found truth in a wrong connection.

 

[bshole]

. You, I believe, have found truth in a wrong connection.

It is impossible for humans to find real objective truth so I assume you are speaking of subjective truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...time-lies-may-desensitise-brain-to-dishonesty



It all makes sense now. Thats why the democrats have gotten themselves tied up in so much hypocrisy.

I think here also you are wildly making associations between things that have no real connection, but there is nothing to suggest in the research that suggests any clustering of lying attributable just to democrats. If anything, a wild associative connection would more logically apply to republicans because they are the ones known to have larger amygdalae, no?

 

[bshole]

I think here also you are wildly making associations between things that have no real connection, but there is nothing to suggest in the research that suggests any clustering of lying attributable just to democrats. If anything, a wild associative connection would more logically apply to republicans because they are the ones known to have larger amygdalae, no?

That seem unsubstantiated. Your assertion previously was the research indicated that a larger amygdala was responsible for a heightened fear response. What does a heightened fear response have to do dishonesty?

 

[Moonbeam]

It is impossible for humans to find real objective truth so I assume you are speaking of subjective truth.

I was speaking of the rare objective truth that must exist when the impossibility of finding it turns out to have been only a subjective. I have told you that you are in a prison composed of assumptions you hold to be true on an unconscious level. For example, you do not believe in God because the notion of God that you once believed and then abandoned leaving you in a state of misery, was not the God who is real and the real source of Joy. I told you that long before you believed in that phony god you were happy so your happiness didn't come from him and your misery therefore isn't real. Your misery arises out of a belief that your happiness came from somewhere that doesn't exist, a phony god, but that is not where it came from. It came from God and that God exists. He is the joy you once had naturally and can have again.

Now that God is not an idea, a theory, a system of beliefs, something for your mind to know through thinking. It is an absolute state of consciousness to be had by being in the present. It is that conscious state that changes everything that is universal in that it can be experienced by anyone. It is a truth that can only be known by tasting, by experiencing it.

 

[bshole]

I was speaking of the rare objective truth that must exist when the impossibility of finding it turns out to have been only a subjective. I have told you that you are in a prison composed of assumptions you hold to be true on an unconscious level. For example, you do not believe in God because the notion of God that you once believed and then abandoned leaving you in a state of misery, was not the God who is real and the real source of Joy. I told you that long before you believed in that phony god you were happy so your happiness didn't come from him and your misery therefore isn't real. Your misery arises out of a belief that your happiness came from somewhere that doesn't exist, a phony god, but that is not where it came from. It came from God and that God exists. He is the joy you once had naturally and can have again.
.

I am unhappy because of chemical reactions in my brain over which I have absolutely no control. I am running my program just like you are running yours. Your subjective truth is as meaningless to me as mine is to you.

 

[Moonbeam]

That seem unsubstantiated. Your assertion previously was the research indicated that a larger amygdala was responsible for a heightened fear response. What does a heightened fear response have to do dishonesty?

In the first place I am not going to try to tar conservatives as liars. However, to answer your question theoretically I can say it has been demonstrated that conservatives rationalize away data that negatively impacts ideas to which conservatives are emotionally attached. Let us surmise that conservatives may be attached to the notion they are worthy of self respect because they are honest. Now is some other self identification is threatened by some truth, you can see they might want to lie to themselves about that and at the same time not be consciously aware they are lying.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am unhappy because of chemical reactions in my brain over which I have absolutely no control. I am running my program just like you are running yours. Your subjective truth is as meaningless to me as mine is to you.

I have experienced states of terror and states of joy. Owing to chemical reactions in my brain that I can't control, I know which of those states I prefer. Inferring from that, when you say that my subjective truth is as meaningless as yours I would agree, but as far as the state of mind that results, there's no comparison. You to your dungeon and me to Mr. Toad's Wild Ride.

 

[Moonbeam]

[agent00f: Feelings" are a more universal biological trait which we as humans uniquely attribute & rationalize anthropomorphic causes to, for the evolutionary advantageous purpose of justifying linguistic arguments I've previously mentioned.

M: I don't disagree. I find no relationship between these thoughts and what I am proposing.

a: Consider why a dog might similarly feel "happy"/content. Using your powers of observation & inference instead of internal feelings on the matter, you might figure that motivation to seek contentment would lead it on course of action beneficial to survival, instead of what the dog might be repressing from its youth, etc. In fact you might even figure that what some owners might believe to be the internal dialog of their pets based its feelings is rather comical and irrelevant to the existence of that species.

M: You can make a dog cringe at the sight of a stick by beating it, but you will never be able to make it suffer existential feelings of worthlessness because all of that has its source in being put down by words that having caused pain in association with trauma, don't require the trauma to rekindle the pain when used later.

a: This isn't to say that a dog might not share some of the same internal experience we do, ultimately causes it do what it does, sans its ability to verbalize or otherwise convince us of this. The brain is very complicated and we don't even begin to understand it; even relatively sophisticated tools like the latest fmri's are incredibly crude instruments.

M: I am talking about something extremely simple but which is profoundly difficult to verify. To know how worthless you feel despite all your denial requires that you feel what you feel. That is the last thing anybody wants to do and is the hardest thing in the world. I understand you don't know what I am talking about and so you invent all this stuff that's not related.

a: There's compelling if not indisputable evidence that the brain hardly sees world like a video camera or medium that can be replayed. Our ability to capture & remember detail is poor, yet we tend to be convinced that the interpolation/extrapolation our brains do to make up for it is just like the real thing. The level of conviction doesn't alter the basic reality of it, which can be tested empirically: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/mar/02/psychology-neuroscience

M: Hehe, when you feel what you feel you won't have any doubt it's real. I am unable to prove anything to you that you haven't experienced. I only suggest what I believe can be known with difficulty.

a: There are certainly many things that can make us as individuals more happy/content, and very few of them are related to being factually correct though quite a few are related to feeling right. That's why I suppose millennia of people believed they were right preceding the very recent generations which are actually starting to get somewhere using much better tools. We usually find our ancestors were often not very right despite similar levels of conviction.

M: There is a difference in believing ideas and knowing psychological states. You can believe in unicorns and be wrong, but when you say a nightmare was terrifying, everybody can relate who has also had one.

a: To put myself in the same context, I've seen that it takes certain uncommon personality which is only content with the pursuit of some best possible answer along with related values. It's the kind of personal attribute that can be surveyed and there's always some small minority of any general group inclined toward it.

It makes sense the more these attributes are prized at a place for some practical end, the more these people are culled from wherever they can be found, so it's no surprise when such people these days are typically employed at otherwise quite "diverse" workplaces.

M: Perhaps you could use specifics instead of talking theoretically. I don't get the point.

a: Personally I'm not particularly motivated to consider the psychology of people other than what had compelled me, since even supposedly smart/rational peers are subject to human nature to also pursue their own self-interests which a younger more naive me was poor at guarding against. Nietzsche's cynical treatment of what we say vs what we mean helped a lot to illuminate the contrast between the inner beast vs how enlightened we portray ourselves as.

M: And there it is...... I hear that you have been hurt by something and you have armored up to prevent that from again happening. I would suggest that you long to return to that more naïve place but hold yourself in contempt that you were vulnerable there. I can't tell you the bitter tears I have shed for what I lost and how glad I am that I did.

 

[Moonbeam]

It seems to me that conservatives are motivated by strong moral issues and liberals by reason and rationality. If the outward is motivated by the inner it would imply that conservatives are concerned with appearing moral and liberals as being smart. That seems to fit with the stereotype that conservatives are stupid and liberals are evil. But what would cause such a motivation.....why the need to appear a certain way......where's the ego satisfaction, what is being protected, what illusion maintained.

If we hate ourselves,. as I have long suggested, but each in different ways, what could categorize us into two broad political groups. As I have also suggested we were enculturated, programmed to fit in, trained how to behave to make us safe from criticism, and this was done by criticism itself, being put down for being out of line, non=conforming in some way. There are two common ways to do this. One is to strike the fear of God into we children, to make us fear moral deviation, and another is to call us stupid for bad behavior. We are tremendously competitive, in my opinion, as to who is smart and who is good. Now if external emphasis is on one or the other the emotional need arises out of the opposite feeling, either that we are really evil, which we would project onto others as a defense, or that we are really stupid, which we would want to tag others with. Meanwhile, our egos would provide us with a sense that we are good people, an immunity to moral shame, or that we are smart and rational. And of course, we might even be driven to really be those things in practice,

 

[OverVolt]

It seems to me that conservatives are motivated by strong moral issues and liberals by reason and rationality. If the outward is motivated by the inner it would imply that conservatives are concerned with appearing moral and liberals as being smart. That seems to fit with the stereotype that conservatives are stupid and liberals are evil. But what would cause such a motivation.....why the need to appear a certain way......where's the ego satisfaction, what is being protected, what illusion maintained.

If we hate ourselves,. as I have long suggested, but each in different ways, what could categorize us into two broad political groups. As I have also suggested we were enculturated, programmed to fit in, trained how to behave to make us safe from criticism, and this was done by criticism itself, being put down for being out of line, non=conforming in some way. There are two common ways to do this. One is to strike the fear of God into we children, to make us fear moral deviation, and another is to call us stupid for bad behavior. We are tremendously competitive, in my opinion, as to who is smart and who is good. Now if external emphasis is on one or the other the emotional need arises out of the opposite feeling, either that we are really evil, which we would project onto others as a defense, or that we are really stupid, which we would want to tag others with. Meanwhile, our egos would provide us with a sense that we are good people, an immunity to moral shame, or that we are smart and rational. And of course, we might even be driven to really be those things in practice,

Liberals are motivated by regurgitating news articles that they read and then put zero thought into what they parrot around.

Then they develop some kind of weird cognitive dissonance. If we can all agree that journalism has declined in quality and all the democrats for the most part form their opinions by reading dumbed down internet articles the logical conclusion is that democrats are dumbing themselves down but you guys in fact go the total opposite direction and declare logical and reason victory.

You can keep your doctor, like... who honestly believed that if they even read one iota of the actual bill?(which none of the democrats did they just took CNN at face value like idiots)

Just wait until the Cadillac tax starts eating into regular run of the mill old people's health insurance plans because the Cadillac tax is pegged to inflation and healthcare is a unique industry where innovation actually increases costs because there are more diseases that can be treated. You don't peg healthcare inflation to the CPI like its an ikea bed or washer/dryer.

But I digress I shall leave it to the democrat experts. All the fancy charts on cnn just got me all hot and bothered and I never bothered to actually do anything other than nod and skim.

Civil society has basically turned into infographics and lists of 10 things you didn't know about Hillary Clinton and look at that totally awesome chart I happen to agree with whelp guess I won't worry where it came from. (or worse, reposting/sharing it out of context)

 

[nickqt]

Liberals are motivated by regurgitating news articles that they read and then put zero thought into what they parrot around.

Then they develop some kind of weird cognitive dissonance. If we can all agree that journalism has declined in quality and all the democrats for the most part form their opinions by reading dumbed down internet articles the logical conclusion is that democrats are dumbing themselves down but you guys in fact go the total opposite direction and declare logical and reason victory.

You can keep your doctor, like... who honestly believed that if they even read one iota of the actual bill?(which none of the democrats did they just took CNN at face value like idiots)

Just wait until the Cadillac tax starts eating into regular run of the mill old people's health insurance plans because the Cadillac tax is pegged to inflation and healthcare is a unique industry where innovation actually increases costs because there are more diseases that can be treated. You don't peg healthcare inflation to the CPI like its an ikea bed or washer/dryer.

But I digress I shall leave it to the democrat experts. All the fancy charts on cnn just got me all hot and bothered and I never bothered to actually do anything other than nod and skim.

Civil society has basically turned into infographics and lists of 10 things you didn't know about Hillary Clinton and look at that totally awesome chart I happen to agree with whelp guess I won't worry where it came from. (or worse, reposting/sharing it out of context)

Textbook example of projection.

Thanks!