The Red-Blue Happiness Gap

[MtnMan]

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[woolfe9998]

I actually visit three different forums. Of the other two, one is as far right as P&N is left, and I've never once seen a heated exchange there. The third one is a pretty random mix that stay's calm until an extremist comes along, then it gets ugly.

I'm guessing that on the far right forum, there aren't many liberals there for them to flame. If any.

 

[woolfe9998]

I am not interested in what people point out saying straw man. What I am interested in is how I can address their perspective. If they say I committed a straw man fallacy I did not do so because I can see it. I do not accept the statement that I did without examining the exact nature of the complaint. How people react to real straw men presuming mine included is also of no consequence for me. I do not care how people react because I do not consider their feelings. I came up against the limits of rage and found no one I could blame but myself. Not my fault that others have not figured that out. Instead, I do the very best I can to address their grievances. The whole basis of discussion for me is to make as clear as I can what I am saying so as to prevent any misunderstanding of that that is from getting in the way. Saying I'm making a straw man fallacy just cuts off the discussion, in my opinion, a way to dodge deeper understanding.

I'm not entirely certain if it's the notion that one might point out that another person has mischaracterized one's argument, or just the phrase "straw man" that bothers you. You know, people could just say "you have mischaracterized my argument." Or "I didn't say that. I said______." And people often do. "Straw man" is just a shorthand that means the same thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is a big difference between A=B and A is a kind of B. The source she cites was a study of 600+ poor Hawaiian kids. Everyone involved might take issue with you equating the challenges they faced throughout their lives with someone being proven wrong on the internet. Yes, I know you feel you died or whatever when facing the nothing but the fact you seem to think that's just as horrible as growing up without enough food is not a good look and you might want to reconsider your comparisons.

I have reread the section where the author discusses the Hawaiian study. I do not understand your complaint regarding it. I don’t see how I was equating the challenges they faced ….. with someone being proved wrong on the internet. I don’t even know what that proven wrong part refers to. In discussing what I experienced as my own after effects of existential no exit’ there was to my mind no intention to compare it to what others have gone through. My interest is first that people can recover from trauma. The article, I think, aims to imply that the capacity to recover depends to some degree on the ideas implied with the use of the term resilience with the author trying to explain what that resilience is and how it may develope.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not entirely certain if it's the notion that one might point out that another person has mischaracterized one's argument, or just the phrase "straw man" that bothers you. You know, people could just say "you have mischaracterized my argument." Or "I didn't say that. I said______." And people often do. "Straw man" is just a shorthand that means the same thing.

It definitely seems to bother me. I refer to that type of announcement as ‘Poof you are a dragon’, like waving a wand and instantly you become what somebody says you are. What it is to me is short hand for I am lazy. You are dismissed, you are talking straw man. I’m not playing the game of magical pronouncements. I’m not interested in somebodies opinion that an argument fas been mischaracterized or that somebody is up on the nomenclature of logical fallacies. Say what you the misstatement was you think you saw and what the real intention was if different than what was suggested. Who gives a fuck what kind of name goes to a mistake somebody make, what was the mistake.

 

[dank69]

It definitely seems to bother me. I refer to that type of announcement as ‘Poof you are a dragon’, like waving a wand and instantly you become what somebody says you are. What it is to me is short hand for I am lazy. You are dismissed, you are talking straw man. I’m not playing the game of magical pronouncements. I’m not interested in somebodies opinion that an argument fas been mischaracterized or that somebody is up on the nomenclature of logical fallacies. Say what you the misstatement was you think you saw and what the real intention was if different than what was suggested. Who gives a fuck what kind of name goes to a mistake somebody make, what was the mistake.

Posts here are generally not that long. When someone tells you that you've used a straw man, it really is not hard to compare the post you made and the post(s) you were replying to and figure out the difference. Additionally, if someone is calling out a straw man, generally it's because the mischaraterization is so fucking blatant that it could not be ignored. I suspect the only reason you object is because you didn't want to understand and perhaps still just don't want to understand, but whatever. From now on I'll illustrate the best I can for you.

 

[dank69]

I have reread the section where the author discusses the Hawaiian study. I do not understand your complaint regarding it. I don’t see how I was equating the challenges they faced ….. with someone being proved wrong on the internet. I don’t even know what that proven wrong part refers to. In discussing what I experienced as my own after effects of existential no exit’ there was to my mind no intention to compare it to what others have gone through. My interest is first that people can recover from trauma. The article, I think, aims to imply that the capacity to recover depends to some degree on the ideas implied with the use of the term resilience with the author trying to explain what that resilience is and how it may develope.

She didn't make the claim, you did:

This is a part of the scientific research her premise is based on, that conservatives rationalize more than liberals do when ideas threaten their piece of mind. That is research data currently peer reviewed as valid.

Is there peer-reviewed research showing that PTE is the same as "ideas threaten their piece of mind"?

Isn’t PTE just a fancy name for the other? I think it is. Therefore if A=B and B=C then A=C

I was objecting to your claim, not hers.

 

[Moonbeam]

She didn't make the claim, you did:

I was objecting to your claim, not hers.is is

My intention was to state that the claims and overall theme of her piece reflect the fact that she is familiar with peer review scientific facts about how liberals and conservatives see the world, facts that I have been presenting here on this forum for years and, apparently so many times that I assumed they would already have been well known to you. I did a search for how many posts I have made using the term peer reviewed and it runs over 140 posts. Not sure how many are on the exact topic of liberal conservative differences but I would bet a lot. Here was the second I tried:

Oops, my copy paste seems to have failed but I posted it in 2015, 16 peer reviewed liberal conservative differences, In trying to find it with a search engine instead of among those plus 160 posts I found a similar one from 2020 with even more and newer information:

2020 Presidential Election | Pros, Cons, Arguments, Debate, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, White House, United States, & Voting | Britannica

2020 presidential election

2020election.procon.org

 

[dank69]

My intention was to state that the claims and overall theme of her piece reflect the fact that she is familiar with peer review scientific facts about how liberals and conservatives see the world, facts that I have been presenting here on this forum for years and, apparently so many times that I assumed they would already have been well known to you. I did a search for how many posts I have made using the term peer reviewed and it runs over 140 posts. Not sure how many are on the exact topic of liberal conservative differences but I would bet a lot. Here was the second I tried:

Oops, my copy paste seems to have failed but I posted it in 2015, 16 peer reviewed liberal conservative differences, In trying to find it with a search engine instead of among those plus 160 posts I found a similar one from 2020 with even more and newer information:

2020 Presidential Election | Pros, Cons, Arguments, Debate, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, White House, United States, & Voting | Britannica

2020 presidential election

2020election.procon.org

Yes and I initially entered the thread to point out that once again, those criticisms of liberals are not supported by evidence. The peer-reviewed studies, for example, don't say anything about liberals shifting "away from the belief in just about any control over one's life."

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes and I initially entered the thread to point out that once again, those criticisms of liberals are not supported by evidence. The peer-reviewed studies, for example, don't say anything about liberals shifting "away from the belief in just about any control over one's life."

Before I begin to contemplate why you see no evidence in the piece to suggest such support do you see any other criticisms you think she makes besides the one about that particular shift?

 

[dank69]

Before I begin to contemplate why you see no evidence in the piece to suggest such support do you see any other criticisms you think she makes besides the one about that particular shift?

Are you looking for only criticisms I don't believe are valid? There isn't much. She doesn't criticize liberals directly more than a handful of times. There is that one I mentioned and this one:
"The progressive response has been in part to try to change unfair systems (good), but also to attack the ideas of individualism, agency, and meritocracy, to essentially say that these weren’t just lies but perhaps bad ideas from the start."

That is partially the exact same criticism, but expanded to also include attacks on individualism and meritocracy, and again, I see very little evidence for these expanded claims. I see zero evidence that Democrats specifically are criticizing any of these things.

She also mentions cancel culture, backed up by links to articles about obscure student protests. The arguments against what the general public calls cancel culture all amount to being upset that people are using their freedom of speech to protest what other people have said in public. So what exactly is the fucking problem? Are we arguing that people should be free from criticism? Why do anti-cancel-culture people not see that their criticisms of "cancel culture' speech are the exact same thing as the cancel culture speech itself? It's all just criticism. Anti-cancel-culture boils down to people who don't understand how certain speech can be hurtful saying that people who are hurt by it that they shouldn't be hurt by it. It's the exact same thing as mansplaining except it could be called racesplaining or culturesplaining. You don't get to decide what is hurtful to me and I don't get to decide what is hurtful to you. Fucking simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

Are you looking for only criticisms I don't believe are valid? There isn't much. She doesn't criticize liberals directly more than a handful of times. There is that one I mentioned and this one:
"The progressive response has been in part to try to change unfair systems (good), but also to attack the ideas of individualism, agency, and meritocracy, to essentially say that these weren’t just lies but perhaps bad ideas from the start."

That is partially the exact same criticism, but expanded to also include attacks on individualism and meritocracy, and again, I see very little evidence for these expanded claims. I see zero evidence that Democrats specifically are criticizing any of these things.

She also mentions cancel culture, backed up by links to articles about obscure student protests. The arguments against what the general public calls cancel culture all amount to being upset that people are using their freedom of speech to protest what other people have said in public. So what exactly is the fucking problem? Are we arguing that people should be free from criticism? Why do anti-cancel-culture people not see that their criticisms of "cancel culture' speech are the exact same thing as the cancel culture speech itself? It's all just criticism. Anti-cancel-culture boils down to people who don't understand how certain speech can be hurtful saying that people who are hurt by it that they shouldn't be hurt by it. It's the exact same thing as mansplaining except it could be called racesplaining or culturesplaining. You don't get to decide what is hurtful to me and I don't get to decide what is hurtful to you. Fucking simple.

I’m rime pressed again but also feeling hopeless I am going to have any success changing your mind. You are asking me to show you where this so called hopelessness really is in liberals and yet you are one of the most hopeless people I can think of posting here although I might have you beat.

PS: An example, let the Republicans have the three branches so everything can go to hell and there won’t beDemocrats to blame.

 

[dank69]

I’m rime pressed again but also feeling hopeless I am going to have any success changing your mind. You are asking me to show you where this so called hopelessness really is in liberals and yet you are one of the most hopeless people I can think of posting here although I might have you beat.

PS: An example, let the Republicans have the three branches so everything can go to hell and there won’t beDemocrats to blame.

What exactly do you want to change my mind about? That liberals are shifting away from the belief that we have any control over our lives? Maybe if you or the author framed it correctly as "every step further into oligarchy removes a little bit more control from our lives" I'd happily agree with you. That makes more sense than saying we think we don't have ANY control over our lives.

 

[Moonbeam]

What exactly do you want to change my mind about? That liberals are shifting away from the belief that we have any control over our lives? Maybe if you or the author framed it correctly as "every step further into oligarchy removes a little bit more control from our lives" I'd happily agree with you. That makes more sense than saying we think we don't have ANY control over our lives.

What I think the author was on about was to try to open conservatives eyes to how acceptance of things can lead to accepting bad things that should really be intolerable and be fixed. I think what she was trying to enlighten liberals about is that the desire to change things and the reality of how difficult that is can lead to feeling powerless and hopeless and resigned, something to guard against.
for liberals she suggests that with people whose reactions to traumatic events have been investigated, a small number of people, the evidence points to the notion that what we imagine trauma to be affects how we respond to it when it happens. How victimized you may feel in the face of traumatic events may be much less in the way of feeling traumatized the more in control of your emotional state you feel yourself to be.

My interest in this, and what I would chose to offer if I could, would be that the degree to which trauma may have greater debilitating effects on some more than others will track with the severity to which they heard a message they are worthless. The damage that can be done to a person in a traumatic experience extends beyond the event itself, which may be horrendous, but can more likely be surmounted if past lies about an individual’s worthlessness have been seen through as false.

 

[dank69]

What I think the author was on about was to try to open conservatives eyes to how acceptance of things can lead to accepting bad things that should really be intolerable and be fixed. I think what she was trying to enlighten liberals about is that the desire to change things and the reality of how difficult that is can lead to feeling powerless and hopeless and resigned, something to guard against.
for liberals she suggests that with people whose reactions to traumatic events have been investigated, a small number of people, the evidence points to the notion that what we imagine trauma to be affects how we respond to it when it happens. How victimized you may feel in the face of traumatic events may be much less in the way of feeling traumatized the more in control of your emotional state you feel yourself to be.

My interest in this, and what I would chose to offer if I could, would be that the degree to which trauma may have greater debilitating effects on some more than others will track with the severity to which they heard a message they are worthless. The damage that can be done to a person in a traumatic experience extends beyond the event itself, which may be horrendous, but can more likely be surmounted if past lies about an individual’s worthlessness have been seen through as false.

That's fine. I don't take issue with any of that. I only take issue with incorrect framing of what liberals believe or especially what liberals and/or Democrats are doing. We need to stop that shit.

 

[Commodus]

I'm not a big fan of the premise in the article, but I do think liberals generally aren't as happy as conservatives — just not for the reasons cited.

Remember Yeats' poem The Second Coming? "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." That sounds egocentric, but it's a reminder that intelligence, something prized by many liberals, is frequently defined by doubt and uncertainty. Liberals tend to be skeptical and science-driven, they know what they don't know... and they know the world is a complex place where solutions are rarely simple. They're less happy because they're less likely to cling to hopes of an easy fix.

Simultaneously, many conservatives are happier precisely because they despise intellectuals. They often see skepticism, nuance and even science as weaknesses. They're more likely to be devoutly religious, deny climate change, pretend racism is over or otherwise choose the pleasant fiction over the difficult reality. They're happier because they either don't know the full story or choose to ignore it.

And yes, that even applies while those particular conservatives are angry. Look at how many latch on to simplistic anti-immigrant or anti-choice campaigns, or treat politics as a game where it's more important to "own the libs" than improve the country. They're happy because they have a target for that "passionate intensity" backed by a community that shares their rage. They like being angry.

Now, there are significant numbers of people in both camps who don't fit neatly into those definitions. I know generally liberal people who are firmly religious, and conservative intellectuals like David Frum. And happiness will vary widely from person to person. But it's not hard to see evidence of the general patterns, whether it's the wishy-washy and sometimes gloomy messaging of left-wing political parties versus the jingoism and anti-science crusades of the right.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Can we talk about the boner gap? Let's do the numbers of right wingers vs left and their ability to naturally get an erection. So by the OP's own dumbfuck argument, that means right wingers are impotent beta cuck bitches to the pharmaceutical industry.

I'm not a big fan of the premise in the article, but I do think liberals generally aren't as happy as conservatives — just not for the reasons cited.

Remember Yeats' poem The Second Coming? "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." That sounds egocentric, but it's a reminder that intelligence, something prized by many liberals, is frequently defined by doubt and uncertainty. Liberals tend to be skeptical and science-driven, they know what they don't know... and they know the world is a complex place where solutions are rarely simple. They're less happy because they're less likely to cling to hopes of an easy fix.

Simultaneously, many conservatives are happier precisely because they despise intellectuals. They often see skepticism, nuance and even science as weaknesses. They're more likely to be devoutly religious, deny climate change, pretend racism is over or otherwise choose the pleasant fiction over the difficult reality. They're happier because they either don't know the full story or choose to ignore it.

And yes, that even applies while those particular conservatives are angry. Look at how many latch on to simplistic anti-immigrant or anti-choice campaigns, or treat politics as a game where it's more important to "own the libs" than improve the country. They're happy because they have a target for that "passionate intensity" backed by a community that shares their rage. They like being angry.

Now, there are significant numbers of people in both camps who don't fit neatly into those definitions. I know generally liberal people who are firmly religious, and conservative intellectuals like David Frum. And happiness will vary widely from person to person. But it's not hard to see evidence of the general patterns, whether it's the wishy-washy and sometimes gloomy messaging of left-wing political parties versus the jingoism and anti-science crusades of the right.

Uh, sorry but being angry I generally don't view as "happy" and almost all the shit you're saying makes right wingers happier are things that they're (often psychotically so) angry about.

This is nonsense and the OP's argument is less than nonsense, its intentionally stupid.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's fine. I don't take issue with any of that. I only take issue with incorrect framing of what liberals believe or especially what liberals and/or Democrats are doing. We need to stop that shit.

And I have no problem with that. Where I get into difficulty is the fact that what people believe liberals to believe is a matter of debate. A further problem is that not all liberals believe the same thing so that what liberals believe may have to account for statistics and change over time including direction of change. An even further problem is that people may in fact not want to know what they really believe via their actions as opposed to the words they use and what those words tell them they believe.

Having noticed a thing or two about my own desire to believe what I believed to be the actual truth and the experience of what it cost to lose that certainty, I have found myself to be rather of a non believer when it comes to people telling me they aren't in denial when they believe things I can't believe knowing as I do that I know nothing.

So my experience is often watching people argue different opinions while I argue why have one. What is when opinions are not, and I am talking about opinions that are accompanied by a sense of certainty with all that brings in the way of ego satisfaction.

 

[dank69]

And I have no problem with that. Where I get into difficulty is the fact that what people believe liberals to believe is a matter of debate. A further problem is that not all liberals believe the same thing so that what liberals believe may have to account for statistics and change over time including direction of change. An even further problem is that people may in fact not want to know what they really believe via their actions as opposed to the words they use and what those words tell them they believe.

Having noticed a thing or two about my own desire to believe what I believed to be the actual truth and the experience of what it cost to lose that certainty, I have found myself to be rather of a non believer when it comes to people telling me they aren't in denial when they believe things I can't believe knowing as I do that I know nothing.

So my experience is often watching people argue different opinions while I argue why have one. What is when opinions are not, and I am talking about opinions that are accompanied by a sense of certainty with all that brings in the way of ego satisfaction.

Sure but we have systems of experts measuring fairly accurately what "liberals" think, so we can verify claims when they are made. Nobody requires that when people make claims about what liberals believe. You can say liberals believe whatever you want and 60-70% of the population will believe you unquestionably even when it's borderline psychotic. Fully psychotic only drops that rate to 50% at best.

So when someone comes out and says "liberals are shifting away from the belief that we have any control over our lives" I expect to see data backing that up. That's a pretty radical belief. If liberals believe that I want to know. I'm as liberal as they come and I don't believe that and don't know a single liberal on this board that believes that.

More troubling to me is why you don't seem to require evidence to believe that? Why you just accept that as true? Have you seen this evidence? Have you been hiding it from me and the others who've asked about that same statement?

Of course not. That means it's either bias on your part or you're so numb to bullshit criticisms of liberals you just don't care.