Science proves it, Conservatives think less.

I'm assuming its based on the same principles as the EEG

If localised electrical activity is measured, does it follow the same pattern?

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,5376455.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uhh, simply having a brain light up in response to stimuli doesn't mean there's more "thinking".

You can rub a dogs nose in shit, and get the same results.

If anything, this shows that liberals overreact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hum. Isn't it more that they make societally alternate choices?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apparently the "overreaction" is demonstrated by tapping the correct keys.

 

Since when is thinking always better for you? Plenty of rich folks are just plain stupid, and better off than some academic left wing genius sitting in front of his computer writing on SciForums.

 

Of course, ignorance is bliss; Bush for 2008!

 

Some of them even become president.

 

Snap!

 

SAM

But processing stimuli faster doesn't necessarily mean that you are smarter, does it? Perhaps someone who "thought longer" would come up with more interesting conclusions.
What is thought?

 

You may think that is funny, but you are missing the point. There are plenty of left wingers far smarter than Bush. But, Bush is rich, President and you're not. Start thinking about that reality friends.

 

How do you know I'm not rich? And he was never legitimately elected.

 

Perhaps, the Iraq war being an example of an interesting conservative conclusion.

 

Please; I'm blushing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thankyou. Thankyou all.

 

Eh, he kinda was, the basic constituional procedures were followed. And then there's the 04 election.

Zing! But I meant in general.
What is thought?

 

Never in the history of the United States has the Supreme Court chosen the president.

 

It's still the procedure outlined in the Constitution. We haven't had a sexy female midget president either, doesn't mean we shouldn't.

 

Not really. The votes of the eligible and voting citizenry are supposed to be tallied, according to the Constitution.

 

Usually, left wingers are accused of thinking too much about that reality.

Interesting to see the flip side.

The report was not about "thinking" per se - the participants really didn't have enough time to think, which was the point actually.

 

Barring serious proof of fraud, they were. I admit that the whole thing depressed me and I didn't follow close attention after the first week, but I don't think anything like that was proved.
Don't get me wrong, that election was a farce, but I'm not sure it warrents such a strong statement as "he was never legitimately elected."

 

One might assert that the liberal-associated "hyperactivity" of the anterior cingulate cortex is the dysfunction, and attempt to demonstrate that the "mental braking" activity of the ACC is a vestigial trait falling into obsolescence according to the needs of modern society.

Or, I suppose, one might simply call an observation "eugenics". The problem I have with the word is that it is, in the context you've used it, a smear; the data is what the data says it is, and the extension to eugenics requires someone to frame the data in a eugenic context. Aside from your invocation of eugenics, there's not much to suggest anything so sinister. In fact, the nearest connection I can make is the topic title, which is Spidergoat's, and as he sees fit.

One of the reasons I find the notions put forward by the study fascinating is that it does, in fact, correspond to a phenomenon I've witnessed (and endured) that does seem to concentrate itself more densely among conservative thinkers. In Sciforums as in life, while I occasionally confuse people with the breadth of my considerations (often dismissed or derided as tangential at best), the people who are offended by that sense of perspective are nearly exclusively conservative. (I use the modifier "nearly" in order to cover my bases; I'm hard-pressed to recall someone more liberal than I am being offended at the scope of my outlook.) At Sciforums, I'm no longer surprised when people complain that I'm using too many words; I'm not surprised that they get offended by the number of words; I'm not surprised when they say, "I stopped reading after the second sentence". Is it coincidence that these people are well to the right of me on the political spectrum? This study suggests that perhaps it's not.

I think part of the unappealing aspect is the individual's reflection on their own self; conservatives, too, like to think of themselves as adaptable, even if their particular rhetoric describes them as rigid.

As a flaming liberal, I haven't even made that leap. This isn't like Down's syndrome or other full-blown retardation; this is a difference in how brains respond to deviation.

Interesting that you would raise that point. Do you really think this study describes a difference so great as hetero- and homosexuality?

Bigots, racists, and hatemongers tend to identify with more conservative politics.

To borrow a phrase, "Paranoia will destroy ya".

I would suggest, then, that you're creating an odd definition of liberal. In the U.S., for instance, there are no proper liberal voices in the national political discourse; liberalism is denounced as anti-American at best. The association between Democrats and liberalism is largely a slur pressed by and since Reagan. There are no real liberals at present. I would ask you to think of that point as we move further into our electoral cycle, and we start hearing more about how Hillary Clinton is a dangerous, extremist liberal. (We heard it during Bill Clinton's presidency; a Democrat who rolled to the center, and a party that whiplashed to the right in order to win votes were still too "liberal".) Additionally, I happened across the strangest article a couple weeks ago, that included a pair of Iowa Democrats who opposed Hillary's presidential run specifically because she is a woman. I just don't see them as liberals, do you? Given that midwest Democrats are nervous about what that very sexism will cost them if Hillary is the ticket, can we really say that Democrats in the midwest are liberal?

Well, at least you're looking forward with your fears. What strikes me as mentally ill about conservative politics is not its inability to adapt; after all, in many respects modern American conservatives are among the most adaptable in the history of human politics. What worries me, though, is its dishonesty. (And, yes, I will disclaim for the benefit of those who can't possibly tolerate any such consideration without equal criticism of liberalism that our non-liberal Democrats, especially, are having certain integrity problems, as well. I know how important it is to those who oppose affirmative action that this particular bastion remains in place.) No critic of the Democrats' appropriations vote last May has yet explained to me how the Democrats would override a Bush veto. If extreme "Islamism" is so dangerous to the U.S., why are American conservative Christian activists over in Turkey aiding the Islamist fight to impose religious views in that country's education system? If conservatives are so damn patriotic, what's up with the Turkey gig? How is it that not enforcing a law that doesn't exist is a circumvention of democracy? Why is "equality" supremacy? Why is "freedom" the right to submit to a specific ideology? More than anything attributed to any political party, these are the things that disturb me. Hannity aimed to highlight bin Laden's use of post-Marxist populism as an attack against the Democrats in order to obscure the fact that bin Laden used GOP rhetoric to sting the Dems. I mean, we've gone so damned nuts in this country that conservatives and Osama bin Laden agree? That patriotic American Christians are lending aid and comfort to Turkish Islamists? What the hell is going on? Yeah, it sounds psychotic. About the last thing on the planet that would suggest mental illness about conservative politics is a quantitative difference in anterior cingulate cortex activity.

I urge you to consider that you're jumping the gun on this one.