The liberal v right wing mentality...

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by alexb123, Jan 25, 2017.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    LOL...That's just a flat out lie Comrade Stumpy. Folks of your ilk have a long history of eschewing science, e.g. climate change, evolution, biology, raped women cannot get pregnant, etc. Who do you think you are fooling comrade?

    First, you have no evidence I cherry picked anything, because I haven't. Now if you disagree, please show your evidence. Two, cherry picking is an illogical argument. It's not pseudo science. The unfortunate fact for you and your fellow "conservative" cohorts, is you are once again at odds with science.

    I mean where is your evidence, yeah, really.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Comrade Stumpy, did I call the articles I referenced studies? No, I didn't. I called them articles. And the articles I referenced were from science journals which referenced studies. That doesn't make them any less relevant. The unfortunate fact for you is that there have been several studies all of which have confirmed the articles I referenced in very credible science journals (i.e. Scientific American and Psychology Today).

    Just because you don't like the science, it doesn't nullify the science. And the science shows so called "conservatives" are motivated by baser instincts like fear and less able to manage complex problems. They are herd animals whereas "liberals" are better able to handle complexity. And you don't have to look far to see it. Bowser, an avowed "conservative", has repeatedly hit the fear button, e.g. posting fearful messages and pictures. Fear and hate permeates "conservative" ideology and an objective mind doesn't have to look far to see it.

    Unlike you comrade, I have offered sources and references. You have offered none. You have made assertions, and you have obfuscated. That's what you have done. Now if you have any evidence I cherry picked anything or misrepresented anything, now is the time to show it. If you can refute the studies I referenced, now is the time to show it. But I think we both know you cannot.

    The unfortunate fact for you and those like you is that "conservatives" are motivated by baser instincts like fear and eschew complexity. Trump is the personification of American conservatism. He eschews complexity, and he embraces his ignorance. "Conservatives" are herd animals. They even embraced the term "dittohead". They invented the term to describe themselves. The unfortunate fact for you is the science doesn't support your beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    I consider it more skepticism than fear mongering. I've actually hit the streets and seen what's taking place.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    There is a difference between skepticism and fear Bowers. How have you hit the streets, and how does that help you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    709
    are you illiterate? i am neither conservative or liberal, nor am i DEM or REPUB... try actually reading this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-liberal-v-right-wing-mentality.158730/page-7#post-3464999

    just in case you're having problems: it's at the bottom

    when you get done, go here : http://www.readingbear.org/


    because you linked no evidence in the post that i quoted?

    1- you provide a comment that is based upon what you call "science" with no evidence of said study nor a reference to any article (except after the fact, to which i've still not seen your link)

    but even considering i linked a study that supported your claim, there is this fact:

    2- you took it out of context while making a general claim applicable to all in a belief system based upon your own personal confirmation bias, then made the ASSumption that this is complete data
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

    looks like cherry picking to me
    it's linked and referenced in the first post

    or do you want me to read it for you?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    get it yet?

    i am neither liberal nor conservative, nor am i DEM or REPUB
    learn to read

    and i mean exactly what i said: try reading it because i linked and referenced it above

    or go here: http://www.readingbear.org/
    perhaps when you've finished the course you will understand what i wrote

    you said your claim was based on science
    it's not
    try reading the studies (which was my point - sorry if that was a mite too subtle)

    are you illiterate?
    i have no personal interest in either liberals or conservatives. i do have a personal interest in the science which you are interpreting
    more to the point, i am studying psychology
    one thing you seem to have forgotten (or haven't know about) is that it is not a hard science
    do i really need to explain that one to an obvious liberal who claims to be literate in science?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
    actually, if you bother to check the source material (use google scholar, not political web sites) you will see that political affiliation is no different than religious affiliation in that they're all "herd animals" ... which was another point i made with reference above

    but you must have missed that one

    again: if you get your information from a political site while reading the requisite link to a journal or similar science site, but you then refuse to check the journals for refute and or all the other data, then you're guilty of confirmation bais, which is a basis for cherry-picking and other logical fallacies as well as pseudoscience claims, like you do above


    i also don't have to look far to see that you've ignored all the studies that don't say what you want to believe...

    https://scholar.google.com
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  8. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,151
    There is also a difference in how people misuse their words to describe the motivation of others, something the Left is notoriously apt at doing. Hitting the streets means actually going to a political protest--Left and Right--and seeing what people are demanding.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    How does protesting in the streets or observing protests make you more astute? It doesn't change the science. It doesn't change how you process information. You don't need to go to protests to know what people are protesting.
     
  10. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Assuredly not in the current spates of random stupidity and violence: Ask the protesters what they're fighting for, and discover that most of the answers are at or below 9th-grade level.

    I wonder why stupid people gather in the streets to gabble about something they can't understand, where they're easy targets for the other stupid people.

    I prefer to stay up in the valley, with wildlife to warn me, and LOS on all kinds of possible ingress routes. Fuck crowds, Been there, done that.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Perhaps the communication error we are witnessing is the simple fact that most (all?) people have biases and opinions and they THINK that such are facts!
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  12. H.sapiens Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    That's anecdotal, I'd give you an "F" for rather poor experimental design.
     
  13. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Yeah, you and Rick Perry.

    Seriously, I don't believe that anyone who--of their own admission--uses Youtube as their primary research tool ought be describing themselves as "skeptical."
     
    Bells and Truck Captain Stumpy like this.
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Ah, an admission. Of course it's not an absolute. Whoever said it was? There are always exceptions. You are trying to split hairs here. The fact is the studies found "conservatives" and "liberals" process information differently. "Conservatives" use the more primitive an primal aspects of the brain. "Liberals use more of the cerebral cortex to process information.

    I'm sure those who finance the "conservative" are a lot better at processing information than those they finance and lead.

    Well, I'm not going to split hairs over the meaning of the word "conservative". The fact is the Republican Party is the "conservative" party in the United States. There is a reason why I have used quotation marks around the word "conservative". It's because there is nothing conservative about the American "conservative" movement. But the fact is scientists have found differences in how "conservatives" and "liberals" process information. There is a difference in brain structures. That's the science.

    As I previously pointed out, that's totally pointless in regards to this discussion. Per previous references, scientist can correctly determine a person's ideological preferences 83% of the time just by looking at their brain structures.

    And I have asked you for evidence of cherry picking, and thus far you haven't provided it. Whereas you have used a straw man among other logical fallacies.

    You can call yourself whatever you will. It's your right. But your actions speak volumes.
     
  15. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    709
    admission? really? are you illiterate or are you being intentionally stupid?

    or is this some baiting style post for your delusional persecution complex where you assign anyone who challenges your claims about science to being conservative or communist?

    i clearly stated in my first post... and let me quote it for you:
    perhaps you missed that being illiterate and all?

    1- science is about being factual, so it's about clearing up fallacious points you make
    take what i quoted above from your post.
    2- you can claim that they process information differently because it's true, however, you can't claim the following without some evidenciary support, like a few studies that demonstrate this
    so what you're doing is making an ASSumption about the science that is likely based upon someone else's ASSumption about the science
    where is the study that states this claim?
    where is this "science" you are clinging to that demonstrates your point?

    show me these "differences in brain structure" so we can all see this for ourselves and make a decision based upon actual science and not your interpretations of what you thought you may have read somewhere in some journal you think... after all, that is a measurable thing that can be demonstrated, much like the differences in brain structures in PTSD affected patients
    wouldn't that be considered conspiracist ideation? why, that would make YOU conservative, right? LOL
    no, it is not pointless when you're making the argument that "science says so"

    much like you just claimed there is differences in brain structures and scientists can make accurate determinations about structure alone ....

    when the basis of your argument is science, but you can't produce said science to back up your claims (like your above brain structures and predictions) then it most assuredly is a relevant argument to make a point about the science and your interpretations of said science

    links or STFU and quit being a troll about it
    you mean besides pointing out that you're selecting partial information from a study while refusing to address any other refute provided, like the references i gave?

    so you know: just because your political web site says it's science doesn't mean it is science
    strawman?
    i made a clear, concise argument that your claims of your belief being "science" was not science

    i have been and will stick to that argument because:
    1- it was my original point and argument, which you've yet to actually provide refute for
    and
    2- you have yet to provide any source material proving your argument is scientific, let alone the rest of your BS claims about structures and predictions

    not one single link or specific reference (and saying "scientific american" and "journals" is not the same thing as providing a reference or link that can be searched for)
    my actions are that of someone who is scientifically literate wanting you to actually produce evidence to support your claims about something being scientific
    they have from the beginning, and you have yet to be able to provide even a single reference or link to support your claims to me

    so lets look at your demonstrations:
    you said it was science, whereas i proved it wasn't

    you stated you were "merely pointing out the truth while [Dr. Toad] mindlessly and unquestioningly support the narcissist-in-chief in the White House" when i've never known Dr. Toad to ever have a nice thing to say about the idiot POTUS trump

    you claimed "I showed you the articles in the Scientific American and Psychology Today" but the only links or references provided in the discourse between us have all come from me, not you. you still haven't provided any links or references to me about your claims, nor have you provided any evidence at all whatsoever other than your personal belief and denigration of all those who refute your points.

    you have continued to attempt to change the discourse from your faux pas regarding science to my being "conservative" per your belief, or to logical arguments, or to admissions of something that you clearly don't understand because you can't read, or....

    you have cherry picked specific data from a study (which i pointed out in my first post) - and you've made false claims and attempted to make pseudoscience claims based upon your belief and interpretation which i've tried to correct (see above and first post) and because i've corrected you, i am "comrade" or "conservative" instead of being scientifically literate

    you've claimed that i've not provided evidence when it's clearly posted
    ( i don't understand why you're continuing to make that false claim... brings to mind the following: you can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think.)

    so your demonstration between us must mean you're obviously lying and can't produce evidence, right?
    does this mean we simply report any further posts without evidence?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  16. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,830

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Laughing my ass off, thanks.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    LOL....My aren't you smart. The best you can do is insult people.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The fact is you admitted the evidence and conclusions were valid. You just wanted to quibble about the fringes of the bell curve.

    Truth isn't baiting, nor is it delusion. I referenced two articles from 2 independent well respected science journals. What have you referenced?

    Here is your problem, you are obfuscating. You are trolling. Now if you can cite some science to dispute my references, it's long past time to show them.

    You don't get points for meaningless repetition. If you can make a point and back it up with evidence...do so. But you cannot. Hence all this obfuscation. No one has said or even hinted that science isn't about being factual. You are back to your straw man arguments again. If you can point on a single "fallacious" point I have made please do so. But you can't, because none exists.

    Where is the science? Open your eyes and read comrade. I referenced two articles in well respected scientific journals. Where's yours?

    Read my references, it's really not that difficult.

    Okay, you don't like science and you lie. I quoted verbatim articles from the Scientific American and Psychology Today, both are credible scientific journals. You have merely referenced yourself. You my dear comrade are either incredibly obtuse or you are lying.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,295
    So?
    There isn't a single liberal in the current Republican Congress, serving as a Republican Governor of a State, or in any other public role as a Republican.
    There are conservative Democrats in all those roles. (Blue Dogs, etc).
    Maybe you can find liberal Republicans somewhere, but it's not easy. Pretty much reactionary, the lot of them.
    It wasn't claimed for each and every conservative. It was claimed for conservatives as a group - just like every other claim about conservatives in this thread, including in the posts by conservatives to which it was a response.
    You weren't saying anything reasonable.
    Meanwhile, in the arena of political ideation and liberals being herd animals:
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,295
    Refusing to acknowledge the Republican Party's slide into fascism is not reasonable for a disinterested observer. It's not a neutral position. Whether or not you're a Democrat, right now you have to oppose the Republican Party and every politician in it or you're not a responsible adult citizen - claiming to see no difference between the two major Parties in the US right now makes you complicit with the faction that owns the Republican Party.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,104
    Mod Note

    Firstly, enough with the name calling. From the calling people stupid, illiterate and other various terms, to the "comrades", enough is enough. If it continues, infractions will be issued, regardless of which side of the political fence one happens to be on.

    Secondly, I notice a repeated demand for links from Joe...

    A perusal of his post found the quotes and links here.. Some of them are embedded, but they are there, so the constant demands for links when they were already provided are getting ridiculous: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-liberal-v-right-wing-mentality.158730/page-7#post-3464831

    The link to the Scienfitic American article can be found here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

    The Psychology Today quote came from this link, which he did provide: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds


    Study that was embedded, from Cell: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

    So stop demanding that people post links when they were already posted. If you cannot see them or bother to read what has been posted, that is on you and the repeated demands for something that had already been provided is annoying and can be interpreted as trolling.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017

Share This Page