The liberal v right wing mentality...

[joepistole]

That hasn't been my experience, Joe. The conservative is a more practical creature. While the liberal is busy trying to figure out its gender, the conservative is raising a family and working to better his life.

Of course it hasn't been your experience Bowser. So called "conservatives" can only see to their right or left, and the beast in front of them. "Practical" in the "conservative" world often isn't practical, e.g. the "conservative" response to the Great Recession. The herd animal, and "conservatives" are herd animals have limited information and therefore do not know what is truly practical. They have a limited knowledge base and are motivated by primal emotions. Why are most scientists not "conservative"?

How many "liberals" are trying to figure out their genders? Let's look at some of those pesky facts. Estimates of the number of people affected by gender dysphoria range from .05% to .5% of the population. Using your vision of conservatism and liberalism, "conservatives" account for about 34% of the population. That means 66% of the population is liberal. I think we can safely say most "liberals" aren't busy trying to figure out their sexual identity given only .05% to .5% of the population suffers from that particular malady.

Liberals are out building businesses and advancing the sciences and the arts. They are out teaching. They are out there building our society and advancing our technologies. "Conservatives" are trying to tear it all down, motivated by their fears and ignorance.

"Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” Scientific American

"Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity." Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds


So called "conservatives" are herd animals. They like simple answers to complicated issues. The inability of "conservatives" to deal with a complicated world makes them vulnerable to manipulation by others. That's why they so easily fall victim to right-wing entertainers like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, et al., and fake news.

 

[joepistole]

That's pretty shallow reasoning. About as deep as the thickness of the mirror you're staring into, like Narcissus.

Not open to reason? You shout like the punk-assed Antifa cowards that won't hear any other garbage but their own. Give yourself a bit pat on the back while you swing a bike lock at someone from behind a wall of "women".

No, it's science comrade Toad. I find it odd and a little hypocritical of you to call others narcissistic for merely pointing out the truth while you mindlessly and unquestioningly support the narcissist-in-chief in the White House.

 

[Bowser]

Of course it hasn't been your experience Bowser. So called "conservatives" can only see to their right or left, and the beast in front of them. "Practical" in the "conservative" world often isn't practical, e.g. the "conservative" response to the Great Recession. The herd animal, and "conservatives" are herd animals have limited information and therefore do not know what is truly practical. They have a limited knowledge base and are motivated by primal emotions. Why are most scientists not "conservative"?

The left is a subversive, culturally destructive cancer. We've seen their work in the past, and their efforts generally fail. Tell me, what does science tell us about communism, socialism, identity politics, and any other left leaning theory that most conservatives would readily reject? It's a sad fact that when the left have power, people are generally more miserable.

 

[Dr_Toad]

But I don't, Joe. I didn't vote for him, I don't like very much of what he's doing (and not doing), and I sure as hell don't do anything mindlessly.

Your "truth" is what you call it. I call it something different, comrade. I call bullshit on Antifa and the blindness that's taken over our country since Killary didn't get fairly elected, because Russia.

Fools rush in, and all that. Enjoy your self-importance as the true voice of reason. Along with CNN, of course.

 

[Bowser]

That's pretty shallow reasoning. About as deep as the thickness of the mirror you're staring into, like Narcissus.

I don't so much mind the narcissism; That is, until it enters into the public realm of politics.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/06/glazov-left-cried-fidel-died/

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No, it's science comrade Toad.

no, it's not

you can say it's subjective opinion, or you can say it's according to [x] study based upon [x] parameters, but it isn't science by any stretch of the imagination

you can't say that your interpretation of a singular study is "science" when there isn't validation and you, or anyone else with 30 seconds and a search engine, can show the subjectivity of the information and or point made

for starters, science, though it has determined that "Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's", this is also a singular study and it's not necessarily accurate for everyone, let alone all conservatives and or liberals.

if we take your argument that a singular study is indicative of all science then we must consider all liberals, though scientifically minded, too short lived to have a meaningful life because they're far too likely to kill themselves. (The general trend was such that the more liberal the subject's political views, the greater the likelihood of serious suicidal ideation. Stack (1986))

what has been seen [in science], though, is that people who identify and associate with a like minded group of others (peers, politics, religion, etc) tend to make decisions that reflect those of their peers, whether they agree or not. As Pfaff/Yang noted in 2001 "Just as important as the content of the ritual itself is the fact that by taking part in the scripted events the subordination of the people to the party is confirmed. Indeed, it is compliance that such rituals demand rather than genuine conviction or emotional investment.

So even if people privately view these rituals quite cynically, by going along with them only “as if” they did believe, they help to maintain the system through enactments of subordination and conformity that signal to others that social controlremains intact."

IOW - political ideation is no different than religious ideation: when you become part of the group you are pretty much a herd animal accepting the leadership of the elite in charge of the group.

more importantly: what you have done is focus on a single point because it suits your own personal biased interpretations of reality.

 

[joepistole]

The left is a subversive, culturally destructive cancer. We've seen their work in the past, and their efforts generally fail. Tell me, what does science tell us about communism, socialism, identity politics, and any other left leaning theory that most conservatives would readily reject? It's a sad fact that when the left have power, people are generally more miserable.

Well, that's what you have been taught to believe by the right-wing entertainers who lead your ideology. Here are the problems for you you; I understand it's difficult for you. You have just proven my point. You have just validated the science. You're primary motivator is fear.

Science shows communism is a failed ideology. And here is the thing about identity politics, nobody does more of it or does it better than the conservative. "Conservatives" label anything not sanctified by right-wing entertainers as "liberal" and is therefore summarily and without merit dismissed.

Socialism isn't totalitarianism, and it isn't inconsistent with democracy. You are incorrectly conflating economic and political systems. Most "liberals" believe in what works, and what works is a blend of capitalism and socialism. That's why virtually all advanced economies are mixed economies. They work well together. Neither pure capitalism or pure socialism works well alone, but they work well together, that's what the science says.

Well you may be more miserable when Democrats are in power, because you make it so. It's that old placebo effect in action. It has everything to do with you mind and nothing else. But the science, the hard facts, say people do better under Democratic administrations.

 

[joepistole]

no, it's not

you can say it's subjective opinion, or you can say it's according to [x] study based upon [x] parameters, but it isn't science by any stretch of the imagination

you can't say that your interpretation of a singular study is "science" when there isn't validation and you, or anyone else with 30 seconds and a search engine, can show the subjectivity of the information and or point made

for starters, science, though it has determined that "Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's", this is also a singular study and it's not necessarily accurate for everyone, let alone all conservatives and or liberals.

if we take your argument that a singular study is indicative of all science then we must consider all liberals, though scientifically minded, too short lived to have a meaningful life because they're far too likely to kill themselves. (The general trend was such that the more liberal the subject's political views, the greater the likelihood of serious suicidal ideation. Stack (1986))

what has been seen [in science], though, is that people who identify and associate with a like minded group of others (peers, politics, religion, etc) tend to make decisions that reflect those of their peers, whether they agree or not. As Pfaff/Yang noted in 2001 "Just as important as the content of the ritual itself is the fact that by taking part in the scripted events the subordination of the people to the party is confirmed. Indeed, it is compliance that such rituals demand rather than genuine conviction or emotional investment.

So even if people privately view these rituals quite cynically, by going along with them only “as if” they did believe, they help to maintain the system through enactments of subordination and conformity that signal to others that social controlremains intact."

IOW - political ideation is no different than religious ideation: when you become part of the group you are pretty much a herd animal accepting the leadership of the elite in charge of the group.

more importantly: what you have done is focus on a single point because it suits your own personal biased interpretations of reality.

So the science community has it wrong? Where is your evidence? I showed you the articles in the Scientific American and Psychology Today.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I beg your pardon, but I couldn't find those links in your postings. Would you mind pointing them out, or relinking?

The "science community"? You really think they all agree with one another? Certainly in quantifiable things like physics, but certainly not in idiocies like "gender studies" and the ilk.

Lord, just respond instead of reacting: Everyone will be happier for the moment of forethought..

 

[Bowser]

Well, that's what you have been taught to believe by the right-wing entertainers who lead your ideology. Here are the problems for you you; I understand it's difficult for you. You have just proven my point. You have just validated the science. You're primary motivator is fear.

It's what we know from experience, Joe...

 

[iceaura]

The left is a subversive, culturally destructive cancer.

Which you are unable to identify or describe in the US, and about which you post many falsehoods.

for starters, science, though it has determined that "Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's", this is also a singular study and it's not necessarily accurate for everyone, let alone all conservatives and or liberals.

Not only is it accurate for "conservatives" as a group, overall and in general, but you know it is - unless you are actually in doubt of the political orientation of the major populations of deniers of established science - creationists, AGW deniers, and the like. Do you think the Republican Party platform and campaign rhetoric is some kind of accident?

IOW - political ideation is no different than religious ideation: when you become part of the group you are pretty much a herd animal accepting the leadership of the elite in charge of the group.

And so if you don't accept such leadership and you aren't a herd animal then you aren't part of the group.

If you believe that, it prevents you from assigning membership in a group to those who do not "accept the leadership" of the elite you have identified as being in charge.

So who have you identified as the elite in charge of the liberals, whose leadership liberals all accept?

if we take your argument that a singular study is indicative of all science then we must consider all liberals, though scientifically minded, too short lived to have a meaningful life because they're far too likely to kill themselves. (The general trend was such that the more liberal the subject's political views, the greater the likelihood of serious suicidal ideation. Stack (1986))

That's too statistically unnumerate to make it even as a joke.

I call bullshit on Antifa and the blindness that's taken over our country since Killary didn't get fairly elected, because Russia.

But that's trivia. Neither of those is the cause of any "blindness".
Antifa is a bunch of kids and probably (if the resemblance to what happened in Seattle at the WTO meetings and in Saint Paul at the Republican Convention is any clue) a few agents provocateur. The loss of the election by Clinton is merely one aspect of Trump's collusion with the Russian mob/government - a serious matter, of course, but hardly blinding, and certainly not the only serious aspect. And it's spectacularly not the only significant reason most people think Clinton lost.

If you seek a cause of a blindness that has taken over the country - actually taken over, as in currently occupies all three branches of government - look at the origin and nature of the use of terms like "Killary" by adult men in public.

"Rightwing mentality", indeed.

 

[Bowser]

Which you are unable to identify or describe in the US, and about which you post many falsehoods.

Sheesh, iceaura, you've never been to a protest? You're blind if can't see them

 

[H.sapiens]

The left is a subversive, culturally destructive cancer. We've seen their work in the past, and their efforts generally fail. Tell me, what does science tell us about communism, socialism, identity politics, and any other left leaning theory that most conservatives would readily reject? It's a sad fact that when the left have power, people are generally more miserable.

Denmark, a rather socialist place, is the happiest country on earth.

 

[Bowser]

Denmark, a rather socialist place, is the happiest country on earth.

I think I would move if I were a native.

At 60.2%, Denmark last year had the highest top personal income tax rate among the 34 countries in the OECD, an organization of developed and emerging countries. And that 60.2% applied to income over roughly $55,000. That's a bigger bite than wealthy Californians face on their paychecks and other earned income.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/01/pf/taxes/top-income-tax/index.html

 

[iceaura]

Sheesh, iceaura, you've never been to a protest? You're blind if can't see them

I didn't say I couldn't identify "the left". I said you couldn't.

 

[H.sapiens]

I think I would move if I were a native.

At 60.2%, Denmark last year had the highest top personal income tax rate among the 34 countries in the OECD, an organization of developed and emerging countries. And that 60.2% applied to income over roughly $55,000. That's a bigger bite than wealthy Californians face on their paychecks and other earned income.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/01/pf/taxes/top-income-tax/index.html

But it also had the happiest citizens, go figure that, perhaps money does not buy happiness. Is that too leftest a view for you to handle?

I suspect that where you a native your neighbors would be rather glad to see you go.

 

[iceaura]

I think I would move if I were a native.

The actual natives, the ones who know what they're talking about, seldom leave.
They are not only happier than Americans, they are taller and healthier and live longer.
They are, in particular, taller than Danish Americans, longer lived, and healthier.
And they manage this while paying a little more than half what Americans pay for health care, and smoking and drinking at high rates.

At 60.2%, Denmark last year had the highest top personal income tax rate among the 34 countries in the OECD

Don't forget to add the bill for health care and maintenance to the US tax bill, when comparing - apples to apples.

 

[Kristoffer]

Denmark does not want Bowser.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So the science community has it wrong?

nope. you do

when you cherry pick an idea based upon a singular study because it fits your own bias, that is called pseudoscience

Where is your evidence?

you mean besides the study that i linked and the references i called out?

really?

I showed you the articles in the Scientific American and Psychology Today.

1- those are called articles, not studies. an article is the opinion of the author based upon their personal interpretation of the study, whereas a study is a scientific breakdown of the evidence collected and is [typically] not biased. (when dealing with soft sciences like psychology, that is not always true)

2- i linked no articles. i linked a study, then i referenced other studies

3- one of the best ways to refute your specific point is to simply provide you with a conservative that is scientifically literate and trusts science, but that is already happening in the above thread so there is no need to go through all that work

point being: when you cherry pick data for your own personal bias then you are not making an argument from science, but rather you're making an argument that is from your own bias and interpretation of the science. more importantly, even within that study i linked that seems to support your own conclusion, there is no statement that "all" conservatives distrust science (try reading it sometime), only that "Conservatives—unlike Liberals or Moderates—have become increasingly skeptical and distrustful of science". please note that there is a reference called out for you to check the data on that comment. it would be in your own best interest to open that and read it before commenting further about the veracity of said claim.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Not only is it accurate for "conservatives" as a group, overall and in general, but you know it is - unless you are actually in doubt of the political orientation of the major populations of deniers of established science - creationists, AGW deniers, and the like

generalizations are only accurate to a degree... the statement is accurate to a certain degree but that was my point: it is not accurate for all conservatives, as obvious by the data

Do you think the Republican Party platform and campaign rhetoric is some kind of accident?

not all republicans are conservative, just like not all democrats are liberal
that would be like saying all christians are fundamentalists (they're not - only a small minority are fundamentalists. so my point stands)

And so if you don't accept such leadership and you aren't a herd animal then you aren't part of the group.

If you believe that, it prevents you from assigning membership in a group to those who do not "accept the leadership" of the elite you have identified as being in charge.

So who have you identified as the elite in charge of the liberals, whose leadership liberals all accept?

1- my argument is predominantly about science
however
2- not all liberals or conservatives are democrats or republicans, respectively, therefore not all liberals fall under the leadership of any party
more to the point: you can find liberals in other parties just like you can find conservatives in other parties, or in their own party (like the liberals of NY)
then there is the fact that there are at least 4 different parts to liberalism: classical, conservative, social and economic

point being: liberalism may well be a defined political belief, but like all belief systems, it's subjective and you can find liberals in all major US parties.

That's too statistically unnumerate to make it even as a joke.

i was making a point about cherry picking data for a belief system (see also: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-liberal-v-right-wing-mentality.158730/page-7#post-3464997 )

EDIT
PS - i am neither liberal nor conservative, though i've been told that i have leanings towards both dependent upon the situation. i am also neither DEM nor REPUB as i have a personal opinion that politics is no different than religion... with the same likely outcome in the future