Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Libs and Cons as explained by SCIENCE!

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2014 7:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.motherjones.com...

http://journals.cambridge.org...

The desire to believe that political beliefs spring exclusively from rational, conscious consider- ations is as strong as it is erroneous, and it is a pleasure to be absolved of the need to fight that fight again here. The second is allegations that any and all research on the deeper bases of political differences is merely a fa"ade for the promotion of a particular political agenda. We are delighted that the commentators joined us in an effort to sort through the nature of these differences without casting aspersions on specific belief sets, and we are especially pleased that a couple of commentators compli- mented our objectivity despite the emotionally charged nature of political beliefs.

Our initial take is that the need for constraint/coherence, or what we refer to in our article as the desire for cognitive closure, may intervene between negativity bias and political orien- tations. In this view negativity bias is a driver of the need for cognitive closure, thus giving negativity bias both a direct impact on political beliefs and an additional indirect impact through cognitive closure.
Tsar of DDO
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 12:42:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/15/2014 7:21:32 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

http://journals.cambridge.org...

The desire to believe that political beliefs spring exclusively from rational, conscious consider- ations is as strong as it is erroneous, and it is a pleasure to be absolved of the need to fight that fight again here. The second is allegations that any and all research on the deeper bases of political differences is merely a fa"ade for the promotion of a particular political agenda. We are delighted that the commentators joined us in an effort to sort through the nature of these differences without casting aspersions on specific belief sets, and we are especially pleased that a couple of commentators compli- mented our objectivity despite the emotionally charged nature of political beliefs.

Our initial take is that the need for constraint/coherence, or what we refer to in our article as the desire for cognitive closure, may intervene between negativity bias and political orien- tations. In this view negativity bias is a driver of the need for cognitive closure, thus giving negativity bias both a direct impact on political beliefs and an additional indirect impact through cognitive closure.

Does this mean that Bill Hicks was right, then? That conservatism is an ideology of fear and intolerance?

"Conservation values, which consistently correlate with conservatism, are aimed at coping with negative features of the environment, with protecting the self. Power values, which also frequently correlate with conservatism, are aimed at coping with negative features too, but through dominance and control over people and resources. It is highly plausible that greater physiological and psychological sensitivity to negative stimuli would lead people to endorse these values. It is equally plausible that those who endorse the values associated with liberalism, universalism and self-direction, are free to do so because they are less sensitive to negative stimuli"
[From your source - Cambridge]
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 12:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 12:42:43 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/15/2014 7:21:32 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com...

http://journals.cambridge.org...

The desire to believe that political beliefs spring exclusively from rational, conscious consider- ations is as strong as it is erroneous, and it is a pleasure to be absolved of the need to fight that fight again here. The second is allegations that any and all research on the deeper bases of political differences is merely a fa"ade for the promotion of a particular political agenda. We are delighted that the commentators joined us in an effort to sort through the nature of these differences without casting aspersions on specific belief sets, and we are especially pleased that a couple of commentators compli- mented our objectivity despite the emotionally charged nature of political beliefs.

Our initial take is that the need for constraint/coherence, or what we refer to in our article as the desire for cognitive closure, may intervene between negativity bias and political orien- tations. In this view negativity bias is a driver of the need for cognitive closure, thus giving negativity bias both a direct impact on political beliefs and an additional indirect impact through cognitive closure.

Does this mean that Bill Hicks was right, then? That conservatism is an ideology of fear and intolerance?

Damn right.

"Conservation values, which consistently correlate with conservatism, are aimed at coping with negative features of the environment, with protecting the self. Power values, which also frequently correlate with conservatism, are aimed at coping with negative features too, but through dominance and control over people and resources. It is highly plausible that greater physiological and psychological sensitivity to negative stimuli would lead people to endorse these values. It is equally plausible that those who endorse the values associated with liberalism, universalism and self-direction, are free to do so because they are less sensitive to negative stimuli"
[From your source - Cambridge]

Tsar of DDO
George_Clinton
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 1:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The political born this way theory doesn't convince me. Most of these studies use fairly small sample sizes. Just to point out some anecdotal evidence on my side, my dad used to be conservative but became socially liberal and is now a libertarian. My Aunt was a liberal but became a conservative as she began to work in private practice in the medical industry, my grandpa used to be conservative but is now a liberal democrat (economically and socially). I have gone from a moderate conservative to a libertarian to a conservative in my short lifespan. I doubt that people are actually born one way or the other. I bet there are social elements--income, education, etc--that play a role, and at a certain age you wont change too much (on average), but again I think that people can change their political beliefs over time. For example, my dad used to support banning drugs. But as he worked in the ER and saw its effects, he became pro-legalization. I disagree with him, but that's what happened.

Now the conservatives are less intelligent argument is also not convincing. I know that everyone on this site is aware smart conservatives exist. But these studies argue that, on average, liberals are more intelligent. These studies are often flawed, in a few ways. (1) Small sample sizes, (2) subjective intelligence tests, (3) tests that do not account for all of the variables of intelligence (but only focus on one subject, like math skill), etc.

Now the study argues that conservatives see many negative reactions. For example, if they show a face liberals say surprise and a conservative would say anger... But is that really a bad thing? (the study didn't say one way or the other). I would actually say no. Assuming someone is angry may lead to a more conservative approach--you wont say things that may exacerbate the problem, for example. When it comes to the precautionary principle... Liberals generally support it more (see, for example, environmental issues) but a conservative does it in basic social life... Doesn't that mean conservatives, in this case, are... liberal?!

But honestly, these studies are really dumb. They are always politically slanted, and the authors cannot help but say "this difference means this", when that's merely a subjective opinion. Conservatives may seem 'reactionary', or 'bigoted', but that's just a personal attack in order to avoid debate. And it begs the question as to whether or not being 'reactionary' or 'bigoted' may actually be a good thing. For example, Milton Friedman described liberals as 'do gooders'. They are progressive, try to remedy a problem... But it ends up bad, they want to do good but actually do more harm. In those situations, being 'reactionary' or 'bigoted' by doing nothing--or doing something in reverse (lowering taxes, cutting welfare, lowering or keeping the minimum wage the same) would actually be a good thing. So, conservatives more reactionary? Probably. But it doesn't answer the question: is it the right thing to do? And that's where debate comes in--I will not make any assumptions. Therefore, instead of these silly studies saying "haha conservatives are reactionary haha noobs", we should have studies saying "maybe reactionary conservative policies are good", or "maybe progressive liberal policies are good", not simple ideology vs ideology generalizations.

I bet if we truly got the answers to every political issue, sometimes liberals would be right, other times conservatives would be right (now, I honestly think conservatives would be right, YYW would say liberals, for example) but again, I think issue to issue research, not ideology research, would be much more productive for society.

TL;DR

Issue vs issue research is more important than ideology vs ideology research. We should not put a generalized "liberals are better" or "conservatives are better" mindset, rather "doing this is better than that" mindset. Instead of comparing ideologies, compare the outcome of what happens when minimum wages are raised, for example.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 4:20:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 1:11:24 PM, George_Clinton wrote:
The political born this way theory doesn't convince me. Most of these studies use fairly small sample sizes.

This one didn't.

Just to point out some anecdotal evidence on my side, my dad used to be conservative but became socially liberal and is now a libertarian.

So, that shows that he's flexible and at least willing to accept some change that doesn't directly impact him. It doesn't show that in general terms, conservatives and liberals view the world differently for innate reasons.

Now the conservatives are less intelligent argument is also not convincing.

As a rule, conservatives are far less educated than Liberals. Whether they are more intelligent or not is a matter that I'm not interested in pursuing, though, because very smart people are only slightly less likely to do very stupid things than dumb ones.

But honestly, these studies are really dumb. They are always politically slanted, and the authors cannot help but say "this difference means this", when that's merely a subjective opinion.

In response to that point, I will refer you to the final pages of the study I linked you to.

Conservatives may seem 'reactionary', or 'bigoted', but that's just a personal attack in order to avoid debate.

Actually, its an empirically observable phenomena that is grounded in extensive research as well as a nearly infinite supply of anecdotal evidence.

And it begs the question as to whether or not being 'reactionary' or 'bigoted' may actually be a good thing.

It raises the question... it doesn't beg the question. Raising an issue for discussion and investigation is fundamentally different from begging a question. The former lays ground for further research while the latter is a logical fallacy -though whether being reactionary or bigoted is a good thing is more normative than scientific.

Issue vs issue research is more important than ideology vs ideology research. We should not put a generalized "liberals are better" or "conservatives are better" mindset, rather "doing this is better than that" mindset.

I think both are interesting.
Tsar of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 4:53:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Studies like this are flawed in the same way psychology as a whole is - there are exceptions to these trends, and these trends say nothing about the beliefs or any individuals themselves.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 4:54:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 4:53:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Studies like this are flawed in the same way psychology as a whole is - there are exceptions to these trends, and these trends say nothing about the beliefs or any individuals themselves.

...other than that the sum of patterns in individual behavior show a trend...
Tsar of DDO
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 4:57:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 4:54:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 4:53:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Studies like this are flawed in the same way psychology as a whole is - there are exceptions to these trends, and these trends say nothing about the beliefs or any individuals themselves.

...other than that the sum of patterns in individual behavior show a trend...

What's the point of that? What practical applications do those results have?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 5:01:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/20/2014 4:57:43 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 7/20/2014 4:54:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/20/2014 4:53:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Studies like this are flawed in the same way psychology as a whole is - there are exceptions to these trends, and these trends say nothing about the beliefs or any individuals themselves.

...other than that the sum of patterns in individual behavior show a trend...

What's the point of that? What practical applications do those results have?

If I was campaigning, that would tell me how to frame what I said to both echelons of the electorate.
Tsar of DDO
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2014 11:32:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wasn't all that shocked by anything I read. It's all in how you deal with how you are.

What I don't like is the drift towards the view of humans that we are all just the sum of our chemical reactions, and therefore not really responsible for how we react. It's dehumanizing, immoral, and permissive in all the wrong ways. You are all more than just chemically predetermined wind up toys.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.