Forum Post: Another Blow For Conse(R)vative Thought.
Posted 12 years ago on April 5, 2012, 5:47 p.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Yet another study proving just how lazy conse(R)vative thinking is.
Falls "right" in line with studies proving how uninformed FLAKESnews viewers are.
I guess they never will learn. They just don't want to, because it's just too hard.
U.S. politics: We have a stupid people's party, a nutty people's party, and no party for the rest of us.
All the parties I've ever been to, got fun when the fun people took it over.
Let us pray some fun people can start taking over these political parties we've been having.
I think Maher is on to something here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/09/bill-maher-mocks-occupy-wall-street_n_1583616.html
I suspect OWS is really a feel good diversion to keep people who want to change the system from actually doing so.
Weather it has come to be so by subversion, accident, or by design I'm not sure.
don't know what you're talking about, but OWS got people on CNN to talk about wealth inequality, MSNBC features it in an ad, if you were hoping to do more than raise awareness then you don't know how big a deal that is, the only question now is will we stay on message or be deverted into small battles
Raising awareness is good, but its only a start. When are we going to start changing politics?
Raising awareness could affect peoples voting habits. Perhaps a few more politicians who support the policies that would help the 99% will get elected this election cycle. More protests, more awareness raising, a few more pols. next cycle (2 yrs) Whatever happens, however it happens it will take years to undo what the right wing 1% policies have done to the 99%.
Let us not blame it all on the right. The "left" or probably more appropriately the "pseudo-left" (i.e. Democrats) have done plenty to deserve much blame too. As long as our political candidates all get screened through either the Republican or Democratic parties, there will never be a real win for the people. There needs to be a third path.
I'm asking when is OWS going to put up some viable independent candidates? Like I already said, protests are fine, but that alone won't change any politics.
The 2 party monopoly prevents real 3rd party success. But you are correct that the dems have abandoned the left. But I believe we are here because the dems caved and voted for right wing policies. We can put up candidates I'm not against that. But I also think we can drag the dems back to the left. Co opt them and give them the backbone they lost over the last 30 years of rightward drift.
Ever deal with the Democratic party? Although I'm not holding my breath, you can try. Best bet may be to flat out make the 1% nervous and make them sweat.
I wonder if OWS has some smart lawyers who can through civil suits onto individual banksters?
Banksters certainly deserve it.! The recent efforts against banksters by NYS Atty Gen pale in comparison to what kind of prosecution we need. And the have caved in and moved so far right it will take years to get them to serve the 99%. But while OWS attempts to rebuild from the ground up, horizontally I think co opting 1 of the 2 parties should be one of our avenues of efforts.
You should listen to this before you get caught in the "they all the same" sand trap:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-07/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-its-even-worse-it-looks
If we press the message forward that the rich are too damn rich, we will change things, if we don't we won't.
I can agree with that.
It was/is being done by subversion/co-option, perped by libe(R)tarians and (R)ight wingers.
Can you say Heritage and CATO?
"Conservative and thinking" in the same sentence is an oxymoron :)
This thread is tending towards proving it's so...............:)
How else could you believe the same policies that got us here, will get us out?
Conse(R)vative thinking=oxymoron.
It's too hard to think of something different.
Brain lazy. They would rather entertain conspiracy theory about what a great president Bush was. It was all Barneys fault.........sob sob.
Not that I don't think Dodd Frank turned out to be a watered down piece of shit, and poor excuse for financial reform (not to mention, Dodd was caught up in a scandal involving inappropriate dealings with a financial institution, and he became douche bag in chief for the motion picture association, who tried to ram SOPA down our throats), but for republicans to complain about Dodd Frank on the basis that we shouldn't regulate financial markets (after 2008), is beyond just lazy thinking, it's dumbfounding.
The analysis can be read many ways. I would think that when someone is under the influence of alcohol they tell you what they truly believe. In a sense the barriers that we maintain are let down.
You could come to the conclusion that under the surface people are more conservative than they let on.
The other problem I have is that the folks doing the study do not know the meaning of the words they are using. The opposite of conservative is not liberal, the opposite of conservative is progressive. In fact there are "Liberal-Conservative" parties in several countries including the US, Canada, Spain, and others
Sorry, you're wrong again.
Brain activity drops precipitously when soaked in alcohol.
Low brain activity is associated with conse(R)vatism in every study done so far.
The only conclusion is that non drunk conse(R)vatives are brain lazy, they just think they're smarter when they are drunk.
Yep - Alcohol = Depressant = tired = lethargic = don't bother me I've got a buzz on = here will you accept this and shut-up your harshing my high = say anything that comes to mind to stop the person from making me think.
Actually I am not assuming anything about progressives or conservatives. What I am saying is that most people doing studies start with a premise and use the data to prove their point and therefore most studies are biased. This is especially true for university studies where the folks doing the study are looking for continuing grant money.
Let's give this a try, Give me an example of a question and then the conservative and progressive answers. I would be interested in discussing why one answer requires more thought than the other.
[Removed]
This falls in line with other studies showing a conse(R)vative lack of trust in science.
It's not like this is the first and only study showing a lack of brain activity in conse(R)vative thinking. It's not.
It's been shown in MRIs as well.
Notice how you took the easy way out of accepting the study.
As far as a question? I don't have an MRI handy.
And you have a propensity to believe any study that fits your predisposition without even reading it. You did not even consider the part that says the researchers stressed that their results should not be interpreted to suggest that conservatives are not thoughtful.
I believe there are smart and dumb conservatives, progressives and liberals. What is really hard for most people is to get the terms correct. The fact the you think Republicans are conservatives I assume this because you put and (R) in the word is an example. Many republicans think they are conservative when they are not.
As a liberal myself, I come across many people who think they are liberal who actually are not.
As for the question, In the end I suppose it requires more cerebral fortitude than you have in order to produce a question and two potential responses that are ideologically juxtaposed.
Pretty scary given that so many of our universties' research efforts are influenced by private interests who use them as a cheap R&D department.
Pretty good attempt at changing the subject, but I'm not biting.
This does nothing to refute the veracity of the study.
It still stands........:)
What is most humorous is that you do not even understand what the study is saying.
As I said, most studies start out with a preconceived hypothesis The first sentence of the full report is "The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism."
What is also interesting is that they do not include the survey in their report. What I have found is that many people have a different idea of what a conservative answer is.
As I said I myself am a liberal so I am not trying to defend conservatives because I consider myself one. What I am saying is that when a grad students, especially sociology majors, need to write a thesis, they come up with a hypothesis, perform experiments, and tend to interpret result data with a bias. I have even seen this with papers written my colleagues in my field, physics.
It is like the story of the ancient Greek scientist that put a set of objects in water. Some floated and some sank. He determined that because all the objects that floated had a rough surface, buoyancy was related to the roughness of the surface of an object. Now of course we know that it is really the relative density (mass per unit volume) of the object and the liquid that that determine the buoyancy.
It's not the only one.
They all show the same thing, so far.
Conse(R)vatives use less of their brains.
Anecdotes are not useful in this context.
I suppose if believing this makes you feel smarter you should continue to believe it. As long as you are not hurting anyone it is probably OK.
What is interesting is that the richest counties in the US are majority republican. So I guess using less of your brain is the secret to becoming rich.
One should never believe science, only money is important.
Such is the extent of your logic.
Little thought involved...........You've proven it again.
As a scientist myself with an undergrad in electrical engineering and grad in computer science and physics I believe most science.
The people who wrote the bulletin however, a group of sociology grad students I do not consider real scientists. I really think sociology as a major is a complete waste of time, energy and money. The result is an individual who contributes very little.
Let's put it this way, when I am hiring someone I am not looking for sociology majors that did a study on people in a bar for their thesis.
Just one more that didn't follow the original link and makes a lot of assumptions.
Now you want to pick and choose what qualifies as science.
That's lame.
I consider chemistry, biology, physics, geology, astrophysics, and the like sciences. Some sciences are more exacting than others. For example a point an a line will always make exactly one plane.
Sociology is a very fuzzy science. Sociologists use the scientific method but most of what they do is conjecture. Most of what they study is very chaotic. Even measuring intelligence is inexact which is why in 1990 Guinness removed highest IQ from their list. I had a friend who was horrible at math and science but was a genius when it came to art and imagination. He would rat as a low IQ yet the things he did in art and literature were incredible.
I took a class called computers in society which was basically a sociology class. It was a joke and the worst class I ever took in my life. They basically attempt to categorize people like they are records in a record store. The problem is, most people do not fit into a category.
In the end I do not take the words in a paper written by sociology grad students wh did some research in a bar with a lot of weight.
Behavioral science isn't exacting enough for you?
Don't worry marketers and PR departments love the stuff, as it's what propaganda is made of.
It may not be exact, but it is VERY effective.
Your dismissal of it, makes it even more so for you.
That's effective propaganda works.............:)
I did not say I dismiss behavioral science. I was talking about sociology which is hardly a behavioral science. Oh they like to think they are behavioral scientists but they are mostly folks that could not make it in the curriculum.
Also, my main point was that I would not base my decisions on a paper written by four sociology grad students who did a study in a bar.
I think you are right joe in that there are two types of Republicans both the uninformed as well as the evil.
When it comes to government most people are ignorant regardless of party
I often ask those first two before I ask party, never had a D that couldn't get them both.
What is even more interesting and the root of our problems in America is that 76 percent of Americans say most members of Congress don’t deserve to be reelected but believe their own House representative deserves another term.
that's why I'm trying to throw my guy out, not really it's because he's a Republican, around here the GOP have a saying,
Governement is bad and crooked, elect me and I'll prove it.
I think it is funny that you guys think the Dems are any better. We have folks doing things like:
Oh yea, them thar Dems are such a virtuous group
I think it's funny you can't tell the difference, or can you?
hmmm....
LOL,
Who is your representative in congress? c'mon
You are either a liar or you work for a D and ask your friends who also work for that person. That I could believe.
though to think on it more I do live in AZ, only those that pay attention are D's around here
oh joe, oh joe
come on joe and give ma a chance
I'll laugh at you
and pull down your pants
oh come on joe come out
oh, that is not what I meant. I was not asking you who yours was.
What I meant was that there is no way every D you ask that question to can answer it.
By c'mon I meant that to say that you "never had a D that couldn't get them both" means you never asked, you only asked one person, or you are lying. The senator maybe, just maybe a few would get but the rep in the house?
number 2 had an "or" in it, as did I senator is good enough to meet it, true not all D's know their rep, but hardly ever do you meet a R that does, and they are always evil, if you talk to them a bit
Party means absolutely nothing. A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.
Yours?
I know one thing, you suck at guessing.
Trent
I'm trying not to laugh . . . trying very hard!
Seeing how many of the Republicons couldn't even make it to college, is this surprising? They have no choice but to scam and cause others misery because they are not smart enough for anything else.
So far, their reactions and responses to the study, tend to prove it's true.
The strange part to me, is that these responses tend to come from an emotional level, not logic.
Strange because that's what they accuse the "left" of doing.
Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees. Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: "Both Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees...The National Election Surveys database 1955 - 2004
2004 Exit Poll Data - CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html No High School Voted for Bush = 49% for Kerry 50% High School Voted for Bush = 52% for Kerry 47% Some College Voted for Busy = 54% for Kerry 46% College Grads Voted for Bush = 55% for Kerry 45% Post Grads Voted for Bush = 44% for Kerry 55%
2008 Election followed the same trend http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/obama-education-gap-extends-general-election.aspx College Grads Voted for Obama 46% for McCain 46% Post Grads Voted for Obama 52% McCain 42%
Do you even read your own article links? Thanks for proving my point: "Barack Obama leads John McCain by a significant margin among voters with the most education, but trails the likely Republican nominee among voters with the least formal education."
Why won't you provide source to your first claim by the way? Rough parity my ass.
Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees. The trends for the years 1955 through 2004 are shown by gender in the graphs below, reproduced from a book published by Joseph Fried.[81] These graphs depict results obtained by Fried from the National Election Studies (NES) database. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Voter_base
Maybe you need to re-read the bit about the 2008 elections again....
High School or less - 40% for Obama and 46% for McCain
Some College - 46% for Obama and 45% for McCain
4 Year College - 46% for Obama and 46% for McCain
Post Graduate - 52% for Obama and 42% for McCain
"Obama's weaker performance among voters with less education is inconsistent with the typical pattern seen in general-election contests, in which the Democratic candidate tends to do better than the Republican among this group."
The education patterns for the Obama-McCain trial heats seem fairly well established thus far -- McCain has bested Obama among voters without a college education each of the four full weeks that Gallup has tracked general-election voting preferences, and Obama has had a consistently large lead among postgraduates. The two candidates have been competitive among the two middle education groups -- voters with some college education and four-year college graduates only."
"In a hypothetical Clinton vs. McCain race, the vote by education patterns is typical for a general-election contest. Clinton holds an advantage over McCain among voters with a high school education or less, and McCain runs strongly among those with a bachelor's degree only."
Since only 11% of College Professors are "Conservative", then it stands to reason that those with a post graduate degree will have been inundated with Liberal ideas.
And yet again, you proved my point. Comparing the overall numbers of some college + 4 year college + post graduates, Obama leads McCain by a significant margin thus proving your "rough parity" to be false. You can whine all you want about college professors' views but it doesn't change the reality of my first statement.
The hypothetical Clinton vs McCain holds no water because of Obama. Educated voters had already decided on Obama for the Democratic party so it makes sense that Clinton would have less of those type of voters against McCain.
A Wikipedia link - is that why you did not include a link to the source of the first copy paste job?
As for the "inconsistent with the typical pattern seen in general-election contests"; times have changed.
There is an inversion correlation between thinking one is smart and actually being smart. The more impressed one is with ones own intelligence, the more likely that person is to be ignorant and intellectually lazy. And the more ignorant and intellectually lazy a person, the more likely they are to demand that everyone abide by their ideology, not just listen to it, obey it! This is just scratching the surface of the rampant sociopathic tendencies in ultra-right wing thought but it is a most welcome start. Thanks for posting!
"If you think everything in your head is correct, then you've already identified at least one thing that isn't." ~me :)
A true artist, is always critical of his own work.
It helps keep the brain in gear......................:)
It's only the smug, who are self satisfied.
Agreed. There's nothing wrong with being temporarily proud of an intellectual accomplishment. But that's probably about as far as it should ever go if one is to stay grounded.
This is actually a summary of 4 studies and the paper can be down loaded free.
I've been trying to say, this is but one of many that all show the same thing.
This is from a good source as well.
They just don't like the conclusions and implications.
Intellectual laziness correlates with "conservative" conclusions. But, I think there is more to it than that. A person new to science, a child, for example, can be expected to settle for the first answer. A serious scientist who matures from a student reading about science, to one who conducts experiments and, finally designs experiments, dedicates her/himself to the discipline of always pursuing the better answer, the more complete answer, the more universal answer.
The anti scientific mindset of the conservative, isn't always lazy, but is eager to press on to the objective of using the answer, (deemed good enough) to accomplish a predetermined goal, with no interest in reexamining the answer (even when offered a better one) even when to turns out to be wrong. It may be wrong, but it is good enough to "justify" the pursuit of the goal.
The Laffer curve is a case in point. Even Laffer says that it should not be used the way they are using it, because lowering taxes doesn't provide more revenue, in most cases. But if it did in one case, that is good enough and they won't change.
conservative ideology is the default or what has worked before
Makes sense.
Default thinking would result in a default economy......:)
So that is why this guy is at the University of Arkansas and not at a bastion of free thought like the University of Chicago. Go back to City College.
You guys just keep proving it's veracity.
Thanks.............:)
I'll give you a point 4 that!!!!
So you don't know the difference?
I do........:)
You either press like, or dislike. It's easy.......:)
Maybe it wasn't City College, high school or GED?
Was that an attempt at an insult???
You've proven the study is correct yet again!
Thanks for that.....................:)
Ooh, clever.
I B like that sometimes....................:)
SO So True, it usually always is a hard slog to get at the evident truth esp when it comes to the more complex issues like healthcare. ANd so RIGHT you are, it is what we always suspect about those right wingers that they run rip shot right over the truth to spew their hate filled rants. The evident truth is never on their side so they have to ignore it or they lose their compass. : (
The Puzzler
They need to lose their compass. It's proven to be defective.
PS, I'm almost never "right", though I am often correct........LOL
LoL, got me there shooz. I will remember that one.
Thanks!
The Puzzler
There has been a near fool proof ideological test available for many years, it involves asking (in a causal way), do you follow politics much?
If they say no, then you know they’re GOP and you can avoid the discussion, works almost every time.
Not me. I challenge almost every conse(R)vative I've run into.
Just avoid them when they're drunk...................:) They get even more simple of mind.
Start talking science and they often short out completely, and start quoting the Bible..
yeah it works that way too...depends on my mood, and intent, if you follow
[Removed]
More hate i see come on shooz your better than this
This is research. The hate is only in your perspective.
You shouldn't be so emotional, about this of all things.
I'm sorry that the proof is becoming more conclusive, but it is.
If it's any consolation? Denial is ofter the first stage towards acceptance and improvement.
To be honest with you? I'm happy for you that you seem to have a firm view of your own future and are making good on it. I hope you do well.
In that regard, you have my full respect.
But your cheating yourself if you think that's all there is too it.
Empathy is more important to your spirit than you now know.
Keep in mind that this kind of research has already been sold to marketers and PR firms all over the world by the time it is published in the science press.
It's always easier to think in the simplest terms, and it's important for them to know what those terms are.
Ask the correct question, and you may get the correct answer.
thank you for that
When ever i read these studies i just don't believe them because it doesn't match the demographics of people who vote. also the fact that 20 million of these come out every four years
You don't believe them because it's the easiest thing to do.
Unfortunately the information keeps proving your belief wrong.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=conservatives-lose-faith-in-science-over-last-40-years
So you see, it does match the demographic.
Such lazy thinking doesn't like to be challenged.
Well the problem is i go to one of the most scientific know school in the nation and almost everyone here is conservative and we all believe in science evolution and that the universe is far greater than we will ever know
But i also notice that most people here have faith in one religion or another but yet again we believe in the principles of science. If you look at my family were catholic and we all believe in evolution. It is a very strange thing.
Also my roommate is a dire hard atheist and he is the most conservative person i have ever met. So as much as i want to believe these studies i see to many outliners.
If your school is so singularly special, it becomes incumbent upon you to to design and do the study that proves the other research and studies wrong.
That's how science works.
Until you do that? The other studies stand as accurate, and if the bulk of the conse(R)vatives that visit this forum are any indication, those studies are correct.
no its a waste of time for most of us it like proving blue is blue which i do have a friend researching that which is kind of funny. I will ask my Statistics professor about it
Print out the study.......:)
Want to know what the correct question is?
Print out what study
The one in the link.
I'm gonna start making jokes, if you keep this up.
i thought you meant my friends study i was like i cant touch that it is an unpublished thesis. Yeah i will show her and she will probably think it is weird already talk about it with my friends they had a good laugh about it.
In a field study, bar patrons were asked their opinions about several social issues before blowing into a Breathalyzer. Whether the individual self-identified as liberal or conservative, higher blood alcohol levels were associated with endorsement of more conservative positions. The results indicated that this was not because the conservatives drank more than the liberals.
LOL.
why do you think beer's legal, and pot's not
Because of Anslinger. And Hearst.
I used to bartend. So, I thought it was a hoot.
Sounds like you've been reading Grinspoon, or did Herrer cover that too?
I haven't read either. I am interested in the history of the time period. More specifically, reformists in areas of social issues that are not interested in reform but rather to remove it from the middle class sight. This goes into areas of self censorship like............when Hollywood was in New York and Hayes Code. It also is pushed as social issues to often protect whatever interests that the upper classes may have. I also like anything that smacks the shit out of anyone that firmly believes in the good ol' days.
These are the two guys written the best known books about weed in America. np
I haven't read Herrer, he worte about 20 years ago, after I had movedon so to speak, but you want some insight to how things are done Grinspoon does a good job of telling the story about how the drug war was born, court dates and everything.
I will check him out.
I will do a trade. You wanna see how good collective amnesia works? It's probably a wee bit off topic but it is fun.
collective amnesia, I like it, sounds like something from The Foundation.
What Grinspoon writes about that might interest people here is how the politicos and judges were bought off, who did the buying and why, quite detailed and since he wrote in the 70's and about stuff from the 30’s he was able to get some good stuff as I remember, but my standards might have been a bit lower way back then, if you look and it doesn't live up, I'm throwing in weasel words.
Behind these scenes of public carnality stood the landlord. The most prolific entrepreneur of Five Points vice came from one of the leading early American families. John R. Livingston, from the clan of Claremont, was the brother of Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, one of the nations “founding fathers”. Born in 1755, John Livingston was a supporter of the American Revolution and a soldier of the Continental army. Seeing the war as an impediment to immediate personal advancement, Livingston resigned shortly after its commencement in order to pursue his own business ventures. One historian of the Livingston family has concluded that John saw the Revolution as a prime opportunity for personal profit. He considered conducting business trips to Great Britain and Holland during the hostilities, only to be dissuaded by his more patriotic brother and Robert Morris. Those bits of advice did not discourage him from privateering, because of “the big money in it.” As early as 1776, Livingston embarked on secret trade and illegal commerce with England or its allies. For John Livingston, patriotism and loyalty took a backseat to individual profit. “Poverty,” he admitted, “is a curse I can’t bear….[W]ith it a man had better not exist.”
One secure means of avoiding poverty was investment in the city’s real estate market. To the Livingston family’s already significant land holdings in Manhattan, John added more shortly after the war, and in 1788 he gained control of property in what later became Five Points. By 1791, Livingston had purchased and leased property just west of Broadway, an area later filled with houses of prostitution. After 1800, Livingston steadily purchased property
…Livingston’s control of this property as well as of other habitats of prostitutes, was substantiated in the annual tax assessment records of the municipality. From 1820-1850, Livingston was listed as the owner/occupant of more than thirty houses of prostitution. Among his tenants were some of the best known madams in the city--Abby Mead, Rosina Townsend, Mary Wall, and Elizabeth Brown. Livingston’s ownership over so many establishments gave his madams greater flexibility in their operations. If the neighbors complained, the watch harassed, or business declined, prostitutes moved to other Livingston brothels. Pgs 43-44 City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790-1920 by Timothy J. Giltoyle.
Right up top, it says "Five Points" and I think of "Gangs of New York" one thing that is not so pointed out about "mobs" is that they gain their power by providing what the respectable people won't, in this time I think the ground work for what became the Irish mob, because the cops would rather let the Irish work it out themselves, here in AZ sheriff Joe kind of does the same thing with Mexican Americans, then of course he complains about the crime, but you know what the 2nd amendment guys say, when the cops don't take control the cooks do, or something like that.
another way to say it
Lies are so much more useful than truth.
But me I don't think it truns out that good in the long run, using lies I mean.
I don't think it does either but yanno, it does seem to have it's desired effect in the short term.
That is the problem.
The proof just keeps on coming..........:)
It's the conse(R)vatives who are lazy!
I think all of you suck shit. R's & D's alike and I can tell very little difference in the outcomes of what either does in DC. They all take big money from those who they actually represent which makes them guilty of treason, the way I see it.
Clearly, you believe in the corrupt bi-party system and your D's.
Clearly you have no idea what thread you are posting in, as this one is about lazy conse(R)vative thinking.
I know it's hard for you, but try and stay on topic.
Maybe if you stopped pretending, it would help you?
I'll stop pretending when you get Obama, DC's and the DNC's jack boots out of your cheap "shooz" ass. Look here boy, the correct spelling is "shoes".
Thanks for proving the research in the thread title correct.
I guess you are good for something after all........:)
Keep pretending and insulting and you will be gone before too long.
PS They were never there, so you can stop pretending now.
Who were you before you "chose" a name to insult another poster?
Come clean and step into the light.......It feels good.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I guess that is why the University of Chicago has more Nobel Prize winners than any other school.
[Removed]
[Removed]
It takes a whole lot less effort to tell the truth or state common sense than it does to invent a self serving idea or justification.... For example;
If you knew of a homeless person, the conservative, common sense, right thing to think would be: "I should help him", and the right thing to DO would be: "To help him".
When the liberal or leftist knows of a homeless person, he would think the right thing to THINK would be, "we should get a group of people who think like I do to band together to put pressure on our government to pass a tax law to take more money from people who have earned a lot of money (more than they need) so the government can create a beurocracy that will study the needs of the homeless people so they can go out and try to identify the people in the area that may be homeless (or may be near homelessness), so they can create a program that will create an infrastructure to use the power of the government to develope a center in all the populated areas of our country to attract homeless people from the areas around so that they will be in a central area where the government can help them.
That is why conservative thought takes a lot less effort than liberal thought, and works a lot better. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
i urge people vote for Obama so war in Afghanistin and Iran will be over quick. Obama hopefully invades Iran soon before summer heat. If only I had two votes for Barack he is my fav king of America! he is best PREZ in all of time. Even better than Lincoln
Conservative thoughts are not lazy whatsoever. Socialism is lazy. Having things handed to you without deserving them whatsoever. Conservatism is against big government. Conservatism is against wellfare for those who don't need it and just free handouts. I don't see how you can logically say that Conservatism is lazy. Can someone please explain how Conservatism can be lazy?
I'm saying what this and other studies have shown. Some studies include CAT scans and fMRIs to prove it.
This is science, not the opinion you are giving.
Conse(R)vative thinking, doesn't use much brain power. They don't have all their gears meshed. All the circuits are not closed.
Read the link.
It's not just an opinion, it is the definition of Conservatism.
Yes. Weak minded thinking is key to conse(R)vatism.
It's proven.
Read the link.
You're not taking full advantage of your synaptic abilities.
Shit like this is why this movemet will never change shit. Unless you are gunning for a civil war... How the hell does demonizing at least 40 percent of the population help your cause? You sound just like the one per centers. Or maybe your just a tool of the one per centers insurer that we the people keep fitting and calling each other names? Or maybe, if you ever get to power you will just kill those that disagree because you have studies showing they are stupid?
Thanks!
You've also added to the veracity of the study........:)
It's just science.
That is my point. When we use science as a a barometer of what is right, we slide down a slippery slope. By your assumption we would be better off the intellectual class tell us how we should behave. After all, they have science as their proof. This is not much different than eugenics orgenetially modifying food. But the outcome due to the law of unattended consequences, can have some ery bad side effects.
Also, in this case, one assumes that higher intellectual thinking is far better than instinctual thinking. Let us look at that hypothesis. My guess is the bankers that got us into this mess, the politicians who used the system to profit, are some if the highest scorers on those test. Where did that take us as a society as a whole?
But thosevwho rely on their senses. Their gut. Their heart. Those are the ones that believe in God. Work for their family. They have no intellect to confuse them on what is right. They know. And when these people see the system as evil, even beastly, I listen.
Now I agree that those intellectual conservatives like to use these people's faith against them, just like intellectual liberals love to use hippies sense of compassion to promote peaceful wars.... (there's an intellectual concept... Sounds stupid to me)
And studies like the one you ellude to are a part of that process. And drives a wedge between the people that really should be united because we are all taking it up the ass. And that is very simple thinking.
This stuff describes brain function, not IQ tests.
Not how much money somebody makes. Why do you guys always use that? Jealousy?
Apples and oranges.
If you insist on believing man has instinct(arguable), it would come from lower brain function. Often describes as the "lizard brain". Study results still hold.
You seem to think intellect is inherently "evil". That's like saying it's smart to be dumb. The study still holds, in an Orwellian kind of way.
The end of screed demonstrates an anal fixation.
I don't know what to tell you about that. See a shrink?
Conse(R)atives don't use much brain function.
The fallacy of your argument is that higher brain function equals smarter and better results. That is not true. For example, if I know what I am doing is wrong, I can appeal to my higher brain function to rationilize and justify my bad behavior. I am not saying intellect is inheritely evil, but I do not assume it is inheretly good, either, like you do.
Your reply about jealousy confuses me.... My point was that those who have power today have misused that power and I would think that the reason they have these positions of power is teirability to think on higher brain functions and have figured out a way to manipulate the system to their advantage. The reason I pointed this out isvto support my thesis that higher brain function does not always have better results.
I do admit i did makevone mistake. I did assume that you had some brain function. But after reading your response,and how you present no good arguments but rely on name calling, and do not respond to points I make in our discussion, that this is not the case. Think you rely on other people's thoughts and ideas rather that your own thoughts, then name call if someone puts holes in these other peoples theories that you have plagiarized and made your own. Or is regurgitating other peoples ideas higher brain function as well, much like language because it is the process of regurgitating fed information, then convincing yourself it is your own via the ego, smart guy?
What an incredibly thoughtless, emotional, reactive response.
I would believe you except there's more than one study.
Here's one the came out today.
http://veracitystew.com/2012/04/01/climate-change-denial-and-the-conservative-brain/
See? No thought of your own. Where is your brain function???????
Man made global warming is real!
Conse(R)vatives tend to be racist.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/07/national-review-writer-ignites-firestorm-over-disgusting-rant-on-race/
They also repeat themselves a lot. ( see almost any thread in the forum)
They are afraid of progressive change.
They don't understand what has happened to health care.
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/
They watch and quote FLAKESnews and folks like Limbaugh.
Both are known liars.
They believe in their own lies.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/07/wisconsin-republican-gender-discrimination-in-workplace-is-a-myth/
All that is indicative of brain laziness.
I know it has been a minute... But I have been busy... And everything you replied as to why you don't listen to conservative thought is all re hashed liberal biased brought to you by the liberal media. Look, if you really are interested in learning about conservatism, libertarianism, federalism, and constitutional thought I would suggest listing to antiwar.com for starters, and watching you tube videos such as end game. Then you might understand that just how the one percent distorts the average progressive, liberal arguments, so too you will notice how the rights opinions have been taken out of context. And that there is more common ground than not. It is the politicians of the one percent that keep the people divided so they can continue to lord over us. If we want to take this country back then we have to come together on issues like no drones in US air space and get these s.o.b.'s out of power. And my point is your rhetoric does nothing but allow the one percent to continue with their boots on all our necks.
In what World does 2 months = a minute?
At any rate, your statement doesn't disprove a single thing in my comment.
Not 'a' one.
Wonder why all those lefty groups feel the need to publish derogatory 'studies', I guess the same reason lefties are always trying to shut down conservative outlets...they fear conservatives and conservative thought.
Do you lefties ever wonder why conservatives never try to shut down lefty sources? We love it when you talk, the more you talk the more people know how wrong you are. :)
Thanks for proving the premiss of the thread correct, once again.
Your refusal to accept the truth is legendary, if not notorious.
Derogatory?? No, it's a legitimate study and just one among many.
The only thing derogatory, is your response.
Of course you jest, if conservatives felt the need to bolster their self image with 'studies' about the left as the left seems to do about the right there is an amazing amount of low hanging fruit in your uneducated base we could turn to but we don't feel the need to do that. It's the same as not bothering to worry about getting your lib talkers off the air, they are their own worst enemies. :)
Look at the economic stupidity spouted on this very site daily, do you really think we are worried about the 20% of the population that identifies as lefties?
Thanks for proving the study correct once again......:)
The more you deny it with fact free hyperbole, the more convinced I become of it's legitimacy.
More so because of the derogatory and assuming nature of your response.
It takes so little brain power to parrot wrong wing media.
LOL, What in my statement is from the media, left or right?
The entire tenor and tack.
So no links, examples, comparables, nothing? You can't have an actual exchange can you, just repeat dogma?
Why should I?
You're challenging a study, you likely didn't even read, and trying like hell to change the subject.
One of many that say conse(R)vatives are brain lazy.
.
LOL, Exactly! Why be anything but a lazy lefty! Too funny :)
You've already forgotten what you asked.