DescentBB

I think this has been hashed about before in the past, but there's been a new study that might explain the differences in thinking between liberals and conservatives.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/ ... 7256.story

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ain10.html

I don't think conservatives are going to like this one.

Duh

I don't see them reconcile their conclusion with the fact that people tend to vote the way their parents did...
So if this 'cognitive condition' isn't also genetically passed down and manifested in each generation at a similar rate as the voting trends of family members I think it might be a case of junk science.

I wonder how much 'stimulus' money these two schools will take in now? I know UCLA got $12 million for researching how to get Africans to take AIDs tests....

I would argue, assuming that study in the first link is accurate, that we're not \"wired\" that way, it's just something we're accustomed to--the way we were taught and have chosen to think of things. Stacking findings behind a popular/pet notion is the realm of junk-science.

I could make an argument, based on that study, that liberals should not be in government/politics at all. A place of authority/power is no place for someone who isn't compelled on a deep level to reconcile conflict or define ambiguity.

Thinking about this a little more, and having read the article behind the second link, it sure seems like quite a stretch to test people hitting keys and then claim to have received insight into their decision-making process on life and political issues. It sounds an awful lot like someone is, like I said, stacking findings behind a popular or pet notion.

What do you think of that, TC?

Will Robinson wrote:I don't see them reconcile their conclusion with the fact that people tend to vote the way their parents did...
So if this 'cognitive condition' isn't also genetically passed down and manifested in each generation at a similar rate as the voting trends of family members I think it might be a case of junk science.

They don't seem to go as far as to say that this is something that you're born with or even that it's permanent. The way you think changes your brain like how your brain changes the way you think.

It's probably a combination of both. We are a sum of our genes AND environment. Take PC's for example. They all come out of the factory with basically the same OS for example, give or take several flavors, but even that doesn't guarantee that each every one of those machines will behave the same once they're out the door. Programs can change themselves sometimes. And once the customer starts interacting with that machine, all variables will change and no 2 PC's will behave the same thereafter.

What I found telling was that conservatives tended to react based on fear and were usually more pugnacious and aggressive in situations that were unfamiliar to them, while liberals tended to be more mellow and willing to compromise and make deals to appease and diffuse the situation.

Before you yell, there are downsides to both reactions. Either one of these traits, if used exclusively by an organism, would not be a way to guarantee survival in nature depending on what type of social structure that organism lived in. The conservative reactionary fight or flight way would help individual organisms cope and survive just fine, but would hinder that individual in a social group. The liberal kumbaya way would hinder survival for an individual that's on it's own, but would be a benefit a group of individuals or social group that's trying to survive. That's what I find funny about humans. We try to live in both situations, mixing individual and social group philosophy and we can't seem to always come to agreement on how each style should be implemented in order to conduct our lives. One wants to benefit the individual, the other wants to benefit the group. Never the twain shall meet.

I heard a funny idea from a caller on the radio. She equated humans with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Since we share 99% of our genetic programing with these 2 species, it makes sense. Chimpanzees are patriarchal, aggressive and territorial, will fight to solve problems and have no hesitation about killing another troop's members, even their young. Bonobos on the other hand, are matriarchal, deal with aggression by submission and compromise, namely by using sex as a why to deal with stressful conflicts or situations. They don't use force as a means of dispute settlement. You'll notice that in nature, these 2 types of societies don't go together. One style is used exclusively by a social group, but not a mix.

TunnelCat wrote:... That's what I find funny about humans. We try to live in both situations, mixing individual and social group philosophy and we can't seem to always come to agreement on how each style should be implemented in order to conduct our lives. One wants to benefit the individual, the other wants to benefit the group. Never the twain shall meet.

The Bible says to love others as you love yourself. That's the goal of society and the purpose of government--to manage the overlap of interests inherent in any group, but it starts with the individual and cannot be separated from individual interests. I would argue that liberals buy into--as people abusing positions of power like to popularize--the notion that at some point it's not about individual interest. That's where the U.S. constitution comes in. It is always about individual interest. A just meeting of individual interests is the goal of good government.

tunnelcat wrote:What I found telling was that conservatives tended to react based on fear and were usually more pugnacious and aggressive in situations that were unfamiliar to them, while liberals tended to be more mellow and willing to compromise and make deals to appease and diffuse the situation.

LOL

Conservatives being aggressive and liberals defuse the problem.

The finger-biting incident occurred after a member of the group protesting health care reform, William Rice, 65, of Newbury Park, became involved in a heated discussion with a member of Code Pink, sheriff’s Capt. Ross Bonfiglio said.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-f ... 5717.story

Don't forget about Obama's friend Bill Ayers who used terrorism as a tool for political change.

Republican National Convention in 2008. It was a liberal who was sentenced to two years for bringing bombs and riot shields.

Another liberal woman that was threatening bombing plot Of the RNC.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... kibby.html

I'm pretty sure the 2 black panthers out side a polling place were not Conservatives.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/04/bl ... the-polls/

I bet every time the G20 meet it's not conservatives that cause all the damage and riots

http://cofcc.org/2009/09/actual-political-violence/

I'm sure I can come up with more like Organisations like ELF listed as a top domestic terror threat in the US, I sure they aren't conservative.

I sure if the Liberals want to defuse problems they wouldn't resort to name calling (ie teabaggers, racist, homophobic, islamphobic, and the like) every time someone disagrees with Obama and the liberals.

tunnelcat wrote:What I found telling was that conservatives tended to react based on fear and were usually more pugnacious and aggressive in situations that were unfamiliar to them, while liberals tended to be more mellow and willing to compromise and make deals to appease and diffuse the situation.

LOL I didnt know you were a conservative TC

This describes you to a "T" you are scared to death of anything that comes from the "right" your attitudes are Pugnacious and VERY Aggressive and even downrite hatefull in a great many instances. and I have NEVER seen as being mellow on a subject and you are far from willing to compromise.

are you sure they done have Conservative and Liberal mixed up

This is the perfect example of the old adage…“A little knowledge is dangerous”.

TC wrote:are matriarchal, deal with aggression by submission and compromise, namely by using sex as a why to deal with stressful conflicts or situations

so what your saying is that women are manipulators in all species

tunnelcat wrote:....

What I found telling was that conservatives tended to react based on fear and were usually more pugnacious and aggressive in situations that were unfamiliar to them, while liberals tended to be more mellow and willing to compromise and make deals to appease and diffuse the situation.

...

Really?!? That's quite a deep analysis you have proposed.
Can you show me where in the study, or even in the rhetoric laden interpretation of the study in your two links, that these conclusions you site are mentioned or supported?

You seem to be the target audience for this 'news' story, that much is apparent.

Quick. The grant money in our bank account is running low. Let's release something that will make for some controversial headlines and then sit back and wait for some more dough to roll in.

What I found telling was that conservatives tended to react based on fear and were usually more pugnacious and aggressive in situations that were unfamiliar to them, while liberals tended to be more mellow and willing to compromise and make deals to appease and diffuse the situation.

I just think you guys don't like the wording, but the overall sentiment I believe in.

War on Terrorism/Iraq War/Afghanistan War/\"911 Alerts\"/ How the main conservative network displays \"FOX NEWS ALERTS!!!,\" Disarming treaties, perhaps the death penalty viewpoint, even the 2nd ammendment rally cries.

\"Why do you need a gun that big?\"
\"Well, what if the government collapses and its pure anarchy?\"
\"You think about that?\"
\"Why do you think I bought all that ★■◆● from Goldline?\"
(Sorry )

But in gerneral, conservative forign policy tends to be one of \"strike first.\" The rhetoric is more about enemies and allies, with us or against us (OMG there are people against us). [bold](I am not talking about the politicians, don't cite me Obama/Clinton examples, the left was/is often upset with them on these issues.)[/bold] I am talking about people who tend to fall in one group (liberal) or another (conservative). Liberals really do tend to be more about trying to appease/disarm (In fact, appeasment is often the negative label you guys give us!). \"War is over, if you want it.\" That isn't a conservative saying.

We can replace the word \"fear\" with \"cautious,\" but in the end, the reason you are more cautious, is because you have more F____.

Are you talking about idiot political conservatives, or the rest of us?

I live in a state with a lot of ye old religious people…Pennsy Dutch, Amish etc. These people don’t show fear and react to everything through a prism of fear…in fact quite the opposite. Pacifists in fact.

There is no way you could call these people liberals, in fact thay are about the most conservative people you will find anywhere in this country.

They believe in things like…..gasp….charity.

Stereotypes and generalizations aint scoring you guys many points.

………………………………..

Most Americans, and that means conservatives wanted no part of WWI or WWII, and it was your party that dragged us into Vietnam. In classic preemptive “stop the commies” fashion.

You must be young…

Gooberman wrote:

What I found telling was that conservatives tended to react based on fear and were usually more pugnacious and aggressive in situations that were unfamiliar to them, while liberals tended to be more mellow and willing to compromise and make deals to appease and diffuse the situation.

I just think you guys don't like the wording, but the overall sentiment I believe in.
...

Whether you believe in it (TC's screed) or not is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But where in the study can we find the conclusions TC said she found in it?!?
You say I have a problem with the wording...who's wording? TC's rhetoric or the study? To me they are quite different, not just a rewording of the same details. Kind of like the global warming science contrasted to the alGore conclusions, sure they both speak of weather and temperature but that's about where they part company!

TC's take on it was the desired result of the publishers though....maintain the polarization of the electorate keeping their slaves on their side of the plantation.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The Bible says to love others as you love yourself. That's the goal of society and the purpose of government--to manage the overlap of interests inherent in any group, but it starts with the individual and cannot be separated from individual interests. I would argue that liberals buy into--as people abusing positions of power like to popularize--the notion that at some point it's not about individual interest. That's where the U.S. constitution comes in. It is always about individual interest. A just meeting of individual interests is the goal of good government.

Yes, the individual is important, or we would end up in a stagnant and repressive society (like Communist Russia) if all individuals were treated equally like clones. But if everyone lived as individuals and didn't care about the whole of society, then society would suffer because individuals don't care about how others live unless it interferes negatively with their own lives. Out of sight, out of mind if one doesn't care about their neighbors.

That's why we as a nation need to find a happy medium between the 2 ideals. Allow the individual the freedom to live as they see fit, but support society as a whole to keep the excesses of the individual from encroaching on others. But both sides seem so far apart that a consensus might be impossible to attain. Lefties want to give everything to everyone equally and allow the government to make all the important decisions in our lives like a babysitter and conservatives want the individual to be able to take what they want, when they want, no matter what the impact is on everyone else and allow individuals to make their own decisions in life without ANY government interference.

What it comes down to is what is 'just' government for all? My "screed" is NOT to have government control everything, but to help protect us from the excesses of the individual or even a small powerful group.

Heretic wrote:LOL

Conservatives being aggressive and liberals defuse the problem.

No. Conservatives start fights with no plans on how to finish them cleanly and liberals wuss out, wring their hands in frustration because there IS no way to finish them cleanly and so never finish them either.

CUA wrote:LOL I didnt know you were a conservative TC Razz

This describes you to a "T" you are scared to death of anything that comes from the "right" your attitudes are Pugnacious and VERY Aggressive and even downrite hatefull in a great many instances. and I have NEVER seen as being mellow on a subject and you are far from willing to compromise.

The only things that scare me about conservatives is the fear my rights will be taken away based on some moral compass that doesn't represent me, one religion might be imposed on me as a 'required' state religion, the government will be controlled by the aristocrats and plutocrats that run things in their own interests (already happened I'm afraid) and the rich will take everything we have left and leave a abysmal future of dreariness and poverty for everyone else (is happening).

Oh and the perfect example of the conservative brain being influenced by fear is the new 'boogeyman' du jour that they seem to always come up with, Muslims and 'old is new' retread, immigrants. Conservatives just changed the target from the 'old boogeyman', Godless Communists, and before that, Catholics, and immigrants.

I find it funny how you took your own topic about the hardwired brain and turned it into an anti religion rant.

Oh and FYI. not all Conservatives are religious and not all Liberals are Athiest's

TC wrote:No. Conservatives start fights with no plans on how to finish them cleanly and liberals wuss out, wring their hands in frustration because there IS no way to finish them cleanly and so never finish them either.

Liberals finish the fight by biting fingers off or didn't you read any of the violent acts done by the liberals to win a fight?

TunnelCat wrote:... and conservatives want the individual to be able to take what they want, when they want, no matter what the impact is on everyone else ...

That's an out-and-out lie. I don't know any conservatives that even come close to fitting that poisonous description.

TunnelCat wrote:That's why we as a nation need to find a happy medium between the 2 ideals. Allow the individual the freedom to live as they see fit, but support society as a whole to keep the excesses of the individual from encroaching on others.

My freedoms are not the government's to grant. That's kind of the big part of the founding of this country that you miss so completely.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:My freedoms are not the government's to grant. That's kind of the big part of the founding of this country that you miss so completely.

you wouldn't be refering to the part in the Declaration where it says

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

would you???

I'm sure that doesn't mean what it so plainly says.

America isn't a Christian nation, you know. Get with the times, Cuda, history has changed.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:... and conservatives want the individual to be able to take what they want, when they want, no matter what the impact is on everyone else ...

That's an out-and-out lie. I don't know any conservatives that even come close to fitting that poisonous description.

Well, a lot of the current politicians on the right seem to want unfettered Capitalism with no rules to run to our economic system. I call that "dog eat dog" or "winner take all" and with this unfair system, there will be a lot of losers.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:That's why we as a nation need to find a happy medium between the 2 ideals. Allow the individual the freedom to live as they see fit, but support society as a whole to keep the excesses of the individual from encroaching on others.

My freedoms are not the government's to grant. That's kind of the big part of the founding of this country that you miss so completely.

But when your freedoms encroach on my freedoms or the freedoms of others, when is it freedom for all?

CUDA, I'm NOT anti-religion. I'm anti-religion if it's forced in my face every time some Christians think that their values are under attack by "liberals", and they seem to think that they're constantly under attack, according to conservatives nowadays. And that's another 'fear' tactic. Sow seeds that something you cherish is under some threat to sway public opinion.

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, I'm NOT anti-religion. I'm anti-religion if it's forced in my face every time some Christians think that their values are under attack by "liberals", and they seem to think that they're constantly under attack, according to conservatives nowadays. And that's another 'fear' tactic. Sow seeds that something you cherish is under some threat to sway public opinion.

did you even read what you typed before you posted it?
you talk about fear tactics, well you're failing for fear tactics with your stance on Christianity. You dont want religion "forced in your face" you FEAR what might happen and have bought into the lefty fear tactic of a Christian theocracy in the making.
Well many Christians dont want you telling us we cannot practice our religion. some fear that the left will try to remove our right to practice what we believe openly and for you to think otherwise is either Ignorance on your part or just a flat out lie, so which is it?

Our original/ideal form of government--constitutional American government--exists to protect freedoms from such encroachments. How can you possibly be any more free than that? And don't tell me that freedom is somehow to be gained by control. I'm not a product of our public school systems.

My real problem with liberals like yourself is, I would have to say, two-fold. First you have some image in your mind of an ideal world, a world that is absolutely without basis in reality beyond a bunch of people with the same image getting together and believing it's real (I would pose the U.N. as an example, if I thought it was an innocent organization). On the same note you seem to have a really warped concept of the opposing (conservative) viewpoint, such that when you speak of it it's barely recognizable to anyone who lives by those very principles.

And the second part is the fact that you're always glazing over the intricacies of success and failure, in the arena of individual liberty, to blame failure on social or economic policy. In the liberal playbook there doesn't appear to be any problems of individual responsibility, of morality, of failure to enforce good laws, only failure of social and economic policy which you so desire to change. This is a really foolish thing, but it is foremost an intellectually dishonest endeavor to push naive social schemes on a country that was DESIGNED to resist such \"change\". Our government was built to preserve individual liberty.

Spidey wrote:Are you talking about idiot political conservatives, or the rest of us?

I live in a state with a lot of ye old religious people…Pennsy Dutch, Amish etc. These people don’t show fear and react to everything through a prism of fear…in fact quite the opposite. Pacifists in fact.

There is no way you could call these people liberals, in fact thay are about the most conservative people you will find anywhere in this country.

They believe in things like…..gasp….charity.

Showing fear and having fear could not be more different. Someone that does heroic actions in the face of danger, yet has no fear, isn't brave, they are stupid.

The question is how do we react to fear. It is only when someone reacts selflessly in the presence of fear, because of the fear, that one can be deemed "courageous."

Having an army, is this nations reaction to fear. It is a logical reaction, there do exist things to be afraid of. The argument, is who pulls back first, liberals or conservatives. We are talking about generalizations which can only be analyzed through policy, not case studies.

A conservative who carries a concealed weapon into a Blockbuster has more fear then someone who doesn't. We can argue that the other person who doesn't carry the weapon is "stupid," sure, thats where the debate lies. But you can't argue that the armed man has less fear, that is just rediculous, he is freaking armed!

(Again, this is the semantics,thing I was eluding too earlier, I would be willing to bet that the armed conservative would be more courageous should something happen, but courage and fear, while related are not the same thing. You can have fear and not courage, you cannot have courage without fear.

Conservatives do react more to general fears.

The mexicans are comming, lets build a wall.
The terrorists are comming, lets kill them! (I mean analyze that, when you "kill a terrorist"--and we have killed many in Iraq/Afghan., you are killing someone out of the fear that they might kill you -- you can at least see how a neutral party could get confused).
The government is collapsing, lets buy Gold and Guns.

The best analogy on the other side I got is global warming, but very few liberals think it will kill them, they think it will kill the future.

Perhaps these are logical fears, thats a fair point. But one side definitely reacts more then the other.

Stereotypes and generalizations ain't scoring you guys many points.

blah blah blah blah back at you.

After reading your post Goob, I think you might be able to make the case that conservatives are simply more proactive.

That's kind of what I got too.

Gooberman wrote:Someone that does heroic actions in the face of danger, yet has no fear, isn't brave, they are stupid.

I've heard that before, but I think it's misleading. Courage is not the presence of fear, but the overcoming of it. A man could be courageous who gives no place to fear in the face of danger that he fully comprehends. Another man may deem a cause so important that he purposely gives no regard to the danger inherent in it. You can't call him stupid for choosing to disregard the danger.

Gooberman wrote:A conservative who carries a concealed weapon into a Blockbuster has more fear then someone who doesn't. We can argue that the other person who doesn't carry the weapon is "stupid," sure, thats where the debate lies. But you can't argue that the armed man has less fear, that is just rediculous, he is freaking armed!

That's a gross generalization. Carrying a firearm is a choice, not a reaction. Not carrying a firearm is also a choice, be it based in willful ignorance of danger (cowardice), or a disbelief in the existence of danger that cannot be handled by society and it's deterring components (ignorance), or possibly even the belief--in the knowledge of what evil men are capable of--that the likelihood if it happening to them is not worth the trouble (the opposite of proactive). A person who carries a gun into Blockbuster isn't necessarily expecting to use it in Blockbuster. Their choice to carry EVERYWHERE is based on knowledge of the fact that bad things happen, and that we won't necessarily know where and when.

Gooberman wrote:Conservatives do react more to general fears.

But these "fears" you've enumerated are all historically or demonstrably well-founded, so what point is there to make against people who generally are concerned about them, and individually blow them out of proportion?

What's the difference between McDonalds and Burger King?