Concluding Remarks Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism. This claim provides a counterweight to early psychological perspectives on political ideology that tended to see conservatism in somewhat pathological terms (Adorno et al., 1950). Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural. Motivational factors are crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial responses depending on one's goals, beliefs, and values. Our perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected responses lean conservative.
People find what they want to find. This statement, the fricken conclussion, is utter BS. This study was done by academics who have an interest in promoting BS. It isn't just that this study is worthless, aggrevating, insulting simply a BS way to find what they wanted to find: it is that, directly and indirectly, Conservatives were forced to pay for it.
Wow. Are you even aware of the supreme irony you just busted out? The passage you literally just quoted says that the findings of this study are that prior studies that found conservativism to be pathalogical (i.e., there is something wrong with being conservative) are INCORRECT. They report that this study shows conservative methods of thinking are normal. And you are offended by this.
Might be my bad. I assumed this study was done by academics, which are subsidized by the Fedreal government, meaning directly or indirectly, I'm paying for this.
Do you have information on how these investigators make a living? I'd be interested.
Item one, everyone in this thread affirming the consequent should be slapped upside the head for not reading the entire study.
Item two, they did not test for libertarian beliefs in the study for two reasons, 1, apart from their college student studies their sample size was entirely too miniscule and 2, because that would have required them to use much more complex metrics. This makes the study very, VERY suspect.
As for the huffpo correlation, intelligence does not inherently generate operable political ideologies. Else we would all be sipping tea and cupcakes in a worldwide communist paradise. Marx was an intelligent man who at the SAME TIME was a fucking moron.
All in all this study means jack and shit other than alcohol restricts pie in the sky thinking. Which falls into the category of common goddamned sense.
Katatori-kun: They report that this study shows conservative methods of thinking are normal. And you are offended by this.
Gee, that's awful nice of them. I loved the line about, ". Our perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected responses lean conservative."
Who the f' are they to "correct" conservative responses?!?!?
Christ, you're on a mission to read something negative into this study regardless of what's there. They never said they wanted to correct conservative responses. That's not what "correct" means in this passage. Seriously, if you're having trouble with English there's no shame in that, but ask questions to improve your understanding. Don't just make up shit.
Gorfias: Might be my bad. I assumed this study was done by academics, which are subsidized by the Fedreal government, meaning directly or indirectly, I'm paying for this.
Wow. Just wow. Yeah, you're definitely on a mission to invent any possible way you can to be offended by this. This comment is just staggering.
ravenshrike: Item one, everyone in this thread affirming the consequent should be slapped upside the head for not reading the entire study. ....
All in all this study means jack and shit other than alcohol restricts pie in the sky thinking. Which falls into the category of common goddamned sense.
You can take that from reading just parts of this BS. Example, the authors measure conservativism by a desire to maintain the status quo. I'd argue that isn't conservative. It is the left (and RINOs) that picks economic winners and losers, propping up industries that should fall to creative destruction or be over-taken by better operating organizations. It is the left that maintains government programs long after they have been show to be socially destructive failures, etc.
A study like this is so loaded as to be impossible to take seriously.
Gorfias: Might be my bad. I assumed this study was done by academics, which are subsidized by the Fedreal government, meaning directly or indirectly, I'm paying for this.
Wow. Just wow. Yeah, you're definitely on a mission to invent any possible way you can to be offended by this. This comment is just staggering.
Writing "wow" is not an argument. Am I correct about the employment of those who made this study or not? If not, for who do they work? Where do they get their funding?
Gorfias: Might be my bad. I assumed this study was done by academics, which are subsidized by the Fedreal government, meaning directly or indirectly, I'm paying for this.
Wow. Just wow. Yeah, you're definitely on a mission to invent any possible way you can to be offended by this. This comment is just staggering.
Writing "wow" is not an argument.
You're right, it's not. That's because at this point there's no point in making an argument. You are so committed to reading into the study things that are not there that there's no point in making an argument. When I'm living in the real world and you're living in a paranoid delusional fantasy land where academics are out to get you just because you're conservative and they're academics, then there's little point in making an argument. The gulf between us comes from one of us keeping their brain in a parallel universe. I need a dimension portal to bridge that gap, not an argument.
But it's funny you ask for arguments, because the article makes about 14 pages worth of arguments, and you've completely ignored them. Can you cite a flaw in the experiment design or methodology? Can you prove that the data collected does not support the claim being made? I haven't seen you attempt this. All I've seen you do is make up hysterical lies about how the researchers are a priori out to get conservatives. Without a shred of evidence. Despite the article saying the opposite of what you claim it says.
I say wow because that kind of paranoid avoidance of reality is rare to see. It makes me glad this forum doesn't have any scissors or sharp corners.
Am I correct about the employment of those who made this study or not? If not, for who do they work? Where do they get their funding?
I don't see why it matters. If you want researchers to only conduct research when they know with absolute certainty before the experiment has even been performed that their results will not offend you or lead to any conclusions you might not like or even lead to any conclusions that when twisted around in your head and made to say something they didn't actually say that you don't like, then you have failed to grasp at a fundamental level what science is. What you're saying is you don't want anyone to perform science. You want them to perform propaganda.
Perhaps I should clarify that I was referring specifically to liberals in the United States, I have no idea what liberals are like elsewhere, presumably like our liberals only worse which is a scary thought.
Seriously, sometimes you make me want to ask you to show on the doll where the liberals touched you. Cause your negative disposition toward liberalism seems downright irrational sometimes, along the lines of "liberal, therefore bad".
Uh, no. Most of the posts in this forum are, or are some form of, republicans/conservatives are all religious nuts, idiots, or evil racist bigots. I based my claim on a very obvious and very real paradigm in which weak-minded debaters will try to reconcile a differing opinion with their own delusions of superiority and/or the other person's lack of intellect/sanity.
And that proves that liberals everywhere rely completely on defamation...how, exactly?
You know what, forget it, let me just hold up a mirror for you. You may recognize some things in there, namely, the ones you're saying are bad if others do them.
Gorfias: Gee, that's awful nice of them. I loved the line about, ". Our perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected responses lean conservative."
Who the f' are they to "correct" conservative responses?!?!?
They didn't actually say that you were wrong. You're just determined to see it as patronizing because you have this weird ethos where all smart people are out to get you.
Might be my bad. I assumed this study was done by academics, which are subsidized by the Fedreal government, meaning directly or indirectly, I'm paying for this.
Do you have information on how these investigators make a living? I'd be interested.
Stop it. They received no third-party funding, meaning this was paid for out of pocket and peer-reviewed. There is no conspiracy to make you look bad. Your paranoia is doing that well enough.
Gorfias: You can take that from reading just parts of this BS. Example, the authors measure conservativism by a desire to maintain the status quo. I'd argue that isn't conservative.
Thomas Hobbes would argue differently.
It is the left (and RINOs) that picks economic winners and losers, propping up industries that should fall to creative destruction or be over-taken by better operating organizations. It is the left that maintains government programs long after they have been show to be socially destructive failures, etc.
Will you chill on the tribal warfare crap? Jesus, you complain that you're being stereotyped and then you go and aside stereotypes who not just like you. Listen to yourself for fuck's sake.
Am I correct about the employment of those who made this study or not? If not, for who do they work? Where do they get their funding?
No, you're not. You're getting yourself worked up over nothing. You've made no attempt to actually refute the study's methodology or conclusions, just made a bunch of cockamamie conspiracy theories.
the article makes about 14 pages worth of arguments, and you've completely ignored them. Can you cite a flaw in the experiment design or methodology?
I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative. Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative.
Gorfias: You can take that from reading just parts of this BS. Example, the authors measure conservativism by a desire to maintain the status quo. I'd argue that isn't conservative.
Thomas Hobbes would argue differently.
It is the left (and RINOs) that picks economic winners and losers, propping up industries that should fall to creative destruction or be over-taken by better operating organizations. It is the left that maintains government programs long after they have been show to be socially destructive failures, etc.
Will you chill on the tribal warfare crap?
I'm writing, regardless of how Thomas Hobbes would define political conservatism, the criteria used for this "study" does not fit today's reality. Leftists, such as the Nazis and Communists, impose a particular static order. Leftists, such as Nazis and Communists, impose hierarchy. Not that conservatives, such as most members of the US military, do not honor hierarchy and tradition, but that, because these concepts are shared by the Left, using them as criteria to measure differences between the two world views are full of fail.
I'm writing, regardless of how Thomas Hobbes would define political conservatism, the criteria used for this "study" does not fit today's reality. Leftists, such as the Nazis and Communists, impose a particular static order. Leftists, such as Nazis and Communists, impose hierarchy.
Hello, Godwin!
And this is where you lose what little credibility you might have had. Really, I expected something less underhanded from you.
All I can say is, you, along with two other posters in this thread, are not doing your position any favors. We "lefties" don't even need to do that "defamation" thing you're trying to pin on us - you're doing it all too well yourselves!
the article makes about 14 pages worth of arguments, and you've completely ignored them. Can you cite a flaw in the experiment design or methodology?
I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative. Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative.
The problem here is that you simply don't know what the term conservative means. Maintaining status quo/ opposistion to rapid change is what conservativism is all about. This is not a matter of opninion, It's a matter of fact.
the article makes about 14 pages worth of arguments, and you've completely ignored them. Can you cite a flaw in the experiment design or methodology?
I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative.
Don't be ridiculous. In many systems of political science that is the very definition of conservativism.
Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative.
Alright, now you're taking off the tin-foil hat and we're getting somewhere. This is good!
You have a point, though it would be more credible if you supported it with evidence.
So one might be able to question some of the data if one accepts that this one sub-construct of conservativism might be incorrect. Unfortunately, this does not invalidate the article, all it does is weaken a smaller portion of the data. If you want to blow a hole in it to sink the paper, you're going to need a far more convincing argument than "one of the traits they associate with conservatives isn't really conservative!" I say "one" of course because once again, your claim about the status quo is flat out wrong.
But this is still better than just declaring the study to be out to get your from the beginning, so I'd encourage you to continue in this vein.
Gorfias: I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative. Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative.
According to whom?
I'm writing, regardless of how Thomas Hobbes would define political conservatism, the criteria used for this "study" does not fit today's reality.
According to whom?
Leftists, such as the Nazis and Communists, impose a particular static order. Leftists, such as Nazis and Communists, impose hierarchy.
Two things.
1. You invoked Godwin's Law unironically and without qualification, which means I'm winning this particular argument. 2. The Nazis were actually right-wing in practice. 3. You are describing authoritarianism, which is not exclusive to either liberal or conservative politics. As you neatly demonstrated by naming the Nazi party, authoritarianism exists among the left and the right.
Not that conservatives, such as most members of the US military, do not honor hierarchy and tradition, but that, because these concepts are shared by the Left, using them as criteria to measure differences between the two world views are full of fail.
So conservatives don't believe in order, tradition, and hierarchy, by they totally do?
Dude, you really need to catch up in your reading. You're looking more and more anti-intellectual by the second.
1. You invoked Godwin's Law unironically and without qualification, which means I'm winning this particular argument. 2. The Nazis were actually right-wing in practice.
But...but...but Nazis had the word "socialist" in their party name! That must make them lefties! Just like the Democratic Republic of Kongo is a democracy and the People's Republic of Korea is a people's republic, right?
Hello, Godwin! And this is where you lose what little credibility you might have had. Really, I expected something less underhanded from you. All I can say is, you, along with two other posters in this thread, are not doing your position any favors. We "lefties" don't even need to do that "defamation" thing you're trying to pin on us - you're doing it all too well yourselves!
I don't see an argument in anything you just wrote.
the article makes about 14 pages worth of arguments, and you've completely ignored them. Can you cite a flaw in the experiment design or methodology?
I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative. Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative.
The problem here is that you simply don't know what the term conservative means. Maintaining status quo/ opposistion to rapid change is what conservativism is all about. This is not a matter of opninion, It's a matter of fact.
And yet any number of National Review articles expound on the fact, and it is a fact, that it is the left that has become reactionary, trying to maintain a status quo, from maintaining Roe V. Wade at all costs, to proping up industries that should not be bailed out.
Hello, Godwin! And this is where you lose what little credibility you might have had. Really, I expected something less underhanded from you. All I can say is, you, along with two other posters in this thread, are not doing your position any favors. We "lefties" don't even need to do that "defamation" thing you're trying to pin on us - you're doing it all too well yourselves!
I don't see an argument in anything you just wrote.
Yeah well, I don't see a particular need for one when you invoke Godwin because the Nazis had the word "socialist" in their party name. You basically did all the work for me.
Gorfias: And yet any number of National Review articles expound on the fact, and it is a fact, that it is the left that has become reactionary, trying to maintain a status quo, from maintaining Roe V. Wade at all costs, to proping up industries that should not be bailed out.
I'm not sure you're operating on the same definition of "status quo" that the rest of the world is. You're arguing that it's a bad idea, and a liberal one though you do tend to conflate the two, to maintain things that you think are a good idea like rulings by the Supreme Court.
So do you believe that the status quo should be done away with and that is a conservative thing to do?
Gorfias: And yet any number of National Review articles expound on the fact, and it is a fact, that it is the left that has become reactionary, trying to maintain a status quo, from maintaining Roe V. Wade at all costs, to proping up industries that should not be bailed out.
I'm not sure you're operating on the same definition of "status quo" that the rest of the world is. You're arguing that it's a bad idea, and a liberal one though you do tend to conflate the two, to maintain things that you think are a good idea like rulings by the Supreme Court.
So do you believe that the status quo should be done away with and that is a conservative thing to do?
I think the big ideas of our times are that conservatives want to maintain what might be called natural rights (I plant a seed and cultivate it, what grows is mine) vs. a liberal idea for a new sense of right and wrong, radical egalitarianism (Maybe I don't have a seed, or am unable to cultivate it for any reason, or I tried and what I planted was not fruitful: justice dictates we share what you got from your seed).
But when it comes to change, I think the left "conserves" in the sense that the ground they have won, what's theirs is theirs, what's mine is negotiable.
1. You invoked Godwin's Law unironically and without qualification, which means I'm winning this particular argument.
2. The Nazis were actually right-wing in practice.
3. You are describing authoritarianism, which is not exclusive to either liberal or conservative politics. As you neatly demonstrated by naming the Nazi party, authoritarianism exists among the left and the right.
That's three things! 1) I did not know that Godwin's law meant that! I'll be more careful in the future. 2) Hayek would disagree. He said, "there is no such thing as socialism. Only facism. 3) I think you could have an authoritarian state that had little government involvment in your day to day life (not take over your health care or order factories to produce the volkswagon), but was harsh when it came to its dealings with its citizens if they run afoul of government policies (law). I would consider that a right wing authoritarian state.
Not that conservatives, such as most members of the US military, do not honor hierarchy and tradition, but that, because these concepts are shared by the Left, using them as criteria to measure differences between the two world views are full of fail.
So conservatives don't believe in order, tradition, and hierarchy, by they totally do?
Dude, you really need to catch up in your reading. You're looking more and more anti-intellectual by the second.
I don't think you understand what you wrote :-) BOTH conservatives and liberals honor hierarchy (would you want to be a cuban caught dis-respecting Castro?) so why would you use that as criteria to gage conservative leanings?
Katatori-kun: If you want researchers to only conduct research when they know with absolute certainty before the experiment has even been performed that their results will not offend you or lead to any conclusions you might not like or even lead to any conclusions that when twisted around in your head and made to say something they didn't actually say that you don't like, then you have failed to grasp at a fundamental level what science is. What you're saying is you don't want anyone to perform science. You want them to perform propaganda.
I'm writing that I think these kinds of studies will nearly ALWAYS simply confirm the biases of those conducting the study and should always be taken with a big grain of salt.
Katatori-kun: I'd encourage you to continue in this (finding objectionable aspects of the study rather than dismiss it out of hand) vein.
OK, another thing: they also call personal responsibility a conservative thing. Yes, self reliance is more conservative than liberal, but personal responsibility? Would you agree that liberals pester the public about their responsibilities a lot: it isn't inherently conservative? EDIT: From the study: "Emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and preference for the status quo are linked to fast and efficient ways of processing information;" That actually almost sounds like a compliment, but this is the basis of their study, and what they're describing, again, is not inherently conservative as I have argued previously.
Gorfias: I think the big ideas of our times are that conservatives want to maintain what might be called natural rights (I plant a seed and cultivate it, what grows is mine) vs. a liberal idea for a new sense of right and wrong, radical egalitarianism (Maybe I don't have a seed, or am unable to cultivate it for any reason, or I tried and what I planted was not fruitful: justice dictates we share what you got from your seed).
But when it comes to change, I think the left "conserves" in the sense that the ground they have won, what's theirs is theirs, what's mine is negotiable.
A simple yes or no will do.
1) I did not know that Godwin's law meant that! I'll be more careful in the future.
You've been connected to the internet for how long and you didn't know what Godwin's Law was?
2) Hayek would disagree. He said, "there is no such thing as socialism. Only facism.
That's silly, because there's more than one type of authoritarian government. Fascism was specifically an Italian invention.
3) I think you could have an authoritarian state that had little government involvment in your day to day life (not take over your health care or order factories to produce the volkswagon), but was harsh when it came to its dealings with its citizens if they run afoul of government policies (law). I would consider that a right wing authoritarian state.
What we have here is something dangerously close to compartmentalization. Still, convoluted logic aside, you are more or less agreeing with me that there is more than one type of authoritarian rule.
I don't think you understand what you wrote :-)
No, I'm pretty sure that's what I was thinking about you.
BOTH conservatives and liberals honor hierarchy (would you want to be a cuban caught dis-respecting Castro?) so why would you use that as criteria to gage conservative leanings?
Do they assign the same value to it is the question?
I'm writing that I think these kinds of studies will nearly ALWAYS simply confirm the biases of those conducting the study and should always be taken with a big grain of salt.
Never heard of peer review I take it.
OK, another thing: they also call personal responsibility a conservative thing. Yes, self reliance is more conservative than liberal, but personal responsibility? Would you agree that liberals pester the public about their responsibilities a lot: it isn't inherently conservative?
You're just digging for excuses at this point.
EDIT: From the study: "Emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and preference for the status quo are linked to fast and efficient ways of processing information;" That actually almost sounds like a compliment, but this is the basis of their study, and what they're describing, again, is not inherently conservative as I have argued previously.
If you think that's not conservative, you're full of shit.
Gorfias: EDIT: From the study: "Emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and preference for the status quo are linked to fast and efficient ways of processing information;" That actually almost sounds like a compliment, but this is the basis of their study, and what they're describing, again, is not inherently conservative as I have argued previously.
You're misusing their word "conservative". You're linking it too directly with the political side. They are not claiming that people have a couple beers or get stressed and immediately switch to the Republican party.
It's obvious that those traits don't directly link with a political party (anyone who has seen the nonsense many conservatives say about Obama can see just how much they accept hierarchy...). They are descriptions of modes of thought. They are claiming people use conservative thinking, not support conservative policies or join conservative parties.
Gorfias: EDIT: From the study: "Emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and preference for the status quo are linked to fast and efficient ways of processing information;" That actually almost sounds like a compliment, but this is the basis of their study, and what they're describing, again, is not inherently conservative as I have argued previously.
You're misusing their word "conservative". You're linking it too directly with the political side. They are not claiming that people have a couple beers or get stressed and immediately switch to the Republican party.
It's obvious that those traits don't directly link with a political party (anyone who has seen the nonsense many conservatives say about Obama can see just how much they accept hierarchy...). They are descriptions of modes of thought. They are claiming people use conservative thinking, not support conservative policies or join conservative parties.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "Right-Wing Authoritarian Personality". It's a personality type that pops up in every point on the political spectrum that offers a clear hierarchy, but the right-wing specifically is saturated with them.
I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative.
Firstly, they're talking about tendencies and inclinations, not absolutes.
The very name of "conservatism" derives from a belief in maintenance of traditions, ways of doing things, and so on.
In technical terms, many conservatives don't want the current status quo, because liberals / leftists changed stuff. However, if you think where they are looking, it's history. Imagine constitutional originalists in the USA. Or the sense that the country took a 'wrong turn', and has 'lost' it's values. It's all language and imagery of the past, tradition, and so on; that things were 'right' in the old days.
Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative..
Social hierarchy.
To give a simple example:
At its most fundamental level in modern societies, social hierarchy exists in wealth and social class. One does not need to dwell long on policy differences between conservatives and liberals to see that the latter are redistributive and the former not. Which is to say, by keeping money in the hands of those who make it, conservatives maintain a hierarchy in wealth, where liberals are more egalitarian.
Social hierarchy may reflect in many other ways: kinship is an obvious example. You should not have to think hard to consider conservatives are more prone to arguments like "I don't care what happens to X, I don't know him"; less sensitivity to issues of race; family values; etc.
I just did before, for instance, stating that trying to maintain the status quo is not inherently politically conservative.
Firstly, they're talking about tendencies and inclinations, not absolutes.
The very name of "conservatism" derives from a belief in maintenance of traditions, ways of doing things, and so on.
In technical terms, many conservatives don't want the current status quo, because liberals / leftists changed stuff. However, if you think where they are looking, it's history. Imagine constitutional originalists in the USA. Or the sense that the country took a 'wrong turn', and has 'lost' it's values. It's all language and imagery of the past, tradition, and so on; that things were 'right' in the old days
I've written earlier, I think the big conserve vs. change idea of our age is our very concept of what is right and wrong: Conservative: natural law (I plant a seed, what grows is mine) vs. leftist radical egalitarianism (inequity is a wrong: I plant a seed it is not fruitful, for now, we need to share what grew from your seed). In practice, in the USA at least, it is the left that seeks statism.
Hierarchle thinking is not inherently politically conservative..
Social hierarchy.
To give a simple example:
At its most fundamental level in modern societies, social hierarchy exists in wealth and social class. One does not need to dwell long on policy differences between conservatives and liberals to see that the latter are redistributive and the former not. Which is to say, by keeping money in the hands of those who make it, conservatives maintain a hierarchy in wealth, where liberals are more egalitarian.
Social hierarchy may reflect in many other ways: kinship is an obvious example. You should not have to think hard to consider conservatives are more prone to arguments like "I don't care what happens to X, I don't know him"; less sensitivity to issues of race; family values; etc.
Funny story: college professor takes former student on golfing trip. Hotel short of space, they actually have to share a bed. They do everthing together. Towards the end of the trip, the former student has the audacity to say, "your shot Henry." The professor never again spoke to the former student.
My point: the left is far more into social sphere, hierarchy and statism than conservatism.
You can argue that there is, in fact, hierarchy in conservatism, as you have done: but becuase it is such a strong force in the left, why use it as a determinent of conservative thought in a study? My response is, you cannot if you want a valid study.
Gorfias: I invoke GORFIAS LAW!!!!!!! Throwing around obscenties rather than arguments means, you lose the thread!
Really, now? That's the best you could come up with?
Gorfias: I've written earlier, I think the big conserve vs. change idea of our age is our very concept of what is right and wrong: Conservative: natural law (I plant a seed, what grows is mine) vs. leftist radical egalitarianism (inequity is a wrong: I plant a seed it is not fruitful, for now, we need to share what grew from your seed). In practice, in the USA at least, it is the left that seeks statism.
So you're making up your own definitions of conservative and liberal and yelling at people for not accepting them?
Funny story: college professor takes former student on golfing trip. Hotel short of space, they actually have to share a bed. They do everthing together. Towards the end of the trip, the former student has the audacity to say, "your shot Henry." The professor never again spoke to the former student.
My point: the left is far more into social sphere, hierarchy and statism than conservatism.
How exactly does that questionable anecdote make any kind of point at all?
You can argue that there is, in fact, hierarchy in conservatism, as you have done: but becuase it is such a strong force in the left, why use it as a determinent of conservative thought in a study? My response is, you cannot if you want a valid study.
Here we come to another problem. You insist on assigning every quality you don't like as being monopolized by liberals. And anyone who uses criteria established by people who are not you (say for example Thomas Hobbes) is a moron.
Sorry, you don't get to keep moving the goal posts or make up bullshit criteria just so you never have to leave your comfort zone.
I've written earlier, I think the big conserve vs. change idea of our age is our very concept of what is right and wrong: Conservative: natural law (I plant a seed, what grows is mine) vs. leftist radical egalitarianism (inequity is a wrong: I plant a seed it is not fruitful, for now, we need to share what grew from your seed). In practice, in the USA at least, it is the left that seeks statism.
So you're making up your own definitions of conservative and liberal and yelling at people for not accepting them?
I'm writing anyone that disagrees with me is wrong and giving what I think are damn good explanations and examples as to why I think so (example: would you really want to be a cuban citizen caught dizzing on Castro?). ITMT, you respond with obscenities.
Funny story: college professor takes former student on golfing trip. Hotel short of space, they actually have to share a bed. They do everthing together. Towards the end of the trip, the former student has the audacity to say, "your shot Henry." The professor never again spoke to the former student.
My point: the left is far more into social sphere, hierarchy and statism than conservatism.
How exactly does that questionable anecdote make any kind of point at all?
At best, the professor in this anecdote is non-partisan. Customs and mores that demand respect for hierarchy are non-ideological (college professors tend to be left of center though).
You can argue that there is, in fact, hierarchy in conservatism, as you have done: but becuase it is such a strong force in the left, why use it as a determinent of conservative thought in a study? My response is, you cannot if you want a valid study.
Here we come to another problem. You insist on assigning every quality you don't like as being monopolized by liberals. And anyone who uses criteria established by people who are not you (say for example Thomas Hobbes) is a moron.
Sorry, you don't get to keep moving the goal posts or make up bullshit criteria just so you never have to leave your comfort zone.
Sigh, more obscenities. You really are losing it. Also unnecesary polarization (part of a losing argument) writing that I state the left "monopolizes" authoritarian, statism and personal responsibility. I wrote that the left and right SHARE the qualities the study uses to identify conservative thought. Therefore, it is full of fail.
BTW: I've also explained and given examples of why I think hierarchy, statism, personal responsibility (none of these inherently bad) are a part of leftism as well as conservatism. When you have not been spouting obscenities at me, you've simply writtent that other social scientists use these terms to define conservatism. That isn't an argument. At least Agema tried to argue the point.
Gorfias: I'm writing anyone that disagrees with me is wrong and giving what I think are damn good explanations and examples as to why I think so (example: would you really want to be a cuban citizen caught dizzing on Castro?). ITMT, you respond with obscenities.
There's your problem then! You know, just because you think it's a "damn good expample" doesn't mean shit, much less makes you right.
I, for example may think that you're < insert unfounded accusation here >. The unicorn in my closet told me you are, and I think that's a damn good explanation. Ergo, I must be right! Who cares that I may be deluded, talking about unicorns in my closet! All that matters is that I have an explanation that I personally think is damn good!
Sigh, more obscenities. You really are losing it. Also unnecesary polarization (part of a losing argument) writing that I state the left "monopolizes" authoritarian, statism and personal responsibility. I wrote that the left and right SHARE the qualities the study uses to identify conservative thought. Therefore, it is full of fail.
Actually, he's entirely correct. That's what you are doing. You're arguing that everything you dislike, and anything that is generally accepted to be a bad thing is inherently "liberal" and "leftist" (and yeah, that's where you ignorantly invoked Godwin).
Basically, everything that's not you is "leftist" and because it's not you it's "bad".
I've written earlier, I think the big conserve vs. change idea of our age is our very concept of what is right and wrong: Conservative: natural law (I plant a seed, what grows is mine) vs. leftist radical egalitarianism (inequity is a wrong: I plant a seed it is not fruitful, for now, we need to share what grew from your seed). In practice, in the USA at least, it is the left that seeks statism.
You can argue that there is, in fact, hierarchy in conservatism, as you have done: but becuase it is such a strong force in the left, why use it as a determinent of conservative thought in a study? My response is, you cannot if you want a valid study.
Social hierarchy. I stressed the 'social' for a reason.
Statism is independent from social hierarchy. One might, for instance, view a Communist regime as lacking social hierarchy (i.e. mostly classless) but heavily statist. The Roman Empire was very socially hierarchical and very statist. 18th century UK was very socially hierarchical and not very statist. Viking Iceland was neither very socially hierachical nor statist (IIRC).
Statism has nothing to do with maintenance of old ways/ status quo or change. If the old ways or status quo were/are statist, that strand of conservatism would look to conserve statism.
You have to bear in mind, for instance, that capitalism and free trade and stuff was what liberals accomplished in the 19th century in the face of opposition from conservatives, in Europe at least. Conservatives then trying to maintain monarchy, aristocracy and their privileges. American conservatives in the 1770s were the Loyalists who fought for the British (after which conservatism was rebooted, with new revolutionary values).
The values of Western conservatism between different countries and times has varied widely, as above. However, conservatism has been much thought about and analysed for centuries. The three strands of social hierarchy, maintenance of the status quo and personal responsibility are not very controversial at all as general linking trends.
* * *
I know you're really pissed with this study, but it's actually far more innocuous than you think, and not actually insulting to conservatives at all. It's really more an examination of human thought processing.
There are known differences in cognitive processing. Human thinking can work in lots of different ways, and draw on different cognitive processes. When brain resources are limited, it relies on processes designed to be faster and more efficient, but necessarily more simple. At an extreme, that's what a reflex is: you just don't have time to consciously consider and analyse what to do in a split-second, so the brain just does it.
It just so happens that the limited-power thought looked at here tends to involve higher efficiency cognitive processes that, to achieve a quick result, make certain assumptions, and those assumptions tend to lead to more conservative values. This paper is certainly NOT saying conservatives and conservatism are stupid, simple, or ignorant.
When the study said "correct" the "low-effort" thinking, it means to add complexity, depth, detail, etc.: that correction is done by your own brain, not an external force. Adding that complexity, obviously, should still readily lead to conservatism if you're that way inclined.
When we consider our values and politics, no matter what our political orientation, we overwhelmingly apply "high-effort" thinking to some extent. Anyone who comes to the conclusion of conservatism has done so with "high-effort" thinking; the average conservative has put just as much "high-effort" thinking into his position as the average liberal has into his.
There's your problem then! You know, just because you think it's a "damn good expample" doesn't mean shit
So, you think Cuban's feel free to diz Castro in public?
...You're arguing that everything you dislike, and anything that is generally accepted to be a bad thing is inherently "liberal" and "leftist" (and yeah, that's where you ignorantly invoked Godwin).
Basically, everything that's not you is "leftist" and because it's not you it's "bad".
I actually stated that hierarchy, statism and authoritarianism is, I think, shared by left and right and not inherently bad. I just think they make very, very poor foundations on which to gage conservatism vs. leftism (though I do worry that leftism, at least in an entity the size of the USA will lead to death camps, gulags, killing fields and euthanasia of the infirm and elderly.) See also Terri Schiavo.
Statism is independent from social hierarchy. One might, for instance, view a Communist regime as lacking social hierarchy (i.e. mostly classless) but heavily statist. .
1) I read a story about the Chinese being shocked of a photo of an important US official carrying his own bags. Unheard of in the communist regime. They really do have an imposed social hierarchy. 2) Even if we can make the argument that we can compartamentalize the concept of statisms and apply it to conservatives, I highly doubt the authors of this study did so. There are people in this thread speweing obsenaties at me for simply suggsting this is a quality shared by left and right.
This paper is certainly NOT saying conservatives and conservatism are stupid, simple, or ignorant.
I think they needed to label their concepts and descriptions very differently then. They are already coming from a body that once described conservative thought as some kind of ailment. Do you doubt TC is a liberal that got a chuckle from the this study?
There's your problem then! You know, just because you think it's a "damn good expample" doesn't mean shit
So, you think Cuban's feel free to diz Castro in public?
Objection, relevance? I mean, the fact that it may be "what you think is a damn good example" is a coincidence there. Whether or not Cubans feel free to diz Castro in public is completely independent from whether or not you think it's a good example.
...You're arguing that everything you dislike, and anything that is generally accepted to be a bad thing is inherently "liberal" and "leftist" (and yeah, that's where you ignorantly invoked Godwin).
Basically, everything that's not you is "leftist" and because it's not you it's "bad".
I actually stated that hierarchy, statism and authoritarianism is, I think, shared by left and right and not inherently bad. I just think they make very, very poor foundations on which to gage conservatism vs. leftism (though I do worry that leftism, at least in an entity the size of the USA will lead to death camps, gulags, killing fields and euthanasia of the infirm and elderly.) See also Terri Schiavo.
*sigh* I've run into you several times on the forums already. You always attributed traits you dislike to "liberals" and "leftists", regardless of whether or not those traits are liberal or leftist.
See, you did it again, talking about death camps, gulags, and killing fields.
May I ask you just who on the US left supports stuff like that? Because, if you can't come up with at least a few names, then I'm afraid I'll have to call shennanigans again.
Actually, can you list a few people in the entirety of the West that are in some kind of prominent and serious political role who support that stuff? Note the word "serious". Extremists wdon't count because they're already reviled by everyone but themselves, and not taken seriously at all.
Gorfias: I honestly don't think I need write more.
Yes you do.
I'm writing anyone that disagrees with me is wrong and giving what I think are damn good explanations and examples as to why I think so (example: would you really want to be a cuban citizen caught dizzing on Castro?). ITMT, you respond with obscenities.
I just like to say fuck.
And I'm criticizing your points because all you're doing is making anyone to left of you out to be the antichrist. Anything you consider negative, you just assign it to liberals and reach for an anecdote to prove your point. That's not an argument.
At best, the professor in this anecdote is non-partisan. Customs and mores that demand respect for hierarchy are non-ideological (college professors tend to be left of center though).
So you really have no idea what point you were trying to make.
Sigh, more obscenities. You really are losing it.
Don't tell me you believe those ridiculous stereotypes about profanity. Really, it just sounds like you're desperate to discredit me any way you can.
Also unnecesary polarization (part of a losing argument) writing that I state the left "monopolizes" authoritarian, statism and personal responsibility. I wrote that the left and right SHARE the qualities the study uses to identify conservative thought. Therefore, it is full of fail.
If you're not trying to demonize the left, then stop acting like it. Talk is cheap.
And yeah, you attempted to make that point, but you didn't make a convincing case. Again, you are simply making up your own definitions and getting mad when we don't accept them as gospel. You have demonstrated such a flimsy grasp of political and economic theory in general that I cannot see your definitions as holding any sort of credibility.
When you have not been spouting obscenities at me, you've simply writtent that other social scientists use these terms to define conservatism. That isn't an argument.
Yes, it is. I'm telling you what the consensus is. You want to change the consensus, you need some damn good proof. And so far, you haven't produced any. Just anecdotal evidence and the smug insistence that your definitions are the correct ones.
Gorfias: I think they needed to label their concepts and descriptions very differently then. They are already coming from a body that once described conservative thought as some kind of ailment.
And this study actually said that it refutes that theory. Pay attention, man!
1) I read a story about the Chinese being shocked of a photo of an important US official carrying his own bags. Unheard of in the communist regime. They really do have an imposed social hierarchy.
One anecdote is meaningless; hierarchy exists in many ways; there were many Communist states. By and large, they were very egalitarian.
2) Even if we can make the argument that we can compartamentalize the concept of statisms and apply it to conservatives, I highly doubt the authors of this study did so. There are people in this thread speweing obsenaties at me for simply suggsting this is a quality shared by left and right.
The authors would probably not consider the concept of statism, as it does not readily differentiate conservatism from non-conservatism. US social conservatives, for instance, campaign on the basis of using the state to enforce social values.
I think they needed to label their concepts and descriptions very differently then. They are already coming from a body that once described conservative thought as some kind of ailment. Do you doubt TC is a liberal that got a chuckle from the this study?
The psychological profession as a 'body' has not described conservatism as an ailment at all. I'm sure some individual psychologists have made some such nasty little swipes throughout the long history of the world. I strongly suspect plenty more deplore it professionally and personally.
I have no idea who 'TC' is. I'm sure, however, HuffPo carried the article out of a deliberate, mischievous intent we were supposed to draw the requisite inferences from. That's the sort of reason I don't read HuffPo. It makes me quite angry, because as a scientist I believe in trying to minimise the mangling of science for political purposes. Using research in this way brings science and scientists into disrepute: in this area, the damage from this incident is now done.
The way this thread has gone reminds me of quite a few people in my area. If you had simply stated the title of this thread without qualification, they would have taken it as an insult and made that known to all parties concerned. However, if they were to read and comprehend the study without being told what it was about going in, they would agree with the conclusion and be proud for doing so. I was at a Hank Williams Jr. concert Friday and there might have been half a dozen people in that entire building that didn't agree with and respond to every song and comment directed at Obama and the (for them, very real) fear that we were becoming The Socialist States of America, and even though they all love that man and wouldn't hesitate to connect their own politics to his if asked, it would have been insulting if they thought that it was being implied that they came to their conclusions because they didn't think as hard as liberals.
No. Are you by chance not fluent in English? Because I never said anything remotely like that.
And speaking of not being fluent in English...
Wow. Are you even aware of the supreme irony you just busted out? The passage you literally just quoted says that the findings of this study are that prior studies that found conservativism to be pathalogical (i.e., there is something wrong with being conservative) are INCORRECT. They report that this study shows conservative methods of thinking are normal. And you are offended by this.