Acme

That is an inadequate answer. For one thing the study is downloadable as a PDF. Secondly, you have dodged the central implication of my question which is whether or not you have any intellectual interest in actually engaging some science rather than carrying on with opinion.

What would make me 'happy' is for you to declare either that you will or will not read the study and why. Clearly others' opinions matter to me or I would not be here seeking opinions or be reading the study myself. Up to page 14 as I fit my reading into domestic duties. I quote:

Shall I take that to mean you have no intention of reading the study? I'm only on page 8, but allow me to quote a bit.

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Wizard of OZ and Scarecrow (say Strawman)? source Moving on to the second article that I linked to in the OP, we can investigate some of the facts of the matters at hand. Full article: Researchers help define what makes a political conservative So now it is incumbent on we dear tender readers to pursue and read [in its entirety] the study Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. As this paper runs 37 pages I think any comments on it must not appear before such time as is reasonable to accommodate its reading. Here it is: >> Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

No, of course not. It's clearly quite severe, and oftentimes wholly impervious to treatment or reason. Just to clarify, the title was chosen by staff when they split this new thread from the other impervious to treatment or reason thread and said staff took this thread title from the title of one of the articles I cited. While those who label themselves conservatives may not be bat-shot whack, they do a fine job of impersonating that ilk. Life has been gnashing at my knees this week but I hope to do some digging and root out more of the actual meta-study (I may have written "mega-study" earlier; sue me) as well as some of the studies the meta study studied. Have a nice -and if necessary, medicated- day.

If you read the article(s) I posted, the not-all-good-or-bad issue is represented fairly. As the study is a mega-study, generalizing is what the conclusion does. It is not a belief, it is a study conclusion. The intitial use of the word 'hate' in my opening post quote is a quote from a [drunken] conservative. It was quite clear.

I can think of several threads where it's on topic. I knew I had read some study or other that addressed the psychology of many conservative beliefs and this one happens to be a mega-study that hits more bases than the anti-gay meme. By all means take my ball and roll with it. Oh the insanity!

Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity? Death Fear (among other unsavory attributes) Predicts Republicanism [bolding mine] Further reading on the study: Researchers help define what makes a political conservative @ UC Berkeley

ERASMUS's Praise of FOLLY An oration, of feigned matter, spoken by Folly in her own person.

In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell [1932]

An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: A Hilarious Catalogue of Organized and Individual Stupidity by Bertrand Russell

And a lot of a's in your name, butt welcome any waaaaay.

Agreed. But I don't think proofreading is the issue/problem with those not using the Quote system. I don't understand the problem folks have using it, particularly seemingly otherwise intelligent folk and long-time members. Again but with verve; WTF?

Just revisiting the above as I continually see folks old and new either using just quotation marks when quoting from a post or if using the Quote function, not including the name of who is quoted or the place/post/thread the quote came from. So what gives? Ignorance? Disdain for convention? Habit? Stubbornness? Whatever the reason(s), not using the system is with few exceptions an impediment to our discussions. :soapbox:

You're welcome TAR. My specialty is generalities. While I knew what was called for, I have not studied and have no skill in spherical trig. No shortage here of folks well suited to the task though and with a little luck you may coax them out.

Spherical trigonometry @Wiki

I was not suggesting you got it from Fuller & I know it's not the same division as you have done. I was merely giving another perspective and reference on dividing a sphere that -dare I say it- you might read up on to broaden your knowledge. My bad for presuming anyone could even remotely be interested.

I saw Fuller mentioned in this thread I seem to recall, but not his Dymaxion map. Forgive me if I simply missed it. source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map

I suspect this thread and the comic were prompted by my recent comment to a poster in the Trolling thread. Love the cartoon in any case.

Hop On Pop by Dr. Seuss

What you have drawn is nearly a planar net, were it not for the diamonds 'floating' free and vertex joinings. >> planar net @ Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_(polyhedron)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think TAR was referring to your avatar.

To paraphrase Hofstadter paraphrasing Heneker, people of small souls should not attempt it.

Consider making sure all candles are extinguished before going out. D'oh! A lot of my books were 'only' smoke damaged (lost a lifetime of photos, negatives, and slides as well) so I decided to cut my loses and disburse all but a few of the survivors. Friends, family, and midnight trips to library return boxes soon freed me from my horrid hoard. No more dusting, storing, moving, guarding, priding, or inging of the usual sorts. Buh-bye and don't let the shelf hit you in the spine on the way out! I have cringed at the addition of every wildflower book, but I take heart in knowing I can -and jolly well will- disburse them too when the jag dies.

I have been in a no-fiction phase for the last decade or two. Truth is stranger than fiction, if not loopier. Haven't read the new GEB. What's new in it? As I commented somewhere else here recently, I lost my library of 100's of volumes some 20 years ago and decided to go minimalist on the bookage. GEB was one of the casualties. I have only 20 or so books now of which 6 are plant ID guides. I gave Strange Loop to a deserving young man & it boomeranged after several years unread. Thought I'd go for another read & release. Did you also read Metamagical Themas? While I had read many of the articles as they came out in Scientific American, I stumbled on the book at a library and gave it a read.