Acme

Maybe ‘only’ wasn’t really the right word to use especially with such emphasis, given the complex nature of politics; however given the topic and the cyclical nature of the violence, I stand by my opinion in this case. That's fine but it doesn't really inform us of anything. You are in essence saying when people trust and forgive there is no war. Even then it is hardly true because many opposing groups don't trust or forgive each other and yet they aren't engaged in war or necessarily destined to break out in war. For example many in the US [deep] South neither trust 'Northerners' or forgive them for the Civil War, but no one seriously believes war is going to break out.

Try this article: >> El Niño already making its mark on Latin America Searching 'El Niño 2014 Central America' gives numerous other articles. >> El Niño 2014 Central America @ Yahoo Edit: Typo

My increasy sense is telling me that we should define "mild" as "extreme". Strongly Agree on keeping them [that are high RWAs] away from matches and shoe polish.

Mmmmm... did trusting and forgiveness break the cycle of war for WWII? ANY major war? While trusting and forgiveness may come after defeat, they do not always come and they are not responsible for the cessation of hostilities. As to the OP, placing blame strikes me as useless.

Anyone reading the study along with me, or is everyone relying on my most excellent assessment of what is key here? . Note this is a 'new' post and if it's appended to my last we have only the software to blame. Anyway, I'm still reading along and have some musings along the lines of how to use all this information. There is a chapter I think on 'What do we do?' and maybe when I get there it will shed some light on my thinking here. To start, a personal anecdote. A long long time ago and far far away I was living with a policeman who was training to become a detective. (Talk about an authority! ) So he'd come home every night and tell us all about what he was learning and one of the courses was on how to conduct interrogations. He really enjoyed the learning as well as doing the interrogating and I learned a fair amount myself. Some months after I had moved away I was in the outback cutting wood and after finishing the work went up a hill overlooking my truck for a smoke. Up pulls a car and out get 2 cops, one a uniformed ranger and the other a plain-clothes federal game agent. When it became apparent they were waiting for me I went down and walked up behind them (maybe not smart) and said "Hi!". Well, a long story a little longer they began to interrogate me as they were out there looking for poachers. After some of that I told them 'hey; I recognize your interrogation techniques. Next your going to ask me ABC'. Well, they did a full stop and pulled themselves back for a palaver. They then tried some hemming and hawing but I told them either arrest me or let me go 'cause it's getting dark. They let me go but followed me all the way to town. So, segue to the authoritarian conservatives and I was thinking that it might be useful/workable -if not entertaining- for a politician publically debating a conservative to tell his opponent 'Hey; I recognize your RWA tendencies and next your going to say ABC because of your XYZ as laid out by BOB.' Well...just a musing as I said.

While the free 2006 book The Authoritarians is aimed at the general reader, Bob has a for-sale book, The Authoritarian Specter from 1997 that covers more specifics of his studies. Here's a link to Amazon for the book and a short review. The Authoritarian Specter @ Amazon Given that we are rolling up on both mid-term and presidential elections in the US, as well as given the numerous threads going on here concerning conservatism in specific and politics in general, this reading is both fascinating and chilling. Chores may keep me from covering a whole chapter today, but don't let that stop you dear tender readers from moving ahead. Below a short quote from a footnote to Chapter 1 on the science of correlation (the footnote goes beyond what I quote) and then a quote from the start of Chapter 2. Happy reading. The Authoritarians

\Longleftarrow This code; [math]\LongleftarrowA[/math]gives this display; [math]\Longrightarrow A[/math] There is also a left long-arrow : \Longleftarrow Again, here is a library of Latex symbols: LaTeX:Symbols @ Art of Problem Solving

. No doubt some will say/believe this is about conservative bashing but this is hardly the case from the RWA study perspective. The simple fact is that the chips just fall as they do and that high RWA scores rarely correlate with liberals or moderates.

It was not my direct choice to be put center stage with this topic but now that I'm here I have every intention of keeping the show on topic and on sound scientific grounds. Arguments over terms are non sequitars and have no place here other than as such terms are directly qualified by authors of bona fide sources presented. Those who bother to actually read these sources would find that such qualifications are given and any quibbles with terms should reference the specific qualifications these authors give. I did some reading in several chapters of Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians before deciding to download the book and begin reading it completely. He does address the issue of terminology and when I run across that again I will cite it. Meantime I will quote items germane to the thread topic as I encounter them. Keep in mind that Altemeyer's work is only one aspect of the meta-study on the psychology of conservative politics and politicians that opens this thread and so it does not answer all the questions regarding the apparent 'mild insanity' of this group and its adherents. Whether in continuation of this thread or for my own edification I will be looking into all of the studies referenced in the meta-study in more depth and I invite you all with a genuine interest to do the same. In respect for forum rules and authors' rights I can-and-will only quote small portions of works. As with any quoting, these quotes reflect my bias for what is important and I expect readers to do due diligence and read the source material before commenting. Context is everything. The following quote from the introduction of The Authoritarians expresses rather well my own interest in the topic and what I hope to gain in exploring it. The Authoritarians Edit: Fix copy/paste errors. Apostrophes and quote marks do not reproduce across PDF and this format.

No; I think I understand. You have your suspicions and no need of scientific studies whether you can understand their means and methodologies or not. 'They' have a label for you too. Since the subject of the thread is scientific studies there's nothing else for you here. Edit: For whoever is doing the moving about of my topic, it may more properly belong in psychology rather than politics. Your call obviously. . We can swing politico with no sweat if that's the will of the people. Given the frequent mention of RWA [Right-Wing Authoritarianism] in the meta-study, it follows to understand that term from the source. This read will take more time than the meta-study, but it's free to download in PDF format. If facts and/or science are not your forte, don't bother. To borrow from Hofstadter borrowing from Huneker, folk of small souls should not attempt it. (The RWA questionnaire is in Chapter 1 for self-administration.) Enjoy. The Authoritarians

I take it then you also refuse to actually read the study. Your loss as you then have nothing to contribute here other than opinion. I have finished reading the study and though 37 pages may seem daunting there are 6 pages of references and several pages of tables. Inasmuch as this study forms the basis of this thread I look forward to -and expect- on-topic responses from others who do the reading as well. (Science forum; remember?) Here is the link to the pdf again: >>Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

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.

To be clear they aren't 'milking' hornets, they are collecting their spit. Even so, bad-to-the-bone would not be my description of choice. Something along the lines of whack me thinks.

Acknowledged. Will await Buckie's further edification.

There has been more than rough experimentation done, however the prime researcher is keeping things close to his nest...erhm... vest. This article is from 2000. >>Japan Abuzz Over Hornet Saliva As High-Tech Sports Drink: November 3, 2000 Don't tell anyone, but I'm secretly working on a bee pee formula for the Japanes market.

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'll have to mull your response, but the way I read it every interval between signs is driven in 1 hour. At best I may be off 1 interval, i.e. 141 intervals and not 142. Edit: Mulling complete. Bignose is correct insomuch as I mislabeled the units. My answer is for kilometers travelled and not hours taken. In my defense I note the OP does not specify the answer sought. If one thinks of the signs as marks on a ruler, then we start from 142 and cover 142 intervals before we arrive at destination 0. Disregarding the additiona small times it takes to slow 1km/h at each sign, the trip will take 142 hours and cover 10,153 km.

There is a new Wolfram project for simplifying programming among other things. >>Wolfram Cloud

I think you have described the triangular numbers. 1+2+3+4+... The equation is [math]\frac{n^2+n}{2}[/math] Substituting 142 for n gives 10,153 [hours]. PS There is a famous anecdote involving Carl Friedrich Gauss solving the problem of summing an arithmetic progression when he was a child. Here's a list of 109 tellings.>> Versions of the Gauss Schoolroom Anecdote

maybe becouse number 3 is the only number we can always find in these hexagons? that's the only reasonable rule i can think of ... You may be right. I forget my exact original reasoning, though IIRC I was looking at differences between opposite hextants or some such a matter.

No - I think it is realisable. Would take me a fair while - quicker if I could get my hands on a 3d printer... You would have to have the correct number of cogs otherwise it would not move (either odd or even havent thought deeply enough yet to say) The support structure would be a single wire - it would pass around the loop four times. Imagine each cog is on a narrow ring bearing. The Support structure would be the edge of a square cross section prismatic ring I think. I love it when a plan comes together. A further note on Unity+1's Wolfram article. They say Goodrich patented a Möbius conveyor belt that lasts twice as long as a no-twister and while I haven't looked up the particulars I have come across the idea in a couple forms. As an actual conveyor belt, 3 rollers/pulleys will hold the band in tension. I have also seen Möbius bands used as drive belts on early steam tractors driving threshers with their power out-take wheel as well as Möbius drive bands in early factory settings whether driven by steam or water wheels. Looks like a steam driven printing press in this vid using a Möbius band. (about the 1:30 mark)