The Republican Brain

[music]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science--/dp/1118094514/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339059556&sr=1-1

 

Anyone read this?

 

(Full disclosure: I do not know know Chris Mooney, but that is kind of a coincidence at this point; we know many of the same people.)

 

It looks fascinating to me - but I suspect it doesn't explore very well why liberals deny science, when they do (i.e. European liberals and GM foods; the previous generation of American liberals and nuclear power). The problem may be that just at this particular moment we don't have enough anti-science liberals for the scientists to study.

 

Anyway, seems to be an important topic in human self-understanding, and with study and thought this kind of thing might show us a way out of the nearly violent partisan hatred that is consuming America. (The other day in Hardee's I heard a man, a retired judge and police officer, claim that if re-elected Obama would be putting conservatives in concentration camps; a few moments later my own brother "joked" - knowing but not caring that I am a liberal, and evidently knowing next to nothing about history - that Hitler "ought to have" put liberals in the gas chambers.)

[swansont]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science--/dp/1118094514/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339059556&sr=1-1

 

Anyone read this?

 

(Full disclosure: I do not know know Chris Mooney, but that is kind of a coincidence at this point; we know many of the same people.)

 

It looks fascinating to me - but I suspect it doesn't explore very well why liberals deny science, when they do (i.e. European liberals and GM foods; the previous generation of American liberals and nuclear power). The problem may be that just at this particular moment we don't have enough anti-science liberals for the scientists to study.

 

I've not yet read the book (and I have met Chris) but one objection I recall is that some of the liberal denial of science might have been interpreted differently because one was not asking the right questions. Which is a possibility, because there is plenty of liberal and non-partisan science denial out there.

[immortal]

 

It looks fascinating to me - but I suspect it doesn't explore very well why liberals deny science, when they do (i.e. European liberals and GM foods....

 

I don't know how a republican brain works and how this is connected to them, but anyways.

 

Environmental activists do have a point and one must appreciate their concerns upto a certain extent. I think GM crops and GMOs should be released to the environment based on ESA (Ecological society of America) standards. After reading too many articles and other sources to decide on which side to take for the question of 'Should the goverment allow the release of genetically modified organisms?' I have concluded that the ESA standards are the best standards and that every genetically modified product should meet the standards of the ESA.

 

 

Releasing GMOs into the environment

 

They say the potentially negative effects could include:

 

 

 

• creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens;

 

 

 

• exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic plants or animals;

 

 

 

• harm to non-target species, such as soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds and other animals - disruptive effects on biotic communities; and

 

 

 

• irreparable loss or changes in species diversity and genetic diversity within a species.

 

 

ESA Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms

 

 

 

The Ecological Society of America, which represents 8,000 ecological scientists, supports the judicious use of biotechnology. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to play a role in sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, and bioremediation. However, both deliberate and inadvertent releases of GMOs into the environment could also have negative ecological impacts under certain circumstances. For example, fast-growing transgenic salmon might jeopardize native fish populations, or altered viruses for biocontrol of insects may have unexpected effects on non-target populations. GMO risk evaluation should focus on the product, but should recognize that some GMOs can possess genuinely new characteristics that may require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding. Since long-term ecological impacts of GMOs may be extremely difficult to predict or study prior to commercialization, ESA strongly recommends a cautious approach to releasing GMOs into the environment.

 

 

 

GMOs should be evaluated and used within the context of a scientifically based regulatory policy that encourages innovation without compromising sound environmental management. The process by which this occurs should be open to public scrutiny. Environmental risks associated with GMOs should be evaluated relative to appropriate risk reference scenarios, such as conventionally bred organisms, with due consideration of the ecology of the organism receiving the trait, the trait itself, and the environment into which the organism will be introduced.

 

 

 

Engineered organisms that may pose some risk and hence require scrutiny include cases where there is uncertainty about environmental effects. These could be cases where:

 

• there is little prior experience with the organismal trait and host combination;

 

• an organism may persist without human intervention;

 

• genetic exchange is possible between a transformed organism and unaltered organisms, or

 

• the trait confers an advantage to the GMO over native species in a given environment.

 

 

 

An assessment of environmental risk is needed to minimize the likelihood of negative ecological effects such as:

 

• creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens;

 

• exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic plants or animals;

 

• harm to non-target species, such as soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds, and other animals;

 

• disruptive effects on biotic communities; and

 

• irreparable loss or changes in species diversity and genetic diversity within species.

 

 

 

ESA urges scientifically-based risk assessment of GMOs and standards appropriate for product testing and release into the environment. The Society is committed to providing scientific information that can aid in the development of GMOs with neutral or beneficial ecological effects.

 

I think the europeans have done the right thing by banning GM crops. If a GM crop doesn't meet the ESA standards then I am against GM crops.

 

The defenders of GM crops normally defend themselves by asking the activists that they should provide an alternative solution for 'how do we feed a ever growing world population of 7 billion people?' but if the risks outnumber the benefits it creates more problems rather than providing a solution for it. I think world hunger is just an illusion, as a cop out to release GMOs into the environment without realizing about the risks involved in it.

 

 

[Phi for All]

I haven't read the book, but I hope I can be forgiven for taking exception to the title. Trying to pigeonhole Republicans or Democrats is a big part of this division that's going on in the US. At its core, it's the inability of a two-party system to adequately represent such a diverse population that's to blame. There are elements within both parties for whom science denial is pursuant to their ultimate goals, and those goals are as diverse as the represented population.

 

The religious right obviously considers science to be antithetical to their goals of church dominance. Big Business doesn't want scientists and other intellectuals cutting into their profits with all this talk of AGW and financial reform and overall economic recovery. Established interests everywhere probably see science as inevitable change that threatens those establishments, whether they come from Republican or Democrat sources. So they try to discredit science, which is apparently very easy, since Joe Six-pack is always looking for any excuse to give a swirly to those know-it-all geeks that make him feel so stupid.

[A Tripolation]

I think the europeans have done the right thing by banning GM crops. If a GM crop doesn't meet the ESA standards then I am against GM crops.

 

The defenders of GM crops normally defend themselves by asking the activists that they should provide an alternative solution for 'how do we feed a ever growing world population of 7 billion people?' but if the risks outnumber the benefits it creates more problems rather than providing a solution for it. I think world hunger is just an illusion, as a cop out to release GMOs into the environment without realizing about the risks involved in it.

 

The ignorance in this particular field astounds me.

 

If you've eaten corn in the past few years, chances are it's been genetically modified. They do this to make the corn higher-yield. They make the corn resistant to pests and diseases of the ground.

 

Almost every crop has been engineered to cope with the demands of seven billion people on this planet.

 

Please research before you go spouting off about how dangerous GM is.

[immortal]

The ignorance in this particular field astounds me.

 

If you've eaten corn in the past few years, chances are it's been genetically modified. They do this to make the corn higher-yield. They make the corn resistant to pests and diseases of the ground.

 

Almost every crop has been engineered to cope with the demands of seven billion people on this planet.

 

Please research before you go spouting off about how dangerous GM is.

 

I am not concerned about the effects that GM crops have on my body. I am more concerned about the effects that it has on our environment and the biological diversity as postulated by the ESA.

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood the theme of my post.

Edited June 7, 2012 by immortal

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

if you want to talk about GM crops, misunderstandings of the scientific evidence, etc please do so in a new thread.

[iNow]

There is, however, this:

 

http://www.oddgods.com/articles/2009/f03a

 

Each states' votes in the last four Presidential elections (1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008) correlated positively 71% with the state's high school ranking above or below average. (Most statistics herein have a margin for error of +/-4%.)

 

States having above-average high schools voted Democratic 64% and Republican 24%; states having below-average high schools voted Republican 78% and voted Democratic 22%.

States with their high schools in the top 25% vote Republican 8% of the time, Democrat 75% of the time, and swinging 17% of the time.

 

States with their high schools in the second 25% vote Republican 38% of the time, Democrat 54% of the time, and swinging 8% of the time.

 

States with their high schools in the third 25% vote Republican 75% of the time, Democrat 25% of the time, and swinging 0% of the time.

 

States with their high schools in the bottom 25% vote Republican 82% of the time, Democrat 18% of the time, and swinging 0% of the time.

These strong statistical correlations suggest that our nation's most poorly-educated people vote Republican, and that blind loyalty to either party decreases as levels of education improve.

 

 

 

As for a look at "why" this might occur:

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/why-we-care-what-politicians-think-about-science.ars

 

Agreeing with the scientific community has become a key issue in recent presidential campaigns. Evolution came up at a debate during the previous Republican primary season, and Rick Perry, the current front runner, was put on the spot about it at a recent campaign event (he flubbed his answer on several levels). And, as Huntsman's tweet suggests, the reality of climate change has been a hot topic.

 

How did science become such a prominent political football? It really hasn't. The candidates' responses to questions on scientific information have become a proxy for other things, and people across the political spectrum are listening to what those responses say about the candidates' way of thinking.

 

<snip>

 

So, what have we learned from this? With the exception of Huntsman, the candidates don't know science, haven't bothered to ask someone who does, and, in several cases, don't even know anything about the settled policy issues (judicial precedent and investigation of claims about fraud). Why would we want these traits in a president?

 

Actually, some people do

 

However, the fact is that Huntsman is barely registering in most polls, and the leading candidates in the Republican party are successful in part precisely because they are voicing an opinion that runs counter to expertise. For many in the US, expertise has taken on a negative cultural value; experts are part of an elite that thinks it knows better than the average citizen. (This is accurate, for what it's worth.) Very few object to that sort of expertise when it comes time to, say, put the space shuttle into orbit, but expertise can become a problem when the experts have reached a consensus that runs against cultural values.

 

And, for many in our society, scientific expertise has done just that. Abstinence-only sex education has been largely ineffective. Carbon emissions are creating a risk of climate change. Humanity originated via an evolutionary process. All of these findings have threatened various aspects of people's cultural identity. By rejecting both the science and the expertise behind it, candidates can essentially send a signal that says, "I'm one of you, and I'm with you where it counts."

 

<snip>

 

Besides, a candidate who rejects science can apparently use that position to attract the support of somewhere above a quarter of the electorate. That's not a bad start for a presidential campaign.

 

 

Neurobiologically speaking, though... There do seem to be some common brain differences between liberals and conservatives:

 

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/rethinking-healthcare/gray-matter-liberal-brains-vs-conservative-brains/3896/

 

* Liberals tended to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex – an area that becomes active in situations involving conflict or uncertainty. Having a higher capacity to tolerate those kinds of things could allow individuals to accept more liberal views, the authors suggest.

 

* Conservatives tended to have a larger right amygdala – a region involved in detecting threats and responding to fearful stimuli. People with this brain structure are likely more sensitive to disgust and threatening facial expressions and tend to “respond to threatening situations with more aggression,” the study says.

 

Just looking at brain scans, the researchers say they could predict who was liberal and who was conservative with about 75% accuracy.

 

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/does-your-brain-bleed-red-white-.html?ref=hp

 

Politics can be a touchy topic, especially when it comes to neuroscience. Researchers who've dared to tackle questions about how people's political leanings might be reflected in the brain have often earned scoffs and scoldings from their colleagues. A provocative new study is likely to be no exception. It claims to find features of brain anatomy that differ between people who identify themselves as politically conservative or politically liberal.

 

<...>

 

"It's provocative," says social cognitive neuroscientist David Amodio of New York University. Amodio is no stranger to political neurocontroversy. A paper he published in Nature Neuroscience in 2007 resulted in some hyperbolic headlines and punditry in the mainstream media and a critical backlash from skeptical neuroscience bloggers. In that study, when Amodio and colleagues used electroencephalography to investigate brain activity, they found a correlation between greater activity in the anterior cingulate and political liberalism. The picture that emerges from that work, Kanai's study, and other research is that "even complex political views are probably rooted in more basic psychological and brain processes," Amodio says.

[immortal]

!

Moderator Note

if you want to talk about GM crops, misunderstandings of the scientific evidence, etc please do so in a new thread.

 

It was not my intention to hijack this thread, the OP wanted to explore or study why liberals deny science and brought the topic of GM crops and I gave some valid reasons as to why biotechnology and its products should be screened effectively before releasing them into the environment indicating that one can use science to deny an application of science.

[Phi for All]

These strong statistical correlations suggest that our nation's most poorly-educated people vote Republican, and that blind loyalty to either party decreases as levels of education improve.

I wonder if it could also suggest that the states with the highest number of Republican votes tend to be from states with the poorest public education systems and the least voter turnout from those educated in the public schools. I think the very wealthy send their children to private schools for the most part and resent tax dollars spent on public education, even though they tend to own the businesses those undereducated people work for.

 

 

It was not my intention to hijack this thread, the OP wanted to explore or study why liberals deny science and brought the topic of GM crops and I gave some valid reasons as to why biotechnology and its products should be screened effectively before releasing them into the environment indicating that one can use science to deny an application of science.

It seemed like a friendly nudge to snuff out FURTHER talk about GM crops to me, not a reprimand to get defensive about.

[immortal]

It seemed like a friendly nudge to snuff out FURTHER talk about GM crops to me, not a reprimand to get defensive about.

 

I did thought that this topic required a seperate thread in the environment science forum before posting it here but I thought it was necessary to post it in this thread. I didn't knew that many people here hold different views on GM crops, thank you.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

GM discussion can be continued here

[JohnB]

And it wasn't that long ago that American "scientists" were putting out papers that demonstrated that negroes were mentally inferior to whites. The old Soviet Union used to declare dissidents as "insane" and lock them up.

 

It's nice to see Chris Mooney and the general left continuing the proud traditions of their intellectual forebears. Rather than admit that the other person might be an equal and have a valid point, it is far easier to class them as "mentally subhuman" and attempt to ignore them. This of course leads to the next question "What do you do when those noisily inferior people just won't shut up and do as they are told?"

 

Silly question, that's what the left want "re-education camps" for.

 

Anybody that doesn't react to Mooneys concept with repugnance has just left the bounds of civilisation. In essence his argument is that it can be scientifically proven that "Those who agree with my way of thinking are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Those who disagree with me are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality."

 

Substitute skin colour or sex (which have more in connection with genetics than political ideaology) and see how it sounds.

 

"White middle class males are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Women and blacks are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality."

 

Eugencs, anyone?

[music]

And it wasn't that long ago that American "scientists" were putting out papers that demonstrated that negroes were mentally inferior to whites. The old Soviet Union used to declare dissidents as "insane" and lock them up.

 

It's nice to see Chris Mooney and the general left continuing the proud traditions of their intellectual forebears. Rather than admit that the other person might be an equal and have a valid point, it is far easier to class them as "mentally subhuman" and attempt to ignore them. This of course leads to the next question "What do you do when those noisily inferior people just won't shut up and do as they are told?"

 

Silly question, that's what the left want "re-education camps" for.

 

Anybody that doesn't react to Mooneys concept with repugnance has just left the bounds of civilisation. In essence his argument is that it can be scientifically proven that "Those who agree with my way of thinking are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Those who disagree with me are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality."

 

Substitute skin colour or sex (which have more in connection with genetics than political ideaology) and see how it sounds.

 

"White middle class males are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Women and blacks are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality."

 

Eugencs, anyone?

 

Mooney doesn't say any of those things. That's not even a caricature of his claims.

[rigney]

And it wasn't that long ago that American "scientists" were putting out papers that demonstrated that negroes were mentally inferior to whites. The old Soviet Union used to declare dissidents as "insane" and lock them up.

 

It's nice to see Chris Mooney and the general left continuing the proud traditions of their intellectual forebears. Rather than admit that the other person might be an equal and have a valid point, it is far easier to class them as "mentally subhuman" and attempt to ignore them. This of course leads to the next question "What do you do when those noisily inferior people just won't shut up and do as they are told?"

 

Silly question, that's what the left want "re-education camps" for.

 

Anybody that doesn't react to Mooneys concept with repugnance has just left the bounds of civilisation. In essence his argument is that it can be scientifically proven that "Those who agree with my way of thinking are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Those who disagree with me are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality."

 

Substitute skin colour or sex (which have more in connection with genetics than political ideaology) and see how it sounds.

 

"White middle class males are intelligent and good problem solvers who consider aspects of a problem carefully. Women and blacks are mentally inferior subhumans who respond to emotions and not logic who are barely out of the caveman mentality."

 

Eugencs, anyone?

 

Didn't Hitler have the same problems with his "supposed" Arianism?

[iNow]

Rightly pointing out the ignorance of others or demonstrating how their conclusions lack a logical connection to reality doesn't make you Hitler. Killing them for it does. Can we maybe reign in the hyperbole just a tiny bit, please?

[JohnB]

Mooney doesn't say any of those things. That's not even a caricature of his claims.

 

Yeah, right. According to the book one side of American politics rejects logic and the other side doesn't.

 

Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things

 

Sh*t. We can't even use a brain scan to work out why some bloke goes troppo and massacres people, but we can use them to show why conservative brains are inferior? The other one has bells on it.

 

It should also be noted that the basic premise is a logical fallacy.

 

as is the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy and much more

 

Appeal to "Consensus" is a version of "Appeal to Popularity" or "Appeal to Authority". There was a "Consensus" some time ago that women, bless their dear little hearts and simple minds just weren't up to the task of understanding politics and so shouldn't be allowed to vote. The Consensus was once that things burned because of Phlogiston. The consensus was once that people with black skins were inferior to whites and leared papers were published to back the bullsh*t. During the reign of Stalin anyone who didn't agree with the consensus of Lysenko seemed to disappear. How many more examples do you want?

 

To then presume that there is something somehow wrong in questioning a "Consensus" is simply insane. Is there a valid reason for questioning a consensus? Yes, they have been wrong so many times before, to simply trust in the consensus is to place total faith in a concept repeatedly shown to be flawed. Please pardon those of us who think for ourselves for not following the rest of you lemmings over the cliff.

 

How about exploring some other options? Rather than deciding that those who disagree are medically unfit to cogitate to an acceptable level, consider that the "Consensus" might be wrong, you might be wrong, the rewritten history might be wrong. Actually look at things yourself instead of letting people like Mooney do your thinking for you. I know that those pesky facts can get in the way of a good story, but that's reality. Deal with it.

[iNow]

Rather than deciding that those who disagree are medically unfit to cogitate to an acceptable level...

Where do you believe this happened?

[John Cuthber]

Yeah, right. According to the book one side of American politics rejects logic and the other side doesn't.

 

 

No, according to the evidence one side...

There's a difference.

 

And here's another set of interesting data.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428655.700-why-gay-marriage-divides-the-world.html

in which they point out that

"Across dozens of countries, liberals are more morally offended by the idea of kicking a dog or cheating at cards than by ideas of betraying their family, cursing their parents, or doing harmless-yet-disgusting things like urinating in public. Conservatives find all of these equally repugnant."

 

Let's just clarify that. The conservatives are more morally outraged than liberals about things which the investigators deliberately chose because they didn't matter.

 

If it doesn't matter, and yet you are as bothered by it as you are by things that do matter, are you being rational?

 

And, by the way, before you get too worried about the idea that there's a parallel between this and racism or sexism, ask which is easier. Changing you race, or voting for the other bunch next time?

Do you see how it's not a valid comparison?

Edited June 12, 2012 by John Cuthber

[JohnB]

Where do you believe this happened?

 

The entire premise of Mooneys black is white book is that conservatives think too emotionally to be swayed by either logical argument or fact. The silly part is that traditionally the "progressives" have been the emotional dreamers and the "conservatives" the dyed in the wool supporters of the status quo. Progressives have an emotional drive to want change, (it's sort of a requirement for the position) this emotional drive is then legitimised by logical and pseudo logical arguments. Conservatives are emotionallly reluctant to change, generally operating on the principle "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This position is then legitimised by both logical and pseudo logical arguments.

 

In a democracy this does make the job of the progressive harder as they have two tasks to achieve change. Firstly they have to convince the conservative population that there is indeed a problem and a need for change and secondly that their proposed change is in fact the correct solution. While this does slow progress it also improves the solutions, so in general I find it a trade off that works.

 

Perception is also part of the problem. Quite often a progressive will think that they are putting forward a logical argument, when it is in fact emotional. The example first to mind is health care. That the American system is shot to hell is an undeniable fact, but the idea that the best solution is a universal system is emotional, not factual. I personally don't see how, but it remains possible that a non universal system that really works could be devised. Proof that there is a problem is not proof that the proposed solution is correct, they are two very different things.

 

The bottom line of Mooneys premise is that it is a gigantic ad hominem. Rather than arguing the facts he is attempting to show that conservatives are incapable of forwarding a logical argument and says he can prove it using scans etc. This bullsh*t "science" has been put forward over the decades for use against women and blacks, anybody who a particular group don't want to argue with. Rather than face their arguments it's just sooooo much easier to declare them inferior and then you can just ignore them. For bonus points you get to call anybody who disagrees with your position "anti science".

 

I see very disturbing parallels with the "repressed memory" fad that psychiatrists were putting forward some years ago. Junk science at its best.

"You're suffering from repressed memory syndrome"

"No, I'm not."

"Aha. You're suffering from repressed memory syndrome and denial."

 

"You're a conservative. I have scientific proof that it is harder for you to think logically"

"Um, no. I doubt that is correct."

"Aha. You not only find it harder to think logically, but are also anti science."

 

The problem with Mooneys science is that it is unfalsifiable. There is no "I might be wrong" option. You either agree with the premise (because it's from "science", doncha know) or you are "anti science". Presumed infallibility is the mark of the religious looney, not the perveyor of science.

 

Let's just clarify that. The conservatives are more morally outraged than liberals about things which the investigators deliberately chose because they didn't matter.

 

The problem John, is that the definition of "not mattering" in this case is purely subjective. If the survey declared that wife beating or slavery were "disagusting but harmless" would you still agree? The things chosen "didn't matter" in the opinion of the researchers, all they did was show where people disagreed with the opinions and values of the researchers.

 

But if you think they "don't matter" then that does tell me quite a bit about you.

betraying their family, cursing their parents, or doing harmless-yet-disgusting things like urinating in public

 

Well I guess we've all cursed our parents at some time or another so we are pretty even there. However if you think it doesn't matter if you betray your family, then you certainly won't have any moral compulsion against betraying me or anybody else. From this I can correctly presume that the word "Honour" has no meaning for you and you are basically untrustworthy. This is the logical result of feeling that "betrayal" doesn't matter. You must also have a very poor sense of personal and civic hygiene. If urinating in public doesn't matter, then the world is your toilet. What that says about your preferred surroundings and personal practices is best left to the imagination. (Still think it "doesn't matter"?)

 

And, by the way, before you get too worried about the idea that there's a parallel between this and racism or sexism, ask which is easier. Changing you race, or voting for the other bunch next time?

Do you see how it's not a valid comparison?

 

Actually no, I don't. The point I'm trying to make here is that Mooneys argument isn't that the conservative argument is invalid, but that the conservative "mind" (I suppose) is invalid. This thinking started in the USA and is spreading and I'm trying to stop it. If you disagree with someone, then argue the points, not the person. This spreading disease of labelling your opponent with a derogatory name specifically to avoid a debate on an issue is not good for discourse in any nation. What Mooney is trying to do is not to fight facts or debate, but instead is trying to delegitimise the right of a large percentage of the population to be viewed as having viable opinions.

 

It's a more sophisticated version of the fool conservative who says "Don't listen to him, he's just a tree hugging hippie."

 

"Don't listen to him, he's just a conservative. And you know how science has shown it is just simply harder for them to be logical and reasonable."

 

Do you see it now? It's not about debating your opponent, but about delegitimising your opponents right to even have an opinion that can be considered valid. It's not about showing the other side is wrong, but about demonstrating why you should not consider the possibility that they might be right. It's not about winning a debate but about having "science" reasons why the debate is a pointless waste of time in the first place and should be avoided.

 

I did like the "Thank you very much Captain Obvious" bit in the article;

So there seems to be an intuitive link between disgust and moral judgement

 

Well dur. If you are disgusted by something then you think it morally wrong, if you didn't think it was wrong, you wouldn't be disgusted. This needs to be put alongside the Australian research that showed "Depressed people are more likely to commit suicide than happy people." (And it only took 9 months or so of research to work that one out.)

Edited June 14, 2012 by JohnB

[iNow]

The bottom line of Mooneys premise is that it is a gigantic ad hominem. Rather than arguing the facts he is attempting to show that conservatives are incapable of forwarding a logical argument and says he can prove it using scans etc.

<snip>

The point I'm trying to make here is that Mooneys argument isn't that the conservative argument is invalid, but that the conservative "mind" (I suppose) is invalid.

<snip>

It's not about winning a debate but about having "science" reasons why the debate is a pointless waste of time in the first place and should be avoided.

 

In the below, the bold was added by me. Are you familiar with the concept of a strawman?

 

Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

 

What was it you summarized that as? "Incapable of forwarding a logical argument?" Yeah, I'm not seeing that as an assertion being made here. "The conservative mind is invalid?" Yeah, not seeing that as an assertion being made here, either. Am I just blinded by my liberal emotion, though? Is this like a secret dog whistle language that only certain ideologies can hear? Sorry, I'm not seeing the extremes you're describing and I'd like to argue in fact instead of hyperbole whenever possible.

 

 

I do, however, completely agree with one of your other primary points... We should address the argument and try to avoid dehumanizing those with whom we disagree. The us/them mentality makes it too easy to forget they are people, too, and far too easy to dismiss people out of hand as opposed to dismissing them due to a failure to support their stance. We're aligned there. I'm just pushing back on the way you've summarized the central argument. It's about trends and likelihoods, not absolutes and capabilities and inferior sub-humans.

[JohnB]

I think that you are forgetting human nature. If we use logical arguments then we tend to respect logical arguments and those who make them. It is simple human nature to then consider those who do not or can not use logical arguments as inferior. We consider their argument to be inferior and this attitude will follow on to be applied to the person.

 

Once a person or group is mentally defined as inferior we now no longer have to bother listening to them. Why should we? It's beyond reason to expect them to have anything worthwhile to contribute. They are inferior and therefore everything they might think of, we superior types have already thought of and have dismissed for one reason or another.

 

This is just how humans tend to think and behave. Every "reason" given in the "Nyah, nyah, my side is better then yours" books or vids is just another "reason" not to listen to the other side.

 

We can go around arguing likelihoods and tendencies versus certainties, but the bottom line is that if you are convinced that the other side is "less likely" to put up a reasonable, cogent argument then you are also less likely to pay any attention to what they say. If it's an odds on bet that their argument won't make sense, why should you spend your valuable time dissecting it?

 

Did I overstate the case WRT certainties and attitudes? Probably. But also, just as probably many attitudes will finish up exactly where I said they would as a result of reading this book.

 

The conservative generally feels superior to the progressive and the progressive generally feels that they are superior to the conservatives. There is an old saying that "You can never win an argument, you can only convince yourself that you are more right." Missives like this only exist to reinforce those views.

 

It still leaves the question of the double standard however. Why is it acceptable to use the word "Republican" in this way, when if we were to substitute the word black or women, the book would immediately be classed as racist or sexist? I believe the word we need is found in the "H" section of the dictionary.

Edited June 14, 2012 by JohnB

[iNow]

We can go around arguing likelihoods and tendencies versus certainties, but the bottom line is that if you are convinced that the other side is "less likely" to put up a reasonable, cogent argument then you are also less likely to pay any attention to what they say.

It's called, "learning from past experience." If the sun comes up everyday, it becomes a fairly safe assumption that it will come up again tomorrow. If someone makes dumbshit illogical arguments all of the time, it becomes a fairly safe assumption that their future arguments will also be ignorant bunk ridiculousness.

 

I'll still pay attention. I'll still listen, and hold out hope that they say something cogent, but I'm also able to learn from all previous encounters and recognize that some people just tend to speak out of their ass and argue from completely manufactured realities.

 

It still leaves the question of the double standard however. Why is it acceptable to use the word "Republican" in this way, when if we were to substitute the word black or women, the book would immediately be classed as racist or sexist?

Because voting preference is a choice wherein gender or skin color is not. No assertions of hypocrisy required.

 

Either way... as I tried to illuminate above. NOBODY is claiming this is true of ALL republicans. The discussion is one of likelihoods and tendencies across the entire population.

[John Cuthber]

 

1) The problem John, is that the definition of "not mattering" in this case is purely subjective.

2) If the survey declared that wife beating or slavery were "disagusting but harmless" would you still agree?

 

3)The things chosen "didn't matter" in the opinion of the researchers, all they did was show where people disagreed with the opinions and values of the researchers.

 

4)But if you think they "don't matter" then that does tell me quite a bit about you.

 

5)Well I guess we've all cursed our parents at some time or another so we are pretty even there.

6)However if you think it doesn't matter if you betray your family, then you certainly won't have any moral compulsion against betraying me or anybody else. From this I can correctly presume that the word "Honour" has no meaning for you and you are basically untrustworthy. This is the logical result of feeling that "betrayal" doesn't matter.

 

7) You must also have a very poor sense of personal and civic hygiene. If urinating in public doesn't matter, then the world is your toilet. What that says about your preferred surroundings and personal practices is best left to the imagination. (Still think it "doesn't matter"?)

 

8) It's a more sophisticated version of the fool conservative who says "Don't listen to him, he's just a tree hugging hippie."

 

"Don't listen to him, he's just a conservative. And you know how science has shown it is just simply harder for them to be logical and reasonable."

 

9) Well dur. If you are disgusted by something then you think it morally wrong, if you didn't think it was wrong, you wouldn't be disgusted. This needs to be put alongside the Australian research that showed "Depressed people are more likely to commit suicide than happy people." (And it only took 9 months or so of research to work that one out.)

1 Not really. The particular examples they chose were specific. They were chosen to be intrinsically harmless. (can you give me an estimate of the death toll from them?)

2 No, but it didn't. Nice try at a straw man.

3) no, not really (see 1).

4) Apparently not (see below)

5) OK so even you agree that this isn't important and yet it still influences those people's decisions. Even if they only get affected by a third of things that don't matter then that's still not actually rational is it?

6) I think that's what they call the thin end of the wedge fallacy.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't make sense.

My sense of honour isn't to any particular group, but to right vs wrong. A friend of mine found that her father had indecent images of children on his computer. She shopped him to the police.

Are you saying that, because of family loyalty she should have let him carry on?

Sometimes betraying family is the right thing to do.

7) I guess it might be a cultural thing. A while ago a friend of mine said that she knew someone who couldn't get a decent job. The reason was that he had a criminal record. His offence was that he was caught by a police officer while peeing in the street (on the way back from the bar).

Most of us present felt that he had been unduly harshly treated because we knew that we had all done the same thing in the past and knew that, while not desirable, it was not actually harmful.

Maybe the difference is that it rains a lot more here.

Again, can you give me an estimate of the death toll, or even the number of hospital admissions or the cost of the clean up?

So, yes, of course I still say it doesn't matter and so did a fairly randomly chosen group of other people.

 

8 no it's still different.

In one case there is actual data in the other case there isn't.

Can you show me any actual evidence for poor logical thinking among tree hugging hippies?

9 The shit of wild animals is disgusting, but it's not morally wrong.

Well, that's a turn up for the books, isn't saying "(And it only took 9 months or so of research to work that one out.) "

doing exactly what you were complaining about.

You can't find a valid way to rubbish their argument, so you criticise them personally.

 

1 Not really. The particular examples they chose were specific. They were chosen to be intrinsically harmless. (can you give me an estimate of the death toll from them?)

2 No, but it didn't. Nice try at a straw man.

3) no, not really (see 1).

4) Apparently not (see below)

5) OK so even you agree that this isn't important and yet it still influences those people's decisions. Even if they only get affected by a third of things that don't matter then that's still not actually rational is it?

6) I think that's what they call the thin end of the wedge fallacy.

Whatever you call it, it doesn't make sense.

My sense of honour isn't to any particular group, but to right vs wrong. A friend of mine found that her father had indecent images of children on his computer. She shopped him to the police.

Are you saying that, because of family loyalty she should have let him carry on?

Sometimes betraying family is the right thing to do.

7) I guess it might be a cultural thing. A while ago a friend of mine said that she knew someone who couldn't get a decent job. The reason was that he had a criminal record. His offence was that he was caught by a police officer while peeing in the street (on the way back from the bar).

All of us present felt that he had been unduly harshly treated because we knew that we had all done the same thing in the past and knew that, while not desirable, it was not actually harmful.

Maybe the difference is that it rains a lot more here.

Again, can you give me an estimate of the death toll, or even the number of hospital admissions or the cost of the clean up?

So, yes, of course I still say it doesn't matter and so did a fairly randomly chosen group of other people.

 

8 no it's still different.

In one case there is actual data in the other case there isn't.

Can you show me any actual evidence for poor logical thinking among tree hugging hippies?

9 The shit of wild animals is disgusting, but it's not morally wrong.

Well, that's a turn up for the books, isn't saying "(And it only took 9 months or so of research to work that one out.) "

doing exactly what you were complaining about.

You can't find a valid way to rubbish their argument, so you criticise them personally.

[JohnB]

Just quickly for I must get to bed.

 

Because voting preference is a choice wherein gender or skin color is not. No assertions of hypocrisy required.

 

But if Mooney is correct and it has something to do with the actual makeup and/or wiring of the brain, then the Republicans can't help but be that way and have no more choice than choosing their sex or race. You can't have it both way. You can't claim that voting a particular way is a choice and at the same time put forward the argument that people vote differently due to their physiological construction. The brain wiring is literally in hte genes, there is no choice.

 

Again, can you give me an estimate of the death toll, or even the number of hospital admissions or the cost of the clean up?

So, yes, of course I still say it doesn't matter and so did a fairly randomly chosen group of other people.

 

Mate, if 200 years of sanitation development has passed you by, it ain't up to me to educate you. You either think streets running with p*ss are acceptable or you don't. You might want to compare life expectancies in England from the 14th to 18th centuries to now. Perhaps you might inform the developing world (who are frantically trying to get modern sanitation) that they are wasting their money because it really doesn't matter. You might view the world as your personal tiolet, but please allow others to disagree.