The Republican Brain

[iNow]

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.

Correction. Brain wiring is given certain predispositions in the genes, but it is experience that dictates how those genes manifest themselves and how we are ultimately wired.

 

A simpler question, though... Mooney does not appear to be suggesting that genetics make people lean a certain way politically, only that we can do an MRI and make fairly accurate predictions about their ideology. We don't know if that persons belief is the result of the brain wiring or if it is the cause of that brain wiring. Do they believe what they do and think the way they do because they were born with a certain brain infrastructure, or did their brain infrastructure form the way it did do their experiences through life and the beliefs they ultimately formed? Your argument assumes this question has been answered when it has not been.

 

Also, would you STFU about "not allowing others to disagree?" That's nonsense on it's face. Pointing to evidence that supports our reasons for disagreement is not equivalent to disallowing disagreement or silencing dissent. I have no idea why you keep asserting the contrary. Maybe you're just tired?

 

 

Edited June 15, 2012 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

 

 

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.

If he had felt inclined to check then Pasteur would , at the dawn of the age of microbiology, have found that urine from healthy humans is sterile, or nearly so.

 

It seems you are the one who missed out on a hundred years of understanding.

Also, you seem to have remained determined to make this personal (and hence an ad hom) even after I pointed out that it's not just my opinion, but that of a group of people.

 

Btw, if you can single handedly get the street "running with piss" then I think you should see a doctor.

If you can't then it was another straw man attack. Please desist from them. They make you look silly.

[jeskill]

Kind of related ... There was an interesting article in the New Yorker recently that discussed why humans deny science (not just Republicans). An excerpt:

 

A new study in Cognition, led by Andrew Shtulman at Occidental College, helps explain the stubbornness of our ignorance. As Shtulman notes, people are not blank slates, eager to assimilate the latest experiments into their world view. Rather, we come equipped with all sorts of naïve intuitions about the world, many of which are untrue. For instance, people naturally believe that heat is a kind of substance, and that the sun revolves around the earth. And then there's the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don't seem to be evolving.

 

 

 

 

This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts, shedding false beliefs the way a snake sheds its old skin.

 

Edited June 16, 2012 by jeskill

[iNow]

Along similar lines, I read this piece yesterday:

 

 

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/06/michael-delong-mann-and-ornsteins-its-even-worse-than-it-looks-reviewed.html

 

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein’s It's Even Worse Than It Looks convinced me that having a political system where corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money for or against politicians is a recipe for favoritism and corruption. We need to reduce the influence of money in politics.

 

But there's much more to the book than that. Here are some of my thoughts:

 

Both Mann and Orntein have written about Congress for many years. Both are well-respected centrist scholars. They know what they are talking about. And both Mann and Ornstein agree that politics today is far worse than usual: that our political process right now is unusually broken.

 

They write that our current political process has two overreaching problems:

 

1. The two political parties now behave like parliamentary parties, while the structure of our government--unlike the government of a parliamentary system--makes it very difficult for a bare single-party majority to pass legislation; and
   
2. It is the Republican Party that has become more extreme and more determined to block anything that might help the Democrats--significantly more so.

The federal government has always had many blocking veto points that must be overcome in order to pass legislation. The House of Representatives must pass a bill. The Senate must also pass the bill. The President must sign the bill (except for the rare occasions where two-thirds of both houses vote to override the President’s veto). Lately yet another veto point has emerged: a 60 vote threshold in the Senate. Filibusters used to be very rare. Now they are routine. All these obstacles make it difficult for the government to act unless one party controls all three--and controls the Senate with 60 votes.

 

Democrats and Republicans used to be very heterogenous, with liberals and conservatives in both parties and only the loosest semblance of party discipline. Now practically all the Democrats are liberals or moderates and the Republicans are conservatives. Mann and Ornstein do an excellent job of explaining these changes. They...<continue reading>

Edited June 16, 2012 by iNow

[JohnB]

John, so since it's sterile it doesn't matter. (And yes, I was aware of that) But you are arguing bullshit. You are telling me that if there are two cafes side by side of equal quality and one has a pool of piss for you to walk through to get inside and the other is clean, you would walk through the piss, sit down in the smell and order breakfast. I call bullshit on that. You would turn your nose up at the poor cleanliness and take your business next door.

 

So it can certainly harm a business can't it? Therefore the practice cannot be considered "harmless". Somebody has to clean the mess up. Why should you or your pisspot friends expect some other poor sod to start their working day by cleaning up your piss? Or are you and yours "special" in some way and better than everybody else?

 

Your friends friend can't get a job, not because of the charge but what it shows. He spent the evening in an establishment with full facilities. Instead of using those facilities before heading home he chose to urinate in the street because he got "caught short". This tells a prospective employer that he has the forward thinking ability of a 4 year old and will need to be constantly metaphorically or literally reminded "Make sure you go before you get into the car". As an employer paying adult wages I expect to hire an adult, not some overgrown child.

 

Argue all you want, but the truth is that for the vast majority of people; They will walk around it and not through it. They will not sit down to eat in the smell of it. And they expect such a mess on the footpath to be cleaned up quickly or they will go elsewhere.

 

The practice does matter and it isn't harmless.

[iNow]

Okay, I think we all largely agree that it's better to use intended facilities when urinating... but two things. 1) Are you trying to suggest you've never pee'd somewhere you weren't supposed to? Come on, I would find that very hard to believe. 2) What the hell were we even talking about that got us on to the subject of public urination? Perhaps we could at least attempt to bring this back on topic?

[Phi for All]

I think the Republican party is the one most used by Big Business to corrupt policies in their favor. If you look at some of the arguments they make, and compare them to reality, you see the conflicts within the platform.

 

Morality is usually a key concept that's argued, usually centered around things like abortion, which seems like more of an individual rights issue. Yet individual rights get trampled on with the Republican solutions.

 

Also look at entertainment. There have been numerous articles about how television ratings are allowing more objectionable content to be aired. This seems like a fairly easy legislative fix, yet it looks like Big Business would rather we NOT mess around with regulating what is attracting younger and younger audiences and making them so much money.

 

And the free market argument is regularly used by Republicans when it comes to regulation, but conveniently stuffed in a drawer when a big corporation wants to hedge out competing corporations with special lobbying or no-bid contracts. Where's your free market competition NOW?

[JohnB]

Okay, I think we all largely agree that it's better to use intended facilities when urinating... but two things. 1) Are you trying to suggest you've never pee'd somewhere you weren't supposed to? Come on, I would find that very hard to believe. 2) What the hell were we even talking about that got us on to the subject of public urination? Perhaps we could at least attempt to bring this back on topic?

 

As for 1) No, I don't think so. I was taught from a young age to wash my hands after going, this meant that if you can't wash your hands, don't go. I've yet to see the town or city without adequate amenities so there is really no excuse for not using them. Those who drink to excess and finish up using the streets I view as abrogating their adulthood. Only children and animals can't plan ahead enough to encompass a pit stop, aduls who intentionally put themselves in that condition are not worth the word "adult" anymore.

 

2) Came from a linked report suggesting that conservatives worry about things that "aren't important", one of those unimportant things being public urination. My argument is that in this case the choice of what was or was not important was totally subjective and couldn't possibly give an objective result to research. I further argue that those who say that it isn't important are actully lying to themselves. Since they won't walk through it or would take their business elsewhere to escape the smell then it is actually important to them due to effecting their decision making process.

 

I should add that while there may be differences between nations it has been my experience that when discussing "little things" that "don't matter" the proponents invariably mean that it doesn't matter if they or their mates do it, but it would be a bad thing if everybody did it. The double standard and sense of entitlement this involves I find extremely nauseous.

 

Phi, I think that is an illusion that you have been sold. Both partys are up for sale. The strongest backers for the sugar cartel and their large subsidies are from the Democrats. Similarly if the Dems control the Upper and Lower House and the Presidency then having Republicans in your pocket isn't much use. Business wants to do one thing, make a profit, so if the Dems are in power then the lobbying money and bribes (sorry, advertising revenue) is spent on the Dems, if the Republicans are in power then they get the dough.

 

I don't know which party has the Senators where say McDonnell Douglas are, but I'll bet the song is the same every time. "Senator, if you support what we want then there is a nice big campaign cheque for you. If you don't support what we want we'll give it to the other guy."

 

The fact that so many Americans seem to believe that only "the other side" are dirty and their "own side" are lilly white and would never do anything so morally wrong is highly amusing (and not a small bit worrying) to me.

 

Things like Mooneys book are trying to show why one side or the other is superior. It doesn't matter what side it's from the idea is always to show why progressives are more "whatever" than conservatives or that conservatives are more "whatever else" than progressives and this rather misses the whole point.

 

What matters when deciding which side should run a nation is expounded policies, and American partys just don't have any beyond pissant little media grab one liners. "We believe that America should have a strong defensive military" is a statement not a policy. A policy is about funding, not just for this year but into the future. If need be what changes should come to allow the military to meet expected threats over the next 15 years or so. Whether America can afford to continue to be the worlds policeman or not and if not then how this job can get spread around. A policy is about money and timing and timeframes for implimentation over 10 years, not 10 seconds on the 6 o'clock news.

 

Both sides encourage the one upmanship because it hides the lack of policies and forethought. If you can "prove" that your side is smarter, or more logical then obviously your policies will be the better ones. No need to see them ahead of time or discuss them, since they come from the "smarter" party they must be the best.

 

And while they keep you arguing between yourselves as to just who is the "smarter" or whatever you haven't really noticed that you are so far in hock that the Chinese now own your underwear, you're not particularly liked in large areas of the planet and even your friends don't really trust you anymore.

 

Think about that last one especially. 15 years ago it was an odds on bet that if little Oz got into a fight with the much larger Indonesia then the USA would step in on our side. We are about to drastically increase our military frankly because we now think that you would intentionally delay your decision until it was too late. In short, we no longer trust our "great friend" America. To be clear, this separates the American people from the American government. The Aussies I know think that the American people would be screaming blue, bloody murder and wanting to help but the government would much around and vacillate until they could present you with the fait acompli.

 

Fortunately China isn't too popular around here either, and they will sell us generation 5 aircraft, which America won't. Actually the new Russian ones are very good too and less than 1/4 of the price you are asking for 2nd line stuff.

[iNow]

As for 1) No, I don't think so. I was taught from a young age to wash my hands after going, this meant that if you can't wash your hands, don't go. I've yet to see the town or city without adequate amenities so there is really no excuse for not using them. Those who drink to excess and finish up using the streets I view as abrogating their adulthood. Only children and animals can't plan ahead enough to encompass a pit stop, aduls who intentionally put themselves in that condition are not worth the word "adult" anymore.

I find it hard to believe that you've never been as drunk as I have been, but that's the only possible explanation.

[John Cuthber]

As for 1) No, I don't think so. I was taught from a young age to wash my hands after going, this meant that if you can't wash your hands, don't go. I've yet to see the town or city without adequate amenities so there is really no excuse for not using them. Those who drink to excess and finish up using the streets I view as abrogating their adulthood.

 

I was taught not to piss on my hands in the first place.

There are very few public toilets in many cities in the UK.

 

Also, the one arguing bullshit was, I think, the one who thought that a person taking a leak in the street was the same as the streets "running with piss".

Similarly

when you say

" You are telling me that if there are two cafes side by side of equal quality and one has a pool of piss for you to walk through to get inside and the other is clean, you would walk through the piss, sit down in the smell and order breakfast. I call bullshit on that. "

No.

I wasn't telling you that.

It's another strawman.

As such, it's a plain breach of the forum rules.

Stop doing it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by John Cuthber

[JohnB]

I find it hard to believe that you've never been as drunk as I have been, but that's the only possible explanation.

 

That could be it. Ever since I got my drivers licence I've hated depending on others for transport so I always drive. Since drink driving is borderline insanity in my books I have always been extremely careful as to my drinking habits. I've always found it somewhat silly to spend $200 on booze to have a night you can't remember. If you can't remember it, then how do you know you had a good time? I drink in moderation, have great nights out and the memories to prove it.

 

There are very few public toilets in many cities in the UK.

 

Really??? I'm quite surprised! Even the smallest town in Oz has public toilets, upkeep done by the Shire Council. We also have them in roadside bays where the Interstate truckies pull in for a snooze, heck we put them by the side of the road so that you can stop for a pee while touring. Just about every public park has facilities. We are a travelling nation and even the smallest town wants to provide clean facilities for visitors, it's a matter of civic pride. We joke that there is no Aussie town without a pub, but the truth is that you won't find one without a public loo.

 

If you look at Google Earth and the centre of Brisbane. We have facilities in the City Hall, the bus station under King George Square next to City Hall, two sets in the Queens Street Mall 200 yards east of City Hall, another one in Albert Street just off the Mall and about 5 in the "Myer Centre" next to Albert Street. Most of these are open 24/7. All central train stations have facilities and are open 24/7.

 

It wasn't that long ago I was talking to the Head Ranger for the D'Aguilar National Park (about 10 mins drive west of me) and complimented him and his staff on the cleanliness of their facilities, about 8 or 10 sets spread around the park. If there is a picnic spot or a lookout, there are facilities. Seriously, an area or town that lacks clean public facilities will find itself avoided by the travelling public. Nothing kills tourism faster than dirty public toilets.

 

It took a bit to find it but on GE at 28⁰ 17' 15" S 157⁰ 57' 05" you'll find a pullover in the middle of nowhere. The street view doesn't show it but these are public toilets supplied for the travelling public and are some 10km from the nearest town. I drive past them every month or so.

 

Also, the one arguing bullshit was, I think, the one who thought that a person taking a leak in the street was the same as the streets "running with piss".

 

So it's alright if one or two do it, but a bad idea if everyone does it? Who decides who the favoured few are? Sorry, if it's wrong for most people to it, then it is wrong for all.

 

It's another strawman.

 

It's not a strawman at all. You were arguing that it "didn't matter" and was "harmless". If that was true then you would indeed walk through it and eat breakfast in the aroma. If you won't do those things, then it effects your decision and therefore "does matter" and would cause (financial) "harm" to the business involved. It's all well and good to argue some theoretical principle, but at some point you have to apply that theory to reality and see if it holds up. I gave a concrete example to test your argument about not mattering and doing no harm.

 

What your response would be to a real situation demonstrates whether your idea is sound or just platitudinal. It's like some people are very loud about "gay equality" yet strangely don't seem to have any gay friends or associates. By giving a concrete example I was endeavouring to find out whether you would walk the walk, or would just talk the talk.

Edited June 19, 2012 by JohnB

[John Cuthber]

OK, so now we have established that you think a toilet in Brisbane makes any difference to someone in the UK and you still don't understand that some things are OK from time to time, but not as a habit (like eating too much).

Fair enough.

.

So the answer to your question , but transferred into the the real world where sometimes someone pees in the street is.

I probably wouldn't notice.

That's why it doesn't matter.

More importantly, unless you believe that the original research paper I cited included "streets running with piss" as one of the scenarios they described as "harmless" then your scenario is a strawman.

Edited June 19, 2012 by John Cuthber

[JohnB]

OK, so now we have established that you think a toilet in Brisbane makes any difference to someone in the UK and you still don't understand that some things are OK from time to time, but not as a habit (like eating too much).

 

More that cultural background has a bearing on attitude towards what is okay and what isn't. If there is a shortage of facilities in England then more people would be caught short and so it wouldn't be a big issue. Down here with a large number of facilities (and you can't even open a footpath coffee shop unless you provide access to facilities for patrons) then the only reason for getting caught short and using the street is pure bloody laziness. Lazy bastards who make a mess for others to clean up are frowned upon.

 

More importantly, unless you believe that the original research paper I cited included "streets running with piss" as one of the scenarios they described as "harmless" then your scenario is a strawman.

 

Jeez, I'm really gettin sick of this strawman bullshit. If you can show that the study involved was referring to only occasionally urinating in the street then I might agree, but it was talking about the concept in general.

 

Wait one.

 

This is perhaps the centre of our disagreement, we are reading it two different ways and the wording is ambiguous on this. You are reading "urinating in the street" as to mean occasionally and by few people, whereas I'm reading it as a concept "Is it okay to urinate in the street" meaning anybody at any time.

 

Be that as it may, how about going down to your local train station and talking to the staff there? Ask their opinion on the subject? Maybe in your world these things don't matter, but I assure you that in the world of those who have to clean up the mess it matters a great deal. I've generally found that the attitudes of those who make the mess and those who have to clean up afterwards differ quite substantially.

[iNow]

Right, so... The republican brain...

[John Cuthber]

Right, so... The republican brain...

Well, for one thing, it seems to get unduly upset about people occasionally taking a pee in the street (even though this is harmless) which is an illogical point of view.

(As evinced above)

[JohnB]

*Note to self*

 

Don't bother looking for the cause of a misunderstanding. Progressives are just so f*cking certain they are right that it must be that everybody else is wrong.

[John Cuthber]

Note to John.

 

"This is perhaps the centre of our disagreement, we are reading it two different ways and the wording is ambiguous on this. "

It wasn't ambiguous as you claim.

It was perfectly clear that , if the researchers were saying it was harmless then they were not talking about everyone, all the time.

If there was any doubt then iNow's comment "Okay, I think we all largely agree that it's better to use intended facilities when urinating."

should have clarified it.

or when I said "you still don't understand that some things are OK from time to time, but not as a habit (like eating too much)."

or when I said "Btw, if you can single handedly get the street "running with piss" then I think you should see a doctor."

 

 

So the issue is not that you shouldn't even try to understand the causes of a disagreement: it's that you should start to realise early on that you are just plain wrong.

How many attempts did it take us to get you to accept that the church has not, historically, had a monopoly on marriage?

[JohnB]

It was perfectly clear that , if the researchers were saying it was harmless then they were not talking about everyone, all the time.

 

Without qualifiers it is not clear at all. Claiming it is doesn't make it so.

 

Can you quantify at what level (say a percentage of the population) where it changes from harmless to harmfull?

 

I have a tendency to assume that many disagreements are due to people reading different meanings into the same thing and that by approaching a compromise in good faith these differences can be got past. I've also found that if the person on the othe side is emotionally unable to even consider the possibility that other interpretations exist besides their own, this is a pointless exercise. Please don't injure your arm while slapping yourself on the back.

 

Germane to this topic there are three things for you to consider;

 

1. I'm Australian and therefore cannot be a "Republican" in the american sense.

2. I'm moderate right wing on our spectrum which puts me pretty much in the Democrat camp on the american one.

3. I'm a Monarchist and therefore not even a "Republican" in the australian sense.

 

But life is just so much easier if you can place people in little boxes and be derisive, isn't it? We mustn't let reality get in the way of a good self indulgent fantasy.

Edited June 21, 2012 by JohnB

[John Cuthber]

In your world the researchers thought having the streets "running with piss" was harmless: the peer review, and their subjects agreed.

That's a very odd viewpoint.

Even if you missed that, how come you missed it on the other 3 occasions?

 

And, in general terms, "Republican" is used (at least in the sort of discussion in this thread) to mean right wing.

That includes "moderate right wing on our spectrum "

 

"But life is just so much easier if you can place people in little boxes and be derisive, isn't it?"

Other boxes include "progressives" " your pisspot friends".

[music]

 

Germane to this topic there are three things for you to consider;

 

1. I'm Australian and therefore cannot be a "Republican" in the american sense.

2. I'm moderate right wing on our spectrum which puts me pretty much in the Democrat camp on the american one.

3. I'm a Monarchist and therefore not even a "Republican" in the australian sense.

 

But life is just so much easier if you can place people in little boxes and be derisive, isn't it? We mustn't let reality get in the way of a good self indulgent fantasy.

 

What did Mooney have to say about this?

[ecoli]

Here's the other side of the coin coming out in a new book: Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left

[music]

Here's the other side of the coin coming out in a new book: Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left

That should be interesting, and I look forward to reading about it. Back in the '60s and '70s, the left had a near-monopoly on anti-science, and of course originally creationism was an idea of the left (the populists and progressives opposed to the conservative doctrines of Social Darwinism).

 

An interesting thing about Mooney's book is that he doesn't simply say that conservatives are against science, but tries to explain why, at this point in American history, they are. It's a book about the psychology of a certain kind of conservative, not a book about conservatives being wrong about science.

Edit: He already argued the latter in his earlier book, The Republican War on Science. But this new book, as the amazon.com page says, explains "that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs—with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality." It isn't saying that anyone is smarter than anyone else, but just describing what psychologists are finding about the way that conservative and liberal personalities differ. And contrary to the vicious and unfair accusations made against him, he explicitly argues that a strong, healthy society needs both liberals and conservatives.

Edited June 22, 2012 by music