Discussions on Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. (Split requested by Phi for All)

[overtone]

If you want to label that many people as having a mild mental disorder based on political affiliation, then I expect scientific evidence to support it.

Not based on - correlated with. What the correlation is based on remains to be discussed.

 

And we remind ourselves that our political vocabulary is corrupted, here: we have no usable definition of "liberal", only a self-identification criterion for "conservative", and ongoing confusion about right/left labeling that often gets mixed up with authoritarian/libertarian labeling. So we need to take things easy, scientifically speaking.

 

In post 185 you were handed a list of reality disconnections, simple and obvious delusions or hallucinations or bizarrely unreal perceptions common in the US - including, here, failures of very simple, basic reasoning in people clearly and demonstrably far more capable of intellectual rigor than such failures indicate.

 

That is physical evidence, the basis of the beginning of a scientific inquiry or discussion, of mental disorder of some kind (I don't feel comfortable with "insanity" - something more on the lines of what one would call a phobia or other inexplicable irrationality that specifically cripples a persons ability to reason and act in certain narrowly defined contexts). It appears to be peculiarly focused or severe among the authoritarian rightwing - so much so as to almost identify membership in that faction, in agreement with the self-identification as "conservative" that normally accompanies such ideology. ( It also seems to cover the bulk of the self-described libertarian rightwing as well, but the accuracy of that self-identification seems questionable, and the self-label "conservative" can be taken reasonably to mean authoritarian rightwing in the US, in practice. Not, of course, "conservative" in any intellectual sense).

 

So we have had a basis for a reasonably scientific discussion, if any such thing were sincerely desired. In the sense of reasoning from evidence, like.

 

We could also use the OP study, which despite its flaws seems to carry useful information.

Edited December 18, 2014 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

I ask you again....do you have any actual psychiatric/scientific evidence that conservatives are insane?

Yes, as I have pointed out several times.

The Right wing are in the same position as a man who thinks he's Napoleon.

They believe stuff that's plainly not true.

For example, trickle-down economics.

There are, of course, plenty of other daft ideas they subscribe to.

[overtone]

If you have read discussions of their validity, then I'm sure you are also familiar with John Ray's comparison of Altemeyer's RWA to seperate scales of conservatism and authoritarianism? John Ray developed two different scales. One attempts to measure "Authoritarianism" in a politically unbiased manner. The second is meant to measure "conservatism", but using a mix of questions that reflect both "authoritarian" and "non-authoritarian" aspects of the political right.

To get an idea of what an American "conservative" regards as a "politically unbiased manner", take a look at John Ray's musings on the topic of authoritarianism and politics here: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com

 

I was especially impressed with his praise of the liberating and freedom-providing Pinochet regime (which unfortunately had to use some Leftist tactics), and the description of the German Nazi Party in WWII as "Leftist". So we look forward to analysis in which the governments of Pinochet and Hitler are at opposite ends of Jay's political spectrum. This will be evidence of the sanity of US political "conservatism".

 

One wonders, naturally, how someone who declares the entire Left to be "inherently authoritarian", with no libertarian membership, can hope to design a questionnaire capable of separating the authoritarian from the non-authoritarian Right - but we are assured by our local righties of the true "scientific" nature of his approach, so his operating from a private semantical world might not be the deal breaker it would normally be: all we would need to do is relabel his findings to allow communication with the outside world of dictionaries, etc.

Edited December 18, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts-political-beliefs-with-83-percent-accuracy-17536124/

 

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/

 

Read this and get back to me.

 

Simply posting a bunch of links while failing to provide any context yourself is an internet tactic called "link warz" or "gish gallop".

 

I would kindly ask that you provide the main arguments, since this is your argument. Otherwise, you will just have to wait until I have time to read all of them.

To get an idea of what an American "conservative" regards as a "politically unbiased manner", take a look at John Ray's musings on the topic of authoritarianism and politics here: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com

 

I was especially impressed with his praise of the liberating and freedom-providing Pinochet regime (which unfortunately had to use some Leftist tactics), and the description of the German Nazi Party in WWII as "Leftist". So we look forward to analysis in which the governments of Pinochet and Hitler are at opposite ends of Jay's political spectrum. This will be evidence of the sanity of US political "conservatism".

 

One wonders, naturally, how someone who declares the entire Left to be "inherently authoritarian", with no libertarian membership, can hope to design a questionnaire capable of separating the authoritarian from the non-authoritarian Right - but we are assured by our local righties of the true "scientific" nature of his approach, so his operating from a private semantical world might not be the deal breaker it would normally be: all we would need to do is relabel his findings to allow communication with the outside world of dictionaries, etc.

 

This is nothing but one giant ad hominem.

 

I am referring to John Ray's peer-reviewed and published work on the subject. I have linked to his papers in previous posts. What the man's personal opinions are, are irrelevant....what matters is whether or not his published scientific work is valid. Attempting to discredit John Ray personally rather than addressing the actual arguments is a fallacy.

chadn737, on 17 Dec 2014 - 6:26 PM, said:

Yes, as I have pointed out several times.

 

I ask you again....do you have any actual psychiatric/scientific evidence that conservatives are insane?

The Right wing are in the same position as a man who thinks he's Napoleon.

They believe stuff that's plainly not true.

For example, trickle-down economics.

There are, of course, plenty of other daft ideas they subscribe to.

 

 

Nothing that you have presented represents "psychiatric" research. None of it represents "psychological" research....none of it is qualifies as an actual scientific study. All you have done is focus on highly contentious issues, assume that you are right on those issues, and label anyone who disagrees with you "insane".

 

When politics trumps the need for science....demise of science indeed.

Not based on - correlated with. What the correlation is based on remains to be discussed.

 

And we remind ourselves that our political vocabulary is corrupted, here: we have no usable definition of "liberal", only a self-identification criterion for "conservative", and ongoing confusion about right/left labeling that often gets mixed up with authoritarian/libertarian labeling. So we need to take things easy, scientifically speaking.

 

In post 185 you were handed a list of reality disconnections, simple and obvious delusions or hallucinations or bizarrely unreal perceptions common in the US - including, here, failures of very simple, basic reasoning in people clearly and demonstrably far more capable of intellectual rigor than such failures indicate.

 

That is physical evidence, the basis of the beginning of a scientific inquiry or discussion, of mental disorder of some kind (I don't feel comfortable with "insanity" - something more on the lines of what one would call a phobia or other inexplicable irrationality that specifically cripples a persons ability to reason and act in certain narrowly defined contexts). It appears to be peculiarly focused or severe among the authoritarian rightwing - so much so as to almost identify membership in that faction, in agreement with the self-identification as "conservative" that normally accompanies such ideology. ( It also seems to cover the bulk of the self-described libertarian rightwing as well, but the accuracy of that self-identification seems questionable, and the self-label "conservative" can be taken reasonably to mean authoritarian rightwing in the US, in practice. Not, of course, "conservative" in any intellectual sense).

 

So we have had a basis for a reasonably scientific discussion, if any such thing were sincerely desired. In the sense of reasoning from evidence, like.

 

We could also use the OP study, which despite its flaws seems to carry useful information.

 

 

In post 185 I was given a list of political issues with the assumption that any opinion differing from the political view points of yourself means a disconnect with reality....rather than simply a logical difference of opinion, which it is. Hell, you actually list "denial of risks of GMOs" as if that had any scientific basis. If you really want to talk about disconnect with reality based on such issues, lets discuss the fact that ~40% of liberals don't believe in evolution. Suddenly the lines of which "side" is out of touch becomes blurred as vast numbers on both side clearly do not believe in evolution. As I keep pointing out, judging half a population's mental state based on your own personal opinion of contentious issues is subjective, unscientific, false, and absurd. Not to mention the fact that its incredibly arrogant to think that you are right on every political issue and that anyone disagreeing with you is "insane". Based on that list, I myself am mildly insane because I actually believe the science on GMOs that they are safe.

 

To pretend that these arguments are scientific rather than merely an expression of your political opinion is an insult to logic and science.

 

Ok, so lets deal with the issues of RWA...maybe by returning to actual research we can finally start to discuss science:

 

1) The questions used in the questionaire to measure RWA are inherently biased. The nature of the questions focuses exclusively on a very narrow set of issues, namely certain moral/social values such as homosexuality or atheism. It ignores a broad range of other issues such as economics, foreign affairs, social policy that is inherently not about sex/religion, property rights, etc. With an inherent and untested assumption that any "right wing" answer will be "authoritarian" and that any "left wing" answer is inherently "anti-authoritarian". The effect is that the questionaire is designed to ignore any form of conservatism that would not correlate with the preconception of conservatives as authoritarians. As I pointed out in previous posts, modifying the language or changing the issues can easily bias the questionaire to produce "left wing authoritarians" or make the test agnostic to an individuals actual politics.

 

2) As John Ray in his published work pointed out, the RWA does not correlate at all with independent measures of authoritarianism, but does correlate to a degree with certain types of conservatism. The implication is that the RWA does not measure "authoritarianism" but merely measures religious conservatism.

 

3) Given such inherent biases in the nature of the questions, of course you will find correlations as the test itself is designed in such a way as to produce the correlations it wants. The experiment is designed to produce the desired outcome....hence why its biased.

 

After we discuss the RWA, we can then discuss other results and conclusions....such as:

 

1) Significance and most importantly Effect Size of RWA correlations with various measures....such as those used in the Jost meta-study. If the effect size is small...is the finding even meaningful?

 

2) How does any of this correlate or associated with "mild insanity"?

Edited December 18, 2014 by chadn737

[Ten oz]

I have already addressed the OP study and subsequent studies used in this thread. If you wish to continue discussion of them, then I would gladly do so. We can pick up with the arguments I previously made against the RWA scale and against the meta study that supposedly correlated these things.

The OP and subsequent studies are the point of conversation in this thread. So if one does not wish to continue discussing them why read and or post in this thread?

Here is an article from "Psychology Today" looking at 10 sign of mental illness within the Republican party.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

Nothing that you have presented represents "psychiatric" research. None of it represents "psychological" research....none of it is qualifies as an actual scientific study. All you have done is focus on highly contentious issues, assume that you are right on those issues, and label anyone who disagrees with you "insane".

 

And, once again (in the hope that you might listen this time).

No. I have labelled people who disagree with evidence insane.

That's not controversial and I have cited my reasons for asserting it.

You seem not to understand that I already presented the evidence.

The definition of delusional disorder falls within the field of psychiatry.

The relevant bit is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

 

However, the diagnosis might not fall in that field.

 

Imagine I claim that there's gold in my garden.

The only way to tell if I'm delusional in thinking that is to check to see if it's actually true.

You need an analytical chemist or a geologist or some such to do that.

A psychologist or psychiatrist simply isn't qualified to establish whether my belief is delusional or not.

 

So, will you please stop banging on about psychiatry and psychology as if they are some God-given answer to anything?

 

 

Anyway, here's the evidence again.

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm

You are not in any way attempting to show that it's wrong.

And, in spite of that clear documented evidence, you seem to insist that the Right wing are correct in their beliefs.

Do you, by any chance also think that you are Napoleon?

[chadn737]

The OP and subsequent studies are the point of conversation in this thread. So if one does not wish to continue discussing them why read and or post in this thread?

Here is an article from "Psychology Today" looking at 10 sign of mental illness within the Republican party.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness

 

This is not scientific evidence, its a continuation of the same sort of subjective and obvious biased argumentation used by John Cuthber and Overtone. In other words...pick out a few key issues held by somebody on the political right, call it insane, and then make a hasty generalization of the entire political right.

 

For instance....one of the "10 signs"...."General Oddness". The only thing in that category is "Ron Paul". They took a single politician our of the millions of conservatives, call him "Odd" and then call then use this to make a hasty generalization of the entire political right. That is so absurd in terms of fallacious reasoning and subjectivity as to be laughed out of these forums.

 

Or take #1 "Denial"....listed there is "denial that humans evolved". Only problem is that ~40% of liberals don't believe this and at least a 1/3rd of conservatives do. Its another hasty generalization. Based on this same issue I can say that the political left is also in denial since a huge chunk of them reject evolution as well.

 

Number #5 "anger"....Newt Gingrich's scowl is only example given. Do you honestly think this is blog post (it is nothing more than a blog post) constitutes serious scientific evidence after reading that? How about the fact that its directly contradicted by studies showing conservatives are consistently more happy than liberals? http://mic.com/articles/98480/psychologists-say-conservatives-are-happier-than-liberals

 

This entire list is subjective and meant more as entertainment than anything else. Posting it here as "scientific evidence" is an insult to reason.

And, once again (in the hope that you might listen this time).

No. I have labelled people who disagree with evidence insane.

That's not controversial and I have cited my reasons for asserting it.

You seem not to understand that I already presented the evidence.

The definition of delusional disorder falls within the field of psychiatry.

The relevant bit is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

 

However, the diagnosis might not fall in that field.

 

Imagine I claim that there's gold in my garden.

The only way to tell if I'm delusional in thinking that is to check to see if it's actually true.

You need an analytical chemist or a geologist or some such to do that.

A psychologist or psychiatrist simply isn't qualified to establish whether my belief is delusional or not.

 

So, will you please stop banging on about psychiatry and psychology as if they are some God-given answer to anything?

 

 

Anyway, here's the evidence again.

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm

You are not in any way attempting to show that it's wrong.

And, in spite of that clear documented evidence, you seem to insist that the Right wing are correct in their beliefs.

Do you, by any chance also think that you are Napoleon?

 

 

Of course I'm not trying to show that its wrong, because its a red herring. Its so irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the political right have a mental illness that its not even worth discussing. You cannot objectively or scientifically classify half of a nation as "mildly insane" based on agreement or disagreement with highly contentious political issues. You are in essence making an absurd litmus test in which political disagreement with John Cuthber = "insanity". Thats all this is, subjective name-calling. Disagree with John Cuthber and he can classify you on insane based on nothing else than politics.

 

Consider the fact that your argument and evidence are a strawman. The OECD data is premised on legal immigration, hence why the biggest benefits are seen in the immigration of educated and skilled workers....but the political right isn't against legal immigration, its against illegal immigration...which makes an argument for legal immigration a strawman argument. And its not simply a matter of economics. Illegal immigration comes at enormous human cost in the form of human trafficking across the borders. http://abcnews.go.com/US/tracing-human-cost-immigration-altar-arizona/story?id=21406135Your argument ignores that important aspect. Now the point here is not whether one should be for or against immigration....its to demonstrate that your argument ignores the subtleties and complexities of a very contentious political issue and based on such simplistic assumptions, labels have a nation as mentally insanse. That line of argumentation and fallacious reasoning is "insane".

 

 

As you yourself said, we need a psychiatrist. In order to logically, objectively, and scientifically claim the the political right is "insane" you need to provide scientific evidence from psychiatry and psychology...the disciplines that actually study mental illnesses. Anything else is simply a red herring.

 

So I ask you yet again, do you have any scientific evidence from the fields of psychiatry or psychology to support your argument?

Edited December 18, 2014 by chadn737

[Ten oz]

This is not scientific evidence, its a continuation of the same sort of subjective and obvious biased argumentation used by John Cuthber and Overtone. In other words...pick out a few key issues held by somebody on the political right, call it insane, and then make a hasty generalization of the entire political right.

For instance....one of the "10 signs"...."General Oddness". The only thing in that category is "Ron Paul". They took a single politician our of the millions of conservatives, call him "Odd" and then call then use this to make a hasty generalization of the entire political right. That is so absurd in terms of fallacious reasoning and subjectivity as to be laughed out of these forums.

Or take #1 "Denial"....listed there is "denial that humans evolved". Only problem is that ~40% of liberals don't believe this and at least a 1/3rd of conservatives do. Its another hasty generalization. Based on this same issue I can say that the political left is also in denial since a huge chunk of them reject evolution as well.

Number #5 "anger"....Newt Gingrich's scowl is only example given. Do you honestly think this is blog post (it is nothing more than a blog post) constitutes serious scientific evidence after reading that? How about the fact that its directly contradicted by studies showing conservatives are consistently more happy than liberals? http://mic.com/articles/98480/psychologists-say-conservatives-are-happier-than-liberals

This entire list is subjective and meant more as entertainment than anything else. Posting it here as "scientific evidence" is an insult to reason.

 

The writer had some fun. And the title of this thread has a question mark at the end not an exclamation point. So I think you are missing some of the context here.

As for picking out a few key issues; how parties vote matters. If you look at the record number of filibusters against Obama and Congress doing nothing at a historic rate itis clear that the whole party in towing the line. They don't just cherry pick. They are united and push a specific agenda and the public that donates money and votes for them supports that specific agenda. Perhap some more out of ignorance than insanity.

[chadn737]

The writer had some fun. And the title of this thread has a question mark at the end not an exclamation point. So I think you are missing some of the context here.

As for picking out a few key issues; how parties vote matters. If you look at the record number of filibusters against Obama and Congress doing nothing at a historic rate itis clear that the whole party in towing the line. They don't just cherry pick. They are united and push a specific agenda and the public that donates money and votes for them supports that specific agenda. Perhap some more out of ignorance than insanity.

 

I don't think I'm missing any context. A writer made a 10 point argument labeling half the nation as "insane" based on an absurd list of examples. That the list is perhaps meant as an inside joke with readers who have already drank the same koolaid as the writer is about the only relevant context....what other context am I missing?

 

You mean how the Democratic party has toed the line in previous administrations? This is nothing new and people forget that both parties have done this. Its also irrelevant to the mental state of conservatives.

Edited December 18, 2014 by chadn737

[John Cuthber]

 

T

As you yourself said, we need a psychiatrist. In order to logically, objectively, and scientifically claim the the political right is "insane"

No I did not.

I said that, if you want a medical diagnosis then you need a doctor.

However, to judge if someone is sane or not, you just need to consider their behaviour.

[MigL]

It seems that since a few 'loony tunes' characters of the American Conservative party initiated the Tea Party movement, it has become fashionable in the media and amongst people who consider themselves 'intelligentsia' ( better than the unwashed masses ), to put down ALL conservatives based on the thinking of a few. Even though I would wager that quite a few of you have at least a few conservative traits. Like cradn727 has stated, its just a matter of degree. What is the cut-off point for considering someone insane John ? Is it when 40% of your group believe in something illogical ? Or is it 70% ? And who determines this cut-off point ? You ? ( I've read a lot of your posts over the last couple of yrs. and seen you get a little 'crazy' )

 

And thank you Overtone for proving my point. When you can't make a valid argument, just call the opposition a jackass, or the opposing political point of view insane. How 'morally high ground' of you !

[chadn737]

No I did not.

I said that, if you want a medical diagnosis then you need a doctor.

However, to judge if someone is sane or not, you just need to consider their behaviour.

 

You mean behavior like that which relies on subjective political opinion to judge the mental state of others rather than actual science of the mind, i.e psychiatric and psychological research....

 

What matters here is a medical diagnosis, not people's subjective view of those who disagree with them. So yes, we need a doctor, or at least we need to rely on actual psychiatric and psychological research to objectively makes such decisions. Its pointless debating this further with you as it is clear that you have let your political biases trump scientific objectivity.

[John Cuthber]

No, and once again you seem to be repeatedly ignoring what I say,

 

Stop pretending that the decision is down to my personal biases. I never said that, you keep trying to pretend that I did.

I repeatedly pointed out that it's a societal decision. And you flatly said it isn't- but you offered no sensible reason for that assertion.

 

If you want to see who is sane you look at what people believe.

If they think the moon is made of cheese, that there are dragons at the bottom of the garden, and so on- things that are clearly not true, then they are insane.

 

It's not a matter of "not people's subjective view of those who disagree with them. "

It's a matter of whether they believe that the Queen is a shape changing alien lizard.

If they do, then they are nuts.

 

Why do you think it takes a medical professional to see that?

How do you reckon that anyone ever ends up going to see such a doctor? After all- you seem to think that nobody else can make the judgement.

Do you think these people wander deludely round the streets until they happen to bump into a psychiatrist?

Or do you accept that the general public are able to tell that someone is "not right in the head" and alert the authorities?

 

Until you actually look at what I say you are not even trying to debate with me.

Edited December 18, 2014 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

This is nothing but one giant ad hominem.

Not at all. The man's reasoning is being displayed in his own words, and (gently) mocked - not his character. I made no reference to any irrelevant personal attributes of John Jay, nor do I know anything about the guy other than his writings on the subject of rightwing and leftwing authoritarianism.

 

I am referring to John Ray's peer-reviewed and published work on the subject.

On the subject of authoritarianism and rightwing beliefs and "conservatism", yes.

 

I have linked to his papers in previous posts.

As did I, in the post you labeled an ad hominem.

 

What the man's personal opinions are, are irrelevant....what matters is whether or not his published scientific work is valid.

Are you claiming the man's personal inability to correctly identify the basic categories of authoritarian political regime is irrelevant to our assessments of his research in authoritarian political beliefs?

 

Attempting to discredit John Ray personally rather than addressing the actual arguments is a fallacy.

The fact that posting a link to the man's own website and his own writings on exactly the topic under discussion is seen - by a rightwing "conservative" - as an attempt to discredit his research in that subject, is noted.

The claim for Jay's research into authoritarian, rightwing, and conservative belief systems is that his questionnaires and interpretations are politically "unbiased". Given the ridiculously flagrant levels of political bias and associated gross errors of relevant taxonomy presented to us in John Jay's writings, what was the basis of the claim that his research questionnaires were unbiased?

 

It seems that since a few 'loony tunes' characters of the American Conservative party initiated the Tea Party movement, it has become fashionable in the media and amongst people who consider themselves 'intelligentsia' ( better than the unwashed masses ), to put down ALL conservatives based on the thinking of a few.

The Tea Party "movement" was a marketing organization's (rightwing think tank, Murdoch media) renaming of the base of the national Republican Party, as cobbled together by Nixon (iirc it was under the name "Silent Majority", then, which was wishful thinking in every sense). Its brand representatives include the all major mass media intellectual figures of importance in that Party (Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Lilmbaugh, Rand Paul, the talking heads of Fox and Murdoch media generally, and so forth) and its brand identity continues to dominate that Party's political workings and governing behavior, as the faction so rebranded has since Nixon invited the Kamel into the tent.

The familiar and repetitive need of American self-labeled "conservatives" to put some distance between themselves and the consequences of their political behavior is going to lead to another renaming in the near future - just as a similar need led to the creation of the Tea Party brand name in the first place. The thing about crazy is that it doesn't work - reality is the stuff that continues to bang your shins whether you can see it or not. More to the point, it bangs your kids's heads - and nobody wants to take the blame for that.

The recurrent presentation of claims for the existence of a large majority of sensible, non-loony, and now recently non-Tea Party affiliated (that is, non-Republican), "conservatives" (meaning people who agree with the views of the speaking "conservative") is one of the reality disconnects we identify with rightwing authoritarians in the US, btw. Nobody else can see this large majority of sensible "conservatives", and there is no evidence of their existence in voting records, polls, or physical measures of any kind.

Edited December 18, 2014 by overtone

[Willie71]

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/TEMPO%2520Police%2520Interactions%2520082014.pdf

 

Summary: conservatives thinking is overridden by fear. They fear things that aren't real threats, but cannot be convinced the threat isn't real. Recent examples are Ebola, islamaphobia, systemic racism, and fear of others that is so strong they can convince themselves they need to be armed to protect themselves from random attacks.

 

Let's check with reality. None of these risks are greater than being struck by lightning. Yet, these are very real concerns to the conservative population. They just aren't real in terms of measured risk.

 

The belief that everyone in America has the same opportunity, and success and failure is based on personal character, motivation, or morality is an absolute myth. There is not a single paper from a respected source that could make this case.

 

Conservatives are much more likely to be religious, and the more right, the more fundamental. Policy on the environment, and medical sciences are based on mythological teachings from a couple millenia ago.

 

Economic beliefs on the right actually decrease the average citizens prosperity. The GDP, or per capita wealth may look better at a glance, but the 1%ers prosper so much at the expense of everyone else, that the general stats look good. Liberals aren't stealing from the citizens, they are establishing a more even distribution of wealth, at the expense of the peak value statistic.

 

It goes on and on. There is no conservative belief that stands up to scrutiny. It's simly a religious faith.

[Ten oz]

^^^ I see conservative slightly differently. I don't believe many conservatives actually believe their own rhetoric. In our current society it is not appropriate to be openingly racist, classist, greedy, and etc. So a lot of conservatives true intentions are hidden behind made up arguments meant to mask unpopular themes. I don't believe most conservatives honestly think climate science is wrong for example. I think most of them simply don't care because there is so much money to be made. An exhibition of greed would never work in a debate so they just make crazy stuff up. They are like teenage boy going through puberty. They just try every angle and talking point imaginable that serves their only true desire which is to score. If a teenage boy thinks it will help him score any number of attributes will be exaggerated or faked.

In my opinion the conservatives that actually believe the talking points not realizing they're cover are ignorant. While the ones who perpetuate false debates are legitimate sociopaths. Those of us who accept the falsehoods as real points are ignorant as well. With those of us who understand that they are lies but say nothing are cowards.

[overtone]

 

 

I don't believe many conservatives actually believe their own rhetoric. In our current society it is not appropriate to be openingly racist, classist, greedy, and etc. So a lot of conservatives true intentions are hidden behind made up arguments meant to mask unpopular themes

I think you are underestimating the human capacity for self-deception. I don't think "conservatives" are aware any longer, if they ever were, of the original motives behind their sequential adoption of the latest rhetoric and talking points of their media sources.

 

They are perfectly sincere in their denials of racism, for example. They can at the same time

 

assert Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya in thrall simultaneously to Reverend Wright, his African Muslim heritage, and radical Chicago ghetto politics, while possibly being the bastard offspring of a Black Power founding member, in addition to having rested his academic achievements on affirmative action favoritism,

 

and claim to be free of racial bias in their political assessments,

 

without the smallest awareness of any cognitive discord.

[Ten oz]

^^^^Which is why I posted that the ones that believe the rhetoric are ignorant. Though you just made a compelling argument for insane.

[Willie71]

I think the people buying the politicians, and some of the politicians are just using the fear based rhetoric to maintain their control of the economy, and convince people it's ok to give up civil rights. I post regularily on a political subforum run by right wingers, and they seem to truly believe the rhetoric. They threaten to ban me repeatedly, call me a mental midget, and believe all research is a liberal communist propoganda campaign to indoctrinate students. The moderator claims to have three phd's, but he can't follow basic logic, and is convinced climate change is a liberal conspiracy to raise taxes. It would be fun for a few of you guys to post there to see how absurd it is.

I think you are underestimating the human capacity for self-deception. I don't think "conservatives" are aware any longer, if they ever were, of the original motives behind their sequential adoption of the latest rhetoric and talking points of their media sources.

 

They are perfectly sincere in their denials of racism, for example. They can at the same time

 

assert Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya in thrall simultaneously to Reverend Wright, his African Muslim heritage, and radical Chicago ghetto politics, while possibly being the bastard offspring of a Black Power founding member, in addition to having rested his academic achievements on affirmative action favoritism,

 

and claim to be free of racial bias in their political assessments,

 

without the smallest awareness of any cognitive discord.

Self deception is associated with decreased abstract reasoning. The more polarized one thinks, as in either/or, black/white, for me/against me, the less cognitive dissonance one experiences. In therapy, almost every class jumper has been a person with advanced visual spatial thinking, a heightened experience of cognitive dissonance when exposed to BS, and an exceptional ability to connect the dots. It's like they see the world in hi def color, and conservatives see low res black and white. They simply don't see the diversity in the issues. On the conservative forum, I repeatedly get paraphrased into an either or position, and they claim I'm lying or back tracking when I try to explain the idea of gradients.

[Ten oz]

@ Willie71 The first forum I every joined back in 2003 was a political one. It started off fairly moderate but quickly became conservative. They took the whole place over. I stayed long as I could but I eventually started questioning my own sanity for wasting my time. They were in there to burn the place down and lord over the ashes. So I stopped posting.

What I took away from my many exchanges was that they are not interested in what's real, helpful, or logical. To them it is like war or a fight where life and death hangs in the balance. They strive to spare themselves injury the way any of us would if being physically threatened. They apply that most basic fight or flight instinct to ideas and theories. Mexicans, Atheists, Scientist, and etc are things that they feel threaten their existence. So any argument that they feel is clever will do. Name calling as sarcasm serves as a legit debate long as they all team up in support of it. Through it all I never found any of the rhetoric sincere. Their wants are sincere their reasoning isn't. They just want what they want because they want it.

[ZVBXRPL]

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

Is politics a major form of insanity?

[MonDie]

Is politics a major form of insanity?

 

Politics is non-experts acting like experts.

[iNow]

CORRECTION: Politics is what happens any time more than one single human being is involved in any interaction.

[Commander]

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

 

Good Governance = (Number on InCorruptible Politicians - Number of Corrupt Politicians) + (Number of Honest Judges - Number of Corrupt Judges) + (Number of Liar Lawyers - Number of Honest Lawyers) + (Number of Honest Police Officers & Bureaucrats - Number of Dishonest Police Officers & Bureaucrats) + (Number of Non-Bribing Citizens - Number of Bribing Citizens) + (Number of Honest Journalists - Number of Paid Journalists) - (Number of Disruptionists such as Hate Spreaders, Terrorists of every Hue etc) ! This number is HEAVILY NEGATIVE in any Failed State !!

 

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Ten Commandments >>>>>> [1] Never trust the witness of racist in any race related issues ! [2] Never trust the words of a person in a crowd in support of what that crowd stands for ! [3] Always mark as truth the witness of a poor man if he is free and unencumbered to make that confession ! [4] The person who is less hurt but makes more noise is the culprit ! [5] Any law which prevents truth from emerging is the act of the Devil [6] The nation which does not deliver equal justice is a failed state [7] Never listen to the oratory of a speaker if there is no valid points spoken of [8] Trust the witness of an atheist in the case of inter religious problems [9] A winner who never tasted a loss is less reliable than the loser who managed to win [10] Today's Happy Existence is better than tomorrow's Promise !

Edited January 3, 2015 by Commander

[John Cuthber]

CORRECTION: Politics is what happens any time more than one single human being is involved in any interaction.

That suggests that you can't tell sex from politics.