New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?
 

http://www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBA1FNEE6F.html



Wow...just wow. I always thought political leanings were due to brain functioning ability and non-ability. I have a friend that has become anything fundamentalist. I knew it had to be biological because she isn't stupid. I think it was because of sustaining some brain damage due to a car accident. Is this right? Hmmmmmm......


Now we can diagnose them and give them meds.? For their political "condition"? That would be awesome. We could start diagnoseing and curing people of their political ridiculousness? Yeah!!!! Or we could reduce it to a brain disorder or damage?

Ok who wants to kick my ass first?

Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.

Believe what you want. And then get ready for the twister.

We can't survive like this. We can't function like this. We can't live our lives believing that everybody else is a broken, sick fuck. It's not gonna work. We can't educate our children, we can't defend ourselves from enemies, we can't help the unfortunate.

Yesterday we had a study showing that almost all adult men avoid lost, crying children in malls. Why: they expect they will be charged with being a pedophile.

We simply can't go on like this. It won't end well.

The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people. Someday, you may need to ask them for help. What will be the result? Will they help you? Someday, they may ask you for help. Will you help them?

How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?

Is this really what you think and want? Everyone who doesn't think like you should be diagnosed, drugged, and/or considered brain damaged?

I asked Spexxvet to stop with the laundry lists of what those 'others' think and want, and try discussion. If we don't continue to acknowledge our common humanity, our common points of reference, and agree to discuss issues with some courtesy and civility, what will happen to us?

Thank you, UT, for putting it better than I could.

Yeah- just a joke....
This study is just a sign of the times......
What I really think- people will do anything to discredit others this close to election time. Who funded it?

That's what I really think.......
;)

Oh and some of my best friends have very different political opinions from me....that never stopped us from trusting each other's judgement, giving or receiving help, or anything else......

Poking fun....pokes back. Ow!!!

im in ur brainz ..................


................ makin u kunservativez

I now quit stark raving sarcasm....it's too dry and it does not work on the internet. 9 times out of 10.

Guess it's just too close to the terrible truth for some.

Well maybe you should quit doing dirty laundry with abstractions and ideas- try using Tide.

:)

Michael "The Skeptic" Shermer wrote a piece in Scientific American, on Confirmation Bias, specifically: how does it work? They used fMRI to study the brain activity of two groups, representing (based on their self-description) staunch left and right wingers.

They asked each group to evaluate both Bush and Kerry being caught in an obvious contradiction from a previoulsy stated position. Predictably, both groups bent over backwards to excuse their own guy, while crucifying the other.

The fMRI revealed that they did not use the part of their brain that evaluates things with logic and reason. They used the parts of their brain that process emotions, conflict resolution, and moral judgment. There was also a strong activation of their pleasure/reward centers.

Edit:
This "use versus them" mentality has been nagging at me lately. I'm afraid it may be hard-wired into our brains.

At the risk of being slammed as a one-issue fanatic, I really think this is something we all need to talk about, and think about, seriously. What better place than the internet, for different people and opinions to come together? When something is on my mind, it surfaces in the form of song lyrics:

I knew it, I knew it all along.... all you fuckers are defective. All of ya, every one... everyone 'cept me.

That's always been an option.

I wonder if there's a similar sort of test that liberals would do worse on.

The article did at least give a hint of something like that, HM:

Yes, but that "whether you hit M or W" range of behavior says so much about who we are... [/smarm]

I will also risk the one-issue fanatic label and posit that these attitudes are an extension of prehistoric society and capitalism. The perspective is "I must win. Decisively. All others must lose." What better way to improve your chances of survival, and the continuation of your genes? When you enter any interaction with that as your goal, what else, ultimately will happen? You can come up with ALL KINDS of reasons that you should win. Sometimes the reasons aren't reasons at all - like their left half is black and their right half white, instead of the opposite, right way. I would even put forth that the divorce rate is so high because husband and wife each feel that they *must* win.

UT: help each other? Like "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"? The predominent American attitude seems to be to take advantage of those who are need, to try figure out a way to profit from others' misery. Rebuilding New Orleans and Iraq will make millionaires out of some people. Again, it's a case of you lost, now I win.

Until people understand that they can't, shouldn't, and don't have to win, at the expense of everything else, this is the way we'll be living.
:rant:

Bah- when we were doing evacuations, rescue, and donation banks for Katrina victims I saw die-hard fundamentalist right-wingers bend over backwards for the less fortunate. Silent donations of private evacuation planes, buses, whole houses, and cars. We aren't so different. Except they wanted to mask their identities (sometimes), which I found kind of odd.
I was charmed. Renewed my faith in everyone...despite what I previously thought about a segment of the population......I was wowed by what people did despite their political backgrounds. Cicero- of so little faith and cynicism- was put to rights by a small measurement called proof. Yeah-they did something different than they are used to doing, and very well I might add. Not only did they adapt quickly -they kicked some ass.....I was shocked...but happily so.
"You want to donate what?!?" "You are going to to do what?!?"
:)
Well I'll be damned if I didn't see some uptight rich republican white folk go rescue poor black families out of Louisiana theirselves in little Cessna's. Their only requested profile? Make sure the family is small enough that they can fit in the damned thing. Was that illegal at the time? Yes..... Did I let them know that? Yes. Did they care? No. That wasn't the only thing they did sticking their necks out either. They kicked butts with everyone else.

Apparently they too cannot watch Americans die in the streets...no matter what background......

Look it's another cicero anecdote. Who is suprised? Don't ask me what people are going to do when they need to help each other- I've seen it happen. And quicker than CrAZy. Maybe you need to ask yourself because my illusions have been abolished from my reality about that. By the burden of proof.

It's easy to see peoples' humanity when they're in front of you and desperate. The problem comes in when so many people are unable to see, or dismissive of, the humanity of those who are at a distance.

Ummm....what makes you think we weren't at a distance? That's what I was just talking about. I wasn't clear.

Ahh. I misunderstood.

I often find that in times of disaster, people set aside their political selves in order to help their fellow humans. What I find difficult to understandn is how that doesn't translate to a more inclusive compassion. They will get involved when a disaster affects many people; but if a family falls into its own personal disaster, that's their own business to deal with. Politically there is a lack of compassion for human frailty and failure, and a lack of compassion for the effects that poverty may have on the individuals concerned.

I don't recognize the people you are describing. Conservatives generally prefer to care for others personally. Funding bureacracies is not the same thing as caring.

Of course there are cases of abuse that make us all suspect of charitable organizations, but can't an organization do more than individuls? I've also found that people tend to care for people like themselves - you support a fellow church member or neighbor, for example. Is it likely that that wealthy consrvatives living in the suburbs will personally help a poor single mother and her family living in the city?

I'm not talking so much about the funding as I am talking about the attitude and rhetoric. The rhetoric many right-wing politicians adopt when talking about social problems is often scathing and lacking in human empathy for the people who are experiencing those problems. Certainly in this country the right used to orate against such groups as single mothers and the unemployed with a venom that made many of us flinch. Policy followed the rhetoric.

The unemployed, yes. "Welfare mothers," yes. But not single mothers. In America single mothers are put on a huge ass altar of martyrdom, by both parties. Some conservatives will quietly fund marriage initiatives, but Dan Quayle was the last person to make the mistake of specifically saying out loud that single motherhood was not as good as being married.

Dana I did expect them to turn their backs entirely- that's how cynical I was. Don't take my little bit of sunshine away!
I know what you are saying....
We'll pray for you, but keep your grubby hands out of our pocket-books.


You are lucky I just erased two paragraphs of details........

There's plenty of frustrations around here about the incompetence of government in keeping regulations and programs on task, relevant, and under control. Take the thread in Home Base about housing and farm regulations as an example. It's the same bunch of people sticking out their hands and saying "we know how to distribute your money better than you do".

Like UT, and this messageboard. He arrogantly distributes our posts, while we would be better served plopping random non sequiturs on the internet, and hoping they connected into threads. Down with the man!

Come again?:confused::eyebrow:

Robotoid

I meant that it's the same government officials sticking out their hands (use of my taxes), not members of the cellar. Was that it?

I would think that Flint is suggesting that there are times that central organization is justified and useful.

I find it disappointing that some folks have a hard time distinguishing between some jackass politician's (who happens to be a republican) rhetoric, and what real live individuals who happen to be political conservatives do or think.

So some senator is a firebrand against mom's on welfare. Does that mean that I as a conservative, must drive around looking for poor mothers to spit on? Is it possible that as a person (who happens to lean conservative in fiscal and political discussions) might just be... A PERSON first. I might just go out of my way to help those around me? Or that when I hear about someone in need I'm happy to help in the way I'm best suited?

I'm absolutely against a lot of government programs because I feel they are largely ineffective, generally inefficient, and quite often corrupt from the ground up. I am absolutely in support of helping out those around me when I see a need. I really wish douchebag politicians would quit taking so much of my money so I could help more of the people I see.

It looks kind of like this. If I see an individual who has issues with her car that will cost her $1000 that she just plain doesn't have, I can give her $1000 myself or get a couple of friends to pitch in and help, or I can call a contact and ask him to volunteer his labor to fix the car. But if a politician sees this individual and they think "this poor person needs a thousand dollars, how to do it?" next thing you know he has raised my taxes so I'm out $1000, he takes that $1000 puts it through the government sieve, creates a new program, hires a new bunch of folks to fill the bureaucracy, advertises the program, interviews the needy individuals to decide who is more in need and out of my $1000 this poor individual gets $8 for bus fare. But if they come back next month, they can have $8 more, and the month after that is an election month so they can have $10 so they'll have enough to make it to the polls, cuz "who loves ya baby".

There isn't much that the goverment can do better than we can as individuals.

But see, if they didn't create new programs, then we might not see how important they are, and if we didn't see how important they are we might start thinking we could live without them in Washington, and if we did that... what would happen to them?

Just remember, a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. or something like that.

What if you don't see her?

I don't believe I'm all that special, so I don't believe I'm the only person who tries to take care of the people around me. All that I'm aware of falls under what I consider my responsibility. So if I do that, and you take care of those you can help around you, and bruce helps those around him, and UT... see where I'm going here?

I'm not saying we should trash the safety net programs, I'm just saying that we don't need a government program to be big brother for every damn thing.

The people closest to the problem are the best to help because they know precisely what sort of help is needed and what sort is productive.

Unfortunately not everybody is willing to help the person next to them. Not every person is surrounded by people who will help them. The world is full of people who will exploit and people who will be exploited. It's full of people who are resolutely blind to the suffering of people living mere metres from them and it's full of people who suffer poverty and fear on the doorsteps of people who do not see them.

We used to have a society in Britain, where help was something individuals offered and individuals sought. Not enough individuals offered and far too many had to seek. The protections our society has were hard fought for by people who had been cut out of the big cake and left eating scraps.

Poverty, unemployment, health inequalities, social exclusion. These things are too big to be left to the vagaries of individuals' good will. The reason so many people in my country fought to achieve those safety nets is that the system of gentle benevolence was really a tacit acceptance of inequality and brutal exploitation.

Emphasis mine. How many poor black families are you around, and do you help them? I'm just saying that we tend to live with people who are like ourselves, and we help people who our like ourselves. I'm guilty of the same thing. A couple of years ago, our community made a huge effort and investment (all donations) to build a new athletic field for ourselves. This is a municipality that already had 5 or 6 fields for the lily-white middle class suburban kids to use . The folks involved would have died rather than give another "handout to the N***ers in Chester" (the nearest urban / minority area).

Maybe because they see the facilities in Chester, Camden and Philly, going to hell in a handbasket. Neglected, abandoned to junkies and thugs, broken glass and trash. If the people the facilities are for, won't take care of them, how can you convince people to provide more facilities?

I think welfare states are just a natural progression in sociological advancement. Once a decent standard of living is established in the middle class, a push towards a welfare state seems almost inevitable except by major control by state.

So if the person I help this week is not black, that makes them somehow not important on the "needs help" chart? Give me a break. First of all, not all people who need help are black. second, not all black people live in one neighborhood that no on else goes too. third, are all black people poor? If not, then possibly those who do need help will also be receiving help from those in there network, area of influence, whatever you want to call it.

In my area, I'm surrounded by a lot of mexicans. Yep, I help the ones I can. Sometimes I even leave some of the steak around the bone before I throw it at them from the window of my speeding SUV on my way back to my lilly white neighborhood. :right:

The point is help those you see around you and do what you can.

This particular rational is complete bullshit. I really mean that, there is no 'cake' or 'pie' or whatever other pastry the metaphor people have on the brain. We do not line up for our ration of wealth, we are not just given anything. If I have more then you 99.9% of the time I did more then you and planned better then you, the iota's worth left had dumb luck. :mad2:

9th, the battles I was referring to took place in the 19th and early 20th century, when Britain followed a laissez faire approach to capitalism. I am referring to a time when a very small class of industrialists controlled had a strangelhold on economic power and the mass of the working classes lived in slums, worked in the 'dark satanic mills' of the cities and were forced to let their children work in dangerous jobs in the mines and mills. The working class fought hard for protection, for a fair wage, for decent working conditions. They had to fight for these things because they were being treated by their employers as if they were little more than dumb beasts.

The fact that a small class of people had sole access to finance, to the vote, to a decent education, to a childhood without working in dangerous conditions, does not mean that they did more or planned better. The system at the time did not allow for social mobility.

Every single protection that the working classes ever gained was fought for and fought for hard. Laws governing safety at work? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class. Legislation against children working? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class. Laws governing minimum safety and hygiene standards in housing? Fought for against the wishes of the employer and landlord-class. The right to unionise? Fought for against the wishes of the employer-class and the political elite. Old age pension? Fought for, and fought for fucking hard by a class of people who were used to working until they dropped.

I find it interesting that you relate most strongly to that employer class. You relate to the minority who controlled the entire economy rather than the majority who worked in it. Me? I'm under no such illusion. I am a workingclass woman from Salford, if I'd have been born 150 years earlier, I would have lived in a slum, most likely with 6 people to a bedroom. I would have been working by the time I was 7 in a dangerous job with a very high risk of injury and mutilation. At best I may have been 'in service' from the age of 10, working for a wealthy family. Me and my entire family would have worked 12 hours a day for just enough to eat and with no hope of ever changing and not one of us would have had the right to vote. Meanwhile those who owned the mills and factories would have experienced vast wealth and controlled the political system.

I am able to live the life I live now, with the opportunities I have now and the protections that prevent my exploitation because my forefathers (and mothers) fought for them. I would also posit that you are able to live the life you live and have the protections you have, because your forefathers fought for them.

Did I say give them "facilities"?
Read Luke 15, 11-32

I don't think I said any of what you've read into my post. You said that you try
and my point is that if you are white and middle class, and live in the suburbs, you are not "around" the TYPICAL person who needs help. If you are middle class and live in suburbs, you probably don't need help. If you need help, you probably are not middle class and probably don't live in the suburbs. I don't think I insinuated anything more.

Even after they pick your cotton all day? Wow, what a generous fellow you are.:rolleyes:

"Around you" being the key. After Katrina, I donated to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am not "around" New Orleans. I could not go to New Orleans to help, or to take a car load of supplies. I did not know anyone in New Orleans to send a check to. How would I help them, using your philosophy?

Wealthy parent "give" their children a huge slice of "pie", "cake", and filet mignon. Having good healthcare, nutrition, two parents, modern conveniences, a safe neighborhood to live in, a quality education, tutoring when needed, all give a child a great advantage over those kids who live in poverty. Even nice clothing and teeth straightened by braces give a candidate a better chance of getting a high-paying job.

Oh, and if you live around those who need help, you probably don't have means to help them.

Thoughts like these tend to fly right under our level of awarness to even put them into words. I am impressed. Painful truths are mostly stuffed and we go on our way apathetic because we don't know how to change it. Especially as older people die out the younger people won't know there was even a difference?

Perhaps those old movies and shows that seem lame to young folk now will become social a social commentary one day. The'll be studied in college just to get a glimpse of social norms that are not in practice any longer?

good thoughts UT.

The problem is not in recognition that people need help, the problem is in what differing groups propose as the solution. Those with hard earned wealth are against redistribution of their wealth to fix social problems which are often a bottomless pit of revolving door handouts. Those who are Uber wealthly often give thousands to this charity or that charity and often can make a difference in peoples lives, some do, some don't. Those who are in the middle who don't have much to give want those who have lots to give it up to cause "XYZ" because they (in the middle) think people with money should take care of those without. And so the rub continues.

Another Anecdote c/o Cicero:
Monday I went for my usual cup of coffee and saw from a distance that there was an irregular person sitting in my usual area. Everyone else that usually hangs out in that area went somewhere else to sit, because that person- you could tell from a distance- was indigent, looked like he was having a hard time, and might cast a negative spell on their morning. I was the only person to sit in my usual spot near this person, and the look in his eyes said he was incredibly sad and defeated.Like he was dying. Not only did no one go out of their way for someone so down-trodden. They refused to be anywhere near him as some sort of social darwinism,denial, or discrimination. I not knowing what do again in the face of someone so helpless, gave him some money hoping that at least an act of kindness would cast some light.He had shoes on like had just gotten out of a hospital. It's true- when people are really suffering in everyone's face- unless they are of a proper status- they are not only not taken care of- they are avoided. Like being 10 feet from it might hurt them......Wouldn't even get close enough to shake a stick at.

The amount of evasion that I run into is really worse than I'd usually admit.

but someone did help him. You.

By pure happenstance one person who did not view this man as some sort of disturbing social leper, came into his proximity. Had Cicer not done so, someone else might have helped...or not. Again, to me these things are too big, too societal in nature to be left to the vagaries of human kindness. That one guy isn't just one guy. He is one visible example of a person in trouble or in need. There are many, almost countless others in most wealthy cities of the industrial West.

The Buddhist parable about gently licking maggots from the wounded dog comes to mind. The "wounded dog" is transformed into the deity that the person desired, for many years, to see. The act of compassion is the greater part of any religion, or system of beliefs. It is the highest form.

I wholly agree.

And for that one act of kindness should be surely praised and emulated. But the problem is "Then what?". Did they take the poor homeless man home with them? Did they empty their bank account and make is life truely better? Did they buy them dinner? What about dinner the next day? Did they take them to the doctor to see if they needed medication? Did they buy them the needed medication? Are they going to supply the needed medication for ever since the poor guy obviouly can't work? Did they take them home or get them some place where they could shower? And what about all the other homeless friends he has? What about them? Where does it end?

You can't have rescue fantasies about all the bad in the world. Just do little bits here and there and try to make a difference. Are you willing to sacrifice the well being of you and your family to help every single person in the world that needs help?

My answer to that Merc is that it's a damn sight less oppressive if everyone contributes a manageable portion of their wealth/income in order that no one person has to carry such a burden.

Monday morning man probably needed help 10 or 20 years ago. Whether he needed help that day, nobody knows, because nobody asked him. It is rude for us to assume that he needed help when he didn't ask for it and maybe he only wanted to have a seat for a while. It's even rude to assume he wanted someone to sit next to him.

Now let's try this one!

Compassion is the highest form. Of the following situations, which contains the most compassion?

- I sense you are in need and I help you with what it is you need. It may be money, or it may be education, or a room for a month, or a flight outta town, or simply advice, or merely a warm coat, or merely a friendly smile acknowledging your presence and sitting down in your proximity.

OR

- Anonymous government employees watch over the removal of a fifth of my paycheck. They take what they need, then send you a check for the amount you qualify for. We never meet, but I assume that because a huge chunk of my earnings was taken from me for your assistance, you are surely being helped.

Given that most people feel somehow smaller for having needed help (not wanting to be a 'charity case' not wanting to use 'the begging bowl') I would actually consider the second more compassionate. It much easier for the person receiving help if they are merely accessing a fund to which they have rights as a citizen who will at various times pay varying amounts of tax and national insurance.

To be poor and asked if you need help can be a humiliating and upsetting experience. Asking for help even more so.

As we live in a world where many people do have to rely on personal compassion then personal charity is a compassionate act. But to me it is more compassionate to agree as a society to set up a fund for those in need without them having to accept the charity of their fellows.

Great, define that.

Again that would be something for consultation and political campaigning. The politicians and parties put forward what they consider the most workable compromise and through the democratic process the country would come to its decision on what level is considered manageable and how that would be organised.

Your country has come to its current accepted levels of tax and protection by this process, as has mine. In my own country I would argue for greater protections and less social stigma for those who have need of it.

I'd say the second one, because it happens for just about anybody who needs it, and lots of people can go ahead and do the first one as well, whereas people who advocate the primacy of the first one are more likely to be advocating the removal of the second.

We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. A world where many people don't want to help themselves and many who just don't want help. We could start by reforming our Mental Health system and start pumping money back into it in a a big way. That would most likely take a whole bunch of homeless people off the street. But running around throwing money at these problems via "Government" controlled and run organizations is not the answer.

Yeah.....ya know though I think most people actually do want to work (bear with me)..

When society sends large numbers of people a message that they are worthless and allows the market to create large pockets of unemployment coupled with low social mobility, that's a recipe for creating a subculture that feels it is *thinks how to phrase this* at war, or under attack from the wider culture. If that sub culture continues for long enough and a new generation is born to that sub culture, then you have a recipe for a sub culture that sees itself as separate and distinct from the wider community. That's when people begin to see the protections that are still left as something to take without putting back.

The answer is to exert enough controls over your economy so as to not produce ghettos of poverty and social exclusion. In the event that a country has already produced such ghettos you are faced with (the way I see it) two distinct paths of action. You can either a) become ever more strict in how that help is regulated and debarr as many people as you can, reducing the levels of protection as a way of making it even more unappealing in order to drive people to find work; thereby increasing the sense of social exclusion and 'attack'. Or, b) you increase social protections whilst simultaneously trying to apply pressure and incentives to business to employ at home rather than sending jobs to Mexico and the Far East; alongside that you try to actively engage those communities in dialogue and make the justice system less brutal in the way it deals wth non-violent criminals (thereby removing some of the sense of being literally under attack by the economically active classes).

The problem with b) is that this solution would require more than a generation to reintegrate the sub-culture into the mainstream culture. The problem with a) is that it further alienates the two cultures from each other, creating an ever wider gulf and a siege mentality within the sub-culture; and resulting in the phenomenon of wealthy, gated communities existing within a short drive from housing complexes where simply walking down the street is a dangerous thing to do.

I believe that b) has the potential to reintegrate the cultures of the middle class and the cultures of the long-term, unemployed over a couple of generations resulting in a culture where, as in the mainstream, people want to be a part of the employed world.

Yea- how presumptuous of me!!! Ha!!!! Haa!!! I am such a bitch. He smelled so bad- like death-but i just come along and assume that everyone that is leaning at a right angle in their chair with a painful expression on their face has something wrong with them. Might need help.
Presumptuous bitch.......I also presumed that he had just been helped by the hospital which is why he had the shoes on and might have needed some money.....and gotten some fucking bad and painful news on top of it.

Well he didn't turn it down when I gave him money, and hell, if someone approached me and gave me money....neither would I. I wasn't the Queen of Mercy either....I'm no saint....I just handed him money no questions asked.....pretty lazy of me really....Since when do I have to fucking ask to give people money?!? I didn't sit next to him either- I was the only one that would sit in his general vicinity. Because that is where I always sit. I just didn't go out of my way to avoid him or the situation either. By your tale you would have me plopping on his lap- so you could make some ridiculous point about helping people unasked.

Bitches.

You act like everyone that needs help asks for it! Who is presumptuous now? I don't care if my stomach fell out of my body with hunger.....I would never ask for anything and neither do a lot of people........People need to ask for help? No letting people keep any dignity- make them beg.

Dude here's some cash- see ya! I wish people would do that to me....

Whatever UT.

Go try that on someone that didn't just crawl from underneath a rock. Or someone that hides in a damned cubicle their whole life.

This is why I favour a system of benefits by right. You are not 'asking for help' in a good benefits system imo, you are accessing something to which you have a right. Much less humiliating.

Ouch!