"The Republican Brain" by Chris Mooney. Interestin

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

makegod2020
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

11 Apr 2012, 2:01 pm

WorldsEdge

Quote:
Are you now saying what you posted is incorrect? After all, if "biological differences in our brains" cause us to behave, or not behave, in a certain fashion how is that not determinism?


Maybe we use the word biological determinism differently?

I would not say that the expression as such is determined by biology
I would say that the individual search for ways to express his or her
biological tendencies in a way that feel okay based on their cultural
and psychological and personal preferences.

So both extreme right wing and extreme left wing political activists can
have similar biological tendencies of feeling disgust but the way they express
them can be very different.

Does not political left often react very strongly to unfairness and harm done
from those in power? While political right maybe play it down and kind of
look away or rationalize it.

One the other hand political right feel very strongly about abortion and
homosexuality and taxes and so on. Very different ways to express something
that can have similar biological causes.

I am not good at finding examples that reach you. What I try to point out is
that both groups can feel very righteous about their preferences. They come through
as having the feeling they are saying the truth and that the truth is obvious and
they feel morally obliged to do the right thing to fight for these issues to get solved.

So I find it likely that the underlying biological differences can get cultural
and individual expressions that is very different from each other and still
beneath the surface it is about very similar feelings of fighting for what is the truth.

My English maybe fail? Is it not a good word for it to say they feel righteous.
They feel to have truth on their side. Both groups despite being on other end
of the political spectrum?



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

11 Apr 2012, 2:32 pm

Joker wrote:
I do give my full support to the liberatiarians who are in the GOP way to many fundies are in the GOP it is rather sad I support seperation of church and state don't like religion helping make political choices in the government.


Funny you should mention that... The following quote immediately popped into my mind:

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." - Barry Goldwater



makegod2020
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

11 Apr 2012, 3:04 pm

Could this be a good example. I find this text by someone that to me
looks like a fairly typical Liberal and political Left person who are
very much against Conservative Family Values and such.

Link to the texthttp://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=flynn_32_3

Quote:
Norman is the latest in a long line of commentators—Greg Epstein, anyone?—to write regretfully of our disinclination toward touching, singing, chanting, swaying, and such. “Why do we cut ourselves off,” they ask, “from so much that is part of our human heritage—from practices whose psychological effectiveness is easily documented?”

In this op-ed, I’m going to do something staunch seculars seldom do when faced with this question. I’m going to try answering it. I think secular humanists are not only right but wise to banish (for lack of a better catchall term) collective ritual practice from our (pardon the expression) sectarian observances. Why?

I think there are two broad grounds on which secular humanists—and I emphasize that adjective—disdain such practice: because it is erosive of rationality and because it denigrates the autonomy of the individual. Let’s examine these accusations one by one.


I just snipped out that part but the whole text to me show the disdain he has to the whole thing
of touchy feely way of being together. The emotionalism and togetherness. He feels in his body
that what they tried as an experiment is plain wrong to do. Even though all of them where
among friends and supporters of secularism.

I find it very likely that it is the same biological traits that is in play only that it get expressed
in a very different way than if all of them had been Republicans singing some Hymn or Psalm together.

Republicans instead can feel disdain hearing Liberals talking about solidarity with the poor or such.

I grew up in a socialist liberal society so I fail to feel what conservative Republicans feel.
I try to stay away from them as fast as I can run. :)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Apr 2012, 4:06 pm

CoMF wrote:

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." - Barry Goldwater


Republicans of the like of Barry Goldwater are a thing of the past. Gone and almost forgotten except by people like me.

Goldwater was straightforward, honest and he was a mensch.

What we have these days are pimps for crony capitalism.

ruveyn



Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

13 Apr 2012, 10:30 am

The problem Republicans have is they seek believers, true belivers, and that does not allow questioning or dissent. Republicans must be fundamentalist Christian zealots, free market zealots, and limited government zealots. They should begin to call themselves the Zealots party.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

13 Apr 2012, 1:25 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Joker wrote:
I am a right-winger but the current state the GOP is in well it has become a circus act.


the current Republican part is an embarrassment to anyone who favors limited government. There is not a viable mind at work in the party at this juncture. the current Republican Party is a pimp for Crony Capitalism.

ruveyn


All the talk of free-markets and limited government you hear from politicians is window dressing. The Republicans are simply the "we must protect the rich and corporations at all costs" party. Nothing else can explain their hypocrisy when it comes supporting government subsidization of the oil industry while criticizing the mere mention of any other kind of government intervention.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

13 Apr 2012, 4:45 pm

The Big Five personality dimension of "openness to experience" has a subscale of values/liberalism, and the dimension overall is positively correlated with social liberalism and negatively with conservatism. A related trait is TCI-R dimension of "novelty seeking," which in turn has positive correlations with sensation seeking, which in turn has positive correlations with a few facets of extraversion (like impulsiveness and activity).

My current workplace has a rather conservative culture, and I think it at least anecdotally validates the research. Most of my coworkers just seem different at some fundamental level (and not as in Asperger's/autism vs. NT). They almost unanimously, spontaneously come to the same conclusion as if it's just common sense whereas my tendencies reach in opposite directions.



makegod2020
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

13 Apr 2012, 5:49 pm

Thanks NeantHumain, yes they have done surveys on Atheists
and they tend to come out as more open to experiences too.
Conservative believers most likely are not so much into questioning
the family values or the authority, they see merit in being loyal and
accepting of norms.

But what I find interesting is the feeling of disgust.

Such is strong on both sides but for different things.
The expression and what one react to is different
but the underlying source seems to be similar.

The research that Jon Haidt does is interesting.
I trust one need to do much more but there seems to be something real there.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

13 Apr 2012, 6:07 pm

I blogged about this recently on chime.in - and here are the two perspectives, one stating the case plainly, and the second making the case for why trust in science has declined amongst conservatives.


http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... in-science

http://www.science20.com/science_20/tru ... _why-88361


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Apr 2012, 6:08 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
I blogged about this recently on chime.in - and here are the two perspectives, one stating the case plainly, and the second making the case for why trust in science has declined amongst conservatives.


http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... in-science



Science and faith or virtual opposites. One does not have faith in science. One appreciates and comprehends the theories and the experiments that support the theories.

ruveyn



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

13 Apr 2012, 6:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
I blogged about this recently on chime.in - and here are the two perspectives, one stating the case plainly, and the second making the case for why trust in science has declined amongst conservatives.


http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... in-science



Science and faith or virtual opposites. One does not have faith in science. One appreciates and comprehends the theories and the experiments that support the theories.

ruveyn



The believer in science may not know the answers to everything (they love to theorize but in truth our knowledge of everything is like that of a newborn), but... they have faith that science can not only offer up an explaination, but also, that science can and eventually will be able to explain the things we don't know away. There is faith and optimism in science, in its ability to explain, make sense, and then provide a route towards a solution.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

13 Apr 2012, 8:03 pm

The rhetoric that conservatives use against science came out of the creationist movement. They picked it up second hand in church or from like minded believers and the same techniques and rhetoric were repackaged into anti-global warming denialism or whatever else they need to ignore.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

13 Apr 2012, 8:05 pm

simon_says wrote:
The rhetoric that conservatives use against science came out of the creationist movement. They picked it up second hand in church or from like minded believers and the same techniques and rhetoric were repackaged into anti-global warming denialism or whatever else they need to ignore.


Gosh I can not stand teh Creationist movement.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

13 Apr 2012, 8:44 pm

simon_says wrote:
The rhetoric that conservatives use against science came out of the creationist movement. They picked it up second hand in church or from like minded believers and the same techniques and rhetoric were repackaged into anti-global warming denialism or whatever else they need to ignore.


The study itself is from sociology, a typically left-wing department.

What about their position on stem cell research or abortion. Their position is not just their own, but the mainstream pro-life position that the masses have taken. 40% of Democrats in 2004 identified as Pro-life, majority of Republicans claimed a prolife position, and a sizable portion of independents.

This is from the article I posted:

Quote:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Learning surveyed the political persuasion of professors ten years later, in 1984, and found that liberals outnumbered conservatives on university faculties 39 to 34 percent. Insignificant. But by 1999, liberals were suddenly a 5-1 majority on college faculties. In a 15 year period of time, things changed a lot.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

13 Apr 2012, 9:00 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
simon_says wrote:
The rhetoric that conservatives use against science came out of the creationist movement. They picked it up second hand in church or from like minded believers and the same techniques and rhetoric were repackaged into anti-global warming denialism or whatever else they need to ignore.


The study itself is from sociology, a typically left-wing department.

What about their position on stem cell research or abortion. Their position is not just their own, but the mainstream pro-life position that the masses have taken. 40% of Democrats in 2004 identified as Pro-life, majority of Republicans claimed a prolife position, and a sizable portion of independents.

This is from the article I posted:

Quote:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Learning surveyed the political persuasion of professors ten years later, in 1984, and found that liberals outnumbered conservatives on university faculties 39 to 34 percent. Insignificant. But by 1999, liberals were suddenly a 5-1 majority on college faculties. In a 15 year period of time, things changed a lot.


What is your point exactly?

My point was that I can recognize the same arguments. There is some kind of template that is used to build them. And I believe that template was created by the creationist movement through years of testing arguments on their audiences. "Just a theory", "Here's my list of random non-specialists who disagree", quote distortions, quote mining, etc. Back in the day smoking advocates used similar disinformation to pretend that smoking wasnt bad for you but creationists really primed the anti-science pump.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

13 Apr 2012, 9:38 pm

simon_says wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
simon_says wrote:
The rhetoric that conservatives use against science came out of the creationist movement. They picked it up second hand in church or from like minded believers and the same techniques and rhetoric were repackaged into anti-global warming denialism or whatever else they need to ignore.


The study itself is from sociology, a typically left-wing department.

What about their position on stem cell research or abortion. Their position is not just their own, but the mainstream pro-life position that the masses have taken. 40% of Democrats in 2004 identified as Pro-life, majority of Republicans claimed a prolife position, and a sizable portion of independents.

This is from the article I posted:

Quote:
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Learning surveyed the political persuasion of professors ten years later, in 1984, and found that liberals outnumbered conservatives on university faculties 39 to 34 percent. Insignificant. But by 1999, liberals were suddenly a 5-1 majority on college faculties. In a 15 year period of time, things changed a lot.


What is your point exactly?

My point was that I can recognize the same arguments. There is some kind of template that is used to build them. And I believe that template was created by the creationist movement through years of testing arguments on their audiences. "Just a theory", "Here's my list of random non-specialists who disagree", quote distortions, quote mining, etc. Back in the day smoking advocates used similar disinformation to pretend that smoking wasnt bad for you but creationists really primed the anti-science pump.


What I'm saying is that you are offering that the creationist movement created the anti-science template that most of the conservative has since adopted, and i was wondering how you explain what is framed as an anti-science position that the Right takes, on certain aspects of the two following issues: stem cell research and abortion. (Keeping in mind that this "anti-science" position is also the one that most pro-life democrats and almost all pro-life independents hold). Maybe it too originated from the creationist movements template, I don't know.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.