Khaled Alkotob quoted a news article:
..."The work grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that
political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of
thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that
conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of
ambiguity and less open to new experiences."
dmb says:
I have a copy of that 2003 review around here somewhere. Please notice what
was reviewed in 2003; "decades of previous research". That's a mighty heap
of data. Its not the kind of thing one should toss aside just for the sake
of civility. I mean, ignoring a pile of facts that big is something only a
conservative could do.
The article said:
Some of the traits associated with right-wingers in that review were
decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression, tolerance of inequality,
and lack of complexity in their thinking. That along with the fact that it
lumped Ronald Reagan and other political conservatives in with Adolf Hitler
evoked outrage from conservative pundits. The editors of The New Atlantis
magazine called the study a powerful example of the misuse of science and
the arrogance of expertise. Other critics noted angrily that taxpayers
footed the bill for the research through $1.2 million in federal grants.
dmb says:
That's hilarious. The conservative pundits and critics responded with
outrage, insult and anger, as if to prove the review's characterization of
conservatives as fearful, aggressive and simplistic. Only a conservative
could fail to see the irony in that. (But if you laughed out loud you're
probably a Marxist.) And the similarities between german fascists and
american conservatives like Reagan isn't as crazy as it might seem. (Nobody
was saying that the gipper was a genocidal anti-semite.) The thought-style
of the fascist mind is common as the rain and has taken root in various
places and times. Don't let the absence of gas chambers fool you. There are
lesser forms of fearful aggression. Just ask an Iraqi.
The article said:
In an interview last week, Tetlock said he would be cautious about drawing
conclusions from neurological studies like Amodios. Using that kind of
evidence, he said, its hard to distinguish between someone whos rigid and
someone whos principled. For example, he said, Take (President) Bush and
Iraq: Is that rigid, or is it principled? The psychological data wont
resolve that. Its a political value judgment that hinges on the extent to
which we share his priorities.
dmb says:
Again, this is hilarous. The psychological data can't resolve it? Its a
value judgement? Tetlock is off his rocker here. A principled person will do
what seems right even in the face of popular opinion, peer pressure or
temptation to the contrary. But Bush does what seems right in the face of
contrary facts and science and, not least of all, in the face of
constitutional principles to the contrary. A political value judgement, my
ass! Just look at the results of his "stay-the-course" policies in Iraq. Its
a moral, financial, geopolitical, and military disaster. And its the wrong
war in the wrong country for reason the was wrong too. How wrong can a guy
get before we question his principles, for christ's sake? This guy is
totally epic in his wrongness. His policies don't work and are an obvious
failure but he just keeps on going because his thought style is such that
he's impervious to the facts. I saw an ad today placed by The Union of
Concerned Scientists, for example. It said 13 Nobel laureates and 100s of
science academy members have already signed a petition in protest of bush's
"unprecedented attack" upon and "abuse of science". What sort of person
would draw such a complaint?
The article said:
Mark Pollock, associate professor of communication at Loyola University,
said ...A higher tolerance of ambiguity and complexity is typical of people
who are liberal, he said. Thats not a surprise. It does, however,
suggest there may be a hereditary and neurological basis for that. It also
might suggest theres less likelihood of people shifting their political
ideology if its hard-wired in there.
dmb says:
I don't know if the logic is sound here. Self-described liberals show fewer
mistakes and they show higher levels of functioning in the associated areas
of the brain. Basically, the liberals are working harder mentally and they
do so right at that point where conservatives fall back on habit and make
their mistakes. (On those less common occasions) We can see a correlation
between brain activity and the level of attention or concentration required
to avoid making the mistake. Okay. But how does it follow that the
conservative is "hard-wired" to have a lazy brain? Yes, its true that we now
have hard scientific data to support the view that conservatives are
lame-brained but what reason do we have to think this is a feature of the
brain itself. What about a little exercise and discipline? Who ever said
laziness and sloth were genetic? Why should we assume that deficit can't
remedied or changed?
I'm not so sure Pollack is right to argue that Conservatives are genetically
and inherently lame-brained.
And what do you call a conservative that's been cured of his lazy brain?
A liberal.
Thanks.
dmb
P.S. This post is dedicated to Arlo and his dear fiend Platt.
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
