Mike : There is a "structural problem" to consider. Most people have low tolerance for ambiguity --or for irresolution. Uncertainty is rightly regarded as a negative, something to get rid of as soon as possible. Yet sometimes we simply must put up with uncertainty, at least for prolonged periods of time, depending on what it is......... We are pulled in a dozen different directions every day of our lives. There are only so many hours in a day. And who can spend the time really needed to study politics or culture ? Not many people. And TV and other entertainment media not only does not help, it often exacerbates the problem. How many TV shows actually portray real life complexities for what they are ? Very few. Instead they usually valorize a magic bullet approach to problem solving. Whatever is simple or simplistic is the preferred alternative. True, this can be taken as a new version of Ockham, but only in a corrupted sense. If you oversimplify you are just as wrong as when you don't simplify enough. That is, we are conditioned not to be all that objective. We do pay lip service to the ideal, but often that is as far as it goes. Billy ========================================================== 1/6/2012 8:01:02 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I was actually reading something recently about the battle between the concept of negative rights vs. positive rights, and how it explains how both liberals and conservatives claim to belong to the same "liberal democratic" tradition, yet argue on two entirely contradictory wavelengths. I think people just want correct, unchanging answers, but humans don't seem to understand that they're wrong or off-kilter sometimes. When we adjust our values, it doesn't necessarily mean that truth changes, it's just that we were wrong about what the truth was. Then again, what I don't get is why we're not allowed to define our own subjective values as humans and believe in them with the same force as the objective good that we claim exists out in the unknowable ether. If there's an objective truth, we're only going to get hints of it, and not the whole shebang. In the end, I dunno. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM, <[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > wrote: The question this study raises by omission is this : Why do some people insist on some approximation of objectivity, balancing the insights of L vs R and often seeking new answers to questions which defy Liberal vs Conservative classifications ? Radical Centrists are not the only people in this category. Natural scientists also belong, and obviously many people in the computer field, medical doctors, plus anyone else who values some kind of scientific outlook, which can be ( even if not always true ) behavioral scientists, geographers, people in communications, etc. What attracts people to objectivity ? Suggestions anyone ? Billy ============================================== January 6, 2012 University of Nebraska at Lincoln News Blog Political biology: The left rolls with the good, the right confronts the bad >From cable TV news pundits to red-meat speeches from candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, our nation’s political stereotypes are on full display: Conservatives paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on urgent national issues, while liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are fixated on exaggerated dangers to the country. A new study from the _University of Nebraska-Lincoln_ (http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/current-research-publications-and-working-papers) suggests there are biological truths to such broad brushstrokes. In a series of experiments, researchers closely monitored physiological reactions and eye movements of study participants when shown combinations of both pleasant and unpleasant images. Conservatives reacted more strongly to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared with conservatives. “It’s been said that conservatives and liberals don’t see things in the same way,” said _Mike Dodd_ (http://psych.unl.edu/faculty/faculty.asp?id=57) , UNL assistant professor of psychology and the study’s lead author. “ These findings make that clear – quite literally.” To gauge participants’ physiological responses, they were shown a series of images on a screen. Electrodes measured subtle skin conductance changes, which indicated an emotional response. The cognitive data, meanwhile, was gathered by outfitting participants with eyetracking equipment that captured even the most subtle of eye movements while combinations of unpleasant and pleasant photos appeared on the screen. While liberals’ gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a beach ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives clearly focused on the negative images – of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example. Consistent with the idea that conservatives seem to respond more to negative stimuli while liberals respond more to positive stimuli, conservatives also exhibited a stronger physiological response to images of Democratic politicians – presumed to be a negative to them – than they did on pictures of well-known Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger physiological response to the Democrats – presumed to be a positive stimulus to them – than they did to images of the Republicans. By studying both physiological and cognitive aspects, the researchers established unique new insights into the growing notion that political leanings are at least partial products of our biology, UNL political scientist and study co-author _Kevin Smith _ (http://polisci.unl.edu/dr-kevin-smith) said. Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological reactions to negative stimuli. The new study’s use of cognitive data regarding both positive and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals and conservatives see and experience the world, Smith said. UNL political scientist and co-author _John Hibbing_ (http://polisci.unl.edu/dr-john-hibbing) said the results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense, he said. The results also are consistent with conservatives’ support of policies to protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for traditional values and being tough on crime), Hibbing said. The researchers were careful to not make a value judgment on either political orientation. But they did note that their discovery provided an opportunity to recognize the relevance of deeper biological variables in politics and turn down political polarization. Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our physiological and cognitive differences. “When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don’t get it, from this standpoint, that’s true,” Hibbing said. “And when liberals say ‘What are (conservatives) so frightened of? Is the world really that dangerous?’ Given what each side sees, what they pay attention to, what they physiologically experience – the answer is both sides are right.” The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is in a forthcoming edition of the journal _Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B_ (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/) and was authored by Dodd, Hibbing and Smith, as well as UNL’s Amanda Balzer, Carly Jacobs and Michael Gruszczynski. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
