So, no real readers of
links these days? How can one hope to comment on an article they haven't even read? :idunno:
Seems to me, it is worth at least 3 minutes of a read.
In a nutshell, liberals were saying that conservatives were psychotic/intolerant based on .gov study results (
also linked from that page).
Importantly - The accusation for 5 years from liberals, was vitriol that conservatives were psychotic. Irony? Whatever they said, whatever they assessed, was against their own data, which had ironically been switched. Such sustains a great case for what one finds objectionable in one's self and are intolerant, to a much lesser degree, in the other. In a nutshell: they found by government statistics, what they believed was abhorrent in another group, was exponentially found among themselves. Trying to apply this to extreme groups? :dizzy: It is, imho, a coping mechanism rather than understanding it is a case study, not of extreme grouping, but of the general populace of politically conservative and liberals.
Here is a question: Why would one want to immediately go to hand waving information rather than reading it in detail? To me? Seems more obvious that the information wasn't read and that folks don't want to deal with traits
specific to their alignment. Hand-waving to me, has all the ear-marks of said waves. Some of you, perhaps, have spent too much time on TOL which is a microcosm, not a reflection, imho of society at large. I believe, from my own studies, that the study was done satisfactorily but that the results were the reported problem, not the study itself. As far as data I've seen, it hold up true to form across board. A liberal might not like the idea, but they tend to be fiercely independent and pro-independent concerning fringe values rather than familial core values (true, like it or not, imho - fact). In that sense, TOL does hold up, Look what the conservative is 'against' and conversely 'for' and it is exactly that: Liberals are interested in fringe values, conservatives are interested in core values. Liberals will 'think' they serve core values, but they even do disservice to their own families by their overt fringe concerns. You cannot be fringe, without overtly doing damage to your core. There are only so many resources. An overt attention to fringe is always time NEEDED toward family values. Media, et al, is against the natural family structure. Of course, families are against it as well at 50% divorce rate across board, but at least the conservative doesn't wish to call it 'good' and 'natural.' Rather, they are ashamed of the inconsistency. Liberals call it 'normal' and 'good.' Well, that is exactly what the study says:
The study concluded that those with liberal principles "are more uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, and socially withdrawn," as well as less conscientious, less agreeable, and more "manipulative." People who scored low on “Psychoticism,” namely conservatives, are "altruistic, well socialized, empathic, and conventional."
Some of this is no-brainer. Why? Because it is the definition of 'conservative.' Of course conservatives carry 'conservative' traits better than liberals. That cannot be questioned. Who is more truthful? Conservatives, by necessity. Who is less-hostile? Conservatives, again, they are interested in families. Who is more cooperative? Families, because they are doing family things. I'm not saying liberals aren't families, or good families, but liberals are more fringe interested than core interested when it comes to politics as they relate to family values. Imho - Fact. I don't think any liberal can actual argue that point effectively simply because the make-up of conservative vs liberal is exactly this and
has to be.
