Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh, carry on acting like an embarrassing little kid GD. It's cringe worthy.
Liberals Are Psychotic, not Conservatives Like We Thought -Study correction says
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Eh, carry on acting like an embarrassing little kid GD. It's cringe worthy.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Wow...anything that can make a liberal cringe has got to be worthy. :thumb:
The correction includes some interesting information:
It seems that the authors were not hell-bent on saying negative things about conservatives. There is a lot less here than some are trying to make of this.
I admit to not having read the original article. Nor will I bother.
The analyses rely on the magnitude of the cross-twin crosstrait
covariation, and second moment of data, and are
agnostic as to whether liberals or conservatives are higher
or lower in any given personality trait. Thus, the direction
of the correlation between the personality traits and
attitudes was not relevant for our research question and
subsequent analyses. As such, the main conclusions of the
paper are unaffected. Specifically we find a pattern of relationships
that implies a non-causal relationship
covariation, and second moment of data, and are
agnostic as to whether liberals or conservatives are higher
or lower in any given personality trait. Thus, the direction
of the correlation between the personality traits and
attitudes was not relevant for our research question and
subsequent analyses. As such, the main conclusions of the
paper are unaffected. Specifically we find a pattern of relationships
that implies a non-causal relationship
Since these personality traits and their antecedents have
been previously found to both positively and negatively
predict liberalism, or not at all, the descriptive analyses
did not appear abnormal to the authors, editors, reviewers
or the general academy
been previously found to both positively and negatively
predict liberalism, or not at all, the descriptive analyses
did not appear abnormal to the authors, editors, reviewers
or the general academy
It seems that the authors were not hell-bent on saying negative things about conservatives. There is a lot less here than some are trying to make of this.
I admit to not having read the original article. Nor will I bother.
They were not. The differences we see can be adaptive in both cases. The neurology of these structures don't mean you're nuts if your amygdala is larger than normal.
You're right.
It's technical, and assumes a basic understanding of brain structure and function. Not light reading, if you want to actually understand it.
Last edited:
Liberals Are Psychotic, not Conservatives Like We Thought -Study correction says
Given that the study was published in 2012 and it wasn't re-examined until 2016, what guarantees do we have that the most recent interpretation of the data is any more reliable than the original one?
It would appear that the data, methodology and the personalities involved are all suspect and, at the very least, a totally new study is warranted!
Given that the study was published in 2012 and it wasn't re-examined until 2016, what guarantees do we have that the most recent interpretation of the data is any more reliable than the original one?
It would appear that the data, methodology and the personalities involved are all suspect and, at the very least, a totally new study is warranted!
Lon
Well-known member
Hypocrisy for liberal vs conservative values, I don't see. There are more clear-cut roads to these conclusions, than I think you are acquiescing, and I think simply because of necessity of who we are and emphasis, especially if even according to you I "may be right."
Family values are biased values, agreed. They also just happen to be the 'right' values.
There is plenty of proof. Causality just happens to conveniently follow the data.
Downloaded and somewhat agree on some of it, but again, Conservative values ARE familial values. Every Republican until recently, talked of family values and family concerns. Regan very much espoused exactly those words and ideals. The 'reason' democrats have been in office is 'because' we haven't seen any candidate espouse those family values as a platform. Obama certainly did not, he championed and talked of fringe groups and fringe interests and gave resources to them. He was NOT a family advocate. He was a 'bleeding heart' liberal, but liberals simply do not understand Jesus teaching: "you will always have the poor and needy among you." He also said clearly, you do not take bread from the mouths of your own children. In this, He was talking about our political action as well. You cannot overtly give without harming your base and America's base, frankly, is Christian families. Attack that to the degradation of our nation, by necessity. There are only so many resources for abused animals and those chronically needy and poor. Whatever the percentages, THAT is their share of resources. We can and do give of our resources after that BUT it is voluntary and Conservatives definitely do outgive, by far, our liberal counterparts. Bleeding heart liberals give 'other people's money.' That's the difference. Conservatives DO in fact care, according to their own pocketbooks, more than liberals. Liberals simply 'allocate.' Those 'giving' stats are longstanding facts and far more than coincidental.
And, as I said above, it is fact, not fiction. We are talking about 'somebody else's money' at that point. There is no 'virtue' imho, in giving away someone else's money. That ship, for me, ain't gonna sail. These are all old liberal/conservative debates. They play out nearly the same every time. What does the liberal have left? "we are smarter." "If true, so and what?" It was a goofy brag to begin with, honestly.
If you can't be a true giver, fake it with intellectual prowess? I'm not particular convinced they are right about the stats anyway, simply because by the numbers there are a lot more of us conservatives. In fact, if we ever had our candidates we truly wanted, I'd wager the end of the democrat party in any office capacity in federal government. We have the numbers.
Nope. Gallup poll confirms that conservatives are the largest group. If we had reason for showing up every election, there would be no such thing as democrats in federal and many state offices.
It already is divided. 2 parties aren't two congenial parties. The divide would always be 70-30, though individually, government officials aren't consistent with their whole party agenda and not always as concerned as they should be regarding family values. It simply is, what it is. There is no way to wave away statistics. This one is led by Gallup.
:nono: I disagree and I'll show you why:
In other words, the very family values are challenged 'because' they ARE the status quo. Look up the 'core values and agenda' of Conservatives, they are very clear and always coincide with stability and fostering stronger families and those values as well as foster Christian values and those values of other religions that coincide. "Try" and look up liberal values and agenda.' It is ALWAYS thwarting the Conservative agenda so is, indeed, against the vast majority understanding of family, faith, and values "By definition!" Imh and studied opinion, you CANNOT make a case for liberals adhering to core values because it is the definition of liberal to usurp ELSE those liberals would in some form, be conservative. That is absolutely not the current mind-set of the liberal agenda. We were already polarized when all this was happening under Obama. We simply did not want Romney nor McCain. They were shoved down our throats by the party. Because of it, Republican politicians lost and are continuing to lose power. Not Republican's in general, republican politicians opposed to American values.
Yes, it is overtly, an obvious truth. I can and will, and have started backing it up with links that prove it. It is true. I believe it. You will too, eventually as I disclose the stats and information. Not only is it 'shown' as true, it frankly HAS to be true. I will prove it as we go. It is incredibly clear and for now "obvious." I will prove that too, as I go, in this thread.
It was and is important, what the 'gotcha' was, to this OP, as much as the data itself, because it already shows a true polarization. Founded polarization? It is interesting, because, if, as you say, the polarization of people isn't as much us/them, then the 'gotcha' is more against 'our' core values than theirs. IOW, they were just trying to say we were hypocrites rather than espousing those values themselves potentially. That is, unless what you assert were correct, but I don't believe it is. These two groups: Liberals and Conservatives, are very different. Of politicians voted in, only 26% of democrats say they are religions, and less than half that number (according to Gallup) would say they are dedicated Christians. Conversely, nearly 30% of republican politicians would say they are deeply dedicated Christians and about 20% ascribe themselves as Christian (about 10% of each Democrat and Republican would say they are not religious at all). There isn't a study that I've seen yet, but as I've been collating data, the number of democrats who hold office that are single compared to that of the republicans with families, is significantly different. It would take awhile to collate this difference, but it is pronounced and again shows causation of core values vs other values. The Liberal agenda is about equality 'for all' rather than a focus on family issues. The liberal concern is socialism to that extent, and thus the drive of the party has always been fringe and minority rights rather than the basics of family life and core values. It is clear and I'll continue to show that clarity in thread. The liberal agenda simply is not family oriented by negligence. They are concerned rather, that fringe have the same rights afforded them. Noble perhaps, but it is to the negligence of family values and because of that, I believe it has produced a vacuum against core and family values, including women working rather than being home and caring for children (and yes, it was a liberal agenda and anti-conservative thus all of this is more than evident).
Between you and I? God. Regarding the thread? The .gov report AND, I think, even the most casual glance at what the two groups talk about as well as what their platforms are. Conservatives march on Washington to stop abortion (family interests and values). Liberals march on rights for fringe groups and the right of women to get out of the home and not raise their children, not wear bras, etc. To me, even these most cursory glances, make objectives and very contrasted values, clear and plain.
Human nature is to break contracts. God's nature is to hold them. 2 Timothy 2:13 As such, some contracts, imho, are organic.
There is only one kind of Christian. Odd to me is a desire to not seem a stark division between democrats and republicans, but social casting, but then to look for one regarding 'Christian.' I'm not sure if you grasped the importance of meaning hear, however. There can be no 'more right' version than one that IS right. I never know how to answer 'who's right?' Right is just right. We as a people, are democratic in the sense that might does make right, by way of vote. Lately, might is the court system losing focus and thinking it is an entity of 'right and wrong' rather than the server to right and wrong. We should be able to veto that body, as a people, that branch is supposed to serve else 'right and wrong' become an arbitrary declaration of those few men seated over SCOTUS. We functionally, have become an out of balance oligarchy rather than a republic or a democracy WHEN the majority no longer rules. The majority of America is families and family-interested groups of people. Our overt attentions elsewhere, led by liberals, has done damage to this nation. It does NO GOOD to lower everybody else to the lowest common denominator. If Socialist communists have taught us anything, they have taught us that the liberal agenda doesn't work, it wrecks.
But any note to any particular, and he or she, is no longer 'grouped.'
Even liberals are somebody's babies. The 'us/them' is equally promoted by liberals and democrats. It would behoove them to recognize that about 70% of us are still Christian by values. They'd have us bow to the 10s and 5's or percents for desires? That doesn't even make sense. "If" 70% were 'equal' we'd have 70% of everything by default. We don't. 70% of programing on TV supporting our values? :nono: 70% of representation in resources? 70% of the ear of Congress and Representatives? 1% of us is gay, yet they get 60% of programing dedicated to their agenda. We've lost touch with our base. Whatever Steve King meant will never come clear because 'we' was seen as 'white' instead of 'not Muslim' as his political concern. Nobody asked for clarification, just shot. Well, you can't make a dead man talk atf. Media didn't care what he actually meant. Nobody seems to care what he actually meant. I'm positive, to this day, that I don't actually know what he meant because I've never talked to the man. Never been able to ask him.
I 'try' to avoid vitriol. Politics always gets heated. Perhaps some good can come from my venture into the deep end of the pool.
So, we have dueling facts and a stab at a direction as to which is right. A few more points of problems, with Barna: 1) Not sure they do enough further study on the topic. 2) Just looking at initial divorce rates are not enough for nonChristians to do a comparison, imho. 3) Who those 'chrisitans' actually are. A good many who belong to mainline denominations (like Presbyterians) do not, in fact, have the same divorce rate as the world. So for me, Barna is serviceable, but it doesn't do the best job at reporting its findings accurately or responsibly, imho. I do think they mean well, just aren't doing the job. Realize too, your data, was Barna again, whereas I am on record yet again, questioning their veracity.
For me, it doesn't help our conversation to rebuttal with more Barna or Pew research stats.
Okay, yes they are. It doesn't matter that we are naysaying one another. The data is coming slowly. We are, in a way, inventing the wheel, because some of this data isn't forthright, but it is there, and coming as we go. In this case, don't confuse "Republican" representative with "Conservative." The present situation in office is clear enough. Trump isn't in office for his stellar character traits. Nobody voted him in to carry conservative values, though he has surprised me a bit. Rather, it was a 'stopper' decision, I believe. Too much change, not enough interest in 'our' interests. Too much interest and favoritism in those who are not really part of us. They have different needs and desires that doesn't relate to the rest of us. It isn't meant to sound self-centered. Rather, it is simply to say "Hey, we are families. We are 'interested' naturally, in 'family' things and values."
Well, 'politician' by career wasn't what I was aiming at. Conservatives in America, divorce less than Liberals do. Statistics like this, give a better indication of what is happening across board, that does, Barna's research.
There could be, sure, but not where I was going When you compare a liberal walk with a conservative walk, one is in celebration of life, the other is normally disgruntled about something and usually about 'rights' that to me, don't look like rights but 'desires.' Okay women get to vote. In my house, my girls all ask me what to vote, so it backfired, I think, from what the liberals may have actually wanted in the first place (well, not really, I'd need like 500k girls to overthrow WA state votes).Confirmation bias is always on the table. We need to be looking for it, imho, now more than ever. I DO think there are more strollers at our events, however. I don't remember the last time strollers came to the bra-burning mgarch. It 'seems' like there should have been a lot more than I saw though!
To me, it looks similar to the reason I'd mentioned. One of my stepbrothers is a democratic liberal and very much into championing homosexual rights as well. As a blanket statement, some of these observations of mine would go too far and such isn't my intention against him. He IS one of the 10% of liberal democrat politicians that IS very much family oriented and very much by his proclamation, a Deeply religious Christian, so much so, he is offended greatly at any accusation that he doesn't love the Lord Jesus Christ (not ever aimed from me). I think he is a genuinely deep lover of the Lord Jesus Christ but he doesn't read his Bible enough. That said, I simply think he is well-meaning but without the resources to do it 'right' if you will...
So, he represents about 10% of all liberal democrats (also gallup and also an important stat for the information we are discussing).
Other's will pick up I'm sure, where we leave off. I'm loving the minecraft stuff. It is like legos television.
A conversation worth a whole other discussion. My mother is a democrat with conservative values. She is interesting in that she doesn't want to shove God, or shove politics on anybody, however. She is a very interesting person in that sense. She will get along with everybody. The other day, the Mormons came to my door. I 'discussed' differences politely. When they came to my mother's door, she baked them banana bread and made them dinner and they never did talk about Mormonism :noway: They came back two days later and gave her a rose and a mother's day card! At times, I envy my mother....Other times, I'm glad I say something, because truth is important.
Some have done so in other threads. I wonder how much help they really are, but I agree, it at least 'looks' like a profitable and perhaps helpful thread, especially if a paper 'wrote itself' after such.
:e4e: In Him -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
No, indeed not. Realize, however, the confusion and mistake. They all along were talking about one group, then the other, and in both cases, has inadvertently swapped the two by results. The liberals, then, latched onto the wrong/confused information that appeared against conservatives, and drilled home all the traits that made those lousy conservatives hypocritical, unfeeling louses. The problem was, they inadvertently, without knowing it, were talking about themselves because the group results were accidentally switched. It was liberals who were:
| ...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." |
The flap over this is mostly by Lon's source, which completely misunderstood the resesearch:
Conclusion
Researchers in personality and politics have assumed a causal link between personality traits and political ideology. The results presented here do not support this assumption. Rather, the primary connection between personality traits and political ideology rests on common genetic precursors of each. At this stage of research, we find no support for the reigning assumption that personality traits cause people to develop political attitudes. Our results imply that humans are, at heart, political animals. Political attitudes are not simply an afterthought and while largely measured in adulthood, the foundation elements exist as part of our core disposition and appear to be just as important to shaping our behavior as our personalities.
How this amounts to "swapping results", perhaps Lon can explain. It basically challenges the previous studies, which found personality traits tended to form political orientation. The study merely suggests that both of these factors are highly correlated because they are both determined by something else.
While there is excellent data on political orientation aligning with brain structure, it apparently is not caused by personality traits directly.
Conclusion
Researchers in personality and politics have assumed a causal link between personality traits and political ideology. The results presented here do not support this assumption. Rather, the primary connection between personality traits and political ideology rests on common genetic precursors of each. At this stage of research, we find no support for the reigning assumption that personality traits cause people to develop political attitudes. Our results imply that humans are, at heart, political animals. Political attitudes are not simply an afterthought and while largely measured in adulthood, the foundation elements exist as part of our core disposition and appear to be just as important to shaping our behavior as our personalities.
How this amounts to "swapping results", perhaps Lon can explain. It basically challenges the previous studies, which found personality traits tended to form political orientation. The study merely suggests that both of these factors are highly correlated because they are both determined by something else.
While there is excellent data on political orientation aligning with brain structure, it apparently is not caused by personality traits directly.
Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults
Curr Biol. 2011 Apr 26; 21(8): 677–680.
We speculate that the association of gray matter volume of the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex with political attitudes that we observed may reflect emotional and cognitive traits of individuals that influence their inclination to certain political orientations. For example, our findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty [1, 10]. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing [11]. Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear [12], which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust [13, 14], and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust [15]. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty [16, 17] and conflicts [18]. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views. Such speculations provide a basis for theorizing about the psychological constructs (and their neural substrates) underlying political attitudes. However, it should be noted that every brain region, including those identified here, invariably participates in multiple psychological processes. It is therefore not possible to unambiguously infer from involvement of a particular brain area that a particular psychological process must be involved.
And...
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives
Psychological insights might tone down the bitter feuding between Democrats and Republicans
According to the experts who study political leanings, liberals and conservatives do not just see things differently. They are different—in their personalities and even their unconscious reactions to the world around them. For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats.
Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.
“These are not superficial differences. They are psychologically deep,” says psychologist John Jost of New York University, a co-author of the bedroom study. “My hunch is that the capacity to organize the political world into left or right may be a part of human nature.”
Although conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different, hints are emerging about how to bring them together—or at least help them coexist. In his recent book The Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Haidt of the N.Y.U. Stern School of Business argues that liberals and conservatives need not revile one another as immoral on issues such as birth control, gay marriage or health care reform. Even if these two worldviews clash, they are equally grounded in ethics, he writes. Meanwhile studies by Jost and others suggest that political views reside on a continuum that is mediated in part by universal human emotions such as fear. Under certain circumstances, everyone can shift closer to the middle—or drift further apart.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
So what? So this knowledge can be used to deal more effectively with liberals and conservatives. My own experience is that we talk past each other. A liberal tries to cite evidence, charts, facts, when this might actually be perceived by a conservative as a threat. Acknowledging whatever real threat exists and discussing it, or even acknowledging the decency and good intentions of one's conservative opponent might go a long way in toning down the rancor.
Likewise, a conservative, seeking more civility might well put his liberal opponent at ease by acknowledging the nuances and contradictory information surrounding an issue. It's difficult sometimes to do this without appearing condescending or smarmy, because such behavior is so tied to specific political views.
Still, it works every now and then. Worth trying, no?
ClimateSanity
New member
Read the New Yorker piece and see if that tempers your inclination..........Town
I don't read dishonest agenda driven propaganda. That's why I don't read the New Yorker and I don't read anything you write to me that's doesn't directly answer at least one of my questions in a straightforward manner by the end of a ten line paragraph.
I don't read dishonest agenda driven propaganda. That's why I don't read the New Yorker and I don't read anything you write to me that's doesn't directly answer at least one of my questions in a straightforward manner by the end of a ten line paragraph.
You really could have stopped after "read" from what I've read of your non-efforts at supporting wild charge and declaration after wild charge and declaration.
You're the rhetorical equivalent of a coward, CS. You don't back your claims and you run from facts. Or you hide behind statements like the first bit of nonsense.
Who can or should take your seriously?
ClimateSanity
New member
Rhetorical equivalent? Don't have the guts to just say coward and to my face while you're at it?
Greg Jennings
New member
This quote represents everything wrong with modern American politics.
Forget what is right and wrong. All that matters is saying "[BLEEP] YOU!" to anyone who thinks differently in any way possible.
That's the left in a nutshell, you nailed it !!
Lon
Well-known member
Then you didn't read in depth. I 'gave' the quote, didn't make it up. The issue is this: There was a BIG stink after the .gov article came out with 'liberals' saying "See? Those conservatives are:
The study accidentally switched the data that was used to presume the above.
BUT the 'researchers' didn't think the 'results' were abnormal, which tells you something about preconceived notions:
In your very NEXT post, you confirm that these two groups really ARE different than one another. Did you think personality traits, then, wouldn't be a part of such differences?
How is orderliness vs sloppy, for instance (cited in the article) not a personality trait? How is such not also a display of values we were raised with as well?
Lon
Well-known member
Sorry, I'm going to close this thread for a bit. I know it is vitriolic to discuss in politics, but not my intention or desire for this thread. There are some really stark and polarizing issues, but as far as I'm concerned, no place to be ugly. I can't support such an ill-formed march against liberals. I prefer to do so orderly lest we lose before we begin, if such is the next step in such a discussion.
Let's stop, perhaps rethink -regroup for a better and respectable march. :e4e:
Let's stop, perhaps rethink -regroup for a better and respectable march. :e4e:
Yes. But not because it's driven by personality traits. In fact, as your cited research indicates, both of them are caused by something else. Turns out, it's brain structure.
As I pointed out, personality types don't cause political orientation. The evidence is that it's driven by details of brain architecture (at least it is in young adults).
As I showed you, personality traits don't cause political orientation. Steve Bannon, for example. They both are caused by a different factor.
To a degree it is. I and my siblings vary a great deal in terms of neatnik vs. sloppy. But the best predictor of a conservative is a robust amygdala.
It's the part of the brain that mediates fear, conflict, and threat assessment.
The best predictor of a liberal is a robust anterior cingulate gyrus. It's the part of the brain that mediates resolution of conflict and conflicting information.