Post by: Joe Demko on December 17, 2007, 07:56:26 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 17, 2007, 08:13:53 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 17, 2007, 11:06:25 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on December 17, 2007, 11:40:54 AM
Post by: jefnvk on December 17, 2007, 11:53:32 AM
I will say, though, that both sides have those that cover their ears and start singing 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA' whenever contradictory facts are spewed their way. No group is immune from it, not even THR/APS members (although, it does happen FAR less here). People are all different, they aren't wrong for it, they just think different.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 17, 2007, 12:01:15 PM
The only kind of thinking party faithful display is doublethink.
OK, so I have to ask what you mean by "party faithful."
But what do we mean by "partisan"? I suspect it is one of those terms (like ideology) that have become political insults, even though there is nothing wrong with being partisan or ideological.
Post by: Paddy on December 17, 2007, 12:19:49 PM
Quote
even though there is nothing wrong with being partisan or ideological.
Until you become a captive of your ideology, that is.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 17, 2007, 12:28:54 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 17, 2007, 04:27:49 PM
Post by: roo_ster on December 17, 2007, 05:06:17 PM
Post by: Joe Demko on December 18, 2007, 02:55:40 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 18, 2007, 03:16:54 AM
Mind you, I'd be just as amused to see a liberal trope concerning conservatives detonate in their faces.
True dat.
I had a similar experience as a religious guy with a math degree: when the atheist crowd slandered my kind (and by implication, me) as irrational, it hurt. I did some painful self-examination to root out any irrationality in myself. But I also looked hard at them--and noticed their own irrational, tightly-held beliefs. They were dead certain of all sorts of things that rationally aren't proven with such certainty. Bush did/didn't steal the 2000 election; the Civil War was/wasn't about slavery; the Gulf War was/wasn't about oil; Oswald was/wasn't acting alone; the list goes on. I have opinions on all of those, but enough honesty to admit room for doubt. The atheist crowd was a cesspool of unverified assumptions, dogmatic assertions and such like.
--Len.
Post by: Ron on December 18, 2007, 05:30:09 AM
Mostly I gain amusement from it. Although both sides are equally guilty of not thinking, thanks to Rush Limbaugh it has been a conservative catchphrase for years that liberals don't think, they feel. How deliciously ironic that it turns out to be equally true of the side that has had so much joy in slurring their opposition with that very description. Mind you, I'd be just as amused to see a liberal trope concerning conservatives detonate in their faces.
What does this study say about the arrogant cynics who think they are above the fray?
Post by: Joe Demko on December 18, 2007, 06:10:38 AM
Post by: Ron on December 18, 2007, 07:48:00 AM
I presume by "arrogant cynics," you mean to include me. This isn't about being "above the fray." This is about refusal to indulge in doublethink. Doublethink is actually pretty comfortable. If you just figure the other side is always wrong _no matter what they do or say_ and your side is always right_no matter what they do or say_ life becomes a lot simpler and more intellectually comfortable. Now, do you prefer to think for yourself or are you happy just being comfortable?
It's not meant so much as an attack but as an observation about those who reject party politics. Those of us who have chosen to try and work inside the system are always accused of not thinking for ourselves or being emotional reactionaries.
The reality is there are many who are trying to push the parties from the inside one way or another so they (the parties) reflect our principles. It is actually a very well thought out or sound strategy considering only people from the two major parties have been elected to our highest offices in modern history.
The arrogant remark may have been harsh. I just see a lot of cynical remarks made from those who think that they hold some moral high ground because they vote for philosophically pure candidates who stand no chance of actually getting elected or changing the course of our bureaucracy.
Unfortunately those with my somewhat conservative (with libertarian overtones) philosophy have lost out in the Republican party and it is being run by big government statists. I'm still hanging in there and trying to influence the party myself.
Post by: LAK on December 19, 2007, 03:10:46 AM
Quote
Partisans don't think; they feel
"Don't think"? "they feel"?Interesting. So if you are a conservative partisan, and you recognize that something is intellectually a nonstarter, a dead horse, and perhaps immoral and or illegal under our Constitution and you insist that legislating it into force, or allowing it to be incrementally introduced, expanded in any form is wrong and oppose it without compromise you are "feeling" and not "thinking"?
The "scientific" report here seems to be based on the idea that everything is subjective. The introduction of the word partisan into our legislature, executive and judiciary is designed to create the perception that compromise - in everything - is normal and is to be expected. Regardless of what the subject matter happens to be.
This is old hat political psychology for change.
Quote
This is not evidence that America is becoming more polarized or that we are fighting a culture war. While it may be evidence that the numbers of extremists are increasing slightly, and that their extremism and intolerance is increasing, it is not evidence that the huge, moderate middle that part of the population able to process political information with cold reason is substantially shrinking or becoming more bitterly divided and less tolerant.
We are fighting a culture war, or more accurately an ideological war, since the predominant ideology of a nation pretty much dictates culture along with other things.Words like "extremism" and "intolerance" have been some of the key political buzzwords for change of the marxists that have gained political dominance in this country since WW2.
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Joe Demko on December 19, 2007, 04:01:48 AM
Post by: LAK on December 19, 2007, 04:15:31 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on December 19, 2007, 05:07:26 AM
Post by: K Frame on December 19, 2007, 05:14:23 AM
I feel like kicking some butts in this thread.
I wonder what my MRI would say about that?
Post by: LAK on December 19, 2007, 11:49:44 AM
Quote
So, basically, you are saying that it is teh dumb only when liberals do it.
Not dumb, rather it amounts to the same thing perhaps of no significance.If the issue is let's say for example ou involvement with a certain global ciminal cartel that calls itself th "U.N.". I've done my thinking on the matter; it is no longer a subjective matter as far as I am concerned and can not be because of .. the nature of the U.N. for one point.
If the subject comes up, I really do not need to think about it any more than I need to think whether rape and robbery are wrong.
If a "self ascribed liberal" has a claimed similar MRI scan manifestation when the subject is the same - or something different for that matter it really makes no difference to me.
Now emotionally driven people are not going to make the good leaders IMO, for the simple reason that decision making on a national level requires pure reason and logic with the constraints of morality. However, once the decision is made on a non-subjective issue it is no longer up for discussion, change or compromise. There are some absolutes.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 19, 2007, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: LAK
However, once the decision is made on a non-subjective issue it is no longer up for discussion, change or compromise. There are some absolutes.
Or, and this would produce exactly the same brainwaves in a person who actually believed it to be true, "There are NO absolutes, all things are subjective." (except for that absolute statement of course
)What those MRI's show is sincerity in the belief of the truthfulness of whatever statement is being judged, that's not "feeling versus reason", it is, as you say, just evidence of a decided opinion.
Which is in fact meaningless as, in theory, I can manufacture a Skinner-box child who will believe the sky to be green in the face of all objection and his MRI will match mine in my intense belief the sky is blue.
If you "know" something, you shouldn't HAVE to fire up the old reason synapses, those are for things you don't know.
Again we have to leave the lab and look at each subject individually, ask how rational are/were they in determining what they now "know"?
I.e. are they a muddle-headed moron who, among their other political beliefs, "knows" Kennedy was killed by aliens and that The Colonel was part of the Pentavarite.
All this study tells us of use is that apparently "centrist and/or moderate" when used for self-description, is equivalent to "undecided on the issues presented". Well, whoopty-freakin'-do.
I assume my tax dollars somehow went into this study?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 19, 2007, 01:32:50 PM
SO IT'S TIME FOR SOME PURE, UNBRIDLED RAGE!!
Post by: Joe Demko on January 03, 2008, 08:41:05 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on January 03, 2008, 08:54:16 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 03, 2008, 07:12:40 PM
The issue isn't whether or not you have "already done your thinking" and reached a decision on some matter. Reread the article and note that the experiment consisted of showing the self-described partisans videos of their politicos making contradictory statements.
Statements on topics which I am sure most thoughtful people, and most partisans have covered the biggies, have already done their thinking.
In essence, who cares what the yammering monkey on the screen says, I'm dealing with my own thoughts on the matter.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 03, 2008, 09:04:59 PM
Mind you, I'd be just as amused to see a liberal trope concerning conservatives detonate in their faces.
True dat.
I had a similar experience as a religious guy with a math degree: when the atheist crowd slandered my kind (and by implication, me) as irrational, it hurt. I did some painful self-examination to root out any irrationality in myself. But I also looked hard at them--and noticed their own irrational, tightly-held beliefs. They were dead certain of all sorts of things that rationally aren't proven with such certainty. Bush did/didn't steal the 2000 election; the Civil War was/wasn't about slavery; the Gulf War was/wasn't about oil; Oswald was/wasn't acting alone; the list goes on. I have opinions on all of those, but enough honesty to admit room for doubt. The atheist crowd was a cesspool of unverified assumptions, dogmatic assertions and such like.
--Len.
Either way both major parties, liberal and conservative, we all have people that refuse to be open minded. I myself am somewhat closeminded about some issues.
Post by: LAK on January 04, 2008, 04:08:10 AM
Quote
politicos making contradictory statements.
Politicos, at least the starts in the show, are given to making contradictary statements.Were these same contradictary politicos the ones that had their brains MRI scanned?