The divergent fallacies of liberals and conservatives

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is an archaic breakdown of differences. Most of the Conservatives that I know are rabid individualists, looking at society as the unfortunate necessity that it is, rather than some gold standard that must be maintained and protected. I realize that traditional conservatives were all about preserving and expanding what they believed was 1950s white Christian society through law, but do you know many of those anymore? Politically, I seek only to enhance the rights of the individual. As Thatcher said, "there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, there are families". Aren't most of us "liberals" by a 19th century standard?

We should pass laws that protect the rights of individuals, uproot the laws that don't. Society is determined on an individual basis. Mine is different from yours and vice versa. Although they may overlap, we are not one society and the individual is not beholden to anyone.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is an archaic breakdown of differences. Most of the Conservatives that I know are rabid individualists, looking at society as the unfortunate necessity that it is, rather than some gold standard that must be maintained and protected. I realize that traditional conservatives were all about preserving and expanding what they believed was 1950s white Christian society through law, but do you know many of those anymore? Politically, I seek only to enhance the rights of the individual. As Thatcher said, "there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, there are families". Aren't most of us "liberals" by a 19th century standard?

We should pass laws that protect the rights of individuals, uproot the laws that don't. Society is determined on an individual basis. Mine is different from yours and vice versa. Although they may overlap, we are not one society and the individual is not beholden to anyone.

You manage to both exemplify the stated trend perfectly whilst failing to address (or missing) the salient point entirely. Here, let me highlight it for you:

Aren't most of us "liberals" by a 19th century standard?

[Lemur]

This is an archaic breakdown of differences.

Study was published this month. And it seems quite relevant, although defining "liberal" and "conservative" is a bit tricky, especially in the USA, where these words no longer mean what they mean.

However, Tellos has you dead to rights. Your tendency to represent your views in the first person plural kinda ... reinforces what the study found. You do seem to believe that you are part of an overwhelming majority, despite the radical nature of your expressed views.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Study was published this month. And it seems quite relevant, although defining "liberal" and "conservative" is a bit tricky, especially in the USA, where these words no longer mean what they mean.

However, Tellos has you dead to rights. Your tendency to represent your views in the first person plural kinda ... reinforces what the study found. You do seem to believe that you are part of an overwhelming majority, despite the radical nature of your expressed views.

I don't believe that i'm in the majority to any extent. I'm a crazy, gun obsessed, crypto-anarchic conservative who is a libertarian and attends Mass in a suburb of NYC. I pay close attention to politics. I am a minority within a minority. When I say "most Conservatives I know" I mean the small handfull. In fact, most people are merely populist sheep who go wherever the wind blows and seldom, if ever, have a political philosophy of any kind. If they do it is usually because it is the local favorite.

When we are talking about ideologies, we should talk about people who actually hold them.

Its always great to read that "conservatives" are deluded and that "liberals" just aren't giving themselves enough credit. I'm sure that this study is scientific and in no way seeking specific outcomes.

[Lemur]

Its always great to read that "conservatives" are deluded and that "liberals" just aren't giving themselves enough credit.

That's a very interesting spin on the study.

Meanwhile: It's all in the face, bro.

Todorov showed pairs of portraits to roughly a thousand people, and asked them to rate the competence of each person. Unbeknownst to the test subjects, they were looking at candidates for the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In study after study, participants’ responses to the question of whether someone looked competent predicted actual election outcomes at a rate much higher than chance—from sixty-six to seventy-three per cent of the time. Even looking at the faces for as little as one second, Todorov found, yielded the exact same result: a snap judgment that generally identified the winners and losers. Todorov concluded that when we make what we think of as well-reasoned voting decisions, we are actually driven in part by our initial, instinctive reactions to candidates. [...]

In a 2009 study published in Science, the psychologists John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas suggested that, when we judge a candidate as more or less competent, we do it in the same way that children do. They first asked a group of adults to rate pairs of faces, taken from the 2002 French parliamentary elections, based on how capable they seemed. When they compared the ratings to actual election results, the correspondence was seventy-two per cent. The ratings even predicted the margin of victory; the more competently-rated the face, the higher the margin. The researchers then had a group of children play a computer game, simulating a boat trip from Troy to Ithaca, in which they had to choose a captain for the voyage; their options consisted of the same 2002 election candidates. The two sets of responses were indistinguishable from each other: seventy-one per cent of the time, the children picked the election winner to pilot the boat.

[Husar]

Todorov showed pairs of portraits to roughly a thousand people, and asked them to rate the competence of each person. Unbeknownst to the test subjects, they were looking at candidates for the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In study after study, participants’ responses to the question of whether someone looked competent predicted actual election outcomes at a rate much higher than chance—from sixty-six to seventy-three per cent of the time. Even looking at the faces for as little as one second, Todorov found, yielded the exact same result: a snap judgment that generally identified the winners and losers. Todorov concluded that when we make what we think of as well-reasoned voting decisions, we are actually driven in part by our initial, instinctive reactions to candidates. [...]

Oh come one, in the last election here I previously thought about the party programs but when I was in the ballot box I saw the local candidates of my district and had no idea who stood for what because I hadn't bothered to check this. As a result, I used a very scientific method:

1. the girls, politics need more women and something below my waistline agrees.

2. the party, do not go for girls from complete whacko parties.

3. make a cross based on party preference and the jobs of the candidates (jobs are listed).

4. go home and check result.

5. satisfaction.

6. find out someone else won the district anyway.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a very interesting spin on the study.

Meanwhile: It's all in the face, bro.

Todorov showed pairs of portraits to roughly a thousand people, and asked them to rate the competence of each person. Unbeknownst to the test subjects, they were looking at candidates for the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In study after study, participants’ responses to the question of whether someone looked competent predicted actual election outcomes at a rate much higher than chance—from sixty-six to seventy-three per cent of the time. Even looking at the faces for as little as one second, Todorov found, yielded the exact same result: a snap judgment that generally identified the winners and losers. Todorov concluded that when we make what we think of as well-reasoned voting decisions, we are actually driven in part by our initial, instinctive reactions to candidates. [...]

In a 2009 study published in Science, the psychologists John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas suggested that, when we judge a candidate as more or less competent, we do it in the same way that children do. They first asked a group of adults to rate pairs of faces, taken from the 2002 French parliamentary elections, based on how capable they seemed. When they compared the ratings to actual election results, the correspondence was seventy-two per cent. The ratings even predicted the margin of victory; the more competently-rated the face, the higher the margin. The researchers then had a group of children play a computer game, simulating a boat trip from Troy to Ithaca, in which they had to choose a captain for the voyage; their options consisted of the same 2002 election candidates. The two sets of responses were indistinguishable from each other: seventy-one per cent of the time, the children picked the election winner to pilot the boat.

This study is interesting. I don't believe that people often make ideologically rational decisions, but rather rely on instinct and "gut" reactions, which are unhelpful in a political arena.

[Lemur]

This study is interesting. I don't believe that people often make ideologically rational decisions, but rather rely on instinct and "gut" reactions, which are unhelpful in a political arena.

There's an awful lot of research on the decision-making process that indicates we make up our minds, and then use reason to justify our decision after the fact.

So the more brainpower and knowledge we bring to bear, the better our rationalizations.

But how do we actually make decisions? Seems like a pretty murky process, and I'm eager to read more on the topic.

[Ironside]

Its always great to read that "conservatives" are deluded and that "liberals" just aren't giving themselves enough credit. I'm sure that this study is scientific and in no way seeking specific outcomes.

I think you'll need to see the Life of Brian ("you are all induviduals") and reflect over the uniqueness of the teenage rebellion. Or people that's into Indie a bit too much.

Or: "The king of heaven doth bid you keep his sabbath and reverence his sanctuary. Now the king of England is a mortal man and bids you break is. Choose whether of them you will follow." (now that's a blantant old conservative and hints about the devotion given by it).

It's more that conservatives wants to be the pillar of community, while the liberals wants to be special snow flakes.

There's an awful lot of research on the decision-making process that indicates we make up our minds, and then use reason to justify our decision after the fact.

So the more brainpower and knowledge we bring to bear, the better our rationalizations.

But how do we actually make decisions? Seems like a pretty murky process, and I'm eager to read more on the topic.

It's quite messy. We also have a center who can admit we're wrong. Is always in conflict with the justification center, that says we can never be wrong, no matter how stupid it is. iirc it in different sides of the brain as well, so they communicates a bit poorly.

I think one big part of the justification center is to make the world and you make sense. You'll do and see crazy things from time to time and poof it's suddenly somewhat understandable. We've sacrificed people for it, and that because we value people highly, so evidently feeling that the world makes sense, that we can influence it, is of very high importance. In particular for some people.

[Lemur]

Hmm, I might have to read this book, since this subject is so interesting.

Lehrer's description of the amazing ability of dopamine to "predict" upcoming events is gripping all the way along, but I was delighted to learn that neuroscientists call signals for missed predictions (that is, the signal released when dopamine is released in anticipation of a reward that doesn't come), emanating from the anterior cingulate cortex the "Oh shit" circuit. The ACC is closely wired to the thalamus, so activation of the "Oh shit" circuit galvanizes the conscious mind, bringing the stimulus right to the front of our attention. [...]

Dopamine is the neurochemical star of the book, and its many pathologies make for gripping reading. There's a case study of Ann Klinestiver, a sedate school-teacher who was given strong doses of Requip a dopamine agonist (it imitates dopamine's action in the brain), as treatment for worsening Parkinson's Disease. Like 13 percent of Requip patients, Ann developed a gambling compulsion for slot machines that eventually ruined her life, costing her her husband, her family, and all her assets (she finally went off Requip and opted for severely constrained movement but no gambling).

The pathology here is all about missed predictions. Dopamine helps the brain to find patterns and thus make predictions about the future. But slots are random, and so in a normal brain, slot-play follows a common pattern: first the brain is delighted by the chance to chew on such a meaty problem. It formulates hypotheses about the slots' action, and then new input (mistakes that light up the Oh shit circuit) cause it to start over. But after a short time, a normal brain gives up -- there is no pattern to see, so there's no point in playing on.

But in a brain where the dopamine levels are abnormal, surrender never happens. The brain is in a constant state of reward, because of all the "new input" (random noise) that arrives every time the lever is pulled.

[Xiahou]

I don't know, I've always seen many conservatives- particularly socons, exhibiting a siege mentality....

[a completely inoffensive name]

Anything that tries to explain behaviors through brain chemistry is laughable at this point.

There are still hypotheses out there that challenge the notion of drugs being addicting in and of themselves.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't know, I've always seen many conservatives- particularly socons, exhibiting a siege mentality....

Any excuse to cast aspersions onto Conservatives.

Newsflash - conservatives are fat, stupid and they smell. Also, due to genetically bestowed mental illness, they have walled themselves in from reality. Also also, people who think they are conservative aren't, because everyone is liberal which is actually the greatest thing to be, even though the terms effectively mean nothing. Cool story.

[Ironside]

I don't know, I've always seen many conservatives- particularly socons, exhibiting a siege mentality....

The response is more telling. The conservative would be more prone to dream of galvanising the people ("hidden majority") and break the siege that way, while the liberal would be more prone to focus on standing out by becoming more radical, even if they know that it's not the way of winning, embracing their minority status so to speak.