Fascinating article on the differences between liberals and conservatives

[bbsam]

of course you picked my post to make your sanctimonious post . your bias is biased

Well...yes.

And water is water and air is air.
But here is not their or they’re, nor even there.

But I’ll listen intently in silence and grace
And even imagine you with a straight face
As you try to explain in artful discourse and style
How your bias is different, not stupid and vile.

Or perhaps you’ll agree that it’s all gotten silly and we’ve lost something of what we really are as Americans. That lively debate is gone as is the path or even the desire to move forward.

 

[newfie]

Well...yes.

And water is water and air is air.
But here is not their or they’re, nor even there.

But I’ll listen intently in silence and grace
And even imagine you with a straight face
As you try to explain in artful discourse and style
How your bias is different, not stupid and vile.

Or perhaps you’ll agree that it’s all gotten silly and we’ve lost something of what we really are as Americans. That lively debate is gone as is the path or even the desire to move forward.

yea i must have missed where you picked out all the stupid stuff he's been saying .

its ok dude even larry needs a groupie

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I've been reading about this all day, so yes I've followed up on just about everything available on the web.

Good.

If what you got from the article was that it was biased against conservatives, that's what you were looking to get out of it - the article neither lauded liberals or condemned conservatives. It merely pointed out some correlations between personality traits and people's thought processes and their subsequent political leanings.

My main objection to this article and all the others like it, as previously stated, is that the authors start with an assumption that people can be placed into arbitrary groups that are poorly defined, and think they can draw conclusions that have any meaning.

Let's look at the "terrorist attacks makes people more conservative" claim. Add that to the claim about larger right amygdalas in conservatives, and you ought to be able to draw the conclusion that terrorist attacks cause liberal's right amygdala's to grow larger. Maybe they do, I haven't studied the issue, but the idea seems patently absurd. And if liberals can become more conservative in some ways, what does that mean about about the other traits those liberals have that make them liberal? Can you now associate those traits with conservatives?

When you base your studies on people's self identification of "political leaning", how do you control for different perspectives on what those terms mean? I personally believe that anyone who is in favor of more government control is a leftist, statist, liberal. But how do religious "conservatives" fit in. They want the government to control our values. And how do anti-government hippies fit in? I don't think anyone who wants more government control is really a conservative, and I don't see free love and shroomin' as conservative traits. So then we must split up categories into social and political conservative, and social and political liberal, for those labels to fit in with my objection.

Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. Because it won't stop there. The categories will continue to pile up, because this group within that group won't exactly match this other group within that group. Eventually you will be left with billions of highly specified groups that include only one person, that is an individual. This is the fatal flaw of intersectionality.

Why do conservatives interpret everything they read that's even a tad critical of them as negative or slanted by the liberal media? I find this to be incredibly narcissistic, and overly sensitive, but I digress.

I don't know, why do liberals do such a poor job of writing balanced articles that aren't obviously pushing an agenda? And why do other liberals think it's narcissistic and overly sensitive too point out such poor writing? These are questions we may never have answers to...

You are correct in your assessment that the article fails to go into too much depth on the brain and it's functions, but I find that to be a positive thing on a site like this - try to post an academic journal here and see how that goes...watch the people's eyes glaze over and the conversation fail to launch as they refuse to read it instantly. It's meant to give the people here a cursory understanding of the material and some insight into themselves and how/why they may lean in a particular direction politically. If they're interested, and they'd like to know more, the information is available. I found quite a bit on this topic today as I ventured down the rabbit hole.

If you'd like to have a deeper conversation on this matter, I'd very much enjoy that, and I invite you to post some material for us to discuss. If I haven't already read it today, I'll take a look tomorrow morning and we can debate some of the finer points.

I don't mind a good discussion, but I'm pretty busy today, don't expect a timely response.

 

[sailfish]

So do you just refrain from participating in our democracy?

Because if you do, that's very sad, and it makes you a ty citizen as well. Things are best changed from the inside, so if you don't like the way things are, you get involved and work to change them.

Apathy has never changed a damn thing. That, I know for certain.

It'd be fun to pretend politicians actually give a about me and aren't just pandering for votes from the largest possible voter base. But unfortunately it always comes down to just picking who is worse and voting against them rather than being able to vote for someone I can actually get behind. And it honestly just feels like trying to put out a wildfire with a bucket at this point.

 

[BrownArmy]

It'd be fun to pretend politicians actually give a about me and aren't just pandering for votes from the largest possible voter base. But unfortunately it always comes down to just picking who is worse and voting against them rather than being able to vote for someone I can actually get behind. And it honestly just feels like trying to put out a wildfire with a bucket at this point.

That’s the rub, isn’t it?

No one votes because it seems an exercise in futility, but it’s that way because not enough people get engaged locally or nationally to understand what they’re voting for, so the vote-winners are always the ones who are the most well-funded, leading to a hopeless situation where most folk (perhaps rightfully) think their vote doesn’t count.

Go back to square one, get engaged, and if voter turnout got close to fifty percent we could turn this nonsense around.

But honestly it’s easier to complain than it is to do the bare-minimum as a responsible citizen.

 

[sailfish]

That’s the rub, isn’t it?

No one votes because it seems an exercise in futility, but it’s that way because not enough people get engaged locally or nationally to understand what they’re voting for, so the vote-winners are always the ones who are the most well-funded, leading to a hopeless situation where most folk (perhaps rightfully) think their vote doesn’t count.

Go back to square one, get engaged, and if voter turnout got close to fifty percent we could turn this nonsense around.

But honestly it’s easier to complain than it is to do the bare-minimum as a responsible citizen.

Not sure if you're suggesting that I don't vote but that's not the case. But never in my entire voting life have I ever felt represented by a candidate, so every election devolves into nothing more than trying to slant the favor away from the worse option. And candidates getting more and more extreme certainly isn't helping.

 

[BrownArmy]

Not sure if you're suggesting that I don't vote but that's not the case. But never in my entire voting life have I ever felt represented by a candidate, so every election devolves into nothing more than trying to slant the favor away from the worse option. And candidates getting more and more extreme certainly isn't helping.

No, I wasn’t talking about you specifically.

Just observing that almost everyone loves to complain, but we know voter turnout is abysmal.

So, most people complaining aren’t participating.

It’s sad.

 

[LarryBird]

Not sure if you're suggesting that I don't vote but that's not the case. But never in my entire voting life have I ever felt represented by a candidate, so every election devolves into nothing more than trying to slant the favor away from the worse option. And candidates getting more and more extreme certainly isn't helping.

I don't know that there's very many people who feel like a presidential or congressional candidate truly represents them personally, and I don't think it's particularly reasonable to assume they should. The best you could really hope for, in my opinion, is that you agree with most of their platform, and you trust that they have some of your major interests in mind. Other than that, I don't know what you could really be expecting from a candidate who is campaigning to represent millions of different of people and their competing interests.

I really don't agree with your assessment that ALL candidates are getting more and more extreme. I think that it's actually the opposite for Democrats, and their candidates have moved toward the middle, in the hopes of gaining the centerists, while trying to appear liberal enough to appease the far left.

I do see that conservatives have become more extreme, but that's what their base has responded to, and that's what they need to do to win. Moderate republicans and those more towards the center are the ones who've lost the republican candidates they used to relate to, and have come to feel like they're voters without representation, at least that's what I'm seeing. They are too fiscally conservative to happily vote democrat, but not conservative enough on social issues that these new republican party candidates appeal to them either - they're the voters without a home team.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I came across this ted talk about automating politics. Seems kinda out there, but it could be worth a shot.

A bold idea to replace politicians

 

[BrownArmy]

I came across this ted talk about automating politics. Seems kinda out there, but it could be worth a shot.

A bold idea to replace politicians

Yes, welcome your new AI OVERLORDS.

FFS, we can’t be responsible enough as a citizenry to vote? We need computers to do it for us?

(Remember, someone programmed that program)

 

[LarryBird]

I came across this ted talk about automating politics. Seems kinda out there, but it could be worth a shot.

A bold idea to replace politicians

Thanks. I have the Ted app on my phone.

I'm gonna check this out tomorrow at work.

Edit: actually it's only 13 mins long, so I'm gonna listen to it in a few mins.

 

[LarryBird]

Yes, welcome your new AI OVERLORDS.

FFS, we can’t be responsible enough as a citizenry to vote? We need computers to do it for us?

(Remember, someone programmed that program)

You can still check it out before you jump to conclusions. You don't even know the premise of what the idea is yet.

Many things we accept as everyday commonalities, started out as radical ideas at some point.

 

[BrownArmy]

You can still check it out before you jump to conclusions. You don't even know the premise of what the idea is yet.

Many things we accept as everyday commonalities, started out as radical ideas at some point.

I heard that TED talk when it aired.

Maybe I just took the Battlestar Galactica reboot too seriously...

I don’t want or need my refrigerator or toaster or doorbell connected to the internet.

Machine learning is great, until it isn’t.

We’re barreling forward with tools that are quickly outstripping our capacity to fully understand, and they’re self-learning.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[LarryBird]

Has anyone checked out the anonymous ted talks, for ideas that are a bit too radical or controversial etc for the types of people who would normally give a Ted talk, called Sincerely X?

I've been meaning to get around to it, but it's kept slipping my mind, even as I download podcasts everyday to listen to during work. I am definitely going to listen to some this week - I made a note on my phone just now to remind me.

The premise of it sounded very appealing to me, and something that's likely to be right up my alley.

Any thoughts from someone who's heard some of them would be appreciated.

 

[BrownArmy]

Has anyone checked out the anonymous ted talks, for ideas that are a bit too radical or controversial etc for the types of people who would normally give a Ted talk, called Sincerely X?

I've been meaning to get around to it, but it's kept slipping my mind, even as I download podcasts everyday to listen to during work. I am definitely going to listen to some this week - I made a note on my phone just now to remind me.

The premise of it sounded very appealing to me, and something that's likely to be right up my alley.

Any thoughts from someone who's heard some of them would be appreciated.

I only hear what they broadcast on the radio...

 

[LarryBird]

I heard that TED talk when it aired.

Maybe I just took the Battlestar Galactica reboot too seriously...

I don’t want or need my refrigerator or toaster or doorbell connected to the internet.

Machine learning is great, until it isn’t.

We’re barreling forward with tools that are quickly outstripping our capacity to fully understand, and they’re self-learning.

What could possibly go wrong?

I'm something of a luddite when it comes to advanced technologies, so you're preaching to the choir on this one.

I'm the complete opposite of an early adopter, but I still try to keep an open mind to things that could potentially be vast improvements on our current ways.

I'm not a huge fan of the internet of things either though, and I'm extremely protective of my privacy and data, which no doubt colors my opinion on it. That just doesn't seem like an idea that appeals to me, for the most part. But I do understand why these over sharing millenials would be excited about the possibilities, even if I think they might live to regret it someday...

 

[LarryBird]

I only hear what they broadcast on the radio...

This is an audio series that is available on podcast apps and whatnot. I don't know if it's been broadcast on the radio, or if there's any plans to do so in the future.

It's fairly new, and like I said, I haven't heard any of them yet.

Link:
Sincerely, X

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Yes, welcome your new AI OVERLORDS.

FFS, we can’t be responsible enough as a citizenry to vote? We need computers to do it for us?

(Remember, someone programmed that program)

Of course that is the main concern about something like that. But the idea of cognitive bandwidth intrigues me. The world is becoming complex to the point that no one person, or group of a couple hundred people, can be relied upon to be informed enough to make good decisions about every complex situation.

I am reminded of a short science fiction story I read once, in which anyone who wanted to run for president just filled out a profile in a computer. The computer chose amongst the candidates who was most qualified. The protagonist in the story is selected as president, even though he never signed up. He objects because he believes he is not up to the task, but then he finds out that the president is just a puppet, and the computer has been running things for a very long time.

I am a bit of a scifi nerd, and have no problem imagining ways in which technology can move humanity forward. Does that make me technologically liberal, and you technologically conservative?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

This is an audio series that is available on podcast apps and whatnot. I don't know if it's been broadcast on the radio, or if there's any plans to do so in the future.

It's fairly new, and like I said, I haven't heard any of them yet.

Link:
Sincerely, X

Just realized sincerely x and tedx were two different things. I've watched several TedX talks, I'll have to look into scincerely x.

 

[BrownArmy]

Of course that is the main concern about something like that. But the idea of cognitive bandwidth intrigues me. The world is becoming complex to the point that no one person, or group of a couple hundred people, can be relied upon to be informed enough to make good decisions about every complex situation.

I am reminded of a short science fiction story I read once, in which anyone who wanted to run for president just filled out a profile in a computer. The computer chose amongst the candidates who was most qualified. The protagonist in the story is selected as president, even though he never signed up. He objects because he believes he is not up to the task, but then he finds out that the president is just a puppet, and the computer has been running things for a very long time.

I am a bit of a scifi nerd, and have no problem imagining ways in which technology can move humanity forward. Does that make me technologically liberal, and you technologically conservative?

Errrm, maybe, it’s just not clear to me machines are a better solution than actual human citizens exercising their Constitutional rights and electing their representatives.

Yes, there’s a fk-ton of important things to be deliberated and decided upon, which is why we elect representatives to ‘represent’ us.

There are major structural, political, and economic barriers to an ideal manifestation of that vision, but I don’t think the answer is ‘machines’.

I think it’s education and mobilization.

We get exactly the representation we deserve, mostly because we don’t (generally) participate.

Change that, and a lot of other things would change.

IMO.