It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I respect your position. But I continue to feel that each way of looking at things can go to an extreme that ceases to be constructive.

Though I support the wider view of social conscience and judging each event according to the context,
I can also perceive contexts in which that can be destructive. Specifically- in terms of self preservation.

Being a person myself who tends to first examine as much of the context as possible before judging, I have foudn that in my everyday life, I end up being self-sacrificing a lot- too much. To a point that can be damaging for myself, and for those close to me even.

Example-

I am in a group effort- at work, part of a team.
A mistake has been made with disasterous consequences. No one knows who did it.
I observe and perceive that the group is so hell bent upon determining fault that it will not move forward towards remedying the damage and moving on until that is done.

I judge that the most important thing, for the group, is that we take action to do damage control and continue on in our work, and no one is admitting their guilt.

I know for sure it was not me, and yet I raise my hand and take the blame, in order to get things moving, and for the sake of the whole.

I have a tendence to do this sort of thing often, to purposely take blame for things that I am not responsible for, or to be the scape goat, or take projections upon myself, in order to help others.

This has some damaging long term effects- for myself, because people begin to have very negative views of me, and can become abusive, and and not trusting- I limit my own abilities and opportunities, and cause myself distress.

For others, because others around me become less and less self aware, through not recognizing their own faults, weaknesses and mistakes, allowing them to grow and multiply or become habitual. Sometimes those close to me can have their own ego become disproportioned and unrealistic as a result of my always taking on the role of the "dark side" for them. They take that into the world and cannot understand the way others react to them, and why others do not recognize their awesomeness. This can be painful for them. (I am thinking specifically of family members- my own children, my husband, close friends....)

I grew up as the eldest sibling in an abusive environment, with a mentally retarded sister as well, so protecting the vulnerable and aiding them to gain confidence in themselves became a habit- which is not appropriate with people who are normal adults, with normal egos.

This is a small scale example of how putting the whole above the self may seem, in the moment, to be the best consideration, but in the long run, might not be.

On a larger scale, in international affairs even, this can be said also- a nation owes it to it's people to maintain a certain amount of self defensiveness!

I live in France, which is always taking the brunt of the jokes on that point, that they are so concerned with "love" and humanity they let themselves get invaded every couple hundred of years or so and have to be rescued by others.
(I don't usually point out that those who love to make such slurs also thoroughly ENJOY being seen as rescuers, so have some personal motivation in that perception, and should be thanking the french for giving them that opportunity...
)

I respect your position, but still think that either one of these concerns (self or other) can go too far and become less than "good".


edit on 18-7-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: Astrocyte


For others, because others around me become less and less self aware, through not recognizing their own faults, weaknesses and mistakes, allowing them to grow and multiply or become habitual. Sometimes those close to me can have their own ego become disproportioned and unrealistic as a result of my always taking on the role of the "dark side" for them. They take that into the world and cannot understand the way others react to them, and why others do not recognize their awesomeness. This can be painful for them.


I am quoting myself here, because as I read what I just wrote, I had a very interesting flash of thought at this part.

Our american values, which started as the "protestant values" long ago, to encourage and aid the little guys to have courage and confidence to build a nation (in the infancy of our country) through a belief that morally, ethically strong individuals will end up with abundance through hard work

May have gone too far?

That description I wrote might be applied to the very very wealthy and powerful individuals (meaning humans and corporations) that now have an ego that is disproportionate- not recognizing their faults, and not understanding why the rest of the world doesn't perceive their awesomeness the way their own poor and middle class always has made clear for them....


Part of my problem personally is that through my welcome-mat ways, I usually get to a point eventually where I have to revolt violently and blow up to save myself, and they just feel confused.

Is it possible the middle class, as we have worshipped and stroked the rich all this time, are somewhat at fault for our current mess??
edit on 18-7-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
In 3 sentences . . . how would you summarize your perspective on this research?


1- Social 'sciences' are sciences only in the loosest definition of the term 'science'.

2- Almost all 'studies' like this are biased and are more looking to substantiate a preconceived notion than actually provide any real substantive insight. Bottom line, even if it were 100% true and accurate, it still wouldn't tell you anything about any actual person, but it provides plenty of opportunity to slag a predefined group for some apparent reason.

3- It's all an opportunity for entertainment to me. I really don't care.



I ask because you seem to have a deeply perceptive perspective on it.


Nope. As shallow as a puddle on a freshly paved parking lot.


"Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice cream"
~Wallace Stevens



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Conservatives are smarter, more compassionate, less racially biased, more freedom loving, more self reliant, better able to handle hardship and stress, more dedicated, less likely to want handouts and freebees.

Liberals are the exact opposite. They cannot function outside the collective, they are insecure, more likely to take handouts and freebees, less self reliant, cannot handle stress or hardship well, will give up freedoms if asked, and most importantly more conscience of racial and ethnic differences and gender and make biased decisions on all of them.

This is my honest opinion on this. I'm not trying to be mean of insulting so try to understand that it is an observation.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Fromabove

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


1- Confirmation bias. You see what you believe.
2- This is exactly what I'm talking about with the labels. There's no way 'liberals' or 'conservatives' individually fall into those parameters in any significant way.

Thanks for providing a perfect example of which I speak regarding labelling. Not knocking you there, you're probably in the overwhelming majority of people who do exactly what you're doing.

I happen to very strongly believe it's not only not accurate, it's damaging.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Oh well. I've been wrong before.

True, research into group behavior doesn't reveal much about a given individual.

Though, on AVERAGE it indicates that individuals within the defined group MAY WELL fall within the parameters discovered about the group much more likely than those outside those parameters.

However, group membership and characteristics are interesting and useful to a degree in terms of the society and culture.

e.g. it's useful to know what parameters gang members are within . . . and

--What are their major goals and most typical behaviors?
--What determines whether they stay in the gang, or not?
--What determines what degree of violence or not?

--What prevents disadvantaged youth from becoming gang members?
--What facilitates those leaving, staying out of gangs?

etc.

Or . . . say what's the major differences between the group of politicians who are arrogant, self-serving, corrupt etc. vs those who are the opposite. That is, what determines which group a politician belongs in on such scores? etc.

BTW, given quantum mechanics . . . even the 'dean of the sciences' --physics-- is about as messy, irrational and indeterminate as psychology and sociology at a certain level. Stephen Hawking made a startling quote about the reality of absurdities at foundational levels. I don't have it handy but he made it sound like all reality was about as crazy as Alice's rabbit hole.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Here's one of the granddaddies on labeling:

en.wikipedia.org...

And the wiki article on it:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
So basically the study is telling us conservatives are cave men.

I already knew that!



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fromabove
Conservatives are smarter, more compassionate, less racially biased, more freedom loving, more self reliant, better able to handle hardship and stress, more dedicated, less likely to want handouts and freebees.

Liberals are the exact opposite. They cannot function outside the collective, they are insecure, more likely to take handouts and freebees, less self reliant, cannot handle stress or hardship well, will give up freedoms if asked, and most importantly more conscience of racial and ethnic differences and gender and make biased decisions on all of them.

This is my honest opinion on this. I'm not trying to be mean of insulting so try to understand that it is an observation.


Okay let me correct you since, true to my name, I understand both thinking stances, at least, more than most people.

None of the sides is smarter.

Both are compassionate but liberals are compassionate even to total strangers they will never meet. While conservatives will be biased towards people around them like their family and friends.

Conservative are much more racially biased, you even mentioning this means that you don't really understand conservatives either.

Conservatives could be considered more freedom loving, their own freedom that is.

Indeed, conservatives are more self reliant which also means the rest of the world can't rely on them either.

Hardship and stress handling have nothing to do with liberals or conservatives same goes for dedication.

It's true that liberals are more likely to accept handouts and freebies, but seriously, we've been on earth for thousands of years, not relying on society and helping out in return is a feral way of living. We should evolve past animals IMO.

Liberals can function outside a collective but they understand that social cooperation is an optimal way of life. Conservatives should be more aware that they are not more independant than liberals, where would they be without their families and friends? Other than hermits, no one is a self made man.

Liberals are more likely to give away PERSONNAL freedoms to bring more freedom to the collective, while conservatives wouldn't give an INCH of freedom even if it meant more happiness for the collective.

Both have biased opinions concerning racial and ethnic differences, although I'm not really sure what you meant by that.

I hope this helps you better understand conservative and liberal thinking.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator



Liberals are more likely to give away PERSONNAL freedoms to bring more freedom to the collective, while conservatives wouldn't give an INCH of freedom even if it meant more happiness for the collective.



Interesting concept.

Are there any real examples of this ?

The "problem" I see with "Liberals" is the fact that a lot of authoritarian/totalitarian policies are necessary to make it work. And then it always fails anyway.

Hmmm.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Are there any real examples of this ?

Why yes, your thread on the refusal of INSURANCE payed contraception points EXACTLY that.


originally posted by: xuenchen
The "problem" I see with "Liberals" is the fact that a lot of authoritarian/totalitarian policies are necessary to make it work.

Where you see authoritarian I see optimal for the community. Not that you would care.


originally posted by: xuenchenAnd then it always fails anyway.


Of course, we always have conservatives crying egoistically for their own little selfish personnal freedom.

Boohoo



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
However, group membership and characteristics are interesting and useful to a degree in terms of the society and culture.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Maybe if you're in marketing or something. The problem is, people take things like that and make assumptions that do nothing but add more heat than light to any interaction.

"Oh, you're one of THOSE. That means... yaddayadda" and problems ensue.

Providing that sort of data to the public at-large is like giving a nail gun to a baby.

IMO.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator

Thanks for proving my points.

Much appreciated.




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theMediator

Thanks for proving my points.

Much appreciated.



I didn't prove any of your points, you are just saying that because you can't debate.

Thanks for acting like a caveman and proving researchs on conservative thinking.
edit on 18-7-2014 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: theMediator

Again,

Thanks for the advice !!





posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
BTW, given quantum mechanics . . . even the 'dean of the sciences' --physics-- is about as messy, irrational and indeterminate as psychology and sociology at a certain level.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

An excellent point, and to that point I'd posit that using quantum physics as any sort of basis for functioning in the macro world makes as much sense as using most of the results from the 'fuzzy sciences'. They both certainly have their place, I just don't happen to think real world individual interaction is one of them.

This thread has plenty of evidence for that.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright



Maybe if you're in marketing or something. The problem is, people take things like that and make assumptions that do nothing but add more heat than light to any interaction.

"Oh, you're one of THOSE. That means... yaddayadda" and problems ensue.

Providing that sort of data to the public at-large is like giving a nail gun to a baby.

IMO.


Those are certainly pregnant and very real issues to deal with.

However . . . WITHOUT generalizations, we'd all be much more immobilized in our ponderings and interactions.

There's only so many hours in a day; so much energy to devote to a decision or action . . .

And having to re-invent the wheel of some level of functional understanding . . . at a foundationally very detailed level . . . would just grind the gears of individual and relationship interactions to a halt.

Our finiteness CANNOT contend with THAT much information so routinely.

Yes, generalizations are a flawed problem.

Yes, they injure individuals and groups and society and culture.

Doing away with them simply won't work, however.

And, that's . . . not imho . . . it's just a foundational fact of human life.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: BO XIAN
BTW, given quantum mechanics . . . even the 'dean of the sciences' --physics-- is about as messy, irrational and indeterminate as psychology and sociology at a certain level.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

An excellent point, and to that point I'd posit that using quantum physics as any sort of basis for functioning in the macro world makes as much sense as using most of the results from the 'fuzzy sciences'. They both certainly have their place, I just don't happen to think real world individual interaction is one of them.

This thread has plenty of evidence for that.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL TO THE MAX.

INDEED.

I don't know that there's an achievable consensus on that score.

Psychology and sociology DO have SOME things of value to offer perceptive, responsible, wise folks.

I don't know that ANYTHING is of value to the masses of brainwashed, mangled, squeezed, homoginized, globalized, manipulated, robotized clueless blathering idiots.

But clueless blathering idiots need love and understanding too . . . maybe more than most.

And . . . psychology and sociology CAN help perceptive, thoughtful, wise people increase their understanding of themselves and of others around them . . .

Love the dialogue w/you BTW.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN



4. Just today a friend of mine was struggling to get colostomy bags for her sister . . . a recent thing. An absurd run around with insurance etc. etc. etc. Finally, she is on the phone with the supplying company. Note, this is a fairly serious daily need! . . . With a newly done colostomy . . . The patient and family are in Oklahoma City. The patient's sister on the phone to the supplier company asks if the shipment was sent from their Dallas warehouse--the closest one. "Uhhhh no. The shipping clerk looked on a map and figured our Northern California warehouse was closer."




4.1 The call was with . . . a Northern Cal person--most likely a flaming liberal. I've run into this with increasing and increasingly alarming frequency.


Talk about lala land this makes so little sense it is insane.

I don't understand at all the reason for any labeling themselves or others, i look at all the belief systems and I see good and bad in each, even Hitler had some good ideas, why would I align myself totally with anyone label and why would anyone stick each person they know in a box in their mind...good... bad..stupid all based on a label and not knowing the person.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

I've read a fair amount on labeling in my PhD program.

Our profs and the classmates were mostly against it but recognized that at some level, it's necessary unless one wants to deal with paragraphs of information repeatedly all the time.

That quickly becomes dysfunctional as there's only a limited amount of time and energy in a day.

The issue is most critical when labels are unfittingly applied AND WHEN DESTRUCTIVE-TO-THE-INDIVIDUAL AND TO SOCIETY DECISIONS AND ACTIONS ARE TAKEN VERY BADLY on the bases of a poorly applied, ill-fitting, destructive label.

But, I suspect you'd rather be called a "human" than an "animal" or an "organism."

And, I suspect you'd rather be treated like a "human" than like a plant organism.

We could substitute 1-3 paragraphs of description for each label . . . but then the descriptions would involve labels, too.

I think a functional but honest balance is crucial . . . and handled with integrity and caring.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join