Psychology Study: Fear Leads to Conservatism

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Second, two associates degrees is over educated to you?

Arent associates just 2 year degrees? His example was two post-grad degrees, wasnt it? Which would mean about 4 years to grad then another two or more on top of that, wouldn't it?

Yeah, I guess I missed that the first time I read it. Too bad you could not pick apart something actually impacted the point of what I said though. Good catch.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Backpedaling seems to be a personality trait of yours. It is disingenuous of you to claim all I want to do is argue, since you clearly chose to have an argument with me. Out of all the posts made in this thread, you chose mine to argue with upon entering this thread, and what you chose to do is assert I knew nothing of general trends. Now that this has been revealed to be a stupid assumption on your part, you backpedal and whine that all I want to do is argue.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thank you so much for that information. That was an excellent post and a good read.

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by simonecharisse

 

It's ironic too, that most conservatives identify themselves as christian, yet have absolutely NO tolerance for the unemployed, homeless, and single mothers of society. As one poster described above, they are drug addicted, criminal, baby machines, who want responsible conservatives to pay their way through life. It's a sick perspective.

Of course they have no tolerance because those people are typically not white, 50-60 males who have inherited their wealth and choose to use others to gain more wealth instead of trying to better the lives of those around them.

They look down on everyone who isn't them or clones of them.
They are typically hypocrites and liars (ie rush limbough, hannity, beck, etc..)

Ohboy! Guilty as charged!

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world.

Check! Not to mention cool souvenirs from other countries.

Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics.

We've got well over 8,000 books. Bookshelves on every wall -- everything from old medical books to mathematical books.

Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

Yes, that's us. Interesting.

I had no idea that there were patterns.

Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

Yes. I get into all kinds of trouble and drag poor husband with me.

Interesting study, and after thinking of it, I have to say that our families (which have both conservative and liberal members) tend to follow the patterns above.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

Backpedaling seems to be a personality trait of yours.

I guess it would be easy to provide at least one example with your accusation then, correct?

It is disingenuous of you to claim all I want to do is argue, since you clearly chose to have an argument with me. Out of all the posts made in this thread, you chose mine to argue with upon entering this thread, and what you chose to do is assert I knew nothing of general trends. Now that this has been revealed to be a stupid assumption on your part, you backpedal and whine that all I want to do is argue.

It is not my fault you said something that was kind of ignorant at best. I have not backpedaled and you have not shown how your personal experience disproves trends. Now you are just making things up about me in order to make some point that has been lost.

reply to post by Byrd


There has been a lot of debate on this study, so it's nice to read that you and your family resemble this study's findings.

reply to post by evil incarnate

I guess it would be easy to provide at least one example with your accusation then, correct?

You actually do that for me, in your very next statement:

It is not my fault you said something that was kind of ignorant at best. I have not backpedaled and you have not shown how your personal experience disproves trends. Now you are just making things up about me in order to make some point that has been lost.

First you claim I don't understand general trends, now you want to make it appear as if you were claiming I hadn't disproved any general trend. That is what is called backpedaling, and my whole experience with you, as brief and as absurd as it has been, is watching you backpedal. When a wise man argues with a fool, it is difficult to discern who is who. Sigh.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
First you claim I don't understand general trends, now you want to make it appear as if you were claiming I hadn't disproved any general trend. That is what is called backpedaling, and my whole experience with you, as brief and as absurd as it has been, is watching you backpedal. When a wise man argues with a fool, it is difficult to discern who is who. Sigh.

Honestly I am not even sure if we speak the same language. I simply pointed out that if you think your sole personal experience disproves a trend then you do not understand trends. You keep reinforcing that while pretending you got me? I stand by what I said and it is insane that you keep trying to spin it into something else. I guess I struck a nerve. Maybe you need to review. You brought up your personal anecdote as reason studies such as this are flawed. I pointed out that they are usually pretty accurate but none are 100% - thus leaving room for people like you to claim your sole experience disproves the entire thing.

Whatever you are so confused about is your issue. I say the exact same thing now I said to begin with. Whatever you see as backpedaling may just be a language barrier.

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


Hm, i think i fit some of those patterns as well. In comparison to my father I'd be considered quite liberal. He is a neat freak, mildly conservative and very religious. I'm pretty much not religious, disorganized and while i've never considered myself a liberal, compared to Daddy, I'm a pinko commie freak. We both have a lot of foreign trinkets laying around as my father was in the Army and we spent time in Germany. There are a lot of beer steins from Volksmarches laying around. My mother is a good decorator and she likes me taste as well, though it's quite different. I tend to like "mod" styles, stripes and funky looking things around my house. Mom is more traditional. It's funny because i actually painted my old apartment kitchen in a Victorian damask pattern lol. There's a lot of overlap between my mom and I.

I do like to read. I don't buy a lot of books since I like to save money. I go to the library. I stick to non-fiction mostly. I love classical music, opera especially. I sing as well and play a bit of piano. I used to write poetry as well, but after a dramafest when I was 20 that involved the theft and publication of said poetry, I lost the taste for it. I also like abstract art and going to concerts. My husband is actually a country fan, but he's always been open to where ever we go (even Goth night). He's apolitical though in truth. He's a solider, he does his job and goes to bed most days.

reply to post by evil incarnate

I simply pointed out that if you think your sole personal experience disproves a trend then you do not understand trends.

The misunderstanding is yours. I did not attempt to disprove anything by pointing to my personal experience, but merely questioned what value it could possibly have for me, if the study contradicts my own experience. Even when I relied on evidence that had nothing to do with my own personal experience, such as the definitions of words, I was not attempting to "disprove" the study, but simply bring to light valid questions regarding the study. You are quite correct that we do not speak the same language. You seem to speak a language of equivocation and an ambiguity that ironically has no regard for nuance.

What I spoke to, and in response to another poster who made the observation that the study relied on generalizations, (a point that should be emphasized since you ignored that poster and went straight to my post responding to that post, since you have disingenuously asserted that it is I who wants to argue), was the obvious generalizations the study was making.

You keep reinforcing that while pretending you got me? I stand by what I said and it is insane that you keep trying to spin it into something else.

What is insane is to keep making the same mistakes over and over again, each time expecting a different outcome. You made many mistakes with your original argument, which can be found here:

It seems that many people, even a psychology student a few posts back, are having a hard time understanding what generalizations and trends are. They are not absolutes and are never meant to apply 100%. A generalization is just that! Just because you do not fit does not make a generalization invalid.

Your first mistake, and the only one I spoke to initially was your assumption that because people were questioning the validity of such generalizations, that they did not understand generalizations and trends. Now I will speak to that mistake you make regarding generalizations not being absolute, and the implication that all generalizations have validity. A generalization can only have validity when that generalization is a principle, statement or idea having general application.

A generalization such as all humans are mammals has general application and is valid, a generalization such as all women are weak and emotional is not so valid. The generalization that all mammals have vertebrates, is a valid generalization. The generalization that all men are strong and unemotional is not a valid generalization.

Even when a generalization is applied using the term "most" it is only valid if such application has practical value. Most oranges are rich in vitamin C, has practical value. Not all oranges are rich in Vitamin C, and some have less than others, depending upon where they were grown, when they were picked, and how long it has been since they were picked. Such a generalization, then, only has validity, if one understands the limitations to that generalization. If someone understands that most oranges are rich in vitamin C, but does not understand that this vitamin degenerates in an orange, once that orange has been picked, and has no understanding of when an orange has been picked, and how long since that time to ingestion, then the generalization of most oranges being rich in vitamin C is far less valid.

There are also the generalizations of stereotypes, which rarely have validity. This particular study featured by the O.P. comes dangerously close to stereotypes. Here in lies the problem with their generalizations. The generalizations made about race are rarely valid, and have often led to many problems in how those generalizations were accepted, and applied in race relations. Israel exists today, in a large part, because of European generalizations made regarding Jews. In The United States, African American's still struggle with accepted generalizations made about them.

To make a blanket statement that: "Just because you do not fit does not make a generalization invalid.", misses the point that if I do not fit within a generalization then that generalization certainly has no validity for me. Generalizations, such as the classification of humans as mammals works for all, and where you claim that generalizations are not absolutes, I have just pointed to a generalization that is in fact, 100% absolute. In that regard, it appears that it is you who do not understand generalizations, hence this little lesson. Have I got you? I don't want you. I do want a better understanding of the truth, do you?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am so sorry I hurt whatever it is in you that aches. I said what I said. It never changed. It was not wrong. You cannot make both arguments simultaneously anyway. If you feel the need to spend that much time posting about it, then the issue is yours and not mine. Anyone who can read can see what happened and what was said. You go on and argue as far off topic as you possible can. It is really making you appear sane and together so far.

Trends are usually pretty good predictors because they are usually pretty accurate accounts of a majority - not an absolute rule based on 100% of anything. This means there will always be the rule-breakers in every trend, the point is that if there were more rule breakers than not - that would be a whole different trend. You obviously do not get it and your hounding has gotten tiresome. Go play with someone else and hijack a different thread for a bit. This one is about a study pointing out a trend - that you personally may or may not fit.

Sorry if you still can not understand. I can not repeat myself in any more clear a fashion than this. I am not going to argue again the same I thing I have said in post after post just because you do not get it. If you did, you would not be shifting your argument from my later point debunking the previous to me being wrong from the start for a whole other reason. Nothing I said changed, the fact that your argument keeps changing is indicative of a desire to fight and bicker. You will be ignored for that from here on out.

reply to post by evil incarnate

This means there will always be the rule-breakers in every trend, the point is that if there were more rule breakers than not - that would be a whole different trend. You obviously do not get it and your hounding has gotten tiresome.

This is the dishonesty of yours that I am speaking to. You chose to engage me, not the other way around, and as you say, anyone who cares to read this thread can see this for themselves. You claim at the beginning of your last post that:

I am so sorry I hurt whatever it is in you that aches.

But your insistence on declaring me the one derailing this thread, and demanding I go away, contradicts your initial remark, and only further reveals your obsequious disingenuousness. Your use of the word "hounding" is remarkably dishonest, since again, I did not engage you, you engaged me, and have not let go of it. It also suggests your own perception of being a victim. You claim this is tiresome for you, but what do you want to bet you reply to this post?

This (thread) is about a study pointing out a trend - that you personally may or may not fit.

This thread is most certainly not about a psychological study, and the O.P. has admitted as such. When a member called out the O.P. on the effect of this thread by stating:

No offense OP but you guys are part of the problem.

The O.P. responded to that member by saying:

I couldn't agree more. I realize I have a part to play in the divisive tactics used by both sides. It pains me on one hand that we can't agree on what we agree on, but I also am here because I can't allow them to regurgitate the lies without fact checking and disputing them. Would you want an ATS that is full of one sided statements of fear based paranoia, without proper debate?

This is what the thread is about.

Sorry if you still can not understand. I can not repeat myself in any more clear a fashion than this. I am not going to argue again the same I thing I have said in post after post just because you do not get it.

Uh-huh. We shall see.

If you did, you would not be shifting your argument from my later point debunking the previous to me being wrong from the start for a whole other reason. Nothing I said changed, the fact that your argument keeps changing is indicative of a desire to fight and bicker. You will be ignored for that from here on out.

Frankly, I wish you would ignore me, as your constant repetition is what becomes tiresome.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

~Ralph Waldo Emmerson~

Ironically, where the study suggests that conservatives prefer consistency, and liberals generally are more open minded, you remain consistent in your assertions, and do not seem to possess much in the way of an open mind.

God also said you shouldn't steal or covet what belongs to others. I don't think conservatives have a problem with charity. I think they have a problem with a system that robs from Peter to pay Paul.

reply to post by 547000


Nobody is robbing you, so just stop the nonsense. Nobody is forcing you to pay U.S. taxes. The law clearly states that only if you earn money over a certain amount you must pay income taxes, as does everyone else. So it is clear what you must do to avoid your perceived robbery. Go live somewhere else. Good luck finding another country to call home that doesn't require some form of taxation. Maybe Antarctica? And good luck finding a country as great as this one. You don't have to pay our taxes but you must leave, nobody rides for free.

reply to post by 547000


So sorry, I wasn't done with you.

God also said you shouldn't steal or covet what belongs to others.

You want to quote the bible, huh? Let's...
Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 15:11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Psalm 41:1 Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.

Proverbs 14:21 He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he.

Proverbs 21:13 Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.

The bible has a lot to say about the treatment of a society's poor.

I don't think conservatives have a problem with charity. I think they have a problem with a system that robs from Peter to pay Paul.

That is BS and I can prove it. Since you equate paying taxes with charity, I pose this; If conservatives don't have a problem with charity, why not think of taxes as giving to charity? Your next line answers this question, "I think they have a problem with a system that robs from Peter to pay Paul." You consider it to be robbery to pay taxes, or in the context of the question, charity. You shouldn't be forced to do so, is the belief. You are only forced when you don't do it voluntarily, ergo: you don't want to give to charity voluntarily, because you have a problem with giving to charity.

I find it funny how you can make one statement and follow it up with a contradiction.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

Uh-huh, sorry to break it to you bub, but taxes are not charity as you have no choice but to pay them. Charity is when you give with your own will, not when you go to jail when you don't. It's not that hard to understand.

No matter how populist he is, Robin Hood still had to steal to give to the poor.

Originally posted by 547000
Uh-huh, sorry to break it to you bub, but taxes are not charity as you have no choice but to pay them. Charity is when you give with your own will, not when you go to jail when you don't. It's not that hard to understand.

No matter how populist he is, Robin Hood still had to steal to give to the poor.

It would seem that if you do not want to pay taxes, I should not be seeing your words on the internet. Do you know how many tax dollars are involved to get your message from your keyboard to my screen? If you can use tax funded infrastructure to whine about taxes, you need to try again.

reply to post by 547000


You are the one who is equating paying taxes with charity. If you live in the U.S. and have an income you have to pay taxes. The way to skirt around that is to get your whiny @ss out of my beloved country. Otherwise... man up, pay up, or shut up.

reply to post by evil incarnate


Tax funded infrastructure?

What the hell are you talking about?

So the government built the internet now? The government placed all those cables and phone lines? The government set up the servers, YES THE ONES THEY USE TO TRACK EVERYTHING, maybe.

Wow, to some people the government taxation provides everything nowadays. Hell without taxes my labor would not exist. Without taxes my job would not exist. Without taxes food would not exist.

Get a frelling different argument, that one is as idiotic as they come.