Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 


It's why I joined the Libertarian Party.

Republicans and democrats are both blind to the central issues we face.




posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm pretty interested in the Libertarian Party, but am not fully on board just yet. There seems to be several variations of the overall ideology, and I'd like to see if there's an exact one which meets what I believe in.

Still much better than the left or right, IMO



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 

The degree of comfortability with change is the single most important distinguishing feature between conservatives and liberals.
It is how they are defined.

Liberal: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Conservative: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

I'm nearly certain that the reason they oppose Obama so much is because he represents "change."(Even if his change sucks) It is something that they are fundamentally opposed.
You don't see conservatives proposing any new healthcare bills. You only see them complaining about the current inevitable changes with healthcare.

There is a big difference between the two things I said.

Know thyself.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm pretty interested in the Libertarian Party, but am not fully on board just yet. There seems to be several variations of the overall ideology, and I'd like to see if there's an exact one which meets what I believe in.

Still much better than the left or right, IMO


After Bush signed TARP, I quit the republican party.

After the most recent election, I changed my registration from Independent to Libertarian. I'd have to blame ATS for some of that change.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by beezzer
 


Get bent.
You're the close minded fool, who can't see 1 inch past his own nose.


Why? Because I disagree with your conformist values?

I have not even mentioned my values. I'm very individualistic, and non-conformist. You don't know me. That's why I called you a fool.
You're simply calling me a conformist because I'm saying things you don't like.

YOU are the one not thinking outside the box. I'm the one saying these traits mentioned in the article can be good things!! I'm very open to looking at things from others perspectives.

You're the one who only views things from his closed little bubble.

You're the one who refuses to objectively discuss the psychology of conservatives.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375


You're the one who refuses to objectively discuss the psychology of conservatives.



There has been NOT ONE objective comment on conservatives in this thread.

You're coloured by liberal ideology and refuse to "think outside the box".

Have you ever, ever ever ever considered that you may be wrong in your ideology?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I had written out a very nice and well stated reply to your inlgnorant post, but then I thought better of it, as your obviously just looking to make yourseof feel smart, for liberal or what have you, and will not just keep banging ky uead against a wall.

Yes op you are correct, every consercative mind ed person has limited mental faculties, and onky liberals who helieve the idiotic rhetoric they spout, thiugh it is constantly proven wrong and inefectual throughout a of history, every time itnis tried, are the only ones around that can think like a human not a dumb animal trapped in a permanent flight or fight, lowest denominator fashion.

There I said all your bs for you, niw stoo wasting electrcity by running the servers for your stupid tripe, ni body wants to hear it, nibody hut a idiot woukd believe it, and anyone with even half a functional brain cell could tell you why.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I had written out a very nice and well stated reply to your inlgnorant post, but then I thought better of it, as your obviously just looking to make yourseof feel smart, for liberal or what have you, and will not just keep banging ky uead against a wall.

Yes op you are correct, every consercative mind ed person has limited mental faculties, and onky liberals who helieve the idiotic rhetoric they spout, thiugh it is constantly proven wrong and inefectual throughout a of history, every time itnis tried, are the only ones around that can think like a human not a dumb animal trapped in a permanent flight or fight, lowest denominator fashion.

There I said all your bs for you, niw stoo wasting electrcity by running the servers for your stupid tripe, ni body wants to hear it, nibody hut a idiot woukd believe it, and anyone with even half a functional brain cell could tell you why.


Lol, god this new phone murders my brilliantly written and thought out text, I wish I could just get a s3 with a flip down keyboard like my old galaxy s, this virtual keypad/predictive text crap blows, it predicts my text alright, it predicts I am an illiterate foreigner that at best has heard how to write in english once, damnit!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry op off topic, but it was too much to not comment on, even though it was my own post.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nomnom
reply to post by beezzer
 


I'm pretty interested in the Libertarian Party, but am not fully on board just yet. There seems to be several variations of the overall ideology, and I'd like to see if there's an exact one which meets what I believe in.

Still much better than the left or right, IMO


I am with you and beez, I am done with the 2 party system of failure and idiocy, I am independent, or libertarian all the way.

Repubs are just like dems, they just spell dumbass with repilublican, and the same if not more so is true of the dems, they are the same thing, bs, and kost of us are smart enough to want no part of it.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 



Liberal: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.


Liberal: Open to new behavior or opinions that promote dreaming something into existence without knowing or understanding the complexities of turning it into a reality.


Conservative: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.


Conservative: Holds onto traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change until they know how to change it in a way that effectively works, unlike the dreamers who jump in with both feet and drown before they realize what they just did and it's too late for everyone.



edit on 10-3-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Twix404
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


I don't know how to approach replying to this thread. I think that maybe you are mixing up causation with correlation, but i am not sure. Just because there is correlation between to objects does not mean that the objects are the same, nor that one can explain the other. Yes, perhaps conservative thought is more commonly associated with impulsive thinking... but that may be due to the people following it blindly from something like tradition rather than actual ideological appeal.



You must not have read the paper - this is not about correlation at all. They clearly prove that with any kind of stressor - thinking turns more conservatitive and the results of their research is right there.

I suspect you read the title - reacted with a sound bite you don't fully understand - didn't read any of the quotes or source material and just reacted. No deliberate thought involved.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Interesting as right off the bat I see something amiss with the "assessment"

A) emphasis on personal responsibility
and
B) acceptance of hierarchy and status quo..

seem to be opposed concepts.


I don't think you are address the point of my post or the article referenced. The characteristics are common among those that aspire to conservative goals and are only used as guideposts in evaluating the data from their experiments.

They are not addressing people who identify as 'conservatiive', they are interested in individual ideation in specific circumstances and the trend of that subjects thinking on a scale from liberal to conservative.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Individuality taken by itself is an indication of low-effort thought?

I certainly hope that is not the intent of the OP to illustrate.

Individuality requires much more than just an adherence to the status quo.


Did you bother to read more then the Headline? No, thought not. That is not what is being said at all.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

You don't think there's a problem that when people do analysis and state the psychological profiles of conservatives, that instead of embracing these things....which I don't see how they are really negative....you guys immediately deny them?

I really don't understand why you're getting so upset and defensive. It's bordering on paranoia and delusion, no offense.


To emphasize this point - the article, for those who are willing to put a little effort into it, is not at all negative to conservatives at all. Doesn't speak to the value of either conservatives or liberals at all.

It basically says that people, when stressed, are more conservative in their respondes than they would be if they had the time and will to deliberation.

I think that a lot of the responses that this post has received tend to support the study's hypothesis.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

The degree of comfortability with change is the single most important distinguishing feature between conservatives and liberals.
It is how they are defined.

Liberal: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Conservative: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.



Nice simple working definition Ghost 375 - and it reminds me of a tenet of Rudolf Steiner:

There are two streams of EVIL in the world, one, pulling us into the past and one, pulling us into the future; it is the purpose of each individual and each group to strive to balance the two. Sounds like the middle path of Buddhism as well.

Lack of self-awareness leads to the past and too much self-awareness leads to the future. That is not to say that the past (tradition) is bad and the future (change) is good, it's just that too much of either is un-productive and by that definition, EVIL.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Ghost375


You're the one who refuses to objectively discuss the psychology of conservatives.



There has been NOT ONE objective comment on conservatives in this thread.

You're coloured by liberal ideology and refuse to "think outside the box".

Have you ever, ever ever ever considered that you may be wrong in your ideology?


Have you? Or do your degrees make you infallable? Where did you learn this ****?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 





It basically says that people, when stressed, are more conservative in their respondes than they would be if they had the time and will to deliberation.


So just how stressed were those 85 drunk participants from the New England pub in Study 1? Seriously?! Why would anyone include alcohol consumption in a study like this unless it's just to prove why our own drunken representatives aren't capable of changing anything?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Sly1one
 


Adherence to the status quo is NOT individualism.

Rugged individualism is the reliance of self.

You're spot on in your assessment.


In America, individualism is the status quo.

Second.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Well, I would suggest that adhering rigidly to any particular political ideology is intellectual sloth.

I would also say that just because, apparently, liberals tend to be more cerebral than conservatives doesn't necessarily make it better. There is such a thing as overthinking and overanalyzing.

I also like how a lot of these studies seem to come out of bastions of liberal thought, meaning that, of course, there's no bias in the studies at all.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by Sly1one
 

The degree of comfortability with change is the single most important distinguishing feature between conservatives and liberals.
It is how they are defined.

Liberal: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Conservative: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

I'm nearly certain that the reason they oppose Obama so much is because he represents "change."(Even if his change sucks) It is something that they are fundamentally opposed.
You don't see conservatives proposing any new healthcare bills. You only see them complaining about the current inevitable changes with healthcare.

There is a big difference between the two things I said.

Know thyself.


I would posit that conservative values are more internalized and less culturally and morally relative and ambiguous. This leads to situations where one can determine quickly and with little effort if something is right or wrong within that *already deliberated belief structure* and how to move forward as a result of that simple calculation. It does not mean that the underlying concepts or processes involved in forming that foundation are lacking in thought or deliberation. In fact, by virtue (and I do use the word virtue intentionally here) of their traditional, hand me down basis, they have actually been deliberated and more firmly vetted -- time tested if you will - than the momentary fad of the day.

When a wheel is stuck in the mud in a unique situation it may be very necessary to ponder how to get it unstuck. That doens't mean that the wheel itself should be reinvented everytime it happens.





top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join