Liberal self-pwnage??

[Callaway]

lol what the heck is that?

Kevv wanted this new smiley, so I named it after him.

I don't know what emotion it represents.

[SovaNu]

rollercoaster nausea most likely.

[SovaNu]

Lap it up then,
whore of Babylon!

your lap or mine?

[Calandale]

rollercoaster nausea most likely.

That's what it's giving me.

Lap it up then,
whore of Babylon!

your lap or mine?

Mine, of course. And it's all messy,
just thinkin' of you.

[SovaNu]

sweet.

[morthaur]

For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate.  Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs

As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case.  This is a particular concern in academia, where the prevailing wisdom post-Foucault is that human nature is mostly or entirely a social construct.  Folks like Judith Butler have gone so far as to argue that gender and sexuality are socially, rather than biologically, derived.

The problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.  Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one.  Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world... 

Anyroad...  It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate.  Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy.  That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.

[Scrapheap]

bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that?

Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money, buy whatever gun you want (and however many), have personal property rights, chose what school you want (vouchers) be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have, the list goes on and on....

There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.

[Scrapheap]

For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate.  Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs

I'd hardly dismiss his criticisms as merely "sarcastic". He made very valid points that the test had nothing to do with real-world mental agility.

As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case.

Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with p[olitical axes to grind??

This is a particular concern in academia, where the prevailing wisdom post-Foucault is that human nature is mostly or entirely a social construct.  Folks like Judith Butler have gone so far as to argue that gender and sexuality are socially, rather than biologically, derived.

I thought that theories like this were rejected, once they came down of their acid trips. 

The problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.  Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one.  Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world... 

This of course is only based on the notion that nuture trumps nature. I've always seen that the opposite is true.

Anyroad...  It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate.  Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy.  That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.

Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.

[SovaNu]

bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that?

Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money, buy whatever gun you want (and however many), have personal property rights, chose what school you want (vouchers) be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have, the list goes on and on....

There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.

gun owners are cowardly.

[Scrapheap]

bullshit. liberals want personal freedoms. what is blind about that?

Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money, buy whatever gun you want (and however many), have personal property rights, chose what school you want (vouchers) be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have, the list goes on and on....

There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.

gun owners are cowardly.

The bullet from the gun of a 15 year old punk on meth, doesn't give a damn how brave you are.

[SovaNu]

your blood pressure. be careful.

[mordok]

Liberals don't want you to be free to keep your own money

The old tax canard.  Heaven forbid we fund things like roads, schools, emergency personnel (firemen, police, paramedics), and even the military.

buy whatever gun you want (and however many)

But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds?  Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?

have personal property rights

On this one, you're going to have to elaborate please.

chose what school you want (vouchers)

We tried the whole "separate, but equal" thing.  Didn't work out too well.

be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have

You can have whatever beliefs you want.  You just can't force them on the rest of us.  And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.

the list goes on and on....

There's plenty of freedoms Liberals are against.

Then, by all means, continue.

[Teejay]

Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.

Never underestimate the power of nurture in human psychology.

[Calandale]

gun owners are cowardly.

Compared to bow or sword owners only.

[morthaur]

For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate.  Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs

I'd hardly dismiss his criticisms as merely "sarcastic". He made very valid points that the test had nothing to do with real-world mental agility.

I do not agree.  Mental agility has much more to do with those decisions you make without even being conscious of there being an option in the first place.  If you test the "real world" stuff the author was after, you are not testing neurology at all, but merely psychology.

I thought the Slate article was, if not sarcastic, then perhaps a bit ignorant of the disciple.  It is the sort of article which strikes a "common-sense" chord with people, whilst evading the more technical, scientific questions actually raised.

As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case.

Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with p[olitical axes to grind??

Could it be?  Sure.  But I'll also agree that the moon could be made of swiss cheese; it's just not terribly likely. 

Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature
Matt Ridley, The Agile Gene
Robert Wright, The Moral Animal
Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right
Ullica Segerstrale, Defenders of the Truth
John Alcock, The Triumph of Sociobiology
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate
Peter Richerson & Robert Boyd, Not By Genes Alone

The problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.  Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one.  Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world... 

This of course is only based on the notion that nuture trumps nature. I've always seen that the opposite is true.

Anyroad...  It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate.  Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy.  That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.

Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.

You mistake my position entirely.  I think that the question itself is faulty; neither nature nor nurture are sufficient explanations for any part of what makes us tick.

For myself, I actually grant a very high degree of relevance to biology, which puts me in an awkward position given my career and personal politics!  It is not a popular thing to trumpet, that we are not really 'free'.  And I do challenge things like free will, routinely, as well as the supposed social construction of many facets of our psyches.

But by the same token, I do not think that nature gives us more than a good, solid start, and that culture plays the decisive role in shaping that initial material into the individuals we become.  The Richerson book is a good one for staking out that territory, but Wilson got there before practically anyone else and his insights are still beautiful.

be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have

You can have whatever beliefs you want.  You just can't force them on the rest of us.  And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.

Brilliant!