Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

#102 Aug 26 2015 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
Social media is what we need a revolution against. Smiley: motz
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Aug 26 2015 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Social media is the key to revolutions, you should probably contact the NSA



Don't bother, they know.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#104 Aug 26 2015 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's why liberals do so poorly when asked predict conservative answers to moral/ethical questions. In fact, they do worse in direct proportion to how strongly they identify themselves as liberal (see research by Jonathan Haidt on the subject if you're curious).

Like this:
1. Study finds that liberals think conservatives are racist/homophobic/etc
2. Study finds that conservatives claim to not be racist/homophobic/etc
3. Study finds that liberals don't *really* know about conservatives


Not quite. Basically, a liberal professor attempted to define ranges of moral foundations that could be attributed based on liberal/conservative identities, so as to explain why liberals and conservatives could take such different positions on things. Basically, we was trying to figure out why liberal ideas, which he strongly agreed with, didn't just automatically "win". What he found was that he could identify 6 different definable moral foundations, and through large scale surveys (like 130,000 people), found they did indeed align (somewhat) with self identified conservatives and liberals. And they even lined up as he expected them to.

But then he found something else that threw him:

Quote:
But Haidt’s second major discovery is far more consequential: the concept of “the conservative advantage.” Based on painstaking cross-cultural social-psychological experimentation, Haidt establishes that the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives are not just different, they are dramatically unequal. The liberal moral matrix rests essentially entirely on the left-most foundations; the conservative moral foundation—though slanted to the right—rests upon all six.

This is a stunning finding with enormous implications. The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.


Sound familiar?

The article I linked earlier was an attempt to explain why this is the case. Obviously, it can't be that liberals and conservatives simply have brains that work differently (I suppose it's possible, but that seems unlikely), but rather the environments they develop their positions in are different. Liberals are less likely to be exposed to conservative ideas. I'm not talking about conservative positions, but the actual philosophy behind them. They are most likely to have learned about conservative positions and the reasoning behind them, not from actually talking to conservatives, but from other liberals. Which, btw, leads to the incredibly amusing cases where they do run into a conservative who attempts to explain why he holds the positions he does, and they don't believe him (sound familiar?).


The point being that liberals tend to view conservative positions poorly because they've been told to by other liberals. Who in turn were told to by other liberals. Etc, etc, etc. This narrow viewpoint is so strongly established that it's hard for liberals to even contemplate the possibility of something different, which can be clearly seen in the study itself, where the answers liberals gave about what they thought conservative answers were bore little resemblance to the actual answers given by conservatives themselves. Meanwhile, conservatives were spot on with their understanding of liberals.

Haidt himself was attempting to understand specifically why John Kerry didn't win the election back in 2004. In his world, everyone he knew hated Bush, hated conservatives, hated the war, and knew that Kerry represented everything in opposition to those things (and more). What he learned was that his circle of knowledge, and that of those with the same socio-political alignment as he, was only half of the picture. It wasn't conservatives who were narrow minded and not seeing the big picture, but himself and his fellow liberals.

I'm sure this will not result in a single liberal actually taking the time to attempt to understand conservative viewpoints, but unlike the author of the linked article...

Quote:
Sadly, “The Righteous Mind” proves irrefutably that trying to explain to liberals that their solutions might undermine vital institutions is fruitless. They cannot and will not relate, or even concede that such concerns fall into the realm of moral reasoning.


... I feel like I have to try. Heck. Why not? You guys already think I'm some kind of insane mindless bigot, right? I'll hold out the hope that maybe a light bulb will go off in someone's mind. Just one may be an accomplishment. Maybe.

Edited, Aug 26th 2015 4:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Aug 26 2015 at 5:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Have you actually read the book in question rather than a recap of it posted on a conservative website?

Not that I think one guy's opinion is the be-all anyway. And, frankly, your viewpoints are rarely all that complex anyway, such as when I easily boiled down your SSM argument while you were still making ludicrous remarks about what everyone else believed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Aug 26 2015 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bijou can of course speak for himself but I took that more as a comment about conservative media than a blanket statement about each and every conservative in the nation. Conservative media is filled with bashing and red meat because that's what sells and what listeners want to hear. I once participated in a brief email exchange with a conservative radio host here where he copped to basically being forced to roll with it because that's what the station was about:
Quote:
I hate all the predictable anti-Obama nonsense that many guests regurgitate but I'm afraid it's much like having to play the dismal, but programmed, musical product earlier in my career.

But, anyway, perhaps the same can be said for liberal opinion media although I don't think it's quite the mirror image -- attempts to create a "liberal" version of conservative talk radio met spectacular failure in Air America. For better or worse, I think liberal listeners are just a different audience and don't react the same to that sort of stimulus. Of course, no one else here is whining about how misunderstood they are either. If I was going to throw a snit each time I heard the usual voices on the radio (or, heck, Gbaji) tell me how angry I (as a liberal) am or how much I care about some topic or what my goals/desires were, I'd never get anything else done.


I'd say that this is a feature of any talk radio/TV situation, not specifically conservative. Extreme, black and white positions, and opinions tend to draw attention, while moderate positions and calm discussions do not. However, having spent many months back in the day listening to nothing but Air America in my car and then comparing/contrasting that to conservative talk, I can say that while both did engage in a fair amount of red meat, the conservative talk at least did include actual discussion off issues, pro and cons, debate over the whys and not just the whats, etc. Air America seemed to me to be a liberal attempt to make a media counter based on what they assumed conservative talk radio was about. So it contained nothing but red meat, angry protestations, name calling, etc. It was repetitive. It rarely actually entertained callers. And it was angry. Very very angry. And, not to be repetitive myself, it seemed most to be about just repeating slogans over and over. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Randy Rhodes would say the phrase "Bush crime family" at least 100 times per hour on her show. Heck. I'm probably lowballing it.

If all you do is listen to conservative talk and hear the red meat, that's all you'll hear. But if you listen past that, you might be surprised just how many things are actually discussed. And not just in a "look how terrible these other guys are", but in a "here's why this position is best, or why we should support this policy, or oppose that one". In 6 months of listening to Air America exclusively, that sort of thing rarely ever happened. The hosts there started with the assumption that their positions were correct, so therefore there was no reason to discuss that, and just proceeded right to talking about how horrible anyone who disagreed with them was. And when a rare host actually took callers, the extent of the conversations were usually of the "why do conservatives think this?", followed by "because they're evil bigots who hate everyone".

That was pretty much it. And that's why it failed. Heck. At least more traditional left leaning programs (like you'll hear on NPR) attempts some discussion. It's horribly slanted, but at least they attempt to talk *about* things, and not just rant about why the "other side" is to be hated and feared.

But those were just my observations. I'm sure I'm biased or something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Aug 26 2015 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If all you do is listen to conservative talk and hear the red meat, that's all you'll hear. But if you listen past that, you might be surprised just how many things are actually discussed. And not just in a "look how terrible these other guys are", but in a "here's why this position is best, or why we should support this policy, or oppose that one".

Not really, no. Many years of listening to conservative radio is my cite. I mean, sure, you can handwave it away with "But that's just because you're MISSING it!" but, hey, maybe I'm also missing all the unicorns and faeries in my garden as well. That's not really evidence.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Aug 26 2015 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Have you actually read the book in question rather than a recap of it posted on a conservative website?


No. I haven't. But every single source I've encountered that discusses the book says pretty much the same thing

Quote:
Haidt grew interested in the subject because, as a card-carrying Democrat, he became frustrated at the way that John Kerry was unable to connect with the American public during the 2004 elections; how could Democrats understand people’s desire to fight injustice and protect the weak on the one hand, and yet be completely blind to their desire for patriotism or faith or genuine concerns about free riders? The Left has traditionally dismissed these beliefs with various explanations based on Marx’s idea of false consciousness, but they are genuine human instincts.

Because they only appeal to three of our moral flavours, liberals have a disadvantage appealing to people outside particular middle-class, metropolitan cliques. It also makes it more difficult for them to understand conservatives than vice versa. Haidt, along with two other academics, conducted a test to identify how well people understood the beliefs of the other team. He writes: “the results were clear and consistent. Moderate and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as ‘very liberal’.

"The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as ‘One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenceless animal’ or ‘Justice is the most important requirement for a society,’ liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.”


To be fair, the author of that piece is also conservative, but it's the Telegraph, right? How about the New York Times?

Quote:
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.


Same thing. I'm reasonably sure I could find 20 different reviews of the book, or articles discussing the content of the book, and find the same information. I just find it interesting because I've personally seen this behavior on this board myself for more than a decade. So call it confirmation bias if you want, but his research seems to confirm exactly that which I've observed (and commented on) for years.

Quote:
Not that I think one guy's opinion is the be-all anyway. And, frankly, your viewpoints are rarely all that complex anyway, such as when I easily boiled down your SSM argument while you were still making ludicrous remarks about what everyone else believed.


Want to count how many times I've been called names for holding my positions? Want to count how many times I've been told either that I don't really believe the argument I wrote, or that I'm not representative of conservative opinion (because what the liberal *thinks* conservatives believe must be true, while the actual conservative in front of them telling them what he things can't be).

It's a very observable behavior. And yes, I've also observed that no amount of pointing this out to liberals makes them see it. It usually results in a doubling down on insults. Which is itself exactly in line with Haidt's research.


And yeah, it's one guy doing one study. But one study involving 130k people, and as far as I know, the only study that's actually approached this question in this manner. So barring someone else doing similar research and getting different results, don't we kinda have to go with what we have here? If you are a liberal, you might want to think twice the next time you encounter a conservative position and immediately reject it as stupid, or hateful. The next time you think "that conservative just doesn't understand the issue", you might want to consider that maybe he actually understands it better than you do, has taken more factors into consideration than you have, and is actually making a better assessment of the issue than you are. And then, maybe, just maybe, you might want to stop and ask him about his thought process. You might discover that you're the one who really doesn't understand the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Aug 26 2015 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If all you do is listen to conservative talk and hear the red meat, that's all you'll hear. But if you listen past that, you might be surprised just how many things are actually discussed. And not just in a "look how terrible these other guys are", but in a "here's why this position is best, or why we should support this policy, or oppose that one".

Not really, no. Many years of listening to conservative radio is my cite. I mean, sure, you can handwave it away with "But that's just because you're MISSING it!" but, hey, maybe I'm also missing all the unicorns and faeries in my garden as well. That's not really evidence.


This is where I point out that you are a liberal and are automatically rejecting half of the elements of an issue and thus don't even hear them. And, as a liberal, you aren't even aware you are doing this. Cause... Science!

You are actually missing it. As the research shows, it's most likely that when you hear a conservative talk about, and place weight on 3 of the 6 moral foundations mentioned, you automatically translate them into hate and dismiss it. So all you hear is red meat, because you translate any mention of family values, national defense, support for law, defense of private property, etc, into discrimination against people you care about and want to protect.

Edited, Aug 26th 2015 4:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Aug 26 2015 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,615 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
If "conservatives" spent more time talking about positive things and workable solutions for the problems of the country (and maybe the world, hey?) I'd listen to them and take them more seriously.


Plenty of them do. Most of them don't make the news.
If there is an avid anti-abortion conservative out there who cares about children so very much that he/she also advocates lots of spending on food, shelter and education for these O so precious children, well, I've not heard of it.

Which is kind of my point.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#111 Aug 26 2015 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Be more impressive if you could provide some actual evidence of what you claim happens but, you know, conservative Smiley: grin

LOL at your sudden clinging to this "expert" as the sole gospel. And in a social science, no less!

This should be a fun experiment though -- as I said, I was able to distill your SSM arguments down succinctly. You yourself had no quarrel with my take on them. Do the same. Take one of my social positions and, without poisoning the well or injecting your own bias, explain to me exactly why I feel as I do about something. Pick one of the Greatest Hits from the forum; something with some meat to it.

Edited, Aug 26th 2015 6:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Aug 26 2015 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,615 posts
article wrote:
Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations
Who says these are the only moral foundations?


EDIT: Nevermind; I read that wrong.

Edited, Aug 26th 2015 6:25pm by Bijou
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#113 Aug 26 2015 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Some psychologist.

I just watched a TED talk by him and he only had five foundations (Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect & Purity/sanctity). He must have dug up a sixth somewhere along the way Smiley: laugh

Actually, I'm thinking the reviewer erroneously counted "law and order" as two different "foundations". Or something. Actually, I can't even link his five from the talk directly to the six written in the review. Eh, who knows?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Aug 26 2015 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,615 posts
article also wrote:
You don’t have to believe in God to see this higher capacity as part of our nature. You just have to believe in evolution. Evolution itself has evolved: as humans became increasingly social, the struggle for survival, mating and progeny depended less on physical abilities and more on social abilities. In this way, a faculty produced by evolution — sociality — became the new engine of evolution.
So if we can everyone on board that evolution is real *cough*conservatives*cough*...
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#115 Aug 26 2015 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,628 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is a stunning finding with enormous implications. The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.

A good man sees a heinous act and says, "How could you do that?"
An evil man sees a heroic act and says, "WHY would you do that?"


gbaji wrote:
But those were just my observations. I'm sure I'm biased or something.

Of course *you're* not, just everybody else is.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#116 Aug 27 2015 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You are actually missing it. As the research shows, it's most likely that when you hear a conservative talk about, and place weight on 3 of the 6 moral foundations mentioned, you automatically translate them into hate and dismiss it.

You should actually read Haidt's work and listen to his talks because this isn't at all -- even remotely -- what he is claiming. And he certainly never says that it's impossible for conservatives just be throwing out red meat and that all their arguments are sincere or legitimate.

I am curious though if you'll continue to hold Haidt's ideas as gospel after you actually digest his stuff on your own. For example, he talks about how conservatives are much less open to new experiences and ideas than liberals. Conservatives are far more likely to reject an idea, not on its merits, but purely because it is new. He jokes about chain restaurants like Applebee's staying open because conservatives value consistent mediocrity over the risk of a new experience. You agree with those assessments, right? He talks about how, compared to liberals, conservatives have a deficit in valuing care for others and fairness. They only really care about these things when they're directly affecting a member of their tribe; when it's happening to someone else their concern goes way down. You agree with that assessment as well, yes?

Really though, he's just one more voice in the field of psychology, political science and all that. I do have to again laugh at the irony that you say the Guttenmach researchers don't understand their own contraceptive education data, the foremost pioneer in ESC research is just lying so other scientists won't be mad at him and umpteen climate scientists have no idea how their field works, every major polling firm has no idea how to conduct polling and needs their results "unskewed", everyone putting out reports on gun violence or public education is biased but THIS guy.... this guy sure has it all down! Why, you read a review of a book and liked what it said about liberals so for sure this is the guy who finally gets it Smiley: laugh Even better is how many times you've made some lame assertion that you'd never let anyone do your thinking for you but you'd always look at the data yourself to draw your own conclusions... but here you cling to someone else's review of a book you've never even read. Hey, someone else's opinion of the author's opinion of the data is pretty much the same thing as making your own conclusions, right?

I might just be a silly liberal but I think I've cracked the motivation behind that little mystery.

Edited, Aug 27th 2015 9:18am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Aug 27 2015 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,692 posts
gbaji wrote:
The next time you think "that conservative just doesn't understand the issue", you might want to consider that maybe he actually understands it better than you do, has taken more factors into consideration than you have, and is actually making a better assessment of the issue than you are.
"Trust me, I'm smarter than you" isn't a very compelling argument even in the best of conditions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Aug 27 2015 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,345 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why, you read a review of a book and liked what it said about liberals so for sure this is the guy who finally gets it


It's like Plato's cave, but stupid.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#119 Aug 27 2015 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
Chained in a cave with nothing but shadows on a wall informing him of reality? After the last page I can buy that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Aug 27 2015 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
It's like Plato's cave, but stupid.

I can't say that I've ever read the book but I once read a review of the book that redefined how I view the world.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Aug 27 2015 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,345 posts
Well, your response to that review you read certainly clarifies my own understanding.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#122 Aug 27 2015 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,763 posts
I have a friend who once read a review, which makes me something of an expert, although I don't claim to be an expert, but trust me, I know what I am talking about.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#123 Aug 27 2015 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,573 posts
I'm explicitly not an expert, but thankfully can understand any field better than the experts because I'm not blinded by their bias.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#124 Aug 27 2015 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
You might not be an expert, but do you know someone that isn't an expert?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#125 Aug 27 2015 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,573 posts
I was just talking about this to a coworker the other day, and you won't guess what .
...
....
....
...

...
...

..


TLDR: he's an expert in knowing people who aren't experts, but who have close proximity to experts, so I think that gives me a solid position.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#126 Aug 27 2015 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
Quote:
I am curious though if you'll continue to hold Haidt's ideas as gospel after you actually digest his stuff on your own. For example, he talks about how conservatives are much less open to new experiences and ideas than liberals. Conservatives are far more likely to reject an idea, not on its merits, but purely because it is new. He jokes about chain restaurants like Applebee's staying open because conservatives value consistent mediocrity over the risk of a new experience. You agree with those assessments, right? He talks about how, compared to liberals, conservatives have a deficit in valuing care for others and fairness. They only really care about these things when they're directly affecting a member of their tribe; when it's happening to someone else their concern goes way down. You agree with that assessment as well, yes?
I agree with that assessment regarding myself. Except Applebee's specifically.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CST
Jophiel, Samira, Anonymous Guests (69)