Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Jade Helm Conspiracy Non-TerroristsFollow

#127 Aug 27 2015 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ugly's more of a Chili's person.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Aug 27 2015 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Man, reading Haidt's stuff versus how it's being presented is insane. Here's the final paragraphs from his book's conclusion (I'd quote more but I'm typing this by hand):
Haidt wrote:
This book explained why people are divided by politics and religion. The answer is not, as Manichaeans would have it, because some people are good and others are evil. Instead, the explanation is that our minds were designed for groupish righteousness. We are deeply intuitive creatures whose gut feelings drive our strategic reasoning. This makes it difficult -- but not impossible -- to connect with those who live in other matrices, which are often built on a different configuration of the available moral foundations.

So the next time you find yourself seated beside someone from another matrix, give it a try. Don't jump right in. Don't bring up morality until you've found a few points of commonality or some other way established a bit of trust. And when you do bring up morality, try to start with some praise, or with a sincere expression of interest.

We're all stuck here for a while, so let's try to work it out.


This is what Gbaji's reviewer got from the book:
Some guy over at Vision and Values.com wrote:
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 can't even.... Smiley: facepalm

The whole thing reminds me people who sort of skim-read the first half of Freakanomics or Guns, Germs & Steel and figure that now they're an authority despite missing the whole point.

Edited, Aug 27th 2015 3:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Aug 28 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
...I can't even.... Smiley: facepalm
You're clearly incapable of actually understanding the issue, taking factors into consideration, or assessing the issues as well as a conservative with their magical politipowers of insight or whatever.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#130 Aug 28 2015 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I bet that telling yourself that it's always the other guys' fault and they're incapable of understanding your arguments (because misunderstood "research"!) is a great way to avoid ever admitting that maybe your argument just wasn't a good one.

My Freakanomics example wasn't the greatest. Reading Haidt's stuff and his "Let's learn to understand each other" tone of his book, talks and political advocacy website, the conclusions that Gbaji is quoting and relying on are more like a Men's Rights Activist reading Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and saying that it proves that women are too stupid, emotional and needy to bother trying to talk to.

Seriously, the gulf between what this guy is saying and what Gbaji is saying (granted, 3rd hand) is boggling.

Edited, Aug 28th 2015 9:24am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Aug 28 2015 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
**
348 posts
Dropping in from Lurkerville to say that Haidt's The Righteous Mind was one of the best books I read in 2014. As a work is it elegant, respectful, insightful, and absolutely worth reading regardless of one's religious or political foundations.

(I also happened to read it during the same period of time I was playing through Far Cry 4, so the book's rider/elephant metaphor developed some colorful layers in my mind's eye.)
____________________________
FFXI Character: Strummer; Server: Odin; 99DNC, 99PUP, 99BRD; LS: Goonies
FFXIV Character: Strummer Sleipnir; Server: Malboro; Archer 24, Goldsmithing 20; FC: Goonies
#132 Aug 28 2015 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're not fooling anyone, Dr. Haidt Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Aug 31 2015 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,314 posts
I bet Lurkerville is just as empty as Posteropolis.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#134 Aug 31 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,295 posts
I'm not so sure. Are all 34 anonymous guests spam bots?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#135 Aug 31 2015 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,590 posts
I may or may not be a spambot.
#136 Aug 31 2015 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Military officials hate this Texas governor for discovering one weird trick
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Aug 31 2015 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,314 posts
I probably am. Click here to find out.

Edited, Aug 31st 2015 10:31am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Aug 31 2015 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,236 posts
Turin wrote:
I may or may not be a spambot.


But can you pass a Turin test?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#139 Aug 31 2015 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,623 posts
Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#140 Aug 31 2015 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
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.


So, if you've not heard of it, it doesn't exist? Unless you restrict the "help" to government managed social programs, you've got to be insane to even raise the question. I personally know at least a half dozen strict anti-abortion conservatives, who regularly volunteer for big brother/sister programs, or are foster parents, or donate to any of a number of organizations that provide for disadvantaged kids, or even adopt such kids themselves. Or all of the above, plus other things that I'm probably not thinking about right now. Your assumptive cart is way way way ahead of your horse here.

Do you really have such a dim view of conservatives? I mean, I get not agreeing with a counter political or social position, but assuming that they are all just evil people who care only for themselves? That doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
Which is kind of my point.


If your point was that you maybe need to spend more time actually getting to know conservatives (strongly anti-abortion ones even!) rather than just repeating assumptions generated by liberals talking smack about them, then your point was well made. It's just funny because you're practically exhibiting a textbook example of the behavior I spoke about earlier. Maybe a little self examination as to why you assume this would be in order. You can't honestly think that half of the population is just plain evil. Right? Cause that would be nuts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Aug 31 2015 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Debalic wrote:
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?"


I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. The point of the article is that liberals see an act they don't understand and call it "heinous". The issue isn't how one reacts to a heinous act, but whether the act is actually heinous in the first place. Your response fails completely to address that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Aug 31 2015 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


Bit of an excluded middle there, don't you think? *I* didn't say it was impossible for conservatives to throw out red meat. Heck. I said they do. I took issue with your statement (someone's statement, I've honestly forgotten who said it initially) that conservative talk was *nothing* but red meat.

The reference to Haidt in this context had nothing to do with his view of conservative talk, but that the inability of a liberal to see constructive conversation within conservative talk (which might lead him to conclude it's just "red meat") does align with his research on the liberal focus on only half of the moral foundations studied. I thought I even explained this. If you don't see things like "rule of law", "family values", "love of country", etc as valid moral bases, and perhaps even translate those things into "excuses conservatives give for their terrible positions on social issues I care about", you're going to see nothing but red meat in conservative talk. Because it's going to include those other three foundations as a balance to the three you care about. Thus, all you see is conservatives talking negatively about things you think are important.

Which is completely relevant to his research. I just pointed out that it happens to explain why liberals might view conservative talk very differently than conservatives do. And not just in an "agree or disagree" way. It also explains (to me at least) my own observation that liberal attempts at talk tend to be basically the opposite, not of actual conservative talk, but what liberals *think* conservative talk is. All one needs to do is watch Fox News and MSNBC for a while to see this pattern (well, and be a conservative, I suppose).

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?


Um... Agreeing with someone on one thing does not require that I agree with them on every thing. Cause that would be dumb, right? I'm purely talking about this one finding in this one area of research. It is funny though that you're attributing to me yet another behavior that I've observed and commented on many times about liberals. Which is that you guys tend to find an "expert" and follow what that person says, almost dogmatically. If he's right on thing A, he must be right on thing B. Conservatives tend to look at each issue and position independently. We don't tie ourselves to a slavish support of one person and that person's ideas.

I think it's a pretty weak counter to say "well, if you wont agree to everything someone says, then you can't quote them or their work for anything!". Again, that's just plain silly. It's an impossible standard. I'm sure there were one or two positions that Obama held that you don't agree with, yet somehow, you still managed to vote for him. Twice even. Shocking!

Quote:
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?


Gee Joph. It's like you've never read something that agreed with and explained something you already believed, and thought "hey! This guy may be on to something." Seriously? I'm fully willing to acknowledge confirmation bias here, but I don't happen to think that's wrong in this case. I guess what I find odd here is that you and most of the folks on this board eternally demand that I provide sources and citations in support of a position or idea I have, yet, when I do this, you find some bizarre way to invalidate it. I'm starting with my position and then looking for sources that support it. I don't think that's wrong. It's your job, if you chose to take the opposing position, to find counter sources that oppose my position or idea. But it's interesting that in this case, you've chosen to go with "but this guy also hold other positions on other issues that you don't agree with, so you shouldn't use him as a source".

um... What? Again, that makes no sense. And yes, I will question conclusions that seem to fly in the face of other data I've encountered. And yes, I'll question sources that are partisan themselves, and then magically derive conclusions that just happen to support said partisan alignment. The reason I specifically chose Haidt's work to cite is because he is himself liberal. So pointing out all the things he believes that I don't isn't really a problem for me. It actually strengthens my case because he *isn't* a conservative. If he was, you could just point that out and dismiss it, right? So kinda strange for you to instead argue that *I* should dismiss it because he's liberal. Again, that's kinda the point here.

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


That when faced with a non conservative source that supports a conservative position, you punt with what has to be the most bizarre counter imaginable? Note that you haven't actually addressed his research, or his conclusions, but have just insisted that I should abandon them because he's liberal? That makes zero sense.

Edited, Aug 31st 2015 7:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Aug 31 2015 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Have you read Haidt's stuff yet?

You're asking me to "address his research or his conclusions" so, before we do so and discuss what his book says and findings are, can we establish that you're going to be familiar with them and not just some third hand sources?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Sep 01 2015 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Maybe a little self examination as to why you assume this would be in order. [...] Your response fails completely to address that.
You know what they say, when you live in glass pots, don't call black kettles rocks.
gbaji wrote:
It's like you've never read something that agreed with and explained something you already believed, and thought "hey! This guy may be on to something."
I've never read someone else's interpretation of something and assumed that it was good enough to represent what I believed in.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Sep 01 2015 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji went radio silent after I posted that. No surprise there.
gbaji wrote:
Um... Agreeing with someone on one thing does not require that I agree with them on every thing. Cause that would be dumb, right? I'm purely talking about this one finding in this one area of research.

It's the same research. The same focus on "pillars" that you're mistakenly harping on are the same findings showing that conservatives are, for instance, less likely to care about anyone not closely related to their 'tribe'.

Anyway, had you actually done any independent reading instead of cherry picking one or two things you really liked you might have learned that:

Smiley: schooled The "pillars" thing merely shows that liberals and conservatives place different values on things such as harm or tradition or fairness or law and order. Yes, the liberal plotting has a gulf in between whereas the conservative plotting is all six clustered in the middle. This does not mean that liberals don't use all six (as you keep erroneously implying with your 'only three pillars!' remarks) but that they weight them differently.

Smiley: schooled Because the conservative plots are in the middle, yes, they are closer to both the liberal groups. So conservatives may weigh tradition close to fairness whereas liberals have a wider gulf between them and are more likely to think ill of someone putting tradition first.

Smiley: schooled Haidt does not say that liberals are incapable of understanding conservative arguments, that they view conservatives as "monstrous" or any of that other nonsense. Nor are conservatives immune to overreaching and stereotyping, such as remarks about "bleeding heart liberals" (harm), "hate the rich" (fairness), etc.

Smiley: schooled There is, of course, the very real chance that a racist argument is just a racist argument and not one misunderstood by liberals. Haidt acknowledges that conditions such as racism, xenophobia, homophobia, authoritarianism, jingoism, etc are part and parcel to pillars such as loyalty and tradition (and an unwillingness to accept new things). This doesn't mean that every argument resting on tribal loyalty is racist, but most racist arguments rest on the pillar of tribal loyalty.

Smiley: schooled As noted, the idea that Haidt's research or conclusions show that liberals "cannot and will not relate, or even concede that such concerns fall into the realm of moral reasoning" is moronic on the face given that the entire point of his book is explaining how both sides can better understand and relate to one another. That fact that you ate that up is baffling. It's like reading a review of How to Train your German Shepherd in Ten Days where the reviewer's take away is "The German Shepherd is untrainable and vicious and will eat anyone who tries" and not questioning that on the simple merits of what the book is about.

Smiley: schooled It's pretty ridiculous to crow about this whole pillars thing and then backpedal when it's not favorable to you. If you're going to accept the plotting then you need to accept that conservatives are, in fact, less interested in harm to people outside their tribes, less interested in fairness, etc.

Anyway, until you've actually read the book, listened to him talk, etc then you shouldn't even bother responding.

"Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?"
"What?"
"Were you listening to The Dude's story?"
"I was bowling."
"So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Sep 01 2015 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,509 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
bijou wrote:
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.
So, if you've not heard of it, it doesn't exist?.
I'll just end your quote there since you COMPLETELY missed the point (again). I did not say it did not exist.

THE POINT of what I said is that NO NEWS SERVICE ANYWHERE that I have seen has shown such a GOP politico.

THE POINT of people we elect is mostly picking people who decides WHERE TO SPEND TAXES, so your "they do volunteer stuff and...stuff!!!!!!!!" is not relevant in the slightest.

THE POINT is that if there is a politician as above described by me who exists, he/she is invisible to the media and needs to try harder to get exposure.


WELCOME TO THE POINT.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#147 Sep 02 2015 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji went radio silent after I posted that.
Maybe he was mobilized.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#148 Sep 02 2015 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's like you've never read something that agreed with and explained something you already believed, and thought "hey! This guy may be on to something."
I've never read someone else's interpretation of something and assumed that it was good enough to represent what I believed in.


Good thing that's not what I said then. His findings represent a good explanation for behavior I already observed. You know, like most science does. Like say how the theory of gravity explains the observed behavior of things falling to the ground. You presumably knew that objects fall to the ground long before you'd ever heard of Newton, right? So, when you first heard about him and his theory, did you reject it because it's someone else's interpretation of something and therefore should not be good enough to represent your own beliefs about "things falling to the ground"? Or did you instead go "Hey. That's a good explanation of what I've observed".

Cause one of those is a logical and sensible reaction and the other is bat-shit crazy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Sep 02 2015 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,256 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Agreeing with someone on one thing does not require that I agree with them on every thing. Cause that would be dumb, right? I'm purely talking about this one finding in this one area of research.

It's the same research. The same focus on "pillars" that you're mistakenly harping on are the same findings showing that conservatives are, for instance, less likely to care about anyone not closely related to their 'tribe'.


Because conservatives balance that care with other factors (one being loyalty). Knowledge and understanding really are two different things.

Quote:
Anyway, had you actually done any independent reading instead of cherry picking one or two things you really liked you might have learned that:


Yeah. Um... Nothing you wrote is new to me. You're basically arguing "yeah, but...". The buts don't invalidate the yeah.

You are correct that his objective was to propose ways that both sides could more easily understand each other. But that understanding has to come from both sides. The point I was making is that his research shows quite clearly that conservatives understand liberals far far better than liberals understand conservatives. Obviously, he wouldn't feel the need to write the book if he didn't see an issue with this. It's targeted more at liberals than at conservatives. Please tell me you get this.

Quote:
Smiley: schooled As noted, the idea that Haidt's research or conclusions show that liberals "cannot and will not relate, or even concede that such concerns fall into the realm of moral reasoning" is moronic on the face given that the entire point of his book is explaining how both sides can better understand and relate to one another. That fact that you ate that up is baffling. It's like reading a review of How to Train your German Shepherd in Ten Days where the reviewer's take away is "The German Shepherd is untrainable and vicious and will eat anyone who tries" and not questioning that on the simple merits of what the book is about.


Apparently not. You're failing to grasp that if the natural state was everyone knowing how to train a German Shepherd, then there would be no need to write the book. So a reviewer concluding that failing to read the book and implement its directions might result in an untrained dog would be perfectly reasonable.

Quote:
Smiley: schooled It's pretty ridiculous to crow about this whole pillars thing and then backpedal when it's not favorable to you. If you're going to accept the plotting then you need to accept that conservatives are, in fact, less interested in harm to people outside their tribes, less interested in fairness, etc.


I'm not backpedaling on anything. I acknowledge every single point you've made (or that Haidt made). I simply disagree with your interpretation, is all. Of course conservatives are "less interested" in those things. Because, as I mentioned above, they are balancing them against other factors, while liberals are not (or, to concede the point a bit, not as much). That's like saying that adults are less interested in doing fun things with their children than their children are when the reason is because the adult balances "do fun things with the kids" with "earn money to put a roof over the house, food on our table, etc, etc, etc". Not being as focused on "doing fun things" isn't a bad trait in this case. And it's not in the cases you're talking about either.

You keep using a relative term (less), but that doesn't tell us much. The question is which "side" is applying the more appropriate and balanced amount of interest in each area. The guy with ocd is going to be more interested in making sure the front door is locked every day, but that isn't necessarily a positive trait, right? And yes, sometimes talking with liberals on social issues is very much like talking with an ocd person. They are overly focused on that "one thing" that is the issue of the moment that they've come to believe is the one and only thing that matters. While to me, they are failing to see the bigger picture and put the issue into proper perspective. So yes, Haidt's research just happens to align very well with my own observations. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Edited, Sep 2nd 2015 7:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Sep 02 2015 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So, still haven't bothered to read the book and listen to his talks, huh?

Well, be sure to always tell us in the future how you make sure to seek out all the information and make your own conclusions instead of just going by what someone else told you. We'd all hate to think that you just cherry pick a few lines that make you feel happy than threaten your happiness with any independent truth-seeking. Must be the pillars of morality you're using Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Sep 03 2015 at 5:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,236 posts
People who write books are untrustworthy experts, but people who misinterpret them are salt of the earth
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (12)