|
I personally agree, since I went through a similar transition to the one you describe. However, the point of the article, as reported, was that there is a link between our fight or flight response and our political leanings. Hence, the news report tried to make it out to be a genetic thing. Now, once I read the article, I saw that is not exactly what the researchers said...If there truly is a conservative gene and a liberal gene, the implications are absolutely chilling...While I'm no scientist, I play one on TV...
All kidding aside, I 'm not convinced anyone could necessarily be genetically disposed toward liberal or conservative thinking, since philosophy by its nature is learned.
I should read the article before I say more, but I might agree without research that it's reasonable to assume individuals with a quicker inclination to fight would likewise develop generally more hostile political leanings, while those more inclined to flee would be 'softer,' as it were. Personally--and again, I really should stop and educated myself with the paper--I would not be interested in financing research that simply seemed to corroborate a notion that might be supposed anyway, and seemingly has no further practical or theoretical application.
Fear is an irrational emotion.More accurately, I think fear itself is often rational -- I fear to go out in the middle of the interstate and take a nap -- but it most often spurs us to make irrational decisions. Point taken, though.
Spot on Kirth. Fear is an emotion which often engenders irrational actions within the framework of civilization. We all fight the caveman in our hindbrains. It has not been so long since 'fight or flight' reflexes were essential to survival.
This thread is being read by strangers. Who are they? What are they reading it for?
This thread is being read by strangers. Who are they? What are they reading it for?
Please stop trying to distract everyone from the fact that you are working to have me imprisoned on false charges.
Director of Narrative
|
When I first saw this post I didn't want to comment because it felt cheesy. But since, I've seen it get politicized, so screw it, here goes.
I don’t think is as much about politics as it is about human behavior. Politics are normally grey areas that are only served to drive us apart. We as humans have wanted the same things, forever. Everyone want’s to feel useful and be happy. That’s it. If you want to change the world, start at the beginning and work on yourself.
The biggest demon we have to face is fear. Fear seeks to squash out love.
This thread is being read by strangers. Who are they? What are they reading it for?Please stop trying to distract everyone from the fact that you are working to have me imprisoned on false charges.
It is for your own good.
Do not resist. Officers of the Peace will arrive shortly. Your best interests are our only concern. Do not resist. Officers of the Peace...
Maybe it is physiology but I don't fit into either of those two extremes. of course most people seem to think I am weird so who knows.
There's nothing wrong with being weird. Normalcy is very overrated.
|
I should read the article before I say more, but I might agree without research that it's reasonable to assume individuals with a quicker inclination to fight would likewise develop generally more hostile political leanings, while those more inclined to flee would be 'softer,' as it were.
While this would make some sense, the research seems to more support that people who are more prone to 'fight' *or* 'flight' reactions are the ones who are reactionary in their political views as well, more prone to extreme political views.
One person might fearfully react with pre-emptive aggression against 'scary brown people' while another person might fearfully react by adopting an isolationist / protectionist stance, suggesting that Americans put American first and get rid of all the foreigners and let the rest of the world handle it's own business. It's not so much whether they chose 'fight' or 'flight,' as how strongly they allow their decision making processes to be determined by their fear reactions.
The presence or absence of a fear reaction in the decision-making process shouldn't be regarded as a good or bad thing. People make decisions differently, and there are situations in which one would be an utter fool not to be completely terrified ****less and making ones decisions on whether to initiate violence (or a hasty retreat) based on fear isn't a sign of some sort of moral weakness.
Sometimes the person who is scared is the smart one, while the person who blithely and confidently walks into a situation he's completely incapable of dealing with is the one who is going to get mauled by the bear.
|
Eh, I just live my life on one simple premise (well, 2. but only this oen is applicable): For your paranoia to be justified, you only have to be right once. Also, it's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.
(if anyone's curious, my other tenet (which I call rule 1) is that if you're not happy, you're doing something wrong. Do Something About It!)
|
I should read the article before I say more, but I might agree without research that it's reasonable to assume individuals with a quicker inclination to fight would likewise develop generally more hostile political leanings, while those more inclined to flee would be 'softer,' as it were.While this would make some sense, the research seems to more support that people who are more prone to 'fight' *or* 'flight' reactions are the ones who are reactionary in their political views as well, more prone to extreme political views.
One person might fearfully react with pre-emptive aggression against 'scary brown people' while another person might fearfully react by adopting an isolationist / protectionist stance, suggesting that Americans put American first and get rid of all the foreigners and let the rest of the world handle it's own business. It's not so much whether they chose 'fight' or 'flight,' as how strongly they allow their decision making processes to be determined by their fear reactions.
The presence or absence of a fear reaction in the decision-making process shouldn't be regarded as a good or bad thing. People make decisions differently, and there are situations in which one would be an utter fool not to be completely terrified ****less and making ones decisions on whether to initiate violence (or a hasty retreat) based on fear isn't a sign of some sort of moral weakness.
Sometimes the person who is scared is the smart one, while the person who blithely and confidently walks into a situation he's completely incapable of dealing with is the one who is going to get mauled by the bear.
Too true... I just find that for the most part I do have very explicit views and feel quite justified in them. The only difference that i seem to find is that I am willing to listen to a well thought out opposing view. Many times I wonder what the other person is smoking however but this doesn't change the fact that i will listen and am willing to change my view at times.
|
|
Just me and the group of people that are conveniantly hidden behind me in file formation so you can't see them. no need to worry.are they really out to get me?[cheery voice]Yup![/cheery voice]yes but its just you right?
Right?
It is just you Kess? No one else? honest?
I am wondering can you hide a lot of poodles in single file?
|
|
I am wondering can you hide a lot of poodles in single file?Just me and the group of people that are conveniantly hidden behind me in file formation so you can't see them. no need to worry.are they really out to get me?[cheery voice]Yup![/cheery voice]yes but its just you right?
Right?
It is just you Kess? No one else? honest?
no, but four poodles standing on top of each other wearing a trenchcoat? yes!
but the real question is hod do you know if they're poodles?