| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you could hold that against Scorcease, but then you'd also have to boycott...Monica Bellucci...No way am I boycotting Monica Bellucci!
Thank you Don Juan for not boycotting me. But I still am pretty head over heels for Gruumash still. Now if that changes I will be sure to give you a ring. I still have you phone number as it is listed in the court documents for the restraining order.
Although, I would like to know if AD's got some dirt on Marty, or whether he's blowing it in the opening salvo.I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....Careful; if you really want to go there, we might start looking at people who put money into the collection plate at their local Catholic church on Sunday.
Martin Scorsese and most of Hollywood has publicly and openly supported and defended the convicted pedophile Roman Polanski.
Is defending and supporting pedophilia somehow a superior moral position than opposing homosexual rights?
I'm dead serious here. Nobody has accused Orson Scott Card of actually discriminating against or harming homosexuals, just of supporting those who do.
Well, Marty and his peers support those who perform pedophilia. Is that OK? Should we boycott the films of those in Hollywood who support and defend pedophiles?
I'm dead serious. Are those of you promoting boycotting OSC films and books also promoting boycotting of Marty's films? If not, why not? Do you support pedophilia too?
Just wondering.
Ahhhhh I am on fire put me out.
Ahhhhh I am on fire put me out.
You keep using that term. I don't think you know what it means.
You keep using that term. I don't think you know what it means.
In this case, the term is apt, since you continue to attack a position that no one is taking. The only equivalence between your scenario and the reason for the OSC boycott is the one that you and pres man invented.
For the last time:
Personal beliefs Y =/= money spent to pass laws explicitly to outlaw X.
Also, you're throwing around "supported" so loosely so as to render it without meaning.
All that said, I did boycott "The Departed"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. So the evil ones are manipulating the slow ones, who love being manipulated.
That's what it boils down to, unfortunately. (They don't actually love being manipulated in a conscious sense, of course; no one does. But they nonetheless seem very enthusiastic when that manipulation takes place - and it takes place often.) American conservatism, by its very nature, is incredibly vulnerable to manipulation. A lot of people have made very solid livings taking advantage of that vulnerability.
This isn't just conjecture, either. It's supported by a massive amount of scholarly literature.
Conservative ideology relies on low-effort thought, which means that half-truths or outright falsehoods are more likely to be found persuasive.
Conservatives react more strongly to offensive imagery, which means that imagery can be used to influence opinion in the absence of rational argumentation.
Conservatives are more sensitive to fear (see this paper as well), which means fear-based manipulation is an incredibly powerful tool for influencing the conservative base.
Conservatives are more motivated to preserve purity, which means the perception of being for or against purity can be used as a political wedge.
There is no difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to reactions to positive stimuli, but conservatives are more susceptible to negative stimuli (see this paper as well), which means that anyone aware of this can use such stimuli to manipulate conservatives far more easily than they could liberals.
Conservatism is focused on preventing negative outcomes, because the overriding motivator for conservative thought is fear.
These studies are collected and summarized by ProCon.org, a non-partisan political information non-profit (you can read their summaries here). All of the studies cited above are peer reviewed. I mention this, because I expect that your initial reaction to this information will be hostile, or at the very least discomfort. None of this information makes a judgment on whether conservatism is "good" or "bad", but rather seeks to explain (in an evidenced fashion) what makes conservatives and liberals different from a thought-process standpoint. So I encourage you to avoid dismissing this information and instead consider what it might mean for your own way of thinking about political issues.
This should serve as a cautionary message to conservatives: if you continue to hold conservative beliefs, you must be extremely vigilant about whether your actions are being manipulated through someone taking advantage of your belief system.
To draw this back to the thread's central topic, examine the arguments being used to rally the base in opposition to gay marriage. Count how many utilize fear as a means of manipulating the base. Then count how many utilize fear of something that isn't at all true, but which is nonetheless accepted as true by a large portion of the conservative base. Even someone as obviously intelligent as Orson Scott Card can be made to accept these falsehoods by playing upon the vulnerabilities introduced by his closely-held ideology.
For example: "Gay people want to turn our children gay," or "If we let gay people marry, soon we'll have to let people marry animals," or "If we let gay people marry, God will punish America," or "If we let gay people marry, our heterosexual marriages will be meaningless," or "If we let gay people marry, people will pretend to be gay for the benefits," or "If we let gay people marry, we will be forced to marry them in our churches," or "Gay people only want to marry because they hate marriage and want to destroy it as an institution."
|
This should serve as a cautionary message to conservatives: if you continue to hold conservative beliefs, you must be extremely vigilant about whether your actions are being manipulated through someone taking advantage of your belief system.
This should serve as a cautionary message to anyone, not just conservatives. Because even if all of those studies are completely correct in every detail, we're not talking about disjoint sets of "conservatives" and "liberals," where all of the people identifying as conservative showed the subject behavior, a behavior not shared by any of the people identifying as liberal. We're talking about tendencies.
TL;DR version: just read the XKCD strip HERE.
This should serve as a cautionary message to anyone, not just conservatives.
I'm not saying that liberals can afford to be utterly non-vigilant in this regard. Rather, I'm saying that the data suggests that conservatives must, generally speaking, be more vigilant than liberals in order to maintain the same level of protection against manipulation.
Martin Scorsese and most of Hollywood has publicly and openly supported and defended the convicted pedophile Roman Polanski.
Is defending and supporting pedophilia somehow a superior moral position than opposing homosexual rights?
Readers can determine for themselves whether it defends and supports pedophilia.
All I have to say is I'm glad I wasn't boycotting Ender's Game. Means I don't even have to address the rest of the post.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although, I would like to know if AD's got some dirt on Marty, or whether he's blowing it in the opening salvo.I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....Careful; if you really want to go there, we might start looking at people who put money into the collection plate at their local Catholic church on Sunday.Martin Scorsese and most of Hollywood has publicly and openly supported and defended the convicted pedophile Roman Polanski.
Is defending and supporting pedophilia somehow a superior moral position than opposing homosexual rights?
I'm dead serious here. Nobody has accused Orson Scott Card of actually discriminating against or harming homosexuals, just of supporting those who do.
Well, Marty and his peers support those who perform pedophilia. Is that OK? Should we boycott the films of those in Hollywood who support and defend pedophiles?
I'm dead serious. Are those of you promoting boycotting OSC films and books also promoting boycotting of Marty's films? If not, why not? Do you support pedophilia too?
Just wondering.
Is Scorsese putting large sums of his personal wealth into organizations that are trying to legalize pedophilia? Is he on the board of NAMBLA?
Those are the conditions that would make this a valid equivalency. Otherwise, he's just a guy who stated an opinion which I disagree with.
(Edit: As DA pointed out, it was not even an endorsement of Polanski's behavior, as much as it was a statement about the timing of Switzerland's actions.)
(Disclaimer: I haven't decided yet whether I will see Ender's Game. I think the suggestion that people make an offsetting donation to pro-equality cause if they want to see the film is a good one, and probably more effective than a boycott which, let's face it, isn't likely to accomplish anything.)
|
|
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.It's a human thing; I see a lot of conservatives doing the same thing, particularly the more religious ones. Frex, here's a (admittedly second-string at best) Christian fundamentalist radio host, Rick Wiles, talking about a pro-choice demonstration in Texas:
<<snip>>Yes, 2nd-string, cartoon fanatics do sound awfully similar in their lunatic denunciations.
Was that the point you were trying to make?
Huh; thought I was being clearer than that. Kthulhu said...well, you can read what he said right up there. I generalized from what he said, and rather than play he said/she said I provided an (admittedly egregious) example. Better now?
Martin Scorsese and most of Hollywood has publicly and openly supported and defended the convicted pedophile Roman Polanski.Is defending and supporting pedophilia somehow a superior moral position than opposing homosexual rights?
I'm dead serious here. Nobody has accused Orson Scott Card of actually discriminating against or harming homosexuals, just of supporting those who do.
Well, Marty and his peers support those who perform pedophilia. Is that OK? Should we boycott the films of those in Hollywood who support and defend pedophiles?
I'm dead serious. Are those of you promoting boycotting OSC films and books also promoting boycotting of Marty's films? If not, why not? Do you support pedophilia too?
Hold on here. If I'm to follow this logic, are you advocating that those of us boycotting Ender's Game should also be boycotting anyone who is going to see Ender's Game because they're supporting a homophobe?
2. So the evil ones are manipulating the slow ones, who love being manipulated.That's what it boils down to, unfortunately. (They don't actually love being manipulated in a conscious sense, of course; no one does. But they nonetheless seem very enthusiastic when that manipulation takes place - and it takes place often.) American conservatism, by its very nature, is incredibly vulnerable to manipulation. A lot of people have made very solid livings taking advantage of that vulnerability.
This isn't just conjecture, either. It's supported by a massive amount of scholarly literature.
Conservative ideology relies on low-effort thought, which means that half-truths or outright falsehoods are more likely to be found persuasive.
Conservatives react more strongly to offensive imagery, which means that imagery can be used to influence opinion in the absence of rational argumentation.
Conservatives are more sensitive to fear (see this paper as well), which means fear-based manipulation is an incredibly powerful tool for influencing the conservative base.
Conservatives are more motivated to preserve purity, which means the perception of being for or against purity can be used as a political wedge.
One of the remarkable things about the links (all from one site) is its phrenological approach. The first attempt, for example, is to try to define conservatives and liberals en masse, then use a sample size of 85, 38, and 36 for their test.
No wonder the 'scholarly literature's' conclusion is a banality:
Motivational factors are crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial responses depending on one’s goals, beliefs, and values.
But you manage to conclude something else, something more self-congratulatory (which, looking back at your other posts, suggests you are looking for license to hold the beliefs that you hold):
...which means that half-truths or outright falsehoods are more likely to be found persuasive.
Funny, I don't find you persuasive at all.
Continuing with your conclusion, I enjoyed this relevant caveat for Study 2:
...and so our hypothesis is largely silent on the relationship between deliberate thought and liberalism. We made no firm predictions about the effect of load on liberalism other than to expect a pattern distinct from the effects of load on conservatism, which would indicate that load’s effect is not due to acquiescence or other nuisance processes.
Harrowing stuff. Which, I would like to reiterate, they derive from 38 participants, all undergrads at a university. They do not give an age range, but since it was a intro PSY course I'd wager the sample was 19-20 year old PSY majors and college kids who don't know what they want to do yet.
Wow...based on your assertions, would it be fair to call you the conservative* after your linking to this paper?
Fight the power! Don't believe everything you read!
...or did you think I wouldn't read the article. That a simple appeal to authority would work?
Question authority!
Look, I can understand the article's appeal to vanity and self-congratulation (which is, incidentally, a great way to manipulate someone). Why, it would provide license to certain sorts of people, those with a need to believe themselves categorically superior to others--but without the requisite ability to produce superior results--to measure by self-regard, either by exulting themselves or demonizing others. It's taking a character flaw and making it a noble ideology.
Should I go on? Sure. Let's take your first example of devious conservative manipulation, your example:
"Gay people want to turn our children gay"
Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?
I couldn't tell you the differences between dubious categories of people by vision, ideals, or otherwise with a sample size of 10,000 much less half a busload. I couldn't tell you who is better or worse by category (sometimes I'm not equal to myself on a given day, and I'm a category of one). It is vain and arrogant (something aptly demonstrated above) to presume you have that ability.
*fair to whom, would be the best answer
Since I was having such great fun listing authors with problematic views on race, it seems only fair that I should discuss my favorite writers who defend and support pedophilia:
Allen Ginsberg famously joined NAMBLA in 1994 after they were kicked off the Stonewall 25 Steering Committee.
I never read Nabokov's Lolita, but Kubrick's film was pretty good. I did read Nabokov's Pale Fire and woo boy! was that tough. I still have no idea what was really going on.
Thomas Mann's Death in Venice was also pretty awesome, although I never saw the Visconti film of it.
Oh yeah: Edgar Allan Poe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I can understand the article's appeal to vanity and self-congratulation (which is, incidentally, a great way to manipulate someone). Why, it would provide license to certain sorts of people, those with a need to believe themselves categorically superior to others--but without the requisite ability to produce superior results--to measure by self-regard, either by exulting themselves or demonizing others. It's taking a character flaw and making it a noble ideology.
I was worried that this would come down to an attempt to discredit the mass of studies (which have all already made it through peer review) rather than an attempt to analyze your own positions and beliefs through the lens they provide. In fact, you took it a good ten steps further and actually tried to discredit the very idea that these kinds of studies can hold any value at all.
As for the personal attacks, take them elsewhere. I don't much care for them, and calling someone "vain" for providing you with information that contradicts what you believe to be true is really unflattering behavior.
I understand your feelings, but can't agree with your call for "uncivil" treatment of those you disagree with.Because I don't believe hating or mistreatingI don't view it as mistreating at all. In fact, I think it's utterly appropriate treatment. It's how people who treat others as less of a person than they are ought to be treated.Civility is important most of the time. But, in this case, it is no longer called for. The only people who are left on the opposing side of the gay marriage debate are those who didn't respond to civility.
Again, approach this from the standpoint of trying to persuade the Klan with civility. I'm not arguing against civility. Civility is, in most things, essential. But it has largely outlived its usefulness here.
My advice: If you want us to stop calling the things conservatives do "evil", stop doing evil things.
As for the personal attacks, take them elsewhere. I don't much care for them, and calling someone "vain" for providing you with information that contradicts what you believe to be true is really unflattering behavior.
Well said, sir. Wait, what?
Ah, entitlement.Did me calling you vain offend you? Hey, don't sweat it, lot's of people probably do, and frankly who cares. Take the good with the bad, enjoy life. Say what you want (as above), but don't get too bent if someone calls you out.
Look, I can understand the article's appeal to vanity and self-congratulation (which is, incidentally, a great way to manipulate someone). Why, it would provide license to certain sorts of people, those with a need to believe themselves categorically superior to others--but without the requisite ability to produce superior results--to measure by self-regard, either by exulting themselves or demonizing others. It's taking a character flaw and making it a noble ideology.I was worried that this would come down to an attempt to discredit the mass of studies (which have all already made it through peer review) rather than an attempt to analyze your own positions and beliefs through the lens they provide. In fact, you took it a good ten steps further and actually tried to discredit the very idea that these kinds of studies can hold any value at all.
I can show you more studies that you may like to use. Peer-reviewed even. Just as funny as this one.
You didn't really address the issue of 38 drunk undergrads in a bar as a useful sampling. You cling to peer review, like a ward, like waving a cross at heretic. It was published in a journal! A journalllll!!!
That being said, I didn't go much further in the other sampling issues and statistical limitations and frankly the subsequent methodological failings and question selection because there was no real need. As far as my analysis, I thought I made clear that I looked through the lens of p-values on sample size and the failure to address limitations on a sample of 38 drunks!
But I will point out that the authors unintentionally 'prove' that 38 college age drunks have more personal responsibility (a listed 'conservative value') than a liberal. Not that I buy that for a second. Seriously. Do you?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked this thread better when it was about books. Which is kind of funny, seeing as how it is a Movies thread.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
/sigh You all know the ol' Bene Gesserit proverb
"When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movement becomes headlong – faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thought of obstacles and forget that a precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it’s too late.
You cling to peer review, like a ward, like waving a cross at heretic. It was published in a journal! A journalllll!!!
The whole point of peer review is to stave off half-baked criticisms from people who are in no way equipped to invalidate a properly-run study by criticizing the crap out of the study before it's published and ensuring that all legitimate ways of discrediting the findings are exhausted.
So you're damned right I'll use peer review as a ward. That's one of the reasons we have it.
As far as my analysis, I thought I made clear that I looked through the lens of p-values on sample size and the failure to address limitations on a study of 38 drunks!
You understand that p-values are influenced by sample size (and thus already account for it) due to sample size's effect on standard error, right? A larger sample is more likely to find significance, distribution held static. The fact that they found significance with a sample size in the mid-30s indicates that their sample size was sufficient for that finding and that confidence interval.
One 38-person study finding significance isn't enough to base consensus on. A body of similar studies all reaching similar conclusions using independent methods, however, is. If only such a body of research existed, and had been linked to recently in this thread!
Also, "They're drunks!" isn't exactly a damning criticism when the point of that study was to use alcohol as a means of disrupting thought. I mean, it would be more damning if they weren't inebriated!
Look, I don't think you know what you're doing, here. You're obviously trying to argue that the list of findings I gave you are all invalid and meaningless, which is understandable if you're conservative and don't like what those findings say about the ideology you identify with. But you're up against a busload of researchers who do this for a living, and who all had to defend their work against people way more qualified to find flaws than you.
I went out of my way to present those studies in a way that didn't paint conservatives in a overtly negative way (though, let's be honest, those findings make that really tempting) because the point wasn't to make conservatives feel bad but rather to maybe give them a moment's pause to take a look at where they get their information from and who they choose to listen to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as my analysis, I thought I made clear that I looked through the lens of p-values on sample size and the failure to address limitations on a study of 38 drunks!You understand that p-values are influenced by sample size due to sample size's effect on standard error, right? A larger sample is more likely to find significance, distribution held static. The fact that they found significance with a sample size in the mid-30s indicates that their sample size was sufficient for that finding and that confidence interval.
No it isn't. Run the samples multiple times, with higher and lower samples, of different ages, in different regions, control for others overhearing your questions, control for outliers ("yeah, screw private property, *belch*!"), and consider that drunk people can BE outliers (a serious limitation that is avoided in the articles stated limitations). That is, it is more than possible and reasonable that his results are useless in the study as written.
All it shows is that 38 similar age drunk people resulted in an answer. No serious statistician would take this, and similar scholarly work, as more than sampling bias with appeals to authority attached at the end.
One 38-person study finding significance isn't enough to base consensus on.
Sure isn't.
A body of similar studies all reaching similar conclusions using independent methods, however, is. If only such a body of research existed, and had been linked to recently in this thread!
Awesome. Like I said, I have more that I could provide you to help you in this quest. And if I take those apart too, then, there are more, and more.
Question: What were the issues you found with them? Any of them? Have you simply accepted them? They are, after all, peer-reviewed.
Also, "They're drunks!" isn't exactly a damning criticism when the point of that study was to use alcohol as a means of disrupting thought. I mean, it would be more damning if they weren't inebriated!
It is if you are attempting to classify the ideology of vast swaths of people from Earth by having 38 college kids from NE drink liquor until they are plowed (at unidentified levels) and then record their answers in order to reach a conclusion that aligns with the thesis. It is a particularly damning criticism.
And, incidentally, the alcohol itself can affect each participant's mental functions differently, and by amount (a variable not known in the study)...ah, never mind.I went out of my way to present those studies in a way that didn't paint conservatives in a overtly negative way (though, let's be honest, those findings make that really tempting) because the point wasn't to make conservatives feel bad but rather to maybe give them a moment's pause to take a look at where they get their information from and who they choose to listen to.
Actually, you went out of your way to find studies that attempted to prove that conservatives are easily manipulated by other, evil conservatives, and that the former love to be manipulated due to their differences in thinking, etc, etc. What you actually delivered was pretty silly, your conclusions transparently self-serving (you inferred from the above sources' banal--and dubious--conclusion to bolster your prior assertions). And then you suggested I look past my ideological bias, and finally, alas, lamented my failings. As proof of my failings, you noted that I disagreed with the findings, which Cannot Be.
I will soldier on, however, despite my crippling faith-based dogma and scripture waving.
As an aside, you didn't answer my questions. I've attempted to address yours as best I could. Could you go back and answer them, please? Start with:
"Gay people want to turn our children gay."
Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't tell which is worse -- Betts' humorless righteousness or Rankovitch's smug smarminess. Hopefully they cancel each other out.
An article about a study on the brain and politics. Conservatives are motivated by fear.
Also, someone who asks the question: What would a simple google search turn up?
Should stop being a lazy ass and just do the search and show the results. If you have to ask the question, but can't be bothered to actually do it, you're showing me you don't actually care about the results, the question itself, or any of the underlying concepts involved.
I can't tell which is worse -- Betts' humorless righteousness or Rankovitch's smug smarminess. Hopefully they cancel each other out.
If one or the other gets the upper hand, it could rip reality asunder!
Its just a movie. I don't care about the guy who wrote the novel this movie is based on. Nor do i care about his personal opinions or beliefs. If i enjoy the movie, good. If i don't, i will tell people not to waste their money.
Just curious, what if the creator of a movie said they would donate their proceeds to the Obraz party (hypothetically ignoring the current ban), would you want to give them your money?
Y'know, Hama, the thing is, I've read every iteration of Ender's Game out there, including the short story, which doesn't even deserve italics, and my first reaction to the movie trailer was, "I'm not sure there's enough story there to be adapted into a two hour movie."
What can I tell you, some of us do care about the guy. :P
|
An article about a study on the brain and politics. Conservatives are motivated by fear.
Has anyone bothered to go to the study itself? I'm a graduate student in biostatistics, and the conclusions restated here by Dr. Barber are abysmal.
The actual study concluded that liberals have more grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and conservatives have more in the right amygdala. This quite likely reflects structural changes from learned opinion, not a cause of opinion.
The predominance of grey matter in the ACC may mean more tolerance for reaching no firm conclusions, the same in the RA may mean more suspicion. In fact, the p values for the RA data (p=.048) were very nearly null in the second analysis of cases, so the predominance of grey matter in the RA for conservatives is questionable at best.
The casual suggestion by the study authors was that liberals may show more tolerance for a lack of a firm conclusion on a subject (conservatives could call this wishy-washy). The other suggestion was that conservatives may show more suspicion of threat (liberals could call this fear). Neither conclusion (wishy-washy or fear) is scientifically supported by this study. In fact, the authors then go on to caution that both possible "emotions" come from multiple centers, not one section so no conclusion could be drawn from the predominance of grey matter in a couple of limited brain sections.
The problem here is that Dr. Barber clearly has a political axe to grind and has abandoned every scientific parameter to draw these conclusions. I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative, so I do not have a commensurate axe. I am, however, appalled that a professional would resort to such absurd over-simplifications and misleading conclusions in order to sway public opinion, and I am further appalled that a generally respected publication would print them.
I'm not a conservative, but I'm motivated by revenge and guilt.
(Figured I'd throw in some allusions to pop music, since nobody wants to talk about books or movies anymore.)
That's interesting. The number .048 does appear once in the study and it isn't used to demonstrate something independently, rather it is supporting evidence of an earlier finding. So, the first observation came away with a p-value of 0.05, which implies a 5% chance that the results were due purely to chance. The follow up observation came away with a 4.8% chance that the findings were due purely to chance.
There are additional studies about how sections of the brain influence voting habits (due, it's what we use to think) but it's getting more technical, looking at which sections of the brain are active and influential in the process, which helps us build a picture of how and why we make the decision the way we do.
I agree with the commenter, that drawing a lot of conclusions from the study is highly dubious. The first study mostly points out a correlation, it doesn't show us causation. Drawing conclusions from correlation is a fairly dangerous exercise. At the same time though, the correlation does tell us something, but in truth we need more data to know exactly what.
MRI-based studies tend to be fairly small, unlike say drug trials, or polling during elections. The machines are expensive to own and maintain, and using them for scientific study excludes their use for medical purposes, because it can only look at one person at a time. A more comprehensive study could try to look at older collected MRI data, but that's much more difficult to control for, since the images might not come with relevant data useful to the study, such as political preferences in this study's case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't tell which is worse -- Betts' humorless righteousness or Rankovitch's smug smarminess. Hopefully they cancel each other out.If one or the other gets the upper hand, it could rip reality asunder!
I think the answer then is to build a negative magnetic corridor, trap them in it, and destroy the entry device.
I agree with the commenter, that drawing a lot of conclusions from the study is highly dubious. The first study mostly points out a correlation, it doesn't show us causation. Drawing conclusions from correlation is a fairly dangerous exercise. At the same time though, the correlation does tell us something, but in truth we need more data to know exactly what.
One study coming to a conclusion is interesting, but not enough to redefine a field's understanding. A host of studies coming to the same conclusion using independent methodology, however, is plenty.
It also helps that it makes intuitive sense, as well. Conservatism is, by definition, the desire to keep things the same because of a belief that change tends to do more harm than good. It is a belief system grounded that prioritizes avoiding negative outcomes over advancing positive ones - in other words, a belief system with fear as its central motivator.
I can't tell which is worse -- Betts' humorless righteousness or Rankovitch's smug smarminess. Hopefully they cancel each other out.If one or the other gets the upper hand, it could rip reality asunder!
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think he and I are destined to do this forever.
|
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think he and I are destined to do this forever.
And then Scott died of an OD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also helps that it makes intuitive sense, as well.
If you want to talk about facts though, intuition has no place. If you're trying to understand how the world works, common sense is usually your worst enemy.
It also helps that it makes intuitive sense, as well.If you want to talk about facts though, intuition has no place. If you're trying to understand how the world works, common sense is usually your worst enemy.
I completely agree, and people using "common sense" as a defense in the face of facts is one of the most stubborn problems with the American political environment. This, however, is just pointing out that, in this case, "common sense" aligns with the psych community's collective findings.
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think he and I are destined to do this forever.And then Scott died of an OD.
It's cool. I'm maybe twenty issues away from a haphazardly-contrived resurrection storyline. Comic book characters never stay dead.
I completely agree, and people using "common sense" as a defense in the face of facts is one of the most stubborn problems with the American political environment. This, however, is just pointing out that, in this case, "common sense" aligns with the psych community's collective findings.It also helps that it makes intuitive sense, as well.If you want to talk about facts though, intuition has no place. If you're trying to understand how the world works, common sense is usually your worst enemy.
Common sense provides a hypothesis, but that hypothesis would still need further evidence to actually be true. All we have so far is correlation and the only actual conclusion that can be derived from that is that when we see differences in behavior, we will also find physical differences in the brain. Which comes first, behavior or physical difference, whether behavior reinforces and exaggerates physical difference, which physical changes are reversible, or behaviors can be 'unlearned', etc, is to a large extent unproven.
|
|
It's cool. I'm maybe twenty issues away from a haphazardly-contrived resurrection storyline. Comic book characters never stay dead.This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I think he and I are destined to do this forever.And then Scott died of an OD.
Scott, you and I used to kill each other during the Edition Wars, as I was a 3.5 stalwart.
But may I say, when it comes to politics and human rights; you rock and I totally love it. Thought I was perhaps the most passionate Liberal on this site; but you have surpassed me this last year. Keep fighting the good fight.
Rock on Brother Man.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't tell which is worse -- Betts' humorless righteousness or Rankovitch's smug smarminess. Hopefully they cancel each other out.If one or the other gets the upper hand, it could rip reality asunder!
I heard yellowdingo knows how string theory explains it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oooh, I got that one:
YD would say: string theory tells us that their conflict is in a superposition. Not only do both and neither have the upperhand in the conflict, but they are in fact the exact same thing struggling against itself and nothing at all at the same time.
Oh, and something about wind turbines. And shipping containers being retrofitted in the Nevada desert to house all the women in the world, who are also all the men in the world, because of superposition.