Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

It seems rather uncontroversial to me that conservative thinking is more rooted in fear, anyway.

Would you say that it's true because it reinforces your pre-existing biases?

No, because a ton of replicable studies indicate it's true:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative

In a 2012 study (link is external), liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”.
...
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat

A 2008 study (link is external) published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety.
...
3. Conservatives fear new experiences

A 2008 study (link is external) catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.
...
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. (link is external) This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not.

It could also be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here. As conservative politicians push the "buttons" of their electorate, e.g. fear, that brings in fearful voters into the "fold" of conservatism, and this then helps shape further responses from conservative politicians. e.g. they push certain issues, because those are good at bringing in people with a certain type of thinking / type of psychology, and this then feeds back into the process to shape what conservatism is about. So it's not just that conservatives happen to be more driven by fear, but conservatism itself is shaped around appealing to those emotions.

[McTraveller]

Aside: Pretty sure that conservatism being correlated with (if not rooted in) fear is essentially by definition: conserving the status quo.

One enormous caveat on inflation: prices rising isn't always inflation.  Prices rising (especially only on a single commodity) is not inflation.  Similarly, prices dropping isn't always deflation.  When a storm hits the Gulf of Mexico and oil prices rise, that's not inflation - that's prices increasing due to a reduction in supply.  When technology advances and televisions drop in price, that's not deflation, that's reaping the benefits of the new technology.

Inflation is only when prices increase but all else is equal.  General rule of thumb is, if wages don't have the same relative change as the basket of goods and services that go into price level computation, it's not inflation or deflation but something else - it is either increasing or reducing standard of living or otherwise doing wealth redistribution.

That said, that price spike in steel prices is strange - I would not have thought that price elasticity of demand is such that the impending increase in US prices would suggest a drop in import levels that would make any US purchaser willing to pay twice the going rate, at a volume that would change global markets.  Especially given that, in general, reduction in US demand for global steel would tend to drop the global price.  So yeah, I can see why the EC would want an investigation there.

[scriver]

It seems rather uncontroversial to me that conservative thinking is more rooted in fear, anyway.

Would you say that it's true because it reinforces your pre-existing biases?

No, because a ton of replicable studies indicate it's true:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative

In a 2012 study (link is external), liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of both negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer. This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias”.
...
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat

A 2008 study (link is external) published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety.
...
3. Conservatives fear new experiences

A 2008 study (link is external) catalogued items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies. This tells us that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they are so resistant to change and progressive policies.
...
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. (link is external) This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not.

It could also be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy here. As conservative politicians push the "buttons" of their electorate, e.g. fear, that brings in fearful voters into the "fold" of conservatism, and this then helps shape further responses from conservative politicians. e.g. they push certain issues, because those are good at bringing in people with a certain type of thinking / type of psychology, and this then feeds back into the process to shape what conservatism is about. So it's not just that conservatives happen to be more driven by fear, but conservatism itself is shaped around appealing to those emotions.

Yes, that quote doesn't read as biased and contemptible against conservatives at all. Did the author deign to mention what they themselves self-described as, by any chance?

[Folly]

Now Donald Trump wants to start executing drug dealers, because China does it and they claim to have no significant drug problems.

The thing is, countries that legalize drugs and educate their people on how to use them responsibly also have virtually no problems with those drugs. If Trump wants to imitate other countries, he should start with the good ones like he always says, and not the shitholes that execute all their problems. And then apply that same logic to guns. How many mass shootings occur in countries with guns everywhere, compared to countries with no guns?

[SalmonGod]

I don't think it's biased at all.

Liberal points are mostly about addressing existing issues.  Recognizing that there are problems causing harm to people in the world right now, and proposing changes to address them.  Optimism.  Trying to make things better.

Conservative politics is mostly based on reaction to liberal proposals.  This usually involves accusations of either naivety (the world is made of harsh realities and you're better off suffering it as it is instead of risking making it worse) or hidden agenda (conservative conspiracy theories).  Conservative politics not based purely on reaction to liberal proposals include expansion of military and personal armament, and religious conflict (god fearing).  All these things are fear-based.  The only conservative agenda I can think of that isn't intrinsically fear-based is free market worship.  Except in context I think it still is, because Cold War propaganda turned socialism into a boogey monster, which led to the motivation to push society as far from strawman socialism as possible.

[martinuzz]

I hope the EU and the people that are probable candidates for a post-Trump government are already making plans about how to undo the relationship- and other damage Trumputinstiltskin is causing right now.
His latest speech, he praised the tariffs for already opening up new steel mills, and threatened the EU with more tariffs, unless they get rid of the 'terrible obstructions and tariffs that they have for US products'.

Also, what? He wants to execute drug dealers because China does it too? Source?

EDIT: Even South Korea now has threatened to complain at the WTO if US tariffs hurt their business.
EDIT: inb4 China threatens to resume all trade with NK, and aid their nuclear efforts, if tariffs affect them

[Starver]

It seems a lot of recent 'conservative' pushes, recently, have been Retro-Optimistic. Things aren't how they should be, right now, and they used to be better.

e.g. various complaints about the EU and nostalgia for the Days Of Empire creating Brexit-fever, despite there being clear water between the Loss Of Empire and the Joining With The Continent and thus not "Europe ruined our Dominion!". Antiglobalism of all forms has been harking back to "we were once great, we can be great again!", ignoring that a) There's greatness today that never even existed before, and you have to roll that back, b) There were bad things in the past, but the Nostalgics are ignoring that they may reappear along side the 'good' things, c) The non-backward external forces are going to just find new ways to superceed the revisited old-stuff you think is your (NPI!) unbeatable trump-card.

[Cathar]

Inflation is only when prices increase but all else is equal.  General rule of thumb is, if wages don't have the same relative change as the basket of goods and services that go into price level computation, it's not inflation or deflation but something else - it is either increasing or reducing standard of living or otherwise doing wealth redistribution.

I don't understand why the medias keep repeating that an increase in wages would indicate inflation. It would actually indicate growth. That's why I believe the thousands of jobs that were created overnight in the steel industry are cardboard cutouts, and are made to exploit the marketprice of steel. When steel prices will come back to where they ought to be, the steel industry won'tbe able to maintain them.

As for general inflation (read devaluation of money) the dollar is still dying of a slow death compared to euro, but this trend is old and started last year so it is not related. Since it peaked last year (24 march 2017) it lost 14% of its value.

[smjjames]

Also, what? He wants to execute drug dealers because China does it too? Source?

Last nights campaign rally which was supposed to be for a local candidate but (unsurprisingly) ended up being all about him.

He's also praised Duterte's drug war and he's also mentioned the death penalty for drug dealers a few times before.

[hector13]

He says he’s a busnessman, surely he realizes reducing the supply of something by murdering (or threatening to murder) suppliers will only make it more appealing to use violence in order to secure their market, and thus larger revenues due to the reduced competition?

[Cathar]

Nah, it's just electoral wistle blowing, like any other type of "I'll be tough on crime" rhetoric. People are in fear, they want blood, he's offering them an execution, same old trick since antiquity, it's not really important imho.

Arn't death penalty laws decided state by state by the way?

[smjjames]

He says he’s a busnessman, surely he realizes reducing the supply of something by murdering (or threatening to murder) suppliers will only make it more appealing to use violence in order to secure their market, and thus larger revenues due to the reduced competition?

He's a businessman in real estate, he's never been involved in anything where he needs to actually buy material goods. He has been involved in building, but he's left the budget to other people and he's known for stiffing people on payments.

Nah, it's just electoral wistle blowing, like any other type of "I'll be tough on crime" rhetoric. People are in fear, they want blood, he's offering them an execution, same old trick since antiquity, it's not really important imho.

It would be, if he didn't constantly embrace authoritarians and things that authoritarians do.

Arn't death penalty laws decided state by state by the way?

Yeah, some states don't use the death penalty.

[Frumple]

He says he’s a busnessman, surely he realizes reducing the supply of something by murdering (or threatening to murder) suppliers will only make it more appealing to use violence in order to secure their market, and thus larger revenues due to the reduced competition?

He's a businessman in real estate, he's never been involved in anything where he needs to actually buy material goods. He has been involved in building, but he's left the budget to other people and he's known for stiffing people on payments.

A shitty businessman in real estate, too, mind you. If you're hinging anything related to understanding business practices on trump's status as a business owner, you've probably fucked up. Above and beyond any cognitive issues that may be rolling around the guy's just never been particularly good at business. Middling at business related con jobs but so far as admin and management and logistics and whatnot go, he's just kinda' bad at it. Case study in how inheritance can let you get away with being incompetent, really.

[Cathar]

It would be, if he didn't constantly embrace authoritarians and things that authoritarians do.

From where I'm standing, Trump doesn't strike me as someone who has any kind of political ideas. He doesn't have a vision, a manifesto or a party line like the authoritarian right usually does. He's a performative kind of guy. I believe he read "the violation of masses" by Tchakotine and is applying it to the letter. He promises blood and victories, and that's what the public want to hear. The actual content doesn't matter, and where there is content is actually not that much.

The reason I'm saying that is his reaction after the california gun bill, where he claimed "great success" and tried to attach their victory to himself, despite the bill being almost totally opposed to the plan he drafted with one minor concession.

That's why discussing Trump policies are a bit pointless in my opinion. You're not on the usual push/pull of two party politics anymore. You're dealing with a media black hole - a guy who understands the short attention span of the times and uses violent rhetoric so the numbers are never discussed. That's how he strikes the democrats with stupor and prevent them from reacting effectively.

The average US citizen has lost 13.27% of their spending power since he's in office. Maybe that'd be something more important than empty rhetoric to discuss.

Edit : On the conservative are fearful libs are hopeful debate, just a note : biologizing politics is killing any possibility of meaningful discussion, doesn't matter where you're standing on the spectrum. Maybe it's true that your inner workings influence the way you vote. But just because you found a trend doesn't mean you should declare politics dead and just decide it's a matter of survival of the fittest now.

Besides, from what I can see cons are frenzied right now, and libs seems to be the ones who are living in fear.

[hector13]

Well kinda carrying that a little further on - though upon consideration, I’m not conflating mental illness with any political position - surely folk with actual anxiety (and perhaps other mental illnesses which increase anxiety or fearfulness) would thus be more likely to be conservative?

[anecdotalevidencdisbestevidence]In my experience that isn’t the case.[/anecdotalevidencdisbestevidence]