Red Brains vs. Blue Brains? 1665
eLoco writes "From the NYTimes (reg. req.): The Political Brain -- "Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically? Perhaps it's all in the head." Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives. According to the article, studies of stroke victims "have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly? [DISCLAIMER: this is not a troll; I am a liberal]. Regardless, this seems to have implications for more than just politics. Favorite quote: "Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function.""
Jesus H Christ (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it interesting that you put gay into that list... you're sure to get modded flamebait to some extent by claiming that people are gay by their own volition.
Oh, Princess Amygdala...
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
When the gay civil rights movements began in the 20th century the laws against gay sex were brutal. For example when American soldiers liberated the Nazi death camps they returned the gay survivors of the camps back to the German prison system because, "they were criminals." Until recent times (and still in some places today) the social stigma for being discovered to have been a homosexual would lose you your job, your family, your home, etc... Ultimately, what it comes down to is that no matter what you do, what you say, or what laws you attempt to inact: gays will always be there. They are adults consenting to relationships (whether short term, or long term) that are worthy of the same level of respect we would afford to all human beings who do not harm others.
Your post begs the real moral question. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake up, dumbasses all around! What made men who like to play with their peepees together turn out that way is not very important. The real issue is what we ought to do about it. As with most issues, the answer is obvious to the non-retarded minority.
Treat them as justly and humanely as we can.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a shining example of why we have the 1st Ammendment. You have no evidence to support your world view and yet your willing to _FORCE_ people (ie by force, gunpoint if neccesary - which is what passing a law really is) to conform to _YOUR_ worldview. You are an intolerant homophobic fascist by your own demonstration.
We have the Constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority - the entire homosexuality issue is a shining example of why we have the constitution, and every day I see people like you trying to bypass it, or pervert it (FMA).
I respect your right for you to be a intolerant homophobic fascist theistic bigot even if I don't respect you for having that opinion -- you are infavor of not respecting otherpeoples rights, so give me a reason why I should continue to respect yours?
(However, I will continue to do so on the principle of rights)
BTW: attempts to demonize secular humanism are a clear demonstration that you are a limbaugh-republicanist and have been deceived by the massive propraganda of the christian fundamentalist movement in america. I highly recommend that you IMMEDIATELY reconsider your position ---- and everyone should read "The Fundamentals of Extremism"
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
As a legal necessity, any biological or emotional predisposition towards a sexual relationship of any kind is considered "choice."
Hmmm... yes, I could "choose" to have a sexual relationship with another man, but that wouldn't make me gay. I have absolutely no interest in testing those waters, but I could still actively choose to have that sexual relationship.
Similarly, a gay person could be in a committed, abstinent relationship and still be gay. So how does that "choice" apply to people who AREN'T in a sexual relationship?
Also, if you choose to be gay, wouldn't you, out of necessity, also have to choose to be straight? I don't recall ever making that choice, and I've no interest in testing out the other side of things. There are a lot of things I don't like - onions come to mind - but I've had to actually try them out before I actually *knew* I didn't like them. I also had to have the initial drive to try them. I have no drive to try this, and I just *am* straight, unless I made that choice long, long ago and can't remember it.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Funny)
I never thought I'd see this day.
Re:Or, if you're a conservative... (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to be like you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I used to be like you (Score:5, Insightful)
When two opposed groups with supposedly opposite idealogies end up doing the same thing it makes you wonder that there is something going on. It's not cynical to notice this, it's being realistic. Both parties have something to sell, and when it comes to voting if you're not for a canidate then you're against them.
It's always some sort of near-scandal if a republican is pro-choice or a democrate is pro-gun. Somehow picking in choosing your issues isn't acceptable, you have to be all the way to the left or all the way to the right.
What if, as a voter I'm for things that both parties are selling, then who do I vote for? Now you see why so many people seem cynical about the whole thing. We want to vote for a good politican who will represent us well, but we are rarely given that choice.
I'm for throwing dictators (especially ones we set up in the past) out of power, and I'm for gun rights. Does that make me a conservative? But I'm for preserving the environment because it is a resource the belongs to everyone, and should not be damaged for profit. And I'm pro-choice. So does that make me a liberal? No I'm what some people like Rush sometimes call indecisive, I apparently can't make up my mind if I want to be left wing or right wing. Why should I change my basic beliefs just to fit in better with one group or another? (the real question here is why would I want to be associated with either of those groups?)
Re:I used to be like you (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. This seems to be the mistake made by the submitter as well. The scientists involved seem to be saying that certain brain structures predispose certain people toward reluctance or caution. It's a pretty big leap to say that this makes some people wimpy liberals or patriotic conservatives, especially considering how little such labels mean in reality. A liberal in the US could be considered a right-wing conservative in Canada or Europe, for one example. Even trying to shoehorn all political philosophies into a simple single-axis spectrum is pointless--where do militant anarchists fit in? How about pacifist individualists, or authoritarian capitalists?
I like learning how these things operate, but the idea that people might try modifying these things to "better the species" scares the shit out of me. The thought that we may try to engineer a political and social monoculture forces me to consider what would be required to maintain the integrity of that artificial consciousness. It would certainly require a greater amount of resources than that already used to ensure the survival of plant and animal monocultures we've engineered for the food supply in some parts of the world!
Better we simply watch these things and allow natural processes to operate as they have for a few hundred million years, observing and learning so we can deal with the less desirable effects (such as my near-blindness, for one tiny example) in a humane, sustainable fashion.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an extreme difference between someone having a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic and having one for homosexuality. Being gay doesn't cause you to violate someone else's rights, whereas alcoholism seems to ratchet that risk up through the roof. Until the 1930's there was no widespread, successful, way of dealing with alcoholism. Alcoholics were treated as seriously mentally ill. Instead of being rehabilitated into productive, self-reliant citizens, many times they were lobotomized and institutionalized.
After the 30's people started to understand alcoholism and people who wound up alcoholic were expected to act responsibly and use one of the many avenues now available to them to become responsible citizens instead of criminals. Now we know that predisposition for addiction can be passed on genetically, but we don't allow anyone to just get away with lapsing into that behavior.
Self-Knowledge increases responsibility, arguing otherwise is a slippery-slope based on a false dichotomy.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:4, Insightful)
The posts I was replying to seem to deride this information as simply another excuse that some large number of people will use to abdicate responsibility for their poor choices. While I'm sure I'll see something of that sort next time I watch Springer or actually pay attention to the latest Hollywood screw-up, I don't think you can extrapolate this into a general tendency. I don't see any evidence that supports that.
Notice the parent I referred to:
Is anything anyone's fault or decision anymore? Damn I remember when people were fat, drunk, gay, disruptive and Communist of their own volition. Now everything is a malady, issue and disease.
And the post I responded to:
Interesting point. We seem to be living in a culture where it is becoming increasingly popular to explain away all personal responsibility for our actions. No one does anything anymore because they were drunk, stupid, angry, jealous, foolish, greedy or just not able to cope properly. Now its genetic predisposition and psychological forces at work. If these scientists/doctors/quacks are to believed its amazing we dont all just crumble completely into a blubbering mass under the pressure of all these external forces and influences we are subject to.
Both deride this news since it will be used to decrease personal responsibility. I argued that the opposite was true, which someone else may have argued as well on this thread, but I missed it. Treatment of any form (medical, therapeutic, spiritual, drugs, etc) is just a tool. I say that the personal responsibility comes when society recognizes that there is a tool to deal with any anti-social problem you might have. Society now expects you to use the tool. It's kind of like how you expect your suburban neighbor to use indoor plumbing. If you can afford to go live without indoor plumbing somewhere where it won't bother your neighbors, no one cares. If you live where your choice to not use a tool will violate the rights of others, society demands you use the tool.
I place your self-control tools and the medical tools in the same category. I don't care which one people use, quite frankly, it's none of my business. It's only my business when they violate someone else's rights. Back to my point, once these tools and knowledge become available, personal responsibility is automatically increased. If you suffer from a condition that doesn't completely incapacitate you, you have a level of responsibility to use whatever tools are available to keep from offending someone else's rights. Society can still be empathetic about an individual's struggle and still not excuse criminal behavior.
I think this discussion may also be confusing two types of characteristics, which is why I brought up alcoholism and homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't give anyone more reason to violate someone else's rights than anymore than having a particular eye color. Alcoholism, on the other hand, does tend to increase the chances that you will violate someone's rights. If you do, society demands you mitigate your behavior using the tools society has available. When I refer to society demanding use of these tools, I'm referring to characteristics like alcoholism where someone's rights have been violated. In those cases, I don't care which tools make them self-reliant and responsible. In other cases, like homosexuality, I don't think society has any right to ask someone to do anything about these characteristics. I also think that it's "not a world I want to live in" if society oversteps it's boundaries in an attempt to change characteristics that do no violate rights. To me, that can either come in the form of de facto or government coercion and both are unacceptable.
Who's to say it doesn't go the other direction? (Score:4, Interesting)
We do lots of other things that cause chemical changes in our body, lifestyles that cause certain substances to be more or less abundant in our bodies. Are our brains off limits to such things?
This may be a stupid theory, I don't know; but it seems to me that it would be VERY difficult to establish any causality either way.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
While you respond in disgust, what happens if one day science does indeed discover that biology trumphs freewill? What if almost all of out behaviors are predetermined by chemistry?
Not attempting to threadjack here, just adding an additional perspective to a post that was an immediate +5.
Could be other way round (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the way we think alters the physical structures of our brains. Just like if we exercise certain muscles they get bigger.
How does that deny free will?
Mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
Newberg has a book out entitled "Why God Won't Go Away." I haven't read it, but I did have the pleasure of seeing him give a seminar at my school last year. There's also a documentary that's being screened called "What the Bleep Do We Know." It's kind of a "Sophie's World" docu/fiction hybrid, but it has interviews with mystics and neuroscientists and philosophers detailing modern ideas about the mind. Again, I haven't seen it (hasn't shown in South Carolina...go figure) but it sounds really interesting.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:4, Insightful)
When the technology becomes available, and it will, and even just a few people overcome it, and change their biology.... what will that mean that they choose to change it?
The only people who want freewill to not exist, are those who lust after the technique to impose theirs over your own.
Possibly. (Score:5, Interesting)
But he wasn't talking about biology as being the determining factor on behaviour.
He was all about conditioning. If you raise a child in a specific manner, the adult will behave in a specific manner. Unless their environment changes (environment meaning just about anything, not just the weather).
He said that behaviour is physiological responses to external stimuli.
And contrary to what people may read on the 'web, his daughter did not commit suicide.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this biology trumping freewill thing. Look, my brain belongs to me. If it does some sorta electro-chemical mumbo-jumbo to figure out what kind of cereal I decide to eat in the morning, how does that destroy my free will? Oh no, I'm a slave to my physical brain! Oh, the angst! Like it would be so much better if I was a slave to an immaterial, invisible soul instead?
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Marshall Brain [marshallbrain.com] wrote a blog post where he joked about the way we pick any explanation that feels scientific.
Explaining why smokers have more sex: [blogspot.com] "Here's a theory. Perhaps, way way back in the evolutionary chain, humans have a long-extinct ancestor that had long, thin, tusk-like incisors jutting out of its mouth. And perhaps, residually, our brains are programmed to recognize that "long incisors" means "good mate". So when a person puts a cigarette up to his or her mouth, it triggers the "long incisors" circuit in our brains, and cigarettes get associated with sex in that way. It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because it is ridiculous -- there must be a better theory."
Right now, people seem to buy up anything that sounds like Evolutionary Psychology. [wikipedia.org] The attitude is: "It is scientific. Therefore, it must be true. Anything else would be religion or emotion. [wikipedia.org]"
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:4, Insightful)
Effects have a cause.
We are our genetics, and our environmental influences. I've not been able to find anything else that determines the state of a person.
That being the case, pretty well everything can be attributed to prior events or circumstance.
However, the difference is how this is dealt with.
If somebody murders because they have inbalanced brain chemistry and an absurdly skewed worldview due to childhood abuse, it doesn't make it okay.
However, it would be silly to say, "He chose to, it's his fault." With a knowledge of the causes
of fatness, drunkeness, homosexuality, etc, we can
take steps toward undoing what should be undone and preventing what may be.
(disclaimer: as a believer in some sort of pseudo-determinism, I don't really believe in free will in the "any of a person's choices are possible" sense.)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of argument is a dangerous one that's plagued science for a number of years now: "If there are biological underpinnings for our actions, preferences, and personalities, how can we be responsible for anything?"
But the question itself assumes a connection where none has to exist: Science and ethics aren't connected like that. Maybe I'm a liberal because of my genetic makeup; maybe it's my environment; probably it's both. In any of these cases, I have made choices, and it's appropriate for me to accept responsibility for them, regardless of the various biological and environmental factors that went into them.
The notion that explaining our behavior eliminates free will or responsibility is an unfortunate one, and has held back a number of scientific fields. Learning what lies behind our choices doesn't invalidate them, but merely helps us understand ourselves better and perhaps make more informed decisions.
(A much more complete, better-written, and better-supported version of what I'm saying can be found in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate.)
Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will (Score:5, Insightful)
In my mind, the main difference between liberals and conservatives is a preference for nature or nurture. This ties in to your idea abou the loss of free will. Disclaimer: I consider myself a conservative, athough I think I have a good understanding of how liberals think because a lot of my friends are liberals and I like to talk about politics. I'd love to hear feedback on this idea to see how valid it is.
Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature. Some people are just good and some people are just bad. Nothing can be done to change or fix the situation- it's just how they are. Good people tend to obey the law, pay taxes, go to church and be good citizens. Bad people don't. When a bad person does something bad, it's because he's a bad person and therefore likely to do bad things.
Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured. We're affected by what goes on around us and the things we see and experience. Bad people are bad not because of some intrinsic difference between them and good people; they're bad because of their childhood or the atmosphere they live in. A bad person does something bad because there was some sort of external influence upon him, causing him to be bad.
To illustrate my point, consider gun control. Conservatives are generally against it - and this makes perfect sense considering their ideas on how people behave. Good people should be allowed to own guns becuase they're good. They'll only use them for self defense and as a result society will be safer. Bad people on the other had, don't have any respect for the law. They'll get their hands on guns regardless of the law, and use the guns to do bad things because they're bad. To a conservative, gun control simply punishes good people and prevents them from defending themselves from the bad people.
Now look at Gun control from the liberal perspective - people are influenced by the environment and the situation they're. Since no one is inherently good or bad, gun control simply decreases the probablity that a given individual will be in possesion of a firearm. This is good because if you have a firearm, you're probably more likely to shoot someone with it. Perhaps if you're angry you wouldn't normally hurt someone, but having a gun in your hand changes your mindset and makes you more likely to do something bad. Gun control legislation is an attempt to remove the external stimulus that can cause people to be bad - so most liberals support it.
Poverty is another example of the difference. There is obviously some sort of connection between poverty and crime. Most of the nations involved in terrorism are not particularly wealthy, and crime is ramapant in poorer urban areas. Why?
Ask a conservative, and most likely she'll tell you that crime causes poverty. No one wants to start a buisness in a crime-ridden city. Because crime prevents economic activity, it causes poverty. To fix the poverty situation, just crack down on the crime. Once you've made the neighborhood safer, jobs will show up and poverty will go away. Note that no attempt is made to explain crime. The Conservative uses crime to explain poverty.
Ask a liberal, and most likely he'll tell you that the poverty causes the crime. If you grow up in a situation devoid of any opportunity for a job and a good life for yourself, you've got a good chance of turning to crime because of the hopelessness and despair of your situation. To fix the situation, you need to get rid of poverty. Try to lure companies in to provide jobs, and the crime will go away once the people have an opportunity for economic advancement. Unlike the conservative, the liberal uses poverty to explain why there's crime.
How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are.
I don't see it that way. (Score:5, Interesting)
But I'm pro-gun. And I favour a strong military (but I oppose "Star Wars" because I don't think it is necessary now nor do I believe that it would work even if it was necessary). I also believe in more State's rights and a reduced federal government.
"Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature."
I also believe that. But I also believe that the way they were raised affects their choices. Someone who craves power can go into politics or religion or financials or just be an abusive husband.
"Some people are just good and some people are just bad."
Good and bad are personal evaluations. Saddam is "bad" but the US government thought Saddam was "good" when he was fighting Iran.
Personally, I thought one tin-pot dictator was fighting a authoratarian theocracy and I didn't see any "good" in either side.
"Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured."
But our environments do shape the choices we have. It takes someone with a LOT of self-focus to overcome the obstacles of his environment.
So, someone with a lot of character (an internal trait) can overcome his environment, but most people do not have that and become products of their environment.
"To illustrate my point, consider gun control."
I'm completely in favour of the 2nd Amendment.
-but-
I'm also in favour of a waiting period. I don't want someone buying a gun because he just found out his wife is cheating on him. I'm also in favour of registering guns which includes ballistics. A bullet pulled from a murder victim should be traced back to the gun that fired it and the person who purchased it.
I believe that 99%+ of the people who own guns are responsible gun owners and no threat to themselves or society.
But I also believe that a responsible gun owner would register his weapons, properly secure them and immediately report any that were stolen. This is his responsibility to society. When you exercise certain rights, you take on certain responsibilities.
So, is that "Conservative" or "Liberal"?
"Poverty is another example of the difference."
Easily answered by my previous statement about character and environment. Those with weak to average character will end up as products of their environment. Those with strong character will overcome those obstacles.
Now, take Enron and such. Crime does not depend upon poverty.
"How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are."
Which is why I am not a Conservative.
"Liberals, on the other hand, attempt to explain bad behavior. They say it's a result of our upbringing or our environment. By attempting to explain it, they don't leave a lot of room for free will to say that the people made the choice to be bad."
I believe that people do make their own choice.
Here's an example: Exercise.
Everyone (Conservatives and Liberals) knows that you should exercise. Yet not many people do. Is that because they are "bad" people who have chosen not to exercise? Or is it because the parents didn't love them enough?
I believe that it is because most people do not have the character to force themselves to do what they know is good for them and would rather take the easy way.
As in the exercise example, so as in Life.
Re:Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will (Score:4, Insightful)
By your description I qualify as a conservative. I understand that there are good and bad people in the world. But unlike your hypothetical conservative I also understand that good and evil are choices. Bad people are bad because they choose to be. What causes them to make the choice to be bad depends upon the individual. There is no single root cause for that choice. Likewise good people are good because they choose to be and what causes them to make that choice is something that is specific to them as an individual.
I personally think that the relationship between poverty and crime is not one of cause and effect in either direction. Rather poverty and crime are both effects of the same cause, or at least they are in the setting you seem to imply, which is contemporary America in areas where both are high.
Just as there are people who are good and people who are bad, there are also what you could call winners and losers. The USA is the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen. Short of mental and physical disability, there is no reason why someone should be poor here. Great wealth may not be obtainable by absolutely everyone, but a comfortable middle-class existence certainly is. If someone isn't able to achieve that standard of living, and they are not disabled in some way, then it is usually because they have made bad choices in life There is always some sob story about how someone got done in by circumstances beyond their control, but that is the exception, not the rule, and even then the person in question still has the power to change their circumstances over tiem. There are so many opportunities available in this country that it's staggering. Even someone who is in prison has the opportunity to change their life and make something of themself. Our lives are the products of the choices we make, not what happens to us or the circumstances into which we are born.
The reason why poverty and crime tend to co-exist is because both phenomena are the product of people making bad choices. The socio-economic meritocracy that we have in this country works to segregate those who make good choices from those who make bad ones. Slums exist because that is where society puts those who make bad choices. Therefore both poverty and crime are going to rampant in these places.
As far as what do to about it, all I can say is that you can't fix broken people. The most we can do is work to maintain the opportunities available to those who were unfortunate enough to be born into such an environment, and work to incarcerate those who choose to be criminals. The schools in our slums are really bad, in part because they are filled with people whose parents made bad choices. Whatever genetic component predisposed their parents to making their bad choices tends to get passed down to the children, which means that you've got a school full fututre thugs and losers. Then there is the fact that some people are poor just because they're dumb as bricks. They don't make evil choices or even foolish ones as judged by their mental capacity, but they're still at a disadvantage. This creates a synergy of problems that even Socrates couldn't handle.
Imagine you're in a class of 30 student. Now imagine that eight of the people in your class are violent thugs who work to intimidate and attack other students as well as the teacher. They interrupt the class at every opportunity. They eventually wind up in "juvie," and prison soon after that, but not soon enough. 12 of your classmates are not violent and their not stupid, they just don't want to learn. They blame the consequences of their bad choices on external villans collectively known as "The Man." As a result they haven't learned and have suceeded in dragging the average standard of education in your school down
Re:Nature vs. Nurture relate to Free Will (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly your amygdala isn't as active as mine, or you would have said, "spherically challenged, libationally oriented, sexually curious, placidly impaired, or democratically impeded"
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine didn't realize he was gay until he'd already slept with several men, and he lost his virginity originally to a girl.
This isn't as straightforward as you might want to believe.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the governor resigned due to very serious corruption while using his homosexuality as a cover. Please get your facts straight.
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jesus H Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're implying that the intolerance of discrimination by the judiciary is a bad thing in regards to homosexual marriage, you'd better be prepared to take that recursively all the way back to the civil rights movement, and nullify that too. They are one and the same. Same shit, different pile.
Not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over thirty, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-Winston Churchill
My views have definately changed in the past ten years or so. It's one of the reason we need to, in this election, which should concern matters of national security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc., stop all this nonsense about what may or may not have happened in Vietnam 35 years ago. We should be discussing education, social security, national security; we should be looking at voting records and bills that have been signed and/or sponsored by the candidates in the past 10 or 15 years. The worst part of this election is that it's hinging on what may be some exagerations from a boasting veteran of what happened 35 years ago.
Thomas Sowell had an amazing quotable first paragraph in his article today, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, I think we can all agree on this:
Also, I think it's been proven, at least to my satisfaction, that people develop fear over time. I don't know what causes compasion, but I also think it's a myth that conservatives are not, or cannot be, compassionate. Many people agree that democrats and republicans are not that far apart on the issues - nobody wants people to go without food, healthcare, shelter, education... what we differ on is how best to accomplish those goals.
Re:Not true (Score:4, Interesting)
Er, no. Iran is bankrolling a hefty chunk of the insurgency, including Sadr. The Iranian dictatorship is terrified that if the fledgling Iraqi democracy succeeds it'll give their people all sorts of bright ideas, or at least speed up the near-inevitable demise if the dictatorship. (Iran is where the Soviet Union was in the late 1980's.)
Syria's chipping in for the same reasons but to a much lesser extent (purely due to their limited resources).
No, we're not going to invade Iran, mostly because the Iranian dissidents (unlike the Iraqi dissidents) don't want us to. But we ought to be doing a helluva lot more to help those dissidents.
See the Iraq the Model [blogspot.com] blog.
Funny... (Score:4, Funny)
That's funny... I rarely make that distinction.
Harry Potter politics? (Score:5, Funny)
What a shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
"Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."
This just in! People relate with people who are similar to themselves! What shocking news, I never would have guessed that similar ideas and ways of thought would pull people together...
I'll pull another shocker out of the air too, while we're going for blatantly obvious descriptions of human behavior--people tend to congregate with other people of similar intelligence levels.
Nothing shocking about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be moderated down for saying this, but it's on-topic, it's factual, and it's my well reasoned opinion. Not good material for Slashdot, but my conscience dictates my actions.
If we lived in a world of people who were reasonable, no actions would have been taken as a result of the Columbuine killings. Eleven dead teenagers in a nation of hundred of millions equals an inconsequential cause of death. Thirty teenagers had died the previous day in car crashes, but no one stopped driving. The reason Columbine made an impact is because of people who are capable of becoming afraid, and empathizing with victims. They are able to irrationally magnify their fear outside the actual scope of the threat - again with the help of mass media. Hence we got a million people marching on Washington to ban guns, when lightning strikes and airbags both killed more children that year than school shootings.
Irrational fear leads to irrational behaviour. Terrorism works.
So now we have these same people, genetically gifted with empathy and able to feel irrational, choking amounts of fear, banding together to form a political movement. You can call them "liberals" if you want but I'm not really into name-calling. This isn't surprising. The article is full of hokum when it speculates that "people who think alike form political movements". DUH.
The question we need to ask ourselves is: should people who are irrationally ruled by fear decide the fate of our nation? Is this wise?
Perhaps gene therapy will provide a cure for this in the future; for now we have a choice to make on Nov. 2.
Re:Nothing shocking about it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is a fear mongerer. It's a central point in his campaign. He essentially says: "Vote for me if you want to stay safe." He is clearly using fear as a motivation for people to vote for him. You insinuate that only liberals use fear to motivate people. My point is that that is absurd.
By the way, contrast Bush to FDR who said in the face of a global war: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." FDR was a liberal and Bush is a conservative. Go figure.
Geographic Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is the lifestyle of where you live that governs the formation of the brain.
Look at this county map. [mob-rule.com] Here is a equally hi correlation to rurality=convervativeness.
Maybe conservatives are inbred, not born? (Laugh, it's a joke, not a troll.)
Re:Geographic Distribution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Geographic Distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe they are caused by not wanting to inhale more pollution.
No, FARMERS are Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Farm subsidies. The Republicans are VERY big on keeping farmers and their farms in business(to get their votes, of course), and keeping the ridiculous pork-barrel subsidies going for as long as possible. Farmers are a HUGE constituency for the Republicans. Many, MANY farmers rely on those subsidies.
Re:Geographic Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
What's kinda funny is that city-liberals often don't really understand this. People in rural and conservative areas watch movies and TV, and they see city-life. They get their daily dose of liberal slant, and they can compare it to their conservative slant and that of their neighbors. People in the big city, however, watch their own liberally-slanted media, generated by there generally liberal neighbors, and think that, since they aren't seeing other points of view, there are none. However, the key is that they aren't watching movies and TV made in bum-f*ck nowhere. They aren't getting the other side, and so they are sincerely astonished when the whole country doesn't agree with what they thought was the only way of looking at things.
I suspect some of the difference between urban/rural areas and their liberal/conservative slant comes from the fact that city living is, by nature, more socialistic. You rely much more on public transporation and city services and street-sweepers and whatever else. Living in New York, for example, things like the subway and rent-control are just necessary facts of life, like the sun and the moon (and the ever-present pink glow in the sky at midnight). The municipal influence is tangible, lubricating your interaction with all the other people you're packed in with, and staving off chaos. With the comforting goverment, omnipresent already, you think, "Couldn't the government just take care of this other thing, too?"
In the country, you don't generally feel a government unless you go looking for it. It feels much more like you're on-your-own, except maybe for neighbors and such (which feel like neighbors and not cityscape). Whenever the government does play a role in your life, it's usually annoying and intrusive. It's paying taxes and needing to get permits and such. You don't necessarily feel like there are police roaming the streets, and the boundaries of life are more well-defined, so shot-gunning anyone who dares to come up on your property unannounced makes a certain amount of sense. You know you're going to have to do for yourself, because no government is going to patrol the wide-open empty spaces "just in case", and so you'll often find yourself wondering, "why do we need so much government, anyway?"
Anyway, it's a theory.
No $hit $herlock... (Score:3, Insightful)
So people align themselves politically with others who think in a similar way.
Wow, that's groundbreaking stuff. Guess that locks up the Nobel prize for this year!
Two-party brain duopoly (Score:3, Interesting)
The bravery of liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly?
No. It is, however, flamebait and fodder for the conservatives to jump over.
I'm a liberal. I also am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and in fact own multiple firearms. Why? Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence. I look at my intellectual forbears like Samuel Adams, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi (not as peace as you believe!), Malcolm X, and other political agitators. Frequently changes can come about through peaceful means, but when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled.
In no religious or political tradition is the forceful opposition of tyranny considered a sin or a crime. This is very much a liberal train of thought, in the "power to the people" sense, the fundamental democratic sense. The liberals who founded America did so by violently opposing British tyranny, and they were wholly justified in doing so.
The question is: empathy towards who? I am empathetic towards the oppressed, the poor, and those who do not get treated justly by their governments. I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day. If violence is required to make it happen, then so be it. I hope it does not come to that, but if it will, I will not run from it.
Re:The bravery of liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
How sad it is, that I can read these statements by you and see no contradiction whatsoever, while simultaneously knowing that a vast number of your fellow citizens would see a great disconnect.
I have to ask though... that last sentence...
when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled
My question is two-fold:
1. At what point would you say this criteria is met?
2. Do you draw a distinction between what happened at the dawn of the United States, and what is happening in Iraq right now?
Re:The bravery of liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow, somewhere along the line, people have forgotten that the private ownership of arms is a liberal philosophy.
The Battle of Lexington and Concord which sparked the revolution itself was fought to protect arms from confiscation.
KFG
Re:The bravery of liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
That sort of depends on who decides on the true meaning of the word 'tyranny', and to what extent you're willing to try 'peaceful means'.
Personally I've always believed that there is no point where you can justify the murder of another human being on such wishy-washy subjective justifications, which is one of the reasons why governments tend not to place overall control in the hands of one individual.
"Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence."
And this is different to white supremicists, how? Because you're in the majority?
"In no religious or political tradition is the forceful opposition of tyranny considered a sin or a crime."
Yeah, governments don't like to bite the sociological hand that feeds considering that most have come from armed uprising in the first place, but you're wrong in terms of the Roman Catholic church mandating excommunication in the case of resistence to papal bulls. Nice rhetoric, though.
"The liberals who founded America did so by violently opposing British tyranny"
*cough* Native Americans *cough*
I also have a problem with this depiction of 'British Tyranny' which does appear to be the revisionist line of history, particularly as it would have never become what it did without the help of our ancestral enemies, the French.
"empathy towards who?"
Empathy is not conditional and represents the ability to empathise or put yourself in the place of other people.
"I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day."
You should read the bible without the bits by Paul. Paul was the agitator (and a Roman citizen), whereas Jesus was more interested in people themselves. Incidentally, it's why Jesus' brother, James, was written out of the new testament. He was more a follower of the path of poverty while Paul was working on his Roman franchise. The parables were basically stories intended to make the world a better place by taking on the stories, so don't agitate, just help.
"I hope it does not come to that, but if it will, I will not run from it."
That's a fairly grandiose statement that doesn't have any basis in fact. For a start, you have a militant bearing which indicates that you have a viewpoint of the world 'as it should be', an idealism I share, but I'd never try to achieve it through the spilling of blood, because at the point where you start killing, you've lost any shred of humanity that gives you the ability to empathise.
Incidentally, it's a damn site more brave to stand up for ideals unarmed. Most people forget this.
Pinko Commies (Score:3, Insightful)
Praire Home Companion (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of an episode I heard several months ago... Garrison Keillor was discussing his recent on-show conversion to become a Republican. (roughly paraphrased he said) "Back when I was a democrat and would say something political, I would get letters from Republicans telling me exactly how I was wrong and exactly what they thought of me. Now that I've switched parties, I now get 'hurt' letters from Democrats who are 'hurt' and 'saddened' by my new points of view. I can deal with 'hurt' letters!"
(apologies for without a doubt mangling his hilarious speech)
Amygdala is much more complex than that (Score:3, Interesting)
The amygdala than this. It is responsible for love, hate, fear (all sorts of phobias), tastes, etc... We must understand that we do not control our emotions, as much as we would like to think that we do. Intelligence and reason are always at the service of emotion. In other words, the amydala is the real boss of our brains.
A "more active amygdala" can be good or bad or noth. It may mean that one is more compassionate or more hateful. It may mean that one is very creative or a complete nut. Artists, in general, have amore active amygdala. This probably is the reason that hollywood is liberal and artistically talented at the same time.
Re:Amygdala is much more complex than that (Score:4, Interesting)
How do we know that emotional people don't have a more active amygdala because they don't control their emotions as much? How do we know that people who have a less active amygdala aren't simply controlling their emotions better?
are chemical imbalances a sympton of depression, or a cause?
it seems like a lot of brain stuff is chicken and egg like that, but this is probably a very stupid post
So which will it be? (Score:3, Funny)
Bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the article said: In other words, the writers at the NYTimes have guessed that some study that might be conducted in the future might find a difference between the amygdala of Republicans and Democrats.
Yes, the article says that the UCLA study found that the best predictor, in brain scans of volunteers, of the volunteer's political party was amygdala activity levels. But the NYTimes article says nothing about how strong a correlation there was, how many subjects were tested, whether a host of variables (such as socio-economic class, age, etc.) were accounted for. It could have a correlation of
This is how pseudo-science and junk statistics start. A year from now, liberals will be referring to this past study as having "proved" that conservatives are heartless, and conservatives will cite it for proving that liberals are cowards. Why is this worthy of discussion?
Our "Understanding" of the Brain... (Score:4, Informative)
To pass this study off as if it can suggest conclusions, of any kind, about the way one kind of party member thinks versus another is exactly the kind of grandstanding, irresponsible and basically incoherent brain science I am sadly used to hearing about.
We don't really understand the role of the amygdala in our consciousness - in fact, we don't understand consciousness even slightly. Even if we don't hear an apologetic revolution in a year or two stemming from one of the many competing theories about other parts of our brain anatomy that may be equally important to our "limbic system," the methodology of the study itself may easily be flawed, if for instance those operating the survey (interviewing and handlnig subjects) or the survey materials (questionaries, etc) caused subjects from one party to feel differently than the other during examinations...
Were it not for the matte gloss of UCLA science, this article would be a much more obvious fit in the New York Post or the National Enquirer than the New York Times.
liberal != compassionate (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, being compassionate doesn't have to mean helping people through government programs. I think the defining difference is whether you believe you should run towards government as the first solution to a problem. Conservatives don't generally argue that the poor shouldn't be helped (okay, some wacko conservative commentators aside); they argue that government programs are hurting instead of helping and that private efforts might be more effective. That only makes them uncompassionate if you believe that government is the only way to help them.
Re:liberal != compassionate (Score:4, Insightful)
They argue this not because they believe it, but because saying "Fuck the poor" won't get them elected.
Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
i, started out a radical liberal. But then, as I got older, smarter and grew up, I discovered the simple undeniable fact... that liberalism (in the form of its formalized political ideology of Socialism) does not work, and removes freedom... and those other nasty things like being completely opposed to human nature (the nature to progress, to have incentives to do better)... Socialism removes these incentives.
So, this concept is total bullshit.
Oh yeah, I'm conservative, but I am more compassionate than most liberals. The DIFFERENCE IS I DON'T NEED FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME TO BE COMPASSIONATE!
That's the difference -- liberals want to be absolved of their own responsibility to be compassionate and put that responsibility in the hands of a large powerful central government so they don't have to worry about it.
Re:Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kind of curious, when you claim the moniker "compassionate conservative" does that mean you are a fervent supporter of the other self proclaimed "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush? If so I have news for you, you should probably start calling yourself a libertarian than the travesty "conservate" is in the U.S. today.
The "compassionate conservatives" who have a stranglehold on power at the moment are instituting "large powerful central government" faster than the "liberals" you hate ever did, though the Dem's are helping. They are doing the same injustice to "conservatism" that the Dems have done to "liberalism" over the years.
Here is the short list of the most obvious examples of Republican backed "large powerful central government":
- Patriot Act
- Medicare "Reform" bill
- Department of Homeland Security
- Skyrocketing Federal budget and deficit
- Skyrocketing defense spending
- Preemptive warfare and nation building
- Free speech zones which in fact prevent free speech
- The rush to a National Intelligence Director is going to result in spying and law enforcement whose power to intrude in to your life is going to be unchecked and unstoppable. It is going result in an out of control spying agency like the CIA was in the 50's and 60's but with unfettered domestic spying powers. The Republican's are feigning reluctance but they are drooling at the prospect of creating it and of suckering the Dems in to being eager to do it too.
- Detention of people without due process at the whim of the executive branch
I hate to break it to you but what the Dems and Republicans are both practicing are different flavors of "socialism". The Republicans talk big talk about free markets but they are in fact intervening in the economy and civil liberties in truly massive ways.
The medicare "reform" bill being the most obvious example of massive economic intervention. It has all the earmarks of classic Democratic socialism except they are instead using it as a thinly veiled disguise to pump large quantities of tax payer dollars in to the pockets of their friends in the pharmaceutical, healthcare and insurance industry. The Dems woudl have just pumped it in to a huge bureaucracy and the pockets of the poor and elderly.
The defence industrial complex is in fact one of the largest planned economies on the face of the earth, the Republicans love every bit of it and can't pump money in to it fast enough.
I hate to burst the bubble but the two offerings available in the U.S. today aren't true conservatism or liberalism. They are both Socialism, the democrats leaning towards classic socialism and the Republican's leaning more towards Fascism(substituting Muslims for Jews) every day.
I was conservative, and am now a radical liberal (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, my entire adult life, up into my 40s, I was conservative. I came from a quite conservative west texas ranching family. However, even though I have always been a very avid reader, I had not really been directly exposed to deliberately and overtly leftist writings until I got on the Internet in the mid 90s. And I really got into the Internet and computers once I was exposed to them (even picked up a second degree, a BS in Comp Sci).
So for the last 8 years or so, I gradually became more and more exposed to direct contact with leftist thought--but only through the Net. I basically rejected leftism, however, but really out of habit. By 2001 or so, I still had not really taken the time to really delve into the deep background and rationale of leftism.
However, my acceptance of radical life extensionism (cryonics, etc), and my acceptance of atheism made me ready to accept a radical change in worldview, I suspect.
Also, the events of 9-11 and its aftermath, and the Iraq war and the media propaganda drive associated with it made me much more aware of just what was going on, with respect to media manipulation. I had come across the ideas of Noam Chomsky in about 1989, but had rejected them--although I had been exposed to them only second hand, through an establishment filter.
These prior events set me up for a move to leftism. THat, and my research into a possible move to another country. I quit my W-2 job last year and went contract. And when contract work died down, I had time to do even more research.
By late last year, I was a confirmed leftist. And I will never look back.
THere is an old saying that a husband will not leave a wife unless he has someone else already waiting for him to make him a comfortable home. In other words, even if his current wife has some real problems, he will not take action unless he can walk right into a better situation.
THe Net offers a leftist community, one that was not possible in meatspace USA, outside of certain locations. With a community of leftists ready to accept strayers from the establishment pack, I think more and more will go Left. Join us!
You don't really *have* a left in America (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens when you do the same tests in countries with a real left? Are the results more extreme, or do they just map to a different range of political views?
Re:You don't really *have* a left in America (Score:5, Funny)
More refined distinctions between schools of thought in the multi-party systems in continental Europe are unnecessary and confusing to our brains.
We don't need environmentalists, socialists, communists, social democrats, social liberals, social christians, conservative liberals, christian conservatives, constitutional christians, conservative nationalists, national socialists etc. Just "blue" and "red" will do fine. There is no such thing as a "green" brain, and nazis do not exist. They are just "blue" and "red". Or vice versa.
Courage? I think not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still with me?
Ok, here goes...
Why is it seen as courageous to support war (any war, as US republicans often do) when all you risk is, at most, a slight tax increase. You don't even have to get your fat ass out of your comfy chair! Just order some flags and stickers over the internet (got to "Support The Troops") and watch the fireworks on FOX!
Pay someone to fight and die somewhere far away, destroying someone elses country in the process.
This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.
The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP.
If the common voter had a real possibility of having to directly bear the burden of the decisions of the leaders (like the entire population of $INVADED_COUNTRY will) in the event of war, maybe we wouldn't see any cases of going to war on faulty intelligence?
Ask yourselves: How many "brave" conservatives would support a war if it was going to be fought in their hometown?
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Informative)
The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.
Fear != Courage (Score:4, Insightful)
The person who is afraid and acts anyway is the courageous one. What's the old saying?
Nick
"Liberal" talk in USA is Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Illegal detainments in Iraq and Cuba.
Vast expansion of secret police powers via "Patriot Act".
World's biggest Military budget (thats a guess) and a military commander chosen in hail of controversy.
If any of the above scares you, and you are American, break the two party system that makes it too easy to buy your government.
Think twice when you are sold something by a fear mongering right winger (of either party).
LS
Re:"Liberal" talk in USA is Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
What other military, or coalition of militaries, represents a threat to a military that size? Who are the Americans thinking they need to defend themselves from?
When folks from other countries say that both parties in the US are right-wing, this is what they mean. A portion of those dollars are what could have been their education and health systems, still leaving them with a military equal to any possible coalition of forces.
What about temperment? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the old Kiersey temperment sorter, there are four traits that determine temperment, (Extrovert/Introvert, Sense/Intuition, Thinker/Feeler, Percieving/Judging). Our political parties divide mostly along the Thinker/Feeler line. conservatives are the "thinkers", liberals are the "feelers".
Don't believe me? The best evidence of this is the types of insults one side hurls at the other. Traditionally, conservatives have called liberals foolish, softies, bleeding-hearts, etc. while liberals have called conservatives mean, insensitive, cruel, etc.
Also look at the ways each side tries to win over people. Conservatives tend to use logical arguments. (Note: An argument can be logical and still be utter nonsense. I am making no statement as to the validity of their arguments.) Liberals tend to use emotional appeals.
Re:What about temperment? (Score:4, Funny)
And you are right that conservatives use more logical arguments. To prove this I will sum up every single argument conservatives have used in the past four years:
"how dare you question the president, you must hate America"
You see there is nothing emotional about this. It is all pure logic.
Do you believe in God? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh well thats just what I think
P.S. when did "family" values start to mean "christian" values?
Re:Do you believe in God? (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't as simple as believing in God or not, as many democrats are religious (opposed to what you might hear on TV).
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Christianity is a religion; environmentalism isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
And what does it matter?
We have laws against killing *mature* humans in place specifically because a society where killing mature humans is allowed is much less effective -- if I have to run around with a gun and be suspicious of everyone, I get a lot less done. Most people have no problems with killing cows or pigs, say. Zillions of sperm die each day. The only people that have a problem with killing a fetus are those that have chosen as a fundamental value that killing a fetus is unacceptable. I'm all for letting people decide that killing *their* fetus is unacceptable, just as I am all for letting people pray in the direction of Mecca. What I take issue with is when people try to force their values on other people, values which have no pragmatic backing.
gay marriage is just a continuation of our unelected judges writing law in clear violation of their Constitutional restraints
I'm lost as to what you mean. First, the primary people allowing gay marriage have been *elected* *administrators*, like the mayor of San Francisco. Second, the role of the judge is to interpret law. Neither the law nor the US Consitution forbids gay marriage. In the United States, unless something is specifically made illegal, it is legal. Judges have looked at our legal code and said "nope, nothing banning it". The only way they'd be writing law is if they decided in the *other* direction.
Conservatives have *tried* to push through national law banning gay marriage and it has been shot down by the bulk of America. This is just the majority speaking, nothing more.
sex ed shouldn't be entrusted to the government education monopoly
I'll call bullshit again. You are free to send your child to a private school, to homeschool them, or what-have-you. Sex ed is an *extremely* PC process that makes no value statements. The question is simply whether or not children should remain ignorant of something that has huge social impact and is a significant chunk of our biology.
social programs should be funded by voluntary contributions and not tax money confiscated by force (try not paying your taxes sometime)
We tried that, early on in the United States. The federal government had no power to ensure itself any income. It didn't work, because not surprisingly, nobody wanted to fund it.
a rather large subset of Muslims have declared war on all Americans who don't think and act as they do (that includes you)
"Rather large subset"? There are *millions* of Muslims in the United States *alone* that aren't out "declaring war". And how did you manage to forget about abortion clinic bombings and shootings?
and we have to deal with that, and we shouldn't make environmentalism a substitute for traditional religion.
There are people who irrationally support environmentalism -- "we can't hurt the cute fluffy kitties in the rainforests!" However, there are very clear and accepted economic, game-theoretic reasons for supporting environmentalism -- it's a public-good problem, where it is in the interest of individuals to damage the environment for short-term profit, even if it winds up hurting everyone down the road. Environment-protecting laws were not made by legislators looking at fluffy kitties.
Most atheists are frauds who find substitute deities (environmentalism, Communism, heck just look at all the Castro worshippers).
No. Neither environmentalism nor communism is a religion. They are a set of techniques and analysis for dealing with a public good and government, respectively. There are no fundamental, axiomic values that must be accepted as a part of either, as is necessary to be a Christian.
Arent colors backwards? (Score:4, Funny)
A couple elections ago TV networks started using the opposite convention in their maps and the colors stuck. Now people use these map colors as a metaphore for national sentiment.
It's all about emotions with most people anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Running over Lysenko at the crosswalk (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I fear that the fact that so many people just assumed the science is true because it was convenient to believe, reflects the recent and scary trend of promoting or supressing "scientific facts" depending on how they fit into one's belief system. The classic example was Lysenko in the Soviet Union who demolished Soviet genetics due to the promotion of "nurture" type Lamarckian inheritance in concordance with communist beliefs. Harmless enough, until millions die from crop failures - at least in some small part due to choosing the wrong strains of wheat. Simularly, while red vs blue brains may be fun to believe - remember that electroshock, lobotomies, split-brain "therapies" still exist largely because of an uncritical public. Or to paraphrase Douglas Adams - it's OK to think that white is black - until a car hits you at a zebra crossing..
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Funny)
Within a matter of seconds, I found that people who agree with me on political issues are rather brainy. On the other hand, I found that people who disagree with me on political issues are extremely braindead.
This, indeed, is good new for libertarians everywhere.
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US political system, no matter which side you are own, has its share of corruption and its share of Hero. If you cannot see that it you are probably as biased as I and most of the others of us who have a favorite politician.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If its the former, then you're racist; fine. If it's the latter, however, one could argue that, seing as it was this nation's fault for creating the situation, we should do something to fix it.
So maybe we should fund public universities enough that anyone with the will to succeed (grades/test scores) can attend. The alternative is to write a large check, which just won't work - witness the majority of poor lottery winners: BK within 5 years.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting question. Why do blacks tend to have such a single parent percentage as a whole? I think perhaps a possible that there really is a flaw in today's 'black culture' in the US. I've actually heard something that is very sad....very smart, movtivated young black men and women, that are derided by their peers saying that getting an education and trying to work and better themselves, they are accused of acting 'white'. I don't know where this comes from...I know there are a great many bad role types that are put up for today's youth, particularly in the black community, that portray violence, acting like a thug, and having no respect for women is the 'cool' way to be. It doesn't...it leads to a quick death or internment in prison.
The sad thing is...when you hear someone say things like this...even if they ARE black, like Bill Cosby has done recently...they are either crucified publicly...or shushed to the side by the media. This is something that needs to be addressed publicly...to promote getting an education IS the thing to do. This is, IMHO, not a problem that can be solved by throwing money, public or private at it. It needs to be addressed by leaders in the black community itself.
There are many other minorities in this country that dont seem to have these kinds of problems...or at least not ones like these that tend to grind generation after generation into a dead end life that just propogates itself...
As far as some people having a head start...sure, that's a fact of life. Not everyone gets the same starting place...but, this is a free country. I've seen plenty of those starting from nothing, do what it takes and succeed. I've seen plenty of those starting out quite wealthy...and go nowhere and end up with nothing. This is life we're talking about here...it isn't fair...but, you gotta play with what you're dealt.
I don't think we should stand in anyone's way...and all opportunities should be as open as possible to all to make their own success. But, in a society inhabited by biological beings...not all ARE created equal. Some are smarter than others...so, are larger/stronger than others, some are more attractive, some are more naturally gifted in some areas than others. That's irregardless of race or sex...just how nature works. So, strive more for a system and society that allows for us all to gain according to out abilities and aspirations. But, don't create a welfare state where it becomes nothing more than a wealth redistribution system that creates voting blocks of those who are voting to keep 'on the dole'. I believe we need to have basic society safety nets...the elderly, the handicapped and the seriously infirmed...sure. But, anyone that is able bodied...needs to be working and earning a living.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably shouldn't point this but you are engaging in the very kind of thinking that causes the problem you are lamenting. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth but you seem to be saying Asian's are hard working and industrious so they are successful while blacks are not.
Take this mind set and put it in a prospective employer interviewing Asian and Black candidates. In the employers mind the Asian candidate doesn't have all the social baggage the black candidate does. As the stereotype goes the Asian is much more likely to work hard and be successful, maybe the black guy grew up in a slum, doing drugs and listening to rap music. He's going to hire the Asian candidate unless he is filling a quota.
It is a fact of life in America if you are black you are inherently at a disadvantage in life. You are going to be racially profiled by police and hassle more than any other ethnicity. You are going to be at a disadvantage in nearly every interview.
You may choose to forget it but America, especially the South, was practicing something resembling apartheid barely 40 years ago. The Republican party and many whites are still rascist, either overtly or with a thin veil. Its kind of naive to think blacks are going to jump from deeply oppressed, and in social tatters, to a level playing field in the space of a couple of generations.
If you grow up knowing all this chances are you too would be toting animosity to people whose ethnicity gives them every advantage. I'm guessing your ethnicity has always puts you at a advantage so you really have no clue what the problem is like. Someone black in America can succeed but they are going to have to work at least twice as hard to just reach parity. Someone who is affluent and white can fail too but they have work twice as hard at it too, and they can succeed without really trying or deserving it.
Here is a case study. There is this white guy I know. He was an academic disaster, intellectually challenged, squandered his youth partying, was arrested for Cocaine possession, failed in every business he tried excepting wealthy friends of his family baled him out every time. How did he make out in life. He is President of the United States. How did this happen you ask, he was born in to a white, privledged, wealthy, powerful family. If he'd been poor and black and and made the same life choices he would have ended up packing an M-16 in Vietnam and probably the rest of his life in prison.
Its all nice to bang the drum about how free America is and anyone can succeed but its a lot freer for some than it is for others, and it sure helps being born in the right place at the right time and the right color.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a black african who grew up middle class at home and I now work in hi-tech (software engineer) in the Boston area. I have faced discrimination in the past but as one climbs the social/financial ladder its effects become less pervasive (but still as painful). However, every once in a while its pervasiveness becomes apparent. My girlfriend and I were recently looking for an apartment and since I was the one who had a lot of free time we had a number of interesting experiences
1. Spoke to a realtor and when we showed up the first thing out of his mouth was that we should look for low income housing (huh?)
2. Had a realtor I spoke to (people sometimes mistake my accent for British or something) and made an appointment to see quite a few apartments. Spoke to him multiple times (called him from work and he stated he had quite a few places to show us). When I showed up he suddenly got this look when he saw me. First words out of his mouth were "So, do you work?" (this after I had spoken to him by calling him from work and stating that I would be leaving work early to meet him. He them claimed that he really had nothing to show us and hurriedly left (this one I shall be reporting to the BHA)
Had realtors just yank my chain, treat me rudely etc. I got to the point where I would joke with my girlfriend (who is white) that maybe she should do all the looking and booking and then I would show up at the end.
We eventually gave up and decided to do Craigs List and only do for rent by owner, since by doing this we were dealing with young enlightened people, we had much better luck .
On the whole my experiences with realtors is very disheartening. Now, I have only had to deal with this (and the occasional N word yelled, treated suspiciously by policeand people etc) for only a few years and also not during my formative years. If I had to deal with this all my life I can tell you I would be a very different person.
As far as affirmative action goes, I whole heartedly support it. I know that I have benefited from it (I know jobs that I would have never gotten even to the initial interview unless the companies involved were not afraid of not looking as if they were following certain mandates. Also for the longest time when job hunting I would make sure that my first few interviews were over the phone (but then again, a study done last year in the Boston and Philadelphia area found that job applicants with black sounding names were called back 50% less than job applicants with white sounding names (this after controlling for education).
As far as the black intelligence argument that is used as an explanation all I can say is give me a break!. I remember that in the Bell Curve it was stated that the average I.Q of Africans was something like 75 or 80 (borderline retarded). The fact tha such a book could be greeted with anything but scorn says everything you need to know about race relations in the U.S
Re:Cosby (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cosby (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be that our education system is programming native-born blacks for failure? That is the opinion of many notable successful black entrepreneurs and authors. Check out the writings of Thomas Sowell [townhall.com] and Walter E. Williams [townhall.com], both brilliant economists, and both happy they got their educations before our system was "improved" for blacks in the 60s and 70s.
For nearly 40 years, we have told blacks and other minorities that, because their ancestors were slaves, and their parents were discriminated against under the law, they not only have an excuse for not succeeding, they are expected to not succeed, and only the aid and comfort of the government (and the white liberals who have controlled the purse strings) can fix things for them. This is an incredibly racist thing to say - but, these same white liberals have also modified the language so that it is now racist to suggest that any color humans are just as good as any other other color humans, because this is the basis for removing all race-based preference systems.
Administering these race-based preference systems is a lucrative business, which feeds upon emotion to keep thousands of guilt-ridden people employed. If we truly moved to Dr. King's vision of a color-blind society, these powerful people would be out of work... Who would listen to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, for example, if they weren't screaming discrimination at every turn?
Many things that are attributed to current discrimination by these people are not really - for example, there are fewer minorities and women in top-level management because they haven't been at it as long. When top management requires 20 years of experience, it takes a while for an increased presence of minorities in the lower eschelons to move their way up the latter, unless they're pushed upward, beyond their current merit, to satisfy the appearance of discrimination. And such fast-tracked individuals may lack skills that time would have given them, so they feel pressured to do what they can't do, and the detractors amongst their peers see it as "proof" of the premise that minorities "aren't good enough".
The solution? Let's put an end to teaching blacks and other minorities that we expect less from them, just because they're not white. Let's stop giving people crap jobs to fill quotas to keep the race merchants from shaking your company down for "donations".
Discrimination is discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful.
In 1976, I was told I was free as a result of reaching 18 years of age. All I was given was instructions that I needed to go out and join the job market... even though I'm white, I was given no property, and no special birthright. While I did not suffer under slavery (some of today's kids might think the tight discipline of my youth was slavery, but it was not), the "meaningfulness" of my freedom was entirely tied to what I was willing to make of it, just as the "meaningfulness" of the 1863 slave's freedom was. Today, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone in hiring, based upon a variety of criteria, unless they're a white male under the age of 50. Most of these people never owned a slave, and were never in a position to have denied someone else a job because of the color of their skin. And the unfairness of that makes it damn hard for them to accept the idea that someone will less education or less skills has priority over them... or that anyone from these "privileged" groups who didn't need the special programs to succeed really did make it on their own.
Walter E. Williams once related that, when faced with a choice of doctors where he only knew the age and race of the doctors, how he would make his choice. If they were both in their late 50s, and one was black, he'd take the black doctor, because he knew that this man had worked hard to get where he was.
But, if they were in their 30s, he'd go with the white doctor, because he would have no way of knowing if the black doctor had gotten through on his skills, or the need for the university to fulfill its quotas.
This is not the desired result of affirmative action, but it is the common one. It only gets worse when people use the argument that removing race-based quotas hurts blacks, purpetuating the myth that blacks aren't smart enough to succeed on their own.
Re:Not insulting anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Brain differences? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't laugh -- some Berkeley researchers were claiming that [berkeley.edu] last year. This is a potentially interesting line of study in psychology but it's handled by people with such outrageous bias (and worse, complete obliviousness to their biases) that almost everything they generate is garbage.
Re:All the studies show (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's the fucking miracle you folks think it is, then there should be plenty of private research by those who seek to profit from it.
Of course there are not many private companies willing to fund development for something that could possibley cure so many different ailments. After all, the money is in the medicine, not the cure. Instead we have researchers at universities forced to recreate their labs off campus, wasting so much money and allowing the US to fall years behind the rest of the world when we were once pioneers in the field.
Re:All the studies show (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't a right wing consiracy to be mean to the mentally ill, but rather, another mis-guided liberal program to "free" them.
Look up "deinstitutionalization", "main streaming", and "community integration". All happy-happy emotional terms for "dumping the crazies on the streets."
Everyone knows that right-wing nuts would be more than happy to keep undesireables locked up.
Liberals will pave the road to hell with good intentions, and Conservative contractors will be right there, looking for the constuction contract.
Re:All the studies show (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I would be interested in any compelling evidence of Bush's intelligence. He has never struck me as one of the leading intellectuals of the administration.
Re:Why are Universities predominantly liberal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd also like to point out that:
1) Universities (well, mine, at least) are places of extreme education and knowledge. There is more free thinking and intellectual curiosity about here than any of the crazy "real world" places I visit. In fact, my professors and most of my peers are more educated on the status of the nation and world than pretty well anybody else I come across (admittedly, I spend most of my time with academics).
2) Most professors I know aren't quite so "seperated from reality" as you would like to think. Most own homes and live just like normal people. Most have worked in private industry if that is possible in their field, and if not, have
made an extensive and immersive study into their chosen field. The only exception is my classics professors, and they are still more intelligent and informed than your average citizen by leaps and bounds, and are certainly no less qualified to have opinions just because they happen to work at a school during the day.
3) I think Universities are also slighly liberally biased because I've noticed that a lot my liberal friends believe that one way to change the world is to ensure good education, and one good way to do that is to be a teacher. (Compassionate people also tend to be pulled to teaching, all jokes aside) So, liberals are drawn to education, making it not unreasonable for schools to be liberal.
Universities get too much funding from the government? That they shouldn't get any?
I'm curious. I think government funding of
education is a positive thing.