Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-02-2017, 10:42 AM   #251
Vermin93
Eight Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%TtId View Post
Three clicks exposes this about the author of your linked article:

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist at George Mason University. His work has been published in journals like Cognition & Emotion and Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, and he has written for sites like Slate, The Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, and Scientific American. He also runs the website Science Is Sexy. Follow him @BobbyAzarian.

One more click, comments from the author:

"It is wrong to assume that I am an extreme liberal because I'm critical of Trump and point out conservatives' hypersensitivities and negativity biases. I have been critical of the left in other articles. As a scientist, I'm naturally a progressive, but unfortunately some progressives have become regressive due to failing to stay within the "common sense zone." However, there is no doubt that overall, with a huge emphasis on the word "overall", the left values rational thought and logic more than the right, as the the (new) right is fundamentally opposed to science and evidence, in many regards."

Your source is so biased, he doesn't even recognize that his own viewpoint clouds his objectivity rendering his conclusions to be no more valid than DNC talking points. He clearly chastises those on the left who aren't as far left as he is.

Fake news, bud. Author's credibility is zero.
Glad I saw this response, as it exemplifies an issue I've noticed with how many conservative and liberal political ideologues see news and formulate opinions that are uniformed and unreasoned. Rather than make clicks to investigate the scientific research specifically referenced in the article, you instead focused on the author, who had nothing to do with the scientific research. This flawed and, in my opinion, lazy approach to vetting information is something I've frequently seen from conservative ideologues when discussing a number of scientific subjects. This contributes to the anti-science / anti-intellectualism criticism often directed at segments of the conservative political movement.

What's disappointing is that all 3 scientific studies were clearly linked in the article, yet you entirely ignored the scientists and their published research and instead declared the whole thing "fake news" based on the messenger. The problem with this should be obvious.

If the politics of the messenger bothers you, then take him out of the equation. Below are links to the 3 scientific studies that the article was based on. The same approach can be taken with other scientific subjects - ignore the messenger and examine the science.

The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...640.full#aff-1

Political attitudes vary with physiological traits.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801995

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...2811%2900289-2
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 11:06 AM   #252
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Vermin93 in a nutshell.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ironman is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 12:17 PM   #253
bloodtrailer28
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oatmeal, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
Lmao! Damaging to who...certainly not you since you are on a plane to Colorado for whatever reason.lol Let's be realistic for a minute here. Someone like yourself who likes to claim they are a conservative but yet fly's to Washington D.C. to see the biggest liberal dirt bag to ever sit as President of the United States sworn in speaks volumes my friend. Uh, well, uh...it was paid for, umm, it was a part of history, uh...ummmm, uh. Come on Oscar, you're better than that! I'm buying you a Trump camo hat for this upcoming bow season.

So some here don't like the man which automatically will have them nit picking crap to say he isn't doing a good job. That's called a blind fold. I'm seeing plenty of good being done...not about to get in a pissing match over it. Fact is, we just wiped 8 years of dog **** off our shoes, respect to the white house has been restored, patriotism is flowing red, white n blue through our veins once again, manufacturing is at an all time high (I know, that's what I do for a living) and life is just plain good! Go Trump!!
Johnny you ever get into my neck of the woods I would love to buy you a drink or two. Well said sir
bloodtrailer28 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 12:30 PM   #254
Lostacresranch
Four Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Glad I saw this response, as it exemplifies an issue I've noticed with how many conservative and liberal political ideologues see news and formulate opinions that are uniformed and unreasoned. Rather than make clicks to investigate the scientific research specifically referenced in the article, you instead focused on the author, who had nothing to do with the scientific research. This flawed and, in my opinion, lazy approach to vetting information is something I've frequently seen from conservative ideologues when discussing a number of scientific subjects. This contributes to the anti-science / anti-intellectualism criticism often directed at segments of the conservative political movement.



What's disappointing is that all 3 scientific studies were clearly linked in the article, yet you entirely ignored the scientists and their published research and instead declared the whole thing "fake news" based on the messenger. The problem with this should be obvious.



If the politics of the messenger bothers you, then take him out of the equation. Below are links to the 3 scientific studies that the article was based on. The same approach can be taken with other scientific subjects - ignore the messenger and examine the science.



The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences



http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...640.full#aff-1



Political attitudes vary with physiological traits.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801995



Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults



http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...2811%2900289-2


In a nut shell, your scientific "studies" are polls and surveys. Ask certain questions, add up the answers. And you know what they found? Liberals tend to go with the "feel good" method of decision making, while conservatives tend to lean to doing what is right for the whole. They look further down the road than just what makes you happy NOW.
Lostacresranch is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 05:35 PM   #255
100%TtId
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Glad I saw this response, as it exemplifies an issue I've noticed with how many conservative and liberal political ideologues see news and formulate opinions that are uniformed and unreasoned. Rather than make clicks to investigate the scientific research specifically referenced in the article, you instead focused on the author, who had nothing to do with the scientific research. This flawed and, in my opinion, lazy approach to vetting information is something I've frequently seen from conservative ideologues when discussing a number of scientific subjects. This contributes to the anti-science / anti-intellectualism criticism often directed at segments of the conservative political movement.

What's disappointing is that all 3 scientific studies were clearly linked in the article, yet you entirely ignored the scientists and their published research and instead declared the whole thing "fake news" based on the messenger. The problem with this should be obvious.

If the politics of the messenger bothers you, then take him out of the equation. Below are links to the 3 scientific studies that the article was based on. The same approach can be taken with other scientific subjects - ignore the messenger and examine the science.

The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences
Your assumption is incorrect. I clicked through and read all the linked "studies" from your original post. I seriously wonder if YOU actually read them because, as I noted, Azarian's biased conclusions aren't supported by the studies he himself cites. One study he references states:

"Be this as it may, the central message of these findings is not that one political orientation is somehow superior to the other but rather that, in light of the connection between location on the political spectrum and physio-cognitive differences, those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently. It is probably because of these differences that some on the right view those on the left as hedonists who ignore pressing issues while some on the left view those on the right as doomsayers who obsess over constructed threats and problems".

From that, Azarian concludes:

"This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in irrational fears—like fear of the president, immigrants, Muslims, vaccinations, etc."

So, the conservatives viewpoints are "irrational", but he ignores that the study proposes liberals are "hedonists". That is a dishonest and biased conclusion no different from saying a flipped coin is overwhelmingly unfair because it lands heads-up 51% of the time.

Azarian cites another "study" in his article:

“Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun."

No mention of an alternative conclusion that liberals may be oblivious to potentially threatening stimuli to their own (and everyone else's) detriment. Azarian again shows his biased viewpoint that the liberal mindset is the correct, default position.

Azarian cites the same "study" again to make a different point:

"A 2008 study 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

From this, Azarian concludes that: "Conservatives fear new experiences". Seriously??? Looking at college kids dorm rooms to decipher conservatives attitudes is absolutely ridiculous and NOT science. Ironically, it does provide some evidence to support the idea that liberals are lazy, dirty slobs, but that would be just as ridiculous.

Lastly, Azarian cites a study that finds conservatives have larger amygdalas than liberals and liberals have larger "gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex".

He makes the claim 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". What is overreaction and how does one gauge it? It is completely subjective. He offers the WMD example but fails to offer a contradictory example: Obama's "habitual" under-reaction to: North Korea, Russia's supposed "meddling" in the election, etc.

Azarian repeats a pattern of interpreting study data from his own, highly biased viewpoint, then writes a click-bait article designed to draw in the Trump-haters. Hence, he's still fake news. Both your posts are thinly veiled ad hominem attacks that seem to push the conservatives-can't-help-themselves, they-have-brain-abnormalities meme straight out of Rules for Radicals.

If we take Azarian's biases out of the links you posted and fairly interpret the study findings it completely changes the outcome and leaves the reader with only ONE reasonable conclusion:

1. Conservatives and liberals brains are different. (Pretty sure we all knew this already).
100%TtId is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 07:16 PM   #256
thorthunder
Pope & Young
 
thorthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Mainly Guide Now
Default

That would explane a lot.

So me reacting in a jumpy way to a Copperhead on the driveway and brutally killing it is wrong?

I should act like a liberal and try to determine its intentions, direction of travel, temperature for sluggish behavior, and date of mating and cicada season before formulating a strategy..

Who wants to go hang out with me on the driveway and drink a beer????
thorthunder is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 11:31 PM   #257
Vermin93
Eight Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%TtId View Post
Azarian repeats a pattern of interpreting study data from his own, highly biased viewpoint, then writes a click-bait article designed to draw in the Trump-haters. Hence, he's still fake news. Both your posts are thinly veiled ad hominem attacks that seem to push the conservatives-can't-help-themselves, they-have-brain-abnormalities meme straight out of Rules for Radicals.

If we take Azarian's biases out of the links you posted and fairly interpret the study findings it completely changes the outcome and leaves the reader with only ONE reasonable conclusion:

1. Conservatives and liberals brains are different. (Pretty sure we all knew this already).
You spent a lot of time becoming decoupled from the original point, which was my suggestion that psychological research may explain the continued allegiance of Trump's hardcore base despite his actions and behavior. Azarian's article references this research in a discussion specifically focused on conservative political attitudes, and he was complimentary on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, I suggested dismissing the author and his article and focusing on the actual research. You chose to go back to the author and the article, largely ignored the research and grossly oversimplified the conclusion.

Azarian's political leanings do not change the cited research. The cited research supports the 4 key points Azarian noted in his article and my point about the unconditional support of Trump's legion.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
3. Conservatives fear new experiences (referred to as "Openness to Experience" in the study)
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

The relevant findings are identifiable in the research papers.

Azarian concludes with a message to the political ideologues on the left and right, both of whom I find disturbingly stubborn, uncompromising and problematic. On a related note, I'm not sure how declarations of click-bait and fake news from either side aren't almost always hypocritical.

You must be new to the P/CE forum, because the irony of you accusing me of ad hominem attacks in this hornet's nest of political ideologues is so amazing I had to chuckle.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 11:35 PM   #258
Smell the Glove
Ten Point
 
Smell the Glove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Houston
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
You spent a lot of time becoming decoupled from the original point, which was my suggestion that psychological research may explain the continued allegiance of Trump's hardcore base despite his actions and behavior. Azarian's article references this research in a discussion specifically focused on conservative political attitudes, and he was complimentary on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, I suggested dismissing the author and his article and focusing on the actual research. You chose to go back to the author and the article, largely ignored the research and grossly oversimplified the conclusion.



Azarian's political leanings do not change the cited research. The cited research supports the 4 key points Azarian noted in his article and my point about the unconditional support of Trump's legion.



1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.

2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat

3. Conservatives fear new experiences (referred to as "Openness to Experience" in the study)

4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear



The relevant findings are identifiable in the research papers.



Azarian concludes with a message to the political ideologues on the left and right, both of whom I find disturbingly stubborn, uncompromising and problematic. On a related note, I'm not sure how declarations of click-bait and fake news from either side aren't almost always hypocritical.



You must be new to the P/CE forum, because the irony of you accusing me of ad hominem attacks in this hornet's nest of political ideologues is so amazing I had to chuckle.


This is going to be great.
Smell the Glove is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2017, 11:51 PM   #259
100%TtId
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
You spent a lot of time becoming decoupled from the original point, which was my suggestion that psychological research may explain the continued allegiance of Trump's hardcore base despite his actions and behavior. Azarian's article references this research in a discussion specifically focused on conservative political attitudes, and he was complimentary on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, I suggested dismissing the author and his article and focusing on the actual research. You chose to go back to the author and the article, largely ignored the research and grossly oversimplified the conclusion.

Azarian's political leanings do not change the cited research. The cited research supports the 4 key points Azarian noted in his article and my point about the unconditional support of Trump's legion.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
3. Conservatives fear new experiences (referred to as "Openness to Experience" in the study)
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

The relevant findings are identifiable in the research papers.

Azarian concludes with a message to the political ideologues on the left and right, both of whom I find disturbingly stubborn, uncompromising and problematic. On a related note, I'm not sure how declarations of click-bait and fake news from either side aren't almost always hypocritical.

You must be new to the P/CE forum, because the irony of you accusing me of ad hominem attacks in this hornet's nest of political ideologues is so amazing I had to chuckle.
How does one "decouple" Azarian's conclusions from your argument that YOU posted?

Ad hominem? Pot/kettle.

Reread the last two paragraphs in my post.
100%TtId is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 12:50 AM   #260
Vermin93
Eight Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%TtId View Post
How does one "decouple" Azarian's conclusions from your argument that YOU posted?

Ad hominem? Pot/kettle.

Reread the last two paragraphs in my post.
Reread the research papers.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 09:01 AM   #261
systemnt
Pope & Young
 
systemnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Montgomery
Hunt In: South Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Reread the research papers.
You got ****in owned by your own post.
And your response is "reread".
Db.
To the list.
systemnt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 02:00 PM   #262
Lostacresranch
Four Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Reread the research papers.


Why? How many times does it take to see it a survey based on questions? It's a BS report using opinions gathered, not anything based on actual physiological scientific studies. Maybe YOU should reread it.
Lostacresranch is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 02:10 PM   #263
Lostacresranch
Four Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Default The Trump drama never stops...


1. Conservatives focus on the negative.
Yes, because the last 8 years has been dismal for American economy and workers. That's a negative we see.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.
Yes. Because we understand the nature of threats and what needs to be done to prevent them from becoming actual HARM.
3. Conservatives fear new experiences.
Yes, if those "experiences" involve new taxes, government policy infringing on rights, changing the constitution, and allowing the world to use us as a personal money pit to dip out of.
4. Conservatives brains are more reactive to fear.
Yes. Because any "smart brain"does that. If you don't react to fear, your not doing it right. And that is opinion anyway. Your "research" did nothing to prove that other that say it.
Lostacresranch is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 04:40 PM   #264
100%TtId
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

The discussion of click-bait is relevant here.

There are two reasons why Azarian had this article originally published on www.rawstory.com 1. It likely wouldn't have passed peer-review on a scholarly site,(Psychology Today isn't a scholarly site either) and 2. Click-bait sites pay more. He knew he could write a conservatives-are-bad article and get paid. Any reader can check out Raw Story and see it is a far left fake news site. Note that I'm not picking on just left wing fake news sites, there are plenty of right wing fake news click-bait sites as well and readers across the political spectrum should be skeptical.

Any Sean Hannity-wannabe could take the same studies Azarian cited and make the opposite, equivalent conservatively-biased claims for a right wing click-bait site article:

1.Liberals can't focus on negatives
2.Liberals have a weaker psychological response to threats
3. Liberals are unorganized, undisciplined slobs
4. Liberals brains are ill-equipped to deal with fear.

Such an article would be biased click-bait and just as useless.

For the sake of discussion, let's temporarily ignore click-bait/Azarian's biases/dubious study methodology and focus on the big picture:

Studies were done that claim:
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear

(I'm flat-out ignoring #3 because a study that claims they can determine that "conservatives fear new experiences" by examining the contents of college kids' dorm rooms is simply not worthy of serious consideration).

Let's also temporarily accept these 3 claims are true.

Is this a bad thing or a good thing?

If self-preservation is a virtue for an individual, a family, a community, or a nation, wouldn't it be desirable to have fear as an inherent trait?
The lack of fear would likely lead one into potentially harmful situations that a healthy fear trait would avoid. (BTW, how do old deer become old deer? They fear everything.)

As one of the studies noted, we live in dangerous times with real, existential threats that must be addressed. It therefore stands to reason that a nation would be better served by having leaders in charge of dealing with these threats who are biologically better equipped to deal with them and that liberals, as proved by scientific studies, aren't equipped.

If liberals don't focus on threats, can't muster a strong psychological response to threats, and don't have a strong reaction to fear, then how in the wide, wide world of sports are they going to address them?

This would mean conservatives, because their brains are better equipped, should be tasked with things like national defense, healthcare, foreign policy, economic matters, and other similar areas that threaten our existence. Those with liberal brains can focus on areas that don't involve threats, such as the arts, fashion, and other similar areas.

In my opinion, Trump's unwaivering support from some on the right derives more from the average Joe and Jane America being so frustrated with Washington-as-usual that they will overlook Trump's tweets and boorish behavior simply because he's not a typical politician. Not because of their brain composition.
100%TtId is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 06:52 PM   #265
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Livin'2hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Nice post. However, you are wasting your time on someone who's only measurable purpose is to poke a stick in your eye. He hates Conservatives, Conservatism and has no basis for doing so other than hating for the sake of hate. I, too tried to reason with him but the next thing you know, he'll be running down another rabbit hole in a drug-addled haze. He doesn't stand for squat other than self interests and he changes with the popular winds. He will basta*dize facts to justify his baseless assertions thus, he cannot be reasoned with. He is a primo example as to why the ignore function is the greatest tool on TBH.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 07:28 PM   #266
100%TtId
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
Nice post. However, you are wasting your time on someone who's only measurable purpose is to poke a stick in your eye. He hates Conservatives, Conservatism and has no basis for doing so other than hating for the sake of hate. I, too tried to reason with him but the next thing you know, he'll be running down another rabbit hole in a drug-addled haze. He doesn't stand for squat other than self interests and he changes with the popular winds. He will basta*dize facts to justify his baseless assertions thus, he cannot be reasoned with. He is a primo example as to why the ignore function is the greatest tool on TBH.
Well, I encourage rebuttals. I could be wrong.
100%TtId is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-03-2017, 08:59 PM   #267
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Livin'2hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%TtId View Post
Well, I encourage rebuttals. I could be wrong.
As do I.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-04-2017, 03:48 PM   #268
Leemo
Ten Point
 
Leemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bay City, Texas
Default

How can you be a Liberal and bow, never mind
Leemo is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-04-2017, 04:08 PM   #269
Traildust
Pope & Young
 
Traildust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Alvin, Texas
Hunt In: Green Screen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leemo View Post
How can you be a Liberal and bow, never mind
Same-sex parents maybe?
Traildust is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-04-2017, 05:21 PM   #270
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Livin'2hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traildust View Post
Same-sex parents maybe?

Now, that's funny!
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-04-2017, 06:12 PM   #271
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

The gene pool is highly polluted I see.
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com