Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Liberal/Conservative Brain Differences
This study suggests that there are significant differences in measurable brain activity between liberals and conservatives. Do you agree?
Comments
synopsis of my essay:
Joe hates ambiguity (see all the lies threads) so he must be conservative.
Once you "solve" something, why do it any other way?
What does pressing and not pressing a button have to do with anything???
Just because the tests indicate "more neural activity" among the liberals when the routine changes does not mean that much to me unless it is accompanied by reaction time data and data telling us whether or not the other button was pressed or not pressed. This only says that when something new has to be done the liberals spend more time thinking about the change, it says nothing about if conservatives deal with the change fine but just spend less time thinking about it.
I would need to see more of the actual test data before I can properly form an opinion of this study as it does not provide enough information to form an opinion.
But something was happening between my 1994 graduation and the 2000 election. I started to feel ambiguous (BTW, lie does not necessarily = ambiguity. I like ambiguity just fine in most cases) about conservatism. Representing people in the criminal justice system, trying to help people dealing with insurance companies and mortgage companies, and doing bankruptcy cases tends to make a person skeptical about the conservative party line. Then my conservatism took another hit when Bush was nominated in 2000. I really was disappointed that they wanted the stupid frat boy over McCain (he might be crazy now - but he wasn't then), but I supported him nonetheless.
Then, after the September Unpleasantness, I actually prayed, "Please, PLEASE let him grow into the responsibility." I was even ready to get an age waiver and join the Army if it looked like we were going to go into Saudi Arabia or someplace that made sense. But, instead, he decides to go to Iraq?!! (Actually, he wanted to go to Iraq almost as soon as he was elected, if not before.) That was really the straw that broke the camel's back for me and it set me on the road to the other side of the aisle.
See, I was able to change my mind - something most conservatives either can't or won't do.
I think he tried to be Reagan and failed. I still can't forgive him for allowing the Iraqi army to be disbanded after the major combat operations ended. I hear the conservatives point to Iraq and Germany after World War 2 and try to say they are similar. Well they are, leave the army intact and put them to work rebuilding the country and you get post-war Germany, dismantle the army and don't give them jobs and you have post-war Iraq. Employment is a great motivator.
I could (possibly) vote for Obama in the next election but not Hillary. As for the Republican slate I could only throw my support behind Ron Paul. None of the "front runners" appeal to me in the slightest.
As for Fox News... I can't watch it anymore. Have you been to their website lately? It looks like the National Enquirer! I don't know who is actually running the show over there but they have clearly lost it. This is why I get most of my news from the Internet these days.
I do still listen to Rush but only because I know what way Rush spins everything. He's also pretty comedic and entertaining. That Hanity guy? He is annoying as all hell and a terrible host. He is the worst of all things stereotypical of conservatives. He's not entertaining or funny either.
See, I like Rush the way I liked Bill Clinton. Even though I do not agree with the policies both of them spout I know that they would be fun to have over as dinner guests or to enjoy a sports event with.
The only main problem I have with Ron Paul's platform is his desire to go back to the Gold Standard. As for Obama? I don't think he understands foreign policy. When he made that remark about attacking Pakistan that about sealed his fate in that arena.
On the one hand I understand the "line in the sand" argument where you have to do "something" after the continual thumbing of his nose toward the UN. On the other hand I do not agree that Iraq started out as part of the "War on Terror". I think it became part of it when the Jihadis adopted it as a battlefield, which is why I do not refer to it as the "Iraq War" but as the "Iraq Battlefield".
This is why I am a fan of Ron Paul's view on the Middle East which I read as saying, "as long as you keep your finger in the bee's nest it is going to get stung." I would not be opposed to sitting down with all active entities in the Middle East (dictators, presidents and terrorist leaders) and asking them what they want the Middle East to be. My main concern is the oil (until we can move off of the oil-based economy).
I do think some of the governments in the Middle East like to have us over there as it gives their people something to be pissed about aside from themselves. Look at the Saudis, how much of the population (as a percentage) derives a benefit from the oil in the country? That country may be far better off if the House of Saud were to say, "here you go, you can have the government we will just keep the oil fields and pay a portion of our profits to the government."
That alone removes pretty-much all of the respect I had for the man's intelligence.