Of course, that article doesn't mention the numerical result, only the "finding" of the experiment. It also calls a part of the brain the "theory of mind" rather than describing that part if the brain as the bit responsible for humans having a theory of mind.
I have issues with the article, but not the sample size of the test.
I have issues with the article, but not the sample size of the test.
I must say, I've a few problems with the article too. The biggest of which being that the Salon article seems to come to a completely different result to the source study, so much so that they're contradictory, the former suggesting that Republicans behave differently because different parts of the brain light up for certain decisions, and the latter specifically noting the opposite.
You're going by the 2010 numbers., though. I'm sure there was a demographic shift in the years of fallout from the 112th, and the ceaseless propaganda from the Presidential election last year.
You're going by the 2010 numbers., though. I'm sure there was a demographic shift in the years of fallout from the 112th, and the ceaseless propaganda from the Presidential election last year.
Of course, because I don't have census data from any later year, because you only have a census every ten years. It's doubtless there was some shift, but a)I'm being lazy, and b)I don't have accurate data from more recent years.
Fair enough. I started writing a way to get around the lack of a more recent census, but then realized that more precise data wouldn't add anything to the rhetoric, so there's not much reason to get it.
Fair enough. I started writing a way to get around the lack of a more recent census, but then realized that more precise data wouldn't add anything to the rhetoric, so there's not much reason to get it.
Yep. If it was for something far more serious, I'd bother, but let's face it, it's simply not worth the effort for this.
I feel most members of congress have their priorities in this order. #1 Will this ensure that I stay in office? #2 Will my party denounce me for doing this? (ties with #1) #3 Am I giving up anything? (example: loss of kickback from lobbyists) #4 Is this good for the country?
I always like to keep in mind congresspeople are human just like the rest of us. And while they have the good of the country in mind at some level. On a day to day basis personal motivations will tend to win out.
It is the same mentality that you see in the workplace. Everyone wants to keep their job, not piss their boss off, maximize the amount of money they get, and not drive the company under. I see this as such a ubiquitous thought process that it seems silly to me to think congress does not do it too.
Because of that you see things like copyright at life +130 years. While with some thought most people seem to agree that is not good "for the country". Each congressperson who voted on it has personal motivations driving their decision that most likely won out over "the good of the country as a whole".
So in a nut shell, I think congress votes on laws like most humans in their situation would. With job survival winning out over every other issue.
Hey, picking literally the worst people possible for a committee is kinda traditional in american politics. I mean, seriously, they put Ron "I don't know how money works, also, nothing should be regulated ever especially not banks and trade" Paul on the House Banking committee.
I declare this list bullshit. Not just in how poorly it weighs freedoms, but apparently MA is #10 in alcohol freedom. We have some of the stupidest and inconsistent booze laws there are -- so much so that even a minor surrounded by people who don't drink knows this.
I tend to be the more Libertarian member of the Forum, so I thought my personal declaration was not as redundant as others'.
Not that kind of Libertarian, you're not. Last I recall, you weren't advocating for the rights owed entirely to straight white dudes who are either rich, or think that if it wasn't for all the stupid sheeple holding them back they be rich, and none for Gretchen Wieners anyone else, especially if they're foreign, different coloured, female, or gay. Rights in their mind, of course, amounting to "I do what I want, everyone else can go get fucked."
Either way, It's equally redundant, because no matter how big or what type of libertarian you are personally, that's still an enormous, obvious pile of bullshit. No political affiliation could make that any less bullshit.
I like libertarianism when people use a very basic definition that says something about individual liberties and whatnot, but it seems like most of the actual libertarians are just Glenn Beck batshit.
I like libertarianism when people use a very basic definition that says something about individual liberties and whatnot, but it seems like most of the actual libertarians are just Glenn Beck batshit.
Pretty much, thus the Big-L-Little-L distinction. Little L is closer to the basic definition, big-L is pretty much synonymous with Nutty Neo-confederates somewhere to the far right of the Tea Party, with beliefs that wouldn't be terribly out of place on the Stormfront forums and other prominent conspiracy/neo-nazi groups. And not just because an enormous proportion of Stormfront/neo-nazi types self-identify as Libertarians.
I once met a man who stated without a hint of irony, that he considered himself a national socialist, because he believed that fascism creates an environment very similar to an ideal anarchy but "True Anarchy would not be feasible in America".
I once met a man who stated without a hint of irony, that he considered himself a national socialist, because he believed that fascism creates an environment very similar to an ideal anarchy but "True Anarchy would not be feasible in America".
That's the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Fascism isn't even remotely related to anarchy!
Comments
I have issues with the article, but not the sample size of the test.
#1 Will this ensure that I stay in office?
#2 Will my party denounce me for doing this? (ties with #1)
#3 Am I giving up anything? (example: loss of kickback from lobbyists)
#4 Is this good for the country?
I always like to keep in mind congresspeople are human just like the rest of us. And while they have the good of the country in mind at some level. On a day to day basis personal motivations will tend to win out.
It is the same mentality that you see in the workplace. Everyone wants to keep their job, not piss their boss off, maximize the amount of money they get, and not drive the company under. I see this as such a ubiquitous thought process that it seems silly to me to think congress does not do it too.
Because of that you see things like copyright at life +130 years. While with some thought most people seem to agree that is not good "for the country". Each congressperson who voted on it has personal motivations driving their decision that most likely won out over "the good of the country as a whole".
So in a nut shell, I think congress votes on laws like most humans in their situation would. With job survival winning out over every other issue.
Spoiler - It's North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, then Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. Arizona is at 11.
Either way, It's equally redundant, because no matter how big or what type of libertarian you are personally, that's still an enormous, obvious pile of bullshit. No political affiliation could make that any less bullshit.