Page 4 of 4

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:18 am
by John Q. Public
Is that a cause or is it an effect of #3? We all have fears, some more rational than others, but does one side base its thinking on them more than the other? And why? Are they personality types that are more apt to do that or are they more susceptible to people preying on their fears? The Trump fans you see on TV seem to be afraid of things that aren't scary, like immigrants, non-Christians, homosexuals, trade deficits, and apparently rejection by anonymous pollsters. Is that because of the way they are, their upbringing, a regional cultural thing, or is it because someone is preying on their fears and intensifying them?

Just trying to identify why people can think so differently.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:28 am
by Wabash
They base their fears on the belief that all their problems are because of someone else. Never themselves.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:26 pm
by John Q. Public
Is that "they" or "we"?

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:43 pm
by Vilepagan
John Q. Public wrote: Is that because of the way they are, their upbringing, a regional cultural thing, or is it because someone is preying on their fears and intensifying them?
Yes. All of the above.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:20 pm
by Professor Fate
John Q. Public wrote: Just trying to identify why people can think so differently.
I believe that two people can look at the same sentence or occurrence, and see different, and sometimes diametrically opposed things.

I am not a scientist, but I believe some people use one half of their brain more than the other half. I believe one side is more emotional and more creative, while the other side is more logical, unemotional, more black and white in their thinking.

Not making a value judgement here, just trying to explain that which is hard to understand.

As evidence of what I'm saying, look at the total dominance of the left among actors, musicians, novelists, and other creative types. Also, for the most part women are more emotional than men, and historically vote Democratic more often than men.

I'm actually not as clear about my own group that is dominated by the opposite side of the brain. In school, I hated writing essays more than anything. While I enjoyed literature, I excelled in math and the physical sciences. I know most men my age fit into this group, as well as middle class Americans who have made their living working with their hands.

Anyway, given my belief that liberal thinking is dominated by one side of the brain, and conservative thinking is dominated by the other side, it may follow that centrists (middle-of-the-roaders, moderates, independents) use both sides of the brain equally. That may, or may not mean centrists are the smartest group, depending upon whether that translates into using a higher percentage of their brain or not. They might just use the same percentage, but draw more evenly from each side of the brain.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:12 pm
by Wabash
Professor Fate wrote: Anyway, given my belief that liberal thinking is dominated by one side of the brain, and conservative thinking is dominated by the other side, it may follow that centrists (middle-of-the-roaders, moderates, independents) use both sides of the brain equally.
Ironically it is the liberal (left brain) creative types who are embracing facts and science. While it is the conservative (right brain) types who reject empirical conclusions.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:47 pm
by Professor Fate
Actually, Wabash, the theory is that it's the left brain that's analytical and methodical, while the right brain is the creative side. So, just to make it more confusing, the left is dominated by the right brain, and the right is dominated by the left side of the brain. --:--

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:49 pm
by MDDad
Wabash wrote:Ironically it is the liberal (left brain) creative types who are embracing facts and science. While it is the conservative (right brain) types who reject empirical conclusions.
That's true in some areas and not in others. It certainly wasn't facts, science and empirical conclusions that gave us the California bullet train.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:39 pm
by John Q. Public
Professor Fate wrote: Actually, Wabash, the theory is that it's the left brain that's analytical and methodical, while the right brain is the creative side. So, just to make it more confusing, the left is dominated by the right brain, and the right is dominated by the left side of the brain.
But that doesn't explain the non-analytical Conservative positions - limited fossil fuels vs. unlimited renewables, universal health care (just shown in a Koch-funded study to be cheaper and cover the entire population*), housing the homeless (shown by real-life programs to be cheaper and better), and the list goes on.

Your theory might work at the knee-jerk level, but I think in many instances the so-called "Liberal" ideas are the more pragmatic ones.

* And I don't think the study even considered the societal cost savings, which would be enormous.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:53 pm
by John Q. Public
MDDad wrote: That's true in some areas and not in others. It certainly wasn't facts, science and empirical conclusions that gave us the California bullet train.
Speaking of which, I saw in an email bulletin this morning that, I think it said, 60% of Californians are opposed to the bullet train. That would have to include a whole lot of Liberals.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:42 pm
by Professor Fate
John Q. Public wrote: But that doesn't explain the non-analytical Conservative positions - limited fossil fuels vs. unlimited renewables, universal health care (just shown in a Koch-funded study to be cheaper and cover the entire population*), housing the homeless (shown by real-life programs to be cheaper and better), and the list goes on.
The first one is the easiest to refute. Renewables alone simply can't yet handle our needs. Eventually, maybe, short term? No. The change has to be gradual. The liberals are the ones holding the non-analytical, job-killing, scorched earth positions that would wreak financial disaster on untold thousands of families.

Universal health care? Cheaper than what? I just heard we could double every tax we now levy, and it still wouldn't come close to paying for a program like that. (BTW, I'd like to see universal health care. But my idea of it requires the death of health insurance companies, and offering to find employment for their workers in the new tax-funded government program). Another turn-over that would need to be a step-by-step gradual process.

Housing for the homeless? Again, cheaper than what? We're just going to give homes to the homeless? Seriously? Why would anybody work for a living, if they can get everything given to them for free? Free homes, free food, free medical care, free college, free cell phones? I understand some of these things are already given to people free of charge. And if no one needs to work, who builds these houses? Who grows this food? Who treats their illnesses? Who teaches these college classes? Who makes these cell phones?

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:38 pm
by John Q. Public
The liberals are the ones holding the non-analytical, job-killing, scorched earth positions that would wreak financial disaster on untold thousands of families.
Hyperbole much? You forgot to add in the jobs created. But it's good that you realize that we'll eventually run out of oil. If we last that long.
I just heard we could double every tax we now levy, and it still wouldn't come close to paying for a program like that.
That analysis failed to subtract what we currently pay. $32 trillion vs. $32 trillion. Breaks even in the first year and saves $2 trillion a year thereafter. And it covers everybody. And I believe that's without negotiating prices like they do with Medicaid.
Why would anybody work for a living, if they can get everything given to them for free?
Um, because they wouldn't want to live in a group home with a bunch of crazy homeless people?

We're currently spending a fortune in not-so-hidden costs, from policing, jailing, hospitalizing and cleaning up after homeless people. And then there's public health, sanitation, drug addiction, joblessness and the occasional fire. A few municipalities and the entire state of Utah have started programs to house, care for and train homeless people, and guess what! It works. And they're spending less money on it than they did when they lived in alleys and riverbeds.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:14 pm
by Professor Fate
by John Q. Public » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:38 pm
You forgot to add in the jobs created.
Evidently you think it's okay for one family to have their livelihood ripped away from them, as long as some other family gets a new job.
by John Q. Public » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:38 pm
We're currently spending a fortune in not-so-hidden costs, from policing, jailing, hospitalizing and cleaning up after homeless people. And then there's public health, sanitation, drug addiction, joblessness and the occasional fire
Policing, jailing, hospitalizing, public health, sanitation, drug addiction, joblessness and the occasional fire could all still be present whether you give them houses or not.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:03 am
by Vilepagan
Professor Fate wrote: Evidently you think it's okay for one family to have their livelihood ripped away from them, as long as some other family gets a new job.
Your ridiculous hyperbole aside, yes...it's called progress and it's what makes the world go round. I suppose we could still require people to make as many horseshoes as we did 150 years ago but since we need fewer horseshoes we have fewer blacksmiths to produce them. Were we wrong to fire our blacksmiths and tell them they needed to find another line of work?
Policing, jailing, hospitalizing, public health, sanitation, drug addiction, joblessness and the occasional fire could all still be present whether you give them houses or not.
Yes they "could" but the evidence suggests they would not. I think the evidence is more convincing than your fear.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:53 am
by broman
John Q. Public wrote: But that doesn't explain the non-analytical Conservative positions
One of the core reasons is people have positions that defend or protect a larger cultural view regardless of fact.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:56 am
by Wabash
Professor Fate wrote: Universal health care? Cheaper than what? I just heard we could double every tax we now levy, and it still wouldn't come close to paying for a program like that.
We can afford it. If we can afford to piss away $45B a year on the war in Afghanistan we can afford universal healthcare.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:00 am
by John Q. Public
You missed the point, Wabash. Universal healthcare would cost less. If there's anything to "afford," it's our current system. And your reference to Afghanistan is off topic.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:01 am
by Wabash
I got the point. I'm just so tired of people saying we can't afford things yet those same people say nothing about the dent being put into the federal budget by making war and ever increasingly expensive war machines.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:32 am
by John Q. Public
broman wrote: One of the core reasons is people have positions that defend or protect a larger cultural view regardless of fact.
It's what happens when strong, long-held opinions collide with facts. The Professor might claim that his position is analytical, but what is it he's analyzing? If you're only assembling a number of opinions and hunting down exceptions you aren't really analyzing.

A good example of that is picking out the tiny number of welfare cheats and having them represent all of the people who need assistance - and ignoring the bigger issue, which is the root cause of why they need assistance. Reagan found his black welfare queen and now the opinion is that everybody on welfare is black and lazy when the facts show that it's just the opposite. And they keep having babies because of a "baby bonus" that doesn't even cover the cost of the kid. Aaaaand we get "workfare" and Donald's idea of requiring people to work to qualify for food stamps when the actual, non-alternative facts from his own USDA say that more than 80% of them already are working. Careful analysis of opinion comes up with "Damn right! Those lazy bastids should be working!" when an analysis of actual facts (only in Trumpian times would "fact" need a modifier) would give the conclusion that maybe the policy is bassackwards, cruel and counterproductive.

Re: How can this be?

Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:13 pm
by broman
People hate the comparison but Trumps multiple falsehoods force his supporters into the same situation as members of a cult. outlined in When Prophecy Fails People have strong beliefs or positions, disconfirmatory evidence exist that challenges those beliefs or positions, the passion of the belief or position grows stronger. Trump it the other day, don't believe what you hear or read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails