Sciencescienceconservativesloweffortthinkingirony

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:48 AM

Conservatives: A Study in Irony

Okay, this one is hilarious.

As has been pointed out many times, conservatives tend to have a great deal of difficulty getting their heads around complex, or even rudimentary concepts. We know that when it comes to things they don't like, they simply can't learn. We know that when fed lies they want to believe, they are easily fooled because they don't bother investigating claims they agree with. Most of all, when presented with information they don't like, rather than dispute the process, methods, or merits of it, they simply make up excuses to ignore it.

Funny how, when all these things are put together, it strongly indicates an unwillingness to think things out or exercise intellectual rigor.

So when the studies come out that show that conservatives are much more likely to be "Low Effort Thinkers", how do they respond?

Do they formulate a coherent counter-argument? Do they break down the methodology and seek out flaws? Do they, God forbid, learn the meaning of the study, recognize a personal deficiency and try to overcome it?

Nope! They just claim the scientists are liberal and ignore the results because IT'S EASIER than doing any of the above!



That's right... in responding to studies that find conservatives tend to be 'low effort thinkers', they simply prove the study right by dismissing it with very little actual thought!

Brilliant!

51 replies, 6390 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Conservatives: A Study in Irony (Original post)
Frostlight Mar 2015 OP
orson Mar 2015 #1
joefriday6 Mar 2015 #4
Frostlight Mar 2015 #7
Liechtenauer Mar 2015 #2
Frostlight Mar 2015 #3
Frostlight Mar 2015 #5
nolidad Mar 2015 #40
Frostlight Mar 2015 #10
Sardis Mar 2015 #6
Frostlight Mar 2015 #8
frankt8242 Mar 2015 #9
orson Mar 2015 #11
frankt8242 Mar 2015 #12
Jack Burton Mar 2015 #13
Frostlight Mar 2015 #14
Jack Burton Mar 2015 #15
Frostlight Mar 2015 #16
Mr Happy Mar 2015 #21
Frostlight Mar 2015 #27
Mr Happy Mar 2015 #41
Frostlight Mar 2015 #28
Mr Happy Mar 2015 #42
smalllivingeddy Mar 2015 #18
MaltedMale Mar 2015 #17
Mr Happy Mar 2015 #19
Frostlight Mar 2015 #29
Mr Happy Mar 2015 #39
LavenderGirl Mar 2015 #20
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #23
Frostlight Mar 2015 #26
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #31
Frostlight Mar 2015 #30
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #22
exindy Mar 2015 #24
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #32
exindy Mar 2015 #35
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #36
exindy Mar 2015 #37
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #38
Frostlight Mar 2015 #25
Slow Slicing Mar 2015 #33
Frostlight Mar 2015 #34
nolidad Apr 2015 #48
Slow Slicing Apr 2015 #49
nolidad Apr 2015 #50
Mr Happy Mar 2015 #43
Frostlight Apr 2015 #44
Mr Happy Apr 2015 #46
Frostlight Apr 2015 #47
Mr Happy Apr 2015 #51
Frostlight Apr 2015 #45

Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:54 AM

1. If no conservatives respond to this OP

that would tend to validate the argument, amIright?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:59 AM

4. I'm glad you understood the post, Orson. An Indy, I haven't a clue what was said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:01 AM

7. Oh, some will respond.

Just don't expect the responses to have much intellectual effort behind them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:55 AM

2. Projection.

It's pretty cool that this post successfully does exactly what it accuses others of doing. Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liechtenauer (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:57 AM

3. Great! So you'll go right ahead and explain EXACTLY HOW it does so!

I can't wait!

Unless, of course, it really does apply to you.... then we'll be waiting a very long time for an explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liechtenauer (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:00 AM

5. Or perhaps you could explain to us the flaws in the study that determined that

'Low Effort Thinkers' tend to wind up conservatives?

You wouldn't just go claiming that the study was done by 'liberals', because that would be, ummm.... 'low effort'. I'm sure you have the intellectual tenacity to go ahead and enlighten us about just how the study is flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 07:07 PM

40. Well Frosty I don't know if I am truly on your ignore list

But I have a 164 IQ, multiple degrees and wow I just don't tend to go along with anything just because it comes from a pulpit, paper or research lab!

I do my own thinking and form my own conclusions.

Kind of funny though- conservatives are the one doing most of the debating and arguing about things while the left just plod along like orks behind their leaders.

Conservative hold many diverse views and opinions, but when they run contrary to yours you just tend to slough them off as the rantings of fools and fakes.

We are the ones running contrary to the crowd! The left welcomes everyone as long as you agree with their beliefs in

Abortion
Gay rights
Secularism
God (as long as he is far away and jsut a nice old doddering fool)
AGW
Evolution as settled science.

Contradict the sacred creeds of the left and watch how quick you are spit out!!

Sorry but if that is what you wish to call a low effort thinker- then count me in!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liechtenauer (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:05 AM

10. I mean, your argument; "I know you are but what am I?", may seem pretty sophisticated...

But it really doesn't seem like you put much 'effort' into it.



I could do this all day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:00 AM

6. In some small way I actually envy these people.

I mean, it must be a great feeling knowing that you are absolutely right! Me, I hem and haw and agonize over whether my source info is accurate, whether I'm missing something crucial, etc. I don't think they go through that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sardis (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:02 AM

8. Nope, they don't.

Because Fox 'News' is "Fair and Balanced" and "Rush is right!"

No further verification or diligence required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:04 AM

9. Their concerns are usually limited to..

 

Acquisition and retention of wealth, and anything, scientific, or morally based, that might interfere with that goal is dismissed as being either mythology, or pseudoscientific drivel, designed to do the "unthinkable" act of "sharing the wealth" among the populace..
OH THE HORRORS..!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankt8242 (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:10 AM

11. Guns. Don't forget guns

And the sheer hell of having a black guy in the Whitehouse, which seems to threaten all they hold dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:14 AM

12. Yeah...taking orders from...

 

"the help" usually doesn't thrill them all that much..!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:51 AM

13. More hate and bigotry on display by the OP

The OP looks more like something one would find on some white supremacist website. Masking hate and bigotry with 'scientific' studies is nothing new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Scientific racism
http://www.growtheheckup.com/2010/04/harvard-student-says-blacks-genetically.html
Harvard Student Says Blacks Genetically Inferior
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrintro.htm
Resurrecting Racism: The modern attack on black people using phony science
https://mightyminnow.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/black-people-are-less-intelligent-says-dr-james-watson-nobel-prize-winner-and-dna-pioneer/
Black People are Less Intelligent
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/darwinism-and-the-nazi-race-holocaust/
Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics
http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/07/29/on-the-peculiarities-of-the-ne/
On the peculiarities of the Negro brain

A good test of whether or not something is bigoted or racist is to change the object of the propaganda with another group. In this case I am substituting 'blacks' for 'conservatives' in the OP to illustrate the point.


Blacks: A Study in Irony
Okay, this one is hilarious.

As has been pointed out many times, blacks tend to have a great deal of difficulty getting their heads around complex, or even rudimentary concepts. We know that when it comes to things they don't like, they simply can't learn. We know that when fed lies they want to believe, they are easily fooled because they don't bother investigating claims they agree with. Most of all, when presented with information they don't like, rather than dispute the process, methods, or merits of it, they simply make up excuses to ignore it.

Funny how, when all these things are put together, it strongly indicates an unwillingness to think things out or exercise intellectual rigor.

So when the studies come out that show that blacks are much more likely to be "Low Effort Thinkers", how do they respond?

Do they formulate a coherent counter-argument? Do they break down the methodology and seek out flaws? Do they, God forbid, learn the meaning of the study, recognize a personal deficiency and try to overcome it?

Nope! They just claim the scientists are liberal and ignore the results because IT'S EASIER than doing any of the above!



That's right... in responding to studies that find blacks are 'low effort thinkers', they simply prove the study right by dismissing it with very little actual thought!

Brilliant!


In my opinion, there is no difference between the OP and similar hate speech throughout history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:55 AM

14. The difference is that the racist studies have demonstrably flawed methodologies.

While the study linked in the OP does not.

You would know that if you put a little "effort" into it.

Another big difference? Conservatives actually prove the study correct. Thanks for chiming in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:59 AM

15. You are what you are.

Everyone can see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:01 PM

16. A realist who uses facts and reason to explain the behavior of certain types of people.

That's what I am.

While you, otoh, are quite obviously trolling, and who rarely adds anything meaningful to a discussion.

The only reason I don't bother ignoring you is because you kinda' suck at it. That, and it's somewhat entertaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:30 PM

21. Except that you aren't using reason, but seem to be trying for the emotional response...

"As has been pointed out many times, conservatives tend to have a great deal of difficulty getting their heads around complex, or even rudimentary concepts. " who pointed out? you? that would not be part of a rational argument.

"We know that when it comes to things they don't like, they simply can't learn. " We know? really? also does not add to a rational argument.

"...they..." broad generalizations are better for emotion generation than true non-fallacy argument.

"We know that when fed lies they want to believe, they are easily fooled because they don't bother investigating claims they agree with." again with the 'we know', and the 'they'. Is there any rational data to back up these premises or are they just fallacies?

"Most of all, when presented with information they don't like, rather than dispute the process, methods, or merits of it, they simply make up excuses to ignore it. " same thing...anything to back this up?

"Funny how, when all these things are put together, it strongly indicates an unwillingness to think things out or exercise intellectual rigor." a conclusion derived from logical fallacy? or trying to stir up emotions? both?

"So when the studies come out that show that conservatives are much more likely to be "Low Effort Thinkers", how do they respond? " how did THEY respond? any links? I see no data.

You are a realist who uses facts and reason? Perhaps, but I'm not seeing any facts or reason in your OP or your responses. (the study does have data, but it appears you have either misinterpreted them or are again just trying to induce emotional responses from people - which does nothing to advance any kind of rational argument).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 09:00 AM

27. LMAO! Sorry buddy, but here in reality,

Everything I said is supported.

If Fox or Rush listeners learned to do research, they'd stop listening. I know it would be too uncomfortable for you to run down the links I provided to the examples that prove out my assertions.

You were obviously too lazy to do it, so I'm not going to waste any more effort responding to your silly post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 07:10 PM

41. LOL, just saying everything you say is supported doesn't make it so!!!

Dude, I don't need to waste any time researching, as your comments are broad generalizations which won't hold up against any so called evidence you may dig up.

Plus, you do have a tendency to "misinterpret" data and use logical fallacies, and my experience with similar cases is that the arguments tend to be useless...as trying to convince one of their faulty logic becomes tedious and in the end, useless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 09:02 AM

28. Or.... I have a better idea....

If I back up every single point you've contested with real examples, facts, and reason, you agree not to post here for a whole week.

That would make it worth my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 07:12 PM

42. See post #41, link below

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 06:14 PM

18. This from a poster who proudly proclaims that:

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

"I fling poo."


No doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:21 PM

17. Because "HATE" is far easier than "Learning",

and much more satisfying the the reptilian brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 07:20 PM

19. Dude. is that what you got from the study!??? That isn't what it says...

It does not say that conservatives are more likely to be low effort thinkers!
It says that all will move towards conservative thought under stress...yes...even liberals!
"participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts" and note the study was controlled for by..."controlling for sex, education, and political identification".

It appears conservative thought may be instinctual and perhaps has been a self-preservation technique when under stress.

In an evolutionary context, when under stress to make a decision, take the conservative approach and you are more likely to live to spread your genes to the next generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 09:05 AM

29. You didn't think it through there.

Yes, the study determined that under conditions where a great deal of thought was not allowed, people had a tendency to make more 'conservative' decisions. However, this also proves that conservative decisions simply require less thought. Therefore, those who tend to make conservative decisions aren't likely putting as much thought into making them.

The thing is that the one point in the OP, about how conservatives go about dismissing things out of hand by labeling them product of "liberal scientists" is proven out by the fact that they do it all the time in lieu of actual discovery.

Because it's just easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 07:04 PM

39. Dude, you have fallen into a classic logical fallacy! Your logic doesn't hold...

If the study shows if A then B, it does NOT necessarily follow that if B then A!
which you have done.
It is called, "Affirming the consequent". It doesn't hold. It is not rational argument.

(there are more that you are using, of course, such as trying to force your conclusion "because it is easier", without any real data)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2015, 07:46 PM

20. Jury Results

Looks like you hit a nerve.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Mar 30, 2015, 04:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Conservatives: A Study in Irony
http://www.discussionist.com/10188557

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is uncivil, off-topic, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Per TOS: Some examples of uncivil behavior: Broad-brush smears about groups of people. Trolling, baiting, stalking, or generally acting like an ass.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of Discussionist members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 30, 2015, 04:14 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Or they might appeal to authorities to have the offending opinion censored.
Fail. Leave it alone.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Facts are facts. Bullshit alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just because a poster completely misinterprets a study is not hide-worthy.
The broad brush almost makes it hide-worthy, but then one could not argue with the poster.
Let's not hide ignorance, but let's argue it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LavenderGirl (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 03:03 AM

23. I find this funny since conservatives on this board talk about

how posting statistics about black people is just posting statistics about black people. I'm glad the jury let the OP stand. If any conservatives voted to leave this, then kudos to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 08:54 AM

26. Thanks juror #3!

(Am I close?)

Thing is; I didn't misinterpret the study. Explanation below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 10:33 AM

31. I wasn't on the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LavenderGirl (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 09:06 AM

30. I was once asked, "Why do you rattle their cage?" I said:

"Because they have one."

Hell, I've even shown them how to open it and come out, but they feel safe and secure there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Original post)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 02:59 AM

22. I'm not convinced that study says what you think it says.

The study says people's leanings will become more conservative when pressed into situations that promote low effort thinking. The study does not say conservatives use less effort when thinking than non conservatives. A thoughtless dismissal of the study by conservatives doesn't confirm the study in any way, in my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 07:44 AM

24. But what happens when you factor in

the tendency for the conservatives to see threats much more than non-conservatives.

Example: The rightwing media is constantly bombarding their audience with threat warnings.

What happens then?

When the situation is scripted to foster that low effort thinking response?

Another example: The Indiana thing which is presented as if it is a threat to religion? When with just a little thought it's obvious that there is no assault on religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 11:30 AM

32. I would have to see a decent study before I could agree that

conservatives see threats more than non-conservatives. Both sides have their boogeymen. We on the left have GMOs, the pharmaceutical industry (which isn't completely filled with living Buddhas but some of the left go to the extreme and use homeopathic "medicine" to get away from big pharma), BFEE ("9/11 was an inside job"), open carry provocateurs, and Saddam Hussein (both parties voted to go after him).

There may be studies out there that would completely confirm what you are saying, but I don't feel comfortable about making this sort of sociological claim without solid sociological data. I would not be surprised if you are correct, but the study mentioned in the OP doesn't claim that conservatives use low-effort thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #32)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 12:19 PM

35. There was a thread a couple days ago about it

I didn't bookmark it so I did a google and got this:

The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it).

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/biology-ideology-john-hibbing-negativity-bias

(Added) This ties in quite well with the popularity of the rightwing media, particularly fox, because they have figured out how to tune in to this negativity bias. As an experiment, watch fox without sound and pay particular attention to the crawler and the presentation of events from everywhere.

I don't understand why anyone who watches it doesn't spend all their time hiding under the bed. Afraid of everything, particularly gov't and so ready to climb into the fox womb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 02:53 PM

36. Unfortunately, the "free study" isn't free.

If the article's interpretation of the study is accurate, then the two might have a connection. Conservatives aren't usually dealing with maggots and spiders on people's faces, or anything even close to that, so it doesn't reflect the normal state of mind. If I had access to the study I might be able to draw a better conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 05:06 PM

37. Ok. I'm glad that's settled. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #37)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 05:08 PM

38. lol!

I wasn't expecting that response. I may have to use it in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 08:53 AM

25. Hey Mr. Exception to the rule!


It's a fair point; the study determined that under conditions where a great deal of thought was not allowed, people had a tendency to make more 'conservative' decisions. However, this also proves that conservative decisions simply require less thought. Therefore, those who tend to make conservative decisions aren't likely putting as much thought into making them.

The thing is that the one point in the OP, about how conservatives go about dismissing things out of hand by labeling them product of "liberal scientists" is proven out by the fact that they do it all the time in lieu of actual discovery.

Because it's just easier.

They don't actually debate the science that tells us that we're adding too much energy to the climate. Instead they either dismiss it out of hand as a 'liberal conspiracy', or they run around looking for canned talking points that energy industry think-tanks crank out.

Evolution: Look at the amazingly stupid crap so many conservative fundamentalists say to discount it: "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" or, "They want us to believe a fish grew legs one day."
-Not only do those talking points demonstrate a profound ignorance of the science, but once invented they get passed around like an old wash rag by people who can't think for themselves

It's sad, and I wish it weren't true because they we could get through to them, but 'low effort thinking' is a condition strongly linked to conservatism.

Otherwise, Fox "News" would lose their entire audience to critical thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 11:44 AM

33. I find the science denial on the right to be frustrating,

but there is science denial on the left too, especially with GMOs, homeopathic "medicine," and the more fringe left has the whole "9/11 was an inside job" thing, even though a majority of engineers find the official story to be very reasonable. I do get a personal sense that the right denies science more frequently than the left, but my personal sense doesn't mean jack shit, and I instead advocate for trying to find sociological data in order to answer the question of who denies science more. I personally think science denial is a bigger problem than left-right issues, because I believe --probably naively-- if we were a more scientifically literate society many of our left-right debates would either cease or change in a more productive way. Of course we would still have value-based debates, such as the religious freedom thing, but debates on things like climate change and food stamps would change radically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 11:54 AM

34. Sure, the left does it to, but to a lesser degree.

And actually, there is more scientific evidence supporting the 'inside job' theory than there is refuting it. But that's not the topic right here.

But yes, if we did ground ourselves in science, data, facts, and reason, there would only be debate about philosophy. Sadly, individual and special interests, usually of the most powerful who love the status quo, keep the waters muddied and the doubts alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #33)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 11:28 AM

48. You will find the right does not deny science more

What it does do is deny religious philosophy and unproved theories in the guise of science fact more! That is because we do not accept ex-cathedra statements from scientists any more than we do from religious clerics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 11:44 AM

49. I suspect you don't know what a scientific theory is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Slow Slicing (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 04:06 PM

50. You may suspect whatever you wish

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 31, 2015, 07:21 PM

43. As I mentioned above...your conclusion does not follow, logically...

Just because, if A then B, it does NOT follow, logically, if B then A,
which is what you are doing.
It doesn't say conservative decisions require less thought,
it says when only less thought is available, decisions are more likely to be conservative.

if Less thought is available, then conservative decision : the study deals with this.
It does NOT follow...
if conservative decision, then less thought needed.

That is a logical fallacy that is called Affirming the consequent...see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

it is, quite a common error...and not always in ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 09:38 AM

44. And you're employing a straw man.



If A- less thought, then B- conservative decisions, then it follows that conservative decisions (B) tend to derive from less thought (A). That's a perfectly logical conclusion because it's not an absolute one.

YOU are the one trying to put this in absolute terms, I never did. Notice the language I used; "Tend to", "Much more likely"... not "Absolutely".

Your logical fallacy is the Straw man; by creating an argument I never made and calling it 'illogical' (which it would be if I ever made it). The study established, as a fact, that 'conservative decisions' tend to require less thought by the sheer fact that conservative decisions were more often reached under 'low-effort-thinking' circumstances. And if it weren't for the fact that conservatives prove this out daily, then I would try to find fault with either the study, or my own conclusion.

I never said that 'all conservative decisions require less thought.', or as you put it: "if conservative decision, then less thought needed". Never said that.

Now I know you'll try the 'moving the goal posts' fallacy here, but they haven't budged. I never made the claim, "if conservative decision, then less thought needed"

That's all in your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 11:06 AM

46. you are still not getting it, and doubt you will. you can't explain away poor logic. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 11:18 AM

47. You're arguing against a claim I never made.


That's on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frostlight (Reply #47)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 06:04 PM

51. see # 46, eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 09:41 AM

45. Oh, wait, My apologies...

I mistakenly DID use an isolated absolute, but my intention was not to.

I can see how you thought I was wrong. But it's fixed now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescienceconservativesloweffortthinkingirony