Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The Rosetta Stone for understanding PFA and a whole lot more

  1. #1
    Plutonium sonatine's Avatar
    Reputation
    7369
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    33,371
    Load Metric
    65666608

    The Rosetta Stone for understanding PFA and a whole lot more

    https://www.psypost.org/2019/09/peop...dy-finds-54369


    trigger warning: science


    In two studies, the researchers assessed the emotional abilities and political ideology of 983 Belgian undergraduate students. The second study also examined the participants’ cognitive ability. Emotional ability was measured with three tests: the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding, the Situational Test of Emotion Management, and the Geneva Emotion Recognition Test.

    The researchers found that individuals with weaker emotional abilities — particularly emotional understanding and management — tended to score higher on a measure of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.

    Right-wing authoritarianism is a personality trait that describes the tendency to submit to political authority and be hostile towards other groups, while social dominance orientation is a measure of a person’s preference for inequality among social groups.

    “The results of this study were univocal. People who endorse authority and strong leaders and who do not mind inequality — the two basic dimensions underlying right-wing political ideology — show lower levels of emotional abilities,” Van Hiel told PsyPost.

     
    Comments
      
      limitles: fake science
      
      Tellafriend: See supra
      
      MumblesBadly: Interesting results if they can be confirmed with repeat studies.
      
      cleatus: congratulation. druff's ability to reply with well researched nonsense including fictional situation is unmatched.
    "Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky

    "America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs

  2. #2
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Pseudo-science, everyone.

    First off... what is psypost.org? It has no credentials and does not claim affiliation with any respected doctors in the psych fields. It's simply a collection of psych-related articles which seem to interest the person running the site. The owner of psypost.org clearly has a left-wing bias, as he features articles which are either praising the left-wing or apolitical, but never ones which favor the right wing in any way.

    For example....

    Income inequality is due to racial bias: https://www.psypost.org/2019/02/rese...ial-bias-53125

    Negative political messages are most effective, but right wingers are far more susceptible to them than left wingers: https://www.psypost.org/2019/06/nega...suggests-53778

    I could post more, but you get the picture.

    With all the so-called psych studies out there, it isn't difficult to cherry pick ones which claim conclusions which are unfavorable to right-wingers, especially since most of these studies take place at universities, which are clearly left-biased in the first place.

    In short, psypost.org is garbage. But let's ignore that for a minute and take a look at the article sonatine shared with us.

    Let's look at this provocative statement:

    The researchers found that individuals with weaker emotional abilities — particularly emotional understanding and management — tended to score higher on a measure of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.
    Notice the term "weaker emotional abilities" -- something which attemtps to portray one group of people to be superior to the other. Then it goes on to claim that the emotional retards are the right wingers, and they also love authoritarianism and "social dominance" (aka inequality). Bad, bad, bad!!

    But let's think about for a moment what this really means. What defines "weaker emotional abilities"? That's not an easy thing to define, nor is it easy to define where greater reliance upon emotions shifts from a positive to a negative. I'll give you an example:

    Harvey is a convicted murderer and rapist. He admits that he committed the crimes. Harvey sits down with John and Mike, and explains his motivations. Harvey tells them that he was molested as a child, which screwed him up for life, and suddenly he was having desires to rape and kill women. Then he went and acted upon those desires, but now totally regrets it, realizes how wrong it was, and is a changed man. John, who has "strong emotional abilities", empathizes with Harvey, and would probably support Harvey's rehabilitation and release at some point, despite the heinous crimes he committed. Mike, who has "weaker emotional abilities", understands that Harvey had a bad childhood, but feels that his crimes were so terrible and destructive that he does not deserve to ever be free again, regardless of whether or not he can rehabilitate.

    In the above scenario, is it better to be like John, or to be like Mike? Which of these two would you rather have creating your society's crime-and-punishment laws, if you had to choose one of them?

    Unless you are a bleeding heart idiot, Mike would clearly be the better choice. But why? Doesn't he have "weaker emotional abilities" than John? Perhaps, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Those who rely more upon emotion tend to be more easily manipulated by heart-tugging stories, even if they're exaggerated or not true. They also tend to eschew logic when making decisions, and rely upon emotion instead. These aren't particularly good qualities to have, but unfortunately they often ride along with extra empathy.

    Note that this particular study states negative political traits of those with "weaker emotional abilities", but it does not state the negative political traits of those with the supposed "stronger emotional abilities". That's another example of the clear bias of this study.

    For example, an unbiased study would have said something like, "The researchers found that individuals with weaker emotional abilities tended to score higher on a measure of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. However, those with stronger emotional abilities tended to score higher on a measure of left-wing authoritarianism and a staunch belief in identity politics."

    This could have been a fascinating study if it were done without political bias, and without a direction meant to prove unflattering traits about conservatives (while purposefully ignoring any possible unflattering traits about leftists.) Instead, it's garbage.

    I actually do believe there is somewhat a difference, on the whole, in the base personalities of conservatives and liberals.

    Conservatives tend to sometimes think too much and feel too little, while liberals tend to sometimes feel too much and think too little. This is why I'd love to see a real study done by someone who is looking for the truth, rather than a conclusion which bashes those with politics opposite to his.

     
    Comments
      
      Sloppy Joe: Very stable and very emotional

  3. #3
    Silver varys's Avatar
    Reputation
    250
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    985
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Druff he’s shitting on rednecks from Nebraska not your actual party policies. You should have just let this one go, as difficult as that is for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyde
    you're more consumed with accumulating wealth than achieving spiritual enlightenment

  4. #4
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by varys View Post
    Druff he’s shitting on rednecks from Nebraska not your actual party policies. You should have just let this one go, as difficult as that is for you.


    He's shitting on all conservatives.

    I've heard this type of BS about conservatives ever since I was in college 30 years ago, but even more nowadays.

    Conservatives = emotionally stunted selfish assholes or idiot rubes

    Liberals = educated, emotionally sound, empathetic, complete human beings

    So this is the "scientific" way of supposedly justifying these accusations, which is a load of crap, as I already stated in my previous post.

  5. #5
    Platinum devidee's Avatar
    Reputation
    1172
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,591
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Muh free market.

  6. #6
    Gold Salty_Aus's Avatar
    Reputation
    283
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    1,691
    Load Metric
    65666608
    I'll just leave this here.

    https://phys.org/news/2010-02-intell...lues-human.amp

    "Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence"

    And cherry pick this also.

    "Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence."

  7. #7
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty_Aus View Post
    I'll just leave this here.

    https://phys.org/news/2010-02-intell...lues-human.amp

    "Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence"

    And cherry pick this also.

    "Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence."
    And where is your proof that this was an unbiased study, not looking to establish that conservatives are dumber than liberals?

    For example, note that this only talks about "very conservative" versus "very liberal". How about just "conservative" and "liberal"? Is it possible that the study found that moderate and mid-level conservatives are smarter than (or at least equivalent to) their liberal counterparts, but somehow the people on the extremes have a higher average IQ on the liberal end?

    Whenever data is hand-picked like this for presentation, I get very suspicious.

    Also, "young adults" were tested, but which ones? Where did they find these young adults, and how did they ensure that there wasn't some bias (accidental or otherwise) in the places they procured these subjects?

    For example, if they chose to get the liberals from PhD programs at universities, and the conservatives from an assembly line at a local factory, then yes, the average IQ of the liberals would almost certainly be higher. But obviously that wouldn't be a fair comparison.

    None of these studies are convincing at all unless I can see that the process was pure, and that the study was undertaken in good faith. If your study begins with the theory of, "I think conservatives are dumber than liberals, and I'm going to scientifically prove it", then you're already off to a very bad start, and you can't really be trusted.

  8. #8
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Also, when it comes to politics, smarter doesn't always equal correct.

    For example, I think Barack Obama is a very smart guy. I think Elizabeth Warren is a very smart woman. I think both of them are smarter than a lot of Republican politicians. However, I don't agree with their politics or their world view, so their intelligence is really immaterial.

    This whole thing is just part of an arrogant, longstanding narrative that liberals are smarter, more empathetic, and more moral than conservatives. Many on the left do this because they feel it entitles them to be able to dismiss the other side without any kind of rational or reasonable debate.

    "I'm smarter than you and more empathetic, so your voice isn't worth hearing. Sit down, shut up, and do what I say, because I'm superior and know better."

    Fuck that.

     
    Comments
      
      Sloppy Joe: Facts don't care about your feelings

  9. #9
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,638
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Also, when it comes to politics, smarter doesn't always equal correct.

    For example, I think Barack Obama is a very smart guy. I think Elizabeth Warren is a very smart woman. I think both of them are smarter than a lot of Republican politicians. However, I don't agree with their politics or their world view, so their intelligence is really immaterial.

    This whole thing is just part of an arrogant, longstanding narrative that liberals are smarter, more empathetic, and more moral than conservatives. Many on the left do this because they feel it entitles them to be able to dismiss the other side without any kind of rational or reasonable debate.

    "I'm smarter than you and more empathetic, so your voice isn't worth hearing. Sit down, shut up, and do what I say, because I'm superior and know better."

    Fuck that.
    Ideally we elect people to make good decisions using critical thinking.
    The more intelligent they are the more likely they are to consider all options/viewpoints.
    And you dismiss that as immaterial?

  10. #10
    Diamond Pro Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe's Avatar
    Reputation
    1416
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,783
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Name:  timmy.jpg
Views: 227
Size:  24.7 KB

     
    Comments
      
      cleatus: how many male figures do you see above?
      
      MumblesBadly: Admittedly, a sample of only 2. But nevertheless... LOL!
      
      splitthis: Lol

  11. #11
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    9,408
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty_Aus View Post
    I'll just leave this here.

    https://phys.org/news/2010-02-intell...lues-human.amp

    "Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence"

    And cherry pick this also.

    "Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence."
    And where is your proof that this was an unbiased study, not looking to establish that conservatives are dumber than liberals?

    For example, note that this only talks about "very conservative" versus "very liberal". How about just "conservative" and "liberal"? Is it possible that the study found that moderate and mid-level conservatives are smarter than (or at least equivalent to) their liberal counterparts, but somehow the people on the extremes have a higher average IQ on the liberal end?

    Whenever data is hand-picked like this for presentation, I get very suspicious.

    Also, "young adults" were tested, but which ones? Where did they find these young adults, and how did they ensure that there wasn't some bias (accidental or otherwise) in the places they procured these subjects?

    For example, if they chose to get the liberals from PhD programs at universities, and the conservatives from an assembly line at a local factory, then yes, the average IQ of the liberals would almost certainly be higher. But obviously that wouldn't be a fair comparison.

    None of these studies are convincing at all unless I can see that the process was pure, and that the study was undertaken in good faith. If your study begins with the theory of, "I think conservatives are dumber than liberals, and I'm going to scientifically prove it", then you're already off to a very bad start, and you can't really be trusted.
    Druff, except for when Marty has trolled you to the breaking point, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you more triggered by something. Seriously, dude. Take a deep breathe and recognize that the authors’ stated conclusions about their findings speak to the likely population *means* of conservatives in comparison to that for liberals, NOT the entire population of conservatives versus the entire population of liberals. As Sam Harris, the well-known neuroscientist and public intellectual is known to have said, and I paraphrase here, “the variation of intelligence within a racial group most definitely swamps the difference in the means between racial groups.” Given that the respective populations of conservatives and liberals are quite large, this notion surely applies to the levels of intelligence, emotional skills, etc., of conservatives versus liberals.

    That being said, and that the results of these few studies do not constitute settled science on the matter, savvy political strategists probably already know this and use it to their advantage to manage their political clients’ messaging and communication strategies. That’s probably why Trump was able to successfully appeal to so many lesser educated folks with idiotic chants of “Build The Wall”, while Democratic message crafters have to put out more nuanced slogans like “Yes We Can”.
    Last edited by MumblesBadly; 09-06-2019 at 06:41 PM.
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  12. #12
    Gold Salty_Aus's Avatar
    Reputation
    283
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    1,691
    Load Metric
    65666608
    From my limited experience.

    I believe liberals in general argue their points and opinions much better then conservatives.
    Sure plenty of conservatives hold their own very well in a debate.

    I have noticed that PLENTY on the right can't even hold a thought long enough to argue a point clearly, without confusing the issue with nonsense that has very little to do with the debate at hand.
    Seems to be a lot on the right who bring nothing to an argument/debate other then spouting shit like "omg you libtards are so fucking stupid" and then continue to add nothing other then abuse.

    But of course i could be simply biased. *shrugs*

  13. #13
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,626
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty_Aus View Post
    From my limited experience.

    I believe liberals in general argue their points and opinions much better then conservatives.
    Sure plenty of conservatives hold their own very well in a debate.

    I have noticed that PLENTY on the right can't even hold a thought long enough to argue a point clearly, without confusing the issue with nonsense that has very little to do with the debate at hand.
    Seems to be a lot on the right who bring nothing to an argument/debate other then spouting shit like "omg you libtards are so fucking stupid" and then continue to add nothing other then abuse.

    But of course i could be simply biased. *shrugs*
    Yes, there are right wing idiots like this, but there are an equal number on the left who respond with a form of "you're racist", "you're a Nazi", "you're a homophobe", "you're a misogynist", etc.

    I've actually tried debating with leftists on Facebook, and while I maintain a civil tone and lay out my points clearly (the same way I do here), a high percentage of the responses I get are "you're a --ist/--phobe" or some kind of personal insult. Then a lot of them block me for being a "bigoted Trump supporter", even when I don't mention Trump at all, and even when I include criticisms of Trump within my arguments.

    I found that only a small percentage of leftists I've debated on Facebook have been able to stay calm and have a rational debate, without lobbing accusations, namecalling, or blocking. In many cases, if the argument is occurring on a friend's wall, these people will message the friend and demand that the friend block me!

    Yes, small sample size, blah blah, but I think you're giving those on the left far too much credit for being more rational.

  14. #14
    Gold Salty_Aus's Avatar
    Reputation
    283
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    1,691
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Salty_Aus View Post
    From my limited experience.

    I believe liberals in general argue their points and opinions much better then conservatives.
    Sure plenty of conservatives hold their own very well in a debate.

    I have noticed that PLENTY on the right can't even hold a thought long enough to argue a point clearly, without confusing the issue with nonsense that has very little to do with the debate at hand.
    Seems to be a lot on the right who bring nothing to an argument/debate other then spouting shit like "omg you libtards are so fucking stupid" and then continue to add nothing other then abuse.

    But of course i could be simply biased. *shrugs*
    Yes, there are right wing idiots like this, but there are an equal number on the left who respond with a form of "you're racist", "you're a Nazi", "you're a homophobe", "you're a misogynist", etc.

    I've actually tried debating with leftists on Facebook, and while I maintain a civil tone and lay out my points clearly (the same way I do here), a high percentage of the responses I get are "you're a --ist/--phobe" or some kind of personal insult. Then a lot of them block me for being a "bigoted Trump supporter", even when I don't mention Trump at all, and even when I include criticisms of Trump within my arguments.

    I found that only a small percentage of leftists I've debated on Facebook have been able to stay calm and have a rational debate, without lobbing accusations, namecalling, or blocking. In many cases, if the argument is occurring on a friend's wall, these people will message the friend and demand that the friend block me!

    Yes, small sample size, blah blah, but I think you're giving those on the left far too much credit for being more rational.
    The left can be very smug. So sure of themselves that they refuse to listen, they already know better... I see this a lot.

    Our own bias is very interesting.

  15. #15
    Platinum GrenadaRoger's Avatar
    Reputation
    448
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,635
    Load Metric
    65666608
    "show lower level of emotional ability"


    i'd agree...but why? cause or effect?


    maybe worn out tolerating slacking whiners (effect) rather than being selfish tyrants (cause)?




    just try running a business or supervising a few employees for a couple of years...a lot of that liberalism will get ground out of you...but don't take my word for it, go ahead and learn it on your own, that way you will remember it forever
    Last edited by GrenadaRoger; 09-07-2019 at 04:58 PM.
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  16. #16
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,638
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65666608
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

    And where is your proof that this was an unbiased study, not looking to establish that conservatives are dumber than liberals?

    For example, note that this only talks about "very conservative" versus "very liberal". How about just "conservative" and "liberal"? Is it possible that the study found that moderate and mid-level conservatives are smarter than (or at least equivalent to) their liberal counterparts, but somehow the people on the extremes have a higher average IQ on the liberal end?

    Whenever data is hand-picked like this for presentation, I get very suspicious.

    Also, "young adults" were tested, but which ones? Where did they find these young adults, and how did they ensure that there wasn't some bias (accidental or otherwise) in the places they procured these subjects?

    For example, if they chose to get the liberals from PhD programs at universities, and the conservatives from an assembly line at a local factory, then yes, the average IQ of the liberals would almost certainly be higher. But obviously that wouldn't be a fair comparison.

    None of these studies are convincing at all unless I can see that the process was pure, and that the study was undertaken in good faith. If your study begins with the theory of, "I think conservatives are dumber than liberals, and I'm going to scientifically prove it", then you're already off to a very bad start, and you can't really be trusted.
    Druff, except for when Marty has trolled you to the breaking point, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you more triggered by something. Seriously, dude. Take a deep breathe and recognize that the authors’ stated conclusions about their findings speak to the likely population *means* of conservatives in comparison to that for liberals, NOT the entire population of conservatives versus the entire population of liberals. As Sam Harris, the well-known neuroscientist and public intellectual is known to have said, and I paraphrase here, “the variation of intelligence within a racial group most definitely swamps the difference in the means between racial groups.” Given that the respective populations of conservatives and liberals are quite large, this notion surely applies to the levels of intelligence, emotional skills, etc., of conservatives versus liberals.

    That being said, and that the results of these few studies do not constitute settled science on the matter, savvy political strategists probably already know this and use it to their advantage to manage their political clients’ messaging and communication strategies. That’s probably why Trump was able to successfully appeal to so many lesser educated folks with idiotic chants of “Build The Wall”, while Democratic message crafters have to put out more nuanced slogans like “Yes We Can”.
    Or this time round, "He's a crook".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Absolute Stone Cold Lock
    By Daly in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-22-2017, 12:41 PM
  2. Oliver Stone's SNOWDEN
    By sonatine in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2016, 01:13 PM
  3. Understanding California
    By Dan Druff in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:09 AM
  4. Rosetta Stone...
    By JUSTIFIEDhomicide in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-17-2012, 09:17 AM
  5. Rolling Stone Magazine - slim t
    By Slim T in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-24-2012, 01:47 AM