Understanding CBD, what IS CBD?

[Jhhnn]

You know you project that onto all the conservatives, its the stereotypical 65 year old high school educated fox new watching retiree that is skewing the statistics. There is actually a whole new generation of lower 20's conservatives who got to watch the last 8 years of Obama growing up so you'll be singing that same tune long after its not true anymore.

There aren't that many 65 year olds posting on ATOT though so you are basically ranting over and over again on this forum about a small group of people but if you look at the older conservatives who post here individually they don't even fit the stereotype that you've read 10,000 articles about.

Hee hee. Create your own strawman stereotype so you can say it doesn't apply.

Double back flip into the bunker o' denial. Nicely executed.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Conservatives are generally better at evaluating threat, empathizing, helping others in need, and understanding opposing perspectives. I have trouble seeing these attributes as defects. In addition, I'm OK with people being different and not being perfect. All it took was one good look into the mirror to convince me of this.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is false, I said no such thing. I said I wasn't interested in that particular website or writing a response about it to moonie, because his mind was already made up.

Generally speaking I'm not very interested in things that build division. I don't feel the need to try and convince someone that they're stupid because of their opinions. The only reason for such things is so that one can bolster his own ego, or justify actions that would otherwise be unconscionable.

Lets use this very thread as an example. Do you think it was posted as an examination of conservative thought process in order to achieve a deeper understanding of the mindset and facilitate a more productive dialog? We both know it wasn't. The entire point here is to demean and belittle others for their beliefs, based on the certainty that they're fundamentally wrong and somehow defective. It's not about achieving common ground, it's about spreading FUD. The result of that is that I give these threads all of the serious consideration they deserve, absolutely none.

In the first place you gave this thread considerable attention because the post you just made was heartfelt and sincere and contains a plea for a higher moral state, a distaste for division and a desire for common understanding.

These things I admire about you. My problem is that my experience tells me that any attempt to reach some common ground with a conservative thinker always involves denial of data. Common ground for me here would be some recognition on your part that there is scientific evidence that conservatives don't actually seek common ground as they claim the do, but, in reality, the deflection of any path to communality that caused them cognitive dissonance. So from my perspective when you say the information that supports my view is not worth your time, you are actually saying it's your way or the highway just as the data predicts. The problem is that you can't get past the fact that the scientific information about how you act according to scientific studies, you can't get past because you don't see it as fact but as an assault on your ego. You can't admit to your own reality because you were conditioned to think that others are bad because they deny your reality and your reality isn't real. You don't like being how you are so you won't see it. I don't have that problem. The reality of how I am destroyed me long ago. It hurt at the time, but being a nobody has benefits you wouldn't believe.

Buck up. It's not me who thinks the truth about how you are makes you worthless. That's yourself that's doing that. I see the part that seeks higher morality and I like it. We are the same, all of us.

 

[dank69]

Yet here we see Greenman saying in black and white that he is not interested in the data. Perhaps you could check out the experiment and tell us what is wrong with it, unless you are also afraid of the data?

That is false, I said no such thing. ...

And here we see Greenman in black and white saying he said no such thing when it is in black and white:

Sorry, not interested in the experiment, and certainly not interested in writing about it. ...

 

[senseamp]

Tune in to Fox News or local AM "news" radio for one hour, and you'll know all you need to know about CBD.

 

[senseamp]

Conservatives are generally better at evaluating threat, empathizing, helping others in need, and understanding opposing perspectives. I have trouble seeing these attributes as defects. In addition, I'm OK with people being different and not being perfect. All it took was one good look into the mirror to convince me of this.

LOL, good one. :biggrin:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

LOL, good one. :biggrin:

The data is there if you care to look.

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservatives are generally better at evaluating threat, empathizing, helping others in need, and understanding opposing perspectives. I have trouble seeing these attributes as defects. In addition, I'm OK with people being different and not being perfect. All it took was one good look into the mirror to convince me of this.

They are better at evaluating threat when in a threatening environment and better at inventing it when it's not. A defect is only a defect in the context where it is one. I would like to see the data on better at empathizing, I suspect better at group empathy. I think conservatives give more to charity, all the government social programs that cost far more are liberal inventions, because we all pay taxes so liberals vote to give via self imposed gifting. Conservatives operate on quite a few levels of moral concerns more that liberals do and thus have a broader understanding of others values. A liberal can doesn't get the team loyalty thing, or respect for authority, tradition, custom, or religious laws governing purification via diet or prayer and other things they think are irrelevant. They focus and more so than conservatives on justice and equality. So liberals don't see the conservative breadth of concern as better. So I would say that you have tailored you the reality here to fit a point of view that is self flattering. In short I don't think your data shows what you chose to see in the differences known to exist.

It is a defect, then, say, not to eat pork when pork is all there is to eat. It is a defect to worship private charity when needs rise to levels that private charity can't support. It is a defect when ones loyalty to ones own group leads to demonization of other teams playing in the same league. It is a defect when injustice and inequality rise to levels that are dire and don't get sufficient attention, etc. In short a defect requires context. But the understanding of context can raise problems of cognitive dissonance and where this occurs, it is liberals and not conservatives who will be most objective about what the context really is, that is according to the scientific information.

The real issue them is that while all of know we are imperfect, we still resist that fact in reality and when it comes to the specifics.

 

[Moonbeam]

So the answer to my question appears to be No. Entertainment mode on...

What was your question? Perhaps you could put it simply or in different words.

 

[chucky2]

What was your question? Perhaps you could put it simply or in different words.

Basically, why are the brain centers that are lighting up lighting up? If presented with the scenario of someone using their Links card to buy Pepsi and Cheetos, a liberal mind will light up the brain center of orgasm, conservative will light up disgust...that's basically the take away from these studies. I'm far less concerned that those brain centers light up than why they lit up. What inner workings of the brain are at work leading to a processing of these situations being handled by these brain subsections?

It sounds like they've done scans while different scenarios are given. That's great. But until they figure out the why, it really tells us...not much. This is why your irrational fixation on your self termed CBD is so entertaining. You've manifested your beliefs onto a study that really can conclude nothing other than liberals and conservatives think differently. Why? Because CBD.

 

[Greenman]

And here we see Greenman in black and white saying he said no such thing when it is in black and white:

That's only part of what I said. You removed the qualifier to change the meaning of my statement. Why would you do something so dishonest and obvious?

 

[dank69]

That's only part of what I said. You removed the qualifier to change the meaning of my statement. Why would you do something so dishonest and obvious?

Nice try. Nobody cares what rationalization you try to peddle to try and convince yourself that it isn't because you don't want to know the truth.

 

[Greenman]

The data is there if you care to look.

I don't see that happening.

 

[Greenman]

Nice try. Nobody cares what rationalization you try to peddle to try and convince yourself that it isn't because you don't want to know the truth.

I don't need to convince myself of anything, you altered what I said. You changed the meaning of my statement by leaving part of it out. You lack even the most basic integrity.

 

[dank69]

I don't need to convince myself of anything, you altered what I said. You changed the meaning of my statement by leaving part of it out. You lack even the most basic integrity.

So now your defense is not "I said no such thing" it's "that's not quite what I said"?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They are better at evaluating threat when in a threatening environment and better at inventing it when it's not. A defect is only a defect in the context where it is one. I would like to see the data on better at empathizing, I suspect better at group empathy. I think conservatives give more to charity, all the government social programs that cost far more are liberal inventions, because we all pay taxes so liberals vote to give via self imposed gifting. Conservatives operate on quite a few levels of moral concerns more that liberals do and thus have a broader understanding of others values. A liberal can doesn't get the team loyalty thing, or respect for authority, tradition, custom, or religious laws governing purification via diet or prayer and other things they think are irrelevant. They focus and more so than conservatives on justice and equality. So liberals don't see the conservative breadth of concern as better. So I would say that you have tailored you the reality here to fit a point of view that is self flattering. In short I don't think your data shows what you chose to see in the differences known to exist.

It is a defect, then, say, not to eat pork when pork is all there is to eat. It is a defect to worship private charity when needs rise to levels that private charity can't support. It is a defect when ones loyalty to ones own group leads to demonization of other teams playing in the same league. It is a defect when injustice and inequality rise to levels that are dire and don't get sufficient attention, etc. In short a defect requires context. But the understanding of context can raise problems of cognitive dissonance and where this occurs, it is liberals and not conservatives who will be most objective about what the context really is, that is according to the scientific information.

The real issue them is that while all of know we are imperfect, we still resist that fact in reality and when it comes to the specifics.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame such highly generalized conservative "shortcomings" as brain defects, especially while completely ignoring the highly generalized "shortcomings" of liberals without labeling these as 'brain defects' as well. Liberals give less money and time to those in need, they have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives. Are these brain defects as well? I don't understand why you obsess on this subject and broadly demonize roughly half the people on our planet who happen to perceive the world a little differently than you do.

 

[dank69]

I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame such highly generalized conservative "shortcomings" as brain defects, especially while completely ignoring the highly generalized "shortcomings" of liberals without labeling these as 'brain defects' as well. Liberals give less money and time to those in need, they have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives. Are these brain defects as well? I don't understand why you obsess on this subject and broadly demonize roughly half the people on our planet who happen to perceive the world a little differently than you do.

Because usually opposing perspective means a perspective that opposes scientific data, and yes, that would qualify as a defect.

 

[Moonbeam]

chucky2: Basically, why are the brain centers that are lighting up lighting up? If presented with the scenario of someone using their Links card to buy Pepsi and Cheetos, a liberal mind will light up the brain center of orgasm, conservative will light up disgust...that's basically the take away from these studies.

M: There is no such substantive takeaway from this as you suggest because there is no scientific studies that prove there is any such lighting up or any areas that are different in the purely hypothetical areas of the brains that you suggest. You can't just make up shit because it conforms to some opinions you hold about how conservatives are different from liberals. These opinions are barren of any scientific support and are only your own fantastical speculations.

c: I'm far less concerned that those brain centers light up than why they lit up. What inner workings of the brain are at work leading to a processing of these situations being handled by these brain subsections?

M: I thought this was the question I DID answer, that the studies so far reveal only that the brains of liberals and conservatives differ and that the areas where those differences lie just happen to be areas of the brain where the behavioral differences between the two are processed. This is like noting that the fossil record of brain size in human ancestors seems to pretty well track with the evolution of tool making or some such. But crows with very small brains also use tools so why one goes with the other isn't necessarily clear. All we know it that conservatives exhibit more traits that would be expected from the area of the brain that is larger and less of those that are associated with the area that is smaller than liberals.

c: It sounds like they've done scans while different scenarios are given. That's great. But until they figure out the why, it really tells us...not much.

M: Perhaps it doesn't tell you much because you don't want to hear what it says.

This is why your irrational fixation on your self termed CBD is so entertaining.

M: It is why you denial, predicted to be so, is also entertaining.

c: You've manifested your beliefs onto a study that really can conclude nothing other than liberals and conservatives think differently. Why? Because CBD.

M: Actually, the data from the studies only supports what is real world obvious and provides a way to scientifically demonstrate it to anybody with the capacity to take scientific data seriously.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Because usually opposing perspective means a perspective that opposes scientific data, and yes, that would qualify as a defect.

Do you have the slightest clue as to what I'm talking about? I think not.

 

[dank69]

Do you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about? I think not.

Yes, I am talking about your specific claim that liberals have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives, which is laughable on two levels. First, conservatives are just as bad as liberals, if not worse, at understanding the opposing viewpoint. Second, if an opposing viewpoint does not make logical sense, understanding it is not a virtue anyway, if understanding is meant here as "accepting."

So why don't you start but posting up some sources that show that liberals have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame such highly generalized conservative "shortcomings" as brain defects, especially while completely ignoring the highly generalized "shortcomings" of liberals without labeling these as 'brain defects' as well. Liberals give less money and time to those in need, they have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives. Are these brain defects as well? I don't understand why you obsess on this subject and broadly demonize roughly half the people on our planet who happen to perceive the world a little differently than you do.

I have said countless times that what is a defect is only a defect given a context in which what would be an asset in one environment becomes a liability in another. A frog can breath through it skin which is great when it's in water but presents problems in arid conditions. Furthermore, I have said countless times too that the reaction to information presented as a defect evokes the mechanism of defensiveness against cognitive dissonance where that characteristic of defensiveness exists thus establishing the phenomenon on a factual basis.

What you call demonizing half the population I call pointing out to half the population the deluded state of their thinking, a deluded state that is dangerous to the nation. Just as your motives are to protect half the nation from cognitive unpleasant ideas, I am trying to save us all from the disaster of information denial. We both have the best of intentions. I consider the information I possess to be more scientifically factual. The right talks about personal responsibility but won't face facts about how it behaves. That is what irresponsibility is.

Conservatives keep playing at being victims. But denial is what makes people victims of themselves.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't see that happening.

I don't think that's fair. DSF is an intelligent and well read long time participant in the CBD debate and has acquainted himself admirably with relevant data. He presented a host of conditionals that are partly accurate and put into the research by scientists seeking to be fair and objective. The labor to provide links to what he is acquainted with would in my opinion be rather laborious, I can't even seem to find the place were 16 peer reviewed studies were presented with fairness to each side, the place, I think, where he garnered the ideas he presented. But that background information, while out there somewhere, isn't so easy to find and not something I would think dank is likely to be familiar with, nor is it likely he's know where to look.

I did m best to explain the problems I have with what I thought was DSF's selective presentation.

PS: I found where I THINK dsf MAY HAVE GOTTEN SOME

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't think it's intellectually honest to frame such highly generalized conservative "shortcomings" as brain defects, especially while completely ignoring the highly generalized "shortcomings" of liberals without labeling these as 'brain defects' as well. Liberals give less money and time to those in need, they have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives. Are these brain defects as well? I don't understand why you obsess on this subject and broadly demonize roughly half the people on our planet who happen to perceive the world a little differently than you do.

I'll agree about the brain defect thing. It's more about the filters of belief.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to go on about private charity, either. Liberals pay their taxes willingly, assign charitable functions to govt who does a helluva lot more of it than conservative donations ever will.

What's to understand about conservative perspectives more than what they tell us?

I could roll off a long list of well propagandized misconceptions among Righties which I'm sure you can't appreciate, simply because you'd have to question your own most cherished beliefs in order to understand at all.

Try that charity thing, for example.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, I am talking about your specific claim that liberals have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives, which is laughable on two levels. First, conservatives are just as bad as liberals, if not worse, at understanding the opposing viewpoint. Second, if an opposing viewpoint does not make logical sense, understanding it is not a virtue anyway, if understanding is meant here as "accepting."

So why don't you start but posting up some sources that show that liberals have much more difficultly understanding opposing perspectives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...nd-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Greenman]

So now your defense is not "I said no such thing" it's "that's not quite what I said"?

I'm not offering any defense, I'm saying you have no integrity, you're a liar.