I remember seeing that before. It seems to me that conservatives are more able to understand liberal viewpoints because they are more often based on logic and reason. It seems to me that liberals would have a difficult time understanding conservative viewpoints because they are more often based on emotion divorced from sound logic.
Speaking of not reading the article or the book, it is supporting Doc's argument. LOL.Its selling a book gawwwdddd..
You probably didn't even read the book even though you'd agree with it 100% or else you'd have different insights instead of just repeating yourself over and over blarglrglrlglr
That article is probably native advertising.
Right. I'm a liar for saying you typed what you typed.I'm not offering any defense, I'm saying you have no integrity, you're a liar.
I'm glad that you find the truth laughable on multiple levels....it must make your life much more bearable.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.
Speaking of not reading the article or the book, it is supporting Doc's argument. LOL.
You don't say.I'm really disinterested in any material like that. ...
You don't say.
Its selling a book gawwwdddd..
You probably didn't even read the book even though you'd agree with it 100% or else you'd have different insights instead of just repeating yourself over and over blarglrglrlglr
That article is probably native advertising.
Actually, I was going to cite the study but decided not to. I personally find it difficult to have a reasonable conversation with dank69.Actually, I think it explains why conservatives have great appeal. They react from the gut as most people do. Anyway, I was trying to help DSF make his case.
Liberals and conservatives both have valid insights into the various problems we face...instead of demonizing, I'm of the opinion that we need to listen to each other.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.
Liberals and conservatives both have valid insights into the various problems we face...instead of demonizing, I'm of the opinion that we need to listen to each other.
Liberals and conservatives both have valid insights into the various problems we face...instead of demonizing, I'm of the opinion that we need to listen to each other.
moonie and the libs defending them, need to demonize the right. Its part of there delusion of grander. If the conservatives have a defect, theres no point in listening to them. And since the ultimate goal for libs is to always feel they are right, they have to continually create ways of dismissing outside thought. They are at the point now where anyone that doesn't think like them is either defective or a radical.
Just look at the bubble moonie and his buddies have created, any response to them is a sign of defect.
The feeling is mutual. Let's see if you can be rational. Would you agree that both Greenman and Overvolt have now said they are not interested in at least one experiment/study each in this thread?Actually, I was going to cite the study but decided not to. I personally find it difficult to have a reasonable conversation with dank69.
I don't disagree. However - when someone claims to be guided by reality and yet reality always falls exactly in line with their philosophical bent, then my conclusion is that either they were only pretending to be guided by reality or they are simply basically dishonest. No one philosophy (or party) is best for every conceivable situation, and if you never conclude that philosophically you'd like 'A' but pragmatically recognize that 'B' is the better course, you aren't very bright.One thing for sure... He is much more tenacious than I could ever be regarding the battles he undertakes.
Some in here are light weights muddling along while others are pretty sharp but just as confined within the conduit of their thinking and still others allow reality to guide their thinking. The latter know and know they know and that's about it.
I figure when it is obvious one has the mass of a photon (zero) I waste my time pointing out that time does not exit for the photon and the conduit is but a shield from reality.
I don't disagree. However - when someone claims to be guided by reality and yet reality always falls exactly in line with their philosophical bent, then my conclusion is that either they were only pretending to be guided by reality or they are simply basically dishonest. No one philosophy (or party) is best for every conceivable situation, and if you never conclude that philosophically you'd like 'A' but pragmatically recognize that 'B' is the better course, you aren't very bright.
I don't disagree. However - when someone claims to be guided by reality and yet reality always falls exactly in line with their philosophical bent, then my conclusion is that either they were only pretending to be guided by reality or they are simply basically dishonest. No one philosophy (or party) is best for every conceivable situation, and if you never conclude that philosophically you'd like 'A' but pragmatically recognize that 'B' is the better course, you aren't very bright.
Liberals and conservatives both have valid insights into the various problems we face...instead of demonizing, I'm of the opinion that we need to listen to each other.
Exactly. Now listen. Science tells us that conservatives demonize liberals more than the other way round. Furthermore we see in the other what we won't see in ourselves, conservatives also better at that than liberals, so the first thing that happens when communication is open and a liberal pipes up is on shit, the liberal is trying to demonize me. So it seems to me that conservatives have more to overcome to communicate than liberals do. Now if this is factual as the science says it is, then these are just the facts. It doesn't take much, I think, looking at this thread, to see that conservatives are quite defensive.
Now LunarRay says I'm tenacious at defending my positions, but I see it rather as a kind of charity. It is deeply important, for the reasons of which you spoke, to find some bridge over this barrier to communication. Real liberal and conservative thinking leads to thinking a third way and that's always where the truth is, in my opinion.
Says who, a liberal scientist? Lol
I don't disagree. However - when someone claims to be guided by reality and yet reality always falls exactly in line with their philosophical bent, then my conclusion is that either they were only pretending to be guided by reality or they are simply basically dishonest. No one philosophy (or party) is best for every conceivable situation, and if you never conclude that philosophically you'd like 'A' but pragmatically recognize that 'B' is the better course, you aren't very bright.
It's a nice thought, and reasonable, but it will never happen. Winning becomes a more important goal than doing whats sensible or best. The desire to win is consuming, and probably so deeply rooted that we'll never be shed of it.
Originally Posted by Moonbeam View Post
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.
Doug 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.
When you state "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" Deluded seems to me like demonizing throw in dangerous and there you go. you have indeed demonized half the nation cause you have iron clad proof.