Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Can I get some feedback from any Conservatives here?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 165 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 12:31:03 PM PDT
Deckard says:
AC said:
"I never understood when I was younger why everyone wasn't Libertarian, or why Conservatives didn't simply adopt Libertarianism."

Because some of us know that the free market is not an answer to all problems, and that there is a role for government to play to maximize the use of scarce resources.

Care to explain why conservatives are becoming so disloyal and uncooperative in a time of economic hardship?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 12:36:46 PM PDT
James G. Christenson's

As I see it from the perspective of my work, any sort of National Healthcare has always been about provisioning free resources. And Conservatives as a movement have opposed it, since back in the days of Hillary, because Conservatives have a deeply rooted feeling that everyone should make their own decisions (even bad ones), and then allow them to play out to their relative outcomes (even if you end up owing $200,000 to a hospital). Romney would never have gotten that passed nationally, unless he was able to overcome the Conservative movement somehow.

I'm mainly interested in why Ideologues think the way they do. Defining Conservatism as what Conservatives in a Liberal stronghold will tolerate is not going to be an accurate description of the movement nationally.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 12:40:42 PM PDT
Deckard says:
AC aid:
"And Conservatives as a movement have opposed it, since back in the days of Hillary, because Conservatives have a deeply rooted feeling that everyone should make their own decisions (even bad ones), and then allow them to play out to their relative outcomes"

And that's why conservatives support abortion and gay marriage, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 12:49:51 PM PDT
name in use

There was an analysis of that red state divorce statistic, which showed Red states have higher divorces in part because of more marriages, and in part because the left leaners (I forget if the data was Democrat or Liberal) were marginally elevated in divorces, skewing the rate. You see this in religion too, where large numbers of left leaning religious confuse the data.

There is actually strong empirical support for this work carrying over into individuals, though you will note that I was not arguing ideologues, but only ideology.

GSS data shows increased support for promiscuity and single parenting among Liberals, when divided along self identified Conservative and Liberal lines. Gallup shows the same thing (although I believe that was actually out-of wedlock births, not single parenting, which presumably would increase the result). Gallup was only divided into republican plus leaners and Democrat plus leaners, presumably division into Conservative or Liberal would produce a more pronounced result. Also GSS shows higher drive towards sex related behavior among self identified Liberals, such as renting pornography, probably speaking to elevated sex drive.

Although it is a smaller study, Neuropolitics (a left leaning site) did an interesting survey on sex behavior and ideologues available below, which showed as one went from Liberal to Conservative (removing Libertarian and Non-Partisan) there is a steady increase in relationship duration and a decrease in number of sexual partners in life.

http://neuropolitics.org/defaultdec07.asp

This work is solid, and I have tried to disprove it myself, as an intellectual exercise. If anyone here can point out anything which does this, please point me to it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 12:55:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 12:58:32 PM PDT
nameinuse says:
Okay that's an easy one. You've obviously not looked very hard:

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

Study here:

http://people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

Harvard

There's clearly a reason you're on a forum trying to sell this and not at a top university trying to get acadaemia to accept your work. I think your optimism that in the future you will be studied and admired and taught by the great minds in education is more than a little bit optimistic.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 12:57:15 PM PDT
nameinuse

"Conservative states more often receive more money from the federal government than they contribute. "

Forgot to answer this. Interestingly, even though it would be in Conservative's interests to continue this, the movement seeks to eliminate it, and would if it could, by shrinking government and eliminating federal handouts.

I am telling you, none of this is simple logic. We are all running on emotions, which we bolster afterward with a logical argument. I know, because I have emotions running one way, and logic pulling me another. Ask me if single motherhood is something which should be shamed for the good of a society.

Now ask me if I would ever be able to do that, and feel good? Intellect vs emotion, and I have it on more than a single issue. (Of course, there are those who wouldn't be bothered by doing that, and I hate to admit it, but they would probably extend the life and success of their nation by doing so.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:02:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 16, 2012 1:07:23 PM PDT
nameinuse says:
Whenever you are presented with something that doesn't fit into your schematic you automatically contort it with another hypothesis trying to jam it in there and make it work. Realize, you did that yet again there.

I'm sorry, your work will most certainly not be studied and taught in the generations to come given that impulsivity/inclination.

But dare to dream. And luck to ya.

I have a Saturday to get to. I've already spent more time with this half-baked mumbo jumbo than likely most anyone will ever reasonably spend on it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:03:45 PM PDT
Deckard,

r and K are mostly used to describe traits today, and aspects of strategy. Bears, Lions, etc will get the Life History treatment, which offers a more individualized approach, better suited to a world of nearly infinite variation, and full of outliers.

My point was, and is, everything identified as an r-strategy, and designed to maximize reproductive out-put describes Liberalism, as it is defined in the literature. Everything designed to describe K, and designed to maximize offspring competitiveness, is identical to how Conservatism is described in the literature.

Why are you so upset over an abstract theory about how politics is organized?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:08:02 PM PDT
>>Because some of us know that the free market is not an answer to all problems, and that there is a role for government to play to maximize the use of scarce resources.

Exactly. That is the essence fo my work. Scarce resources produce a K-selective environment. Conservatives are content to compete for them, and let them be apportioned according to merit. Much of Liberalism is about taking scarce resources, and reapportioning them specifically to avoid any competitive selection effects.

The down side to Liberalism is the takers out-reproduce the producers, and eventually collapse the whole system into a free for all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:16:17 PM PDT
Abortion is basically the ultimate low-investment rearing strategy, so it will predominate among r. K's will tend to go the opposite way.

Gay marriage irritates K's because the drive to high-investment rearing, combined with a perception gay parents are sub-optimal, makes them leary of having Gay couples form a union which is designed to raise kids. I take it you saw the two new papers in the journal Social Science Research? I predict that won't help the acceptance of Gay marriage among Conservatives.

See: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/e-sce060712.php

Again, everything will come down to rearing strategies and competition.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:32:47 PM PDT
Believe it or not, I am familiar with New Scientist, and it's tendency to conflate data to generate Anti-conservative headlines which don't actually match what the studies they are pimping say. I don't actually blame you, I blame them for the misleading headline.

Notice the study doesn't actually say Conservatives get more porn. Again, like the "Red states have more divorces," it uses geographical data, rather than ideological affiliation. As a result we don't know if the porn subscribers are hard up Liberals in a dry Conservative sex desert, or if it is Conservatives with dirty little secrets.

I pointed you to the only accurate data I am aware of on porn nationally, as associated with ideological self-identification. I even pointed you to data which relates ideology specifically to r/K traits such as partner number and length of relationship. You can seek out some study somewhere, with conflated variables, but it doesn't change what the most specific data says.

And again, I never even said I was arguing ideologues. I've only said so far I am arguing what the ideologies espouse. You can maintain that Conservatism is the ideology of sex and orgies, and Liberalism seeks a world of chaste little sexually suppressed family people, but I doubt it will fly.

Come on.

Thanks for the study, though. I'll add it to my collection.

And who says I'm not dealing with top researchers in the field on this as well?

Posted on Jun 16, 2012 1:34:24 PM PDT
Alright all, I gotta split for the night. I'll be back tomorrow if anybody wants anything, so feel free to leave your questions.

Chop Chop!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:49:09 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous Conservative said:
"r and K are mostly used to describe traits today, and aspects of strategy. Bears, Lions, etc will get the Life History treatment, which offers a more individualized approach, better suited to a world of nearly infinite variation, and full of outliers."

I see. If the facts don't fit your theory, you shuffle it off somewhere else.

"My point was, and is, everything identified as an r-strategy, and designed to maximize reproductive out-put describes Liberalism, as it is defined in the literature. Everything designed to describe K, and designed to maximize offspring competitiveness, is identical to how Conservatism is described in the literature.
Why are you so upset over an abstract theory about how politics is organized?"

I'm not. But I don't particularly like self-serving ideologically driven theories that are nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 16, 2012 1:57:54 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous Conservative said:
"Believe it or not, I am familiar with New Scientist, and it's tendency to conflate data to generate Anti-conservative headlines which don't actually match what the studies they are pimping say."

Pimping? That's a little harsh considering just how hard you work to force round facts into the square holes of your ideology.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 6:32:39 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 7:53:52 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 17, 2012 7:54:29 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 8:09:23 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous Conservative said:
"Are you saying aversion to peer competition and Competitiveness/aggression towards peers are not r and K traits respectively?
Are you saying promiscuity and mongamy are not r and K traits respectively?
Are you saying single parenting and two-parent rearing are not r and K respectively?
Are you saying early sexualization of youth, and abstinence until monogamy are not r and K respectively?
And finally, is loyalty to ingroup a trait commonly seen in K or r?"

Typical conservative semantics - I'm not really saying much of anything about r/K theory )other than to point out that it took me about 2 minutes to think of major exceptions to it). I'm saying that you want conservatives to have what you view as positive traits, so you're trying to define them that way.

"The basis of my whole work, is that every r-trait aligns with Liberalism, while every K-trait aligns with Conservatism. I think the unbiased, with no ideological agenda will find that fascinating, and ponder what it means."

See, this is where you run into a problem. You make the grand statement that the unbiased should agree with you, when you have offered no evidence that those traits describe conservatives (although conservatives like to think that they do).

Is Bristol Plain a conservative? Newt Gingrich? Rush Limbaugh? Not by your standards.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 11:09:37 AM PDT
Deckard

Again, you make a statement (That I'm simply saying this), which isn't accurate. Look how the paper is organized. I devote a section to defining ideology (in terms of what has come before me, and been settled by thos ein the discipline). I point out where others long before me (and many of them Liberal), listed those traits as Conservative and Liberal. Jost, himself a Liberal noted the loyalty divide. Adorno and Altmeyer (both Libs) noted Conservative repression to single mates as opposed to Liberal liberation to a freer sexual life. Neuropolitcs, (itself a Liberal group) noted promiscuity and shorter relationship duration. Marx himself derided competitive selection and Darwin's model. GSS shows increased support for single parenting. Ironically, it is mostly leftists who support my work in the literature, as they describe how awful Conservatives are, and list their K traits as their negative qualities.

I then show how others identified the exact same traits in r and K, and characterized how they were designed to either produce high numbers of offspring, or low numbers of fitness. Obviously you are familiar with this subject, so you know the traits, and their purposes.

All I did was point out that two established bodies of research by specialists in their fields said the same thing, and it would explain why Conservatives and Liberals don't get along politically.

What I find fascinating is you seem to view r negatively. If I may ask, why don't you like r, or want to be associated with it? Truth be told, I would think a peaceful, non-competitive analogy would appeal. Look at the left's love of doves.

As for Bristol and Newt, I have said repeatedly, I am not even starting the debate on individuals yet. (Though I would expect that would come at some point. Obviously the urges motivating this probably come from somewhere.)

At this point, I am solely talking about the ideology which emerges at the national level, as everyone who associates with Conservatism and everyone who associates with Liberalism all merge into their respective ideological groups. I'm talking strictly about the values those ideologies present, and the world they seek.

I gotta go to a party in my honor, I'll stop by in a day or so to answer any other questions people might have.

Posted on Jun 17, 2012 12:32:18 PM PDT
neonpisces says:
> A K-selected environment basically involves limited resources, and this forces individuals to compete for these resources in order to survive. This produces five psychological traits. Competitiveness, monogamy, two-parent rearing, abstinence until monogamy, and loyalty to in-group.

____

I stopped reading at this point. The premise is incorrect. The fact is that limited resources leads as often to cooperation, if not more often, than to competitiveness. There is a reason why our species survived for 44,000 years, prior to the introduction of agriculture, civilization, and division of labor. We learned to cooperate in the face of significant obstacles.

Even in modern times, (i.e. since the advent of civilization), subsistence economics are almost always cooperative in nature.

I tend toward the view that human beings as essentially individualists, in a war of all against all, is very recent. Personally, I blame Hobbes...although Calvin is at least partly responsible. (Great comic strip though).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 3:23:38 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous Conservative said:
"Again, you make a statement (That I'm simply saying this), which isn't accurate."

You have listed a series of traits that you think define liberal and conservative, and you back this up with a couple of other posters agreeing with part of what you say. Nowhere have you shown that this is actually how liberals and conservatives actually act, although I am sure that conservatives would like to think that they do. I posted Bristol Palin and Newt Gingrich because of their acceptance by conservatives, which seems indicate to me that there is a significant difference how conservatives really act and how they think that they act.

Secondly, I pointed out several places where your r/K theory breaks down. All you did was basically say that these are part of a different theory. If you cannot demonstrate that the theory that you are basing this on is valid, then what is the point of using it.

"What I find fascinating is you seem to view r negatively. If I may ask, why don't you like r, or want to be associated with it?"

You're the one that puts the negative connotations on r and tries to link them to liberals, not me. You already admitted your bias.

"At this point, I am solely talking about the ideology which emerges at the national level, as everyone who associates with Conservatism and everyone who associates with Liberalism all merge into their respective ideological groups."

You are using an invalid theory to drive to prove an ideological point that looks at people in a ridiculously simplistic way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 4:36:29 PM PDT
NeonPisces

I'm full of food and alcohol, but I will do my best to explain in five minutes.

When there aren't enough resources to go around, somebody will die. That is K-selection. Initally, this will produce individual competition for the limited resources, by individuals who don't want to die. That will eventually give way to groups of individuals grouping together, as a competitive strategy, to gain favor over individualists.

Groups don't get together to share risk, that is a bad competitve strategy. This is why k-selected groups tend to be aggressive, territorial, and willing to fight.

"We learned to cooperate in the face of significant obstacles."

Yes, but those obstacles were other groups of humans, whose territory and resources we intended to take by force, because there weren't enough to go around. We were not a peaceful species, when resources became limited, and somebody needed to die. And we only became cooperative, in order to outcompete others.

Again, I didn't write, or even discover K-selection. I learned it, probably first, ages ago in HS Biology. Got it again in college several times, and then saw it first hand in petri dishes, where fitness was either favored and grew, or wasn't, and withdrew.

I agree on the comic strip. Calvin was cool.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 5:07:17 PM PDT
"You have listed a series of traits that you think define liberal and conservative, and you back this up with a couple of other posters agreeing with part of what you say. "

I see why there's confusion. You didn't read the paper I linked at the beginning, with my cites to the previous literature from peer reviewed journals, and texts that are accepted as scientifically sound, all at the end. Altmeyer and Adorno (from my previous post) were semi-famous Liberal professors who were part of a movement from the fifties to the eighties or nineties. They devoted themselves to the study of Conservatism, with the goal of showing it to be a pathology. They produced a bunch of texts, which attempted to characterize left and right, from the perspective of left-good, right-bad. Their characteristics of ideologues are part of the body of work which is accepted as defining ideology, and they support the sexual behavior. Neuropolitcs (I linked the survey a while back) is a liberal group devoted to the science behind ideology, and they support increased parnters and diminished length of relationships. Jost is a current professor at NYU who devotes himself to the study of ideologues, and has amassed a massive amount of data on their traits through the papers he's published - he supports diminshed loyalty, actually (he says out-right, Conservatives have higher loyalty to in-group). The GSS is the gold standard for Sociological data, and correlates all of it's data to ideological self identification which is as accurate a measure as possible - it supports the social stuff. I forget everyhting else I have cited, but every claim I made was only made if I found the cite, and it was not in conflict with others.

"Nowhere have you shown that this is actually how liberals and conservatives actually act."

The way it works is you begin by citing the state of the art from other studies, to establish what you are saying. In this case, I didn't show Liberalism had these traits by doing surveys myself (that would be an impossibly huge survey to do) - rather others before me in the political sciences spent a lot of time amassing the data in each area I cite, and then they had peers review it prior to publication. It is they who said all this about ideologues- I just cite their work to support my own.

Today, if you want to write a paper on ideologues, you don't just say what you think they are like. You go back to the previous research which has built up, and show what it has agreed upon as truth. Like it or not, that's what I did, and I am being accurate according to the official data on the subject.

"I posted Bristol Palin and Newt Gingrich because of their acceptance by conservatives, which seems indicate to me that there is a significant difference how conservatives really act and how they think that they act."

There's a difference between what Conservatives tolerate, and what they like. Newt couldn't win against Romney of all people, even had Santorum dropped. And Bristol isn't going to get elected to anything anytime soon. Both are tolerated, but not widely held up as any standard.

"If you cannot demonstrate that the theory that you are basing this on is valid, then what is the point of using it."

So now r/K Selection Theory is invalid? That's going to be a lot of biology text revisions.

"You're the one that puts the negative connotations on r and tries to link them to liberals, not me."

I've just explained what the biology texts say. Aversion to direct competition, promiscuity, single parenting, and earlier age at first intercourse. It is basic, and I think you have knowledge of that beyond my saying it. At least you seem to have understood the theory when you showed up here.

Now I've got to knock off. Anybody else has any questions, lay them on me and I'll get them tomorrow sometime.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 12:54:29 PM PDT
Much of what you write about is dealt with in a book I am reading:

War in Human Civilization

It looks at how resource scarcity in precivilized people lead to violence. Scarcity has always been a factor in human devlopment where as the envionment set the poulation limit and there was never or seldom a time when human groups had an over abundance of resources. As resources increased so did human population to fill that limit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 2:11:38 PM PDT
Deckard says:
AC said:
"Now I've got to knock off. Anybody else has any questions, lay them on me and I'll get them tomorrow sometime."

Good luck, but this will be my last reply to you. Personally I think that the whole endeavor, whether it is your or other academics, is a vast waste of time.

1) Like I pointed out, you can't even make r/K work for major predators like lions and grizzly bears.

2) Simplistic divisions into conservative and liberal are meaningless. Do you really think that Liberal Catholics support "promiscuity"?

3) There have been many different incarnations of Liberal and Conservative. Do the Liberals of the 1800s in England have much in common with the Liberals of the Chinese Communist Party? Romans were pretty liberal about religion and sex.

4) You treat the concept of resources pretty loosely. Liberals seem to be more concerned about finite resources than conservatives do these days.

Have fun with your hobby.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 18, 2012 2:21:18 PM PDT
Actually, that is not entirely true, since it begins looking at mankind after he completed his worldwide migration.

What I point out, is that as we began our migration, we did so due to resource scarcity in our home territory. That fostered K-selection there, and those who stayed behind were K-selected by that environment.

Those who migrated out, migrated into uninhabited territories, filled with untapped resources, which due to unique evolutionary adaptations we had acquired (loss of body fur, copious perspiration, tool use, etc), they could access easily. That is free resource availability, and it is r-selection.

As time went on, this cohort developed an actual Darwinian Strategy, consisting of traits to motivate migration to uninhabited territories as a means of avoiding the K-selection which would keep emerging behind them, and acquire the r-selection they were best adapted to. They were repeatedly r-selected with every migration, enhancing those traits. They may have seen some selection for out-of-the-box thinking, so as to find novel resource streams, to avoid competition as resources grew scarce. Today, current research maintains that Political Leftists test very highly in preference for a novel environment. They want to avoid conflict and fitness rewarding competitions. They prefer novel solutions to problems. They have diminished loyalty to in-group, they have a low regard for familiarity, and even studies of genetics find that the DRD4 7r allele which is associated with formation of a Liberal ideology is highly present in migratory populations who head towards free resource availability.

As this r-selected cohort spread out, and colonized the more friendly environs of the globe, behind them came K-selection, which then spread out laterally, colonizing the harsher, more fitness favoring environs, maximizing total population numbers by maximizing total environment's colonized.

In short, the pre-Liberal Migrator's desires to avoid K-selection may be the reason we colonized the globe so rapidly. Meanwhile, it was the K-selected individuals which came behind as each new territory overpopulated, who then advanced us so rapidly, by fostering the violence and competition which favored fitness and culled among all of the new variants which emerged globally.

There is no doubt, our long history of war and violence has left us mostly K-selected. My point is that the early r-strategy has apparently persisted within populations, if you examine ideology. Maybe it was helped by agriculture's explosion in resource availability. Maybe it got a boost with each resource explosion, like the Medieval Warming Period's effects on crop output. Maybe it developed other strategies to persist in societies, such as an ability to maneuver through the complex systems of social hierarchies. But it would appear to have persisted, however it did it.

If Liberalism is an r-selected psychology, it will emerge strongly in societies with resource abundance and limited competitive selection (r-selection, as we see in the US today), and wane in societies in which resources become limited and competition emerges (K-selection). I suspect this will be seen to be predictive, if these economic problems ever come to a boil, and resources grow scarce. There is not going to be a lot of Kumbaya stuff, as everybody is out of a job, and struggling to put food on the table.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
2353 Jun 11, 2014
Senate Committee Is Investigating Pricing of Hepatitis C Drug 8 10 seconds ago
disgracefully discharged as truck mechanic for violence and insubordination before w invaded Iraq, gun nut leads othes to shoot kids on our border 32 28 seconds ago
Liberals Disgracing The Flag of Our Republic on Independence Day 1045 32 seconds ago
Why Obama didn't visit the US/Mexican border 147 1 minute ago
A letter to all the people who hate Obama more than they love America 526 2 minutes ago
News Gov. Perry: We Need To Secure Border With A `Show Of Force' 92 3 minutes ago
Israel finally stockpiled enough US and other nation arms to feel secure in another attack 144 3 minutes ago
And the Winner Is..... the Sequel 962 4 minutes ago
Psychologist Analyzes Liberals 872 7 minutes ago
Sarah Palin is right! Isn't it time we impeach this clown? 1230 10 minutes ago
let's stop povety in this rich nation: HERe IS HOW! 1 13 minutes ago

Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  165
Initial post:  Jun 15, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 24, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions