Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

tomahawk2406

Well-Known Member
Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their levelof alcohol intoxication increased. Because alcohol limits cog-nitive capacity and disrupts controlled responding, while leav-ing automatic thinking largely intact (e.g., Bartholow et al.,2006), these data are consistent with our claim that low-effortthinking promotes political conservatism.



lol
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
That isn't what it concludes. It comes to the conclusion that the people who give little thought to political ideology generally view things in a conservative matter.
I have had a reverse experience ... many of the intellectually lazy people I knew embraced socialism because it was so nicely prepackaged. For conservative thought to possess the same attribute, it needs to be either extreme unto authoritarianism (hail the King!) or bundled with a successful, prepackaged doctrine of a different sort (God's Own Party). cn
 

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
I have had a reverse experience ... many of the intellectually lazy people I knew embraced socialism because it was so nicely prepackaged. For conservative thought to possess the same attribute, it needs to be either extreme unto authoritarianism (hail the King!) or bundled with a successful, prepackaged doctrine of a different sort (God's Own Party). cn
I thought the socialists were that way too, it is true. So much less thought required.
 

deprave

New Member
Well you are a bit retarded if you think conservatives stand for liberty but I will say that the modern liberal is probably just as emotionally driven by primitive instincs...also want to add the most conservatives would be philosophically driven people and not driven by ideolgy, additionally that most of them don't realize they are actually libertarian and disagree firmly with true 'conservtive values' whatever the fuck that is....where as a liberal person has a more idelogical viewpoint then philosophical just as the study finds, its often the case that liberals are perceived as 'retarded' by a philosophical thinker(and vice versa) because they view the world as 'this is the world i want it to be and this is how it should be, so this is how we fix it' where a philosophical thinker just see it as 'this is how the world works and we have to understand it better to make it work for us'....Ideolgy is absolutely ' more retarded'' than philosophy in my opinion. I mean its litterally repeating the same things over and over for centurays and expecting different result. But as you can understand someone who thinks idelogically looks at philosophical thinker and just thinks..."Ok whats your fucking point, how do we fix it? Whats the plan?" therefore they feel like the philosophical thinker is 'retarded'.

Philosophical/"Conservatvie"/Libertarian/Anarchist thinker: The world is the way it is and we can't make it something its not, to improve the world we have to learn to understand why things happen and adapt.

an idelogical or modern liberal thinker or a True Conservative or Socialist: The world is the way it is because we allow it to be that way and we must fix it by understanding how things SHOULD happen (via specific methods).

Just two different ways of thinking really, I believe strongly in the first because the later seems like a fantasy to me, it trys to make the world into something its not, therefore filled with misclaneous delusions and falses. It is BECAUSE of philosophy that I even recognize this, an idelogue does not see this. I think this study clearly validates this view.

It is important that you recogize these idelogies for what they are, livestock management, treating humans as sheep is not morally or phisopically justified and this is why these systems always fail. Borderline delusions of grandeur by the statist who perpetuate this myth for something like 10's of thosands of years now.

One day you will realize, or someone will tell you, or perhaps they already have, or even perhaps you already know: "Don't worry about things that you don't have the power to change"

and they are right, you shouldn't, its unhealthy, its unnaturual....Idelogies do not effect you, they are not tangible, you can not change them, and with them you cannot change the world. Philosophy, however, is a part of your life everyday and it does effect the way you live your life and how good of a life you have even. Idelegies are pure fantasy and a collosal waste of time.






/thread - take us out tupac "They don't give a fuck about us"

[video=youtube;PuBsNoYn7to]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuBsNoYn7to[/video]
 

mccumcumber

Well-Known Member

Philosophical/"Conservatvie"/Libertarian/Anarchist thinker: The world is the way it is and we can't make it something its not, to improve the world we have to learn to understand why things happen and adapt.
A mathematical approach to this (Mathematics is the subject philosophy wishes it could be, notice how logicians are mathematicians, not philosophers), would be: The world is this way because of these axioms that we cannot change. How can we better understand the axioms to develop theorems, corollaries, and lemmas that are subsets of these axioms. And how can we use our developed theorems, corollaries, and lemmas to better our lives in a way that we know is true because they are in fact a subset of the axioms (undeniable truths). You are constructing subsets of the unchangeable to make it changeable. A perfect example of this would be Euler's indentity:
.
He took every identity and made it into an equation that bridge together the complex numbers with the real numbers. It's known as the most beautiful equation in all of mathematics. This bridge is a subset of Euler's formula, which is a subset of Complex analysis, which is subset of the Axioms of Complex Numbers. So you see, a liberal doesn't think like:
The world is the way it is because we allow it to be that way and we must fix it by understanding how things SHOULD happen (via specific methods).
But rather that change is possible through better understanding. And better understanding can be brought out by proofs in mathematical form, where philosophy falls short.

The common philosopher argument (friend of mine is a philosophy major and argued about the axioms with me) to this is that there are no axioms, however, in order for a set to exist there must be axioms. EVEN IN CHAOS THEORY, there are axioms. Chaos can be explained by pde (partial differential equations). In order for anything to be outside of the empty set or in fact to be the empty set it must have something that explains it. Axioms aren't a consequence of the existence of something, the existence of something is a consequence of its axioms.
 
Top