Newsflash: Democrats and Republicans are equally stupid....

[akhhorus]

Well, duh....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show

Subjects were asked to evaluate statements by President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, seen here after a debate on Oct. 8, 2004. Both Republicans and Democrats ignored information that could not rationally be discounted, the study found.

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

My emboldings.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well, duh....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/



My emboldings.
I win!

:lol1:

[Ibleedburgundy]

This is one of the wierdest studies I have ever seen.

The article did not mention what the alleged contradictions were nor did they supply the statements from each candidate. These statements are paramount to the validity of this study. Clearly, a person's understanding of those particular statements and their subjects would effect what part of the brain they used when addressing it. Example: you don't use your reasoning skills on an issue that you have reasoned through 1000 times before. You simply have your opinion, and you would only reason through it again if pressed. While this study may prove a lack of reasoning at the moment of the test, it does not prove that a particular test subject has not reasoned on the specified point in the past.

[BurgundyNGold]

This is one of the wierdest studies I have ever seen.

The article did not mention what the alleged contradictions were nor did they supply the statements from each candidate. These statements are paramount to the validity of this study. Clearly, a person's understanding of those particular statements and their subjects would effect what part of the brain they used when addressing it. Example: you don't use your reasoning skills on an issue that you have reasoned through 1000 times before. You simply have your opinion, and you would only reason through it again if pressed. While this study may prove a lack of reasoning at the moment of the test, it does not prove that a particular test subject has not reasoned on the specified point in the past.
I think therein lies the contention. Partisans, like yourself, are more likely to irrationally defend their opinions, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I think what the study is attempting to show is that partisans who evaluate and assimilate into their opinions any new information that is contrary to their way of thinking is the exception rather than the rule. This study states that partisans are predisposed to see what they want to see through their red or blue colored glasses. It makes sense and I can't argue that. This forum in and of itself could serve as a cases study.

[Ibleedburgundy]

districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

"Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html


Doesn't sound to me like Dems and Repubicans are equally stupid according to this study (assuming racism=stupid).

[fent]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html


Doesn't sound to me like Dems and Repubicans are equally stupid according to this study (assuming racism=stupid).

what exactly does this have to do with the topic?

edit...now you go ahead and add something. i'm not even going to point out how weak your connection of these two things is, because, frankly, if you don't already know that it's weak, you're not going to accept any of us telling you that.

[BurgundyNGold]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html

Doesn't sound to me like Dems and Repubicans are equally stupid according to this study (assuming racism=stupid).

This part of the article describing subject behavior sounds like just about every post you make:

When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I think therein lies the contention. Partisans, like yourself, are more likely to irrationally defend their opinions, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I think what the study is attempting to show is that partisans who evaluate and assimilate into their opinions any new information that is contrary to their way of thinking is the exception rather than the rule. This study states that partisans are predisposed to see what they want to see through their red or blue colored glasses. It makes sense and I can't argue that. This forum in and of itself could serve as a cases study.

It's not my place to define you nor is it your place to define me.

Anyway, I don't think all partisans are necessarily irrational on either side of the isle. Sometimes one political party really is much closer to your belief system than the other. I just don't like this study because it does not reflect what a person has thought through in the past.

[BurgundyNGold]

It's not my place to define you nor is it your place to define me.
Don't tell me what my place is, especially considering the plethora of times that you have characterized other people. The day I take advice from you is the day that the horsemen ride the wind. Anyway, the history of your posts and the ridiculous lengths you go to defend the smallest Dem square of real estate is evidence enough of your partisan nature.

Anyway, I don't think all partisans are necessarily irrational on either side of the isle. Sometimes one political party really is much closer to your belief system than the other. I just don't like this study because it does not reflect what a person has thought through in the past.
Case in point, lol. There are studies to the contrary of what you think staring you right in the face. And yet, you choose to ignore them because they don't fit into your view of the world. Jeebus, does any of this sound even vaguely familiar to you?

[Ibleedburgundy]

This part of the article describing subject behavior sounds like just about every post you make:


I hedge my opinions for nobody.

[BurgundyNGold]

I hedge my opinions for nobody.
Translation: You learn nothing and are closed to change.

[RedskinsDave]

I hedge my opinions for nobody.

Including facts to the contrary.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Don't tell me what my place is, especially considering the plethora of times that you have characterized other people. The day I take advice from you is the day that the horsemen ride the wind. Anyway, the history of your posts and the ridiculous lengths you go to defend the smallest Dem square of real estate is evidence enough of your partisan nature.


Case in point, lol. There are studies to the contrary of what you think staring you right in the face. And yet, you choose to ignore them because they don't fit into your view of the world. Jeebus, does any of this sound even vaguely familiar to you?

For an independant you sure do get defensive about Republican issues and you subscribe to an awful lot of Republican myths (Please tell me again how the 2005 Republican party was the party of small government). Also, you call me a hack while simultaneously giving free passes to guys who obviously vote straight-Republican tickets. I have never voted a straight ticket. You always have beef with every new Democrat-leaning person that enters the Political forum. Maybe you are a staunch Republican and you don't know it.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Translation: You learn nothing and are closed to change.

I have changed several opinions on this forum when people made a good case. On this point you and RedskinsDave are dead wrong.

Also:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeuch
Maybe I did not make myself clear about Clinton's forays into this area, basically I did not support them either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold
Yet, you're the one who thinks it's OK for Clinton to have collateral damage in Bosnia and in the Sudan, but not for the current administration to have the same in Pakistan. I see them as the same, but I'm narrow minded. OK.


Remember this? You were attacking Dukeuch as you do with anyone apparently leans Democrat or thinks Bill Clinton was a good President. He told you he did not support Clinton's bombings and you tell him in your response that he supported Clinton's bombings. When confronted about this you conceed nothing as this utterly obvious contradiction has either bounced off of you like a brick wall or you have conceeded my point in your mind but refuse to do so on this board out of pride (after all, you basically said in this thread you would conceed nothing to me no matter what). Again, for a "non-partisan" you sure do have a lot of disdain for Democrats and none for Republicans.

[BurgundyNGold]

For an independant you sure do get defensive about Republican issues and you subscribe to an awful lot of Republican myths (Please tell me again how the 2005 Republican party was the party of small government). Also, you call me a hack while simultaneously giving free passes to guys who obviously vote straight-Republican tickets. I have never voted a straight ticket. You always have beef with every new Democrat-leaning person that enters the Political forum. Maybe you are a staunch Republican and you don't know it.
And yet, you would have somebody else NOT characterize you?

There are only two Reps on this board of any real tenure: Dave and Fent. I have taken exception with Dave, but not so much with Fent as he doesn't post as much. I don't debate that often with Spence because, for the most part, we agree on things. The same with CNY, except I have debated him on the issues when I felt differently than he does. The minimum wage debate comes to mind, but I would hardly consider my stance to be hard right. It was more conservative than his position but that's mostly because Ralph Nader was looking left at him as he was making his argument. ;)

None of these posters, however, are mindless, partisan lemmings. As such, I have no cause to confront them for such behavior. However, there's a good chance that if I'm regularly confronting anyone on the board that they do not fall into that category. Generally the folks that I will question are the extemists on either side of an issue or folks who are closed minded and unwilling to consider othjer possibilities. In case you're keeping socre, these are known as partisan hacks. I will not hide from the fact that I have problems with such people.

If you had left the safe, warm, smug confines of your own mind once in a while and actually read my posts, you would know that I despise both parties. I am more of a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. If anything, I'm more like Clinton, although I get far less action that he did, I'm sure.

Perhaps instead of attempting to paint me with a Republican brush and asking about nonrelated issues, you might want to ask yourself why if your leftist views are so accurate, so noble and so well thought out, why is it that you are always on that little island by yourself?

[BurgundyNGold]

From that same thread that you were so eagar to jump into. I typed slowly so that you might be able to ingest it.

There is only one person on this thread calling others stupid, hypocrites, liars, telling them that they are "crying," accusing people of not understanding simple concepts such as a "marriage of convenience."
In case it had escaped your attention, my discussion with the other poster (not you, yet you saw fit to inject yourself into the discussion) was quite civil for several pages. It was only after I doubted his bombastic claims to have been in the WTC while it was under attack that he started to launch personal attacks at me. Instead of taking it to a mod like you might've done, I let him say his peace. However, I'm letting him off the hook for his claim. He should prove it or shut up.

I pointed out the hypocrisy of another person's argument; that is not calling them a hypocrite. If they persist in that line of activity, then their actions speak for themselves. I don't recall that I called anyone anything, let alone stupid. I have not called anyone all liars as such, but I will say that I do not believe them until they provide proof of their fantastic claims. I also said I would apologize if such proof was provided. Until that time, anyone who makes outlandish claims that they can't back up is just a Reaper. If they don't, well, once again that speaks for itself.
As for the marriage of convenience argument, I used it and then the other poster referenced back to it using it in the imroper context. How would you assume that the person knew what they were talking about when using the term? Considering your own haphazard use of the English language, perhaps you should reevaluate your position before entering into such matters of discussion.

I do recall having the "stupid" label levied against me, however. I have been called many things by the other posted including: a conservative, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Lee Atwater, ignoramus, a scumbag and being called a dick ... twice. If I wanted to be a "dick", I could've complained about the flouting of hR rules in the poster's name calling -- the likes of which were inescapably direct on multiple occasions.

How is it again that my being called these names your fellow leftist escaped your attention? Oh, now I remember... because you are a partisan hack. And yes, I did call you that; you can quote me on it.

Seriously, let's all turn over a new leaf and try to follow the HR rules. The tone in this forum has become non-productive and it's the fault of the regulars (myself included).
If I wanted to go on about hypocrisy, your arguments would serve as quite illustrative examples. I could just point to you trying to differentiate between corruption on the left and corruption on the right in a thread not a week old. The whole board -- save me -- jumped on you about it, so save your holier-than-though rants for someone who actually cares, which on this board is nobody.

Furthermore, attacking Akh's thesis was deplorable. After that and some of your other antics, you have no room to judge anyone there living in your glass house. It is so fitting that you, off all people, would have the unmitigated gall to even weigh in on some pointing out hypocrisy of others whilst you are in the midst of being fitted for your crown in the dominion.

[BurgundyNGold]

I have changed several opinions on this forum when people made a good case. On this point you and RedskinsDave are dead wrong.
First of all, I commend you on your willingness to change this once. However, the fact is that you were battered and bloodied at the hands of multiple posters at the point where you finally threw in the towel. It was a fool's errand to try and say that either side was less corrupt that the other or to argument merits of Dem corruption over Rep corruption. I'm glad that you finally saw the light on that issue after only 10 pages of ranting like a lunatic or whatever that thread ended up.

Congratulations for not being an idiot.

Remember this? You were attacking Dukeuch as you do with anyone apparently leans Democrat or thinks Bill Clinton was a good President. He told you he did not support Clinton's bombings and you tell him in your response that he supported Clinton's bombings. When confronted about this you conceed nothing as this utterly obvious contradiction has either bounced off of you like a brick wall or you have conceeded my point in your mind but refuse to do so on this board out of pride (after all, you basically said in this thread you would conceed nothing to me no matter what). Again, for a "non-partisan" you sure do have a lot of disdain for Democrats and none for Republicans.
I remember a lot of things about that thread. He, very much like you in the aforementioned thread, was attempting to justify levels of immorality. To him, it was somewhat more justified that Clinton killed innocent civilians in Kosovo and Somalia because, to him, it was somehow given more thought beforehand than what the CIA did in Pakistan. Degrees of corruption? It sounds like that same weak argument that you got bludgeoned about a week ago.

I recall that you saw fit to inject yourself into the conversation for the sole purpose of flanking me. Do not assume that went unnnoticed. You should, however, notice my more dignified decision to not get in on the beatdown when you were getting pummelled by the rest of the board on the aforementioned thread.

I also recall that the poster said he was in the WTC as it was under attack. When pressed to produce any evidence that he was among the 0.000016% of Americans who were in the WTC that day, he chose to call me names instead of backing up his outlandish claims. And this is who you choose to jump in with? It figures, considering the brotherly bond of a tenuous hold on reality. BTW, where has your little pal been lately?

[Ibleedburgundy]

You were wrong to try to put words in dukeuch's mouth and you are still unable to admit it even to yourself. Yes, he called you a name after you told him he was crying, and you told him he was unable to comprehend what a marriage of convenience was, and you called him a liar. At least I am making an effort to not do that anymore. You should too.

Also, you shouldn't comment on the thread in which Akh and I got into it because you clearly did not read it. He called me a child molestor.

IBB, you obviously are a total hypocrite and discussing this is pointless. Feel free to defend Child Molestors all you want despite the mountain of evidence against them(which brings up a whole host of questions why you defended Jackson so passionatly-its one of two reasons equally disturbing and I don't care to know which),

Sorry Akh, you had your chance to clear your name but all you put forth was a Nixon-esque denial.

BNG, How would you have reacted to this accusation?

[RedskinsDave]

You were wrong to try to put words in dukeuch's mouth and you are still unable to admit it even to yourself. Yes, he called you a name after you told him he was crying, and you told him he was unable to comprehend what a marriage of convenience was, and you called him a liar. At least I am making an effort to not do that anymore. You should too.

Also, you shouldn't comment on the thread in which Akh and I got into it because you clearly did not read it. He called me a child molestor.



Sorry Akh, you had your chance to clear your name but all you put forth was a Nixon-esque denial.

BNG, How would you have reacted to this accusation?

Do you even remember what you were posting in that thread? You were defending Jackson to no end. All Akh did was question why. If I remember correctly, you were supposed to apologize to him.

[Spence]

You guys are killing this thread and we've had far too much of that in here lately.

[BurgundyNGold]

You were wrong to try to put words in dukeuch's mouth and you are still unable to admit it even to yourself. Yes, he called you a name after you told him he was crying, and you told him he was unable to comprehend what a marriage of convenience was, and you called him a liar. At least I am making an effort to not do that anymore. You should too.
If you read that thread, he spent the whole first 3 or 4 pages putting words in my mouth, much like what you're trying to do here. I would correct and he would disregard that and attempt to mischaracterize my position. So, when I pose a single hypothetical of my own about Clinton and the Sudan, he hung himself as a hypocrite. He then tried over the course of 2 or 3 posts to come back from that, which he never really did. He just couldn't bring himself to say that Clinton's collateral damage was just as abhorrent as the Bush's in Pakistan. Nor would he admit that the US has been imposing it's will in the same fashion for years, regardless of administration. The poster hated Bush and that was that. Reason had nothing to do with any of his arguments. All he was doing was spouting his indoctrination.

As for your repeated mischaracterizations of my statements in that thread, it goes like this:

1) The only use of the word "cry" I used in that whole thread:


Regarding the political climate in Pakistan. To be blunt and unrealistic, the climate was not so good for us to go to Iraq. To be more realistic in terms of how we would have been received and our prospects for success, the political climate certainly would have allowed us to send 100,000 troops to Afghanistan, but we choose Iraq instead.
To which I replied:

That's true, but crying over spilled milk won't capture the guy today or tomorrow. However, it it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
Hardly name calling and a very, sad, weak, pathetic excuse to attack me on your part.

As for the "marriage of convenience" comment, the poster used it in the incorrect context. I was talking about a marriage of convenience between the US and Pakistan and the poster wanted to talk about Saudi Arabia. Not in context.

And for the last time, I did not call him a liar. He made a fantastic claim that he was in the WTC while it was being attacked. I am reserving judgement at this point, but I have more problem pointing out how deplorable it would be for someone to lie about such a thing on a message board. To this point, this is what we've gotten from your friend to support his claims:

[crickets]

The only thing you have proven here is either that the premise of the thread -- a partisan mind sees what it wants to see -- is entirely correct, or that you are in dire need of a remedial reading comprehension class.

Also, you shouldn't comment on the thread in which Akh and I got into it because you clearly did not read it. He called me a child molester.

Sorry Akh but you had your chance to clear your name but all you put forth was a Nixon-esque denial.

BNG, How would you have reacted to this accusation?
Saying you were defending a child molester is not saying that you ARE a child molester. Much like in the dukeuch thread, you only read what you want to read the way you want to read it. Which, conventiently, brings us around full circle to the impetus of this thread.

You want to be a better poster? How about you worry more about not being so closed minded and making a point of not flanking people for sport?

[BurgundyNGold]

You guys are killing this thread and we've had far too much of that in here lately.
OK, well I've said everything I want to say. I don't know what else I can say. BTW, I think it is a fascinating study -- in the spirit on the thread topic -- how IBB is currently reading only what he wants to read. Doesn't that still make it "on topic"? :D

[Ibleedburgundy]

Do you even remember what you were posting in that thread? You were defending Jackson to no end. All Akh did was question why. If I remember correctly, you were supposed to apologize to him.


Again, you're dead wrong. I did not defend Jackson to no end because in the end I conceeded that I was wrong.

Before my infamous comments Akh called me a child molestor, a hypocrite, and a fool. The quote is there for everyone to see. If you choose not to examine it or acknowledge it you are only doing so in order to try and push my buttons like BNG. Whatever.

BTW, I did apologize but I shouldn't have. The reason I did was because I was under the impression apologies would be going in both directions. I thought surely the Mods would ask a guy to apologize for calling another guy a child molestor but apparently that didn't happen.

If Akh didn't call me a child molestor then my comments on his thesis were constructive criticism. :rolleyes:

[Spence]

I've had it. One thread after another is being hijacked by arguments over who said what three threads ago and who was meaner to whom last week and who is more open-minded. These are not debates, these are pissing contests and any pair of 7-year-olds can have them. I've had more than one complaint from Potomac veterans who think the forum is going downhill because of the constant arguments about who is a better human being.

Let's have spirited political debate and argument and less mindless chatter about who did what to whom in the last thread that was hijacked. If anyone is worried that I'm defining what is acceptable behavior in here, you're right. That's my job.

This thread is closed. STOP MAKING ME CLOSE THREADS!