So I did a Google search and here's what I came up with:
Viral infections are hard to treat because viruses live inside your body's cells. They are "protected" from medicines, which usually move through your bloodstream. Antibiotics do not work for viral infections.
So, are you saying that conservatives get under your skin? ;)
So I did a Bing search and here's what I came up with:
1)Mash avocado in a large bowl. Stir tomato, green onions, lime juice, salsa, garlic, sour cream, vinegar, cayenne pepper, and cumin with the mashed avocado until evenly mixed; season with salt and black pepper.
2)Cover bowl with plastic wrap and refrigerate until the flavors blend, about 30 minutes.
So, are you saying that liberals don't know how to make spicy guacamole? ;)
It isn't my fault. You identify yourself as a conservative. I have no choice but to call you a conservative because that's how you self identify, and I must also call you a Democrat because you say everything a Democrat would say.
It is insane that you come to a debate website when your only defense is saying that the other person is talking about themselves. I await your wonderful response telling me that I am insane simply because you heard me call you it.
Rent free is what Democrats want is it not. Everything needs to be free according to you Democrats. Free college , Free healthcare , Free housing what else needs to be free.
Well, no. Democrats are more interested in "free thinking" education. Many conservatives want to turn our schools over to "donors" or corporations who will control WHAT we learn, set the curriculum to what they WANT us to learn without interference from any federal education department they can't control. Take education out from under that "piece of paper" and put it under the control of those GREEN pieces of paper. Then they just MIGHT be able to eliminate liberals .... through mind control. Kinda like communism.
Right now the schools are run by liberals. They teach our kids to be liberal. Only after they go to college AND get their first high paying job do they start to ask questions like, "Who's FICA and why are they getting so much of my money?" Then they become conservatives. ;)
"Right now the schools are run by liberals." See, that's the thing. Another time they will be run by Republicans (I hope, rather than today's "conservatives".) We Americans keep swapping the reigns back and forth, which keeps things reasonable and corrects the bad. Give education to corporations and billionaires, and there will be NO correction ... just trained thought! (From those that already HAVE "so much money" and ARE already conservatives which would eventually erode freedom of thought.
There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that conservatives are holdovers from before we had permanent settlements. Many of their traits; high fear response, strong in group loyalty/out group enmity, over simplified problem solving techniques, high religiosity; are more useful in a scary world where every day is a potential battle for your life. Where every tribe you meet could want your goods and women. Where you don't have unlimited time to make important decisions.
But we aren't there anymore. Life is safer, we can spend more time getting things right, not every other "tribe" wants to kill us. Religion isn't needed. Conservatives are the human equivalent of dinosaurs who happened to survive the meteor by clinging to the backs of liberals.
There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that conservatives are holdovers from before we had permanent settlements.
Is that so? Why have I--an Evolutionary Psych major--never heard of this hypothesis? At least not in the way in which you frame this claim. What do you mean by "permanent settlements?" We homo sapiens were hunter gatherers going back to our first hominid inceptions at around 3 MYA with a. afarensis.
We never really settled down to agrarian cultures and farming until about 10,000 years ago. So for a good 90% of our evolution we have been hunter gatherers. Ergo, your claim is very nebulous and wields a very wide and unspecific time window.
And you need to elaborate on what you mean by Conservatives. You cannot possibly be referring to the political ideology, since that shit did not exist until only a couple hundred years ago. And if you mean conservative to mean one who simply is imbued with family values and is cautious as to embracing progress, well, that is such a nebulous and non-provable trait that it is meaningless.
Got any links?
Many of their traits; high fear response, strong in group loyalty/out group enmity, over simplified problem solving techniques, high religiosity; are more useful in a scary world where every day is a potential battle for your life.
Who says Conservative have a high fear response? Again, give us some links or sources. This sounds as if it is simply your opinion. A conservative would tell you just the opposite, that its the liberals who have an inordinate fear response.
Again, this is scientific nonsense. By fear response if you mean the physiological "fight or flight" mode that we ALL enter when threatened or provoked, then you are again totally wrong. One's political ideology has nothing to do with this hardwired and evolved genetic pre-disposition.
How can a problem-solving technique be "over-simplified?" If it works and is effective, then the simpler the better. And again, this is all your opinion. A conservative would respond to saying that Progressives are elitest and condescending and try to make issues seem to complex so their constituents thinks they need the government to figure it out and take care of them.
But again, all of what you say does not fly biologically or is NOT a documented evolutionary trait. And Again---politics and ethics do NOT effect physical inherited traits.
As far as "high religiosity." There is not proof at all that ancient man was religious. It is likely he believed in supernatural gods, but these were far different than the Judeo-Christian gods. Instead, they were nature-based gods, representing the vital forces of weather and crops and agriculture. Their gods were much closer to, say, what they Native Americans or the Pagans or Wiccans believe nowadays than today's Christian movement.
So if you are trying to say that the Religious Right has an evolved and documented past stemming from selective inheritance through biological Evolution, then again yo are just plain wrong and are obviously fishing to make your biased anti-conservative rant sound as if it has some real science behind it.
But alas, it does not.
Conservatives are the human equivalent of dinosaurs who happened to survive the meteor by clinging to the backs of liberals.
No they are not. There is not human equivalent to dinosaurs, you are speaking of totally different species. And the rest of your sentence here does not even make any sense. Since there were no liberals around 65 MYA when the asteroid (not a meteor, btw) annihilated the dinos, how could anybody back then have clung to their backs? And how would that have helped survive a total blacking-out of the sunlight anyway?
Most of your post is one giant steaming messy WTF?
I believe these answer the main questions you have. There is also a link to a podcast interview with John Hibbings, who was one of the first to propose this theory. That's in the last article, but all are worth a read.
No they are not. There is not human equivalent to dinosaurs, you are speaking of totally different species. And the rest of your sentence here does not even make any sense.
LOL dude. It is an extended metaphor. Seriously, this ain't rocket science college boy. Although I guess we are talking about brain surgery-ish stuff.
So...they wanted me to sign-up for the New York Times on the first link, so I did not read it.
And when I began reading the 2nd link you provided, I soon came across this little nugget...............
""The conservative brain, on the other hand, has greater volume in a region called the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure implicated in emotional and fear-based learning.""
Wow. Really? I have read a lot of bad science and bullshit before but this has to rank up there with the worst. It's pure psuedo-science.
Why?
Easy. According to that crapola, if a person were to change his political affiliations from Republican to Democrat, or, as so many people do, begin life as a liberal and Progressive and then become more conservative as they get older and gain some real world experience, then guess what?
The size of their Amygdala would change!
LOL
Their very political ethos--which is nothing but opinion, at the end of the day--would somehow magically physically distort and change the volume of that region of the brain!
Uh....needless to say, I quit reading any more of your links after that.
Again: something as trivial as one's opinions of politics has no physical basis. This includes the structure of the CNS and the brain. It's like saying that people who prefer Seinfeld over Southpark have bigger pre-frontal cortexes.
Now then...there IS such a thing as what we call "neuro-plasticity" whereby you can sometimes, through a LOT of practice and hard mental work, change your thought patterns and even improve cognitive functions.
But this is NOT what was referenced in your link I read and has nothing to do with woo about Dems and Repubs having differing brain architectures.
1. Its a shame they wanted you to sign up, no idea why. I don't have a subscription and have never needed one for older articles. I've posted that exact same article here and on facebook, and you are the first one to make this complaint, so I don't know what to say. It is the oldest ('08), so I made sure to include more recent sources, but it is quite thorough and well written. A lot of your criticisms can be addressed there, as well as in the gestalt of all of these articles.
2. Amusingly, your rant on the amygdala shows how simple your evaluation mechanisms are on this subject. Remember me saying conservatives tended towards more simplistic thoughts? Well you should understand that you can't do that in science. If you do, you make mistakes.
A. They worded it poorly. It should have said something like "in general the conservative brain has greater volume..." There are exceptions to every rule.
B. Psuedo-science? They actually had links to the original studies. If you are a sciences student, you should have, or be able to get, a code to get in and read those.
C. This is just one characteristic, and it is not independent of the countless other factors involved in the CNS. It showcases a trend, and the effect this has on the person's personality will obviously vary from one to the next.
D. When younger folks change their political stance, it typically happens in their 20s. Why? Well, as you know, the brain changes. At some point, usually in their 20s, the brain has finally finished forming, and from that point on they are usually much more affected by nature than nurture. But, before that, when the mind is more plastic and less crystallized, people can be more susceptible to nurture. So, a lot of people raised conservative might turn liberal in college, and then go back to conservative when their brain is fully formed and the genes are pushing them that question. Oooor....someone can be nonstop liberal, but around 26 or so, after their brain is more crystallized than plastic, they suddenly get very conservative.
E. Yes, many people get more conservative as they get older and we've know why since at least the 90s. Again, the brain crystallizes as one ages. This tends to lead people to have a harder time understanding or feeling comfortable with new concepts the older they get. Since conservatism trends toward being more traditional and resistant to change, a lot of people find themselves gradually shifting over time. Its the same reason why a lot of people get stuck on a certain range of music in their 20s or 30s, and stop getting into new stuff (for the most part) for the rest of their lives.
F. Neither of these affect amygdala size, nor do they need to. Again, other things are in play at all times. The point is, if you have a bigger and more developed amgdala, this tends to cause behaviors that fit in better with a conservative mindset.
G. There are links to the studies in each of these articles I believe. There have been a least 3 peer reviewed studies on this subject. I know for a fact that at least one of them has been replicated in Colorado, Vancouver, Japan and, if I remember correctly, Vienna. All showed the same results. The more conservative, the larger the amygdala tends to be. This is REAL science, man. Just because you don't know enough about it for it to make sense to you, doesn't mean it's wrong.
H. Political views aren't just opinions. Or rather the opinions form because of your programed preferences, priorities and perceptions. And so much of that comes from how your brain is shaped.
3. Uh....needless to say, I quit reading any more of your links after that.
Without even attempting to verify them through a google search or checking the actual papers they were based on. You, a student, chose to try to falsify them based on your own limited understanding of the topic at hand, essentially insinuating that you know more about this than people who've been working in this field for longer than you've been alive. How scientific of you!
"a lot of people raised conservative might turn liberal in college, and then go back to conservative when their brain is fully formed"
I have always said this. Liberals need to grow up and get a fully formed brain. Otherwise they are just dealing with a semi-developed brain. If your brain never fully develops, then you have a mental disorder. If you are a liberal, you either have an under-developed brain (which will correct itself with age) or you have a mental disorder. Either way, you should seek help. ;)
Interestingly, the most liberal countries in the world, the Scandinavian/Nordic nations, tend to score very high on categories like health care, life span, ease of starting business and so on; and very low on things you want to be low on, like crime, poverty, etc. Other European Countries, mostly more liberal than us, mostly do better than us. Arguably the most conservative major European nation, UK is falling further down the rankings as time goes on. Canada, quite liberal, fares better than us.
What are the worst states in the US in many categories? Usually the deep south, most of whom have been dominated by republican policy since the 60s or 70s. High unemployment, low educational attainment, above average crime, racism.
One industry where people spend pretty much all their lives looking at raw data and making sense of it is science. About 92% of working scientists identify as liberal/democrat.
Republicans love to call "Liberal Bias" on the media or education, forgetting that these people deal in facts all day long too.
Increasingly, Libertarian Economists are stuck in Academia. Those who are out there, working and depending on making accurate predictions to stay employed, are tending to point towards left leaning practices, with the majority favoring practices that are far left of where we are.
When practiced properly, Left= success and informational accuracy. Right= Nothing particularly good, aside from a strong military.
Forcing someone to do something they do not want to do leads to problems. Instead of liberals trying to change conservatives, they should just leave and go to Canada and the Scandinavian/Nordic nations. Pretty much any European nation will do. The alternative is increased conflict. ;)
And telling people they can't do what they want to, like getting abortions, gay people getting married and the other legislating of moral values is any better? The conservative view that the focus should be on the individual ignores a) they can only rise up on the backs of other and b) high levels of success creates a gap between the wealthy and the poor. Taken to extremes, this kind of society is not sustainable. Extreme left isn't either, but that's not what I'm advocating for. Focus on society as a whole. Recognize that we are only as strong as our weakest group, and help give that group equal access to opportunity. Its not complex and works out just fine in liberal companies, while more conservative states are a disaster and sometimes a drain on the federal budget. Precedents, Joe. Facts. They usually support center left.
"And telling people they can't do what they want to, like getting abortions, gay people getting married and the other legislating of moral values is any better?"
No, it isn't. Which is why I advocate leaving room on this planet for the people who want to live a different life style.
Same here. As far as social issues go, I'm for letting people do what they want as long as nobody gets hurt. There are a lot of laws, A LOT, that aren't doing what they should and many are making things worse for everyone. I want them gone. In that respect, you could say I'm kind of a small government liberal. Economically, I'm somewhere on the right edge of Democratic Socialist, but that's a whole other topic. On social issues, we seem to have no grudge.
Ideological, self-imposed segregation? Doesn't seem wise. Could limit idealized potential of some areas. Popular regions could find their infrastructure overwhelmed. Plus, its note easy for everyone to just up and move, especially if they have families.
There is a growing school of thought in neurology and psychology that cities are a breeding ground for liberals. People who are unable to take care of themselves and need others to survive. They follow the herd mentality. They don't realize that their life style is extremely fragile. Take away their latte and their cell phones and they are lost. ;)
I haven't had a cell phone in 2 years, and I'm not actually sure what a latte actually is. I'm not lost. I'm not found either, but that's a whole nother story.
Meanwhile, how bout those rural places. Low education, low wages, machinery that is decades out of date. Unless they work for a corporation. Which is in a city. Which is where they will go for treatment for the cancer caused by all that chewing tobacco. Yeah, its a wonderful life in the rurals.
The suburbs ARE where it is at, I agree. But, as a life long liberal (who used to work at Whole Foods, even), I really haven't known all that many people who got into holistic medicine, and many that did were actually conservative. And regardless of ideology, those folks aren't a renewable resource, what with presumed lower life expectancy.
Some stuff is dumb there. It was a great place to work, but I haven't shopped there regularly in like a decade. They have an awesome selection of cheese though.
I never said I was the hippy dippy sort of liberal. I do like my pot though. But that's fine because I live in Colorado. We are legally obligated to smoke pot. At least that's what my pothead neighbor told me a few years ago, and I didn't want to get arrested, so.....
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not on the whole ORGANIC ORGASMS!!! kick, or opposed to GMOs. I'm kind of drawing a blank on anything else though. I used to be fairly centrist, sometimes even slightly on the right on economic issues. I was even a Libertarian for about an hour and a half. But once I got more educated, and especially learned how to think rationally and research effectively, and apply the scientific method to everything; once I got all that sorted out, I ended up becoming more liberal than ever. I may be the only person ever who became a confirmed liberal AFTER giving up my idealism.
Because in the vast majority of cases it is those very Liberals and Progressives who are most in favor of funding and research and implementation of Genetic Engineering-type projects.
And, conversely, most often it is the Conservatives, especially the Christian Right, who are AGAINST genetic engineering. These wack jobs usually claim that anybody doing that stuff sort of science is trying to platy god.
To which I say: How can you "play" a non-existent deity? Is that like playing Odin? Or playing Zeus? Like in a school play or something?