Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: The Huffington Post
If you walk away from holiday dinners fuming that conservative Uncle Morton just can't see your point of view, or that liberal Aunt Betty just doesn't get it, a new finding may make it easier to cool your jets. According to the study, conservatives and liberals pay attention to their environments differently, meaning the two sides of the political spectrum quite literally don't see eye-to-eye.
Hmmm... Ya think?!!
Conservatives pay more attention to negative stimuli compared with liberals, the study found.
Well, that certainly makes sense when we consider conservatives are the foundational principles that were set in place by our Founders, and the liberals are all about going against them...what else is there to see 'but' negative stimuli!! :)
#1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:46 AM ESTInteresting...I always enjoy reading the "conclusions", which are presented as "fact".
#2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:28 AM ESTLol, yes... when it's from a liberal's perspective --it's always a "fact." :)
But knowing that someone has a strong reaction to something tells you little about what they do about that reaction. It's possible that conservatives might look away from things that disgust them, Dodd said. Or they might pay more attention to disgusting thingsbecause they're cuing into potential threats. To find out, the researchers created collages of positive and negative images and set up an eye-tracking device to follow where participants' gazes fell. They then had 76 college students look at the collages.
"Conservatives would orient to those negative things pretty much twice as fast, and they would spend quite a lot longer looking at them relative to the liberals, who preferred more positive things," Dodd said. He and his colleagues reported the findings today (Jan. 22) in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
I think that's pointing to something we already are aware of---conservatives 'value' certain ideals and principles, leaving them less accepting of everything, everyone and anyone else's values like a liberal would tend towards... not much different than someone that has a preference for certain foods vs. someone that claims they will eat anything; one experiences 'dislikes' while the other doesn't. ..Yes.. it's very 'biological' indeed!
Sure, for example, if one looks around a room and sees trash in the corner, and then picks it up, wouldn't that suggest a problem solver, and one who cares about problems while intending to solve them? This version suggests a different inner reaction then disgust or fear of a threat.
Yeah, all this is fine and well, but I like how most of the article puts the cart before the horse. From what I read - your natural reactions tend to direct your conservatism or liberasty, not that political views define you reaction to various stimuli.
Having said that I'd like to propose an expriment. How would a conservative and a liberal would react to a half glass of water:
Conservatives - the glass is half empty, this is a worrying tendency, we need to find ways to refill the glass and make sure it stays full preferably without too much overflow.
Liberals - the glass is half full, it is not enough for everyone. We need to establish regulations on who can drink how much, we need to create the government agency to monitor the distribution of water, and we need to make sure that the rich people do not drink first, second, or last - they can afford to by bottled water.
The fact that conservatives act strongly towards negative images may be due to the fact that they have larger fear centers in their brains.
I found this experiment interesting:
In a second experiment, the researchers repeated the procedure with images of polarizing politicians, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Again, they found a political difference: Conservatives responded more strongly to politicians they disagreed with, such as Clinton, than they did to politicians they liked. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger physiological reaction to politicians they agreed with than they did to politicians they disliked.
Conservatives react more strongly to things they dislike while liberals react more strongly to things they like.
That pretty much sums up most political discourse.
That may be, but alternative ways of looking at the data have already been presented.
As another, more specific to your last sentence.
Liberals are more likely to discount any consequences and vote for someone who may make absurd promises....I like ice cream...He promises everyone ice cream...I like him....I'll vote for him....That other guy..told me I can't have ice cream unless I milk the cow...I don't like milking cows....I won't vote for him.....The conservative....It takes a lot of milking to produce that much ice cream...who's in?
Conservatives are much more likely to make up silly scenarios that make no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps that is also a genetic trait.
Conservatives are much more likely to make up silly scenarios that make no sense whatsoever.
And who is looking at the negative now?
Perhaps it is also a genetic trait
Perhaps, or perhaps it is what used to be prudence. When we see a problem we analise and solve, when liberals see a problem they shriek and hope. I also wonder who came up with more doomsday scenarios - libs or people with the brain
It isn't prudent to make up silly scenarios and then present them as evidence.
As for doomsday scenarios, has Sarah Palin's baby been euthanized by the Death Panels yet?
LOLOLOLOL
As for doomsday scenarios, has Sarah Palin's baby been euthanized by the Death Panels yet?
Don't know, have they closed the factory where men were making Global Warming, yet, or is it still open?
So, the majority of scientists around the world have agreed that there is adequate evidence to support the concept of climate change and conservatives believe that scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to fool us all.
Cue the evil scientist laugh: Bwahahahahaha!
And somehow it's liberals who believe in conspiracies. Out of curiosity, what exactly is the purpose of this world-wide climate change conspiracy? Seriously. Why are scientists committing this fraud?
Because they want to keep their jobs.
The IPCC is bought and paid for by the Rockefeller Institute... they want Climate Change to ensure the success of the Carbon Credit Market Exchange.
(I don't have anything more to add.)
Scientists around the world are being bought and paid for by the Rockefeller Institute.
Totally believable.
And yet you believe the data which has already been debunked.....weird.
Which data has been debunked?
You know, by legitimate sources based on info that wasn't taken out of context or blown out of proportion.
Surely you aren't referring to "climategate" - a conspiracy theory which has already been debunked (and by the House of Lords even). Of course it also was debunked by the National Science Foundation.
But I suppose that they're both funded by the Rockefeller Institute, too.
You know, by legitimate sources based on info that wasn't taken out of context or blown out of proportion.
lol...I couldn't have said it better myself.
Is this another example of the Liberal positive mind set? (the topic)?
I'm not the one who brought up global warming.
I'm the one who said that conservatives come up with silly scenarios and present them as evidence.
I then pondered the question as to whether or not it was related to genetics (which ties in with the topic quite nicely). Personally I think it probably is related to genetics.
Well, if you're suggesting that "we" have nothing to do with who "we" are, I'd agree with you.
On the other hand, my point was that global warming seems to many to be a silly scenario with not much presented as evidence. Certainly not enough to destroy our way of life.
So, the majority of scientists around the world have agreed that there is adequate evidence to support the concept of climate change and conservatives believe that scientists are all part of a global conspiracy to fool us all.
That may be, it is the man-made part that seems to be eluding the scientists. Even at a cursory examination of the known data there are three things that are obvious:
As for the majority of scientists - this majority was perfectly happy with the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, as well as with the phlogiston theory. So your quote speaks a lot more to your knowledge of history of science, and to your understanding of what science actually is, than to the actual state of the aforementioned atmospheric science.
But knowing that someone has a strong reaction to something tells you little about what they do about that reaction. It's possible that conservatives might look away from things that disgust them, Dodd said. Or they might pay more attention to disgusting thingsbecause they're cuing into potential threats. To find out, the researchers created collages of positive and negative images and set up an eye-tracking device to follow where participants' gazes fell. They then had 76 college students look at the collages.
"Conservatives would orient to those negative things pretty much twice as fast, and they would spend quite a lot longer looking at them relative to the liberals, who preferred more positive things," Dodd said. He and his colleagues reported the findings today (Jan. 22) in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
The findings provide extra evidence that basic biology may play a role in political choices, Dodd said. Of course, not every country has a liberal-conservative split like the United States. Most likely, Dodd said, you'd see a similar difference between more right-wing and more left-wing people, but the size of that difference might be smaller.
I don't think 76 college students is an accurate test; nor should just 'one' age group be used.
Trying to say that conservatives notice more negatives, while liberals focus on more positives seems silly.
Collages of positive and negative things (it wasn't stated that they 'political' things) would have no correlation to politics. Making the leap from one to the other makes no sense.
#5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:00 PM ESTI wonder how many people don't follow either party line and have mixed views? I'd bet there are plenty of those but these studies seem to only target the hardcore people from either side. I've voted Conservative a number of times and I've also voted Liberal.
#6 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:19 AM ESTThose are good points, Grisham. I don't place much credibility in a study like this. I view it as 'entertainment.' lol
I think a blending of the two political ideologies is the best of both worlds. I think they both make good points on a number of issues.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
