Conservatives are Kooks

[Nbadan]

A New study by the US government proves it once and for all....

Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve



A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox)

One only needs to look at some of the conservative posts in the forum to prove a case study.....

[Anti.Hero]

Bush is now a conservative?

Anyone know where I can find the liberal study proving they act only on misguided emotion, the inability to think long-term, the weakness of having their good intentions exploited, their blindness to see they have a leash on while their elite leaders reap the benefits, their importance to place emphasis on the group rather than the individual b/c they are too weak and know only the strong survive. I'm sure they will find other stuff :toast

[RandomGuy]

WHEEEE!

This thread oughta be interesting.

[RandomGuy]

Bush is now a conservative?

Anyone know where I can find the liberal study proving they act only on misguided emotion, the inability to think long-term, the weakness of having their good intentions exploited, their blindness to see they have a leash on while their elite leaders reap the benefits, their importance to place emphasis on the group rather than the individual b/c they are too weak and know only the strong survive. I'm sure they will find other stuff :toast

I will take this with a grain of salt, as I see it for what it is, a mostly sardonic response to an obviously stilted, if somewhat amusing, OP.

BUT

I am genuinely curious about how one sees liberals as unable to think "long term".

What makes you say that?

[2centsworth]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao Dan calling others kooks

[Extra Stout]

The notion of idealized past can be worthied to the Derridean concept of trace wherein the present is not the present but also is impacted by the past and the future. Such that, both in being and not in being, the dialectic between conservative and liberal is as being inadequate either to describe consevative or liberal tendencies. For if the past is the present, it becomes irrelevant whether the perceived past is equal to the real past, for what is the real past? It exists only in the perceptions of the agent as a trace. The trace is both corrupted in the perceiver and incorruptible, for the corrupted trace becomes real , though not as such, in its interaction with the present and the future, becoming the incorruptible.

Let us then look at the liberal concept of the idealized future. This refers back to Derrida's notion of justice, as unattainable and yet mandatory. In this, we see the conservative-liberal synthesis into messianism, wherein positions signify aspirations. And yet, these significations dissolve into simulacra. Furthermore, the liberal vision ceases to exist as such, since it exists not of itself, but only as differance to conservatism, and vice versa. Therefore, we conclude that the preference of liberalism over conservatism is placed under erasure.

So, what then of the psychoanalytic aspects of conservatism. First, we must ascertain whether conservatism expresses what is or what is not. By claiming to hold onto what is, it denies the possibility of that which might be. But asserting what might be is an act of violence upon what is. As such, the imaging of what might beand the assertion of possibility is inherently phallocentric and patriarchal. Liberalism then is seen as an act of homoerotic rape.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

[PixelPusher]

So, what then of the psychoanalytic aspects of conservatism. First, we must ascertain whether conservatism expresses what is or what is not. By claiming to hold onto what is, it denies the possibility of that which might be. But asserting what might be is an act of violence upon what is. As such, the imaging of what might beand the assertion of possibility is inherently phallocentric and patriarchal. Liberalism then is seen as an act of homoerotic rape.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

What a scholarly way to say "Liberals are fags!" :lol

[RobinsontoDuncan]

The notion of idealized past can be worthied to the Derridean concept of trace wherein the present is not the present but also is impacted by the past and the future. Such that, both in being and not in being, the dialectic between conservative and liberal is as being inadequate either to describe consevative or liberal tendencies. For if the past is the present, it becomes irrelevant whether the perceived past is equal to the real past, for what is the real past? It exists only in the perceptions of the agent as a trace. The trace is both corrupted in the perceiver and incorruptible, for the corrupted trace becomes real , though not as such, in its interaction with the present and the future, becoming the incorruptible.

Let us then look at the liberal concept of the idealized future. This refers back to Derrida's notion of justice, as unattainable and yet mandatory. In this, we see the conservative-liberal synthesis into messianism, wherein positions signify aspirations. And yet, these significations dissolve into simulacra. Furthermore, the liberal vision ceases to exist as such, since it exists not of itself, but only as differance to conservatism, and vice versa. Therefore, we conclude that the preference of liberalism over conservatism is placed under erasure.

So, what then of the psychoanalytic aspects of conservatism. First, we must ascertain whether conservatism expresses what is or what is not. By claiming to hold onto what is, it denies the possibility of that which might be. But asserting what might be is an act of violence upon what is. As such, the imaging of what might beand the assertion of possibility is inherently phallocentric and patriarchal. Liberalism then is seen as an act of homoerotic rape.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

This is why there are more critiques of Jacques Derrida by contemporary postmodern scholars than any other post structuralist thinker--really all the great post sturcutralists fall into the trap of nihlism by this forseen "lack" or the absence of reality they all get off on so much.

Anyway, as a side note, there was a study done in UC Berkley that tracked the development of children over a 20 year period, looked into the development of their political ideologies, that concluded the same.

"As such, the imaging of what might beand the assertion of possibility is inherently phallocentric and patriarchal.Liberalism then is seen as an act of homoerotic rape."
By the way, that is a contradiction, you're watering Derrida down too much to truly explain his theory here.

[Extra Stout]

What a scholarly way to say "Liberals are fags!" :lol
You didn't understand me; you are an idiot.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

You didn't understand me; you are an idiot.

That's because even for subject matter that is usually overly weighty and pedantic, your post was intentionally over the top to the point of being incomprehensible to people that don't have an acquaintance with postmodern jargon.

[PixelPusher]

It was a joke...lighten up, Francis.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

What a scholarly way to say "Liberals are fags!" :lol

even though Derrida does eventually get to a position that is somewhat close to this retarded statement, you are apparently too stupid to decode words such as "phallocentric" to understand that that shoe is actually on the other foot :rolleyes

[Extra Stout]

This is why there are more critiques of Jacques Derrida by contemporary postmodern scholars than any other post structuralist thinker--really all the great post sturcutralists fall into the trap of nihlism by this forseen "lack" or the absence of reality they all get off on so much.

Anyway, as a side note, there was a study done in UC Berkley that tracked the development of children over a 20 year period, looked into the development of their political ideologies, that concluded the same.

"As such, the imaging of what might beand the assertion of possibility is inherently phallocentric and patriarchal.Liberalism then is seen as an act of homoerotic rape."
By the way, that is a contradiction, you're watering Derrida down too much to truly explain his theory here.
On the contrary, by denying the structures they are affirmed by revealing their context. It is only in understanding the absence of reality that we can affirm presence, though not per se.

The intolerance of ambiguity is seen in the role of the consciousness in resolving the wavefunction in quantum physics. If one examines the following:


BRONZE BY GOLD HEARD THE HOOFIRONS, STEELYRINING IMPERthnthn thnthnthn.

Chips, picking chips off rocky thumbnail, chips. Horrid! And gold flushed more.

A husky fifenote blew.

Blew. Blue bloom is on the

Gold pinnacled hair.

A jumping rose on satiny breasts of satin, rose of Castille.

Trilling, trilling: I dolores.

Peep! Who's in the... peepofgold?

Tink cried to bronze in pity.

And a call, pure, long and throbbing. Longindying call.

Decoy. Soft word. But look! The bright stars fade. O rose! Notes chirruping answer. Castille. The morn is breaking.

Jingle jingle jaunted jingling.

Coin rang. Clock clacked.
Thereby the PATERNALIST PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE DEFERRED. For to differ is also to defer.

But look at the word "contradiction," from the Latin contra, against, and dictere, to speak. Which is in another way of saying, "to speak against.' In liberalism there is against-speaking, while in conservatism there is speaking against the against-speaking. The contradiction is inherent.

[Extra Stout]

I once read a study that confirmed the link between liberal ideology and childhood bedwetting.

[2centsworth]

If I ever meet any of you I'm going to kick your ass for making me feel stupid.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

On the contrary, by denying the structures they are affirmed by revealing their context. It is only in understanding the absence of reality that we can affirm presence, though not per se.

The intolerance of ambiguity is seen in the role of the consciousness in resolving the wavefunction in quantum physics. If one examines the following:


Thereby the PATERNALIST PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE DEFERRED. For to differ is also to defer.

But look at the word "contradiction," from the Latin contra, against, and dictere, to speak. Which is in another way of saying, "to speak against.' In liberalism there is against-speaking, while in conservatism there is speaking against the against-speaking. The contradiction is inherent.

Ok, fine if you're just trying to make nonsensical, circular, and masturbatory arguments I'm not going to engage you. I also have no intention of getting into some big Laccanian throw down. That being said, you made a Sacratic contradiction, fuck you're psychoanalysis.

If Conservatism is inherently patriarchal and phallocentric then liberalism would be inherently matriarchal and vaginal. By inscribing homoeroticism into liberalism you are making a patriarchal statement (this is why Derrida is retarded, even though he at least makes sense) because you're discursively replicating the political spectrum as an entirely masculine realm.

And you're statement isn't complete, you currently have if "a", if "b" instead of if "a" then "b" because no justification is given for your claim on homoeroticism.

What Derrida actually says is that liberalism will eventually turn into something akin to self rape, that's what you're confusing with homoeroticism.

I think you would be better served using Zizek here

[PixelPusher]

even though Derrida does eventually get to a position that is somewhat close to this retarded statement, you are apparently to stupid to decode words such as "phallocentric" to understand that that shoe is actually on the other foot :rolleyes

JESUS, was there some DNS routing error that sent me from Spurstalk.com to some graduate level philosophy forum? It was a joke!

[2centsworth]

You guys are chasing the wind, but it's fun to watch.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

You guys are chasing the wind, but it's fun to watch.

No I'm taking the opportunity to call out Extra Stout in the one instance of intellectual laziness I've seen from him in a while, I just don't think the rest of you have the particularized knowledge to catch it

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ok, fine if you're just trying to make nonsensical, circular, and masturbatory arguments I'm not going to engage you. I also have no intention of getting into some big Laccanian throw down. That being said, you made a Sacratic contradiction, fuck you're psychoanalysis.

If Conservatism is inherently patriarchal and phallocentric then liberalism would be inherently matriarchal and vaginal. By inscribing homoeroticism into liberalism you are making a patriarchal statement (this is why Derrida is retarded, even though he at least makes sense) because you're discursively replicating the political spectrum as an entirely masculine realm.

And you're statement isn't complete, you currently have if "a", if "b" instead of if "a" then "b" because no justification is given for your claim on homoeroticism.

What Derrida actually says is that liberalism will eventually turn into something akin to self rape, that's what you're confusing with homoeroticism.

I think you would be better served using Zizek here

would you say he's obfuscating?

[2centsworth]

No I'm taking the opportunity to call out Extra Stout in the one instance of intellectual laziness I've seen from him in a while, I just don't think the rest of you have the particularized knowledge to catch it

we catch what you're trying to do, but you're missing ES' attempt at sarcasim.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

we catch what you're trying to do, but you're missing ES' attempt at sarcasim.

Oh I caught that, but sarcasm is usually better if it makes sense to people that can decode it


would you say he's obfuscating?
slightly

[2centsworth]

Oh I caught that, but sarcasm is usually better if it makes sense to people that can decode it

it wasn't intended to be decoded, but sloppy like NbaDan.

[PixelPusher]

Ok, fine if you're just trying to make nonsensical, circular, and masturbatory arguments I'm not going to engage you. I also have no intention of getting into some big Laccanian throw down. That being said, you made a Sacratic contradiction, fuck you're psychoanalysis.

If Conservatism is inherently patriarchal and phallocentric then liberalism would be inherently matriarchal and vaginal. By inscribing homoeroticism into liberalism you are making a patriarchal statement (this is why Derrida is retarded, even though he at least makes sense) because you're discursively replicating the political spectrum as an entirely masculine realm.

And you're statement isn't complete, you currently have if "a", if "b" instead of if "a" then "b" because no justification is given for your claim on homoeroticism.

What Derrida actually says is that liberalism will eventually turn into something akin to self rape, that's what you're confusing with homoeroticism.

I think you would be better served using Zizek here

What a scholarly way of saying "Liberals are puss-

Aw, screw it. I need a drink.

[Extra Stout]

My lord, this forum is having its very own miniature Sokal Affair.

To the uninitiated:

Sokal postulated that postmodern writing consists either of facile concepts, sophistry, or absolute nonsense couched in big words. This is used by ordinary minds to make them think they are something other than ordinary minds.

So, Sokal wrote a parody consisting of ridiculous nonsense and submitted it to a postmodern critical journal. It was published.

I posted a nonsense post near the top of the thread. Well, sort of nonsense. The words themselves mean nothing. It only has metameaning. The writing of postmodern nonsense is a commentary upon the absurdity of liberal psychological "scholarship" which produces results like "conservatives are poopyheads."

RtD, as if on cue, critiques my nonsense post, thereby confirming my obscurantist point about the absurdity of liberals far better than I ever could.

[Extra Stout]

Actually, this is better than the Sokal Affair in some ways, because I really didn't expect anyone to come in and try to "decode" my nonsense.

I don't think I'll stop laughing until this evening.

[Extra Stout]

It was a joke...lighten up, Francis.
My reply was a joke, too. Somewhere, a French person laughed at it.

[PixelPusher]

Congratualtions on your successful pwnage of postmodern philosophy majors...all two dozen of them.

[Extra Stout]

Congratualtions on your successful pwnage of postmodern philosophy majors...all two dozen of them.
Every aspect of the liberal arts is infected with this stuff.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

My lord, this forum is having its very own miniature Sokal Affair.

To the uninitiated:

Sokal postulated that postmodern writing consists either of facile concepts, sophistry, or absolute nonsense couched in big words. This is used by ordinary minds to make them think they are something other than ordinary minds.

So, Sokal wrote a parody consisting of ridiculous nonsense and submitted it to a postmodern critical journal. It was published.

I posted a nonsense post near the top of the thread. Well, sort of nonsense. The words themselves mean nothing. It only has metameaning. The writing of postmodern nonsense is a commentary upon the absurdity of liberal psychological "scholarship" which produces results like "conservatives are poopyheads."

RtD, as if on cue, critiques my nonsense post, thereby confirming my obscurantist point about the absurdity of liberals far better than I ever could.

Yeah, it might have worked if I had defended either postmodernism or liberalism (i do defend the latter, but no one with an ego smaller than the sun has much appreciation for the former).

I honestly just got home from work and read your post, read it the same way I would have read the work of a misinformed and self important true believer, and responded in an attempt to dissuade you from further using such bullshit in the forum--a las the joke may yet be on me, but it only seems to prove that neither of us have much use for this type of bullshit. That being said, the study in question seems to be psychological not psychoanalytical, so i don't think this applies.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Every aspect of the liberal arts is infected with this stuff.

Nah, most of the new scholars are starting to move away from it, postmodernism has become much more of a nuisance on the academy than a gratifying act of intellectual masturbation (which is what it always was)

[RandomGuy]

WHEEEE!

This thread oughta be interesting.

I wuz right.

After reading a few of the subsequent exchanges, I must give this bizarre thread a solid TU for randomness and absurdity. :tu

[Extra Stout]

Why do people have to over-psychologize the difference between conservative and liberal?

We don't even really drill the positions back to first principles anyway. These days it's just the Blue Team and the Red Team. Here, basically if you have cultural attributes A, B, and C you belong on one team, while if you have attributes D, E, and F you go on the other. If you have a discordant attribute, you suppress it for the good of the team.

The same people run both teams.

So, research that purports to show how one team has cooties is basically the scholarly equivalent of saying "Lakers suck!"

[RobinsontoDuncan]

This is why there are more critiques of Jacques Derrida by contemporary postmodern scholars than any other post structuralist thinker--really all the great post strucutralists fall into the trap of nihlism by this forseen "lack" or the absence of reality they all get off on so much.


That's because even for subject matter that is usually overly weighty and pedantic, your post was intentionally over the top to the point of being incomprehensible to people that don't have an acquaintance with postmodern jargon.


Ok, fine if you're just trying to make nonsensical, circular, and masturbatory arguments I'm not going to engage you. I also have no intention of getting into some big Laccanian throw down. That being said, you made a Sacratic contradiction, fuck you're psychoanalysis.

If Conservatism is inherently patriarchal and phallocentric then liberalism would be inherently matriarchal and vaginal. By inscribing homoeroticism into liberalism you are making a patriarchal statement (this is why Derrida is retarded, even though he at least makes sense) because you're discursively replicating the political spectrum as an entirely masculine realm.

And you're statement isn't complete, you currently have if "a", if "b" instead of if "a" then "b" because no justification is given for your claim on homoeroticism.

I don't see how these posts are some indictment on me *or makes me look like a* subscriber to idiotic postmodern ideology

[Extra Stout]

I don't see how these posts are some indictment on me as a subsriber to idiotic postmodern ideology
What about that postmodern feminist who concluded that genitalia don't actually exist, but are merely a linguistic construct?

[PixelPusher]

Why do people have to over-psychologize the difference between conservative and liberal?

We don't even really drill the positions back to first principles anyway. These days it's just the Blue Team and the Red Team. Here, basically if you have cultural attributes A, B, and C you belong on one team, while if you have attributes D, E, and F you go on the other. If you have a discordant attribute, you suppress it for the good of the team.

The same people run both teams.

So, research that purports to show how one team has cooties is basically the scholarly equivalent of saying "Lakers suck!"

One of the very rare times I've ever agreed with Jonah Goldberg:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072403.asp
"radical Republicans" "conservative Communist Party officials" and the like.


...of course he jumps the shark immediately afterward and writes "Liberal Facism" (Oh Noes! Teh Nazis had organic gardens!)

[2centsworth]

Lakers don't Suck?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

What about that postmodern feminist who concluded that genitalia don't actually exist, but are merely a linguistic construct?

I'M NOT A POSTMODERNIST!

And if you got that impression from reading my posts then you apparently have difficulty noting the difference between a direct critique and a postmodern one

[RobinsontoDuncan]

What about that postmodern feminist who concluded that genitalia don't actually exist, but are merely a linguistic construct?

When it comes to postmodernist feminist theory the deconstruction of gendered discourse has become such an essential battle cry, that this kind of bullshit is actually appreciate by all the brave women rightfully fighting the patriarchy from their cozy office chairs, while sipping their extra caramel mocha latte from Starbucks (they will occasionally take quick breaks in their work to exchange quips with passing faculty members about the absurdity of capitalism and modern American consumerist culture).

I don't want to sound too dismissive here, because even though postmodernism has gotten out of hand (and clearly my penis isn't a linguistic construction shaped by social conditioning from my parents), there have been significant ideas that came from postmodern feminism as far as understanding the full extent of culture's role in shaping our understanding of sexuality, gender, and homosexuality-- but the sad truth is that these people don't believe (and I mean truly believe) half the shit they write, but they see the articulation of the ridiculous as an act of liberation--some how breaking down imaginary barriers and coming up with unmitigatedly stupid solutions like the dissolution of the state to fight poverty and patriarchy (:rolleyes) has some emanicpatory power.

That's what i think about it.

Now that being said, mr. stout--anyone as intelligent as you who could vote for republican candidates more than sporadically for the last 30 years is guilty of far worse-- i don't understand how anyone with common sense could vote for republican politicians, just listening to them give interviews (and this goes for bush down to the most insignificant member of congress) it is clear to me that beyond obviously fallacious rhetoric designed to inspire only the lowest common denominator of voter, these people have no genuine self reflectiveness or cognitive skills.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao Dan calling others kooks

/thread

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sokal postulated that postmodern writing consists either of facile concepts, sophistry, or absolute nonsense couched in big words.

So does that means Xray is a postmodern writer?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't think I'll stop laughing until this evening.

wow-you need a new sense of humor, cuz your current one is lame.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Anyone know where I can find the liberal study proving they act only on misguided emotion, the inability to think long-term, the weakness of having their good intentions exploited, their blindness to see they have a leash on while their elite leaders reap the benefits, their importance to place emphasis on the group rather than the individual b/c they are too weak and know only the strong survive.

these should get you started:

http://www.amazon.com/Democrats-Had-Brains-Theyd-Republicans/dp/0307353451/ref=sr_11_1/104-9952270-5499134?ie=UTF8&qid=1218322934&sr=11-1

http://www.amazon.com/Power-People-Laura-Ingraham/dp/159698516X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/B000RWD3LO/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218323004&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Let-Freedom-Ring-Winning-Liberalism/dp/0060735651/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218323028&sr=1-1