A New study by the US government proves it once and for all....
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
GuardianA 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 Ins utes 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."
One only needs to look at some of the conservative posts in the forum to prove a case study.....
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
WHEEEE!
This thread oughta be interesting.
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.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
BUT
I am genuinely curious about how one sees liberals as unable to think "long term".
What makes you say that?
Dan calling others kooks
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 erotic rape.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
What a scholarly way to say "Liberals are s!"
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 erotic rape."
By the way, that is a contradiction, you're watering Derrida down too much to truly explain his theory here.
You didn't understand me; you are an idiot.What a scholarly way to say "Liberals are s!"
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.
It was a joke...lighten up, Francis.
even though Derrida does eventually get to a position that is somewhat close to this re ed statement, you are apparently too stupid to decode words such as "phallocentric" to understand that that shoe is actually on the other footWhat a scholarly way to say "Liberals are s!"
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 08-08-2008 at 01:57 PM.
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.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.
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.
I once read a study that confirmed the link between liberal ideology and childhood bedwetting.
If I ever meet any of you I'm going to kick your ass for making me feel stupid.
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, you're psychoanalysis.
If Conservatism is inherently patriarchal and phallocentric then liberalism would be inherently matriarchal and vaginal. By inscribing eroticism into liberalism you are making a patriarchal statement (this is why Derrida is re ed, 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 eroticism.
What Derrida actually says is that liberalism will eventually turn into something akin to self rape, that's what you're confusing with eroticism.
I think you would be better served using Zizek here
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 08-08-2008 at 01:58 PM.
JESUS, was there some DNS routing error that sent me from Spurstalk.com to some graduate level philosophy forum? It was a joke!even though Derrida does eventually get to a position that is somewhat close to this re ed statement, you are apparently to stupid to decode words such as "phallocentric" to understand that that shoe is actually on the other foot
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
would you say he's obfuscating?
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
slightlywould you say he's obfuscating?
it wasn't intended to be decoded, but sloppy like NbaDan.
What a scholarly way of saying "Liberals are puss-
Aw, screw it. I need a drink.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
