Study: Trump voters are fear-driven neurotics

(Mar 21, 2018 08:31 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes

Can brain differences explain conservatives' fear-driven political stances?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-attitudes

1. More developed amygdalae are better at assessing threats. So while conservatives see terrorism as a threat, leftists see a democratic election as a threat.
2. Same reason conservatives trust good people to be responsible with guns and leftists are afraid of the inanimate object.
3. Yes, conservatives are often more responsible/disciplined than leftists.
4. More developed amygdalae rope in more brain processes in the assessment of risk, which makes such assessments more accurate.

Quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Analysis of Trump Supporters Has Identified 5 Key Traits

A new report sheds light on the psychological basis for Trump's support.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...key-traits

1. A lack of concern for your feelings and opinions is not authoritarian. They were "unable to address" whether it was associated with "antidemocratic, profascist tendencies".
2. A survey of 406 people is laughable.
3. Leftist "dog whistle" lie.
4. Yet Democratic cities have the most racial segregation. So more interaction, but also more segregation.
5. Relative deprivation is exactly what the Democrats push to ensure minority fealty.

Quote:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Conservatives More Scared of Stuff Than Liberals?

https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/are-conse...erals.html

Again, under-developed amygdalae are like threat-assessment retards.

Quote:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why fear is more prevalent — and powerful — among conservatives

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...6cc4b80fa1

Admitted leftist who managed to deny the need to assess group statistics when individual assessment is not possible.

Quote:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inters...rK5xejwbIU

"detecting and judging conflict and error" is only as good as your data, which for leftists is increasingly insular. This means that the only detection of error going on is departure from the politically correct, and the under-developed amygdala response of exaggerated hysteria. Even fully-vetted leftists are being called alt-right for departure from even a single politically correct position.

(Mar 21, 2018 10:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Mar 21, 2018 09:50 PM)Yazata Wrote: I've been talking to MR for something like 20 years, dating back to Webtv back in the day. I've stuck my neck out on Sciforums several times to defend him when I thought that he was being unfairly attacked.

I believed he was my friend. Apparently I was wrong.

If Scivillage isn't going to be an enjoyable place to discuss interesting things with friends, if it's going to be divided like the rest of life by implacable political hatreds, then it no longer seems to have any value for me. For me, its value was mostly that it was a refuge from all of that.

Frankly, I'm not sure I whether I'm going to continue posting here at all.

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

I've disagreed with MR on several occasions and on various subjects.  He even told me to fuck off once.  Is there something going on behind the scenes that I'm not aware of?

That's a good quote SS. No..there's no backstory here. I'm just posting scientific studies about the brains and psychology behind political ideologies. This is still a science forum I gather. Sorry if that steps on some people's toes.

"Knowing why someone is the way they are helps us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe. And in a time when there actually are real threats present, like Ebola and ISIS, it is essential that we keep the paranoia at bay and a calm collectedness when making decisions."--- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-attitudes

Those hardly qualify as science, since the heavy bias is on full display, in both the premises and the subjective interpretation of findings.
But then, the OP isn't known for being able to understand evidence and scientific methodology.

Speaking of people who don't use reason, see all those leftists who were sure the world was going to end, and still may, because a legal, democratic election didn't go their way.

(Mar 21, 2018 11:13 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: That's a good quote SS. No..there's no backstory here. I'm just posting scientific studies about the brains and psychology behind political ideologies. This is still a science forum I gather. Sorry if that steps on some people's toes.

I’m not claiming to know what’s going on in Yazata’s mind but I am curious about something.  You know that Facebook scandal that’s going on right now?  Well, I wonder how vulnerable I’d be to that type of psychological manipulation.  And you, how vulnerable do you think you’d be?  

Quote:Debate is combative and seeks to be victorious; it wants to express itself and say it is better than you. Discussion can be described as debate trying to play nice. Much like debate, it is interested in advocating its view points and challenging those of others.

Dialogue, on the other hand, seeks to find a shared connection. It is not concerned with winning or losing, rather it aspires to listen more deeply, understand more fully, and build a collective point of view. source

Syne has already confessed that his sole purpose here is to advocate his view and challenge others.  I’m all for that but I’m also interested in understanding other people’s views.  I'm not really interested in building a collective point of view, though. I’m not a big fan of conformity because I think diversity is essential.  

How do you decide on your approach when you enter a discussion and what are your outcome expectations?

Quote:Well, I wonder how vulnerable I’d be to that type of psychological manipulation. And you, how vulnerable do you think you’d be?

If it was all pro-Trump ads, then I wasn't manipulated at all. I doubt that sort of targeted propagandizing would have much effect on my POV.

Quote:How do you decide on your approach when you enter a discussion and what are your outcome expectations?

I just post what I believe to be the case and let the chips fall where they may. But usually I only debate when challenged. I'm not a big fan of arguing, seeing how it so quickly turns petty and combative online. I much prefer calm dialog, in line with your quoted definition. I expect a civil exchange of perspectives conducive to a better understanding of the issue overall.

(Mar 20, 2018 06:03 AM)Yazata Wrote: The Australians and Brits who authored this junk science "study" (some of whom have probably never met a Trump supporter face-to-face) talk about 3 million US "participants", but 'participants' in what exactly? What is the source of this sample of theirs? How can they dismiss millions of people as "neurotic" without any of those people being individually examined and diagnosed by mental health professionals? On the basis of what?

Generic statisticians complain about the errors that their discipline-specific colleagues make in the social and biomedical sciences. Managers and administrations across the world desire authorities who can deliver them professional hermeneutic output concerning information. Even when no reliable expertise may actually be possible in a particular area. Freeman Dyson: "The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers [...or causes, connections, etc]. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers [...or causes, connections, etc]. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, 'Sorry, but we don’t know'. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities."

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ar...ed.0020124

I wouldn't necessarily go that far, since the oscillation of quantitative data interpretations to putative "false" status may not be any more permanent than when they fluctuated to a putative "warranted truth" or "fact" status. Studies proclaiming both the benefits of Vitamin E supplements and the harm of vitamin E supplements have revived both tentative conclusions over and over for decades.

- - -

(Mar 22, 2018 03:55 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I’m not claiming to know what’s going on in Yazata’s mind but I am curious about something.  You know that Facebook scandal that’s going on right now?  Well, I wonder how vulnerable I’d be to that type of psychological manipulation.  And you, how vulnerable do you think you’d be?  

Part of the problem are assumptions like:
A) There is no leftist propaganda.
B) That telling people what they already think really manipulates them at all.

Everyone is vulnerable to having their biases confirmed.

(Mar 22, 2018 11:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Everyone is vulnerable to having their biases confirmed.

Yep. None of us are immune. If you take this test, and tell me your results, I'll tell you mine.

The one on social attitudes.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

What do you say, will you?

(Mar 23, 2018 01:55 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Mar 22, 2018 11:45 PM)Syne Wrote: Everyone is vulnerable to having their biases confirmed.

Yep.  None of us are immune.  If you take this test, and tell me your results, I'll tell you mine.

The one on social attitudes.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

What do you say, will you?

Already did: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-4370-p...l#pid14809
No one took me up on the challenge.

Zero bias between JFK and Trump.
Slight white preference.
Zero automatic association between weapons and harmless object with white and black Americans.

(Mar 20, 2018 06:03 AM)Yazata Wrote: How can they dismiss millions of people as "neurotic"

"dismiss" ?

opiod addiction
anti-depresant drug prescriptions

you may wish to re orientate that comment to avoid falling foul of the very suggestion of your word to "dismiss" by mental illness.