http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,7735909.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-politics10sep10,1,7735909.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

So does that mean being a liberal can be considered a birth defect?

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. :whistle:

Hmm. I wonder which experiences that COULD be?

Iacoboni ?????????????????????


some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Maybe he is a flipflopper.:scratchhead:

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Hmmmmmmm...interesting.:corkysm60:


"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Had a team of monkeys working on that ALLLLLLL week, did ya. I would have to say that most scientists are liberals.:banghead:


:beer::beer::beer:

Had a team of monkeys working on that ALLLLLLL week, did ya. I would have to say that most scientists are liberals.:banghead:


I didn't have anyone working on it. I just passed it along because there was a chance it might be interesting, but maybe you have to be able to tolerate ambiguity to appreciate it.

As to most scientists being liberals, that is really a novel idea to me. If asked, I would have said they were more likely to be conservative than liberal. After all, science is about facts that can be proven, not wishful thinking.

I suppose this shows how far we've come in the last 7 years though. Scientists keep saying things that Bush and his supporters don't want to hear. Bush is supposedly a conservative. Ergo, scientists must be liberals. Karl Rove said it, so its true.

Its kinda like conservatives didn't use to believe we should run big budget deficits. But now that Bush has run the biggest deficits in history, then balancing the budget must be a pinko socialist idea.

Its kinda like conservatives didn't use to believe we should run big budget deficits. But now that Bush has run the biggest deficits in history, then balancing the budget must be a pinko socialist idea.

Bush's spending habits are not "Conservative" he has spent more money than even Bill Clinton.

I think the only one who would spend more money as president would be hillary, but she isn't going to win anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I don't think it is possible to determine ones political philosophy based upon studies such as this. The whole idea of liberal and conservative has changed over time. Many people who voted for Reagan were raised Roosevelt Democrats. Did their views change or did the social views of the nation change? What we consider liberal today may not be considered liberal in 30 years and those people who identify themselves as liberal may be considered conservative in 30 years because they don't accept the cultural attitudes of that time.

I think the only one who would spend more money as president would be hillary, but she isn't going to win anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I hate to hijack my own thread, but your mention of Hillary reminds me of something I saw on TV last night. Two true constitutional conservatives, one who had worked in Bush's Justice Department until he got fed up with running rough-shod over civil liberties and resigned, and another who had worked in the Reagan Administration, were discussing this Presidency that is trying to claim power to do warrantless wire taps, send security letters to libraries and internet service providers demanding to see their files on you and telling them that they do not have to right to even let you know, etc., all without oversight by Congress or the courts.

One of them said that when you consider whether a President should have these powers, don't just consider whether you think THIS President should have them. Ask yourself how you would feel if Hillary had them.

I hate to hijack my own thread, but your mention of Hillary reminds me of something I saw on TV last night. Two true constitutional conservatives, one who had worked in Bush's Justice Department until he got fed up with running rough-shod over civil liberties and resigned, and another who had worked in the Reagan Administration, were discussing this Presidency that is trying to claim power to do warrantless wire taps, send security letters to libraries and internet service providers demanding to see their files on you and telling them that they do not have to right to even let you know, etc., all without oversight by Congress or the courts.

One of them said that when you consider whether a President should have these powers, don't just consider whether you think THIS President should have them. Ask yourself how you would feel if Hillary had them.

Here Here.

I didn't have anyone working on it. I just passed it along because there was a chance it might be interesting, but maybe you have to be able to tolerate ambiguity to appreciate it.

As to most scientists being liberals, that is really a novel idea to me. If asked, I would have said they were more likely to be conservative than liberal. After all, science is about facts that can be proven, not wishful thinking.

I suppose this shows how far we've come in the last 7 years though. Scientists keep saying things that Bush and his supporters don't want to hear. Bush is supposedly a conservative. Ergo, scientists must be liberals. Karl Rove said it, so its true.

Its kinda like conservatives didn't use to believe we should run big budget deficits. But now that Bush has run the biggest deficits in history, then balancing the budget must be a pinko socialist idea.

I knew you didn't write the article, Bill. we can read here in Alabama no matter what you guys think.

As far as scientists and their views, yes they deal in facts all day every day. But, they mostly, as has been my experience (high school-college-and those in corporate america) tend to lean to the right in their social views. I do not know why that would be so "novel" to you.

I knew you didn't write the article, Bill. we can read here in Alabama no matter what you guys think.

I'm glad to hear that, but maybe its writing that's the problem. When you said

Had a team of monkeys working on that ALLLLLLL week, did ya.

I thought the "ya" meant me.

As far as scientists and their views, yes they deal in facts all day every day. But, they mostly, as has been my experience (high school-college-and those in corporate america) tend to lean to the right in their social views. I do not know why that would be so "novel" to you.

Now you are really talking over my head. Earlier you said

I would have to say that most scientists are liberals

but now you say they lean to the right. As far as I know, leaning to the right is generally considered to me conservative. So which is it?

I'm glad to hear that, but maybe its writing that's the problem. When you said



I thought the "ya" meant me.



Now you are really talking over my head. Earlier you said



but now you say they lean to the right. As far as I know, leaning to the right is generally considered to me conservative. So which is it?


Eedit; to the left.:whistle::slap:

I think Hillary`s name should be banned in this site,since every time her name comes up looks like lots of guys was itching to jump no matter what is the subject.But i should say this;
I consider my self somewhat liberal yes in Alabama any way Clintons are not a liberal what so ever. Not even as much as me and I do not go along few ideas democrat have.what was Clintons presidency is it should be seing as what is coming as second Clinton presidency, yes guys I know you do not want to hear it but get used to it She will be our next President and she will do just like Bill has done it, clean up the mess has being created by our current president put Economy back on track for next Republican president to come along and de-railed once more, I think I seing this movie before....And finally Clintons are not a Liberal they dont even represent the left wing of ther own party, When Bill Clionton was a president economy boomed and all big corp. has record gains. How could be some one being a Liberal could have such a record? if she is a so liberal how come she is the one with most money which most of it comes from big corperations do you really think those big boys give away their money to such candidate has a far left idiology?
I dont think so..!!
but I guess I have to live with Hillary only I could wish she would be little bit more LIBERAL... then again she would make much better President then what we have now,
hey guys dont hate me for this.You see I loved you guys all and I certenly respect my president dont hate him even tough he created big mess I learned to live with him so please trying to love Hillary, she will definatly be our next President

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e163/sfarish/sincerely-apologise.jpg

Every president should have that stamp

now this is great way to look at it
Wayward son this was a great post:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounc e::bounce::bounce:

So does that mean being a liberal can be considered a birth defect?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: my thoughts exactly.

As to most scientists being liberals, that is really a novel idea to me. If asked, I would have said they were more likely to be conservative than liberal. After all, science is about facts that can be proven, not wishful thinking.

Strangely odd - but that is also my thought:eek:
I too Bill, see liberalism as wishful (but unfounded) thinking.

How about we just throw this little kernel of insight right out the conservative "does not compute" window:D

Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives

I'm not sure the article, nor the study, prove that political leanings are hardwired. It does state that political-leanings can be measured in different areas of the brain, but to go as far as to claim they are "hardwired" when it's more probable that people learn to use their brains in different ways based on their environment and, moreover, that a lot of folks, as they get older, switch from somewhat liberal leanings to somewhat conservative, seems a bit :crazy:

I'm not sure the article, nor the study, prove that political leanings are hardwired. It does state that political-leanings can be measured in different areas of the brain, but to go as far as to claim they are "hardwired" when it's more probable that people learn to use their brains in different ways based on their environment and, moreover, that a lot of folks, as they get older, switch from somewhat liberal leanings to somewhat conservative, seems a bit :crazy:

then Bill McIntyre must be very uniqe indiviual:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:

Having read the article, I think the only conclusion is that the state of science is at an all-time-low. Somehow pressing two keys on a keyboard 'hardwires your political preferences'.

Next amazing experience- how flatulence can determine genetic disorders.

then Bill McIntyre must be very uniqe indiviual:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:

Tis true.

Rorschach shart-blot tests have been successfully used to determine personality characteristics, so why not?

Next amazing experience- how flatulence can determine genetic disorders.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: my thoughts exactly.



Strangely odd - but that is also my thought:eek:
I too Bill, see liberalism as wishful (but unfounded) thinking.

I was wondering if one of you would catch that bone I threw you. I was simply trying to show how the idea that scientists were all liberals was unlkely in terms of what conservatives profess to believe.

But there is some truth in what you say to the extent that when liberals err, its in going overboard in thinking that people can be helped and that government can cure all ills. They have this Christ-like urge to help the downtrodden. Sometimes they are unrealistic, but at least their hearts are in the right place.

When Convervatives err, its more likely to be a case of thinking that everyone who is down and out is that way because of lack of merit, and the bastards deserve anything that happens to them, because our guiding principle is "every man for himself."

That is why Clinton was such a good President and drove conservatives nuts. Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility, and he balanced the budget for the first time since Eisenhower. Conservatives think we shouldn't help the down-and-out, and he pushed through welfare reform that made it much harder to spend a life on the dole. It must have been very hard for you.

If only he hadn't followed the example of so many conservatives and had extra-marital sex problems so that you were able to bring him down. Oh well, at least it was with a member of the opposite sex, and that looks downright old fashioned lately.

:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:I was wondering if one of you would catch that bone I threw you. I was simply trying to show how the idea that scientists were all liberals was unlkely in terms of what conservatives profess to believe.

But there is some truth in what you say to the extent that when liberals err, its in going overboard in thinking that people can be helped and that government can cure all ills. They have this Christ-like urge to help the downtrodden. Sometimes they are unrealistic, but at least their hearts are in the right place.

When Convervatives err, its more likely to be a case of thinking that everyone who is down and out is that way because of lack of merit, and the bastards deserve anything that happens to them, because our guiding principle is "every man for himself."

That is why Clinton was such a good President and drove conservatives nuts. Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility, and he balanced the budget for the first time since Eisenhower. Conservatives think we shouldn't help the down-and-out, and he pushed through welfare reform that made it much harder to spend a life on the dole. It must have been very hard for you.

If only he hadn't followed the example of so many conservatives and had extra-marital sex problems so that you were able to bring him down. Oh well, at least it was with a member of the opposite sex, and that looks downright old fashioned lately.:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup ::smthumbup:

I`ll signed this as if I wright it

Rorschach shart-blot tests have been successfully used to determine personality characteristics, so why not?

Those tests are a bit deeper, as they involve psychoanalysis of what a person sees in an abstract inkblot. I think they are indicators (some people would see a raghead hiding in every picture, I'm sure) of biases and personality.

(did you read the article before defending it?)

This so-called science has people pushing two letters on the keyboard (dubya and M) and are trying to anticipate which letter comes next. Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

That's about as lame a theory as I've heard. I've been doing science experiments with my kids and for that to be high-level research means my kids will have it easy. The boys are going to love testing flatulence's relationship to patriotism. Here's the theory: non-patriots fart more than patriots, because they're usually damn vegetarians and out of shape compared to true 'dubya' patriots who not only eat better, but keep their cheeks shut.

(btw, huge sarcasm above)

Those tests are a bit deeper, as they involve psychoanalysis of what a person sees in an abstract inkblot. I think they are indicators (some people would see a raghead hiding in every picture, I'm sure) of biases and personality.

(did you read the article before defending it?)

Of course, but I'm not really defending it. It's just funny that something so inane can get anyone riled up at all...

On the other hand, BIG difference between inkblot and shartblot:D

Of course, but I'm not really defending it. It's just funny that something so inane can get anyone riled up at all...

I'm just surprised it is 'science'- more of a rant against what passes for it (ref: fish reductions 'science'). Science used to be respected (http://dipshits.com/word/?p=3) (you must have firefox to read it), and not a sounding board for political opinions (ref: global warming).

On the other hand, BIG difference between inkblot and shartblot:D

Hey, yeah, I guess the boys could combine rorsharch and farting..