It really is a testament to how much instinct really plays into human behavior. Humans were always social animals, and as such we're predisposed to favor positions that seem to push for reactionary policies that seek to punish behavior that violates the social contract rather than utilitarian policies that allow for "unfair" results.

Great example: incarceration. No matter how many studies show up that show the deterrence factor of tougher sentencing isn't really high or that job training and rehab programs are more effective at preventing criminals from committing crimes than more severe detention, we won't be changing the model anytime soon. The human mind is uncomfortable with rewarding bad behavior by spending to enhance the lives of criminals, so we essentially opt to pay the premium of worse crime rates and more expensive detention to see people pay.

It's like with monkeys: studies show that they will not perform a group activity if doing it together will lead to one of them getting a better reward than the rest consistantly. They would rather not get food than see the "cheater" get an unfair portion of the reward.

Much of conservative and liberal populism is based on this very deep desire to see the "cheats" at whichever end of the scale they see them at get punished; it's sad, but it's the way our gut reactions work.

spongeboob: FTFA As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.

That says to me that liberals are poor and can't afford to imbibe as much. Without knowing the base statistics of the groups, that means nothing. This is a perfect reason why the science part of social science is wrong. A more correct study would be test, drink, test. Not skip to just the third part.

I notice no distinction is made between SOCIAL conservatism and conservative political thought.

I think we can all agree that that maroons like Palin and Rush ditto-head trightwing bible-thumpers typify low-intellect thinking in much the samw way that unemployed stoner slackers typify the low end of the brain poll for the left.

But the religious right/social right is not the same thing as George Will, William F. Buckley type conservatism which is most definately intellectual.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: [t3.gstatic.com image 179x282]

So this guy must be a Rhodes scholar then?

LOL THE BLACK GUY STEALING STUFF IS CLEARLY A LIBERAL AND THEREFORE SMART I AGREE

ghare: Libs are all afflicted with the same problem:

They think that by showing someone the facts and proving them wrong, you can get them to change their mind.

All you actually do is make them feel stupid, and that makes them mad.

Facts are not your friend when arguing with conservatives. It's all about feelings.

You libs better learn this.

It is slightly ironic in that you never offer any facts in any of your arguments.

Virtuoso80: "High-effort" thinking, of course, leads one to Libertarianism.

hahaohwaityou'reserious.jpg

Corvus: ghare: Libs are all afflicted with the same problem:

They think that by showing someone the facts and proving them wrong, you can get them to change their mind.

All you actually do is make them feel stupid, and that makes them mad.

Facts are not your friend when arguing with conservatives. It's all about feelings.

You libs better learn this.

Yeah. I have learned this. People on the left have to understand to change a conservatives mind you need to go "I am like you" not "the facts show you are wrong". Because they don't use facts they just trust people they identify with.

Have you finally admitted bush never signed fy09? It has been a week or two since I last corrected you. Speaking of facts and all.

KarmicDisaster: Conservative Deep Thinking in a nutshell:

"My buddy told me that his friend's dad said that he heard such and such happened. Therefore such and such happens all the time and is a huge problem, so suck it libs".

It is even simpler than that.

Different from me = bad
Complicated science = God did it
Complicated science + costs me something = fabrication

Obama is a great example. He is serving as a Moderate Republican, and they think he is to the left of Lenin. Since they aren't thinking seriously, that is why many consider the conservative reaction to be founded in racism.

lennavan: Snowflake Tubbybottom: [t3.gstatic.com image 179x282]

So this guy must be a Rhodes scholar then?

LOL THE BLACK GUY STEALING STUFF IS CLEARLY A LIBERAL AND THEREFORE SMART I AGREE

I think he was just proving that the study was correct.

Cache: FTFA: "a study published in the journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political views in adulthood."

This is common knowledge. But it requires effort to grasp it.

And retarded liberals quoting this study consistently drop the social part of social conservatives. This study was likewise flawed based on assertions from the professor on what defined a social conservative. He didn't use an independent scale, instead he relied on his own bias to determine which answer was more conservative. This is what statisticians refer to as allowing bias into the system.

Grungehamster: Great example: incarceration. No matter how many studies show up that show the deterrence factor of tougher sentencing isn't really high or that job training and rehab programs are more effective at preventing criminals from committing crimes than more severe detention, we won't be changing the model anytime soon. The human mind is uncomfortable with rewarding bad behavior by spending to enhance the lives of criminals, so we essentially opt to pay the premium of worse crime rates and more expensive detention to see people pay

That is a great example, but a fair amount of countries in Europe don't suffer from the "people must be punished" mentality. I don't doubt your post is accurate, but I do believe America has a cultural problem with "crime" and punishment. We have cultivated a petty, greedy, mean culture and it shows.

If their is no victim their is no crime.

BojanglesPaladin: But the religious right/social right is not the same thing as George Will, William F. Buckley type conservatism which is most definately intellectual.

And nearly extinct.

That explains why, every time I discuss politics with my conservative brother in law, he says that I'm thinking about it too hard. Typically he ends his points with, "it's just common sense". Now, when someone says "common sense" my BS detector goes off.

Grungehamster: It really is a testament to how much instinct really plays into human behavior. Humans were always social animals, and as such we're predisposed to favor positions that seem to push for reactionary policies that seek to punish behavior that violates the social contract rather than utilitarian policies that allow for "unfair" results.

Great example: incarceration. No matter how many studies show up that show the deterrence factor of tougher sentencing isn't really high or that job training and rehab programs are more effective at preventing criminals from committing crimes than more severe detention, we won't be changing the model anytime soon. The human mind is uncomfortable with rewarding bad behavior by spending to enhance the lives of criminals, so we essentially opt to pay the premium of worse crime rates and more expensive detention to see people pay.

It's like with monkeys: studies show that they will not perform a group activity if doing it together will lead to one of them getting a better reward than the rest consistantly. They would rather not get food than see the "cheater" get an unfair portion of the reward.

Much of conservative and liberal populism is based on this very deep desire to see the "cheats" at whichever end of the scale they see them at get punished; it's sad, but it's the way our gut reactions work.

And, just as true, both views of who the "cheats" are are equally grounded. After all, the extremely powerful are balanced in power by the extremely poor.

TAX CUTS

/The low-effort answer to any problem.

BojanglesPaladin: I notice no distinction is made between SOCIAL conservatism and conservative political thought.

I think we can all agree that that maroons like Palin and Rush ditto-head trightwing bible-thumpers typify low-intellect thinking in much the samw way that unemployed stoner slackers typify the low end of the brain poll for the left.

But the religious right/social right is not the same thing as George Will, William F. Buckley type conservatism which is most definately intellectual.

How many of them remain? Intellectual conservative has almost become an oxymoron at this point.

Catlike Typist: Studies show conservatives "low-effort" thinking.

They also accidentally their verbs.

I like it more when people verb their nouns. Verbing adverbs makes my head hurtfully.

TIKIMAN87: Why are liberals so stupid?

BECUZ THEYRE INFERIOR

BojanglesPaladin: I think we can all agree that that maroons like Palin and Rush ditto-head trightwing bible-thumpers typify low-intellect thinking in much the samw way that unemployed stoner slackers typify the low end of the brain poll for the left.

More to the point, just as conservatives have canonized anti-intellectuals like Palin and Limbaugh, so have progressives elevated to positions of high influence unemployed stoner slackers.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: [t3.gstatic.com image 179x282]

So this guy must be a Rhodes scholar then?

Another great moment in conservative thinking.

/He's black, he must be a librul!

Snowflake Tubbybottom: [t3.gstatic.com image 179x282]

So this guy must be a Rhodes scholar then?

You provide an excellent example, though perhaps not the one you were intending.

Studies show conservatives "low-effort" thinking.

Not that it's proof but I imagine you can make a pretty farking long list of low-effort thinking conservative stances.

• Raising taxes on the top 1% won't fix the debt entirely, therefore we should not raise taxes on them ever.
• The health care bill is really long, therefore it is bad.
• If we allow gays to marry what's next, turtles?
• Obama's entire first term being centrist was just to trick you into his second term where he can surprise you with communism.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: [t3.gstatic.com image 179x282]

So this guy must be a Rhodes Roads scholar then?

fixed that for you
stupid Lib, cant even spell

Oh noes! Forgot an apostrophe!
There were no missing verbs. There was supposed to be an apostrophe at the end of "conservatives".

Studies show conservatives' "low-effort" Thinking.

There. I fixed it.

MontanaDave: Catlike Typist: Studies show conservatives "low-effort" thinking.

They also accidentally their verbs.

I like it more when people verb their nouns. Verbing adverbs makes my head hurtfully.

You should unpack your adjectives

bugontherug: Grungehamster: It really is a testament to how much instinct really plays into human behavior. Humans were always social animals, and as such we're predisposed to favor positions that seem to push for reactionary policies that seek to punish behavior that violates the social contract rather than utilitarian policies that allow for "unfair" results.

Great example: incarceration. No matter how many studies show up that show the deterrence factor of tougher sentencing isn't really high or that job training and rehab programs are more effective at preventing criminals from committing crimes than more severe detention, we won't be changing the model anytime soon. The human mind is uncomfortable with rewarding bad behavior by spending to enhance the lives of criminals, so we essentially opt to pay the premium of worse crime rates and more expensive detention to see people pay.

It's like with monkeys: studies show that they will not perform a group activity if doing it together will lead to one of them getting a better reward than the rest consistantly. They would rather not get food than see the "cheater" get an unfair portion of the reward.

Much of conservative and liberal populism is based on this very deep desire to see the "cheats" at whichever end of the scale they see them at get punished; it's sad, but it's the way our gut reactions work.

And, just as true, both views of who the "cheats" are are equally grounded. After all, the extremely powerful are balanced in power by the extremely poor.

They aren't; I'm saying that these "gut reaction" studies show why populism is so appealing. There are very effective and wonky arguments as to why more progressive taxation is necessary and that the sort of wealth concentration we're seeing today has long term reprocussions if we don't adress it in some manner. Those aren't the arguments that win the day. You convince people to pursue liberal policy goals by talking up how much Wall Street games the system and that this is correcting for the abuse by the people who are screwing you.

Populism is the most effective way to convince people to pursue policy goals. I happen to think conservative policy makers have a far more populist streak right now in this country, and the "intellectual right" of the 70's and 80's has been replaced by this magical thinking that feels right. Yes, liberals do it too, but I see a hell of a lot more pragmatic people on that side who argue based on stats instead of ideological dogma.

bugontherug: BojanglesPaladin: I think we can all agree that that maroons like Palin and Rush ditto-head trightwing bible-thumpers typify low-intellect thinking in much the samw way that unemployed stoner slackers typify the low end of the brain poll for the left.

More to the point, just as conservatives have canonized anti-intellectuals like Palin and Limbaugh, so have progressives elevated to positions of high influence unemployed stoner slackers.

In what way, bug?

Just want to say: Downing Effect.

Remember it, the next time a Republican mouthpiece comes out with the old gem "I don't see why they even think they're smarter than I am"...

You dumb liberals don't know what you're talking about. With your fancy shmancy white coats and clip boards, just a bunch of phewie if'n you ask me.

Actin' all smart and uppitty jus cuz you managed to get Osama Bin Obama in the Whitehouse, don't mean you all gotta go and tell real Americans that their dumber than you. Ask that Santorum feller, he'll tell ya, College is evil and nobody should go, all that book reading's just a waste of time, only book you need is the Holy Bible.

festus963: That explains why, every time I discuss politics with my conservative brother in law, he says that I'm thinking about it too hard. Typically he ends his points with, "it's just common sense". Now, when someone says "common sense" my BS detector goes off.


Yup-- Gotta watch for thought terminating cliches. They are the verbal implementations of Crimestop.
Fight fire with fire, I say-- State your argument then tack on "That's a no-brainer." or "That's a given."

MadMonk: You dumb liberals don't know what you're talking about. With your fancy shmancy white coats and clip boards, just a bunch of phewie if'n you ask me.

Actin' all smart and uppitty jus cuz you managed to get Osama Bin Obama in the Whitehouse, don't mean you all gotta go and tell real Americans that their dumber than you. Ask that Santorum feller, he'll tell ya, College is evil and nobody should go, all that book reading's just a waste of time, only book you need is the Holy Bible.

notsureifserious.jpg

Some people should still go to college, IMO

Corvus: ghare: Libs are all afflicted with the same problem:

They think that by showing someone the facts and proving them wrong, you can get them to change their mind.

All you actually do is make them feel stupid, and that makes them mad.

Facts are not your friend when arguing with conservatives. It's all about feelings.

You libs better learn this.

Yeah. I have learned this. People on the left have to understand to change a conservatives mind you need to go "I am like you" not "the facts show you are wrong". Because they don't use facts they just trust people they identify with.

A psychologist needs to right a book on how to talk with conservatives. Seriously, I'd buy that in a heart beat. My brain is incapable of understanding a point of view that doesn't look at objective information.

I do however remember a time when I smoked so much weed while watching the Daily Show I had an epiphany and briefly understood how they looked at the world. I think I literally smoked myself retarded.

I would have to say that conservatism is, by definition, low-effort thinking. Their attitudes and opinions simply don't change. No matter what. Even if new and better information is introduced. It doesn't matter... they simply apply a "yeah, but I think this" sub-routine to the new input, and it ceases to matter.

A good example of this dynamic at work is gauging people's reactions to that famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit from years ago. Almost everyone, when they first heard of it, had the same reaction... wtf? coffee is supposed to be hot! What a stupid, frivolous suit. I thought the same thing, too.

But then, new information came out. And still more information came out. And after a while, it became apparent that McDonald's really had done something seriously wrong. Their farking coffee causes flesh-melting third-degree burns? And they all knew it? And they'd been warned repeatedly... but were still handing it out like lollipops? Huh.

But years and years later, that case is still the poster child for tort reform. And people are still repeating, over and over, "hurr, coffee's supposed to be hot, derp."

It doesn't matter how many times it's discussed; the details of the case never make it past the "low-effort" filter.

This completely ties in with two studies that suggest the following:

One, the dumber people are, the less likely they are to realize it. That is, they don't even have the basic reasoning tools to figure out that the people around them are smarter than they are. They just KNOW they're smarter, even though quantitatively, they're demonstrably dumber. They aren't even smart enough know they're dumb. Smart people know enough to know they don't know enough, and tend to discount their own knowledge because of this uncertainty. The end result is that smart people don't think they're smart, and dumb people think they're brilliant.

And two, the fact that the more misinformed a person is, the more tightly they will cling to those incorrect ideas and beliefs, particularly in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. The more proof you provide (as in climate change) the harder they will work to ignore it, debunk it, or flat-out deny it.

Put these two things together in one person, and, well, you get what the article is talking about. Sadly, it appears that there are an awful lot of Americans with at least one of these problems, and many with both.

Mr_Fabulous: I would have to say that conservatism is, by definition, low-effort thinking. Their attitudes and opinions simply don't change. No matter what. Even if new and better information is introduced. It doesn't matter... they simply apply a "yeah, but I think this" sub-routine to the new input, and it ceases to matter.

A good example of this dynamic at work is gauging people's reactions to that famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit from years ago. Almost everyone, when they first heard of it, had the same reaction... wtf? coffee is supposed to be hot! What a stupid, frivolous suit. I thought the same thing, too.

But then, new information came out. And still more information came out. And after a while, it became apparent that McDonald's really had done something seriously wrong. Their farking coffee causes flesh-melting third-degree burns? And they all knew it? And they'd been warned repeatedly... but were still handing it out like lollipops? Huh.

But years and years later, that case is still the poster child for tort reform. And people are still repeating, over and over, "hurr, coffee's supposed to be hot, derp."

It doesn't matter how many times it's discussed; the details of the case never make it past the "low-effort" filter.

Conservativism is by definition no-thinking. Why think about something when we can do it the way we've always done it? Derp.

CPennypacker: Conservativism is by definition no-thinking. Why think about something when we can do it the way we've always done it? Derp.

Just a few days ago I was reading the comments on the hilariously titled "American Thinker" website, and the consensus there was that "Liberals don't think. They emote." The thread was mostly about how liberals only make decisions based on their feelings, where as conservatives really *think* about their choices. That's why - they explained - people get more conservative as they age; they have done more thinking.

Mr_Fabulous: It doesn't matter how many times it's discussed; the details of the case never make it past the "low-effort" filter.

I like this description. It could apply to so many things.

bugontherug: More to the point, just as conservatives have canonized anti-intellectuals like Palin and Limbaugh, so have progressives elevated to positions of high influence unemployed stoner slackers.

First off, I think you means Republicans, not conservatives. Overlapping but different political subgroups. And yes, the Republican party is suffering from a bad problem of letting the retards from the back of the bus hold the steering wheel.

Philip Francis Queeg: And nearly extinct.

Nah, just drowned out by the derpfest of the social conservatives. They are still there, they just don't make for sensational news to sell advertising.

But I suspect that many of the "independants and undecideds' are fiscal conservatives who aren't comfortable swearing allegience to the post-Clinton Republican party, but do not agree witha lot of the current big-state Democratic party.

The same sort of folk that 30 years ago were called Reagan Democrats or "Blue Dog Democrats". And just as they left the 'tax and spend' mindset of the Democratic party back then, they are abandoning the Bible-thumping anti-intellectual mindset of the Republican party today.

QU!RK1019: That's why - they explained - people get more conservative as they age; they have done more thinking become increasingly frightened and confused.

Fix old.

/no new

QU!RK1019: That's why - they explained - people get more conservative as they age; they have done more thinking.

There is a very well travelled adage (attributed incorrectly to a number of people):

"A man who is young and is not a liberal has no heart. A Man who is old is not a conservative has no brain"

It is also an expression of the ancient idea of a "bleeding heart liberal" meaning someone whose political views were overpowered by their sympathy and emotions.

Many Farkers may be too young to appreciate that the stereotype of the stupid conservative is a relatively recent political charicterization. For quite some time, conservative thought was a very intellectual enterprise, and liberalism was less intellectual and more about doing what was 'right' regardless of analytical considerations.