Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

It basically says that people, when stressed, are more conservative in their respondes than they would be if they had the time and will to deliberation.

So just how stressed were those 85 drunk participants from the New England pub in Study 1? Seriously?! Why would anyone include alcohol consumption in a study like this unless it's just to prove why our own drunken representatives aren't capable of changing anything?

In order to show the effects of 'Low-Effort Thought'. Anyone under the influence is cognitively impaired. Stress in this case is defined as anything that interfers with deliberate reason (they did exclude just plain supidity as a stressor).

reply to post by FyreByrd


Why then are not all the people on welfare, high, drunk etc Republicans.

People have mentioned and commented on personal responsibility and preference for the status quo; but, I see, no one has anything to say about the third pillar of conservative ideology. And that would be acceptance of hierachy/authority.

Aspects of this also strike me as flying in the face of regular reality. The most impulsive and forward looking - yes, generally liberal - individuals anyone is likely to meet are people in their late teens. Literally their brains aren't done developing and consequences to actions is one of the last pieces to the puzzle. So, if this was actually accurate they should all be very conservative in their thoughts and actions. But they aren't. So....

Originally posted by FyreByrd
People have mentioned and commented on personal responsibility and preference for the status quo; but, I see, no one has anything to say about the third pillar of conservative ideology. And that would be acceptance of hierachy/authority.

I think that is actually an interesting observation. While I have no data at my command on the subject I will shoot from the hip (oh, impulsive!) but retain the right to reconsider upon further deliberation (oh, deep thinking?).

I think many conservatives in the past did have a high level of esteem for hierarchy because they believed that someone who had made it to the the top probably, generally, had earned it. Therefore, I suspect there was a lot "honor your elders" and accepting that those who came before had likely learned some stuff worth knowing in their day. Today, I think there is a greater level of disappointment. Many people, including conservatives, are disallusioned. Therefore, the familiar trappings of authority do not carry the weight (for many) that they once did. We (liberals and conservatives alike I suspect) are more cynical now in regards to our leaders.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Nice simple working definition Ghost 375 - and it reminds me of a tenet of Rudolf Steiner:

There are two streams of EVIL in the world, one, pulling us into the past and one, pulling us into the future; it is the purpose of each individual and each group to strive to balance the two. Sounds like the middle path of Buddhism as well.

Lack of self-awareness leads to the past and too much self-awareness leads to the future. That is not to say that the past (tradition) is bad and the future (change) is good, it's just that too much of either is un-productive and by that definition, EVIL.

That's a very good way to put it. I used to be very liberal, but after reading "The Possessed," I realized a balanced approach is best. Both ends of the political spectrum lead to the same place, a place with no freedom.

reply to post by watcher3339

That's well reasoned thought.


I just thought I'd add that I think when they talk about hierarchy, they aren't actually talking about leaders or politicians, like everyone is assuming on this thread. What I mean is hierarchies are a much bigger topic than just political hierarchies.

Hierarchies are everywhere. Churches, schools, really any organization.
So people with a more conservative mindset are more likely to respect the hierarchy of the catholic church, more likely to believe the pope is infallible.
Or follow the orders of their teachers.

I'd imagine a conservative minded boss would be less likely to take advice from someone beneath him as opposed to a liberal minded boss, who would be more okay with listening to advice from people beneath him.


You could really take this a step further....and ask the question why are conservatives so vocal with their hatred of Obama?
Well how did his presidency start out? The Birth certificate issue!
In their minds, he's not a legitimate president. So they are perfectly fine with saying disrespectful things to a person in authority, because to them, he's not really a person of authority.

reply to post by FyreByrd

In order to show the effects of 'Low-Effort Thought'. Anyone under the influence is cognitively impaired. Stress in this case is defined as anything that interfers with deliberate reason (they did exclude just plain supidity as a stressor).

Actually, I thought the whole study was stupid and ill prepared. The study doesn't even show us the "conservative political terms, words and phrases" they used to make this judgement. It doesn't tell us what the "distraction tasks" or what the "ballot initiatives" were that they used to make these comparisons either as far as I can tell (unless they came from another study). It may only be proving that conservative thinking is more practical and logical to the people they're studying, with or without distractions. Did you read any details regarding how far it swung the other way during deliberate thought? I didn't. If there was, by all means, point it out.

reply to post by FyreByrd

People have mentioned and commented on personal responsibility and preference for the status quo; but, I see, no one has anything to say about the third pillar of conservative ideology. And that would be acceptance of hierachy/authority.

You're not going to find anyone who accepts hierarchy/authority on ATS. You might have to go to another website for that.

reply to post by Ghost375


Personally, I think conservatives actually have a higher ability for critical thinking than liberals do.

I think Liberals have more of a tendency to follow what feels good to them without thinking it through.

I feel it would be appropriate to make a couple of little points here and there. First of all, low-effort thought, is designed for immediate situations that affect ones ability to defend ones life, and his families saftey. Fight and flight, the deep and ancient part of our psyche which protects us from harm. But the reactions of this part of the brain are not meant to provide long terms solutions to complex societal issues, like healthcare and military intervention in foreign lands.

The best form of thought for all other circumstance, other than ones directly pertaining to ones ability to keep breathing in the moment at hand, is a longer, sustained, and more cohesive and less reactive manner of thought. Deep contemplation, something which by and large, is unpracticed by ANY political organisations members, since they are near enough to a man, and with only very few exceptions of limited importance, dullards and halfwits of the first order, whose deaths would likely see a nett increase in average intelligence for the population as a whole.

I would be the first to sing the praises of quick thinking. It has saved my bacon on more occasions than I care to recount, and has allowed me to react efficiently and decisively to some of the more errant slings and arrows of life. But to formulate long term plans which effect the saftey and security of a person or group of people over time, you need a contemplative, almost meditative ability to reason, not the adrenaline fueled reactionism that we often see in modern day political arenas.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Why then are not all the people on welfare, high, drunk etc Republicans.

95% of the ones I have come into contact with ARE Republicans. That's one of the things that disgust me the most. They rant and rave about "them evil librals" and spew racial hatred toward Obama for no reason other than him being half black (there are reasons to slam the guy, but that's not one of them). Then they run to "the walmart" to spend their foodstamps...or sell them to their neighbor for half price so they can buy their drugs.

Sorry, but in this area of the world, the welfare pillheads are very, very much Republican and they disgust me to no end.

reply to post by HopSkipJump


What area of the world might that be?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

In order to show the effects of 'Low-Effort Thought'. Anyone under the influence is cognitively impaired. Stress in this case is defined as anything that interfers with deliberate reason (they did exclude just plain supidity as a stressor).

Actually, I thought the whole study was stupid and ill prepared. The study doesn't even show us the "conservative political terms, words and phrases" they used to make this judgement. It doesn't tell us what the "distraction tasks" or what the "ballot initiatives" were that they used to make these comparisons either as far as I can tell (unless they came from another study). It may only be proving that conservative thinking is more practical and logical to the people they're studying, with or without distractions. Did you read any details regarding how far it swung the other way during deliberate thought? I didn't. If there was, by all means, point it out.

edit on 11-3-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

In fact, if you read the study, they tell you just exactly how the tests were set up. No they don't give you the individual questions and responses but am certain they would if asked.

As for the study being stupid. Just how would you set it up??? How would you test for results of impaired deliberation? It's very difficult to set this type of study up so that it passes peer review muster. So stupid - I don't think so; ill-prepared, definitely not.

If you read the final quote in the OP, the conclusion of the study it states many benefitial points to low-effort thought.

What I find interesting is that people don't seem to be reading beyond what I highlighted in yellow which I did deliberately to see if people would see beyond that. Most haven't; a few have and I commend them. Not one, "conservative thinker" (pardon the useage) seems to have been able to connect the results of the study to a positive outcome for low-effort thought. The paper is rather complimentary in this area and states that their findings negate prior 'pathiological basis for conservative thought'.

Interesting how effective a little color can be in blinding one.

reply to post by FyreByrd

In fact, if you read the study, they tell you just exactly how the tests were set up. No they don't give you the individual questions and responses but am certain they would if asked.

What kind of study doesn't provide the material for which it was based off of? Not only that, it didn't even provide any information or results on deliberate thinking to compare it with. I say it's a poor study.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

95% of the ones I have come into contact with ARE Republicans. That's one of the things that disgust me the most. They rant and rave about "them evil librals" and spew racial hatred toward Obama for no reason other than him being half black (there are reasons to slam the guy, but that's not one of them). Then they run to "the walmart" to spend their foodstamps...or sell them to their neighbor for half price so they can buy their drugs.

Sorry, but in this area of the world, the welfare pillheads are very, very much Republican and they disgust me to no end.

Really?

They voted for him...Big cities are were the dense populations of these types of people are and in EVERY case those big cities went the liberal vote. Obama didn't win a single state outside of the one or two larger cities. Even in his home state he took basically the city only, and that is the typical result for all the states he won. So I guess you are suggesting all these undesirables live outside the city then?



Obama Win

reply to post by FyreByrd


The best example of low-effort slothful thought is this thread. What did you intend to accomplish? What discussion could you possibly expect to inspire when you begin your thread by claiming everyone of a certain political ideology is a moron?

This is a lame attempt at right-wing bashing. Based on the S&F count of this thread, obviously I’m not alone here in thinking this is lame!

It’s funny that someone would think NOW is a good time to bash on conservatives while liberals in the White House and congress are destroying the country as we speak. Makes perfect sense!

I have a question. How much high-effort thought went into this statement?



Anyone who voted for an idiot like that had better not be calling conservatives slothful thinkers! At least you can’t do it and expect us to keep a straight face!!

reply to post by seabag




That's seriously one of the biggest WHOOOPS!!! I've ever seen!!

I think it's safe to say that none of our cherished leaders of either major party have a grasp on how to effectively govern society with the tools they have available, considering the systemic corruption which is all pervading in 2013.

It's like trying to fix a flat tire while driving. Damned near impossible, and you're going to eventually crash the thing after the rim grinds down to the axle.

In the meantime, people will be seeing all sorts of sparks and hearing all sorts of racket. They'll be sure to poke fun at you and call you an idiot. Yep, you're an idiot for trying to fix a flat tire while driving top speed on the highway.

Same as these chumps in Washington. They're idiots for even attempting to fix a systemically broken system from within.

Whacha gonna do, though?

reply to post by nomnom

I think it's safe to say that none of our cherished leaders of either major party have a grasp on how to effectively govern society with the tools they have available, considering the systemic corruption which is all pervading in 2013.

While I totally agree with that statement, I think it’s important to point out that there is no conservative party. The OP mentioned “conservatives” not “GOP” or “republicans” and there is a distinct difference. Anyone who thinks the GOP is a bunch of conservatives needs to lay off the MSM kool-aid. If the GOP were conservatives, you wouldn’t even know who Mitt Romney or John McCain are.

This OP wasn't an attack on a party...it was an attack on the conservative ideology which, as I stated, has no party of its own. Conservatives are what really scares liberals because deep down they know our ideas win. They don't fear the GOP because the GOP's ideas aren't much different than the Democrat party's ideas.

reply to post by seabag


I just stick away from any party affiliation. Problem solved

Pretty much just got sick of people trying to sell me their version of the story on what it is to be a "republican" or "conservative" or whatever else they like to imagine as their ideal image of a society.

As far as I can tell, neither ideology is inherently superior to the next. They all have their merits in the proper context. Regardless of what the ladies may tell you, size does matter and so does the composition of the soil, and the hearts of the men running the show. All these factors and many more must be considered when attempting to assess what kind of story we're trying to sell ourselves and others about how we should be governing ourselves collectively.

Take anarchy, for instance. Hell of a system. I'd love to be in a community. . . that is, if they're all at least above average in brain, heart, and will. Oh yea, and it doesn't scale up well. You gotta keep the size down under a few hundred or so. Any more and all bets are off that your neighbor doesn't sleep with your daughter, and potato gun napalm your ass while you're out for your morning poo in the back yard.

and don't tell me how I'm talking apples and oranges. I see the distinction. Do you see the similarities?

So basically I think that any one political ideology is best depending on the circumstances at hand. A society that would adhere to any one of them for an extended period of time in the face of nature's relentless pressure to change and tempt us to adapt, is simply a society that is doomed to fail.

Any relationship I've ever seen is a tug and pull. You get one group pulling stronger some years and taking the lead, hopefully as is best, then a pull back from the other end, or corner, or what have you and there's never an equilibrium reached (stagnation) and the future turns into the present.