Skip to main content

View Diary: Right-Wing Propaganda Masquerades as a High School Economics Curriculum (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yep. this is how they do it. they work with power (13+ / 0-)

    where they can, & create it where they cannot.

    if they can't win elections by persuading adults to vote for their crap, they'll try an end-around approach -- the get-'em-when-they're-young philosophy of the catholic church that believes indoctrinating kids insures believers/members for life.

    the joke's on them, tho.  that "dreaded" tool called research has proven brains are hard-wired at birth to be liberal or conservative & no amount of brainwashing is going to change that.

    •  And like the Catholic Church (16+ / 0-)

      the kids will abandon them in droves when they begin to think for themselves.

      If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

      by MadRuth on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:32:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What Research Are You Referring To? (4+ / 0-)

      I would love to read it, is it online?

      Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote.

      by Renie57 on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:51:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Skeptical of the brain thing. (0+ / 0-)

      What are independent voters then?  Some kind of..  Dynamic brain that switches between the two states?

      •  Studies tend to label by liberal or conservative (0+ / 0-)

        thinking, not by party.
        wiki notes several on Biology and political orientation

        A good view is
        Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains16 peer-reviewed studies show liberals and conservatives physiologically different
        Interesting read...
        Sounds like dirty talk here but as ABC notes on those studies

        Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear.
        But there is that chicken and egg thing.
        First study is headlined  Conservatives spend more time looking at unpleasant images, and liberals spend more time looking at pleasant images.
        Does focusing on fear enlarge the right amygdala and/or is it the big right amygdala that puts the focus on the fearful thinbgs.

        I like brain things so have read various studies on this type of things for years but didn't save links and doubt my summaries from recall would be too impressive. The difference is not in intelligence but there are clear differences in thinking... in rigidity of thought.   They score  very differently on many psychological tests
        (Studies on the brains of the rich have been even more fascinating, maybe because they surprised me so much)

        What is an Independent these days? I've called myself that forever because you don't have to declare to vote in a primary in my state and it helped free me from what irritated me about my parry but wouldn't consider voting for an R. I'm sure there are plenty like that. The growth on independents went with Tea Party too who withdrew from r label but are not going to vote Dem.

        But it use to be that there were sane and thoughtful people that were moderate or even liberal in both parties so sane and thoughtful people could take time to consider the candidate rather than just the party

        These days... someone who doesn't lean one way or the other pretty strongly is a hermit type without media exposure or is stupid or indifferent because the parties are so far apart....

        •  Here's an excerpt from the very first article. (4+ / 0-)
          In the summer of 2007, 200 participants were brought to a computer laboratory in Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, to complete a survey soliciting their political, personality and demographic information subsequent to their having been contacted by phone at random by a professional survey organization. Though in no way a representative sample, this group has the advantage of not being restricted to college undergraduates and, relatedly, having reasonably representative demographic characteristics given the target population: mean age 1⁄4 42; 52 per cent female; mean income in the $40 000 – 60 000 range; and mean educational level 1⁄4 some college. These 200 were intended to serve as a pool from which smaller groups could be culled for physiological testing. The particular group employed in the analysis here consisted of 48 individuals who were called back later that summer. They were selected because of availability and because they were the individuals most clearly falling on either the political left or the political right according to the survey responses provided during their first visit. Participants were paid $50 for each of their two separate trips to the laboratory. The data on two participants had to be removed, one owing to a health issue, the other owing to a mechanical problem with a sensor.
          Two things, bolded for convenience.  They note that the 200 people selected for the study are not representative of the population at large.  They then proceeded to ignore this fact, justifying their process by saying they did have some obvious qualities that did happen to represent the population in some ways.

          Second, the study uses an even smaller group of individuals than that.  Leaving out people whom did not fit into a narrowly defined criteria.  Which also would make this non-representative of the population at large.

          The conclusion?  This study is not representative of the target population.  It cannot claim to have found anything other than a statistical quirk among a group of cherry-picked individuals.

          Of course, there are lots of other articles at that link and I don't have time to read all of them in detail.  But that one article reminds me of this talk (entertaining video, by the way, highly recommended).

          Lastly, science works by a process of confirmation via many, many studies, built up over a period of time, testing the same hypothesis.  All these hypothesis at the link are different from one another, and as someone who desires to be as scientific as possible, I am required to be especially skeptical of those claims which I may find especially appealing.

          I remain skeptical.

        •  Yeah, doesn't explain how I was inculcated into (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DarkLadyNyara, Paul Rogers

          radical Republicanism and eventually found my way back out again - only after some years of truly believing and living their sick, selfish way of being of a defined universe and accompanying social order.

          The brain functioning issue seems easily conditioned (i.e., environmental) and I don't see hard-wiring as the only driver.

          "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

          by wader on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 04:20:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  i posted a link upthread. e/m (0+ / 0-)
      •  yes. and you're contention is . . . this isn't (0+ / 0-)

        possible?

        •  It's insulting, and an extraordinary claim. (0+ / 0-)

          My contention is that it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

          Of which, none is available.

          Replace 'liberal' and 'conservative' with 'female' and 'male' in these types of articles, and see how differently it reads.  Would our snap judgement to be to accept such an idea, or to reject it?

          Not only do these sorts of claims appear unfounded, but spreading acceptance of the idea when there's no basis for it is incredibly offensive.

          •  so, it's not possible for someone to be a liberal (0+ / 0-)

            then change to a conservative, & back again?

            your claim seems extraordinary to me, as i have personal knowledge of someone who did exactly that.

            maybe we're talking past each other, but you're reaction seems disproportionate to my comment.

            •  It's not science and also harmful to our culture. (0+ / 0-)

              The claim is that brains are hard-wired at birth to be liberal or conservative.

              These kinds of claims seem to come from one-shot studies with bad methodology, lack of peer review, and presented to the public by media writers that often don't know what they're looking at.

              For one, correlation is not causation, and that is something that almost none of these articles ever discuss.  So the 'hard-wired' claim is completely unsupported.

              Also, consider this.  Some people actually are smarter than others.  Liberals hurt everyone by trying to force everyone to be equal, and thus deny reality and end up harming everyone in society by holding smart people down to the standard of the dumbest.  Liberals are mushy-minded fools who will destroy modern society.

              How is that any more insulting or unfair to liberals than some of the 'conservatives focus on the negative', 'conservatives have a larger fear center' or similar ideas floating around about conservatives?  I don't really see much distinction.

              The only difference is that one claim is flattering to conservatives and one claim is flattering to liberals.  Beware those claims that flatter and reaffirm those things you already know.  The peer-review process exists for a reason.

              Lastly, such ideas harm our ability to talk to one another.  By reducing legitimate disagreements with one another to fundamental sources that are inescapable.  It makes discussion pointless, and compromise ridiculous.  Our differences are in the brain, so there's no point trying to convince people of things.

              Conservatives have the same destructive ideas about us.  Only to them we're Marxist extremists who seek to take from others and undermine the American system.  Any compromise would be capitulating to Evil forces.

              •  i was responding to your comment about how (0+ / 0-)

                independents' brains are hard-wired, or not, as the case may be.  nothing is absolute.  no situation is 100% one thing or the other, & that is true of political persuasions, too.  that was the point i was (inarticulately as it turns out) trying to make.

                i must take exception to the paragraph in which you assert that liberals are "mushy-minded fools . . . trying to force everyone to be equal . . . " -- that is vintage glenn beck if i ever heard it.  

                i don't know which liberals you've been hanging out with but i can assure you nothing could be further from the truth as far as the ones i associate with.  the only thing the liberals i know have contempt for where conservatives are concerned, is their obstinacy to consider any pov that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions -- which is the main difference (imo) between libs & cons.

                the research is what it is.  you can pick it apart & disagree with it all you want, but  for me, in my personal life experiences -- which includes an entire family of deeply conservative members -- it explains a whole lot.

                •  I'll wait until there's more definitive evidence. (0+ / 0-)

                  The idea looks exactly like mythology to me.  Keep in mind that the reason a myth exists at all is that it sounds like a reasonable explanation.

                  As far as I can tell, those ideas don't have any credible evidence in their favor.  It's very easy to screw up science, and as I pointed out elsewhere in the thread, these things seem to come from one-shot studies that have questionable methodology, reasoning, conclusions or are just flat out misinterpreted by the journalist reporting them.

                  When passing through peer-review isn't seen as an important step, people are quick to publish and show their conclusions to the world.  Peer-review is how we can tell whether or not a study and its conclusions are credible, since it means other experts in the field will have a chance to criticize the work and point out any flaws they might see.

                  Things that didn't pass through peer review aren't necessarily false, but it is almost always a bad sign.

                  Some people actually are smarter than others.  Liberals hurt everyone by trying to force everyone to be equal, and thus deny reality and end up harming everyone in society by holding smart people down to the standard of the dumbest.  Liberals are mushy-minded fools who will destroy modern society.
                  The point of that paragraph is that it is a myth that many conservatives believe about liberals.  It explains to the believer what is 'wrong' with liberals, just like many of the brain-scan stories explain what is 'wrong' with conservatives.

                  Is there evidence of that?  Absolutely, cherry-pick any conservative's experience of a misunderstanding of a liberal's explanation for a viewpoint (or a liberal who can't adequately explain their viewpoint).  Definitive proof.

                  It's poor reasoning to say that explanation applies to any liberal.  The very idea of it harms our ability to talk to one another.  It means that the liberal is either an idiot who rejects things which are obviously true, or an Evil person trying to hold back smart people from success.

                  Ever had a conversation with a conservative where they bafflingly express the notion that, "Wow, you sound like a conservative!  I'm confused as to why you think you're a liberal."?

                  I have.  That happens when the conservative mythology explaining a liberal is being broken by experience.  Actually talking to someone that doesn't fit into the mythology can be legitimately confusing.

                  All I want is for our ideas about each other to be held to a higher standard of evidence.  I don't want us to accept our personal suspicions and biases as being a scientific Truth.

    •  bullshit (4+ / 0-)

      Research has found some good evidence that political orientation is somewhat influenced by heredity. No credible researcher has even tried to claim it's "hard-wired at birth to be liberal or conservative & no amount of brainwashing is going to change that."

      Michael Weissman UID 197542

      by docmidwest on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 03:54:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This supposed research is contradicted by facts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul Rogers

      such as the continuing decline in membership in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Republican Party as a whole. Several percent of children subjected to both full courses of brainwashing fall away every year. See, for example, the Pew Forum study, Religion Among the Millennials.

      In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their moral values.
      Actually, this supposed research is contradicted by the existence of the United States as a Republic with a Bill of Rights, and its two centuries of evolution toward ever greater human rights against the kind of ferocious opposition this diary and indeed most of Daily Kos points to.

      America—We built that!

      by Mokurai on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:10:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site