Liberals are beta / Conservatives are Alpha (Forum Study)

[Asclepias]

If they are alphas, they'd make their own decisions and not let an ideology make their decisions for them. Is that fence sitting or not?
Calling someone who thinks for themselves a fence-sitter is a cop-out.

No, it's a cop out to assume that someone who develops their ideology over time follows the ideology and the "independant" is somehow superior. Why can't an independant thinker arrive at the conclusion that consevativism (or liberalism) is the right answer? No two liberal or conservatives agree on everything so your point makes no sense. Except that you were trying to demonstrate some superior outlook.

It is not rational to be all conservative or all liberal. Independent is rational because it properly labels the paradigm described in the last sentence.

When people figure this out we will either see real progress or the government will institute martial law until they figure out how to get us on opposing teams again.

 

[G.T.]

No, it's a cop out to assume that someone who develops their ideology over time follows the ideology and the "independant" is somehow superior. Why can't an independant thinker arrive at the conclusion that consevativism (or liberalism) is the right answer? No two liberal or conservatives agree on everything so your point makes no sense. Except that you were trying to demonstrate some superior outlook.

It is not rational to be all conservative or all liberal. Independent is rational because it properly labels the paradigm described in the last sentence.

When people figure this out we will either see real progress or the government will institute martial law until they figure out how to get us on opposing teams again.

Until then, we will continue to experience hubris. Once you align with a team, your pride gets in the way of your rational judgment.

 

[regent]

Is it an ideology to not follow an ideology? I think all of us are ideologists but in different areas, and at different times in out lifetime. When does politics hit the average citizen?

 

[G.T.]

Is it an ideology to not follow an ideology? I think all of us are ideologists but in different areas, and at different times in out lifetime. When does politics hit the average citizen?

In a way it is, in a way it is not.

For instance, when *new* issues arise, it always seems that even if it's not necessarily political in nature, the partisan hack message-boarders align on the issue with their "team," so to speak.

An independent is able to rise above the hubris of siding with a "team" just to spite the "other team," and has one less layer of irrational brain blockage.

 

[Asclepias]

Is it an ideology to not follow an ideology? I think all of us are ideologists but in different areas, and at different times in out lifetime. When does politics hit the average citizen?

Yes it is. The difference is that being open to the concept that there are 2 or more sides to a solution is a beneficial ideology. Becoming a fanatic of one solution simple because you identify with a particular team pretty much proves you are thinking with your emotions be they good or evil. Politics hit me as a preteen.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is not rational to be all conservative or all liberal. Independent is rational because it properly labels the paradigm described in the last sentence.

As I said earlier, no two conservatives or liberals will agree on everything so there isn't a long detailed check off sheet to be a conservative or liberal. They will agree with the core principles, that's what defines them as such. That doesn't make it a cop out or an independant superior.

 

[Iceweasel]

An independent is able to rise above the hubris of siding with a "team" just to spite the "other team," and has one less layer of irrational brain blockage.

What arrogance. So a conservative or liberal sticking to their principles is engaging in hubris to spite the other team?

 

[G.T.]

It is not rational to be all conservative or all liberal. Independent is rational because it properly labels the paradigm described in the last sentence.

As I said earlier, no two conservatives or liberals will agree on everything so there isn't a long detailed check off sheet to be a conservative or liberal. They will agree with the core principles, that's what defines them as such. That doesn't make it a cop out or an independant superior.

No, it makes it irrational.

If you're not all of one or all of the other, than you're neither.

 

[G.T.]

An independent is able to rise above the hubris of siding with a "team" just to spite the "other team," and has one less layer of irrational brain blockage.

What arrogance. So a conservative or liberal sticking to their principles is engaging in hubris to spite the other team?

Usually - you should see these message boards for your several million examples.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, it makes it irrational.

If you're not all of one or all of the other, than you're neither.

Says who?

 

[G.T.]

No, it makes it irrational.

If you're not all of one or all of the other, than you're neither.

Says who?

I can only offer my own opinion, I'm not quoting anyone.

 

[Publius1787]

In general, neither liberals or conservatives are Alphas because they are dedicated followers of an ideology. Alphas are not followers, period.

Assessing groups based upon similar values does not make them followers or leaders. Their values do. Your statement demands they create a separate and original ideology, which, isn't exactly helping your case. Even given the standard you put forth, there are still groups of "followers" that are more alpha than other groups of "followers," although, an individualist culture is hardly a group of followers though we can put them in a group of similar values.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, it makes it irrational.

If you're not all of one or all of the other, than you're neither.

Says who?

I can only offer my own opinion, I'm not quoting anyone.

Conservativism and liberalism are ideologies, and as such aren't party platforms. It doesn't really have anything to do with being an independant thinker. A liberal or conservative can believe what they do from their environment or come to the conclusion on their own. People sometimes shift directions. In fact, usually people get more conservative with maturity. Married women with kids are more conservative than their single counterparts, etc.

 

[G.T.]

Conservatism and liberalism via an average person and conservatism and liberalism via a person who follows/engages in partisan politics are two WAY different animals

 

[Publius1787]

Conservatism and liberalism via an average person and conservatism and liberalism via a person who follows/engages in partisan politics are two WAY different animals

Then lets concentrate on the latter, of which, the op is based on from members of this forum.

 

[G.T.]

The latter are only meaningful in their own little circle of power hunger monstrousity.

Most Americans rise above that and choose their friends by whether they have a good heart or not and say fuck politics.

And im with that.

 

[Iceweasel]

Most Americans rise above that and choose their friends by whether they have a good heart or not and say fuck politics.

And im with that.

Friends yes, politicians no.

 

[Father Time]

Liberals are beta / Conservatives are Alpha (Forum Study)

No, this is not a flame/troll thread.

It just looks like one and sounds like one.

After a few days of reviewing the thread below I whish to tell you what I've concluded. I posted this in the clean debate section because I do not want a bunch of name calling and diversions, but solid analysis.

I don't want any name callings except me insulting liberals right now. And it's amazing that your review lines in perfectly with your preconceived notions, who would've thought.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there are a number of holes due to the limitations of utilizing a forum such as this.

There was only around 20 people voting in your poll. Thus making the whole thing worthless.

I also did not define either alpha or beta, but allowed people to define it for themselves. I also did not define liberal or conservative.

And thus people brought in whatever bullshit definitions they were thinking of. Further making this useless.

Liberals view themselves as betas and are threatened by the power of the alpha.

Or they think this whole distinction is stupid, juvenile and pointless so they don't bother. Human societies aren't run like animal societies.

But no they're afraid of the power of conservatives because ... being a conservative makes you powerful somehow?

They are more insecure than conservatives, and thus, this is perhaps the reason they adopt a more collectivist ideology.

Can we ban all armchair psychologists from the internet? Please. My god there's god damn liberals on this very site, if you want to know why they adopt "collectivist policies", ask them.

A more collectivist ideology dictates that everyone pull together for security.

That's how society works. Even in Republican/conservative strongholds. You still pay taxes towards a government that is supposed to serve and protect the people. Even if it's a small government. You want to pretend you'd make it all on your own, OK tell me what happens if 50 people showed up at your house with guns and demanded possession of it? You'd call the cops which are paid for through the community banding together.

Bing a beta, liberals are more passive on foreign policy issues.

Two can play this game.

Being beta conservatives want to limit the size of the big bad alpha government. They're afraid of power, it scares them so when they get in charge they push for smaller and smaller government. What could be more beta than purposely limiting yourself and your power?

Conservatives view themselves as alphas and are more independent. They have confidence in themselves, and thus, this is perhaps the reason they adopt a more individualistic tone.

There is nothing about conservatism that makes them individualist, no more than anyone else. They pass laws that restrict individual freedoms, they beef up the powers of government in some areas too. Just because you own a gun doesn't make a you a lone ranger. You can be independent, and still think society would be better off with some form of welfare or some form of public school.

A more individualistic ideology dictates that everyone should be left to their own devises so as long as they aren't hurting another (Harm Principle).

Then why are so few conservatives down for legalizing weed, or prostitution or other victimless crimes? Why do they fight so bitterly against gay marriage when that harms no one? Why do they continue to try to criminalize burning the flag? Hell the flag is a huge collectivist symbol. 50 states coming together under one government rather than being treated as separate countries.

So what do you wish to add, critique, or object to in a reasonable manner?

You have an enormous confirmation bias, you look only for what fits your current view of how you see the world, you spin things to make people look bad, and again why should people take your word on what liberals believe when there are actual liberals to talk to.