CDZ "Low effort" thinkers likely to be conservatives

[candycorn]

To anger a conservative lie to them, to anger a liberal, tell them the truth.

Trump will lose in November. Does that make you happy?

 

[320 Years of History]

The irony is that even after witnessing the collapse of entire nations with Venezuela being only the most recent example, progressives still "think" government control and central planning work!

Have you offered the remark above thinking it has something to do with this thread's topic?

 

[OldLady]

Are you trying to suggest that your liberal left wing democrat loving mainstream TV network sites are fair, honest and not immersed in a political and social engineering agendas?

If so, consider yourself a low level thinker.

I think anyone who relies on TV for their information is suspect.....as is anyone who has ever spent a minute with Drudge, Breitbart, CNS, or The Daily Caller....

I think anyone who thinks that if they think for themselves they are somehow wiser than those who rely on becoming informed or listening to the counsel of good people who have gone before them --- is fooling themselves.

So being told what to think is better than thinking?

Have you given this any thought?

Yes. And apparently more than you.

You seem to want to prevail in word trick games instead of establishing wise paths or moral truths.

I wish I had a nickel for every fool who Boldly Asserted that his/her wise path and moral truth was Indisputable.

You'd have enough left to share some of those nickels with me. I agree.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think anyone who relies on TV for their information is suspect.....as is anyone who has ever spent a minute with Drudge, Breitbart, CNS, or The Daily Caller....

I think anyone who thinks that if they think for themselves they are somehow wiser than those who rely on becoming informed or listening to the counsel of good people who have gone before them --- is fooling themselves.

So being told what to think is better than thinking?

Have you given this any thought?

Yes. And apparently more than you.

You seem to want to prevail in word trick games instead of establishing wise paths or moral truths.

I wish I had a nickel for every fool who Boldly Asserted that his/her wise path and moral truth was Indisputable.

You'd have enough left to share some of those nickels with me. I agree.

Off Topic:
We could each get really, really rich on those nickels. LOL

 

[Anathema]

I think the author(s) of the study miss something....

As a Conservative, I rarely need to spend great amounts of time pondering the intellectual realms because those who came before me already have. For example:

I have no need to delve into the intricacies of the Second Amendment because I was taught the meaning of the clause by my elders/betters as a child. They were taught its meaning by their elders, and so on, back to the generation that wrote and approved the document.

It's not laziness for Conservatives. We just know what we believe and see no need to rehash it constantly in our heads. Apparently our more Centrist and Liberal associates need constant mental reexamination to prove to themselves that 2+2 does indeed still equal 4.

Red:
I think your example is a fine illustration of what the study uncovered. It's very low-effort to merely accept what one has been told, regardless of who provided the information. In contrast, it takes effort, strength, curiosity, and will to confirm whether what one has been told "holds water."

I do appreciate your having voluntarily amplified the paper's thesis with a very personal example. That was quite generous of you.

I disagree with you, quite vehemently. You are claiming that despite direct, linear communication of an idea being given passed down through a group, that somehow other people's disconnected beliefs and personal opinions are more relevant to a topic? That's literally insane.

Then again this is probably coming from someone who would tell Herman Melville that "Moby Dick" had a deeper meaning and intent, even if the author told you it was just about a huge white whale.

I understand it's difficult for you people to accept Traditions as the basis for anything or understand that not everything has 4 or 5 deeper levels of nuance to it, but that is how most of the world truly is.

You look for the complex when the simple will suffice. It suggests to me that you've never really BELIEVED in anything in your life.

 

[OldLady]

I think the author(s) of the study miss something....

As a Conservative, I rarely need to spend great amounts of time pondering the intellectual realms because those who came before me already have. For example:

I have no need to delve into the intricacies of the Second Amendment because I was taught the meaning of the clause by my elders/betters as a child. They were taught its meaning by their elders, and so on, back to the generation that wrote and approved the document.

It's not laziness for Conservatives. We just know what we believe and see no need to rehash it constantly in our heads. Apparently our more Centrist and Liberal associates need constant mental reexamination to prove to themselves that 2+2 does indeed still equal 4.

Red:
I think your example is a fine illustration of what the study uncovered. It's very low-effort to merely accept what one has been told, regardless of who provided the information. In contrast, it takes effort, strength, curiosity, and will to confirm whether what one has been told "holds water."

I do appreciate your having voluntarily amplified the paper's thesis with a very personal example. That was quite generous of you.

I disagree with you, quite vehemently. You are claiming that despite direct, linear communication of an idea being given passed down through a group, that somehow other people's disconnected beliefs and personal opinions are more relevant to a topic? That's literally insane.

Then again this is probably coming from someone who would tell Herman Melville that "Moby Dick" had a deeper meaning and intent, even if the author told you it was just about a huge white whale.

I understand it's difficult for you people to accept Traditions as the basis for anything or understand that not everything has 4 or 5 deeper levels of nuance to it, but that is how most of the world truly is.

You look for the complex when the simple will suffice. It suggests to me that you've never really BELIEVED in anything in your life.

I don't think Anathema can see me, but I have to pipe up about Moby Dick. Even though I admit I enjoyed the whaling parts a lot, to say that novel was only about a white whale is pretty darned simplistic. It's also about the search for Truth with a capital "T" and the very many ways that Truth is perceived. That's more than clear in Melville's philosophical musings that go on and on and on....
I have nothing at all against information and beliefs being shared down the generations. That is how the human race has managed to become what it is. I do think, though, that it is a good idea to compare what we learn from those sources with other ideas we've heard about. If the information is valid, there is no harm in giving it a good go over.

 

[jasonnfree]

More democwat gooooood , wepubwican baaaad. The politicians of both parties are for sale. We now have an opportunity to vote for a presidential candidate who isn't for sale and what he's saying agrees with what a great number Americans are thinking. Stop exporting jobs and importing third worlders who have no regard for our laws or customs. Think Think Think.

 

[turzovka]

I think anyone who thinks that if they think for themselves they are somehow wiser than those who rely on becoming informed or listening to the counsel of good people who have gone before them --- is fooling themselves.

So being told what to think is better than thinking?

Have you given this any thought?

Yes. And apparently more than you.

You seem to want to prevail in word trick games instead of establishing wise paths or moral truths.

I wish I had a nickel for every fool who Boldly Asserted that his/her wise path and moral truth was Indisputable.

You'd have enough left to share some of those nickels with me. I agree.

Off Topic:
We could each get really, really rich on those nickels. LOL

I can assure you Wm. F. Buckley established his life and future on certain moral truths and wise paths. His faith was in some of God's promises, but as far as knowing who God is and what was sin and what was folly, on that he was mostly certain. Because far too much was at stake to leave it to chance.

Or to put it a different way --- the Virgin Mary told the visionary Pachi from Ecuador the following:
“There is no peace because of pride and pride is the cancer of the soul. Your lack of humility is the greatest fault. Only on bended knees can one come to understand God.”

 

[Picaro]

CDZ=LOL

CDZ, where intolerant sissies post troll threads

lol ... You've been on a roll lately, Frank. Good one.

As for 'low information voters', how does that square with the reliance of the New Democrats on illiterate minority groups with high school dropout rates and low education levels and living in slums and barrios, and also the big role blacks and latinos in California played in passing Prop 8, for instance, and other fun facts?

We all already know no serious answer will be forthcoming from our resident pseudo-intellectual astro-turfers, so this is just a rhetorical question for practical purposes.

And let's not forget gen xand y's and 'Millennials', who are far more uninformed and inexperienced about politics than the older better educated voters, liberal and conservatives, who aren't stupid enough to believe a word coming out of the Democratic Party's PR machine; they have decades of experience watching Democrats lie through their teeth and blatantly selling out Americans since the 'super delegate rule' alleviated any need to actually represent anybody but themselves.

 

[Compost]

CDZ=LOL

CDZ, where intolerant sissies post troll threads

lol ... You've been on a roll lately, Frank. Good one.

As for 'low information voters', how does that square with the reliance of the New Democrats on illiterate minority groups with high school dropout rates and low education levels and living in slums and barrios, and also the big role blacks and latinos in California played in passing Prop 8, for instance, and other fun facts?

We all already know no serious answer will be forthcoming from our resident pseudo-intellectual astro-turfers, so this is just a rhetorical question for practical purposes.

Surely rhetorical questions are loaded with nuance!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To anger a conservative lie to them, to anger a liberal, tell them the truth.

Trump will lose in November. Does that make you happy?

To who? Biden/Sanders?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The irony is that even after witnessing the collapse of entire nations with Venezuela being only the most recent example, progressives still "think" government control and central planning work!

Have you offered the remark above thinking it has something to do with this thread's topic?

Put the thread in the proper forum and I'll respond to you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Earlier today, I saw a post in another part of USMB. In that post, a member claimed that left-leaning people are "the most intolerant of people." Reading that, I thought, "Hmm...That doesn't seem like the liberals and left leaners whom I know well enough to know their politics. I think I'll look to see if there's been any scholarly/credible research into that." Lo and behold, there was, and I shared it in that thread.

In the course of researching the veracity of the other member's claim, I came across a collection of studies titled "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism." I couldn't help but laugh when I read the title -- hell, I'm still laughing over it -- for it asserted what I've often observed in the quality and sources of the majority of fatuous remarks I come by on USMB, in the conservative press and conservative blogosphere. Of course, inanity isn't bridled to the remarks USMB's conservatives make. Donald Trump daily has at least a few frivolous and/or asinine thoughts he utters to the whole world.

For as often as I see conservatives remarking here on how stupid or absurd be liberals and their ideas, I thought I'd share some of the findings of the study noted above. So, without further ado from the study:

• The drunker one is, the more conservative one's political views --> "Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased....As BAC [blood alcohol content] increased and capacity for deliberative thought decreased, liberal and conservative participants shifted toward conservatism....Our data are correlational, and the possibility of reverse causality remains—political conservatives may drink more alcohol."
  
• The harder/more one must think, the more conservative one's political views --> "Participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than those not under cognitive load. Because cognitive load depletes available mental resources, participants were left to draw more heavily on thinking that was easy and efficient....Cognitive load also produced a corresponding shift in liberal attitudes; when under load, participants’ endorsement of political liberalism decreased."
  
• The less time one is able to devote to thinking, the more conservative one's views --> "When effortful thinking was disrupted by rapid presentation of words and phrases related to political conservatism, endorsement of these terms increased. Endorsement of terms related to political liberalism was not affected by time pressure. Time pressure forces reliance on information processing that is quick and efficient."
• People often may arrive at conservative stances not because they've thought "long and hard" about the topic, but because they ran out of time to think rigorously about it --> "Because political conservatism is thought to provide stability and certainty, our participants may have been drawn to it when under load and time pressure. If our claim that low-effort thought promotes conservative ideology is correct, it should be possible to increase conservatism via low effort thought independent of epistemic needs."
• Perfunctory thought process lead to conservative views --> "[L]ow-effort thought promotes political conservatism. When instructed to use shallow processing, political conservatism generated more agreement than when participants were instructed to think hard. Those instructed to use shallow processing had poorer recall at the end of the study, and recall accuracy was partially responsible for the link between processing style and conservatism."

Finally, I got toward the end of the paper and read this, "Many have suggested that liberals and conservatives differ in the way they think, with those on the right of the political spectrum thought to process information in more simple-minded terms (Adorno et al., 1950; Stone, 1980; Tetlock, 1983)." The authors of the study noted above are not making precisely that claim; however, I'm still going to read those other articles.

The authors also write, "Without the means or motive to override an initial impulse that promotes conservative ideology, the political scales may be tipped toward the right of center and may provide a contributing explanation for what has been described as a conservative bias in American politics." Well, I bet there are tons of folks around who intuitively knew that, but it's nice that rigorous research has show it to be so. <winks>

Important Note:
As much as the liberals here may want to do so or think so, it's essential that one note that Eidelman et al "do not assert that conservatives fail to engage in effortful, deliberative thought but rather that disengagement of effortful thinking leads to cognitions consonant with political conservatism." In other words, it's not that conservatives are "low effort" thinkers, but rather than "low effort" thinkers more often espouse conservative stances.

In terms of actionable take-aways from the paper, if one encounters someone making an inane remark, find out if they are a conservative. If so, buy them a drink. Alternatively, rent a hotel room for them and tuck them in so you can go back to chatting with the "grown ups.". LOL

Post Script:
The authors of the study have a wicked sense of humor. In their conclusion to the paper, they remark, "Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism. This claim provides a counterweight to early psychological perspectives on political ideology that tended to see conservatism in somewhat pathological terms (Adorno et al., 1950)." LOL Didn't Bernie Sanders refer to Trump as being a "pathological liar?"

Atheists and agnostics likely to be liberals.
And you are going to tell us about low level thinkers.

Atheists and agnostics ARE higher level thinkers. There is no logic and reason in believing in a god. There is no emperical evidence for such. It is completely a matter of faith, in choosing to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. The fact you think atheists and agnostics are not high level thinkers is a perfect example of what the OP is suggesting.

Your statements reveal that you are antGodist low info thinker.

There is no empirical evidence that God does not exist. Only a low info thinker would believe that.

 

[IcebergSlim]

The irony is that even after witnessing the collapse of entire nations with Venezuela being only the most recent example, progressives still "think" government control and central planning work!

How many votes have you cast for Supply Side Hucksters, Frank?

"Socialism, this time it'll work"

I take that to mean " Every one I could get my hands on, Slim"

 

[IcebergSlim]

CDZ=LOL

CDZ, where intolerant sissies post troll threads

lol ... You've been on a roll lately, Frank. Good one.

As for 'low information voters', how does that square with the reliance of the New Democrats on illiterate minority groups with high school dropout rates and low education levels and living in slums and barrios, and also the big role blacks and latinos in California played in passing Prop 8, for instance, and other fun facts?

We all already know no serious answer will be forthcoming from our resident pseudo-intellectual astro-turfers, so this is just a rhetorical question for practical purposes.

And let's not forget gen xand y's and 'Millennials', who are far more uninformed and inexperienced about politics than the older better educated voters, liberal and conservatives, who aren't stupid enough to believe a word coming out of the Democratic Party's PR machine; they have decades of experience watching Democrats lie through their teeth and blatantly selling out Americans since the 'super delegate rule' alleviated any need to actually represent anybody but themselves.

How many votes for Supply Side Hucksters from you?

 

[IcebergSlim]

I think anyone who relies on TV for their information is suspect.....as is anyone who has ever spent a minute with Drudge, Breitbart, CNS, or The Daily Caller....

I think anyone who thinks that if they think for themselves they are somehow wiser than those who rely on becoming informed or listening to the counsel of good people who have gone before them --- is fooling themselves.

So being told what to think is better than thinking?

Have you given this any thought?

Yes. And apparently more than you.

You seem to want to prevail in word trick games instead of establishing wise paths or moral truths.

I wish I had a nickel for every fool who Boldly Asserted that his/her wise path and moral truth was Indisputable.

You'd have enough left to share some of those nickels with me. I agree.

Just follow in my wake, babe.

 

[IcebergSlim]

More democwat gooooood , wepubwican baaaad. The politicians of both parties are for sale. We now have an opportunity to vote for a presidential candidate who isn't for sale and what he's saying agrees with what a great number Americans are thinking. Stop exporting jobs and importing third worlders who have no regard for our laws or customs. Think Think Think.

You aren't actually arguing that a vote for T-rump is the consequence of deliberation, are you?

 

[IcebergSlim]

I think the author(s) of the study miss something....

As a Conservative, I rarely need to spend great amounts of time pondering the intellectual realms because those who came before me already have. For example:

I have no need to delve into the intricacies of the Second Amendment because I was taught the meaning of the clause by my elders/betters as a child. They were taught its meaning by their elders, and so on, back to the generation that wrote and approved the document.

It's not laziness for Conservatives. We just know what we believe and see no need to rehash it constantly in our heads. Apparently our more Centrist and Liberal associates need constant mental reexamination to prove to themselves that 2+2 does indeed still equal 4.

Red:
I think your example is a fine illustration of what the study uncovered. It's very low-effort to merely accept what one has been told, regardless of who provided the information. In contrast, it takes effort, strength, curiosity, and will to confirm whether what one has been told "holds water."

I do appreciate your having voluntarily amplified the paper's thesis with a very personal example. That was quite generous of you.

I disagree with you, quite vehemently. You are claiming that despite direct, linear communication of an idea being given passed down through a group, that somehow other people's disconnected beliefs and personal opinions are more relevant to a topic? That's literally insane.

Then again this is probably coming from someone who would tell Herman Melville that "Moby Dick" had a deeper meaning and intent, even if the author told you it was just about a huge white whale.

I understand it's difficult for you people to accept Traditions as the basis for anything or understand that not everything has 4 or 5 deeper levels of nuance to it, but that is how most of the world truly is.

You look for the complex when the simple will suffice. It suggests to me that you've never really BELIEVED in anything in your life.

Once we bailed on Geocentricity, we were destined for Hell....

If only Mrs. Galileo had aborted.

 

[Picaro]

CDZ=LOL

CDZ, where intolerant sissies post troll threads

lol ... You've been on a roll lately, Frank. Good one.

As for 'low information voters', how does that square with the reliance of the New Democrats on illiterate minority groups with high school dropout rates and low education levels and living in slums and barrios, and also the big role blacks and latinos in California played in passing Prop 8, for instance, and other fun facts?

We all already know no serious answer will be forthcoming from our resident pseudo-intellectual astro-turfers, so this is just a rhetorical question for practical purposes.

And let's not forget gen xand y's and 'Millennials', who are far more uninformed and inexperienced about politics than the older better educated voters, liberal and conservatives, who aren't stupid enough to believe a word coming out of the Democratic Party's PR machine; they have decades of experience watching Democrats lie through their teeth and blatantly selling out Americans since the 'super delegate rule' alleviated any need to actually represent anybody but themselves.

How many votes for Supply Side Hucksters from you?

Actually., I'm a Nader write-in voter, and a Moynihan wing liberal, but thanks for asking. You do know the neo-liberals and 'globalists', including Hillary AND her Vagina, are supply siders too ,right? They're comfortable in the knowledge their base is too uneducated and illiterate to know that and can't make the distinctions between rhetoric and actual practice.

 

[IcebergSlim]

I think anyone who relies on TV for their information is suspect.....as is anyone who has ever spent a minute with Drudge, Breitbart, CNS, or The Daily Caller....

I think anyone who thinks that if they think for themselves they are somehow wiser than those who rely on becoming informed or listening to the counsel of good people who have gone before them --- is fooling themselves.

So being told what to think is better than thinking?

Have you given this any thought?

Yes. And apparently more than you.

You seem to want to prevail in word trick games instead of establishing wise paths or moral truths.

I wish I had a nickel for every fool who Boldly Asserted that his/her wise path and moral truth was Indisputable.

That's right. God is just a cranky old prankster. He created mankind just to watch them bump into eachother like a pinball machine because they have been given no moral truths or revelations of their Creator to hang their hat on. Nothing can be proven, no sign from God at all who He is or what is our purpose for existence. Apparently it's all for God's entertainment to watch us attack one another and make an unexplainable mess of it all.

Sounds like the easy way out to me. A convenient excuse to do whatever you want because there is nothing that can be known.

And yet, under the watchful eye of your god, "we" have been doing so for 2000 years......while subjects of other gods have resisted.