At Yale, we conducted an experiment to turn conservatives into liberals.

Sure, plenty of people focus on the individual sense but that doesn't change the policy issues. Someone can want to keep more of their earnings but recognize the need to balance the budget (conservative) or support specific social welfare programs (liberal) and understand that their personal desire must wait.

My fiscal policy is mostly about the societal level stuff, which is why I'm less supportive of the tax cuts than I would have been 10 years ago. When I support the things that benefit me and mine, I'm aligning with the GOP but I'm not confusing my position with conservative principles - I am being selfish, not conservative.

The estate tax is the best example. On a policy level, eliminating the estate tax is bad policy when it doesn't come with spending cuts. Conservative principles recognize that working towards greater financial stability means bringing spending more in line with revenue - so cutting revenue is fine when it's proportionate with spending cuts. Cutting revenue while increase spending is not fine.

So, from a conservative position, my support for cutting the estate tax is built on the entirety of the financial direction for the nation, not just myself. So I might support it for society today and not support it for society tomorrow. However, I'll always support it for personal gain and when I do that, I'm very aware that sometimes I'm violating good conservative principles to do so.

People who blindly support "increasing personal wealth" as conservative don't really understand the difference between conservative principles and policies for society vs. their egocentrism. For those who do understand the difference, it's easy enough to convince the others that they should increase my personal wealth by pretending that a specific fiscal policy always aligns with the larger conservative ideology. In truth conservative support for specific fiscal policies (like tax cuts) should always be contextual.

Sure, ok.

But im not seeing what that has to do with the point that a massive base for the conservatives in the US is the wealth class who support increasing their net worth via tax cuts, regardless of the perceived detriment to the rest of society.

Are you saying they are a minor element?

My point is there are plenty of intelligent and educated conservatives who vote beyond the fear variable argued in the study. Personal gain being one of the biggest factors as no conservative president has put forth any policy to reduce the debt since the early 80s
 
If conservatives have a larger "fear center" why is it liberals are afraid of words?
Its not that liberals are afraid of words, its that conservatives not only know words, they have the best words. If conservatives have the best words, whats the point in even using these old, raggedy words.
 
dude, posting excerpts from the article &/or sharing your thoughts are a requirement in TWR. you can't just post a link.
TL : DR
People who grow up to be conservatives are more fearful and show a marked concern for pain as children
Liberals are less concerned with pain and fear.
 
Sure, ok.

But im not seeing what that has to do with the point that a massive base for the conservatives in the US is the wealth class who support increasing their net worth via tax cuts, regardless of the perceived detriment to the rest of society.

Are you saying they are a minor element?

My point is there are plenty of intelligent and educated conservatives who vote beyond the fear variable argued in the study.

No, I'm saying they're not conservatives. I'm not questioning how they're voting, only that their ideology isn't part of the conservative/liberal dynamic.

I gathered that the article was talking about dyed in the wool conservatives who believe in conservative principles, regardless of if those principles personally enriched them or not. Sort of how a lecherous man might still believe in and practice abstinence because he believes in Judeo-Christian principles regarding out of wedlock fornication.

Or how I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment even though I don't own a firearm, never intend to own a firearm and don't have a personal issue with tighter restrictions on firearms. But my belief in the 2nd Amendment outweighs my personal opinions on firearms. Contrast with someone who claims to support the 2nd Amendment but lets their personal displeasure with gun proliferation drive their policy choices - they might claim to be something but their motivations aren't actually aligned with that something.

So, people who just want to increase their personal wealth might be voting alongside conservatives but they're not really conservatives. They're self-enriching. If the Democrats suddenly wanted tax cuts or the end of the estate tax, those people would switch their alignment to that of the liberals.
 
There is no difference in the size of the amygdala between conservatives and liberals.
 
Basically if you're prone to being scared as a youth, more likely to be conservative as you're older.

Or, if you just want to keep more of your earnings, either or.

Although the methodology of that experiment seems off. How do you verify "intense visualization" over an online survey?

Here's a person that only read the article until he felt offended by an inferred point and then stopped reading.

Your conclusion exposed your lack of comprehension of the article, because you quit too soon and didn't read 6/7ths of the article.


Ironically, fear of threat made him stop and so he proved a point by accident.
 
I don't feel like reading the entire article, so please summarize.

Either way, we know Yale students are overwhelmingly overwhelmingly "liberal" because in our current political environment, the alternative is being an anti-intellectual, anti-economics, anti-science, anti-history, pro-being a shithead rube.

And I bet the test subjects, universally being either brilliant, or brilliantly hardworking and scrupulous, were resistant to being converted into such.

You rage about the "anti-intellectual, anti-economics, anti-history" elements of society but your name is trotsky and your posts are usually very simplistic/binary (like the one above). I've outed you as a complete historical illiterate in the past & I'm pretty sure you're in a clerical field with no scientific background.

Have you considered perhaps that these people are not truly "anti-_______" but are simply operating at a far more advanced level which to you seems deliberately defiant because you took basic academia too seriously?

You're very much still in the edgy pseudointellectual teenager stage. The typical American goes through their "Trotsky not Stalin! REAL communism! Oh man I don't even have TIME to explain!" during their mid teens. It should be mentioned alongside "goth" or "juggalo" rather than as a peer to serious political solutions. I don't think you realize how other adults see you.
 
Last edited:
The rule certainly fits my family members. I'd describe all the hardcore conservative ones as paranoid.
 
No, I'm saying they're not conservatives. I'm not questioning how they're voting, only that their ideology isn't part of the conservative/liberal dynamic.

I gathered that the article was talking about dyed in the wool conservatives who believe in conservative principles, regardless of if those principles personally enriched them or not. Sort of how a lecherous man might still believe in and practice abstinence because he believes in Judeo-Christian principles regarding out of wedlock fornication.

Or how I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment even though I don't own a firearm, never intend to own a firearm and don't have a personal issue with tighter restrictions on firearms. But my belief in the 2nd Amendment outweighs my personal opinions on firearms. Contrast with someone who claims to support the 2nd Amendment but lets their personal displeasure with gun proliferation drive their policy choices - they might claim to be something but their motivations aren't actually aligned with that something.

So, people who just want to increase their personal wealth might be voting alongside conservatives but they're not really conservatives. They're self-enriching. If the Democrats suddenly wanted tax cuts or the end of the estate tax, those people would switch their alignment to that of the liberals.

For example:

William F Buckley = (principled) traditional conservative
Norman Ornstein = (principled) traditional conservative
Donald Trump = Self aggrandizing semi-nativist demagogue who isn't any kind of principled conservative
 
I ran into a pay wall.
But a lot depend upon how you define "conservatism."
the libertarian branch of conservatism is more inclined to restrict regulation and let people do what they want. The inclination to impose regulation is probably due to risk aversion and libertarianism is more accepting of risk.
On the other hand, if you define conservatism as opposition to change - then conservatism is associated with risk aversion.
 
Here's a person that only read the article until he felt offended by an inferred point and then stopped reading.

Your conclusion exposed your lack of comprehension of the article, because you quit too soon and didn't read 6/7ths of the article.


Ironically, fear of threat made him stop and so he proved a point by accident.

I didn't disagree with the premise and I read one of the other several articles that covered the same study.

Of which the 50'000 ft of which is that a prone to fear related to future voting benefits -- unless the WaPo article covered how they verified "intense visualization" im not sure why you quoted my response
 
No, I'm saying they're not conservatives. I'm not questioning how they're voting, only that their ideology isn't part of the conservative/liberal dynamic.

I gathered that the article was talking about dyed in the wool conservatives who believe in conservative principles, regardless of if those principles personally enriched them or not. Sort of how a lecherous man might still believe in and practice abstinence because he believes in Judeo-Christian principles regarding out of wedlock fornication.

Or how I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment even though I don't own a firearm, never intend to own a firearm and don't have a personal issue with tighter restrictions on firearms. But my belief in the 2nd Amendment outweighs my personal opinions on firearms. Contrast with someone who claims to support the 2nd Amendment but lets their personal displeasure with gun proliferation drive their policy choices - they might claim to be something but their motivations aren't actually aligned with that something.

So, people who just want to increase their personal wealth might be voting alongside conservatives but they're not really conservatives. They're self-enriching. If the Democrats suddenly wanted tax cuts or the end of the estate tax, those people would switch their alignment to that of the liberals.

Ah, I see your point now -- but I don't think it's put into practice that often.
 
A buddy of mine, son went to college. I saw him over Thanksgiving break and we went out for some drinks.
Well the son had to go to the bathroom, and was gone for like a half hour and came back with pee all over the front of his pants.
I asked him what happened and he could not decide what bathroom to use. He told me using the mens room is racist, but did not want to offend a women by using the ladies with him being male and Caucasian, so as to not offend anyone he pissed himself.
Thanks Obama.
That is why you will not see any of my kids in college. I don't want liberals corrupting them. I don't want my daughter to come home wearing a hijab or my son coming home in a dress.
 
Sounds like a bullshit study that's trying to poke holes into conservative "macho"/tough guy attitudes.
 
Ah, I see your point now -- but I don't think it's put into practice that often.

Maybe, maybe not but the link appeared to be about true conservatives vs. liberals and not about people who just vote alongside them.
 
Maybe, maybe not but the link appeared to be about true conservatives vs. liberals and not about people who just vote alongside them.

What was the control to determine true conservative v liberal besides self identification?
 
What was the control to determine true conservative v liberal besides self identification?

I'm not getting into defending or critiquing their specific study. I was only pointing out that maximizing personal financial enrichment isn't a conservative or liberal principle. That it's an individual vs. society dynamic and, moreover, the study is about social issues, not fiscal ones.

For another perspective, when liberals are forced to think about their own deaths, they adopt more conservative policy decisions. This was shown as far back as 2003. It goes both ways.
 
You rage about the "anti-intellectual, anti-economics, anti-history" elements of society but your name is trotsky and your posts are usually very simplistic/binary (like the one above). I've outed you as a complete historical illiterate in the past & I'm pretty sure you're in a clerical field with no scientific background.

Have you considered perhaps that these people are not truly "anti-_______" but are simply operating at a far more advanced level which to you seems deliberately defiant because you took basic academia too seriously?

You're very much still in the edgy pseudointellectual teenager stage. The typical American goes through their "Trotsky not Stalin! REAL communism! Oh man I don't even have TIME to explain!" during their mid teens. It should be mentioned alongside "goth" or "juggalo" rather than as a peer to serious political solutions. I don't think you realize how other adults see you.

Lolololol

Man, I don't know whether to comment on your delusions of grandeur, your being hysterical to the point of menses, or the apparent alternate reality you live in, in which you have ever so much genuinely contended one of my points, let alone "outed" me as an historical illiterate. I will say that your weird, obsessive hostility is pretty fucking concerning and you should at some point maybe see a shrink.

Also, as far as my being "in a clerical field with no scientific background," I am a licensed attorney with a law degree from a top 20 law school. I have commented on where I graduated from several times. Before that, I double majored in English Literature and Sociology. So you've got me on not coming from a hard science background. Regardless, your (completely unfounded) suggestion that Trotskyists are political neophytes is just silly. Some of the greatest intellectuals of the modern era have been Trotskyists: Jean-Paul Sartre, Christopher Hitchens, George Orwell, etc.

Meanwhile, reactionary, rage-bitching troglodytes such as yourself reside solely in the company of their (anti-) intellectual peers. You'll never produce anything useful for the human species besides mobilizing persons of actual worth with your hateful bellyaching.

But you already know all of this. You're pretty self-aware of your ongoing denial of who and what you are, aren't you.
 
Back
Top