TomatoPie wrote: It is actuarial disaster, doesn't require a crystal ball to see where it's going.

One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it).

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

Monkeyboy wrote:It's a trial run for the huge one they'll try to bill taxpayers to build around the US a decade from now.

jerseyhoya wrote:If that was a hard and fast rule, Soren would be the most right wing person on the board.

It makes sense on social and national security issues. I have the paper open and will give it a look, but it would seem the aligned response on most economic issues would be redistributionist/strengthening the social safety net, not adherence to the market.

Hibbing and his co-authors do some interesting work. I saw them present a paper at MPSA this year about how they were able to increase voter turnout in people who are prone to stress (high baseline levels of cortisol) with messaging that threatened to tell people if they didn't vote.

jerseyhoya wrote:I but it would seem the aligned response on most economic issues would be redistributionist/strengthening the social safety net, not adherence to the market.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If that was a hard and fast rule, Soren would be the most right wing person on the board.

It makes sense on social and national security issues. I have the paper open and will give it a look, but it would seem the aligned response on most economic issues would be redistributionist/strengthening the social safety net, not adherence to the market.

Hibbing and his co-authors do some interesting work. I saw them present a paper at MPSA this year about how they were able to increase voter turnout in people who are prone to stress (high baseline levels of cortisol) with messaging that threatened to tell people if they didn't vote.

Yes, I googled MPSA so I could evaluate how I should judge this comment.

Bucky wrote:. I'd actually been postulating on common personality differences between liberals and conservatives and have been doing some googling to see if anyone else shares my theories. The most common theory is that there is a higher average intelligence amongst liberals- which is, as you could imagine, quite a controversial and argued topic.

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I but it would seem the aligned response on most economic issues would be redistributionist/strengthening the social safety net, not adherence to the market.

it's because the same negativity bias also nourishes a strong proclivation toward authoritative leaders

these leaders, being wealthy, thus exert their influence toward other policies that favor themselves, such as tax rates and other seemingly inverse beliefs like ridiculous rejection of things that would harm their financial standing, such as global warming

also, fox news

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: they were able to increase voter turnout in people who are prone to stress (high baseline levels of cortisol) with messaging that threatened to tell people if they didn't vote.

Yes, I googled MPSA so I could evaluate how I should judge this comment.

Monkeyboy wrote:I mentioned a while back that I graduated high school with a guy that is now running for Congress in Washington. He showed up on the national radar today...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/g ... nvironment

fwiw, he's mormon. I'm not sure if that impacts his view on this particular issue, but it seems like it could be relevant. I really don't know how mormons view the environment as a whole

pacino wrote:God you're fucking insufferable sometimes