Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2011, 04:37 PM
 
30,220 posts, read 18,787,616 times
Reputation: 21083

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
There might actually be some truth to this. As I put it before somewhere else, I think liberals are more compassionate about the plight of the poor and more sympathetic to understanding how poor people ended up in their circumstances. But the conservative is probably more likely to show up at a charity event and donate food. However, to be fair here, the reasons need to be put into their proper perspective. It's a philosophical difference, which doesn't really mean that it's an inconsistency.

Liberals believe in the power of the masses, and they tend to be likely to believe in things like 'collectivism' than 'individualism'. You can read 'socialism' if you want to, but I think that would be a symptom of their belief, rather than the belief itself. I think that liberals are more likely to believe that many of our problems can be solved through more 'global' means; conservatives (at least here) believe that problems are resolved almost exclusively at a local level, often on a person to person basis.

My point is, I agree with you in that a lot of liberals would not pass your 'tests' as enumerated above, but that's because they believe they shouldn't be forced to make those decisions in the first place, particularly if they believe that the solutions are available to keep people out of poverty to begin with.


I agree. It is false sympathy. They talk a good talk about being compassionate for the poor and the social causes they are interested in. However, they do not practice what they preach and are as hypocritical as they come. A good liberal, if they really believed in liberal principles, would do all the above. However, they do none of those things. Why? Because it would be insane to do so, just as it is insane to compel others to do these things on a national level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2011, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,652 posts, read 26,461,399 times
Reputation: 12665
Quote:
Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv View Post
Liberals are more open-minded. This doesn't equate to higher or lower intelligence, though.

Open-minded often means unable to learn from experience.

We just spent a trillion dollars trying to "stimulate" the economy.

In the 1930s we did the same thing expecting a multiplier effect and economic recovery.

The anticipated economic recovery during the Great Depression never happened and unemployment remained in the double digits until the military draft was reinstated in 1940, but don't tell that to a liberal.

You see, it doesn't work.

It didn't then and it didn't this time either.

Now we have a liberal president proposing we spend another $600 billion after the trillion failed.

I see an inability to learn from experience at work here.

Last edited by momonkey; 11-12-2011 at 05:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 04:58 PM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,346,228 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
I agree. It is false sympathy. They talk a good talk about being compassionate for the poor and the social causes they are interested in. However, they do not practice what they preach and are as hypocritical as they come. A good liberal, if they really believed in liberal principles, would do all the above. However, they do none of those things. Why? Because it would be insane to do so, just as it is insane to compel others to do these things on a national level.
I'm not sure it's false sympathy, though; I think the sympathy is there, but I think that they're sometimes less likely to actually get off their duffs and do something about it. I think the assumption is that government, society, or a combination of the two should keep people from being poor in the first place.

Philosophically, I think conservatives are more likely to espouse and embrace individual, local activism. Often it comes in the form of religiously-inspired activism through their own church, though it may come from just a deeply-rooted conviction to be visible in one's local community.

It's easier for conservatives, too, because conservatives are more local, whereas liberals are more global. A conservative is more likely to stay in his community for longer; more likely to forge lifetime bonds; more stable. A liberal is more global; more likely to move around and help more people from across a wider cross-section of the world's population. A conservative will probably offer help to fewer people, but that help will probably be more meaningful and profound. A liberal will probably provide more superficial assistance, but to a wider group of people.

Another issue you see time and time again is the issue of being forced to provide help. Conservatives are, in a sense, obligated to help others, but they believe that this pressure should be a social one; that the obligation to serve should come out of an obedience to social virtues that are reinforced through private clubs and organizations. They trust their neighbors and people in their community, but not government, which they see as wasteful and corrupt.

Liberals, on the other hand, may be skeptical of government but they also believe that government can be used for social good. They accept that government is sometimes corrupt but they are optimistic that they can keep government in line by being watchdogs and calling them out when they run afoul. They're more likely, therefore, to believe in providing for a consistent, state-supported system of social support, and they're willing to oversee the development of complex bureaucratic administrations to implement these systems. They accept that some degree of waste and abuse is inevitable, but necessary to provide consistent social welfare support.

And yes, I realize I'm making sloppy generalizations and they're based on nothing more than my own anecdotes. Only reporting what I've seen and concluded.

But the point here is, even though I tend to support one way of providing this support (moderate lefty that I am), I think I can try to understand and appreciate the philosophical differences that make us who we are. I admit that's not always easy, and obviously, sometimes I don't do a good job of that. But the solutions to society's problems, I believe, come not by labeling each other as dumb and virtue-challenged, but through compromise. And that's the big problem I see right now. There are a lot of people who have a lot of power who don't want any form of compromise. It stems from a lack of respect for each other, which sucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,297 posts, read 20,805,490 times
Reputation: 9335
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance View Post
It wasn't the case that conservatives in general or Republicans had lower intelligence levels, but social conservatives were shown to have lower levels of intelligence. .

Millions of Republicans are not social conservatives.

And millions of Democrats are social conservatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 05:34 PM
 
1,378 posts, read 1,396,161 times
Reputation: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I think it's the other way round. Social conservatism makes people stupid. Seriously though, I'm not sure it's about native intelligence so much as education or lack thereof. People who are socially conservative are likely that way because they didn't have access to a world class education. Had they grown up in better circumstances they could have turned out quite differently.
Not necessarily. You'd be surprised at the number of fairly well-educated areas in America that are home to a rather substantial evangelical Christian population.

And I'm not a social conservative, for the record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 06:19 PM
 
15,120 posts, read 8,698,621 times
Reputation: 7501
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance View Post
I was googling around trying to find a studies that link fringe political views (from either side) to cognitive ability and found this study instead.

Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? — The American Magazine

I'm a little behind the times since it is from a few years ago. A researcher looked at political views and tried to link them to intelligence. It wasn't the case that conservatives in general or Republicans had lower intelligence levels, but social conservatives were shown to have lower levels of intelligence. That would include people who vote based on values and not conservative financial principles.

It's an interesting study. In thinking about the outcome, it does make sense to me. I've challenged social conservatives to debates on several fronts (as I do with people of all political mindsets) and in the end when all of their rationalizations are shot down, it all comes back to emotion as their justification. Perhaps these people have a left side of the brain that is weak and thus dominated by the right.

I'd be interested to see if anyone has found any other studies in similar peer reviewed journals.
The heck with phony studies and polls ...

I'll be your huckleberry ... giddy-up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Fairfax
2,904 posts, read 6,928,377 times
Reputation: 1282
I'm socially conservative on some issues and socially liberal on others. On IQ tests and the SATs I scored higher than the 90th percentile. I guess the part of my brain that is socially liberal is responsible for that....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,639 posts, read 18,172,376 times
Reputation: 6915
I am a staunch social conservative (at least on the topics of same-sex marriage, abortion, and sex in the media) myself, but I can see why this would be, and it matches up with my experience pretty well. Social conservatives are more likely to be older, and levels of educational achievement have been advancing with each generation. They are less likely to be educated by the often very socially liberal academic community. And so on....

However, there is a small, core group on intellectual social conservatives. The ones I know are mainly Catholic and follow Scholastic methods of thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2011, 06:59 PM
 
15,120 posts, read 8,698,621 times
Reputation: 7501
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
I am a staunch social conservative (at least on the topics of same-sex marriage, abortion, and sex in the media) myself, but I can see why this would be, and it matches up with my experience pretty well. Social conservatives are more likely to be older, and levels of educational achievement have been advancing with each generation. They are less likely to be educated by the often very socially liberal academic community. And so on....

However, there is a small, core group on intellectual social conservatives. The ones I know are mainly Catholic and follow Scholastic methods of thought.

You're joking right? You have to be kidding? Have you examined the mentality of the average college student or recent graduate? This nation is on the hairy edge of being to stupid to breathe.

The average IQ today is 95 .... that's the average ... that means that 1/2 of the population is lower than 95.

We've got college graduates that can't read or write, and those stringent college requirements of days gone by have been reduced to requiring two things from prospective students ... a pencil, and some form of funding.

As for social liberals and their modern base philosophies, most of these philosophies are absent an iota of reason or common sense, and are responsible for the disaster we now find ourselves neck deep in.

We could collectively be defined as 80% leftists, the 40% viewed as representing the left are actually so far to the extreme left, they give the illusion that the other 40% are on the right, but it's only an illusion. We have the extreme left, and then we have the left.

And then there are the remaining 20% of us who wonder how in the world we are ever going to survive the insanity surrounding us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top