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.
I think the argument stems from the fact that DD tried to put a positive spin on what was at best marginal approval of Obama world wide and he therefore came across as disingenuous.
Now as for who bases their views on theory or emotion or feelings or facts. That's pretty much a pointless argument that neither side can hope to win. So many liberals wouldn't know a science book if it fell off the shelf and hit them on the head. They cling to their ideas and opinions and are very closed minded and unwilling to hear opposing views. Conservatives aren't a whole lot better but at least have a willingness to debate and argue their points in the hopes of winning converts.
I got this from desertdetroiters thread on Obamas poll ratings worldwide. People automatically dismiss the poll because of sample size, when the sample of 1000 isn't actually that bad, statistically speaking.
But it seems that conservatives in general don't like studies. I'll admit, there are a lot of flawed ones, but not all of them are. Why is it that they seem to dismiss studies so rapidly though? are liberals just as dismissive of studies?
I have found for issues like minimum wage, unemployment, effects of globalization... conservatives are generally much more theory based while liberals are more open minded to empirical results.
What do you think?
I think liberals think with their hearts, and conservatives think with their heads. Liberals ruled by emotions while cons are more focused on the bottom line.
I think conservatives are more fear and anger based while libs tend to be more touchy-feely based.
Both need to be more reality based.
I agree with this: cons get ticked/angry paying taxes for people they perceive to be lazy to stay at home and collect welfare....cons are fearful of what happens when the money runs out and when Muslim extremists and sympathizers gain more clout around the globe.
Liberals are more emotion driven---without much attention to how much it costs-----"let's help these poor people by giving them more government assistance," and "what women want to do with their own bodies is more important than what they do to the bodies of their unborn children."
@OP - because the "studies" are quite often not all that empirical in that they tend to discard, dismiss or otherwise diminish data that runs counter to the theory they are attempting to "prove" with statistics.
Easiest example is virtually any study that in some way shows whites having preference over blacks, like the one where "black sounding" names on resumes result in fewer interviews than "white sounding" names. All we get for inputs are the two different "soundings" for a name, and we are asked to assume that every other input is exactly equal, which in a null/alternate hypothesis proof is patently absurd, but maybe 1 person in 10,000 actually understands how statistical proofs work. So I have asked, right here on this forum in relation to such "studies" what are all the other input factors and are they indeed exactly equal? Nobody ever answers, or I get insulted, accused of some nefarious political agenda, or whatever, when what I am doing is trying to help folks understand the rigors of statistical proof in the mathematical/logical world.
On minimum wage, unemployment and globalization, same thing. BOTH SIDES will tend to dismiss unequal input factors that invalidate their hypothesis, as well as any data that runs counter to the theory they are attempting to "prove." Liberals ignore any increase in unemployment or explain it off to some other factor. Additionally, they take local examples like SeaTac and very finite points in time and extrapolate the results out to both a larger scale and longer time interval, which is mathematically incorrect, but that's common. Conservatives do the reverse. They take a national observation over a period of time and shrink it down as if it can apply locally and at a specific point in time. This too is mathematically incorrect, and just as common.
Same for unemployment. Both sides tout whichever one of the three dozen or so unemployment measurements that makes their side look good and the other side look bad, while ignoring everything else. When they can't find a measure that can do that, they invent one. Thing is, folks like me know all the various statistics are out there for viewing, so I tend to dismiss any of the narrowly focused "studies" that are partisan nonsense to both hide the truth and to score political points.
And seriously, globalization might be the worst offender besides race/class warfare baiting where ignoring things running counter to your hypothesis are concerned.
Etc etc. One side is not more or less empirical or theoretical than the other. Both are fond of publishing that which benefits them, harms their opponent, or preferably does both, and they ignore, hide, destroy, marginalize, ridicule anything that runs counter to that political goal.
I got this from desertdetroiters thread on Obamas poll ratings worldwide. People automatically dismiss the poll because of sample size, when the sample of 1000 isn't actually that bad, statistically speaking.
But it seems that conservatives in general don't like studies. I'll admit, there are a lot of flawed ones, but not all of them are. Why is it that they seem to dismiss studies so rapidly though? are liberals just as dismissive of studies?
I have found for issues like minimum wage, unemployment, effects of globalization... conservatives are generally much more theory based while liberals are more open minded to empirical results.
What do you think?
I would argue exactly the opposite, if by 'conservative' you mean grass roots conservatives.
The primary source of theory-based governance and opinion in this world tends to come from universities and big league bureaucrats. Their ability to try to get the world to fit a model (view modern public policies at the large scale, central banking, modern grievance based social movements) is unparalleled in history.
liberals are more likely to take an emotional stand regardless of studies or any factual evidence and stick to it just because it is such a passionate issue to them. Restricting the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms is one of their big ones.
When someone confronts them about it they get all hysterical like whiny schoolchildren. They've certainly been acting like whiny kids in WI since Scott Walker took over, but their arguments hold little substance and are mostly just emotional ranting.
However, I don't disagree with them on everything. Far from it. Also people on the right are not immune to this either. I'm a firm believer in evolution just looking at the facts and statistics over the years, the geologic makeup of the US and our planet and the changes that can be seen with the naked eye on google maps from things like repeated ice ages, etc... to me, everything fits.. thus my position is secure and I don't feel the need to force it on people or get all upset/offended when someone questions me about it, like many religious people do.
I find emotional based position where deep down the person knows the facts don't support their position but don't want to admit it to themselves, are the easiest ones to see in a person.
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.
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.
Do you think conservatives are more theory based while liberals are more empirically(study/statistically) based?
