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.
And, if we are all going to die and thinking of that inevitable fact causes us to change how we react to our environment, isn't it more irrational to NOT think about death??
I don't believe that thinking about death is irrational. It's the fixation on certain causes that is irrational, terrorism being one of them. If terrorism gets you up in arms, drunk driving should make thousands of times more upset. It's irrational to focus on terrorism, over something like drunk driving.
I believe what the author is referring to is fear, in general, and how it's used to control the thoughts of large groups of people. It's currently used by some liberals with global warming and by some conservatives with terrorism.
I don't believe that thinking about death is irrational. It's the fixation on certain causes that is irrational, terrorism being one of them. If terrorism gets you up in arms, drunk driving should make thousands of times more upset. It's irrational to focus on terrorism, over something like drunk driving.
I believe what the author is referring to is fear, in general, and how it's used to control the thoughts of large groups of people. It's currently used by some liberals with global warming and by some conservatives with terrorism.
I don't know any conservatives whos thoughts are controlled by terrorism. I think of people like Rosie who became so fearful and unstable after 911 that she had to go on medication. And the people who supposedly "became conservative" after 911, well again, I propose that they are in fact not conservative but just liberals responding to fear (thus liberals are more fearful) and temporarily leaning right. They will eventually go back to their baseline (liberal). Another example of liberals being fearful; they are afraid that by the US going to war we we unleash all kinds of hate against us and it will result in more terrorists attacks. Conservatives on the other hand look at it more rationally, not based on emotion (fear).
Hah, so you're saying that conservatives are immune to fear tactics?
Newsflash, we're ALL victims of fearmongering. Whether it's the left or the right, we're controlled by fear. Fear of global warming, terrorism, communists, hell, illegal immigration...you name it, someone is trying to use it to control the populace.
Spunky, you're looking at this from the perspective of the individual. That's a flawed perspective. Humans are social creatures. We react in groups. Read up on Freud and Burnays if you disagree.
Your reactions, overall, are a clear indication that it is mis-placed to generalize--especially in social science literature.
As for the issue of death, I would say that the measures were probably based on some subjective surmize. If we look at death from a life-preserving issue, I suspect everyone thinks about dying, but the frequency of those thoughts would be the most telling factor: absorption with death, suicide ideation, and extreme phobias about the prospect of death. The latter 3 examples could be described as extreme, while an infrequent acknowledgment or acceptance of death normative.
If we add a religious bias, very religious, less religious or non-religious, we may find minor or major differences (hard to predict). The only factor I could name, and just off hand, not with any certainly, but a rationale and very subjective hypothesis, is that a more religious Christian may see death in terms of an after-life, and not just as a cycle of life and death.
So a possible conclusion would be: Death seen as cyclical (winter and spring) might have more distance from a fear of death than someone who strongly believes that to live on earth is a continuum (to an after-life).
Does that answer the question? Until this post, I don't think I actualized these thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Great article, OTR, lots of food for thought there. My thoughts/opinions:
1-Don't know what this means but, in almost all the comparisons regarding liberal vs. conservative (music, teacher opinions, etc) I fall on the liberal side. However, as I'm sure you are aware, most of my political views tend to be conservative. That being said, I still don't consider my a "right wing nut case", isn't that the label? Anyway, it was interesting to read through and say "No, that's more like me not the conservative side."
2- Regarding this quote, something struck me as odd:
To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death.
Now you know my religious views, probably as well as anyone in this forum, and I know yours but I have an observation on this that I realize is highly skewed by my religion. But here it is:
Is this quote suggesting that thinking about death is (of makes us) irrational?
And, if we are all going to die and thinking of that inevitable fact causes us to change how we react to our environment, isn't it more irrational to NOT think about death??
I don't know if that makes sense, but it struck me.
Hah, so you're saying that conservatives are immune to fear tactics?
Newsflash, we're ALL victims of fearmongering. Whether it's the left or the right, we're controlled by fear.
No I'm not saying all conservatives are immune. . . I was just pointing out that these "studies" missed the mark. But even the OP gave the report an "F" so I have to wonder why it was even posted to begin with.
No I'm not saying all conservatives are immune. . . I was just pointing out that these "studies" missed the mark. But even the OP gave the report an "F" so I have to wonder why it was even posted to begin with.
It spurred a discussion, didn't it? At least it was something different, and not another anti-illegal immigrant or anti-muslim diatribe.
When I worked in a scientific community, it was actually our responsibility to meet and bring in a paper/study to dissect on a weekly basis. Bringing in a paper to discuss, didn't imply we approved or disapproved of the study/article, but rather was a way to learn from each other what was considered good or bad science. I believe it might be called "intellectual inquiry."
It spurred a discussion, didn't it? At least it was something different, and not another anti-illegal immigrant or anti-muslim diatribe.
Yes, it did start a discussion, and I found it interesting and that is why I joined in. I am getting tired, and frankly bored by all the religious posts that go on forever . . . the can gays be Christian, and is abortion a sin. . . Nobody ever convinces anyone. . . it is just the two sides arguing passionately (myself included) and then it invariably gets overheated. . .
I am all for "intellectual inquiry" but seeing as it so biased against conservatives my mind was just curious regarding the intent!
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.
Until this post, I don't think I actualized these thoughts. 
