WatchSo the author of this book is speaking here at UC Davis on Friday April 13th.
I'm planning to go, if anyone has a question they'd like me to ask shout out.
"Mooney will discuss the main themes to his new book “The Republican Brain,” the psychological factors contributing to today's polarized political environment. Many experts today say that liberals and conservatives live in separate and often incompatible realities. One significant area of disagreement is their respective views on major scientific issues such as evolution and climate change. This lecture will draw from Chris Mooney's examination of the “science of why we don't believe science.” He will review cutting–edge research suggesting liberals and conservatives are, in aggregate, fundamentally different people — differing in personalities, psychological needs, even brain structures. He will consider the effects these differences have on processing information, especially information about science that has political implications. Mooney's talk will go beyond standard explanations of ignorance to discover reasons why many Republicans often reject widely accepted findings of mainstream science and explain why understanding cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives is essential to building a civil society with policies grounded in reality and reason."
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Sounds interesting.
I guess my question would be why is today's political environment so polarized? If liberals and conservatives were so fundamentally different would we not always be highly polarized?
Follow
Befriend (8)
209 threads
4,511 comments
Davis, CA
A fair question Leo.
My own runs more along these lines.
As a Recovering Republican, I was never averse to science. I felt uncomfortable with those in the party who were to hostile to it. Isn't your book title overly simplistic?
I have to wonder if the polarization isn't due to people such as myself either leaving the party or if they remain they have all been shoved to the sidelines.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I think polarization is 100% due to propaganda from fake news sources and fake think tanks.
My own parents are an excellent case study. They watch Fox religiously. They buy every book by Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. They have 0% skepticism when it comes to people who agree with them and 100% skepticism when it comes to people on the 'bad list'. (which includes me incidentally)
I can point to the exact moment they switched from being educated and reasonable Republicans to Foxbots. It was when they became convinced that Bill Clinton was guilty of rape. That combined with the viral Bill Clinton murder list convinced them that Democrats weren't just the opposition, they were evil.
After that, the rest was easy. No one wants to listen to evil, so any information source labelled as evil by the neocon media machine was squelched. This also meant that they no longer want to discuss alternate points of view because these points of view had already been deemed evil as well.
Holidays with my family is surreal. I've said before that I'm not exactly liberal, but compared to the rest of my immediate family I'm Karl Marx reborn. I'm bombarded with all the political Foxbot talking points we all know so well, and as long as I'm willing to sit there and listen they wont shut up.
However the moment I present an argument, ANY argument, cries of "NO POLITICS!!" erupt from everyone except me and my wife.
I truly profoundly believe that the modern American neoconservative Republican is UTTERLY incapable of having a debate on political issues. That doesn't mean all Republicans, in fact there are several conservatives who post here regularly that I can have a civil discussion with, but these are not the people electing our government. They mirror the media they consume. No fairness doctrine, no rebuttal, no phone calls into the Rush Limbaugh program that aren't screened to remove inconvenient truths.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Science got us to the moon and created the Internet. Anyone who thinks that science is bunk does not deserve any respect and should not be allowed to vote.
Hypocritically, those who oppose science are glad to enjoy the fruits of its production: high tech military equipment, the Internet, satellites, etc. You never see them turn down any technological advancement that gives them more military power.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
Take good notes and we'll get back to you.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Dan8267 says
Kind of strange since much of tech came from places like Silicon Valley which at the time was more GOP then Liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County,_California#Government_and_politics
I can say the many who were leaders and workers in the tech industry there is no conflict between religion and science.
of course who was opposed to Science and Technology before the tech boom ... Hippies and other scum Liberals hiding in dumps near Davis. Where the fuck were you hippies for the past 40 fucking years.... getting high/stoned and reading Chomsky ? So where did all go.. tune in and drop out ...
You certainly were NOT the losers who became Engineers and Business people.. the establishment, modern industry that made all this happen.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
490 comments
Alameda, CA
thomas.wong1986 says
Quite true; things were much different then. When I first moved to California my rep was Tom Campbell, who was a Republican but very moderate and competent. I liked him a lot and voted for him twice (including against Dianne Feinstein for Senate). The last time I heard from him was when he was Campagning against Prop 8; today I'm sure he'd be run out of the party as a RINO.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
See what he did there?
Thomas has his own little slice of reality where the evil liberals are all stoned hippies who read Chomsky. Facts don't matter. The reality that Santa Clara County overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama doesn't matter. The fact that over 50% of the American voting population voted for a supposed liberal doesn't matter.
Whatever facts are presented, anyone who supports Obama will automatically be a stoned hippie who reads Chomsky. Is that 70 million stoned hippies reading Chomsky? Of course not. So how does Thomas reconcile the two?
He doesn't.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
Sorry Charlie, Obama, and the libs, didnt create or were part of the Tech revolution of the 70's 80s... when we really were rocking. Yes including making MX missle parts to making high speed computing possible.
You are correct that today many (east coast transplants) support Obama, and HERE WE ARE TODAY with MANY OBAMA-TRONS justifing inflated IPO stock bubbles, inflated home prices and all the rest in the middle of Santa Clara County.
Yes, today the East Coast Liberal elite has pretty much taken over and wrecked our state and industries.. Are you proud of that,You call that success ?
Sure Obama has that charm of talking about Change.. but im in business world, talk to me about about your plan on competitive advantage in industries and free market economics ...
He doesnt have one!
Follow
Befriend (2)
4 threads
119 comments
A few years back there was an interesting paper in a top scientific journal (Nature or Science I think). It basically showed that both self-described Democrats and Republicans had a significantly decreased ability to critically identify mistakes and contradictions said by politicians from their own party.
Everybody's brain is wired to quickly jump after facts that support what we already believe but to brush aside facts that are contrary to what we already believe. It takes a real mental effort to go after what disagrees with you and try to understand that better.
In the case of global warming it was an idea that came naturally to many Democrats, but which was disliked from the start by many Republicans. Then when the facts and the data actually turned out to support this idea then the results were predictable.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,239 threads
6,173 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
I actually just ran across The Republican Brain book in the Union Station bookstore in DC yesterday and flipped through it. Looks good. A couple of points I got out of 10 minutes of reading:
* thomas.wong1986 is right in that the military and the corporate world are very Republican. I felt that Intel was quasi-military when I worked there. The author's explanation is that Republicans are comfortable and efficient in heirarchical structures. He praises them for their hard work. So the same reluctance to question established and traditional order is an advantage when working in large numbers against a common enemy.
* You'll never defeat a dedicated Republican with facts. Facts that interfere with his team's goals will be ignored. The best tactic is to provide an alternative story that they can buy into. A story involving people and ideals more than facts.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
I'm in the business world and Republican economic ideas are a sick joke.
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
1. I never believe anything from Wikipedia.
2. If we're talking the 1960s, that was the time when the Republicans and Democrats switched positions.
3. Science and technology has been developed all over the world, not just silicon valley. California overrates itself as a science and tech hub.
4. Back in the 1900-1950s, conservatives were people who believed in liberty, the rights of individuals, rugged individualism, science, and higher education. They were mostly agnostic or closeted atheists as well. They certainly weren't the Bible Thumping Dixiecrats who put Scopes on trial for teaching evolution. No, they were the people who laughed at the backwards, hillbilly, redneck Democrats and their ridiculous religious beliefs.
thomas.wong1986 says
True, but they are wrong. Science is based on the fundamental principle that everything is natural and obeys natural laws. If anything supernatural exists, then all bets are off.
For example, if a god existed and that god did anything to the universe, even pushing a child's marble, it would violate a fundamental law of physics, The Conservation of Energy.
As such, not even a god could intervene in the universe without leaving a shockingly obvious trail of violations of the most fundamental laws of physics.
Science leaves no room for the supernatural, and the supernatural would turn science into chaos.
thomas.wong1986 says
You are confusing liberals with leftists. Liberals, by definition, believe in liberty. As such, no liberal could oppose science, the study of the universe.
I agree that hippies are smelly, worthless bums, but they aren't liberals. They are against free speech on college campuses, which is extremely anti-liberal.
Remember, Stalin was a leftist. He sure wasn't a liberal.
However, as bad as hippies are, the conservatives who think that strip searches, torture, and indefinite detention are OK are far worse and far more dangerous.
iwog says
Chomsky is no hippie. He bathes.
thomas.wong1986 says
Both Obama and Romney, as well as all the other Republicans, are terrible on economics. Obama has no plan other than failed Keynesian stimulants, which are zero-sum games that depress any non-stimulated area. The Republicans have only two old failed ideas: no taxing the rich and lawlessness in corporations, which they call deregulation.
Image if we deregulated the civil sector. You know, remove the laws prohibiting murder, burglary, robbery, rape, arson, etc. Applying Republican logic to the civil sector states that removing such red tape and bureaucracy would create jobs and economic growth. Image all the rape jobs created. Imaging the contribution to the GDP made by the burglary industry if it weren't constrained by all those anti-burglary regulations. Basically, this is what the Republicans want to do with the corporate sector.
Bottom line: both Democrats and Republicans suck donkey balls on economics, but Republicans are worse. This wasn't true prior to Reagan, but it's been true since.
drtor says
True. We've seen many articles on patrick.net that have said just this.
Patrick says
I.e., you have to write a Bible to get them to listen. It has to be filled with fairy tales involving men being eaten by whales and talking snakes.
The problem is that those types of stories can convince such people regardless of whether or not the principle the story is advocating is true or not, good or evil.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,211 comments
I don't completely buy his thesis that republican brains are all the same.
You could say there are:
1) fundamentalist and or guns, gays, and god crowd
2) the libertarian group
3) the pro business and or anti tax crowd
While there may often be overlap, there is also often simply tolerance of the other groups because they are on the same team.
I do think there are some strong underlying traits, and so if the Republican Brain guy addresses those, maybe he's on to something. For example authoritarian tendencies.
This guy models it in an interesting (and not divisive) way.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Dan8267 says
First comment first mistake.. even to be here at ground central during the 70s and 80s, we were very much conservative and religious. If you have some idiotic idea we (SV and other tech hubs) were some atheist utopia, then you would be wrong. The data presented on Wikipedia is correct and that is the facts your kind is unable to reason with.
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
thomas.wong1986 says
Why won't you reason with this, Mr. Wong?
Follow
Befriend (8)
209 threads
4,511 comments
Davis, CA
marcus says
What exactly is the difference between 2 & 3?
Follow
Befriend (17)
785 threads
7,962 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
And how did you verify that?
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,211 comments
Vicente says
As I said there is overlap.
Rather than get into a big analysis of the difference, how about if I just offer you Gearge W. Bush. Probusiness, especially defense industry business, oil related, and when possible both at the same time (Haliburton). Protax cuts even when they were paid for by debt, purely costing us, based on what he had to know was a supply side lie.
(not that the supply side argument about taxes doesn't make sense if and when taxes are too high. but we know now that they weren't).
I don't see that Bush was particularly a libertarian in any way. I guess he was occasionally against a regulation or two, but libertarians go much further. Libertarians tend to be for legalizing drugs and keeping the government completely out of our lives (can you say the Patriot Act).
And so on.
There are a lot of people that vote republican because of how it effects their personal bottom line and they rationalize that that's what's best for the country "hey coincidently it's best for me too!" So this is mostly about taxes.
Again there is an overlap.
I wonder are Ron Paul and other serious libertarians for lowering taxes if the cuts aren't paid for ?
Follow
Befriend (8)
209 threads
4,511 comments
Davis, CA
marcus says
Ron Paul is on the same page as Norquist.
Ron Paul "End the Fed" and "sound money" are simply his variants of Starve the Beast. He believes that foreign adventurism and debt must end, and the way to FORCE this policy change into reality is cutting off the ability to fund these activities.
The worst way to attempt to "cure" an alcoholic is by hiding all their liquor.
It baffles me how neither Norquist nor Libertopians can acknowledge that things are the way they are, because a lot of people WANT it that way. These things have public support, and any "Star Chamber" aspects to it are largely imaginary or irrelevant.
Follow
Befriend (2)
4 threads
119 comments
Nomograph says
One thing I find pretty misleading with this chart. All quantities are *cumulative* from 2001. Obviously, any reduced tax or increased spend will have a bigger cumulative impact if it summed up from 2001 to 2011 than if it is summed up from 2008 to 2011.
And if you compare the blue triangle of 3 years under Obama it is not so different from the first 3 years of Bush. Actually it looks a bit bigger.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,118 comments
drtor says
dirty joke came to mind. sorry.
Follow
Befriend (5)
171 threads
5,211 comments
drtor says
It is a specific frame of reference.
The right side of the big chart on the left with the vertical line shows that instead of our total debt decreasing by 6 trillion (which would barely have taken it to surplus because the debt was over 5 trillion in 2000) instead our debt actually increased by 6 trillion.
OBama's Presidency takes place during our current surreal period of decreased GDP (even if it is slowly increasing), relative to projections back then. so yes the triangle in bigger. And if the economy had been booming the whole time, then Bush's negative impact might not be so bad (although still relatively way worse than if he hadn't cut taxes).
The difference between projected economic growth and actual increased a lot since 2008 (negatively). This adversely effects the areas(on graph) of Bush's green impact as well as Obama's blue impact.
I don't think it's all that misleading. What's misleading is when people talk just about how much the deficit increased under Obama, when GDP (and tax revenues) had fallen so much without proportional drops in govt spending, including Bush war spending that had to continue, and they make it sound like all of the resulting increases in the deficit was just the effect of Obama's spending and policies.
Follow
Befriend (1)
296 threads
5,269 comments
iwog says
Bill Clinton was a fluke, he didn't to damn thing to create the economy he left GWB, that GWB squandered. But Bill didn't do anything to screw up the growth that was happening on his watch.
Unlike GW. Bush that intervened with Government money during the natural disasters on his watch, Katrina, Wilma, Floods, ect... FEMA money and government contractors. Bill Clinton allowed private industry and insurance companies sort it out. Bill came office during the after math of a tumultuous disaster season. Fires Floods and the worst Hurricane season in history, he allowed private industry to sort it out. The trades, manufacturing, and all of the support and service industries that serve them. Then to top that off, the tech boom happened, again Bill Clinton just focused on the state of the union, and not a grand scheme to create a Socialist utopia.
That is why Clinton left GW Bush a booming economy, because he stayed the fuck out of it.
Follow
Befriend (1)
296 threads
5,269 comments
Something self satisfying about watching Liberals ponder the inner workings of the Conservative mind. It's almost like it is self gratifying for them to ponder it. It's kinda weird it's the opposite of watching a hot girl masturbate, but I can't look away.
Do you guys think about Newt when you do it?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,648 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Cloud says
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,520 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
Cloud says
Well, it always was and always will be "global warming". The entire globe on average is "warming".
However scientists, putting too much faith in humanity, did not anticipate how difficult it would be for some individuals to understand that this overall increase in temperature would accompany cold weather increases in some locals. There are certain, very wealthy, organizations that have a vested financial interest in the burning of fossil fuels. These organizations have been able to sew confusion taking advantage of people who are unwilling or unable to understand the basic science of "global warming".
So... in order to help alleviate this confusion the scientific community thought that the term "climate change" -- which is also accurate to describe the situation -- would be less confusing for those that have difficulty understanding simple scientific concepts.
However, those that see conspiracy everywhere where FOX "news" orders them see conspiracy are probably beyond help.