# Liberals hanging with Conservatives **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 18, 2017, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815 "2017-12-18T22:53:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/121 "2017-12-22T06:29:59Z")
It is the unholy alliance between “social conservatives” and “economic conservatives” that is the big obstacle to political enlightenment. For “economic conservative” read “rich people who want to be even richer and non-rich Americans who have swallowed the lies of kleptocrats.” I apologize if you think I mistook you for a social conservative, **sleestak**. (I address ideas, not specific posters.) _ **However you used the term “conservative” and “liberal” without qualification.** _ Odd for a libertarian. > [@sleestak](#): > > I stated that I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Can you point to where you stated that in _this_ thread (before just now)? I sure don’t see it. > [@sleestak](#): > > #1. HINT! Government spending matters in the context of debt. If our debt to GDP ratio were 80% my views on deficeit spending would be very different than they are when our debt to GDP ratio is ~106% (2016). [Linky](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp.)In other words, the (unstated) premise in your question that government spend exists in a vacuum is false. This sort of response shows only that you’ve bought into the _Starve the Beast_ policy. You are right that context is important. Consider the context that taxes on corporations and the rich have been cut to the bone, _ **and are now getting even lower** _. > [@sleestak](#): > > #2. Cut spending and keep taxes where they are or maybe a short term increase. However, history has shown that that won’t happen, regardless of which party is in power. Both parties suck at cutting spending. > … Clinton … lucky > > Fluff programs that don’t amount to much like the NEA to start. … The question you’re (not) answering here is: _ **HOW** _ do you cut spending? … And while you’re at it, fight your ignorance by Googling Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Are you saying that NEA is worthless fluff or that its budget doesn’t amount to much? Have you looked at pie-charts of government spending? Cutting so-called fluff is useless. Do you support the Trump tax cut? Do you expect the GOP to follow through and slash military spending? > [@sleestak](#): > > #3. Taxes. First your w+x+y+z misses a point. Would you rather have 90% of 1,000 or 10% of 10,000. I assume you understand what you missed. Oh my. Google “Does supply-side economics work?” and filter out hits from right-wing sites. > [@sleestak](#): > > You ask “How do you go from my conciliatory post to the claim that “septimus [thinks] ‘Truth and Justice!!!’ are on the liberal side”?” > > Easy, you said “The real political divide is between Truth and Fiction, with conservatives rejecting the truthful but liberal media, and listening to FakeNews which panders to their moral views.” Do you disagree that much of Trumpism is based on fiction? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2017, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/122 "2017-12-22T06:58:52Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > … And while you’re at it, fight your ignorance by Googling Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. This Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 has been called the largest tax increase in history. Among other measures it increased the top income tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. The sky didn’t fall apart; instead the tax hike was followed by one of the greatest booms ever. Has anyone ever said that the boom was 100% due to the tax hike? Of course not. Has anyone ever implied that the boom would have been even bigger had Clinton instead caused the debt to soar like RWR and GWB did? I think so — the right-wing does like to indulge in fictions. Googling just now, a top hit on the 1993 tax hikes is [Forbes.Com](http://Forbes.Com) which argues that the tax hike must have been a bad idea — the Democrats lost the 1994 midterm elections. Well, duuh! Americans aren’t known for their brains. 🆒 _ **When Democratic Congressmen voted the tax hikes they already knew many would lose election because of it but made the sacrifice for the good of the country.** _ This Democratic fore-knowledge is well documented. Is 1993 ancient history? In another thread, asked for examples where Democrats denied a Supreme Court vote the way McConnell did in 2016, an (R) reached back to a Whig President before the Republican Party even existed! Obviously young’uns don’t know about the 1993 budget. They should: it is a unique and important story. It moved toward debt eradication so well that financiers like Greenspan complained that if the U.S. stopped issuing long bonds there would be adverse consequences. _And then the GOP under Bush-43 laid waste to this debt reduction effort._ No wonder liberal thinkers became disillusioned. ☹ Knowledge of the 1993 budget seems to have gone down the “memory-hole” (cf. George Orwell’s _Nineteen Eighty-Four_). Too bad. _ **Right-wingers are entitled to their opinions. My complaint is that they also feel entitled to their own facts.** _ ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/123 "2017-12-23T01:37:09Z")
The 1993 budget was an economic boon because it helped with confidence by reducing the deficit. Along with tax increases, it also included big spending cuts which took effect over the remainder of the Clinton Presidency, until the Republicans in their infinite fiscally responsible wisdom ended Paygo. Although Paygo was part of the Bush/Democrats budget deal in 1990, which was the precursor to the 1993 act. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/124 "2017-12-23T02:14:25Z")
I’d like to go back to as a conservative, I dont have to go find liberals. Heck I went to college and got liberal agenda shoved down me. Practically every tv show and news channel has a major liberal slant. This isnt the 70’s where tv would actually challenge anyone. And then every major newspaper has a liberal slant. Hasnt every major newspaper endorsed the democratic candidate for president since Ike? ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/125 "2017-12-23T03:41:06Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Hasnt every major newspaper endorsed the democratic candidate for president since Ike? Certainly not. That’s why it was so notable when 99% of them endorsed Clinton, or at least endorsed voting against Trump. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![AI\_Proofreader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@AI\_Proofreader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AI_Proofreader)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/126 "2017-12-23T06:11:05Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I’d like to go back to as a conservative, I dont have to go find liberals. Heck I went to college and got liberal agenda shoved down me. Practically every tv show and news channel has a major liberal slant. This isnt the 70’s where tv would actually challenge anyone. And then every major newspaper has a liberal slant. Hasnt every major newspaper endorsed the democratic candidate for president since Ike? It could be worse for you; I would nitpick this and say that you’re 100% right that most major outlets have a liberal slant, BUT it only applies to social issues. On civil rights, gay rights, womens’ rights, abortion, separation of church and state, political correctness, affirmative action, health care, the social safety net, and the like. I would argue this is a good thing, but I can see how it would annoy conservatives. On the other hand though, almost all of the mainstream outlets have fallen in line with the conservative point of view when it comes to economic and foreign policy issues. Brian Williams practically creamed his pants live on air describing how we are “guided by the beauty of our weapons” when Trump bombed the Syrian airbase. Several other liberal commentators suggested he “became president today” or “was Presidential for the first time.” This is not at all an aberration. For all their criticism of Trump, they can’t help but praise him when it comes to war. They’ve been fully on board with any military adventures since the pre-Iraq War hysteria. They’ve drunk the kool-aid of “American exceptionalism,” hyper-nationalism, and an economic policy rife with handwaving and absolute worship of consumerism, corporations, and Wall Street. The unquestioning dogma when it comes to foreign policy and economic issues are mirrored pretty well in the political parties; on social issues the Republicans and Democrats are night and day, but when it comes to war and economic policy, it’s hard to see much of a significant difference. I can easily imagine a massive tax cut for the rich having been passed under Hillary Clinton. She probably wouldn’t have been so brazen with it, would have played politics and made concessions to the Republicans even if she had a super-majority, and would have cloaked it a hell of a lot better, but the giveaway still would have happened. I’m also relatively sure we’d be just as hostile to Iran and be selling just as many weapons to Saudi Arabia to set the Middle East on fire. The North Korea situation wouldn’t have developed, but that’s largely a matter of Trump being an arrogant, narcissistic blowhard, not a policy difference between the parties. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/127 "2017-12-23T07:47:04Z")
You actually really nicely encapsulated all the issues I’ve had with Democrats of late. Yet I continue to support them despite my reservations because I care deeply about social issues. To the extent there is a liberal echo chamber, the solution isn’t to create a Republican one. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/128 "2017-12-24T00:50:00Z")
IMHO on the OP with a healthy chunk of liberal bias, The reason you don’t get these sorts of programs from conservatives is that the whole anthropological, lets get to know eachother so we can dig deep, and, you know, really connect so that I get where your coming from and you get where I’m coming from and we can eventually get a dialogue going resulting in a kum ba yah moment and a big group hug of mutual understanding, is itself a heavily liberal attitude. Its the sort of attitude that leads to liberals preferring foreign aid and diplomatic spending to military spending, and led to what the conservatives called Obama’s apology tour. Conservatives don’t do these sorts of programs because that’s not how they roll. When encountering an unfamiliar culture, the conservatives mindset isn’t to send ivory tower moral relativist anthropologists, it’s to send missionaries, or failing that, soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/129 "2017-12-24T01:25:58Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Claims of clear correlations between political beliefs and structures in the amygdala have been [debunked very thoroughly](http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/4/30/deja-voodoo-the-puzzling-reemergence-of-invalid-neuroscience.html). All of this “research” depends on MRI imaging of the brain. There are many reasons to doubt any result based on MRIs, ranging from [bug-ridden software](https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-invalidate-decades-of-brain-research-scientists-discover) to [serious doubts](http://www.yalescientific.org/2014/04/debunking-science-fmri-a-not-so-reliable-mind-reader/) about whether MRI results actually tell anything about which regions of the brain are active. But the first link that I gave focuses on only claims about politics linked to the amyglada: > > Schreiber et al. predicted that when Democrats and Republicans were exposed to risky stimuli, these regions of the brain would display varying functional levels of activation consistent with the inference that Repubicans respond with greater emotional resistance, Democrats with greater reflection. Such differences, moreover, could also then be used, Schreiber et al. wrote, to “dependably differentiate liberals and conservatives” with fMRI scans. > > But contrary to their hypotheses, Schreiber et al. didn’t find any significant differences in the activation levels within the portions of either the amygdala or the anterior cingulate cortex singled out in the 2011 Kanai et al. paper. Nor did Schreiber et al. find any such differences in a host of other precisely defined areas (the “entorhinal cortex,” “left insula,” or “Right Entorhinal”) that Kanai et al. identified as differeing structurally among Democrats and Republicans in ways that could suggest the hypothesized differences in cognition. > > In response, Schreiber et al. simply widened the lens, as it were, of their observational camera to take in a wider expanse of the brain. “The analysis of the specific spheres [from Kanai et al.] did not appear statistically significant,” they explain,” so larger ROIs based on the anatomy were used next.” > > Using this technique (which involves creating an “anatomical mask” of larger regions of the brain) to compensate for not finding significant results within more constrained ROI regions specified in advance amounts to a straightforward “fishing” expedition for “activated” voxels. > > This is clearly, indisputably, undeniably not valid. > Tellingly, the article in Salon mentions none of this. And there are many other examples of “scientific” findings that are well-loved on the left but not true. One example is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), often offered as quantitative proof of the fact that white people are subconsciously racist, which happens to match what certain people want to believe. [But it’s junk science](https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html). Interesting counterpoints. My knowledge of neuroscience and statistics is not developed enough for me to know what is true and what isn’t, but I appreciate the cites. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/130 "2017-12-24T01:33:48Z")
> [@AI\_Proofreader](#): > > The unquestioning dogma when it comes to foreign policy and economic issues are mirrored pretty well in the political parties; on social issues the Republicans and Democrats are night and day, but when it comes to war and economic policy, it’s hard to see much of a significant difference. I can easily imagine a massive tax cut for the rich having been passed under Hillary Clinton. She probably wouldn’t have been so brazen with it, would have played politics and made concessions to the Republicans even if she had a super-majority, and would have cloaked it a hell of a lot better, but the giveaway still would have happened. I’m also relatively sure we’d be just as hostile to Iran and be selling just as many weapons to Saudi Arabia to set the Middle East on fire. The North Korea situation wouldn’t have developed, but that’s largely a matter of Trump being an arrogant, narcissistic blowhard, not a policy difference between the parties. I don’t think the democrats would’ve passed tax cuts on the rich. Under Obama, taxes were hiked on the rich in various ways. A new medicare tax of 3.8% was added to high earners and to investment income Increased the top income tax rate to 39.6%, up from 35% Higher taxes on dividends and capital gains etc > **[Taxing the rich: The record under Obama](https://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/pf/taxes/obama-taxes-rich/index.html)** > > While most of the president's budget proposals to tax the rich have been DOA with Republicans, that doesn't mean his push hasn't had an influence. The top 1% are now paying an average tax rate that's 6 percentage points higher than when Obama first... > [@](#): > > Under Obama, the average federal tax rate paid by the top 1% of households has gone up more than 6 percentage points to an estimated 33.8% today, according to the Tax Policy Center. The real problem with the democrats IMO is that they are unwilling to confront the plutocrats. The banks, the health care industry, the military industrial complex, etc. that are causing a lot of problems. They don’t want to step on toes. We need to confront the big banks who engage in risky business practices that can bankrupt the world, and we need to confront the health care industry that is so poorly run that it costs 2x more than any other nation. We also need to address a business climate that gives no power to workers. But the democrats are terrified to take them on. The ACA removed any new rules that would’ve offended the wealthy and powerful interests in the health care industry. I agree we have 2 hawk parties on national defense. No idea what the answer is there. I do know if Al gore had won in 2000, we never would’ve gone to Iraq. Gore spoke out early and often against Iraq, and after Obama won the war started winding down. So there is a difference between the 2 parties, just not a gigantic difference. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/131 "2017-12-24T19:11:58Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > We need to understand what motivates authoritarian conservatives. Not so we can agree with them or excuse their behavior, but so we can push our own agenda of egalitarianism and social justice. I want to understand why whites in the South were so eager to uphold Jim crow in the 50s and 60s so they will be easier to beat in the courts and public squares, not so I can say ‘oh OK, carry on’. Has Haidt contributed anything useful there? As far as I know he’s a “both sides” centrist. [Example.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy3DXs7UcAA33lI.jpg) I can’t find it now, but I also remember him saying the biggest threats facing America were the alt-right and liberal college activists. I’ve linked to his stuff before, it’s a novel take, but I’m skeptical his model would actually be more useful for enacting social change than existing studies of authoritarian psychology, or vulgar socialism. People have been coding liberal values in conservative language before Haidt, too. Like Christian socialists. Finding out what someone cares about and then using your politics to address it is one of the more obvious methods for door to door activism and propaganda in general. I’ve sometimes found I’m able to come to agreement with working class conservatives more than “woke” liberals, especially if they’ve had a bad experience with the cops or the healthcare system. Liberals have nothing to say to these people except learn to code; conservatives have answers, but they’re terrible answers. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The real problem with the democrats IMO is that they are unwilling to confront the plutocrats. The banks, the health care industry, the military industrial complex, etc. that are causing a lot of problems. They can’t confront the plutocrats because protecting the plutocrats is their job. > [@AI\_Proofreader](#): > > For all their criticism of Trump, they can’t help but praise him when it comes to war. They’ve been fully on board with any military adventures since the pre-Iraq War hysteria. They’ve drunk the kool-aid of “American exceptionalism,” hyper-nationalism, and an economic policy rife with handwaving and absolute worship of consumerism, corporations, and Wall Street. Liberals are capitalists, which means they believe in using state violence for private profit. Anti-imperialist capitalists exist, but their ideology rests on sand. If it’s OK here, why not over there? A lot of the critiques from self-styled anti-war liberals are really process complaints (e.g. Bush should’ve used more troops in Iraq), as well as being clearly partisan in nature. The anti-war movement collapsed after Obama’s election. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/132 "2017-12-24T20:32:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Claims of clear correlations between political beliefs and structures in the amygdala have been [debunked very thoroughly](http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/4/30/deja-voodoo-the-puzzling-reemergence-of-invalid-neuroscience.html). All of this “research” depends on MRI imaging of the brain. There are many reasons to doubt any result based on MRIs, ranging from [bug-ridden software](https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-invalidate-decades-of-brain-research-scientists-discover) to [serious doubts](http://www.yalescientific.org/2014/04/debunking-science-fmri-a-not-so-reliable-mind-reader/) about whether MRI results actually tell anything about which regions of the brain are active. But the first link that I gave focuses on only claims about politics linked to the amyglada: > > Schreiber et al. predicted that when Democrats and Republicans were exposed to risky stimuli, these regions of the brain would display varying functional levels of activation consistent with the inference that Repubicans respond with greater emotional resistance, Democrats with greater reflection. Such differences, moreover, could also then be used, Schreiber et al. wrote, to “dependably differentiate liberals and conservatives” with fMRI scans. > > But contrary to their hypotheses, Schreiber et al. didn’t find any significant differences in the activation levels within the portions of either the amygdala or the anterior cingulate cortex singled out in the 2011 Kanai et al. paper. Nor did Schreiber et al. find any such differences in a host of other precisely defined areas (the “entorhinal cortex,” “left insula,” or “Right Entorhinal”) that Kanai et al. identified as differeing structurally among Democrats and Republicans in ways that could suggest the hypothesized differences in cognition. > > In response, Schreiber et al. simply widened the lens, as it were, of their observational camera to take in a wider expanse of the brain. “The analysis of the specific spheres [from Kanai et al.] did not appear statistically significant,” they explain,” so larger ROIs based on the anatomy were used next.” > > Using this technique (which involves creating an “anatomical mask” of larger regions of the brain) to compensate for not finding significant results within more constrained ROI regions specified in advance amounts to a straightforward “fishing” expedition for “activated” voxels. > > This is clearly, indisputably, undeniably not valid. > Tellingly, the article in Salon mentions none of this. And there are many other examples of “scientific” findings that are well-loved on the left but not true. One example is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), often offered as quantitative proof of the fact that white people are subconsciously racist, which happens to match what certain people want to believe. [But it’s junk science](https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html). I don’t really see how you can call this “debunking”. If the original hypothesis is wrong, and you “widened the lens” and found another area, or even a wider area, where you can see the effect, that doesn’t mean the research is wrong. You also should be aware that this isn’t the only study that saw a correlation between political preference and grey matter mass / activity in the brain. Having said that, the real reason why this research may be meaningless is that brain anatomy is not fixed and changes over time. So it’s possible that having more mass/activity in a certain area may be the result of political beliefs rather than the cause of it. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/133 "2017-12-25T04:15:40Z")
Will liberals ever call a black person racist? Will they ever call a woman sexist? Answer to both is no even when they clearly are so. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/134 "2017-12-25T06:01:42Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Will liberals ever call a black person racist? > > Will they ever call a woman sexist? > > Answer to both is no even when they clearly are so. I really hope that you don’t believe that. If you do, you are 100% wrong about myself, all my liberal friends and my family. My Wife and I are moderate leaning liberal. My side of the family is mostly the same or more left leaning. My Wife’s side (except for a nephew) are very conservative/right leaning. Except for my Wife, ‘her’ side of the family is very religious. Mine, agnostic/atheist. Different politics and ideas about religion. We all get along great, we’re adults. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/135 "2017-12-26T15:00:00Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Oh my. Google “Does supply-side economics work?” and filter out hits from right-wing sites. This highlights another problem of either side understanding the other - filtering out whatever you don’t want to hear, on the assumption that it can’t be right. Salon says that conservatives are that way because they have different brain structures. Filter out the part where it is debunked as bad science, and it is that much easier to assert why conservatives think the way they do. Wrong, but easier. Same thing happens on the conservative side, of course, and is denied just as hotly. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/136 "2017-12-26T19:29:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This highlights another problem of either side understanding the other - filtering out whatever you don’t want to hear, on the assumption that it can’t be right. Salon says that conservatives are that way because they have different brain structures. Filter out the part where it is debunked as bad science, and it is that much easier to assert why conservatives think the way they do. Wrong, but easier. > > Same thing happens on the conservative side, of course, and is denied just as hotly. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t know how one could argue that political beliefs don’t stem from brain structure. To say that is untrue, you’d have to believe there is some magic non-physical author to our thoughts. Now, whether researchers have found the differences between liberal and conservative brains is debatable, but they obviously exist. The experiment in the paper referenced in the Salon article found some differences in activity, and differences in mass have been shown in earlier research. The blog ITR Champion linked to earlier has some legit criticisms of the research, but “debunked” is not his conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/137 "2017-12-26T19:54:13Z")
> [@nate](#): > > I don’t know how one could argue that political beliefs don’t stem from brain structure. To say that is untrue, you’d have to believe there is some magic non-physical author to our thoughts. Or they come from different environments, or different experiences. And the one side does not need to argue that it is untrue - the side proposing the idea needs to prove that it is true. > [@](#): > > Now, whether researchers have found the differences between liberal and conservative brains is debatable, but they obviously exist. The two clauses of these sentences contradict each other. If researchers haven’t found the differences, then it is not obvious that they exist. Again, a demonstration of the difficulties in liberals understanding conservatives. (And vice versa, but this is a demonstration of the phenomenon going one way). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/138 "2017-12-26T20:58:13Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion;20675308as non-coastal and deeply Republican territory as you can get. And yet the fact remains that I am forced to absorb opinion from the liberal coastal elite all the time. If I go to the gym, there are 20 TV’s, and the majority are showing coastal liberal elitists. e.[/QUOTE] CNN is run from Atlanta, hardly a bastion of Liberalis. And calling all liberals “elitists” is pretty biased. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/139 "2017-12-26T21:00:21Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As far as taxes are concerned, the government is a mugger on a much bigger scale. I have to hand over a large portion of all the money that I earn in my lifetime. If I don’t, the government will send some heavily armed men to take the money by force. If I resist, they may kill me. That’s what it means to collect taxes, though most people try not to think about it much… Actually, Revenue Officers are not armed. They will take your bank account, and maybe your house or car, but they very rarely try and take anything by armed force. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815/140 "2017-12-27T00:10:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Or they come from different environments, or different experiences. > > And the one side does not need to argue that it is untrue - the side proposing the idea needs to prove that it is true. The two clauses of these sentences contradict each other. If researchers haven’t found the differences, then it is not obvious that they exist. > > Again, a demonstration of the difficulties in liberals understanding conservatives. (And vice versa, but this is a demonstration of the phenomenon going one way). > > Regards, > Shodan Research DOES show differences to exist and if you read the 2011 study referenced by the Salon article you can critique the methods and conclusions yourself. If I’ve interpreted the criticism from Dan Kahan correctly, his main objection is not the results, but claims the researchers are guilty of p-searching, searching massive data from the fMRI scans for correlations with the subject’s political orientation, “widening the lens” by increasing the voxel size until a significant p-value was found. I didn’t get that from reading the original research, but I don’t know enough about the experiment to defend the paper or claim that Kahan’s critique is flawed. Either way, the researchers also claim to be able to predict one’s political orientation with about 73% accuracy by looking at the scans, so obviously there is something to it. I have noticed conservatives like to dismiss this research and I’m curious as to why. I’m not talking about conservatives that have read and have legitimate critiques, but ones that hear about the results and seem offended for some reason. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hanging-with-conservatives/804815.md?page=8)