Will the extreme partisanship in the United States ever come to an end, or at least improve? - Page 4 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Study I looked at showed liberals with higher cognitive ability, higher openness and lower conscientiousness--In the West. While in former Soviet block countries those factors corrleated with conservatism.

I would like to see that

Quote

07-20-2019 , 01:23 PM

#78

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,068

Quote:

Originally Posted by aflametotheground

I would like to see that

The Personality Basis of Political Ideology and Behavior

Quote

07-20-2019 , 01:49 PM

#79

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

I looked over it and i cant find it, where does it say?

Quote

07-20-2019 , 01:59 PM

#80

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,068

p. 328

Quote:

Findings from several studies also indicate that the associations between personality traits and political variables can vary across cultural contexts, political systems, and other situational factors. For instance, Sibley and colleagues (2012) suggested that those higher in Openness to Experience are more likely to develop a liberal ideology when their environment is relatively safe to express creativity and their interest in novelty as opposed to when their environment is unsafe and perceived as threatening. Nonsignificant and even reversed relationships of Conscientiousness and Openness with political conservatism have also been observed in samples collected in post-Communist countries in Eastern Europe (Oniszczenko and Jakubowska, 2005; Roets, Van Hiel et* al., 2014; Thorisdottir et* al., 2007). Against the recent historical background of totalitarian, left-wing regimes in Eastern Europe, those high on Openness are more likely to push back against ideologies emphasizing egalitarianism at the cost of individual freedom.

It doesn't seem to specifically address cognitive ability but openness is correlated with it.

Quote

07-20-2019 , 04:39 PM

#81

aflametotheground

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,851

Well correlation isnt transitive so that doesnt work. But i dont really care about that anyways, i think its a quite interresting result that puts some additional light on the big 5 personality models relation to politics. The article contains more interresting stuff as well, e.g i wasnt familiar with the Dual Process Motivational Model of ideology thats discussed in this paper.

Quote

07-31-2019 , 07:54 PM

#82

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,068

The Meaning of the Marianne Willamson Moment

Quote:

It is absolutely, positively crystal clear that Trump builds much of his appeal with his base on his own rage and fury. He stokes anger and then basks in the chants and cheers. He launches wild and malicious attacks, going too far even when attacking progressive politicians who have their own checkered records on bigotry and hate. Exactly no one can look at Trump and argue that he is trying to bring Americans together.

somewhat surprising to see from National Review

Quote:

A recent study documented some rather alarming statistics. For example, “42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as ‘downright evil.’” A stunning 20 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans believe “we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died.”..
Williamson’s moment may have been the most important of the entire debate. She tapped into one of the central questions of modern American politics. Is it possible for any politician to reverse this cycle of mutual enmity and disgust? In fact, negative polarization is so profound that easing this mutual enmity and distrust should be a priority of national leadership.

Quote

08-01-2019 , 07:24 AM

#83

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

National Review sometimes remember they are supposed to be conservative and not apologeticists for Trumpism, but it's getting increasingly rare.

But the entire history of National Review started with riding the modern wave of partisanship that their founding father William F Buckley Jr. was very much part of, so any editorial or article they publish to point out the dangers of partisanship reeks of sad irony.

I mean if we can point to defining moments in this modern split, one must surely be when Buckley himself turned to violent threat in debate. And there was not much self-reflection to be had after that moment, instead they kept the ball rolling. It was more politically rewarding to control the narrative than to admit error. National Review's role in trends we see today is very much one of guilt.

Quote

08-09-2019 , 01:00 AM

#84

Han YOLO

centurion

Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 115

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFO1947

Tomorrow at this time there is a 1 in 30 chance Trump could be president. Sigh

you missed a zero

he certainly did!

Quote

08-09-2019 , 01:27 AM

#85

microbet

Solar Powered

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 56,483

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

This question is a misnomer because it makes the critical assumptions that there are two sides, both are arguing in good faith and have a mix of good and bad views and the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

All three of these are some flavor of mostly false. Some of you might recall the ten year old battles on this forum where the ACists and later libertarians simply refused to understand what a dogwhistle was or that their heroes could possibly be using one. Others might remember the other politics forum that eventually got taken over by not so closeted white nationalists encouraging people to read The Bell Curve. Climate change threads here used to be a battle between a handful of stalwarts posting increased numbers of scientific studies vs. an ever changing multitude of posters replying with “no u”. Ten year old threads on virtually any social, cultural or scientific issue all used to go the same way.

Now that it’s ten years later and our President likes to say the quiet parts loud hopefully most people have figured out that one side was right all along. Here’s the thing though: the other guys were never arguing in good faith. Once upon a time, there was room for disagreement on just how bad climate change was going to be and just how many resources are necessary to spend on it. If the GOP has played along there was room for debating the merits of Obamacare as a flawed but improved healthcare policy that could incorporate (even more) GOP proposals. There was even room to talk about whether it would be a good idea to reform immigration policy...had anything one side did since 2008 been an attempt to find common ground instead of a power grab.

Now? That ship has sailed. The answer is no longer in the middle and cannot be in the middle, because the only people in the middle are the reporters desperately trying to come up with half a dozen different euphemisms to avoid calling the latest Trump tweet racist, a word that objectively describes it over and over again. The left is not blind to this and is self radicalizing at a speed that makes the Tea Party look like a dinner outing. This process will continue until the current incarnation of the right completely loses power and the left overreaches in a way that backfires on the millennials and Gen Z who will be the only ones in office by then - but at least in the US this is going to be a several decade long event.

Bipartisanship is dead. It will not be missed by many.

Good post and yo adanthar!

Quote

Page 4 of 4

First

1 2 3 4

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 4 of 4

First

1 2 3 4

Last