|
|
|
|
|
|
by DabAsteroid
6478 days ago
|
|
|
I fully await the day that the left starts defining other ptolitical views as forms of mental illness. The biopsychology of politics. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1842523,00.ht... The study, published in the September 19 [2008] issue of the journal Science, involved 46 Nebraska residents with strong political convictions. Researchers examined the link between each participant's stated political views and his or her physiological response to a perceived threat in the lab. People with stronger measurable threat responses, the study found, tended to adhere to "socially protective" political policies, or those that suggest more concern for preserving the social unit — for example, supporting the Iraq war and the death penalty, but opposing abortion rights and gay marriage. Researchers shied away from using labels such as conservative and liberal in their study, but they concede that volunteers who registered a heightened sense of threat also tended to subscribe to conservative attitudes. |
|
|
Best I can see, we're heading for a place where the quality of your ideas don't matter -- instead, we'll simply place you in an easy-to-digest psychological stereotype. The only reason I see for this is to decrease debate among the public at large -- why argue with somebody who obviously is afflicted with some malady?
I wonder why we aren't seeing the same studies being done on empiricists versus rationalists? Or terrorist versus non-terrorist? Or baseball fans versus football fans? Or religious versus non-religious?
Wait -- we are seeing religious versus non-religious. And we're seeing politics. But unless I'm mistaken, there's not a lot of research on other potentially interesting areas. (aside from the normal marketing stuff) I'll leave it to the reader to speculate as to why this is.