rolling explaining conservatism

Bivariate correlations revealed that conservatism was weakly related to sensitivity to sexual disgust, r = .13, p < .05, but not moral disgust, r = .07, p = .17, or pathogen disgust, r = .03, p = .64.

not a surprise about sexual disgust and no correlation w/ moral or pathogen which suggests this theory is doa

Mostly posted that first study as an early review of the arguments. The 2013 meta-analysis of 24 studies which found a positive relation is the most recent I've found.

Psychology is in the midst of a repeatability crisis, but I thought this angle on what underlies conservatism was worth mentioning.

it's definitely an interesting theory esp if you believe (as i do) that conservatism is [at least partially] about sensitivity to threat / degradation of social structure / society - but even if it were explanatory it doesn't give us much imo. it just indicates that there are metrics that replicate the ideology and that might have a genetic factor. i personally caution skepticism about its value tho.

Psychology is in the midst of a repeatability crisis

"In the midst of" implies there was a time when it wasn't, and that perhaps there will be a time when it won't be.

NRO is more fun than this thread.

"You can't understand everyone" might be true in terms of pure pedantry but it's still the best ideal to strive towards imo.

If we're talking purely strategically though, and within a US elections context, the biggest priority would probably be to understand people who didn't vote at all. The reason that ppl prioritize "understanding" Trump voters over allies with different tactical/ideological viewpoints is that they view Trump voters as Other and allies as part of Us. Which is flawed reasoning to a degree but it's more true than untrue.

The biggest priority for Democrats in the US should always be understanding why they can't drive turnout the way conservatism does

But they're more concerned with fundraising

Upthread, I infodumped neurological studies on physiological differences between conservative and liberal brains. Evolutionary psychologists have been at it too, particularly with respect to the "behavioral immune system" of the disgust response. One can expose people to images and smells unrelated to politics, and the intensity of their response predicts their politics.

As with innate racism, we're fighting some deep-seated instincts here. It will be uphill all the way.

― полезные дурак (Sanpaku)

counterargument a to this theory: the motherfucking president

yes those other people that are all horrible are so tribal and divisive and that is why they are bad people

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau)

this post was on the other thread but was clearly meant for this one and honestly isn't going to make the thread worse at this point

who said i was only talking about other people? i stopped thinking of myself as a "good person" when that ilx thread told me to several years ago

the motherfucking president

A germophobe who described HRC leaving a stage to use the restroom as "disgusting" IIRC. He fits the model.

Rushomancy is getting somewhere. I have a lot on my plate right now, and appearing open-minded toward people who hate me (on a forum they don't read)is not a high priority.

A germophobe who described HRC leaving a stage to use the restroom as "disgusting" IIRC. He fits the model.

― полезные дурак (Sanpaku)

at the risk of overexplaining, i meant that he is a grotesque and revolting human being.

Focusing on them at all is rather more the puzzler

What's the biggest number Dems can get to turn out and vote for them and still be Dems.

Fuck 'republicans' but also fuck snobbery about eating up those middle ground votes, regardless of where the middle ground takes you. Else stop pretending you care who is president

Fuck 'republicans' but also fuck snobbery about eating up those middle ground votes, regardless of where the middle ground takes you.

― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac)

the "middle ground" is regression to the mean. which is, statistically, totally inappropriate given the individual data points here. ballpark figure, 40% of this america scores at 0, 40% scores at 100, 20% don't honestly give a fuck either way. for the democrats to look at those numbers and say "well we should just run america at 50" is stupid and inappropriate.

XP: lots of germophobes hate the smell of bleach, but will spray it over their kitchens/bathrooms in their germocidal crusades. Likewise roach spray.

Most Trump voters know he is the most vulgar individual to ever run for president. They don't care, so long as he promises to remove the "contamination" near them. Muslims, non-European immigrants, urban blacks etc.

i'm sure trump voters hate the taste of bleach just as much as they hate the smell of bleach.

the "middle ground" is regression to the mean. which is, statistically, totally inappropriate given the individual data points here. ballpark figure, 40% of this america scores at 0, 40% scores at 100, 20% don't honestly give a fuck either way. for the democrats to look at those numbers and say "well we should just run america at 50" is stupid and inappropriate.

― The Saga of Rodney Stooksbury (rushomancy), Saturday, 22 July 2017 15:10 (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

In English

i think he's saying politics aren't bell-shaped they're more u-shaped

regardless of where the middle ground takes you

"better skills!" and our old friend the ash-heap, in that order

it's a wild saturday over here

http://i.imgur.com/ACStkmM.jpg

"center" should have been rush's "20% don't honestly give a fuck either way" i guess

Ah yes, your classic n64 controller curve xp

Yeah idk that's not what was said but I mean rushomancy \-_-/

"better skills!" and our old friend the ash-heap, in that order

― difficult listening hour, Saturday, 22 July 2017 20:05 (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

And again, I'm not saying that you *should* care who wins your two horse race, it's not for me to say, yknow?

i don't think you follow

I'm always open to that possibility tbh, as long as the explanation is forthcoming and entertaining (you have good form imo)

for whatever it might be worth, or nothing, I didn't mean the Dems need to do outreach to habitual non-voters who DGAF, I meant they need to focus on getting their own registered voters and blue-leaning independents to show up and vote the line the way Repubs do on the regular

i find it's pretty hard to get a good grasp on whether 'dems should move left to solidify the base' is like actually objectively strategically true, or if i just believe that because it's what i want them to do anyways

i don't trust any of us to have a clear take on that tbh

as the electorate has polarized, it is absolutely a better strategy.

median voter theory works assuming there are a decent number of voters are legit swing votes that will go for the most appropriately moderate option in front of them. but this doesn't describe a very large number of voters. base enthusiasm is what wins elections. this doesn't mean it's best to go as far to one direction or the other, but to go for the median of your base, the peaks of those bimodal distribution curves upthread. if your base is more jacked than theirs, you win.

It's not quite that simple, since 'the base' of the party isn't really Bernie-voters (who instead were independents, which is why Bernie did so well in open primaries), when instead the most loyally democratic demographic is black women. But yeah, there is not the slightest evidence that there's particularly many voters to pick up by a move further to the center, while it sure seems as if a number of leftist policies has broad appeal. From afar, it seems most fights are really over what kinds of leftist policy should be embraced and to what extent, feminist, anti-racist, economic, more directly labor, etc.

ctrl-f me where i said bernie, son

as the electorate has polarized, it is absolutely a better strategy.

a decent number of voters are legit swing votes that will go for the most appropriately moderate option in front of them. but this doesn't describe a very large number of voters. base enthusiasm is what wins elections. this doesn't mean it's best to go as far to one direction or the other, but to go for the median of your base, the peaks of those bimodal distribution curves upthread. if your base is more jacked than theirs, you win.

yeah see this just sounds like the stories we tell ourselves

i mean, its also shit i learned in grad school for political science so whatever

for all practical purposes, there are no centrist voters. that's a beltway construction.

(washington consensus, etc)

Sorry, I was responding to flopsons original post, m bison. I do see now that it seems like a remarkably flippant and wrong response to you in context.

like i'm not even sure where 'the people who voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016' slot into a left-right median voter theory-type scale

usually a sign a scale is not working

i was being terse cuz i'm not saying anything new but since u flatter me dmac-- i mean that "the center" is not actually popular enough to win from, that people want to be promised a transformation of some kind and if nobody promises one that isn't fascism they'll pick fascism-- or rather they'll stay home while a quarter of the country picks fascism for them.

but even if you do think it's the way to victory, the dems hardly need to be reminded not to fear the center. the dems have already spent decades working under the assumption that all the votes are in the center by definition, that people are clearly assigned to a simple continuum of political categories and the most popular one by mathematical law is the one in the middle, that politics is about polling people rather than leading them, that you cater to people's ideas of their own left/rightness rather than create them, that you have no power over the political continuum itself, that there's no point in thinking about interests or classes or actual unmediatable conflicts over actual scarce resources or even getting your base excited as long as you can draw a bell curve on a napkin. and that this childish simplification is actually a form of tough-minded pragmatism. how's that workin for ya, as sarah palin once asked.

tl;dr, m bison otm

the reason why the dems softening on racial, social, and economic justice to appeal to "the middle" or "obama 12/trump 16" voters is bad is not just because it's immoral/bad policy, but because it betrays their most important voting constituencies (voters of color, the poor/economically precarious). this will suppress their base while impressing few of the people who thought trump's "i alone can fix it" bullshit was convincing rhetoric. they dont need to go full bernie to win, but they should probably take the college and health care and raising the minimum wage ideas and run with them.

it betrays their most important voting constituencies (voters of color, the poor/economically precarious)

you misspelled "philadelphia suburbanites"!

funny thing about appealing to obama/trump voters (unnecessary, and a waste of time to talk about, but) is that imo if there is a way to get them away from trump it's also by going left. they voted for obama for the hopey-changey stuff. they were white enough and blinkered enough to get that same stuff from trump. having your racism indulged and lionized and turned into an explanation for everything is a helluva drug and some of these people are never coming back from it. but others will.

(that theory is literally impossible to express via "the continuum", you'll notice)

In English

― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac)

ok. the democrats shouldn't run on the platform "you should vote for us, we're only half-racist!"

the reason why the dems softening on racial, social, and economic justice to appeal to "the middle" or "obama 12/trump 16" voters is bad is not just because it's immoral/bad policy, but because it betrays their most important voting constituencies (voters of color, the poor/economically precarious). this will suppress their base while impressing few of the people who thought trump's "i alone can fix it" bullshit was convincing rhetoric. they dont need to go full bernie to win, but they should probably take the college and health care and raising the minimum wage ideas and run with them.

― nice cage (m bison)

right. you can't get new voters for free. every attempt to pick up new voters is a trade-off.

I need to know when and how to use to dr

tl;dr rather

Thread got better, I blame me

i find it's pretty hard to get a good grasp on whether 'dems should move left to solidify the base' is like actually objectively strategically true, or if i just believe that because it's what i want them to do anyways

― flopson

i'd actually prefer centrism, were it possible. acting like getting 41% on the left is a "mandate", the way the republicans do when they get 41% on the right, is not a recipe for good governance. if we're going to be brutally honest here, the only real way either of the poles on the u curve can effectively govern here is if they were to somehow manage to make the other pole on the u curve... go away somehow. centrism, on the other hand, works under the assumption that if someone doesn't agree with you, you talk with them and work out your differences, reach a mutually acceptable compromise. that ain't happening under current circumstances.

I have no idea what happened to this thread