Sometimes I wonder if the brains of Liberals…

September 24th, 2010

…and Conservatives literally work differently.

(And, cialis mind please, no smart-aleck comments about how the brains of Conservatives actually don’t work at all. :)

Entry Filed under: Observations

34 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nick  |  September 24th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    What about smart-aleck comments about how the brains of Liberals actually don’t work at all? ;)

  • 2. Debunked  |  September 24th, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Ah, but a smart-aleck comment referring to the functionality of a conservative’s brain would first have to follow the assumption that conservatives, in fact, have brains.

  • 3. Elliot  |  September 24th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Jeez, Nick, I just assumed nobody would be so rude. ;)

  • 4. Tracy Coyle  |  September 24th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    I have evidence of it. Living with a lib these last 15 years, I am often struck by her observations that by all objective standards are flat out wrong.

    When she is not feeling well, she’ll recover in the spare room so as not to infect us. She loves having a soda or other drink bedside overnight.
    When we were cleaning carpets, the stain near the spare room night stand suggested occasional ‘accidents’ with overnight drinks. When I suggested she needed to be more careful, she said it wasn’t her fault – something else caused the stain.

    The Liberal mind can not accept it has done anything wrong, or that fault could ever reside with them.

  • 5. Debunked  |  September 24th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    And the above is a perfect example of how the conservative mind works.

    A single observation of a single person based on circumstantial evidence in a trivial situation becomes generalized to all people of a specific ideology for all things.

    Oh, wait, did I just do the same thing? Well, shit. I must be a conservative too.

  • 6. John Foust  |  September 24th, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Define “work”.

  • 7. Rustmeister  |  September 24th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Liberals seem to function under the “if it ain’t broke, you ain’t looked hard enough” rule.

    Once they come up with a fix (to something that wasn’t broke), they implement it. If it doesn’t work, they do it again, with feeling.

  • 8. Tracy Coyle  |  September 24th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    to Debunked: which was the real issue? taking a generalization? “poll says rich people want to pay more takes” too few observations? ” less than 2% are rich” or trivial situation? ‘the rich will on average pay just $9000 more” or is it just one example of abhorrent behavior not enough? “Hassan killed 9 before being confronted….”

    My partner, like the President and virtually every other liberal I know ( I did live in Madison WI til July) couldn’t take responsibility for their actions if you had video, fingerprints, audio and 20 witnesses.

    Of course none of that matters, what is important is that erred in the manner in which I pointed it all out. My fault…again. Guess that makes me a conservative.

  • 9. John Foust  |  September 24th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    “Living with a lib”? If you don’t like them, why not move out?

  • 10. Tracy Coyle  |  September 24th, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    I’m sorry, my comprehension must be failing – I’ve read both posts and didn’t say I don’t like them – I happen to love my partner and my democrat, union member father and my bleeding heart mother. I knew her personality before I partnered with her and know that I am capable of being accepting of people with different opinions, likes and desires. Kinda necessary being a lesbian, agnostic conservative.

  • 11. BobG  |  September 25th, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    I don’t think their minds work differently; I think it is more a matter of each starting from a different base of assumptions.

  • 12. John Foust  |  September 25th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    … but it’s much easier to polish your kernel of hatred with the suggestion there’s something physically different about those who believe differently than you. Next thing you know, you’ll feel much better about denying their rights.

  • 13. Roland Melnick  |  September 25th, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    @Debunked…I’d bet that Tracy made more than one observation in 15 yrs.

    “… but it’s much easier to polish your kernel of hatred…”

    Who are you addressing, John? Do you really find Elliot’s post so offensive you feel the need to accuse him of hatred?

  • 14. John Foust  |  September 25th, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Heaven knows you BadgerBloggers are into nuance and scientific research, so I’m sure you remember the study from a few years ago that considered this question. (Also here.) The assumption that Elliot delivered, and that the conservative commenters fell in line with, is that the liberal brain is somehow deficient and not in alignment with the real world. Har-har! I almost peed myself.

    Such ridicule is the beginning of a mindless hatred, a justification for further demonizing, it’s the very fuel for the fires of Sykes and Limpaugh on a daily basis, and the local consequence is we have a State Capitol that is always dominated by butt-heads who think like this. It’s at the beginning of every ethnic cleansing on the planet. Correlation is not causation, of course.

    If you ran the zoo, Roland, and by “ran” I mean those daydreams and jokes that you pass around, and by “zoo” I don’t mean BadgerBlogger, but the state of Wisconsin, would you impose any special laws on liberals? Restrict them from anything, because after all, their brains are different?

  • 15. Elliot  |  September 25th, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    a lesbian, agnostic conservative

    That’s one hack of a trifecta, Tracy!

  • 16. Elliot  |  September 25th, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    No assumptions intended, John.

    In general, I’ve always thought people reasoned the same but just arrived at different conclusions because they started with different assumptions (like BogG wrote).

    But every once in a while, I read something that seems so foreign to me that it may as well have been written in Cuneiform. That makes me wonder of some people really don’t just think differently. And, thus, this post.

  • 17. Tracy Coyle  |  September 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    John: if you think we all think alike, you are an example of the opposite. We don’t. People learn differently (audio, visual, tactile, combo), we interact differently (avoid change, embrace change), we respond to stimuli differently (speed freaks, quiet couch potatoes). That certain people have political POVs that also have other behaviors is not demonizing, it is observing the world around us. Did you post on blogs that noted that ‘liberals’ scored higher on IQ tests? or did you just snicker….

  • 18. Roland Melnick  |  September 26th, 2010 at 2:23 am

    “The assumption that Elliot delivered, and that the conservative commenters fell in line with, is that the liberal brain is somehow deficient and not in alignment with the real world.”

    John…the assumption is yours. Elliot’s words were “work differently.” Not better vs. worse. Not superior vs. inferior. Yet you want to extrapolate that out to Elliot wanting to ethnically cleanse the US of A. Why do you always feel the need to misrepresent your opponents’ positions?

    You’re also no stranger to one-sided generalizations. I’m a conservative commenter and I didn’t make any statement about the brains of liberals. If you bother to read all the comments, you’d notice Debunked threw out an insult about the conservative brain. So it would be more accurate to say reps from both sides joined the reindeer games.

  • 19. John Foust  |  September 26th, 2010 at 10:19 am

    This is what we get for taking Elliot’s attempts at humor too seriously.

  • 20. Debunked  |  September 26th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    I’d bet that Tracy made more than one observation in 15 yrs.

    As have we all. But she picked one example in her first post, as mentioned above, to cite as “her evidence.”

    If you bother to read all the comments, you’d notice Debunked threw out an insult about the conservative brain.

    I did? Where? My first post that was quite obviously sarcasm in response to Elliot’s original topic? Though, to be fair, the conservative brain does seem to have trouble with sarcasm and satire. (We’ll see if they catch it this time, John).

    Or my second post where I responded to Tracy’s “evidence” calling her out on her single circumstantial anecdotal evidence example which she somehow managed to extrapolate out to all liberals in an extremely simple and, frankly, absurd generalization?

  • 21. Tracy Coyle  |  September 26th, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    Debunked: given this is a comment on a blog post, I limited myself to a single example – want to use Obama’s blame game – so far nothing in the economy is his fault. How about the liberals that have complained that the US, with 5% of the population uses 25% of the energy while ignoring we produce almost 25% of the entire PLANET’S GDP. How about the move to require we no longer use incandescent bulbs because we use too much energy – or the demand we all lower our thermostats for the same reason – or that AGW is OUR fault. Specifically, I had a car accident where I ran into the back of another car, my partner informed me, as did the cop, I was at fault – HOWEVER, when I got hit in the rear, it TOO was my fault for stopping to fast. My fault for no knowing she wanted something to drink when we stopped at a gas station. My fault for getting lost going to somewhere SHE directed me to. My fault for not packing all her medicines for vacation. My fault for not driving more carefully to extend the gas mileage. My fault for being cut off by other drivers, my fault for cutting off other drivers; My fault for how much electricity we use (she sleeps with both radio and light on at night). My fault for the car breaking down. My fault for being late to appointments (when I didn’t plan for a train delay). My partner is not unique. Obama blames Bush for the recession, for TARP, for unemployment. For wars. Libs blame conservatives for racism – while being racist; for sexism for being sexist.

    Liberal philosophy is about being the victim, never the antagonist. Which means they never have to be responsible for the outcomes. I can give, as most conservatives could, thousands of examples both personal and societal that the liberal simply thinks differently than conservatives. And yes, “I” do think it is more immature.

  • 22. Debunked  |  September 26th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    I could really give a rats ass about your little domestic quarrel, frankly. But I can see why Foust thinks you don’t like your roommate. Sounds to me like you have some repressed issues or other – go see a shrink.

    But your point about the the police and insurance companies being liberal entities out to get you is quite the valid point. Seriously, who’s shifting the blame there?

    And how the hell did global warming get into this? But hey, it sounds like liberals are saying that global warming IS our fault and trying to do something about it. So I really do not even know what point you are trying to get at there.

    But really, you’re going to blame the recession on Obama? When it started before Obama took office? Or TARP? When that occurred before Obama took office?

    Just because somebody states the facts at hand doesn’t mean they aren’t taking responsibility. If I were to accuse you of murdering some random liberal, I might have evidence of that (the sheer amount of bitching you’ve done about them on this thread). But that doesn’t mean you did it, now does it? Would it be shifting the blame to deny the accusations?

    Oh, and by the way, the recession has been over for a year. Catch up on the news; the same non-partisan objective measurements that said we were in a recession said we exited that recession in June of 2009. So I guess we can blame Obama for ending it too?

  • 23. Tracy Coyle  |  September 26th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Debunked offers more evidence of the premise: we think differently. Who suggested there was some conspiracy by cops or insurance? my partner blames me for every bad thing that happens – that is the liberal way, SOMEONE else is always to blame.

    I don’t blame the recession on Obama, but he did vote for TARP, as did McCain. However, given the Jun 09 end date, stimulus did nothing to resolve it as virtually nothing had been spent by that date. And given that unemployment has risen and we ARE in another recession, I will blame Obama for failure to keep us from it. Given nothing Obama did resolved the recession, we can credit Bush with it’s ending too.

    How you read these comments shows we think differently – why that seems to be a problem for you is beyond our ability to discern.

  • 24. Elliot  |  September 26th, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Just a reminder folks: disagree as much as you want, but please no personal attacks on anyone but me.

    Thanks!

  • 25. Roland Melnick  |  September 27th, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Sarcasm isn’t always apparent when the parties involved are strangers and you are communicating in a text-only medium.

    The way you typed your first comment, Debunked, sounds like an insult, not a light-hearted jab, to me.

    I’ve also written things in the past that were misinterpreted as well. It’s a shortcoming consistent in the blogosphere.

  • 26. John Foust  |  September 27th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    OK, Elliot writer-man, tell us the difference between “working differently” and “literally working differently.” :-)

  • 27. Tracy Coyle  |  September 27th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    John, let me try:

    working differently
    Premise: we need more jobs
    – lib, gov can spend $100b to create jobs;
    – con, give tax breaks to business who hire

    LITERALLY working differently
    Premise: we need more jobs
    – lib, corps oppress workers and send jobs overseas so gov needs to punish businesses and pay people a minimum amount to survive

    the first is just a matter of perspective, where people are coming from on a continuum. The second reflects seeing reality in an entirely different way.

    Libs often (and I am sure they feel exactly the same way about cons) see the world in a way that leaves us scratching our head trying to figure if we are even on the same planet. I can understand the first lib response – they like using gov. The second? Do they understand ANYTHING about economics?

  • 28. John Foust  |  September 27th, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    So the think-differents and the literally-think-differents seem to agree (on TV, at least) that it is government’s Role to fix the perceived Problem that “we need more jobs” and one group proposes one type of interference, and the other proposes a different type. Which sect of economics would you prefer to use to divine the nature and effects of these proposals?

  • 29. Tracy Coyle  |  September 27th, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    I assume your question is proposed in order to expand the conversation rather than an inability to discern the differences.

    Let’s number the responses 1-3 in order they appeared. 1 and 3 are lib positions, the first, gov spends other people’s money. Position 2 the gov takes less money from people. Position 3 is people seeking to make gov a participant in the ‘economic game’ rather than just a referee.

    I hoped you noted there was no #4. There generally is no con version for the second – there would be a libertarian version – turn gov off.

    Basic economics: you get less of things that are more expensive (taxing makes things more expensive) and you get more of things that are less expensive (tax breaks or less taxation makes things less expensive). Econ 101.

  • 30. Debunked  |  September 28th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Please expand upon these points: “taxing makes things more expensive” and “tax breaks or less taxation makes things less expensive”

    Basic Econ 101 says if there is an influx of money in a system, then inflation occurs and prices go up.

    Second, it also says the actual cost of goods is relative to the amount of money you have (that would be your basic definition of purchasing power).

    Since the vast majority of taxes comes from disposable income (that is, the income that would be used to buy extraneous goods or services) then I ask the following:

    If taxes are decreased and more people have more money, then does it not stand to reason that the cost of goods will also increase?

    Thus, if you decrease or increase taxes (to a certain point), basic economics states there should be relatively little to no influence on “making things more/less expensive” relative to your actual purchasing power.

  • 31. Tracy Coyle  |  September 28th, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Influx of money? Gov does not have a penny it has not taken from someone else. Reducing taxes does not add to the money supply, it leaves the money in the hands that earned it in the first place.

    If a shopper has $100 to take to the grocery store and taxes are 5%, s/he has $95 to spend on groceries. Increase taxes to 8% and s/he has only $92 to spend on groceries. Decrease taxes to 3% and s/he has $97 to spend on groceries.

    The tax change = increase/decreased cost.

    As for “the actual cost of goods is relative to the amount of money you have” is ivory tower speak for if we tax the hell out of you, the cost of goods is cheaper because you have less money. no, the cost of goods is the cost of production. purchasing power is the ability to purchase goods relative to the inflated earned dollar. If I earn a dollar today and can only buy half a loaf a bread compared to having earned a dollar 20 yrs ago being able to buy a whole loaf, my purchasing power has decreased.

    And this ‘the vast majority of taxes comes out of disposable income’ would be laughable if it weren’t so wrong. Income taxes are on first dollar earned – before all living expenses. Disposable income is what people use to buy clothes, furniture, electronics, new cars, go on vacation, go out to dinner – you know, the 66% of the economy that matters. If taxes comes out of there, then it impacts the economy directly and negatively.

    So, gov taking taxes does not reduce ‘costs’, it increases costs and increased costs mean less purchased.

  • 32. Debunked  |  September 28th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    I think you missed the point.

    First, “Income taxes are on first dollar earned”.

    This is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Do you even know how the tax bracket system works? Every single person has a certain amount of money they earn which is tax free. You might know this as the standard deduction.

    Now, to address your main point. Are you capable of making rent/mortgage, buying food, and paying bills off your income?

    Yes? Then anything you make above and beyond that is disposable income. Thus, if your taxes are reduced, then does it not follow that your disposable income is what is increased?

  • 33. Tracy Coyle  |  September 28th, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Are YOU capable of determining in advance, for another person, what is their disposable income? Do you think gov is? If taxes are reduced and I ‘take home’ more and buy chicken instead of hamburger, have I spent more disposable income or just upgraded the ‘essentials’? If I buy fresh vegetables instead of canned – have I used disposable income?

    In the end, it seems you think that disposable income is free to be taxed at …what rate? confiscatory? 50%? 70?

    Yes, if my taxes are reduced, I have more of the income I earned to spend? Whether that translates into disposable income….

    Ah, you think only about Fed taxes. Medicare taxes, state taxes and SS taxes are all 1st dollar taxes. From your POV, Jan paychecks would have no taxes taken out. There are a couple states that don’t have income taxes, but my first paycheck ever, $9 had just over $.50 taken out for SS.

    “Are you capable of making rent/mortgage, buying food, and paying bills off your income”

    Car payment? does a Hummer qualify? how about a Volt? Multiple cars are ‘essential’ or part of disposable income? McMansions or rent? I suggest disposable income is in the hands of the holders, not subject to gov determination.

  • 34. John Foust  |  September 28th, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Spend it all on Hamdingers, who cares? Weren’t we talking about taxes and/or tax benefits?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta