Someone showed this to me today, and I couldn't resist posting it here. Let the fighting commence! Abstract The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participantsâ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases. Concluding Remarks Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism. This claim provides a counterweight to early psychological perspectives on political ideology that tended to see conservatism in somewhat pathological terms (Adorno et al., 1950). Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural. Motivational factors are crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial responses depending on oneâs goals, beliefs, and values. Our perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected responses lean conservative. http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213
It doesn't take a genius to bribe the underclass with the riches loot. The mechanics of wealth creation is an enigma to Liberals. They're only concern is in it's redistribution, which incidentally destroys it and brings about the very conditions they sought to remedy. Who's the idiot now?
âOur data suggest that when people have no particular goal in mind, their initial cognitive response seems to be conservative.â ------------- (Conservative)- (low effort thought) "Would you like to buy a CDO, MBS or CDS?" "No" ------------- "Your current yield is %5, we can earn you 10%" (goal) using one of these products." (I've given this a lot of thought - goal- and even though I can't spell derivative) "Uhmnnn, I'll take a dozen of each, thanks"
Im reminded of this quote from another article I posted: But you'll note that in today's world, "We need more inflation" or "Don't Worry About Deficit That Will Heal Itself" are the positions of serious people, while advocating for spending cuts or a sound dollar is considered deeply radical and/or immoral. For Krugman, Paul Ryan's budget was a set of "inconceivably cruel priorities" (inconceivably!) Apparently the "Big thinkers" in todays world are the ones who are saying shit like "we need to keep spending more money in order to avoid defaulting."
Restraining from making wild decisions under duress doesn't seem to be a faulty one to me . My standard pat answer to some idea that is a significant deviation from my plans esp work or girlfriend is "no". Often the worse the idea the more time pressure the proposer puts on the issue, so when someone uses that tactic I say No even if it's an agreeable plan. This line of reasoning has saved my ass a lot of trouble in the past.
It takes high-effort "thinking" to come up with libtarded absurdities like, the rich don't pay their "fair share" when almost half of Americans pay ZERO federal income tax.
conservatives seem to like simple black and white solutions. logical thinking is just too difficult. a big example is the recent contraceptive battle. conservatives are against the easy distribution of contraceptives yet they rail about abortion and welfare for poor children.