What a shambles really. Surprising much of anything ever gets done. And once done like Kennedy's foreign policy of interference, can ever be undone. Give pensioners more money ( excluding the rich ), in fact enough to live on ! Oh and talking of pensioners under 80, they might as well have an extra vote. And why:- 1. Well if they have survived long enough to be pensioners they must have some clues as to what is what in this world. 2. They got plenty of spare time to analyse problems and loads of experience unlike some of the young " know-it-alls"
Actually the "foreign policy of interference" goes all the way back to the Spanish-American War. But is it in our genes? Or did we learn from our "mother" (Great Britain)?
Remember, conservatives were found to have a larger right amygdala, the side activated when attempting to hide or suppress and emotional reaction, rather than using logic and reason to reassess a situation, which would activate the left side. Let’s assume, for sake of discussion, that all of the data in these studies hold. What would that imply? Past studies, as well as the ones mentioned here, have shown that liberals are more likely to respond to “informational complexity, ambiguity, and novelty”. Considering the role of the ACC in conflict monitoring, error detection, and pattern recognition/ evaluation, this would make perfect sense. Liberals, according to this model, would be likely to engage in more flexible thinking, working through alternate possibilities before committing to a choice. Even after committing, if alternate contradicting data comes along, they would be more likely to consider it. Sound familiar? This is how science works, and why there might be so many correlations between scientific beliefs (and lesser belief in religion) and tendency to be liberal. Is this a hard and fast rule? Of course not. But you can see the group differences overall. (bold mine) Now let’s look at the other side. Conservatives, more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, would tend to process information initially using emotion. According to Kanai, Conservatives respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions. This heightened sensitivity to emotional faces suggests that individuals with conservative orientation might exhibit differences in brain structures associated with emotional processing such as the amygdala. So, when faced with an ambiguous situation, conservatives would tend to process the information initially with a strong emotional response. This would make them less likely to lean towards change, and more likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety. Liberals, though, tend toward unpredictability. They don’t mind change, and in fact, they prefer it. They seek it out. This personality type would likely choose “change” over “stability” just because they tend to be more novelty-seeking by nature. The fact that they have a more prominent ACC helps them to deal with radically changing situations, still find the salient points, all without the emotion getting in the way. These individuals are the compartmentalizers, the logic-driven ones, while the conservatives are the ones driven by emotion and empathy. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...e-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.VGAWhvnF-So
continued... Finally, how can this information be used for good (and not evil)? Well, it’s clear that there are group differences in party thinking style. When a party is trying to rally its base and speak to their own, they will use those communication styles that work for them, which makes perfect sense. Liberals will rally with data and strong, logical arguments, and conservatives will hammer away about family values and stability. This works really well for strengthening your in-group. But it doesn’t do any good trying to cross party lines with those same tactics, because the other side just isn’t as receptive to those arguments and communication styles as you are. So you know what this means? Yep—each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things. Each party is going to have to think of, i) what idea they are trying to communicate, ii) how that other group responds best to presentation of information (what turns them on or off), and iii) how to present it to that other group in a way that is both meaningful and non-threatening. Yes, I know that’s asking a lot, but tough times call for tough measures. We have some scientific data here. It may not be perfect, but it’s a good start. With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground. Not just one party bending, but both parties—and it needs to happen soon.
True of all Leftists throughout history. Also true of American Progressives/DemoCraps for the last 100 years. "Free ice cream" is how the Leftists got their powers.... stupid, greedy people rejoicing over their freebies and not understanding the ultimate cost.