Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

[Me Myself]

Man, I should know better than looking at threads in this side of the forum - there's NEVER agreement

Agreement? I am not following.

Have you found this thing that you speak of anywhere in the Rf?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Agreement? I am not following.

a·gree·ment [uh-gree-muh

nt]: noun
"When two or more people decide that I'm right about any topic whatsoever (cf. dis·a·gree·ment, fallacy, & in·ac·cu·ra·cy [noun] "when anybody thinks I'm wrong").

 

[dawny0826]

Would you elaborate on what the (D) side is panic-mongering on the past few years?

No. Would you care to care to comment on the rest of my post?

I'm not interested in partaking in a ******* contest over which political party invokes the most fear in people.

It's all asinine to me, as I believe in our consitution. The people shouldn't be frightened by their government to begin with.

 

[dawny0826]

People have the right to be stupid, but they do not have the right to incite violence.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[dawny0826]

Just to give you a little perspective, speaking as a person from a relatively liberal country compared to yours, we're actually pretty relaxed and content with our universal health care, our corporate political donation bans, our private donation limits, our tax-funded abortions, our gay marriage, our relative scarcity of gun violence, and all the other perks of a pluralistic, liberal society.

Portraying liberal public policies as fear-based is pretty inaccurate. Also presenting them as selfish ("the government should take care of me") is EXTREMELY inaccurate. We are compassionate, community minded cheapskates. We all want to take care of each other with the cheapest, most efficient system we can come up with. That happens to mean pooling our resources and looking after the sick or injured, the poor, etc. through our accountable elected representatives and or employees: public servants (teachers, firemen, police, social services, etc.)

You won't get anywhere by misunderstanding your opposition. If you want to be persuasive, try to let go of the temptation to try to associate liberalism with selfishness, laziness or hysteria. It really makes no sense at all. We radical leftists are a compassionate, motivated, relaxed bunch in general.

You, like the other two, missed the point of my argument all together. I'm not interested in debating politics and I'm certainly not interested in comparing American politics to Canadian politics.

 

[Father Heathen]

Also presenting them as selfish ("the government should take care of me") is EXTREMELY inaccurate. We are compassionate, community minded cheapskates. We all want to take care of each other with the cheapest, most efficient system we can come up with. That happens to mean pooling our resources and looking after the sick or injured, the poor, etc.

This is all well and good, and I agree with the notion for the most part, but the problem is more often than not those who are receiving aid and assistance squander it and become indefinitely dependent upon it. Many such people display ingratitude and entitlement. It's capital and resources being inefficiently wasted and merely perpetuates their situation. I'm not against social programs, but they should be about transitional recovery; getting people back on their feet and being self-sufficient. People meet misfortune and people make mistakes, and helping them is an investment that benefits society once they're recovered and contributing. While this doesn't go for everyone, many people are dead weight parasites. If we have stagnancy rather than change, then things need to be rethought. Social programs should be a safty net, not a hammock.

 

[Father Heathen]

Would you elaborate on what the (D) side is panic-mongering on the past few years?

The knee-jerk reaction to firearms and the desire to undermine liberty in exchange for a false sense of security?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just to give you a little perspective, speaking as a person from a relatively liberal country compared to yours, we're actually pretty relaxed and content with our universal health care, our corporate political donation bans, our private donation limits, our tax-funded abortions, our gay marriage, our relative scarcity of gun violence, and all the other perks of a pluralistic, liberal society.

And meanwhile, you funnel guns into the US for profit:

For example, "exports of military equipment from Canada to the United States (the market for roughly half of Canada’s military exports) do not require an export license. Furthermore, arms sales by governments generally do not require an export license—this is an important factor in gray market transfers (see below)"
Here's the link "Two Sides of the Same Coin? The Legal and Illegal Trade in Small Arms"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is all well and good, and I agree with the notion for the most part, but the problem is more often than not those who are receiving aid and assistance squander it and become indefinitely dependent upon it. Many such people display ingratitude and entitlement. It's capital and resources being inefficiently wasted and merely perpetuates their situation. I'm not against social programs, but they should be about transitional recovery; getting people back on their feet and being self-sufficient. People meet misfortune and people make mistakes, and helping them is an investment that benefits society once they're recovered and contributing. While this doesn't go for everyone, many people are dead weight parasites. If we have stagnancy rather than change, then things need to be rethought. Social programs should be a safty net, not a hammock.

I know alot of people on various forms of assistance, but I've only known a few that fit your description of "most" welfare recipients. For many people the government assistance they get is the best it will ever get for them. For many their job(s) do not pay enough to provide food for their families. Really I just have a very hard time believing the "more often than not" welfare recipients become complacent and dependent just because they got assistance. And then there are those who make too much for any sort of assistance but the cost of living is still an overbearing burden.
I really do not think many people realize that so much of where you end up in life financially is outside of your control. Most people who are born into poverty not only die in poverty themselves, their children also die in poverty. Many families have done nothing for their wealth except move it from one generation to the next. If you come from a rich family or are super smart (which is outside of your control) then you aren't going to a good college, you may not even get to go to college at all. If your children go to school in impoverished inner-city slums, they probably won't even graduate high school.
My own situation, if I didn't have access to funds and an A GPA I would be looking at a life on disabilites, but because of things that I am fortunate enough to have available (through nothing I myself have done) I stand a chance at having more and making a decent income for myself. Or if our "Christian" society actually cared about the poor and disadvantaged I could actually get my knee taken care of, which would give me many more options for work and extend the time that I'll be able to work. But because we all need personable accountability, and because we all just need to try harder for what we really want, alot of people have went without the things they actually need even though there is really no reason they should (especially food, water, shelter, and basic medical care).

 

[Alceste]

This is all well and good, and I agree with the notion for the most part, but the problem is more often than not those who are receiving aid and assistance squander it and become indefinitely dependent upon it. Many such people display ingratitude and entitlement. It's capital and resources being inefficiently wasted and merely perpetuates their situation. I'm not against social programs, but they should be about transitional recovery; getting people back on their feet and being self-sufficient. People meet misfortune and people make mistakes, and helping them is an investment that benefits society once they're recovered and contributing. While this doesn't go for everyone, many people are dead weight parasites. If we have stagnancy rather than change, then things need to be rethought. Social programs should be a safty net, not a hammock.

We generally don't perceive the poor this way here. Yes, there are some who are habituated to welfare and lack the motivation to stand on their own, but we generally assume those folks need more help, not less. There is often mental illness or addiction involved.

 

[Alceste]

And meanwhile, you funnel guns into the US for profit:

Every OECD country funnels guns everywhere. What's your point?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What's your point?

A couple of things, mainly that while I have extensively reviewed the problems with the OP's study, the conversation has somehow come back to what seems to be endemic among Canadians (relative even to other English or primarily English speaking countries) consisting of a smug, superiority and the gun-crazed, violent ridden US. And even if all the rhetoric were true (which it isn't) I find attitutes like this:

We are compassionate, community minded cheapskates. We all want to take care of each other with the cheapest, most efficient system we can come up with. That happens to mean pooling our resources and looking after the sick or injured, the poor, etc. through our accountable elected representatives and or employees: public servants (teachers, firemen, police, social services, etc.)

especially in the context of a UK study so totally flawed it boggles the mind, rather irritating. So to return the favor of perspective you gave:

Just to give you a little perspective

I offer some of the following perspective.

First, there is the issue of how relaxed, compassionate, etc,. your country really is based on actual data. And more importantly, how your "cheap solutions" work when it comes to producing and analyzing this data. For example, in recent years it has been realized (although often ignored) by researchers that Canadian methods for determining certain kinds of violent crimes are in adequate. For example, juristat, a private company that works for the Canadian government putting together data like crime statistics released their report on 2010 family violence, which altogether looks good (generally decreasing across the board). However, as has been noted particularly in this area (family violence research), Canadians are behind. The Department of Justice in Canada uses a tool (or their researchers do) for spousal risk assessment developed in the US (see their official release "Inventory of Spousal Violence Risk Assessment Tools Used in Canada"). And, as noted in the 2012 study (again, for the Department of Justice, Canada) in "An Estimation of the Economic Impact of Spousal Violence in Canada, 2009", Canada seriously suffers in terms of their methodological work and their academic literature when it comes to the economics of criminal activity: "As in other fields, new methods and frameworks have been developed to replace older ones and the work continues to be reviewed and debated. Canada has not seen the same energy devoted to this area as the United States" (the authors also not that Canada lags behind both the UK and Australia as well).

Why is this important? Well, because better research reveals new things about "family violence". Namely, that too much is left out. In "The Elevated Risk for Violence Against Cohabiting Women A Comparison of Three Nationally Representative Surveys of Canada." Violence against women, 14(7) we find that the "increasing prevalence of cohabitation" has been left out of the studies on violence in Canada, which again lags behind the US, where "most of the studies" on the showing that "cohabiting relationships" are more likely to involve violence. This form of relationship (as opposed to "traditional" married couples) is what the "majority of young people" in Canada opt for, and "cohabitation rates have doubled" since 1981.
Even, better, as shown by "The Elevated Risk for Non-Lethal Post-Separation Violence in Canada A Comparison of Separated, Divorced, and Married Women." Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(1), 117-135.

a bigger problem is that the studies in Canada do not take into account the violence after break-ups, which are significant: "Separated women had as much as 30 times the risk for non-lethal violence as married women. Divorced women faced up to 9 times the risk for non-lethal violence compared with married women."

What were some explaining factors? "some of the strongest risk markers of partner violence, namely, patriarchal dominance, sexual jealousy, and possessiveness, had less power in predicting violence by ex-partners". That's weird. What was the reason for this violence? "The odds of these men engaging in physical violence were significantly increased by psychological abuse, anxiety, coparental conflict, and dependence on the ex-wife."

So the extremely high rates of break-up violence against women relative to intimate partner against women violence in Canada was atypical and a primary factor was male anxiety and the psychological abuse they suffered.

We are compassionate, community minded cheapskates. We all want to take care of each other with the cheapest, most efficient system we can come up with

Aparently your cheap system of research has led to ignoring risk factors for violence against women as well as the nature of much of this violence by not studying it.

But there is a further problem with comparisons to the US in terms of how great Canada is. As shown in the study The nature of Canadian urban gangs and their use of firearms: A review of the literature and police survey (Department of Justice Canada), there is a limit to how much US research methods can be used in Canada. For example, in the case of gangs and firearms, the study states "data from two countries are not comparable samples". Why? Mainly because Canada has about a 10th of the population of the US. Also, "American gang research focuses on certain groups, specifically African Americans and Latino/Hispanic populations, while little research examines Aboriginal gangs. But in Canada, particularly in the Prairie provinces, Aboriginals comprise a large proportion of urban gang membership".

Canada lacks both the ethnic diversity and minority population sizes (as well as population size in general) for comparison. In Quebec, for example, a study of Montreal gangs found that almost 50% were asian and 20% were caucasion. 2% were hispanic. Other research, as the above cited study mentions, have also found this "ethnic variation of gang composition". Furthermore, in a 2004 study of gang members who were in prison, 29% were Caucasion and 20% were Aboriginal. Also, use of weapons (including firearm types) varies regionally.

What about guns and knives in Canada? Well, according to multiple sources (e.g., juristat's report "Firearms and violent crime"), violent crime in Canada doesn't usually involve guns. Because apparently stabbing works pretty well, as this is the main weapon of choice in violent crime (again according to multiple sources, one of them being juristat), and in fact homicide rates with a knife seem to be increasing slightly. Knives are the weapon of choice for youths (see e.g., "Youth Crime in Canada"), who are also on the rise when it comes to using them (an increase in violent crimes committed by Canadian youth).

But don't worry! You aren't alone here. The Australian Institute of Criminology reported in 2011 murders, attempted murders, and youth crime with knives have all increased their too. The Centre for Crime and Justice released a study in 2009 Young People, Knives, & Guns which revealed the increasing rates of knife assaults, homicides, attempted murders, everywhere accept the US. Here, of course, guns play a huge role. Apparently, take guns away, and you tend to get people using knives.

Ironically, one of the few areas in which the US and Canada can be compared in terms of crime is the use of firearms in domestic violence. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence compared the use of firearm access in Canada and the US and domestic violence. They found that "actual use (beyond threatening) of firearms in domestic violence is generally very rare in both the United States and Canada".

That could also explain why the studies "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?" and "Australian homicide: no significant impact of gun laws" found that the gun laws which were put in place after a massacre didn't in Australia didn't do much of anything in terms of homicides.

And one thing to note about all these studies is the references to the fact that most of the research on gun use, from economic impact to psychological and social theories comes from the US, where our capitolist driven colleges somehow are the center of so much research.

Meanwhile, a UK neuroscience studied used an actor and a journalist to conclude things about conservatives using a terrible methodology and this has once again led to commentary about America and how fearful or conservative or otherwise defecient the country is. And some of that is true. On the other hand, some of the problems in comparisons are due to poor research methods employed elsewhere, like Canada. And despite the fact that our higher educational system is not paid for by the government, almost all the leading research centers and universities in the world are here, while our government-run primary education is terrible and ranks around the lowest in the world.

America is one of the most ethnically diverse countries with the highest population in compared to the countries it usuaully is (Canada, Europe, and Australia) when it comes to things like political views, violence, gun control, etc. The effect of such dynamics are usually ignored, and instead of focusing on serious problems with mental health caused mainly by activists and then government actions to "help" the mentally ill, or the utter failure of the "war on drugs" and how one of America's greatest crimes is funding a global network of organized and loosely organized criminal activity by banning drugs and creating a black market which contineus to grow and is the central factor in US violence as well as violence in South America and other continents/countries.

 

[Alceste]

Legion, for future reference, I don't read really long posts unless they grab me in the first paragraph. Your first paragraph failed to answer my very simple and direct question (what is the point of bringing up the arms trade), so I didn't read the rest. If you did get around to answering that question, can you sum it up for me in a hundred words or so?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, for future reference, I don't read really long posts unless they grab me in the first paragraph.

And for future reference, I visit this site mainly after a long day of research and typically alcohol consumption. So the this should be taken into account when it comes to the tone of my responses.

Your first paragraph failed to answer my very simple and direct question (what is the point of bringing up the arms trade),

The simple answer is:
1) This entire thread is about a bogus research study, and anything related to topics to it should be located in other threads
2) Canada is not as you depict it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A good example. And why would you say "hello" to me when referencing that?

I lean left on the vast majority of issues, yet when I lean right on one specific issue, I'm regarded as a cookie cutter conservative? Me?

From what I have read in your posts so far, you would seem more libetarian than liberal.
You would not be seen as a liberal at all in Europe, (where the study was done.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Study: Conservatives have larger ‘fear center’ in brain | The Raw Story
A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

"Brains of people were not tested in America"

if you google the words "Conservarive fear" you come up with numerous studies both european and American. none of which counter this finding, but tend to support it quite strongly.

 

[Sunstone]

if you google the words "Conservarive fear" you come up with numerous studies both european and American. none of which counter this finding, but tend to support it quite strongly.

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that.

 

[gnomon]

Study: Conservatives have larger ‘fear center’ in brain | The Raw Story
A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

"Brains of people were not tested in America"

if you google the words "Conservarive fear" you come up with numerous studies both european and American. none of which counter this finding, but tend to support it quite strongly.

All I see are repeated reports of a small number of people in a UK study have a larger area of the brain associated with fear. Nothing as to how that actually translates to behavior.

What I do read is a lot of generalization that if someone self identifies with one political leaning than others are extrapolating behaviors for that individual. Good thing this is being done with political leanings. Not usually considered a valid argument and I do not see it being so in this case.

What has been proved of anything? Nothing from what I can tell.

Especially given that no one has even attempted to address the well constructed argument against the generalized notion so many wish this study to prove that has already been provided in this thread.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

All I see are repeated reports of a small number of people in a UK study have a larger area of the brain associated with fear. Nothing as to how that actually translates to behavior.

What I do read is a lot of generalization that if someone self identifies with one political leaning than others are extrapolating behaviors for that individual. Good thing this is being done with political leanings. Not usually considered a valid argument and I do not see it being so in this case.

What has been proved of anything? Nothing from what I can tell.

Especially given that no one has even attempted to address the well constructed argument against the generalized notion so many wish this study to prove that has already been provided in this thread.

We all see and believe what ever suits us.

 

[Father Heathen]

From what I have read in your posts so far, you would seem more libetarian than liberal.

I'm pro gay rights, pro women's rights, pro choice, pro equality, pro legalization of marijuana and prostitution, pro free speech, pro science, pro secularization, pro sexual liberation, etc.

Most would categorize that as being rather liberal.

You would not be seen as a liberal at all in Europe, (where the study was done.)

Fascinating, but meaningless.