Monday, March 05, 2007

Liberalism and Psychology


You know, I have a few liberal commenters other than Mudkitty that spend a lot of time looking for things they perceive as contradictions on my part, or as "straw man" arguments, and the like. Gentlemen, I enjoy reading your commentary. It gives me a good laugh, and an insight into your ignorance.

One of them even accused me of being "uneducated" and not understanding what the scientific method is. If education means taking your viewpoint in life, then you can keep it.

However, I am educated, and contrary to your opinions, I don't only surround myself by Christian/Conservative news material. In fact, I often listen to NPR (gives me not only a good laugh sometimes, but insight), and I have a whole slew of liberal acquaintances and friends (hence, why I feel I can speak for the left in some cases).

Anyhow, some recent reading of mine (I am a voracious reader) in a Journal of Psychology (I don't subscribe to many of the opinions of psychology because more often than not it is in direct opposition to my Christian belief system) I was reading I found an article regarding a study that may explain Liberalism's tendency to make poor decisions.

I have been proclaiming for a while that the Left tends to make their decisions based on the emotional aspects of issues. "The poor children" "The poor women" etc. Now, before all of my lefty readers get all freaky, I am not saying that I don't care about the women and children, or people dying, or the horrors of war. I agree with you that I would rather have peace than war, but appeasing the enemy is nothing less than disasterous. Anyhow, back to my hypothesis, I believe that Liberals act upon emotion without thinking out all aspects of their decision. In other words, their emotions of how terrible war is, or what not, influences their ability to use logical reasoning to the point that rather than being deductive and logical, they make poor decisions, and even turn to hatefullness to proclaim their belief systems.

The Research Article I was reading in Psychological Science, 2004, Volume 15, Number 11, pages 745-752 (how's that for citing my sources?) is titled "Reasoning About Emotional and Neutral Materials - Is Logic Affected by Emotion?". To clarify, I don't normally read Journals of Psychology, Social Studies and History is more my cup of tea, but my wife is studying Psychology (just a couple classes away from her degree) and often I wind up reading her material, sometimes to help her with her homework, and sometimes because an article or subject catches my eye. Anyway, the experiments set out to investigate whether people reason differently when they reason with positive or negative emotionality as opposed to neutral emotionality.

Common sense has always prescribed that emotions have the ability to impair logical reasoning, and that a cool head is more rational than a hot head.

The investigators in this article desired to prove that wrong, believing that emotions promote sound thinking, rather than hinders it.

Of course there has to be some kind of degree of emotion, for that is what backs up one's belief system. Compassion, or anger, or whatever, is normally the root of a belief. But, being in an emotional state (positive or negative), according to this study, caused participants to make erroneous decisions.

Now, let's get back to Liberals. They tend to be the ones acting out on emotion before stopping and thinking about their decisions. Cindy Sheehan is a great example. The Anti-War Protests with the hate-filled speech and despicable acts is another example. Rosie O'Donnel's common comments that fill us with confused laughter, is yet another.

As for myself, emotion plays a limited role. I am not saying I am without compassion or emotion, only that when it comes to my politics I try to keep a level head when considering my positions. However, what does play a large role is a strong sense of right and wrong, and looking to tomorrow, which affects my decision making greatly. Ultimately, I have thousands of reasons for supporting our troops, supporting the war on terror, and having a willingness to support going into Iraq where I believe lived a powerful allie of terrorism. Thousands of reasons. Each of them died on 9-11-2001.

And for another reason for my view point, watch this video of Reagan on Gawfer's site.


23 comments:

MDConservative said...

You didn't need to cite the reading you have done for me to know this.

cary said...

Almost anytime a lib or lefty makes an absolute statement, you can be sure that emotionalism is behind it, and they have not thought out the full consequences of their stand.

Anonymous said...

Love the pic Gibbs!
Most Libs are just looking to attack one's beliefs, and will cut up everything you say to get their point across. They will use tactics that degrades and questions your logic when in fact their logic is fallacious.

Keep up the great work Gibbs.
FTGF!

Anonymous said...

DG - I think you've just made an emotional argument, based on an emotion devoted to liberal-loathing, and the Nazi reference. And I think all the posts on this thread are emotionally based as well.

In psychology, it's called projection.

Anonymous said...

"Thousands of reasons, each of them died on 9/11." If that isn't an emotional pitch, I don't know what is. However, those thousands of reasons (ie. actual people) are MY REASONS too. Rightwingers don't own the copy write on 9/11, nor the emotions it engenders. That borders on insult to suggest such a thing. Rightwingers don't own the copy write on the deep emotion of patriotism either.

Tom said...

One of them even accused me of being "uneducated" and not understanding what the scientific method is. If education means taking your viewpoint in life, then you can keep it.

I got to that paragraph and stopped reading. It does reinforce my point.

If you actually remember what I said, I ASKED you if you knew what the scientific method is. I did NOT "accuse" you of being uneducated. I asked you if you knew what it was.

It's really unbelievable the way you completely change the meaning of things. If you're going to lie about something I said, maybe directly quote me in your post like respectable bloggers do. You know, like when I point out how you constantly contradict yourself and set up straw man arguments, I QUOTE you directly..

You really should do that. You often make references to my comments in your posts.. quote them like respectable people do.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gary said...

Wow Doug, what you said is really true! You hit a sore spot on ol' Tommy and he just can't help himself. Talk about poor decisions based on emotions, LOL!

And Mudd, Doug NEVER said he was without emotion, only that he tries to be level headed in his decision making. Non of us are perfect, but one can tell who is logical in their decisions and who is not by how they behave when the going gets tough. The emotional ones tend to want to quit, or find a different way to go, "because this way is too hard." Just like my kids on vacation... "Are we there yet?"

Proletariat said...

and having a willingness to support going into Iraq where I believe lived a powerful allie of terrorism.

Indeed, Doug, indeed, and he was hung a few months ago.

Proletariat

Proletariat said...

Wait, oops, didn't Sadaam believe al Queda, and like groups, were a threat to his regime? Hmm.

Proletariat

Wild Phil said...

Proletariat

Actually Proletariat, Iraq had al Queda training camps already there before we went into Iraq. Must be that your getting your news from your favorite Liberalism is a Mental Disorder news source.

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wild Phil said...

Tom,

Yea I know you can't help yourself, you just fall all over yourself to be as stupid as you can be.

I can not give you any links to Al Queda training camps in Iraq, that is old news and if you can't find it yourself than that is your problem. It only proves that you had your head up your As- and not paying any attention.

Anonymous said...

I see right off the bat MK proved my point!
Thanks MK
FTGF!

Anonymous said...

My point is that this post is PLAYING on emotions, and grandstanding on the backs of 3000 dead. My point is that this post is doing the very thing that DG - as much as I adore him - is doing the very thing he accuses liberals of.

Unknown said...

There is a fundemental difference between emotions and opinion.

This whole post could have been summed up with this one sentence,"I believe that Liberals act upon emotion without thinking out all aspects of their decision."

You believe it, because after much study and time, people like you and I having dealt with libs on a daily basis can form logical hypothesis. 99.9% of libs I come into contact with act upon emotion or in an illogical, irrational way.

Anonymous said...

Projection. You believe wrong, Jenn. You are emotionally invested in believing that liberals are assholes, and that you can pick them out in a crowd, and that we are barely even human.

But Jenn, if you are actually sincere about wanting to know about what liberals believe, than ask me, ask a liberal. Don't speak on our behalf.

*****

So when can I interview both you and DG? When do I get to put you guys under the microscope?

Proletariat said...

Actually Proletariat, Iraq had al Queda training camps already there before we went into Iraq. Must be that your getting your news from your favorite Liberalism is a Mental Disorder news source.

Only in regions SH didn't control.

Best do some more research, bud.

Proletariat

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

I am not going to delete the comments, but I ask that profanity be refrained from.

Also, Jenn and FTGF summed it up best: "I believe that Liberals act upon emotion without thinking out all aspects of their decision."

And to my liberal readers: If you don't like it, don't read my posts. (and I noticed, you Liberals/Moonbats are appearing like rabbits breed - what did you do, Tom? Go to the Liberal DumSh** meeting and proclaim Political Pistachio public enemy #1?)

Anonymous said...

I thought you said no profanity?

Tom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The tit for tat is pointless.

Tom said...

No, it's not pointless. All debate is tit for tat. That the definition for pete's sake.