The Republican Brain?

[vnatale]

The over-arching problem is Americans are incapable of critical thinking, especially as relates to anything quantitative. That's why most of the young scientists and engineers are of Asian (Sinitic or Indic) cultural backgrounds. Americans would rather teach their kids to be gender fluid strippers than teach them Calculus.

However, I invite you and all others to take this quiz to see how your beliefs of the world conform with the actual facts.

https://factfulnessquiz.com/

Vinny

[Kriegsspiel]

astrology.png (43.79 KiB) Viewed 6544 times

[ochotona]

astrology.png

Fair enough... but you have to look at the other side. What is the fraction of Republican voters, and especially high-conviction Trump supporters who believe the Bible is literally true, factual, and scientific? It's very, very high. I don't even need to see a study, because I used to hang out with these people before DJT came around and totally ruined the GOP for me.

Disclosure - I am a Christian, but not a literalist / fundamentalist.

[Libertarian666]

The over-arching problem is Americans are incapable of critical thinking, especially as relates to anything quantitative. That's why most of the young scientists and engineers are of Asian (Sinitic or Indic) cultural backgrounds. Americans would rather teach their kids to be gender fluid strippers than teach them Calculus.

However, I invite you and all others to take this quiz to see how your beliefs of the world conform with the actual facts.

https://factfulnessquiz.com/

Vinny

"This is the official 13-question Factfulness Test recommended by Barack Obama and Bill Gates."

No, thanks. If I want to read Communist propaganda, I'll read "Das Kapital".

[Xan]

The over-arching problem is Americans are incapable of critical thinking, especially as relates to anything quantitative. That's why most of the young scientists and engineers are of Asian (Sinitic or Indic) cultural backgrounds. Americans would rather teach their kids to be gender fluid strippers than teach them Calculus.

However, I invite you and all others to take this quiz to see how your beliefs of the world conform with the actual facts.

https://factfulnessquiz.com/

Vinny

"This is the official 13-question Factfulness Test recommended by Barack Obama and Bill Gates."

No, thanks. If I want to read Communist propaganda, I'll read "Das Kapital".

Actually it was quite interesting, and in my opinion undermines the claimed need for worldwide wealth redistribution.

[Xan]

astrology.png

Fair enough... but you have to look at the other side. What is the fraction of Republican voters, and especially high-conviction Trump supporters who believe the Bible is literally true, factual, and scientific? It's very, very high. I don't even need to see a study, because I used to hang out with these people before DJT came around and totally ruined the GOP for me.

Disclosure - I am a Christian, but not a literalist / fundamentalist.

Replacing something of a rant with the observation that Tyler is right that believing weird things is a human problem, not a Republican problem, and the book and post that started this thread are uninterested in honest discussion about why people believe what they do.

Also I'd like to point out that "science" and "truth" are by no means the same thing. Science is a branch of philosophy. It's one way of looking at the world. A useful one, in many scenarios. Perhaps not so useful in others.

[Maddy]

Replacing something of a rant with the observation that Tyler is right that believing weird things is a human problem, not a Republican problem, and the book and post that started this thread are uninterested in honest discussion about why people believe what they do.

Thank you.

[jacksonm2]

The over-arching problem is Americans are incapable of critical thinking, especially as relates to anything quantitative. That's why most of the young scientists and engineers are of Asian (Sinitic or Indic) cultural backgrounds. Americans would rather teach their kids to be gender fluid strippers than teach them Calculus.

However, I invite you and all others to take this quiz to see how your beliefs of the world conform with the actual facts.

https://factfulnessquiz.com/

Vinny

"This is the official 13-question Factfulness Test recommended by Barack Obama and Bill Gates."

No, thanks. If I want to read Communist propaganda, I'll read "Das Kapital".

Must be nice to be rich like Barack and Bill so you don't have enough problems of your own that you need to worry about everybody else's.

[Libertarian666]

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality ?

Define 'science'. Left wing propaganda?

Failed doomsday predictions from the last 50 years "based on science". The list is impressive.
1966: Oil will run out in 10 years
1967: Famines by 1975
1968: Worldwide overpopulation
1970: World's natural resources run out
1970: Ice age by 2000
1970: Water rationing in U.S. by 1974, food rationing by 1980
1971: New ice age by 2020 or 2030
1974: Satellites show new ice age is near
1976: Scientific consensus that Earth is cooling
1978: 30-year cooling trend continues
1980: Acid rain kills life in lakes
1980: Peak oil in 2000
1988: Regional droughts by 1990s
1988: Maldives underwater by 2018
1989: Nations will be wiped out if nothing done by 2000
2000: Children won't know what snow is
2002: Peak oil in 2010
2002: Famine in 10 years unless we stop eating fish, meat and dairy products
2004: Britain will be Siberia by 2020
2008: The Arctic will be ice-free by 2018
2008: Al Gore predicts ice-free Arctic by 2013
2009: Prince Charles says we have 96 months to save the world
2009: Gordon Brown says we have 50 days to "save the planet from catastrophe"
2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015
2014: Only 500 days before "climate chaos"
source

But this time it's different!

[Xan]

Research Finds Conservatives Are More Happy, Generous, And Purposeful Than Liberals

And if you deny this is true then you are against science! :-)

[Cortopassi]

pug,

You call that left wing propaganda. I submit that it is done on both sides, for whatever reasons.

It's been climate based scare tactics by the left side for quite a while. They do themselves a huge disservice by putting dates on this stuff. 12 years to go right? Why would anyone do that? You just gotta know the blow back you're going to get.

The right side seems to use more freedom/war/immigration based scare tactics.

--Mexicans are taking all your jobs
--They're coming for your guns
--Weapons of mass destruction
--They're a socialist
--Tax cuts pay for themselves

[Xan]

pug,

You call that left wing propaganda. I submit that it is done on both sides, for whatever reasons.

It's been climate based scare tactics by the left side for quite a while. They do themselves a huge disservice by putting dates on this stuff. 12 years to go right? Why would anyone do that? You just gotta know the blow back you're going to get.

The right side seems to use more freedom/war/immigration based scare tactics.

--Mexicans are taking all your jobs
--They're coming for your guns
--Weapons of mass destruction
--They're a socialist
--Tax cuts pay for themselves

Corto,

The topic here is "why don't these Republican idiots believe in science/reality", and pug's list of very specific and failed predictions is an excellent response to that question. This isn't about scare tactics; it's about whether or not those scientific predictions were correct.

[vnatale]

pug,

You call that left wing propaganda. I submit that it is done on both sides, for whatever reasons.

It's been climate based scare tactics by the left side for quite a while. They do themselves a huge disservice by putting dates on this stuff. 12 years to go right? Why would anyone do that? You just gotta know the blow back you're going to get.

The right side seems to use more freedom/war/immigration based scare tactics.

--Mexicans are taking all your jobs
--They're coming for your guns
--Weapons of mass destruction
--They're a socialist
--Tax cuts pay for themselves

Corto,

The topic here is "why don't these Republican idiots believe in science/reality", and pug's list of very specific and failed predictions is an excellent response to that question. This isn't about scare tactics; it's about whether or not those scientific predictions were correct.

In the Factfulness book which I'd earlier referred to in this forum plus this quiz: https://factfulnessquiz.com/ - (which I still think you should take in spite of your thoughts regarding Bill Gates and Obama (it should only take a few minutes)), the author described being at some conference with Al Gore. Al Gore wanted him to exaggerate the urgency of climate warming because that is the only way you can get the audience's attention enough for them to act. The author refused, sticking to his principles of just stating the facts with no embellishments.

Vinny

[Cortopassi]

Understood.

There are so many science based things that are likely proven wrong already or will be proven wrong over time.

But,,,the thing that doesn’t seem to be in dispute (by most?) is that climate is changing. The point of disagreement is how much are humans at fault, right?

If climate wasn’t changing, then why are there larger, more destructive fires in CA than even 10, 20, 30 years ago? If not climate, then poor management by humans which is even worse.

I dispute that we can do much at all about it and instead will have to adapt. I don’t fault that a lot of the scare tactics are causing good things to happen, like renewables, and looking again at nuclear.

Just don’t tell me it is settled science. Like cholesterol and saturated fat, there are champions for certain positions that have a hard time changing their mind until literally those people die over time.

[Mountaineer]

Understood.

1. There are so many science based things that are likely proven wrong already or will be proven wrong over time.

But,,,the thing that doesn’t seem to be in dispute (by most?) is that climate is changing. 2. The point of disagreement is how much are humans at fault, right?

If climate wasn’t changing, then why are there larger, more destructive fires in CA than even 10, 20, 30 years ago? 3. If not climate, then poor management by humans which is even worse.

I dispute that we can do much at all about it and instead will have to adapt. 4. I don’t fault that a lot of the scare tactics are causing good things to happen, like renewables, and looking again at nuclear.

5. Just don’t tell me it is settled science. Like cholesterol and saturated fat, there are champions for certain positions that have a hard time changing their mind until literally those people die over time.

1. Yep
2. Yep
3. Yep
4. Ummm, perhaps. I don't think the entire life cycle is being examined by the "environmentally woke". e.g. lithium mines for all the batteries are destroying the environment but not many are talking about that; just that electric vehicles are wonderful.
5. Yep

If climate wasn’t changing, then why are there larger, more destructive fires in CA than even 10, 20, 30 years ago? If not climate, then poor management by humans which is even worse.

it is the "even worse"
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... fires.html

[Cortopassi]

Any person on this board would make a better representative, senator or president than the people who are there now. Why can't government work this way? Dammit, you all have rational responses and are smart people. Who the hell do we have representing us and how do we change that?

[vnatale]

Any person on this board would make a better representative, senator or president than the people who are there now. Why can't government work this way? Dammit, you all have rational responses and are smart people. Who the hell do we have representing us and how do we change that?

Because none of here have to answer to anyone.

https://quotefancy.com/quote/918286/Tho ... ou-deserve

People like voting for people who get for them and politicians want to give. But the willingness to pay seems less than the desire to get.

The book I just finished reading (of which I recently quoted one paragraph, asking for an opinion of it) made the point that democracy may not be the greatest (not that any other forms are better, just that it may not be great) because it caters to people's baser values, i.e. what they want. And, everyone wants.

Today I was independently thinking about it how just about all our politicians telling us what they are going to give us but never ask us to pay, sacrifice.

Of course, the Democratic Party is well known for this. However, after 9/11 when the country was probably at its peak in being willing to sacrifice what was the leadership of the Republican president, "Go shopping." !!!! And, followed up by going to a needless war AND cutting taxes!

If any of us were in their positions would we truly be any different? Yes, in many ways. But if we wanted to be re-elected we'd have to conform to the way it now is.

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

Understood.

1. There are so many science based things that are likely proven wrong already or will be proven wrong over time.

But,,,the thing that doesn’t seem to be in dispute (by most?) is that climate is changing. 2. The point of disagreement is how much are humans at fault, right?

If climate wasn’t changing, then why are there larger, more destructive fires in CA than even 10, 20, 30 years ago? 3. If not climate, then poor management by humans which is even worse.

I dispute that we can do much at all about it and instead will have to adapt. 4. I don’t fault that a lot of the scare tactics are causing good things to happen, like renewables, and looking again at nuclear.

5. Just don’t tell me it is settled science. Like cholesterol and saturated fat, there are champions for certain positions that have a hard time changing their mind until literally those people die over time.

1. Yep
2. Yep
3. Yep
4. Ummm, perhaps. I don't think the entire life cycle is being examined by the "environmentally woke". e.g. lithium mines for all the batteries are destroying the environment but not many are talking about that; just that electric vehicles are wonderful.
5. Yep

.


Addendum on lithium mining impact on people and the environment:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium ... ent-impact

[Maddy]

Any person on this board would make a better representative, senator or president than the people who are there now. Why can't government work this way? Dammit, you all have rational responses and are smart people. Who the hell do we have representing us and how do we change that?

I ran across an article earlier this week which argued that it's the plan of the Elite to move the western world toward a technocracy-style government in which the "best and the brightest" run everything. It claimed that the progression toward a society run by computer algorithms is being widely embraced by the younger generation.

On that subject, I've noticed that over the last decade (some of which was spent teaching), young people have become increasingly disdainful of subjective decisionmaking. Even in those areas where computer models are vastly inferior to good ol' human judgment and intuition (e.g., employee performance measures), there's a noticeable preference for a depersonalized, formulaic process in which decisions, both large and small, are left to a computer. In part, I think this is the result of a fundamental insecurity on the part of today's young people (who must, at all costs, be liked), as well as a reluctance to go out on a limb. Also, the radical egalitarian ethic that seems to prevail in this age group tends to cause massive cognitive dissonance when in the course of business these people are called upon to discriminate in some way between one person and another. If you leave all the decisions to a computer and you can never be called upon to account for your bad judgment, and you can never be accused of being racist, transphobic, etc. Heck, you don't even have to have interpersonal skills.

[Cortopassi]

Any person on this board would make a better representative, senator or president than the people who are there now. Why can't government work this way? Dammit, you all have rational responses and are smart people. Who the hell do we have representing us and how do we change that?

I ran across an article earlier this week which argued that it's the plan of the Elite to move the western world toward a technocracy-style government in which the "best and the brightest" run everything. It claimed that the progression toward a society run by computer algorithms is being widely embraced by the younger generation.

On that subject, I've noticed that over the last decade (some of which was spent teaching), young people have become increasingly disdainful of subjective decisionmaking. Even in those areas where computer models are vastly inferior to good ol' human judgment and intuition (e.g., employee performance measures), there's a noticeable preference for a depersonalized, formulaic process in which decisions, both large and small, are left to a computer. In part, I think this is the result of a fundamental insecurity on the part of today's young people (who must, at all costs, be liked), as well as a reluctance to go out on a limb. Also, the radical egalitarian ethic that seems to prevail in this age group tends to cause massive cognitive dissonance when in the course of business these people are called upon to discriminate in some way between one person and another. If you leave all the decisions to a computer and you can never be called upon to account for your bad judgment, and you can never be accused of being racist, transphobic, etc. Heck, you don't even have to have interpersonal skills.

Linking back to the books thread, this is appropriate. I've read the first two in this series and the final book comes out today I think. I found it interesting. Got it from my daughter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythe_(novel)

"Scythe is a 2016 young-adult novel by Neal Shusterman and is the first in the Arc of a Scythe series. It is set in the far future, where death by natural causes has been virtually eliminated thanks to advances in technology, and an advanced computer system known as the "Thunderhead" controls society. The Thunderhead is a form of artificial intelligence who does not make mistakes or have regrets. "

[Maddy]

But,,,the thing that doesn’t seem to be in dispute (by most?) is that climate is changing. . .

If climate wasn’t changing, then why are there larger, more destructive fires in CA than even 10, 20, 30 years ago?

Was there ever a "golden age" in which the climate was NOT changing?

[Libertarian666]

If climate wasn’t changing, then why are there larger, more destructive fires in CA than even 10, 20, 30 years ago? If not climate, then poor management by humans which is even worse.

it is the "even worse"
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... fires.html

Correct.

[Maddy]

I can't speak to the situation in California, but around here, harvesting of timber on state and federal land is a major culprit. The right to harvest is bid out to private timber companies which more often than not leave an obscene mess just waiting to ignite. The state and federal bureaucrats who are supposed to be managing this process turn a blind eye to all this, understanding their mandate is to maximize the profits realized by these contracts.

These public lands are generally divvied up into sections that are earmarked to support various public funds. Schools are a big one. Interestingly, those people who are screaming the loudest about "climate change" are often the same ones who are clamoring for ever-more-money for schools and other bottomless pits. If those folks were required to actually set foot on these vast wastelands of ignitable slash which provide the funding for the public sector, their little heads just might explode.

California would be the opposite, here the environmentalists prevent logging and clearing on private and public land to save any and every animal big or small, that can be used to shut down logging and clearing. at the same time the government puts out every fire it can, creating a completely unnatural type of growth. The natural pattern for fires should be low slow and cool, trees are far enough apart that only a few burn all the way up, the fire cant jump and the underbrush and grass are benefited by the burn... in CA the trees burn hot and fast because they are to close and have to much underbrush, they burn up into the tops of the trees jump easily through the fuel, and the fire will get so hot it generates its own wind and scorches everything including the topsoil and tree roots, imagine a rolling blast furnace that can catch things on fire just from the heat blasting out in front of it...