Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: How to change the mind of the wingnuts - psychology

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    4,597
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    10,886
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    I largely don't think you do change the mind of wing-nuts, for a number of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that a major component of political affiliation is genetically inherited.
    The history of human migrations tells a different story.

    Some of the reddest counties in the eastern half of the US are in the Appalachia region - in large part settled by settlers from the Scottish Lowlands. Some of the bluest patches are the very places where Polish and Irish Catholic immigrants make up a large proportion of the current population's ancestral stock.

    If you know the first thing about European politics, you'll recognise that present-day Poland and Ireland are much more conservative than present-day Scotland, and the Lowlands in particular. Now, unless you want to claim that Poland and Ireland selectively saw the more liberal part of their population emigrate, and the Lowlands selectively parted with their more conservative denizens, you got a problem.

    If you do claim that, I'd like some evidence. Actual evidence, not vaguely related studies that don't really show what you're claiming but make it seem somewhat plausible when coupled with a few additional assumptions you also find plausible.

  2. Top | #12
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Yet if one goes vote by vote, neighborhood by neighborhood, generation by generation, one finds strong family traditions of political bent. Conditions in neighborhoods tend to persist for some time - generations - until new conditions arise.

    I expect you are both right, wrong, probably irrelevant. Seems the intent of the thread is explore ways to change minds.

    To that end I'd replace 'traps' with rationalizations linked to strong biasing influences. Certainly the very way I've constructed that implies there are mechanisms through which one routes experience. Mechanisms which hold important persona land community value in individuals which the founder of sociology, Kurt Lewin, developed Hodological space with which to work them out.

  3. Top | #13
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,418
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,932
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    I largely don't think you do change the mind of wing-nuts, for a number of reasons. One of the bigger ones is that a major component of political affiliation is genetically inherited.
    The history of human migrations tells a different story.

    Some of the reddest counties in the eastern half of the US are in the Appalachia region - in large part settled by settlers from the Scottish Lowlands. Some of the bluest patches are the very places where Polish and Irish Catholic immigrants make up a large proportion of the current population's ancestral stock.

    If you know the first thing about European politics, you'll recognise that present-day Poland and Ireland are much more conservative than present-day Scotland, and the Lowlands in particular. Now, unless you want to claim that Poland and Ireland selectively saw the more liberal part of their population emigrate, and the Lowlands selectively parted with their more conservative denizens, you got a problem.

    If you do claim that, I'd like some evidence. Actual evidence, not vaguely related studies that don't really show what you're claiming but make it seem somewhat plausible when coupled with a few additional assumptions you also find plausible.
    I don't even know how to begin to respond to this post. If you're interested in my argument, do some searching on political affiliation and genetic inheritance. Studies exist which link behaviour at an early age to political affiliation later in life, IOW a large part of the affiliation is not learned. Political identity is most certainly malleable, but largely fixed.

    If this weren't the case we would see much more variation in how specific communities voted - unless you'd like to attribute that entirely to social causes (I don't).

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Georgia, US
    Posts
    5,306
    Archived
    3,862
    Total Posts
    9,168
    Rep Power
    83
    If this weren't the case we would see much more variation in how specific communities voted - unless you'd like to attribute that entirely to social causes (I don't).
    I agree to a certain extent but what people seem to forget is that race and ethnicity have a lot to do with how people vote as well. I live in a black majority town, where most of the white people, ( other than my friends ) are Republicans and most of the black people are Democrats. Imo, my black friends are more thoughtful when it comes to politics. They vote for the things that improve their situations. They support programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, women's right to choose, and reasonable gun control.

    The Republicans that I know are usually gun fanatics, very anti choice, and even when they depend on social programs, they don't seem to take them into consideration when they vote.

    The wealthy people where I live primarily care about lower taxes and limiting regulation. But, I also have white friends who have terrible family relations since trump was elected. For example, one female friend is a very liberal atheist, but her husband is a Trump supporting Christian. This last election has damaged there relationship.

    So, how do we explain that? I live in a small southern city that has a large diversity of opinion when it comes to politics. Plus, too many poor people simply never vote. I know lots of them too. One of my closest black friends has told me that her two middle aged children have never, ever voted. I also know a poor white woman who hates Trump but refuses to vote and has never votes. What's up with that?

  5. Top | #15
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,418
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,932
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post
    If this weren't the case we would see much more variation in how specific communities voted - unless you'd like to attribute that entirely to social causes (I don't).
    I agree to a certain extent but what people seem to forget is that race and ethnicity have a lot to do with how people vote as well. I live in a black majority town, where most of the white people, ( other than my friends ) are Republicans and most of the black people are Democrats. Imo, my black friends are more thoughtful when it comes to politics. They vote for the things that improve their situations. They support programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, women's right to choose, and reasonable gun control.

    The Republicans that I know are usually gun fanatics, very anti choice, and even when they depend on social programs, they don't seem to take them into consideration when they vote.

    The wealthy people where I live primarily care about lower taxes and limiting regulation. But, I also have white friends who have terrible family relations since trump was elected. For example, one female friend is a very liberal atheist, but her husband is a Trump supporting Christian. This last election has damaged there relationship.

    So, how do we explain that? I live in a small southern city that has a large diversity of opinion when it comes to politics. Plus, too many poor people simply never vote. I know lots of them too. One of my closest black friends has told me that her two middle aged children have never, ever voted. I also know a poor white woman who hates Trump but refuses to vote and has never votes. What's up with that?
    It can be explained because political affiliation isn't completely genetic, it also has a malleable component which I hit on when I first posted in the thread. Above all people vote for what they believe is in their own interests. In the U.S. the Republican party is explicitly not a party for poor, minorities, so we should expect them to lean away from voting that way.

    But if, for example, you held a theoretical democratic election in a majority-black country where sub-ethnicities weren't a factor, you would likely see much more variation in opinion, and much more consistency along genetic lines.

  6. Top | #16
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Genetic outcomes are the outcome of random experiments. To suggest that political preferences are genetically determined suggests political preferences have been a thing for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years. I'm pretty sure authoritarian regimes of various sorts were the thing during late probably varying between strength and wit dominance during the hunter gatherer era. Mind really began to matter when agriculture came on the scene. Now we're moving into an abundance catastrophe capability era.

    Do you actually think genetics is leading this evolution? Politics is a process where choice enters into social decisions. Social decisions are rightly likely to be common preference molded. However common preference changes with the weather, or any survival factor, literally. Such is not genetic determination.

    Humans have been in a rapidly evolving mode for the last two million years suggesting continued stress on fitness. Constancy isn't among the things that cause genetic tendencies to vary. So any notion that such as politics, a fairly recent happenstance among humans, is driving choice seems a bit far fetched.

  7. Top | #17
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,418
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,932
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Genetic outcomes are the outcome of random experiments. To suggest that political preferences are genetically determined suggests political preferences have been a thing for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years. I'm pretty sure authoritarian regimes of various sorts were the thing during late probably varying between strength and wit dominance during the hunter gatherer era. Mind really began to matter when agriculture came on the scene. Now we're moving into an abundance catastrophe capability era.

    Do you actually think genetics is leading this evolution? Politics is a process where choice enters into social decisions. Social decisions are rightly likely to be common preference molded. However common preference changes with the weather, or any survival factor, literally. Such is not genetic determination.

    Humans have been in a rapidly evolving mode for the last two million years suggesting continued stress on fitness. Constancy isn't among the things that cause genetic tendencies to vary. So any notion that such as politics, a fairly recent happenstance among humans, is driving choice seems a bit far fetched.
    I haven't claimed that political preferences are genetically determined, I've claimed that they're partially genetically determined. This isn't a personal theory, this is a topic I've researched, the literature exists. I'd suggest starting here.

    Political orientation is obviously very complex and shouldn't be looked at along a single pole, like genetic predisposition. But if we're talking about how to change the mind of people on the wings, it is a factor. To some degree we're born with a specific neural configuration that experiences and responds to the world in a specific way. Our attitude, for example, toward people of other races, people in foreign cultures, is likely colored by our openness to experience, with obvious implications.

  8. Top | #18
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Some things are irrefutable. Segregation, isolation, of groups produces differences between groups over time. NS performs difference analysis. Und zo weiter.

    That these things are important to forming bases for political stance is also irrefutable.

    Now if you are trying to say that within these structures there are genetic trends toward fragmentation (variability) of behavior within these features are we really talking about genetics? Or are we talking about the effects of other genetic influences on the expression of these irrefutables? I suggest these influences are transitory rather than determined, a part of adaptation in niches, rather than something transmitted across generations.

    That is not to say that the power of basic tendencies aren't possibly changed overtime, rather they are found aschangeinother tendencies rather than in basic features of recognition and separation.

    Such doesn't add up to partial genetic determination of political view.

    You may disagree, but I think the following from Genetics of Human Social Behavior https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96627310001376

    make my points.

    Politics
    “Man is, by nature, a political animal.” —Aristotle
    A recent review (Fowler and Schreiber, 2008)* discusses the evidence that some of our most cherished political beliefs and behaviors may have a genetic basis. Twin studies have suggested that liberal and conservative ideologies are heritable, albeit genes did not play a role in the choice of any particular political party (Alford et al., 2005, Hatemi et al., 2007)**. Further investigations showed that genes and environment jointly contributed to political behavior (Fowler et al., 2008)***. Interestingly, value priorities (basic personal values referring to the broad goals to which people attribute importance as guiding principles in their lives, e.g., tradition, benevolence, hedonism) have been shown to underlie political attitudes and behaviors (Caprara et al., 2006, Nir and Knafo, 2009)****. Recent research shows that value priorities are moderately (11%–38%) heritable (Schermer et al., 2008)*****.
    (following is presented as a personal exercise)

    * Biology, Politics, and the EmergingScience of Human Nature https://media.rickhanson.net/home/fi...26Politics.pdf

    ** Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/v...=poliscifacpub

    *** Genetic Variation in Political Participation http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    **** Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, andPolitical Choice http://www.iowapbs.org/mtom/story/24...nt-lands-fight
    and Reason within PassionValues as Motivational Anchors of Israeli Opinionon the 2006 Lebanon War and Ceasefire https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.ne...OHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

    *****Phenotypic, Genetic, and EnvironmentalProperties of the Portrait ValuesQuestionnair https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/474...3878d101e7.pdf

  9. Top | #19
    Deus Meumque Jus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Canada's London
    Posts
    11,418
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    20,932
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Now if you are trying to say that within these structures there are genetic trends toward fragmentation (variability) of behavior within these features are we really talking about genetics? Or are we talking about the effects of other genetic influences on the expression of these irrefutables?
    Yea that's a good way of putting it. A family of two conservative parents, and five children - I don't believe it's determined how all of their children will turn out, but I do believe that there will be tendencies after the fact.

    So bringing it back to the topic at hand - if you're talking to someone who's devoutly religious, racist, traditionalist, xenophobic - these traits aren't something you can just explain away. Sometimes you can. But usually the behaviours arise from fundamental aspects of personality - people who are racist want to be racist, it's not a rationally chosen position.

    Such tendencies don't guarantee political affiliation, but if we're talking an explicitly racist party there might be some overlap.

    Similarly if someone is naturally empathic they'll lean progressive.

  10. Top | #20
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,401
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,614
    Rep Power
    64
    Actually I'd look first at testosterone/estrogen and adrenaline levels to determine whether I should look to education and family as follow ups. Actually good squirt analysis is recommended for most behavioral pathologies IMHO and IMHE. Wingnut is subsumed under emotional extemesist by many.

    BTW if one lives in a community dominated by bullies and they burn crosses in front yards being a racist is probably a very rational move by white males in particular. Invisibility helps.

    Back in school daze during the fifties in Kennewick, a wheat town, it was easier being a racist since there were no targets living in town. Sure we had one black working in the hotel downtown and another as custodian at the cemetary out by our place. It helped with the hatred of people in neighboring towns of Pasco, a railroad town, and Richland, the Atomic City, which had sizable minority population, more than 3%.

    A woman neighbor chased the custodian of the cemetary down 10th avenue, our street, with a cleaver. She was cut off by several men in the neighborhood, dad included, who took the cleaver from her and restrained her until the police arrived.

    They promptly arrested the black guy for disturbing the peace. Yeah. He disturbed the police by calling out for help as the woman chased him down the street.

    The same men who restrained the lady testified for the black man in court and he got off without further action. Kept his job too.

    Now there's a rich learning experience and another bit of crud to throw into the tendencies chipper. In fact I hadn't thought about race before that event. I was 15 at the time, but things became pretty clear from that seminal event.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •