OT: Interesting study about fake news

But the most afraid and neurotic people are liberals. The conservatives are out there with pickups-with-tow-packages and chain saws and shotguns.

They just think they do.

That's because they are afraid of something and have to defend their precious bodily fluids or something.

Since liberals don't feel the need t are bears, clearly they aren't so afraid :)

Neuroticism isn't confined to any one group. Mensch ist mensch.

And that differs from libertards exactly how? :) Mensch is mensch.

Wait....aren't people with guns afraid and neurotic???? To say someone with no guns are afraid and neurotic....just makes no sense.

And what do chainsaws and pickups have to do with this? I know you like to argue against everything you don't like hearing regardless of the factual basis, but this is ridiculous.

There's your anecdotal evidence (at best) again that's supposedly more correct than actual research. But I wouldn't of expected anything more.

Sheesh. The article wasn't trying to crap on conservatives or liberals; it's simply different ways of thinking, but you're offended by anything that doesn't suit you.

But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. This ex plains it and it does make sense.

r-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a hazard may exi st than ignore it.

critically.

lieve conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs.

orked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comment s and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."

So let's be clear. Both sets are more prone to believe different types of m isinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while denying it's 1 sided.

NT

So, if you pack a shotgun you AREN'T afraid? How does that work? Strikes me that folks that are normally unarmed are not afraid of their fellow humans. Where as folks armed to the teeth are a might bit concerned about something...

Recall your history?

And other research shows that both Liberals and Conservatives fall for the same clap trap / cons (fake news):

John

But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. This e xplains it and it does make sense.

er-attuned" to hazards. They believe it's better to believe a hazard may ex ist than ignore it.

I wonder why John Larkin thinks that, A plausible explanation is that he do esn't know much, and thinks that people who worry about stuff he doesn't kn ow about are being afraid and neurotic, rather than treating real risks wit h the seriousness they deserve. Anthropogenic global warming might be a cas e in point.

Which makes them neurotic about having their pickup get bogged on some coun try track that they shouldn't have been driving down in the first place.

critically.

Compared with John Larkin? Who can't do critical thinking, and accepts ever y bit of nonsense he gets fed by a denialist web-site as if it were carved on tablets of stone by a religious leader (whom less gullible people might recognise as a successful confidence man).

No, it's because they are having fun with real, sometimes dangerous, stuff. Liberals tend to be bad with physical stuff. That's not a political statement, it's just what I see. And do.

I bet a lot more lawyers are in psychotherapy as compared to, say, lumberjacks.

Different types of people have very different concepts of causality.

No, they like shooting guns, and anyone who seriously tries to mess with them.

Agreed. Who said that?

Dealing with physical reality, big forces and high velocities and apparently dangerous stuff, is not something that urban softies like to do. It scares them. Lots of things scare them.

People who drill oil wells and drive tractors and maintain high voltage lines are a different class of people from stock brokers and schoolteachers and New York Times subscribers. Really.

Which class would survive longest without the other?

Sadly, research ain't what it used to be.

I guess some people have guns because they are afraid, but the ones that I know like guns and have a "bring-em-on" attitude about threats. Or are simply serious about the realities of life.

I know lots of people whose lives are significantly compromised by (mostly irrational) fears. They tend to be leftists. But then, I'm mostly surrounded by leftists.

Sure; most news is heavily biased these days. I blame the Internet.

I think that conservatives tend more to work with physical things, and liberals tend more to do people-oriented things. And working with physical stuff is more grounded in reality; a farmer soon finds out that he did something wrong, but a schoolteacher may well not.

ce. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. Thi s explains it and it does make sense.

hyper-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a hazard may exist than ignore it.

Driving pickups along narrow back-country roads may be fun, but it isn't al l that "real", or all that dangerous. The phrase "boys toys" comes to mind.

If John Larkin knew more about physics, his idea of what constitutes "physi cal stuff" might have some value.

Clearly true. John Larkin has a neurotic fear that effective action against anthropogenic global warming will involve a reduction in the number of kil owatts of power available to every citizen. It's a comical mistake, but one that counselling doesn't seem to be able to correct.

Psychoanalysis doesn't work, and it is expensive. Lawyers are more likely t o have the money to waste than lumberjacks.

would suggest that lawyers - facing more emotional demands would be more at risk than lumberjacks who would enjoy a higher levels of job discretion, g ood job training and clearly defined job tasks.

ing critically.

I wonder what John Larkin thought that that meant.

Most people understand what A causes B means. Some - like John Larkin - are a bit weak on the mechanisms by which A might cause B, but that's not a di fferent concept of causality, it's ignorance about the mechanisms involved.

. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. This explains it and it does make sense.

per-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a hazard may e xist than ignore it.

g critically.

believe conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs.

worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comme nts and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."

misinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while denying it's 1 sided.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Must be those alternative facts r earing its ugly head again.

ce. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. Thi s explains it and it does make sense.

hyper-attuned" to hazards. They believe it's better to believe a hazard may exist than ignore it.

And with good reason. If you can pay somebody else to run those risks for y ou, your chance of making to old age are enhanced.

The stock brokers and the school teacher got the easier and less dangerous jobs. That makes them smarter the people who got stuck with more dangerous and less well-paid jobs of drill oil wells, driving tractors and maintainin g high voltage lines, and more likely to see the advantage of paying for a subscription to the New York Times. There's a real difference between these sorts of people but not the kind of difference that John Larkin thinks he sees.

Remove either group, and the other group would be in serious trouble. Moder n society is a complicated collaborative system and you couldn't chop arbit rary chunks out of it and expect to keep on working. John Larkin isn't into complicated systems, so he may not be aware of this.

ing critically.

orrect than actual research.

There's nothing sad about the fact that research is today more conscious of it's tendency to get the results that it likes.

John Larkin won't have read this, and wouldn't have got the message if he h ad.

He wants research to give him the results that he wants, and he's happy to write off research that tells him stuff that he doesn't want to know. Accor ding to him, all the science that demonstrates the reality of anthropogenic global warming is bunk - he can't explain why, though he tries to do so by confusing climate modelling with using LTSpice, which isn't an exhibition of clear thinking.

Wow isn't that a load. You make it sound like liberals can't physically exist.

Some of the things you supposedly see and do are quite concerning.

Thank you John for illustrating the point so clearly!

What's this have to do with liberals being "afraid and neurotic"?

"But the most afraid and neurotic people are liberals. The conservatives are out there with.....shotguns. "

Seems clear to me that's what you're implying. I couldn't have made something up like that.

Have you tried writing fiction?

Seriously, I don't even know where to start.

And this is an engineer saying this.

Again, this is an engineer saying this? What's your point? You seem to have gone off the deep end.

ROFL

That might be a good way to cope with a statement you don't like, but this only works for so long.

e. But one points to the other side and claims they are more stupid. This explains it and it does make sense.

yper-attuned" to hazards. They beleive it's better to believe a hazard may exist than ignore it.

ng critically.

believe conspiracy theories that align with their beliefs.

r worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comm ents and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."

f misinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while denying it' s 1 sided.

That might be just a little bit true given the political leanings of academ ia. But remember all the stuff they came up with, including the Internet.

And you generalize a lot. I consider myself to be more liberal than conserv ative, and yet I can change my oil, do house repairs, and design electronic products.

And don't ask for proof again because I'm not falling for that trap.

f misinformation, but you want to make it a 1 sided story while denying it' s 1 sided.

Why?

A farmer has to wait until his crop has grown before he finds that he's don e something wrong. Children in class react rather faster.

In Australia the business of getting farmers to take advantage of new scien tific discoveries came to the attention of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and they ended up paying a sociolo gist to look into it.

The study came up with a couple of useful results - the main one being that most farmers only take other farmers seriously. The practical result was t hat if CSIRO wanted to get farmer to adopt a new technique (fertiliser, her bicide, insecticide) they went through the farming community until they fou nd farmers who would take them seriously, and concentrated their attention on them.

When those farmers started making money out of the new technique, the other farmers would start copying them - usually rather cautiously.

I suspect you consider me a Liberal, but I am a Canadian Liberal who would probably be a socialist in your world view (our socialists are called New Democrats, too far to the left for me usually - but I did vote for them in the last provincial election as the incumbent Liberals were far too corrupt).

For fun I ride motorcycles and love fast corners on our mountain roads and driving in city traffic doesn't phase me at all.

I also have a rifle gallery at our local amusement park where folks can shoot rifles and pistols using an internal strobe tube and 2-transistor (Phil it isn't anything wired though) CDS photo receptor and then some silly stuffed animal moves or sqeaks or does something...great fun. I like shooting, but I need to get a licence to own or use a gun in Canada and I fail to see why that is a bad thing. Makes one consider the ramifications of having a deadly tool/toy around the house where children or other creatures hang out.

?? (Someone needs to proof read - I try to but stuff gets by me too of course.)

Heard of PTSD? A lot of nice folks in the military suffer from that. So it depends on the group you select to demonstrate who needs more help.

And that makes the world interesting, doesn't it? Have you read fiction? Or does it bother you when authors make things up to get a story or point across?

John