This Machine Can Tell Whether You're Liberal or Conservative

The article mentions the negativity of conservatives several times, and neglects to mention that liberals tend to not see a true threat.

One “reason” that socialism fails is the fact that there seems to be a lack of people willing to live as a socialist- there is no “socialist man”.

Hitler and Sanger dreamed of selective breeding a “master race”.

Do you see where this biometric technique can be a pathway to that goal, if, as the article states, political outlook can be genetic?

“Wouldn’t it make sense that people who overlook problems are the last ones who should be making policy?”

You would think so. But the problem is they can’t see the problem, and think anyone who does is just overreacting becasue of the very nature of how their brain is designed - hence the Conservatives are too negative meme. Even more amazing, they will grow government to the point it is unsustainable, collapse the economy with redistributive economic policies and over-regulation, and even then, after they have destroyed everything, they will be unable to see the destruction as anything but a quirk of fate. Point out to them that as their influence grew, the nation declined, and they will claim it is all coincidence and you are crazy.

Hardcore Liberals have a cognitive defect which renders them unreachable logically. They can’t see what is important in a resource-restricted environment because the brain structure designed to register it isn’t working - it is as if the data isn’t even there. They are designed for a resource glut, and when placed in any other environment, they remain uncontrollably wedded to urges that are completely maladaptive because that is how they are programmed.

Evidence indicates a large portion of the poulation should be adaptable, that is, as resources contract, they will go K-selected, and become more Conservative, through a natural biological process. The question is the nature of that tipping point - do we have a moderate resource contraction (like now), which gradually brings a return to a more K-psychology (markers for individual Conservative traits are spiking now - very similarly to how they did during Carter), and a more moderate K-produced boom afterward, or do you experience a sudden reversal, like a sudden full-on collapse, which will get more chaotic, but which will produce much more of a K-produced Renaissance afterward.

Dear Anonymous Conservative,

Thank you for your weighty tome. I had to stop readfing, to go make some more coffee to stay awake reading it.

I do not subscribe to the use of electronic media, as a replacement for a real book. It’s tacky.

You have supplied me with an example of your electronic scissors and glue on construction paper homework.

Now, what the heck do you really think? Could you come up with a real response, from that grey matter that is a shelf for your hat? I will gladly accept a real thought, not a parroted mantra.

Be pithy. But, be original, please.

This feels like a game, in the terminology of Eric Berne – a conditioned pattern of behavior your brain adapted to perform when you were young. So I’m not sure you are really looking for original, but I will give original to you anyway. I run into this type of thing a few times a year around the web. A weird poster, which seems to have not understood what I said, but seems angry about it and denigrating of it all the same. Puzzling. If you didn’t get the idea, why are you angry and denigrating? And if you got the idea, why are you angry and denigrating when everyone else loves it? Why do you even care enough to post? It’s weird.

“You have supplied me with an example of your electronic scissors and glue on construction paper homework.”

Most people would not reflexively describe an idea offered by another, even one they didn’t like, as “homework,” or specifically “scissors and glue on construction paper homework.” If someone showed me blueprints for a sailboat they designed that would be superior in the Bahamas because it had less draft, I wouldn’t tell them to redo their “finger-painting homework assignment,” because it was flawed in some way. The angry try-hard kind of sticks out too.

The “homework” analogy likely betrays that you are still seeing the world through a hostile lens that was cast and ground in childhood, where homework was an important fact of life (and you assume I do too). Most other people haven’t used the word homework in decades (I couldn’t tell you the last time I even thought it), let alone as an analogy in adulthood. You are basically using child-centered imagery to say I am still a younger child, by comparison to you, and this makes me inferior in your child-centered view of the world. This indicates where the imagery came from, and about the childhood situation where it formed - that you denigrate the “homework” of someone as somehow immature implies that you view your own work as superior due to your age, and therefore you want the younger person to cede authority to you.

So where did that analogy come from? I kind of see you, watching your smart little brother conscientiously work on a Kindergarten homework assignment when you were a kid, and feeling an insecurity drive you to denigrate his work as inferior, simply because it is not the more advanced addition/subtraction stuff you were doing as an older student. The best guess on these things is usually a fixation on a younger brother who was smarter, and with whom you don’t get along, even today as adults. (If the frame is correct, and you are snapping at me today because I trip a switch in your head due to vaguely reminding you of him, I can only imagine what you are like with him today – and what you were like as a kid.)

It could have been something similar, of course, from another smarter relative living nearby, to a Lloyd Braun thing with the neighbor’s kid, but direct sibling rivalry is the most common inducer of this type of thing, due to proximity and repetition. Usually brothers, as we instinctively want to protect sisters. Usually not older siblings, since you expect them to be superior from a baby, and it won’t grate on you if they are. Usually younger, because you expect them to cede to you, and when they don’t as they grow, and their striving and success leads them to leave you behind, or even treat you as inferior, the frustration wears on you in weird ways, like trying to attack people you don’t even know on Free Republic.

I find it fascinating, because when I run into angry older brothers they seem to hone in on the fact I was a bookish younger brother, just from my writing style, and instantly, reflexively, try to be the yin to my yang in a dysfunctional sibling rivalry, just as Eric Berne postulated in Games People Play. What your subconscious sees or feels in the words on the screen, I would love to know. I hate to think I am that easy to read online. Makes me wonder how much else I give away.

The funny thing is, if I was the yang to your yin I wouldn’t see this, and would probably play the game myself, attacking you back, and getting a fight going the way you expect. But instead, I see this, and don’t care, precisely because it is so strange to me. Growing up, my brother was nothing like that, having sought mastery in his own endeavors, rather than fixating on me and getting envious of any success I had elsewhere. So to me, this grossly violates the reaction I am subconsciously expecting. Because he chose to make himself awesome,it was always OK for me to try to be awesome too, and that freedom to strive is what I am used to. So when you step in like some faux authority whose approval I am supposed to need for a simple idea that you seem to be unable to even understand, I’m like, WTF is up with this guy? Especially when everyone else on this thread got what the post said, easily, and thought it was interesting. Read the replies here, and you’ll see why I don’t mind if the idea goes over your head.

Au Revoir!

Dear AnonymousConservative:

You wrote a lot of things here, that I do not know what you mean, nor to whom you refer, by name.

Thank you for your efforts.