*
*
*
*
I have no control over those ads that appear at this web-site. The sponsored visual presentations are not mine. Thus, I am reluctant to post pictures, memes, or images here at this page, they can become lost amongst the advertising.
Here’s how you can read this Post without unwanted ads: Select All, Copy, then Paste to Notepad or other text application.
*
*
DRAFT … in progress …
‘Facebook Memories: 16 May 2024 – Conservatives Are More Susceptible to Believing Lies’
(16 May 2024)
*
*
Dear Reader:
Preface.
Suck is gone mad – touched mad – deleting posts throughout Faceplop, anything that presents ideology that he opposes.
Notice on posts at my Faceplop page that Suck deleted the URL links and posts that reference to my Faceplop page:
**
This content isn’t available right now
When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.
**
**
Page not found.
The page you requested was not found.
**
Here are today’s Faceplop Memories of this date at prior years, with selected narrative.
Fear not, Dear Reader. I continue posting current original compositions – I have countless ideas about topics that I have never discussed here or not commented in depth. Posting these recent ‘Memories’ allows me to catch up to what past essays I missed posting here concurrent with Faceplop posts.
– Sharon
*
*
Dear Facebook Reader:
You can read my Slimandme.wordpress.com web-site for the clear Original Posts of these Facebook Memories, no matter if Suck deletes these Original Posts at Facebook.
*
*
(
)
(
)
Sharon Nichols
16 May 2024
Facebook Memories: 16 May 2024
Some posts may not appear here because of their privacy settings
*
*
**
2 of 9:
**
(2, 7 are similar)
*
*
Slate: Conservatives Are More Susceptible to Believing Lies
*
(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2857024421265071&id=100008726227817&mibextid=Nif5oz)
Sharon Nichols
16 May 2022
*
*
TAKE THE PERILS OF THIS MOMENT SERIOUSLY
SCIENCE
Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?
An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.
BY JOHN EHRENREICH
NOV 09, 20179:00 AM
Fox News believers
Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Photos by FoxNews and FoxNews.com.
Many conservatives have a loose relationship with facts. The right-wing denial of what most people think of as accepted reality starts with political issues: As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels” (it doesn’t). A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim (…he isn’t).
Then there are the false beliefs about generally accepted science. Only 25 percent of self-proclaimed Trump voters agree that climate change is caused by human activities. Only 43 percent of Republicans overall believe that humans have evolved over time.
ADVERTISEMENT
And then it gets really crazy. Almost 1 in 6 Trump voters, while simultaneously viewing photographs of the crowds at the 2016 inauguration of Donald Trump and at the 2012 inauguration of Barack Obama , insisted that the former were larger. Sixty-six percent of self-described “very conservative” Americans seriously believe that “Muslims are covertly implementing Sharia law in American courts.” Forty-six percent of Trump voters polled just after the 2016 election either thought that Hillary Clinton was connected to a child sex trafficking ring run out of the basement of a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., or weren’t sure if it was true.
If “truth” is judged on the basis of Enlightenment ideas of reason and more or less objective “evidence,” many of the substantive positions common on the right seem to border on delusional. The left is certainly not immune to credulity (most commonly about the safety of vaccines, GMO foods, and fracking), but the right seems to specialize in it. “Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right,” concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University at a February 2017 conference. A BuzzFeed analysis found that three main hyperconservative Facebook pages were roughly twice as likely as three leading ultraliberal Facebook pages to publish fake or misleading information.
ADVERTISEMENT
Why are conservatives so susceptible to misinformation? The right wing’s disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. College-educated Republicans are actually more likely than less-educated Republicans to have believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim and that “death panels” were part of the ACA. And for political conservatives, but not for liberals, greater knowledge of science and math is associated with a greater likelihood of dismissing what almost all scientists believe about the human causation of global warming.
It’s also not just misinformation gained from too many hours listening to Fox News, either, because correcting the falsehoods doesn’t change their opinions. For example, nine months following the release of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the percentage of Republicans who believed that he was not American-born was actually higher than before the release. Similarly, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats corrected their previous overestimates of the unemployment rate after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the actual data. Republicans’ overestimated even more than before.
ADVERTISEMENT
Part of the problem is widespread suspicion of facts—any facts. Both mistrust of scientists and other “experts” and mistrust of the mass media that reports what scientists and experts believe have increased among conservatives (but not among liberals) since the early ’80s. The mistrust has in part, at least, been deliberately inculcated. The fossil fuel industry publicizes studies to confuse the climate change debate; Big Pharma hides unfavorable information on drug safety and efficacy; and many schools in conservative areas teach students that evolution is “just a theory.” The public is understandably confused about both the findings and methods of science. “Fake news” deliberately created for political or economic gain and Donald Trump’s claims that media sites that disagree with him are “fake news” add to the mistrust.
ADVERTISEMENT
But, the gullibility of many on the right seems to have deeper roots even than this. That may be because at the most basic level, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes “truth.” Finding facts and pursuing evidence and trusting science is part of liberal ideology itself. For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth.
To understand how these differences manifest and what we might do about them, it helps to understand how all humans reason and rationalize: In other words, let’s take a detour into psychology. Freud distinguished between “errors” on the one hand, “illusions” and “delusions” on the other. Errors, he argued, simply reflect lack of knowledge or poor logic; Aristotle’s belief that vermin form out of dung was an error. But illusions and delusions are based on conscious or unconscious wishes; Columbus’s belief that he had found a new route to the Indies was a delusion based on his wish that he had done so.
ADVERTISEMENT
Although Freud is out of favor with many contemporary psychologists, modern cognitive psychology suggests that he was on the right track. The tenacity of many of the right’s beliefs in the face of evidence, rational arguments, and common sense suggest that these beliefs are not merely alternate interpretations of facts but are instead illusions rooted in unconscious wishes.
This is a very human thing to do. As popular writers such as Daniel Kahneman, Cass Sunstein, and Richard Thaler have pointed out, we often use shortcuts when we reason, shortcuts that enable us to make decisions quickly and with little expenditure of mental energy. But they also often lead us astray—we underestimate the risks of events that unfold slowly and whose consequences are felt only over the long term (think global warming) and overestimate the likelihood of events that unfold rapidly and have immediate consequences (think terrorist attacks).
ADVERTISEMENT
Our reasoning is also influenced (motivated, psychologists would say) by our emotions and instincts. This manifests in all kinds of ways: We need to maintain a positive self-image, to stave off anxiety and guilt, and to preserve social relationships. We also seek to maintain consistency in our beliefs, meaning that when people simultaneously hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, one or the other must go. And so we pay more attention and give more credence to information and assertions that confirm what we already believe: Liberals enthusiastically recount even the most tenuous circumstantial evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, and dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters happily believe that the crowd really was bigger at his candidate’s inauguration.
ADVERTISEMENT
These limits to “objective” reasoning apply to everyone, of course—left and right. Why is it that conservatives have taken the lead in falling off the deep edge?
The answer, I think, lies in the interaction between reasoning processes and personality. It’s each person’s particular motivations and particular psychological makeup that affects how they search for information, what information they pay attention to, how they assess the accuracy and meaning of the information, what information they retain, and what conclusions they draw. But conservatives and liberals typically differ in their particular psychological makeups. And if you add up all of these particular differences, you get two groups that are systematically motivated to believe different things.
Psychologists have repeatedly reported that self-described conservatives tend to place a higher value than those to their left on deference to tradition and authority. They are more likely to value stability, conformity, and order, and have more difficulty tolerating novelty and ambiguity and uncertainty. They are more sensitive than liberals to information suggesting the possibility of danger than to information suggesting benefits. And they are more moralistic and more likely to repress unconscious drives towards unconventional sexuality.
ADVERTISEMENT
Fairness and kindness place lower on the list of moral priorities for conservatives than for liberals. Conservatives show a stronger preference for higher status groups, are more accepting of inequality and injustice, and are less empathic (at least towards those outside their immediate family). As one Tea Party member told University of California sociologist Arlie Hochschild, “People think we are not good people if we don’t feel sorry for blacks and immigrants and Syrian refugees. But I am a good person and I don’t feel sorry for them.”
Baptist minister and former Republican congressman J.C. Watts put it succinctly. Campaigning for Sen. Rand Paul in Iowa in 2015 he observed, “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good.”
ADVERTISEMENT
These conservative traits lead directly to conservative views on many issues, just as liberal traits tend to lead to liberal views on many issues. But when you consider how these conservative traits and these conservative views interact with commonly shared patterns of motivated reasoning, it becomes clearer why conservatives may be more likely to run into errors in reasoning and into difficulty judging accurately what is true and what is false.
It’s not just that Trump is “their” president, so they want to defend him. Conservatives’ greater acceptance of hierarchy and trust in authority may lead to greater faith that what the president says must be true, even when the “facts” would seem to indicate otherwise. The New York Times cataloged no less than 117 clearly false statements proclaimed publicly by Trump in the first six months of his presidency, with no evident loss in his supporters’ faith in him. In the same way, greater faith in the legitimacy of the decisions of corporate CEOs may strengthen the tendency to deny evidence that there are any potential benefits from regulation of industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
Similarly, greater valuation of stability, greater sensitivity to the possibility of danger, and greater difficulty tolerating difference and change lead to greater anxiety about social change and so support greater credulity with respect to lurid tales of the dangers posed by immigrants. And higher levels of repression and greater adherence to tradition and traditional sources of moral judgment increase the credibility of claims that gay marriage is a threat to the “traditional” family.
Conservatives are also less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs.
ADVERTISEMENT
The differences in how conservatives and liberals process information are augmented by an asymmetry in group psychological processes. Yes, we all seek to keep our social environment stable and predictable. Beliefs that might threaten relationships with family, neighbors, and friends (e.g., for a fundamentalist evangelical to believe that humans are the result of Darwinian evolution or for a coal miner to believe that climate change is real and human-made) must be ignored or denied, at peril of disrupting the relationships. But among all Americans, the intensity of social networks has declined in recent years. Church attendance and union membership, participation in community organizations, and direct political involvement have flagged. Conservatives come disproportionately from rural areas and small towns, where social networks remain smaller, but denser and more homogeneous than in the big cities that liberals dominate. As a result, the opinions of family, friends, and community may be more potent in conservative hotbeds than in the more anonymous big cities where Democrats dominate.
The lack of shared reality between left and right in America today has contributed greatly to our current political polarization. Despite occasional left forays into reality denial, conservatives are far more likely to accept misinformation and outright lies. Deliberate campaigns of misinformation and conservative preferences for information that fits in with their pre-existing ideology provide only a partial explanation. Faulty reasoning and judgment, rooted in the interactions between modes of reasoning and judgment shared by all with the specific personality patterns found disproportionately among conservatives may also play a central role.
TWEET
SHARE
COMMENT
DemocratsDonald TrumpPsychologyRepublicans
Sponsored
Clean & Healthy Changes
with next generation plant based litter
ökocat
|
Sponsored
Litter that stops odor before it starts.
Natural wood fiber absorbs liquid on contact, preventing enzymes from bonding with liquid & waste, stopping the creation of ammonia & odor before it starts.
ökocat
|
Sponsored
ABOUT
About Us
Work With Us
Contact
Pitch Guidelines
Send Us Tips
Corrections
Commenting
Reprints
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe
Sign In
Account
Subscription FAQs
Podcast FAQs
Newsletters
Customer Support
ADVERTISING
Site Advertising
Podcast Advertising
AdChoices
Cookie Preferences
Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company.
FOLLOW US
Facebook Twitter Instagram RSS Feed
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
All contents © 2022 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.
*
*
*
*
2 Shares
*
Share #1
*
*
*
*
Share #2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
7 of 9:
**
(2, 7 are similar)
*
*
Slate: Conservatives Are More Susceptible to Believing Lies
*
(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1842360986064758&id=100008726227817&mibextid=Nif5oz)
Sharon Nichols
16 May 2018
*
*
Thank you, Brad.
This explains the thought process of Republi-cons, Drumpfians, and Deplorables.
*
‘Self-described conservatives tend to place a higher value than those to their left on deference to tradition and authority. They are more likely to value stability, conformity, and order, and have more difficulty tolerating novelty and ambiguity and uncertainty. They are more sensitive than liberals to information suggesting the possibility of danger than to information suggesting benefits. And they are more moralistic and more likely to repress unconscious drives towards unconventional sexuality.
Fairness and kindness place lower on the list of moral priorities for conservatives than for liberals. Conservatives show a stronger preference for higher status groups, are more accepting of inequality and injustice, and are less empathic (at least towards those outside their immediate family). As one Tea Party member told University of California sociologist Arlie Hochschild, “People think we are not good people if we don’t feel sorry for blacks and immigrants and Syrian refugees. But I am a good person and I don’t feel sorry for them.”
*
Pay attention how ideologies vote.
Right-wing Republi-con Con-servatives’ ideology restricts how they vote. Patriarchy is their drive.
– Female Right-wing Republi-cons will nearly always vote for a Republi-con candidate – male or female.
– Male Right-wing Republi-cons will nearly always vote for a Republi-con candidate – male or female.
– Both female and male Right-wing Republi-cons might rarely vote for a non-Republi-con male candidate. This is their patriarchy at work.
– Both female and male Right-wing Republi-cons will never vote for a non-Republi-con female candidate. This is both their patriarchy and their misogyny at work.
Meanwhile.
Liberal adventurism allows them to detrimentally try a non-Liberal candidate.
– Both female and male Left-wing Democrats primarily prefer to vote for a Democratic candidate – male or female.
– Both female and male Left-wing Democrats occasionally vote for a Republi-con candidate – male or female – even when casting such a vote goes completely contrary to their better interests – even when the female candidate is patriarchal and self-misogynistic, little more than a Republi-con male in a dress
– Many female Left-wing Democrats will blindly vote for a female Right-wing Republi-con only because she is voting for another female. She will vote this way disregarding all evidence that that female Right-wing Republi-con candidate’s platform is contrary to every fibre of her essence. She will ignore all male Left-wing Democratic candidates no matter how much she supports his platform.
I met several otherwise sane Liberals who proudly boasted that they voted for Baby Bush twice simply because they voted for Clinton twice – that they wanted to allow the Republi-con president two terms. Sheesh!
Mind you, poll after poll, whether by the Left or the Right, consistently document that less than 30% of Americans fit the Right-wing Republi-con ideology, yet we see that since the 1950s they have controlled this nation.
These Liberals denied the Presidency to Clinton.
These Liberals will prevent this so-called ‘Blue Tsunami’ from ever happening.
These Liberals wrought Nixon, Reagan, two Bushes, Crooked Drumpf, the Republi-con ‘Contract on America’, the ‘Permanent Republikan Majority’, Gerrymandering, voter suppression.
What will you do about it?
*
See also:
(https://wapo.st/2wIEwBd?tid=ss_fb-amp)
*
Thank you to the resources who contribute to this page.
*
*
*
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10211310619863950&id=1313896365&mibextid=Nif5oz)
Brad Chapdelain
4 Feb 2018
“Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right,”
*
*
*
*
POLLING FREAK
SCIENCE
Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?
An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.
JOHN EHRENREICH
NOV 09, 20179:00 AM
Fox News believers
Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Photos by FoxNews and FoxNews.com.
Many conservatives have a loose relationship with facts. The right-wing denial of what most people think of as accepted reality starts with political issues: As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels” (it doesn’t). A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim (…he isn’t).
Then there are the false beliefs about generally accepted science. Only 25 percent of self-proclaimed Trump voters agree that climate change is caused by human activities. Only 43 percent of Republicans overall believe that humans have evolved over time.
And then it gets really crazy. Almost 1 in 6 Trump voters, while simultaneously viewing photographs of the crowds at the 2016 inauguration of Donald Trump and at the 2012 inauguration of Barack Obama , insisted that the former were larger. Sixty-six percent of self-described “very conservative” Americans seriously believe that “Muslims are covertly implementing Sharia law in American courts.” Forty-six percent of Trump voters polled just after the 2016 election either thought that Hillary Clinton was connected to a child sex trafficking ring run out of the basement of a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., or weren’t sure if it was true.
00:00
00:00
Full Podcast Here
If “truth” is judged on the basis of Enlightenment ideas of reason and more or less objective “evidence,” many of the substantive positions common on the right seem to border on delusional. The left is certainly not immune to credulity (most commonly about the safety of vaccines, GMO foods, and fracking), but the right seems to specialize in it. “Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right,” concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University at a February 2017 conference. A BuzzFeed analysis found that three main hyperconservative Facebook pages were roughly twice as likely as three leading ultraliberal Facebook pages to publish fake or misleading information.
Why are conservatives so susceptible to misinformation? The right wing’s disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. College-educated Republicans are actually more likely than less-educated Republicans to have believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim and that “death panels” were part of the ACA. And for political conservatives, but not for liberals, greater knowledge of science and math is associated with a greater likelihood of dismissing what almost all scientists believe about the human causation of global warming.
It’s also not just misinformation gained from too many hours listening to Fox News, either, because correcting the falsehoods doesn’t change their opinions. For example, nine months following the release of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the percentage of Republicans who believed that he was not American-born was actually higher than before the release. Similarly, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats corrected their previous overestimates of the unemployment rate after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the actual data. Republicans’ overestimated even more than before.
Part of the problem is widespread suspicion of facts—any facts. Both mistrust of scientists and other “experts” and mistrust of the mass media that reports what scientists and experts believe have increased among conservatives (but not among liberals) since the early ’80s. The mistrust has in part, at least, been deliberately inculcated. The fossil fuel industry publicizes studies to confuse the climate change debate; Big Pharma hides unfavorable information on drug safety and efficacy; and many schools in conservative areas teach students that evolution is “just a theory.” The public is understandably confused about both the findings and methods of science. “Fake news” deliberately created for political or economic gain and Donald Trump’s claims that media sites that disagree with him are “fake news” add to the mistrust.
But, the gullibility of many on the right seems to have deeper roots even than this. That may be because at the most basic level, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes “truth.” Finding facts and pursuing evidence and trusting science is part of liberal ideology itself. For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth.
To understand how these differences manifest and what we might do about them, it helps to understand how all humans reason and rationalize: In other words, let’s take a detour into psychology. Freud distinguished between “errors” on the one hand, “illusions” and “delusions” on the other. Errors, he argued, simply reflect lack of knowledge or poor logic; Aristotle’s belief that vermin form out of dung was an error. But illusions and delusions are based on conscious or unconscious wishes; Columbus’s belief that he had found a new route to the Indies was a delusion based on his wish that he had done so.
Although Freud is out of favor with many contemporary psychologists, modern cognitive psychology suggests that he was on the right track. The tenacity of many of the right’s beliefs in the face of evidence, rational arguments, and common sense suggest that these beliefs are not merely alternate interpretations of facts but are instead illusions rooted in unconscious wishes.
This is a very human thing to do. As popular writers such as Daniel Kahneman, Cass Sunstein, and Richard Thaler have pointed out, we often use shortcuts when we reason, shortcuts that enable us to make decisions quickly and with little expenditure of mental energy. But they also often lead us astray—we underestimate the risks of events that unfold slowly and whose consequences are felt only over the long term (think global warming) and overestimate the likelihood of events that unfold rapidly and have immediate consequences (think terrorist attacks).
Our reasoning is also influenced (motivated, psychologists would say) by our emotions and instincts. This manifests in all kinds of ways: We need to maintain a positive self-image, to stave off anxiety and guilt, and to preserve social relationships. We also seek to maintain consistency in our beliefs, meaning that when people simultaneously hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, one or the other must go. And so we pay more attention and give more credence to information and assertions that confirm what we already believe: Liberals enthusiastically recount even the most tenuous circumstantial evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, and dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters happily believe that the crowd really was bigger at his candidate’s inauguration.
These limits to “objective” reasoning apply to everyone, of course—left and right. Why is it that conservatives have taken the lead in falling off the deep edge?
The answer, I think, lies in the interaction between reasoning processes and personality. It’s each person’s particular motivations and particular psychological makeup that affects how they search for information, what information they pay attention to, how they assess the accuracy and meaning of the information, what information they retain, and what conclusions they draw. But conservatives and liberals typically differ in their particular psychological makeups. And if you add up all of these particular differences, you get two groups that are systematically motivated to believe different things.
Psychologists have repeatedly reported that self-described conservatives tend to place a higher value than those to their left on deference to tradition and authority. They are more likely to value stability, conformity, and order, and have more difficulty tolerating novelty and ambiguity and uncertainty. They are more sensitive than liberals to information suggesting the possibility of danger than to information suggesting benefits. And they are more moralistic and more likely to repress unconscious drives towards unconventional sexuality.
Fairness and kindness place lower on the list of moral priorities for conservatives than for liberals. Conservatives show a stronger preference for higher status groups, are more accepting of inequality and injustice, and are less empathic (at least towards those outside their immediate family). As one Tea Party member told University of California sociologist Arlie Hochschild, “People think we are not good people if we don’t feel sorry for blacks and immigrants and Syrian refugees. But I am a good person and I don’t feel sorry for them.”
Baptist minister and former Republican congressman J.C. Watts put it succinctly. Campaigning for Sen. Rand Paul in Iowa in 2015 he observed, “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good.”
These conservative traits lead directly to conservative views on many issues, just as liberal traits tend to lead to liberal views on many issues. But when you consider how these conservative traits and these conservative views interact with commonly shared patterns of motivated reasoning, it becomes clearer why conservatives may be more likely to run into errors in reasoning and into difficulty judging accurately what is true and what is false.
It’s not just that Trump is “their” president, so they want to defend him. Conservatives’ greater acceptance of hierarchy and trust in authority may lead to greater faith that what the president says must be true, even when the “facts” would seem to indicate otherwise. The New York Times cataloged no less than 117 clearly false statements proclaimed publicly by Trump in the first six months of his presidency, with no evident loss in his supporters’ faith in him. In the same way, greater faith in the legitimacy of the decisions of corporate CEOs may strengthen the tendency to deny evidence that there are any potential benefits from regulation of industry.
Similarly, greater valuation of stability, greater sensitivity to the possibility of danger, and greater difficulty tolerating difference and change lead to greater anxiety about social change and so support greater credulity with respect to lurid tales of the dangers posed by immigrants. And higher levels of repression and greater adherence to tradition and traditional sources of moral judgment increase the credibility of claims that gay marriage is a threat to the “traditional” family.
Conservatives are also less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs.
The differences in how conservatives and liberals process information are augmented by an asymmetry in group psychological processes. Yes, we all seek to keep our social environment stable and predictable. Beliefs that might threaten relationships with family, neighbors, and friends (e.g., for a fundamentalist evangelical to believe that humans are the result of Darwinian evolution or for a coal miner to believe that climate change is real and human-made) must be ignored or denied, at peril of disrupting the relationships. But among all Americans, the intensity of social networks has declined in recent years. Church attendance and union membership, participation in community organizations, and direct political involvement have flagged. Conservatives come disproportionately from rural areas and small towns, where social networks remain smaller, but denser and more homogeneous than in the big cities that liberals dominate. As a result, the opinions of family, friends, and community may be more potent in conservative hotbeds than in the more anonymous big cities where Democrats dominate.
The lack of shared reality between left and right in America today has contributed greatly to our current political polarization. Despite occasional left forays into reality denial, conservatives are far more likely to accept misinformation and outright lies. Deliberate campaigns of misinformation and conservative preferences for information that fits in with their pre-existing ideology provide only a partial explanation. Faulty reasoning and judgment, rooted in the interactions between modes of reasoning and judgment shared by all with the specific personality patterns found disproportionately among conservatives may also play a central role.
TWEET
SHARE
COMMENT
Democrats
Donald Trump
Psychology
Republicans
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out IconCookie Preferences
Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company.
FOLLOW US
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
All contents © 2018 The Slate Group LLC.
*
*
*
*
1 Comment
*
Rachel Michele
it’s all lies
6yrs
*
*
*
3 Shares
*
Share #1
*
*
*
*
Share #2
*
*
*
*
Share #3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
You’re All Caught Up
Check back tomorrow to see more of your memories!
**
*
*
**
*
*
Dear Reader:
Thank you for visiting this post today. Please return for the next episode.
Thank you for reading my comments, for viewing and reading comments from other resources.
Thank you to the Resources who contribute to this page.
Acknowledgement and credit goes to those who create their news reporting, social media content, essays, and images provided for you here.
Please take note of the specific and the random memes and screen print images that may be attached to this article, that I present throughout this web-site. They add to the essence of this post.
Please visit those references when I add them to these essays. The contributors work hard and tirelessly to bring about sense from the non-sense.
These posts being Public, I permit you to Share these contents at your own web-site or Social Media, with appropriate crediting.
*
Thank you to T-central.blogspot.com for listing my ‘Slim and Me’ web-site with them. Please check them out for plenty of good resources.
(https://T-central.blogspot.com)
*
(https://www.BeHumanCampaign834662950771/)
(https://www.facebook.com/BeHumanCampaign)
BeHuman Campaign
*
This ‘SlimAndMe’ web-site is my primary Internet presence.
*
You can occasionally read an alternate, abbreviated version of these posts at my social media page.
*
Additional Resources:
1.
Crooked Drumpf skimmed from the ‘9 / 11’ relief fund.
‘Pure Evil’: Report On Trump Administration Draining Fund For FDNY’s 9/11 Responders Draws Outrage
Lisette Voytko
Forbes Staff
Senior Entertainment Reporter
Sep 11, 2020, 08:53am EDT
Updated Sep 12, 2020, 12:00pm EDT
TOPLINE A New York Daily News scoop published Thursday revealed that the Trump administration has siphoned around $4 million from the New York City Fire Department’s fund for its September 11 first responders, drawing outrage on the 19th anniversary of the attacks, but the U.S. Treasury says the money was diverted because of “delinquent debt” owed by New York City to the federal government.
Attacks World Trade Center
Firefighters work beneath the destroyed mullions, [+]
AP PHOTO/MARK LENNIHAN
KEY FACTS
The funds are part of the FDNY World Trade Center Health Program, which was established by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, a bill passed by Congress that provides healthcare to first responders who have suffered a range of illnesses from exposure to dust and smoke at Ground Zero.
“TRUMP DOESN’T ONLY HATE VETERANS, HE HATES FIRST RESPONDER HEROES,” tweeted actress Debra Messing in reaction to the Daily News report.
Fred Guttenberg, father of Parkland school shooting victim Jamie Guttenberg, said he was “F—KING P—-ED” about the report, because his brother died of cancer from 9/11.
“From the administration whose identity is built on claims of honoring first responders,” Julie Cohen, director of the RBG documentary, wrote on Twitter.
“This doesn’t surprise me at all,” Army veteran and advocate Paul Rieckoff wrote on Twitter. “Trump did NOTHING to push for the extension of #Zadroga last year.”
“We are also working with Congressman King and others to examine any potential authorities to provide relief in this case to support our nation’s 9/11 heroes,” the Treasury spokesperson. told Forbes, but could not provide any examples of how they would do it, and did not have a timeline.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“Here we have sick World Trade Center-exposed firefighters and EMS workers, at a time when the city is having difficult financial circumstances due to COVID-19, and we’re not getting the money we need to be able to treat these heroes,” FDNY Chief Medical Officer David Prezant told the Daily News.
CHIEF CRITIC
“Pure evil,” tweeted Dr. Dena Grayson, a medical expert who specializes in ebola and other viruses.
*
2.
This is Crooked Drumpf’s Amerika.
(https://www.facebook.com/414507242439358/posts/732780587278687/)
DNC War Room
1 Sep 2020
Shared with Public
*
*
*
*
*
*
Slim and Me 