Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

13468962

Posts

  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    What?! Why?

    Because we're a Representative Republic that is essentially a Democracy in most cases.

    Why shouldn't the government be concerned with the education of its populace?

    See, I don't get this. My family is, if anything, upper-middle class, and we needed a fucking second mortgage to pay for a college education. If we added 20,000 a year in tuition to a private school to that...

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.
    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.
    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.
    None of that requires total nor partial privatization.

    It's interesting to note that the single greatest achievement of the U.S. government is arguably compulsory education, and yet it's also pointed to as a huge failure by Libertarians.

    Well, obviously there are some flaws with the U.S. compulsory education, some people are still coming out dumb enough to be Libertarians. So, I guess they have a point.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    SmasherSmasher Starting to get dizzy Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.
    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.
    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.
    None of that requires total nor partial privatization.

    It's interesting to note that the single greatest achievement of the U.S. government is arguably compulsory education, and yet it's also pointed to as a huge failure by Libertarians.

    Well, obviously there are some flaws with the U.S. compulsory education, some people are still coming out dumb enough to be Libertarians. So, I guess they have a point.

    And if you make education private it becomes optional, thus creating more dumb people.

    Suddenly it all makes sense.

    Smasher on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Smasher wrote: »
    And if you make education private it becomes optional, thus creating more dumb people.

    Suddenly it all makes sense.

    And then you remove politicians and elected officials from the mix, because dumb people are obviously better able to make any and all decisions better on their own, and are capable of overcoming any problems with asymetrical information.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    What's all this about compulsory education? Even if Paul gutted the Department of Education, it wouldn't get rid of compulsory education because that is currently handled by the states.

    If you are talking about random libertarian X then nothing to see here, move along.

    Savant on
  • Options
    The_Most_FantasticThe_Most_Fantastic Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't think Ron Paul supporters should be foolish enough to believe that, if elected president, he'd actually cleave off any more than an insignificant tumor from the federal machine. He might want to, but he'd have the Legislative branch to plow through, and those people sure do love them some pork and corporate interests.

    I think what's really attractive about Paul is that he's not guided by a desire for power solely for the sake of power. While I may not agree with all of his stances, and may not understand a good deal more, I know he'd govern this country strictly by the parameters allotted him by the Constitution. I think he's the only candidate who might slow this country's inevitable march to Welfare State Wonderland.

    The_Most_Fantastic on
    “You begin saving the world by saving one person at a time; all else is grandiose romanticism or politics.”
    ~CB
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'd fully agree that comprehensive universal education systems have nearly always been led by the government (whether state or national, depending on your country). I can't think of an example of a country where such a system has grown up organically through private/charitable methods - although perhaps an argument could be made for some of the Catholic countries in Europe, but so far as I know they usually had government money/assistance behind them. Anyway, iirc such classical liberal icons like Mills supported state education as they saw it as a basic building block of a state or society.

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think what's really attractive about Paul is that he's not guided by a desire for power solely for the sake of power.
    Oh, I'll definitely agree with that. It's great to have someone running for President who actually believes in someting other than that they really ought to be President. It's just a shame that so many of his ideas are so fucking crazy.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    What?! Why?

    Because we're a Representative Republic that is essentially a Democracy in most cases.

    Why shouldn't the government be concerned with the education of its populace?

    See, I don't get this. My family is, if anything, upper-middle class, and we needed a fucking second mortgage to pay for a college education. If we added 20,000 a year in tuition to a private school to that...
    But by gutting education you'll save a few hundred bucks on your income tax, see? You'll be fine.

    I love how people think a moderate reduction in taxation will more than make up for the whole "setting America back by over a century by putting education in the hands of the wealthy"

    Azio on
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Smasher wrote: »

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.

    I'm not sure if you're just contradicting Picardathon's opinion on the current quality of public schools or contending that they suck in principle; Locutus at any rate seems to believe the latter, so I'll debate it.

    I think almost everyone can agree public education has a lot of problems, but getting rid of the public school system is not the way to fix it.

    Suppose we converted to exclusively having private schools. They would obviously have to keep charging tuition, or else where would they get their funds from? Not everyone is going to be able to afford the tuition, which means we'd end up with a potentially significant number of people who can receive an education under the current public school system (lacking in various areas though it might be) but would not under the private system.

    Think of the limited opportunities those with only a high school diploma have, and then imagine what it would be like for people who didn't even get a middle school education. Sure, they'd be able to get jobs doing menial labor of some sort, but they'd have even less upward mobility than exists today. These people will still be able to vote (unless you intend to implement voting restrictions based on intelligence or education, which would basically be the death knell of democracy in our country). I don't know about you, but I'd be scared to have that many uneducated people potentially voting for our president and senators; how are they supposed to make informed decisions when they can't even understand the issues? Hell, that happens to some extent already, and look where it's gotten us.

    I dont see how my comment even smells like privatization. I'm saying the way public education teaches, it relies on the kid (a LOT) and any rational kid would rely on the text books (which suck.) I'm saying you wont fix public education by adding this or removing that. Public education needs to be completely redone to emphasize different things, not thrown out.

    American kids need to recognize their poets and musicians and need to be tought American art (namely jazz.) I can't stress how important this is. There is a reason European education kicks ass and it's because they know their roots.

    I'm not contradicting Picardathon just for sake of argument. He was like people talk shit about American public education for no reason. I dont think so. I think the public education is one of the biggest problems in America.

    The system seems designed to promote conformity. I also think all the school shooting are a result of the schools (Columbine and such.) Ofcourse these problems can be found in private schools, but partly because private schools tend to be spin offs of public schools, and partly because they are run by the same kind of people.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    NavocNavoc Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Daedalus wrote: »
    I think what's really attractive about Paul is that he's not guided by a desire for power solely for the sake of power.
    Oh, I'll definitely agree with that. It's great to have someone running for President who actually believes in someting other than that they really ought to be President. It's just a shame that so many of his ideas are so fucking crazy.

    I don't really care for this common sentiment that politicians are some unique breed of people who have no morals or goals but their extreme lust for authority. I have seen nothing to indicate Ron Paul is any different than a candidate like Hillary Clinton except that he doesn't have to worry for a second that he might have a chance at being elected.

    Navoc on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    I dont see how my comment even smells like privatization. I'm saying the way public education teaches, it relies on the kid (a LOT) and any rational kid would rely on the text books (which suck.) I'm saying you wont fix public education by adding this or removing that. Public education needs to be completely redone to emphasize different things, not thrown out.

    American kids need to recognize their poets and musicians and need to be tought American art (namely jazz.) I can't stress how important this is. There is a reason European education kicks ass and it's because they know their roots.

    I'm not contradicting Picardathon just for sake of argument. He was like people talk shit about American public education for no reason. I dont think so. I think the public education is one of the biggest problems in America.

    The system seems designed to promote conformity. I also think all the school shooting are a result of the schools (Columbine and such.) Ofcourse these problems can be found in private schools, but partly because private schools tend to be spin offs of public schools, and partly because they are run by the same kind of people.
    What the hell does european education have to do with culture in schools? Playing Jazz will help kids with Physics?
    What have you been smoking?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »

    I dont see how my comment even smells like privatization. I'm saying the way public education teaches, it relies on the kid (a LOT) and any rational kid would rely on the text books (which suck.) I'm saying you wont fix public education by adding this or removing that. Public education needs to be completely redone to emphasize different things, not thrown out.

    American kids need to recognize their poets and musicians and need to be tought American art (namely jazz.) I can't stress how important this is. There is a reason European education kicks ass and it's because they know their roots.

    I'm not contradicting Picardathon just for sake of argument. He was like people talk shit about American public education for no reason. I dont think so. I think the public education is one of the biggest problems in America.

    The system seems designed to promote conformity. I also think all the school shooting are a result of the schools (Columbine and such.) Ofcourse these problems can be found in private schools, but partly because private schools tend to be spin offs of public schools, and partly because they are run by the same kind of people.
    What the hell does european education have to do with culture in schools? Playing Jazz will help kids with Physics?
    What have you been smoking?

    Crack.

    Edit: laced with PCP. Introduction to compulsory schools :
    http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gatto.html

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Smasher wrote: »

    It shouldn't be the government's job to educate the people,.

    IT DAMN WELL SHOULD!
    I like my public schools, they get a damn bad rap, this is another reason not to vote for this nutbar.

    The education in America sucks. Public schools stomp out individuality. The text books overcomplicate subjects. A student's failure is not a teacher's fuck up. There is no emphasis on American culture, art or music, which is crying shame. There is an emphasis on memorization not understanding. Standardized tests.

    The system fails on multiple levels and needs to be completely redesigned.

    I'm not sure if you're just contradicting Picardathon's opinion on the current quality of public schools or contending that they suck in principle; Locutus at any rate seems to believe the latter, so I'll debate it.

    I think almost everyone can agree public education has a lot of problems, but getting rid of the public school system is not the way to fix it.

    Suppose we converted to exclusively having private schools. They would obviously have to keep charging tuition, or else where would they get their funds from? Not everyone is going to be able to afford the tuition, which means we'd end up with a potentially significant number of people who can receive an education under the current public school system (lacking in various areas though it might be) but would not under the private system.

    Think of the limited opportunities those with only a high school diploma have, and then imagine what it would be like for people who didn't even get a middle school education. Sure, they'd be able to get jobs doing menial labor of some sort, but they'd have even less upward mobility than exists today. These people will still be able to vote (unless you intend to implement voting restrictions based on intelligence or education, which would basically be the death knell of democracy in our country). I don't know about you, but I'd be scared to have that many uneducated people potentially voting for our president and senators; how are they supposed to make informed decisions when they can't even understand the issues? Hell, that happens to some extent already, and look where it's gotten us.

    I dont see how my comment even smells like privatization. I'm saying the way public education teaches, it relies on the kid (a LOT) and any rational kid would rely on the text books (which suck.) I'm saying you wont fix public education by adding this or removing that. Public education needs to be completely redone to emphasize different things, not thrown out.

    American kids need to recognize their poets and musicians and need to be tought American art (namely jazz.) I can't stress how important this is. There is a reason European education kicks ass and it's because they know their roots.

    I'm not contradicting Picardathon just for sake of argument. He was like people talk shit about American public education for no reason. I dont think so. I think the public education is one of the biggest problems in America.

    The system seems designed to promote conformity. I also think all the school shooting are a result of the schools (Columbine and such.) Ofcourse these problems can be found in private schools, but partly because private schools tend to be spin offs of public schools, and partly because they are run by the same kind of people.

    Dude, art is barely mandatory in public schools. Its mostly shoved into an English class that has to teach you how to read and write properly as well.
    Whats this BS about "knowing your roots"? I really just don't understand, why the hell is jazz more important then math and science? Or English, or history?
    And people do talk shit about public education, the reason being that they have to accept the absolute dregs of society, while the private schools simply reject the worse kids. The cream of the crop in the public school system is just as smart as it is in the private school system, the difference is that the floor is much, much lower in public schools in regards to the students.
    Also, how the hell can you make an education not reliant on the studen? If a student refuses to learn, and the parents aren't forcing them too, then there's nothing that the system can do.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kalkino
    About private school systems arrising naturaly. As far as I know, there is currently only one schoolsystem that has been created solely by private intrests. Its the system of Slum-schools in the big cities in India. They arose because the goverment allocated far to little money to actually teach the number of slum kids wanting an education. Its easy to forget with all the "INDIA the next global superpower" bullshit going on that the majority of indians live in abject poverty. So parents that want their children to have a better future, pay private schools to teach their kids. These schools arose from being tutoring services to being full fledged schools in their own right. It is the only recorded case of private actors taking over for public ones recorded.

    There are of course other cases where a hidden school system was created to cover deficencies in the public system. Irish Hedge schools keeping irish culture alive during the british crackdowns for example. But India is the most developed. There was a article on them a while back, but if it was Newsweek,Time or the Economist I can remember.

    Your example of catholic countries is in error. In most catholic countries, the church is an accepted part of the state. so catholic schools in old Italy for example was the same as going a public system in a protestant country.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »

    I dont see how my comment even smells like privatization. I'm saying the way public education teaches, it relies on the kid (a LOT) and any rational kid would rely on the text books (which suck.) I'm saying you wont fix public education by adding this or removing that. Public education needs to be completely redone to emphasize different things, not thrown out.

    American kids need to recognize their poets and musicians and need to be tought American art (namely jazz.) I can't stress how important this is. There is a reason European education kicks ass and it's because they know their roots.

    I'm not contradicting Picardathon just for sake of argument. He was like people talk shit about American public education for no reason. I dont think so. I think the public education is one of the biggest problems in America.

    The system seems designed to promote conformity. I also think all the school shooting are a result of the schools (Columbine and such.) Ofcourse these problems can be found in private schools, but partly because private schools tend to be spin offs of public schools, and partly because they are run by the same kind of people.
    What the hell does european education have to do with culture in schools? Playing Jazz will help kids with Physics?
    What have you been smoking?

    Crack.

    Edit: laced with PCP. Introduction to compulsory schools :
    http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gatto.html

    Ah, Gatto. I'm trying to think where to start with showing how utterly fucked up his arguments are - should we start with the neo-Luddite aspects, the thinly veiled Dominionism, or how he so cutely avoids discussing the effects of an anti-intellectual society on schooling?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    For the record, there is evidence that an early music education can help form the neural pathways for math and science later on.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Hey having some music education is probably a good thing. If nothing else it will make school more fun which will probably help other subjects aswell.
    That does not mean it needs to be the music of "your roots" or whatever, what's the difference if american kids learn Mozart or Jazz?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Hey having some music education is probably a good thing. If nothing else it will make school more fun which will probably help other subjects aswell.
    That does not mean it needs to be the music of "your roots" or whatever, what's the difference if american kids learn Mozart or Jazz?

    Well, yeah. It's pretty hard to expect a kid to appreciate Jazz, and I'm sure that Mozart's more structured approach would do a better job of helping with the neural pathways.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Probably another thread here, far too much to say on the topic of what schools should teach, why and how to fit as an aside to a Ron Paul thread. Children not being able to recognise poets and muscians (especially in the US, come on) is probably more down to you not recognising those poets and muscians as JayZ and Christina Aguilera etc than a failing of the public school system.

    Tastyfish on
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Hey having some music education is probably a good thing. If nothing else it will make school more fun which will probably help other subjects aswell.
    That does not mean it needs to be the music of "your roots" or whatever, what's the difference if american kids learn Mozart or Jazz?

    Well it's an American school, so it should take pride in and teach an American art. I just think that it's important to make kids aware and involve them in the intelligent culture that has developed in their country. The culture that i see mostly is insipid... so much that it makes me want to vomit.
    fjafjan wrote: »

    I dont see how my comment even smells like privatization. I'm saying the way public education teaches, it relies on the kid (a LOT) and any rational kid would rely on the text books (which suck.) I'm saying you wont fix public education by adding this or removing that. Public education needs to be completely redone to emphasize different things, not thrown out.

    American kids need to recognize their poets and musicians and need to be tought American art (namely jazz.) I can't stress how important this is. There is a reason European education kicks ass and it's because they know their roots.

    I'm not contradicting Picardathon just for sake of argument. He was like people talk shit about American public education for no reason. I dont think so. I think the public education is one of the biggest problems in America.

    The system seems designed to promote conformity. I also think all the school shooting are a result of the schools (Columbine and such.) Ofcourse these problems can be found in private schools, but partly because private schools tend to be spin offs of public schools, and partly because they are run by the same kind of people.
    What the hell does european education have to do with culture in schools? Playing Jazz will help kids with Physics?
    What have you been smoking?

    Crack.

    Edit: laced with PCP. Introduction to compulsory schools :
    http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gatto.html

    Ah, Gatto. I'm trying to think where to start with showing how utterly fucked up his arguments are - should we start with the neo-Luddite aspects, the thinly veiled Dominionism, or how he so cutely avoids discussing the effects of an anti-intellectual society on schooling?

    I would be interested.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    God damn it.

    I can't vote but if I had to vote for a republican it would be Ron Paul solely because he doesn't regurgitate slogans and he heals cripples.

    Edit: As long as I'm inserting my opinion, I dont see how he's completely apeshit.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Hey having some music education is probably a good thing. If nothing else it will make school more fun which will probably help other subjects aswell.
    That does not mean it needs to be the music of "your roots" or whatever, what's the difference if american kids learn Mozart or Jazz?

    Well it's an American school, so it should take pride in and teach an American art. I just think that it's important to make kids aware and involve them in the intelligent culture that has developed in their country. The culture that i see mostly is insipid... so much that it makes me want to vomit.

    You will be shocked and amazed to learn that American culture has produced a hell of a lot more than just jazz, and that much of it is in fact taught in the schools.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Now non-american history might be a different matter, how much other stuff is generally part of the curriculum? I know we went from Ur to the early modern age over the course of ages 9-14 (at which you would pick whether you wanted to continue history picking up from the beginning of the industrial revolution to preWW1 or WW1 to present). That said, I picked geography and ended up spending large amounts of my time colouring in parrots.

    But yeah, would have thought a lot of US history would really be european history (plus the more interesting stuff is ancient anyway), given it sets the backdrop for why people went there in the first place. The american history I would have thought would be more for older children (14/15+) because its delving a lot more into the politics of what was going on rather than the how other people lived sort of thing.

    Tastyfish on
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    Hey having some music education is probably a good thing. If nothing else it will make school more fun which will probably help other subjects aswell.
    That does not mean it needs to be the music of "your roots" or whatever, what's the difference if american kids learn Mozart or Jazz?

    Well it's an American school, so it should take pride in and teach an American art. I just think that it's important to make kids aware and involve them in the intelligent culture that has developed in their country. The culture that i see mostly is insipid... so much that it makes me want to vomit.

    You will be shocked and amazed to learn that American culture has produced a hell of a lot more than just jazz, and that much of it is in fact taught in the schools.

    Maybe.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    My public school had a jazz band. We also went over jazz during history, and English (the jazz age, Great Gatsby, etc). We also had a music theory class for kids interested in music, which I didn't take.

    What else do you want?

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I want it injected into my fucking eye.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Ceasefire! Watch Republican debates!

    Reconvene soon. :D

    Organichu on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Well, that's appropriately jazz-like.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    It's because i'm Jealous. I never got the opportunity. :(

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    God damn it.

    I can't vote but if I had to vote for a republican it would be Ron Paul solely because he doesn't regurgitate slogans and he heals cripples.

    Edit: As long as I'm inserting my opinion, I dont see how he's completely apeshit.

    Well, you don't have to vote for a Republican. So...:|

    moniker on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm not really seeing why "total inability to compromise anything but his morals" is being seen as such a huge plus when it comes to Ron Paul...?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    I'm not really seeing why "total inability to compromise anything but his morals" is being seen as such a huge plus when it comes to Ron Paul...?

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003877213_brain10.html

    CHICAGO -- The differences between liberals and conservatives may run deeper than how they feel about welfare reform or the progress of the Iraq war: Researchers reported Sunday that their brains may actually work differently.

    In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that a specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.

    The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking.

    "Say you drive home from work the same way every day, but one day there's a detour and you need to override your autopilot," said NYU psychologist David Amodio. "Most people function just fine. But there's a little variability in how sensitive people are to the cue that they need to change their current course."

    The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

    The latest study showed "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected with the latest research.


    Basically, it's the same mindset that praises Bush for staying the course, even when that course has proven to be a failure. This time, Ron Paul promises to be just as stubborn, only the course is much much better this time, he swears.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SamiSami Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Sami on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007

    Crack.

    Edit: laced with PCP. Introduction to compulsory schools :
    http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gatto.html

    Ah, Gatto. I'm trying to think where to start with showing how utterly fucked up his arguments are - should we start with the neo-Luddite aspects, the thinly veiled Dominionism, or how he so cutely avoids discussing the effects of an anti-intellectual society on schooling?

    I would be interested.

    Well, my biggest criticism of Gatto is that he wants to heap the blame of the lack of education onto schools while ignoring the elephant in the room - the large anti-intellectual streak that runs a mile wide through American culture. Our schools are in many ways a reflection of our society, and the sad truth is that we do not respect intellectual pursuits here. We would go a long way in fixing the deficiencies in our schools by making the intellectual acceptable.

    As for the Dominionism, it's a subtle vein, but that's what makes it insidious:
    6) Children will inevitably grow apart from their parents in belief, and this process must be encouraged by diluting parental influence and disabusing children of the idea their parents are sovereign in mind or morality. That prescription alone has been enough to cripple the American family. The effects of forced disloyalty on family are hideously destructive, removing the only certain support the growing spirit has to refer to. In place of family the school offers phantoms like "ambition," "advancement," and "fun," nightmare harbingers of the hollow life ahead.

    7) An overriding concern of schooling is to protect children from bad parents. No wonder G. Stanley Hall, the father of school administration, invited Sigmund Freud to the United States in 1909—it was urgent business to establish a "scientific" basis upon which to justify the anti-family stance of State schooling, and the programmatic State in general.

    If you know the codewords, you can see the influence.

    To be honest, giving Gatto the drubbing he deserves (preferably with the intellectual equivalent of a tire iron) is a topic best devoted to it's own thread, just because there's so much stupid in it.

    (By the way, you know why he's so convincing? He's an ad man by training.)

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    Well, there's a reason why libertarians are quick to lecture people on how they need to go back to economics 101, while completely neglecting to discuss any of the lessons that they might need to learn after that. They're better with absolute principles and generalizations than they are with actual compelxity.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

    "Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?"

    Ron Paul scores at 47%, the highest of any republican, and nearly as high as Hillary Clinton.

    So much for the argument of "Ron Paul is only polling at 2% because of the media blackout that prevents people from having heard of him," and "the more that people hear about Ron Paul, the more they like him." Apparently, 47% of the general population seems to think otherwise.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Sami wrote: »
    Conservativism: We always knew it was a form of mental retardation, science backs us up. More at 11.

    Academics are biased liberally anyway

    Not even remotely true, and the people who usually say what you just said tend to be the people who didn't actually get into higher ed.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

    "Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?"

    Ron Paul scores at 47%, the highest of any republican, and nearly as high as Hillary Clinton.

    So much for the argument of "Ron Paul is only polling at 2% because of the media blackout that prevents people from having heard of him," and "the more that people hear about Ron Paul, the more they like him." Apparently, 47% of the general population seems to think otherwise.

    He's only a few points above the more mainstream Republicans though. The only Republican below 40% is Huckabee.

    That Clinton has such high negatives makes me wonder what the method is exactly for the other matchup polls. There's some statistical funkiness if 50% +- 1% say they would never vote for her but then over 50% would vote for her in a short timeframe.

    Savant on
This discussion has been closed.