thewayne: (Default)
https://qr.ae/pCZEPA

Question: How many Democrats are pro-Maduro?
Reply: Zero.

Back in my uni days, I took a class in cognitive science that was one of my favorite courses. One of the many, many things we talked about in class was the difference between abstract thinkers and concrete thinkers.

This difference appears to be architectural, a consequence of how your brain is wired, not a matter of choice or education.

Concrete thinkers see the world in strict black and white terms. They have difficulty drawing indirect connections between things, struggle to see multiple perspectives, and tend to hold an all or nothing, with-us-or-against-us mentality.

Abstract thinkers understand complex associations, can understand multiple perspectives at the same time, and can see second and third order relationships between things.

And crucially, abstract thinkers can understand concrete thought patterns, but generally speaking, concrete thinkers seem physically incapable of understanding abstract thought patterns.

So here’s the thing:

Abstract thinkers are capable of grasping multiple ideas at once. Like, “Maduro is an illegitimate totalitarian ruler with an authoritarian bent who presided over an illegitimate government” and also “a unilateral move to depose Maduro is illegal under international treaties and morally wrong.”

Concrete thinkers be all like “you’re either good or your bad, and if you’re bad you deserve anything bad that happens to you, anyone who says Maduro shouldn’t have been kidnapped must live and support Maduro.”

Abstract thinkers be like “no, you can believe a person is bad and also believe that breaking the law to kidnap that person is bad too, both of those things can be true at the same time.”


Very interesting, I wish we had classes available here on such a topic. I'm not sure how much I agree with it being a structural thing vs an education thing, I'd want to see some information on that, I'd be open to discussion.

I can certainly see where some conservative people whom I know/knew had problems with abstract thinking. I think I would hazard to say that concrete thinkers might be more easily persuaded by ideologues since they would be more likely to present their arguments and ideas in more concrete 'for or against' terms with straw man arguments that appear harder to refute.

Personally I've never had problems to easily see and argue multiple sides of an argument. When I first started working here at the university, around 20 years ago in the computer lab, we had one guy who had a degree in philosophy, and we had a security guard who was an ex-cop and a former preacher, and another who just liked discussing things in a lively fashion. And we had these informal round tables where we'd argue the issues of the day, going around and round, picking up and discarding different viewpoints. It was tremendous fun. But it only lasted about a year before I left and the group broke apart.

I know I definitely prefer to associate more with abstract thinkers, they're much more fun to talk and argue (more in a discuss way, not combative ) things with.
thewayne: (Default)
Which is likely to happen later this year, with potential follow-on effects possibly endangering mixed race marriage and gay marriage.

Roe v. Wade was decided during the NIXON presidency. That was NINE administrations ago, 1973. I wouldn't be surprised if some of my readers weren't alive then. Ignoring Watergate taking Nixon down, Nixon was a very mixed package and a definite man of his time. He had his race problems, his anti-semitic problems, etc. He also had some amazing positive traits and did some very positive things that went under the radar.

Here's something he said about Roe v. Wade:

"I admit, there are times when abortions are necessary, I know that. When you have a black and a white. Or a rape."
-- President Nixon to aide Charles Colson the day after Roe v. Wade, January 1973


So even Tricky Dick, when Republicans were actual Conservatives and not whatever idiocy is infecting them these days, recognized that "there are times when abortion is necessary", such as rape. If you were to have interviewed him, he might have acknowledged incest, woman's life in danger, etc. Women's rights were becoming a ground swell at that time and weren't much on his radar at that time.


You may or may not know about the web site Quora. Sadly, you can't browse it without signing up. It's a question/answer/rant site where you can ask questions and get answers on a huge variety of topics, sometimes the questions are deliberate trolling, sometimes the answers are thoughtful, sometimes stupid, sometimes equally trolly and ranting.

I came across an amazingly good answer in an Athiest feed. Here's part of it, the rest is under a cut as it's kind of long, with a link to the source at the end.

If you’re an atheist, what would be your motive in spreading atheism, and why would you care what others believe?

If you ask me a week ago, I wouldn’t care less about spreading atheism. In fact, I probably wouldn’t even answer this question at all, considering plenty of atheists had expressed similar feelings. Atheism is often compared to not collecting stamps, which really isn’t something you need to “spread”.

However, something happened this Monday and I had changed my mind about my entire indifference to atheism, or more precisely about my view on Christianity.

I have always seen the religion of Christianity as an organization of great power, and the organization is capable of using it for good and for bad. And despite all the atrocities committed by the Church (Christian or Catholic), I’ve always been willing to give the religion the benefit of doubt. I’ve always been willing to accept that the core teachings, love, tolerance, and compassion, are good. But people twisted its message to justify their evil deeds.

I no longer believe that. I think the core teachings of Christianity are not love, tolerance, or compassion. The core teaching of Christianity is obedience. Christianity as a religion, Christianity as an organization, had done more harm to our society than good, a LOT more harm than good. It’s not about evil people using religion to do harm. It is good people doing good deeds, and some of them just so happen, are Christians.

As I’m writing this answer, the evangelical Christian conservatives had collectively decided that women do not deserve bodily autonomy. They have worked their way up to the supreme court and applied their Christian Canon Law to every woman in the US, regardless of our individual religious beliefs (or the lack of).

Sure, you can argue that American evangelical Christians do not represent Christianity.

My question is, where are the good Christians? WHERE ARE THE FUCKING GOOD CHRISTIANS?! Why don’t the good Christians come out in droves to condemn these people? Why aren’t they protesting against it?

The thing is, if you read the Bible, I mean, really, REALLY read it. you would not be a Christian.
Read more... )

February 2026

S M T W T F S
12 3 45 6 7
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 10th, 2026 02:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios