I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
categories.
Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
atheism and liberalism.
On Saturday, May 5, 2012 3:39:22 PM UTC+2, Al Lal wrote:
> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> atheism and liberalism.
I used to think outside the box. Then I lost the box, and it all began to feel kind of pointless.
<alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
>categories.
>Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>atheism and liberalism.
>I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
A commie fascist libertarian troll-hater.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
> On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
>> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
>>> I am a
>> troll.
>> --
>> Terry Austin
> You are an idiot.
> I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.
Oh, like that's news.
-- Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> than conservative.
OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> atheism and liberalism.
Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
easily, or not?
> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>> than conservative.
> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>> atheism and liberalism.
> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> easily, or not?
>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> atheism and liberalism.
> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.
> On May 5, 10:04 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al Lal<alal112...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d507e53-b5ff-4503-933e-
>> 600f5d805...@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
>>> I am a
>> troll.
Aw, Terry, what would YOU know about TROLLS?
> You are an idiot.
> I hereby declare you an enemy of the human species.
> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> > conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> > atheism and liberalism.
> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> easily, or not?
-- Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgaert...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/ "I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>> than conservative.
> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
The RAH Pigeonhole Principle says you'll always have one pigeonhole too few.
> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
>easily, or not?
Yes, no, maybe, and other.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 5/5/12 9:39 AM, Al Lal wrote:
>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>> atheism and liberalism.
>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
> i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.
That's only because you're radially symmetric, so your political parties
need Venn diagrams.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> On 2012-05-05 21:39:55 +0000, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> said:
> > On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> >> than conservative.
> > OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
> >> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
> >> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> >> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> >> atheism and liberalism.
> > Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> > easily, or not?
> >> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
> > Anarchist apatheist.
> I am a non-Hoosier variant.
Are moonflowers really there while you aren't watching them?
I don't really care, as long as they're there when I do look at
them.
On May 5, 5:42 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> n...@bid.nes <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> >> than conservative.
> > OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
> The RAH Pigeonhole Principle says you'll always have one pigeonhole too few.
Heh. I need three or four to myself during the course of a decent
conversation. Sometimes I find it necessary to build them on the fly.
> > Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> >easily, or not?
> Yes, no, maybe, and other.
The boxes we (design to) think inside of have doors into other
boxes. We might categorize by which doors one would prefer were kept
closed.
But then, some necessarily overlap... are they multiply connected?
Philosophical topology, anyone?
> > On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
> > > conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
> > > atheism and liberalism.
> > Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> > easily, or not?
> On 2012-05-05 21:39:55 +0000, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8752
@gmail.com> said:
>> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal <alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>>> than conservative.
>> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>>> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>>> atheism and liberalism.
>> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
>> easily, or not?
>>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>> Anarchist apatheist.
> I am a non-Hoosier variant.
> kdb
iven that the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are not clearly defined, and have enormous amounts of grey in between, and
are almost always mis-defined by their opposition, the question is pretty much meaningless anyway, even if people did pigeonhole esily, which they generally do not.
And those who worry too much about such things always have other windmills to tilt against anyway. Ther are better things to waste time on anyway.
It's supposed to be Three Laws-y, but the bad guys remove its main ethics circuit and then show it somebody's photograph and explain that this is an Enemy of Humanity, and then it goes and kills that person.
> On May 5, 6:39 am, Al Lal<alal112...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
>> than conservative.
> OK... how would you pigeonhole RAH?
>> In reality, people do not fall neatly into such categories.
>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>> atheism and liberalism.
> Interesting juxtaposition of assertions. Do people categorize
> easily, or not?
From this week's New Scientist magazine:
"Humans use two cognitive systems for processing information: one fast and intuitive, another slower and analytical. Intuitive thinking is thought to underpin supernatural beliefs, while activating analytical thinking can override the intuitive system - and vice versa. Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, used this to probe the causes of disbelief.
His student Will Gervais asked 93 university students to rate their belief in God and other supernatural agents. Then, several weeks later, the students underwent "priming" for analytical thinking - reading words such as "rational", deciphering text written in hard-to-read fonts or looking at a photo of Rodin's The Thinker (pictured). Controls were given less analytically charged tasks.
The researchers then asked the students to again rate their supernatural beliefs. The students who had been exposed to analytical priming downgraded their belief in the supernatural, regardless of their previous degree of belief (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1215647).
The simplest explanation is if intuitive thinking leads to belief, and analytical thinking somehow suppresses this process. "Habitual analytical thinking could be one reason scientists tend to be disbelievers," notes Norenzayan."
> I have a hypothesis, that most SF readers/writers are more liberal
> than conservative. In reality, people do not fall neatly into such
> categories.
[SNIP]
First of all you will have to come up with definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that apply outside the particular political insularities of where we all live.
My Australian definition of "conservative" appears to be close to a USAnian definition of "rabid communist", let's not go where "liberal" takes us! :-)
Cheers,
Gary B-)
-- When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.
On Sun, 2012-05-06, David DeLaney wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>On 5/5/12 9:39 AM, Al Lal wrote:
>>> Thinking intuitively and emotionally leads to religious belief and
>>> conservatism; while thinking deliberately and analytically leads to
>>> atheism and liberalism.
>>> I am a left-center liberal atheist. What are you?
>> i am not part of your puny left-right categorization.
> That's only because you're radially symmetric, so your political parties
> need Venn diagrams.
Also, he should neuter his shoggoths now. Later might be too late.
/Jorgen
-- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
