Personality and Demographics
robertdfeinman
economic groups and their social attitudes. One of the correlations is
between the degree of education and the amount of "open mindedness".
There are also similar studies which measure the demographics of
shoppers. For example, it is well-known that Walmart shoppers tend to
be poorer, less education and more rural than average. The also tend
to be more religious, conservative and vote Republican.
Here's an interesting (leaked) summary of Walmart's own findings as to
the attitudes of their customers. Perhaps being an RWA type is more a
product of one's upbringing and economic class than is recognized.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/walmart/leaks-walmart-powerpoint-on-3-customer-plan-241939.php
Just wondering...
Freedem
intellectualists, in the halls of higher learning might have a strong
self selection component, I would think that the correlation would be
much less in the MalWart case, and a much greater correlation with
access to information, and sources of information.
It is easy to forget that DSL speed internet and the time to properly
surf, is a rare luxury, not even taken advantage of by many who can.
As a result the reality gap can be quite stunning, even where there is
a pre-existing left wing bias. On a summer 2001 retreat with
Democratic activists, I was stunned to have large amounts of
information, unknown to even very senior people. In that case most of
the gap has been made up, but I am still running into democratic
activists who have no idea who Kieth Olbermann is, because they are
not able to see the videos, and don't have cable.
> http://consumerist.com/consumer/walmart/leaks-walmart-powerpoint-on-3...
>
> Just wondering...
Nyc W. Alberts
Got nothing to do with their IQ levels, (those have always been distributed equally throughout human history), just where they happen to have been born into the world.
I have an openly gay friend that ran for office locally for an open State Senate seat here in NYC last November and when I spoke to him recently he told me that every once in a while he'd run into someone that would ask him when the election was taking place, and that's in one of the most privileged places on the planet.
From here it looks like the destruction of the American Public School System has had its intended effect.
"Attention Mal-Wart Shoppers, there's a special on your freedom today, brought to you by China, in aisle 4"
~nyc
Jonathan Swift
> On a summer 2001 retreat with
> Democratic activists, I was stunned to have large amounts of
> information, unknown to even very senior people.
That sounds familiar. On neutral territory I can beat the right
wingers every time. I even go so far as to tell them what I'm going to
do and how they are going to react and they still can't help
themselves.
Right wingers have been listening to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity
and O'Reilly for so long that they have come to believe that insults
and shouting over the other person amount to reasoned discourse. When
you calmly and logically shoot down every right wing talking point
they have memorized they simply can't handle it and either get very
abusive or just walk away in disgust, even when you have told them in
advance that's what they'll do.
It's really uncanny how easy the righties are to defeat when they
don't control the forum and the agenda. Take note that not a one of
the rightie ubermenschen will engage in open debate at any time.
http://www.kcpw.org/article/3120
(KCPW News) Fox News has cancelled its bout tonight between pundit
Sean Hannity and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. Mayor's
spokesman Patrick Thronson says the cable news station called this
morning to cancel at the last minute because quote "they were unable
to fill out the segment."
Anderson had been scheduled to talk about his push for the impeachment
of President George W. Bush and was eager to quote "take on anybody
anytime" to get his message across. Thronson says Fox personnel
expressed interest in having Anderson on at a later date. It would
have been the mayor's first appearance on Hannity and Colmes.
Nyc W. Alberts
Been doing this for a couple of years now, not that I've changed one mind about anything, which is a given when dealing with RWAs.
Lately I've been writing Rudy Giuliani's name as "Ghouliani" which irks them to no end.
The recent story of Ghouliani's kid, Andrew, refusing to work on his Daddy's Presidential campaign, has prompted me to ask why, instead of working on his golf game, why isn't this kid in Iraq?
Here's a recent exchange, which ended with a dearth of a response, with the RWA who I was tussling with, who initially took me to task for asking such impertinent questions.
Warning, I use kind of an informal free styling literary style and "strong language" when I post on Craigslist, given the nature of that board.
rerere Dear Andrew Guilianni...blah , blah, blah (Midtown East)
Reply to:xxxx
Date: 2007-03-08, 5:28PM EST
I wrote:
BULLSHIT.
Can you give me one good reason why Rudy Ghouliani's kid, Andrew Ghouliani, since he's able bodied enough to pursue a professional golf career, isn't serving his country in the Military in Iraq right now?
Yellow Bellied Chicken Hawk Coward.
The RWA replies:
He doesn't want to. He got a full athletic scholarship to Duke University. How come you are not? Hasn't his father contributed enough without him feeling that he should throw away a scholarship. Is a -2 handicap a prerequisit for joining the military? You make no sense!
btw: That is such a creative play of letters on his last name.
So Original!
How mature you are!
Is your mommy home?
does she know that you are talking to strangers?
Do you have rocks in your head?
To which I responded:
I served in the United States Marine Corps from 1986 to 1990, under US Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
According to the Veteran's Administration, which has issued me a VA Card, I'm considered a Gulf War I Vet.
Any questions?
What Branch of Service were you in?
BTW, Super-Smart guy, you misspelled the word "Guilianni".
Next time, try using spell-check before you go and make a fool of yourself in public.
Thanks, that'd be great!
Just so you know, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing *at* you.
I'm not being clever by calling Rudy Ghouliani "Ghouliani", I'm just being accurate.
Let me back that up:
Here are some definitions of the word Ghoul:
Ghoul (gūl) pronunciation
n.
1. One who delights in the revolting, morbid, or loathsome.
2. A grave robber.
3. An evil spirit or demon believed to plunder graves and feed on corpses.
And a brief description of the word "Ghoul"
"Ghoul
An evil spirit or revived corpse supposed to rob graves and feed on human corpses. It is similar to the vampire, but differs in that it not only drinks blood but also consumes flesh. Some people believe that the superstition stems from wild animals that disturb graves at night, others that its origin is the terror of death in the lonely desert."
Now, isn't fair to say that anyone that would exploit the deaths of 3,000 of his own Fellow Citizens for personal, and political gain, which Rudy Ghouliani has gone out of his way to do, has *earned* for himself the name "Ghouliani"?
Keep in mind that he made millions of dollars in speaking and consulting fees, delivering a speech where he describes in ghoulish detail how he watched bodies fall from the WTC Towers and splat on the sidewalk.
Only a Ghoul like Rudy Ghouliani could could make a tragedy like that be all about him.
Disgraceful, don't you think?
For more on this, please see this previous post: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rnr/290734977.html
As far as me having "rocks in my head" goes, I've got a body of work up at my website, why don't you mosey on over there and judge for yourself.
See you in Hell.
~nyc
http://apenwarmedinhell.blogspot.com/
PS: Here are the Doonesbury cartoons on those who give lip service to the phrase: "Support The Troops" again, I hope they "distract" young Andrew Ghouliani from his golf game:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061120
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061121
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061122
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061123
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061124
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20061125
Like I said, they never wrote back.
~nyc
Flex
to defeat when they don't control the forum and the agenda."
It's even more uncanny how don't recognize they are defeated or change
their viewpoints in any way.
robertdfeinman
http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/hounding-fox-news-coverage-2007-03-20.html
The relevant part from our perspective:
'A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, "Those who
receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average
to have misperceptions" about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent
of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. "found
clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with
the al Qaeda terrorist organization."'
'Instead of providing "fair and balanced" reporting, Fox has created
an audience ignorant of the facts, but fully supportive of
management's ideology.'
It not a case of preaching to the choir, but more like the choir
finding a preacher who tells them what they want to hear. I find this
both encouraging and discouraging.
It's encouraging because I think that it shows that most of
politically engaged right wing ideologues are already congregated in
one place and this shows that the group is fairly restricted in size.
It's discouraging because this is the first time in US broadcast
history (newspapers are a different story) where a channel has become
a tool of a specific political party.
robertdfeinman
Today there is a report that certain types of brain damage can affect
peoples "moral" decisions. This leaves open the possibility that some
personality types are inherent and that attempts to change behavior
will be mostly unsuccessful (like left-handedness),.
Here's a link to one version of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html
The other NY Times story concerns the mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky
Anderson, who is a liberal lapsed Mormon and says many in his state
are too "obedient" to authority, any authority. I think the concept of
obedience is a useful addition to the vocabulary when discussion
authoritarianism.
Jonathan Swift
> It's even more uncanny how don't recognize they are defeated or change
> their viewpoints in any way.
Oh, they realize it. They either just slink away and refuse to answer
or you get banned.
I was on an Israel Palestine thread a couple of days ago, those are
invariably flamewars of the highest order, and I dropped a real hand
grenade of a post pointing out that both Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem
Begin were leaders of terrorist organizations and were subsequently
elected to lead Israel. I also made a number of other normally
controversial statements such as the Israelis really want to take the
Palestinian's land. The result was complete and utter silence...
I've been arguing politics online since the days of Atari computers
and 300 baud acoustic modems and I have long since figured out that
the harder I hit my mark and the better my post is, the fewer replies
I get.
Jonathan Swift
> It's discouraging because this is the first time in US broadcast
> history (newspapers are a different story) where a channel has become
> a tool of a specific political party.
I would disagree with that, I think Fox is only the most obviously
biased "news" channel. The other channels are biased rightward, they
just are less obvious about it.
Watch the pundit shows with a critical eye and you will find that they
very rarely have anyone on who was right all along about the invasion
of Iraq, in other words those who correctly predicted that Iraq was
going to be a disaster. No, what you will see is a parade of war
supporters who weasel and dodge around the fact that they were wrong
from the beginning.
Being continuously and tragically wrong about such a bloody debacle as
Iraq has no consequences at all for the pundit class, they are brought
back on the same shows time after time and solicitously asked for
their opinions without the slightest hint that they have a track
record of being dead wrong every time.
robertdfeinman
I think there is a difference between the traditional centrist,
corporatist outlook of the major media outlets and the explicitly
partisan outlets.
Back in the "good old days" papers like the NY Times and the Chicago
Tribune always allied with the Republican party on things that
affected them as businesses. This was the traditional Main Street
Republicanism that most people understood. This was also true on the
hot button issues of the day such as the support for anti-Communism
after WWII.
But in other areas NBC, CBS and the dailies were more nuanced.
Corruption reporting was fairly evenhanded as was civil rights
coverage. Remember the Pentagon Papers were published by the Times and
Washington Post. We would never see this type of defiance of the
government by Fox.
There is a difference between supporting one's class interests, which
may even be partly unconscious, and being an integral part of the
government's propaganda efforts.
The gutting of the fairness doctrine has removed the fear of fines for
being overtly biased which helped keep the stations from going to far
in one direction in the past.
woozle
those track records. I've started a page here:
http://issuepedia.org/Journalists