187
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

But even as Trump’s campaign has been blaming outside groups and allies for bad headlines, Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term. He has also pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden and has outlined an immigration agenda that includes militarizing the southern border and mass deportations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Nikelui@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Interestingly, studies by neuroscientists see remarkable distinguishing factors between liberals and conservstives.

Do you have a source for that? I would like to read about it.

[-] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

https://amarkfoundation.org/reports/how-are-the-brains-of-liberals-and-conservatives-different/

Edit:

@WoahWoah points this out from the article, which I missed.

“Editor’s note: In 2020, researchers from universities in the Netherlands and the United States replicated Oxley’s and his team’s study and concluded that: “Our analyses do not support the conclusions of the original study, nor do we find evidence for broader claims regarding the effect of disgust and the existence of a physiological trait.”

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"Editor’s note: In 2020, researchers from universities in the Netherlands and the United States replicated Oxley’s and his team’s study and concluded that: “Our analyses do not support the conclusions of the original study, nor do we find evidence for broader claims regarding the effect of disgust and the existence of a physiological trait."

Nice of them to bury this editor's note 4/5ths of the way into the article lol

I apologize for missing that! I got really excited when I found that article because it seemed to cover it all so succinctly.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

They're basically just saying they didn't find the same results and that using exclusively physiological responses to indicate "real" feelings is a dubious assumption. They're essentially calling for better studies that also involve reported cognition and sentiment ("conscious" responses).

That seems reasonable. It's weird that the article buried that so far into the summary though!

[-] be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Understood, and I appreciate the clarification, but it does damage, or at least work against, the credibility of most of the body of the article, so I would likely not have used it if I'd noticed that as I went through.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Why would it damage most of the article? That was only a clarification on one study or subpoint.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I wish I could see their full study — Paywalls hiding publicly-funded research... I just love it.

The next sentence further says, "Rather than studying unconscious responses as the ‘real’ predispositions, alignment between conscious and unconscious responses promise deeper insights in the emotional roots of ideology."

I'd need to see the study but it might suggest that there is indeed a subconscious difference in response but how that's mediated by other parts of the brain either remains the same or differs?

this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
187 points (95.6% liked)

News

23268 readers
2659 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS