• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 120 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Still a long way to go, but already Romney is in a bit of spot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-faces-a-narrow-path-to-270-electoral-votes-but-his-team-remains-optimistic/2012/05/03/gIQAbw71zT_story.html

Indiana and NC are in play, but I don't think VA will be - poll out of VA yesterday had Obama up 51-44, but more notably, those numbers haven't changed in a year - a WP poll this time last year had Obama over Romney at exactly the same level, 51-44, in VA.
April Employment Report Is Bad News for Team Obama


The latest jobs report is bad news for the economy and for the Obama administration. April’s disappointing payroll numbers confirm that the economy is slowing again on the heels of a winter in which the recovery appeared to be finally picking up steam.

If job growth continues at this rate, unemployment will remain at or above the politically important 8 percent level before Election Day, according to Hamilton Place Strategies’ Patrick Sims. Sims calculates that it will take monthly payroll growth of 176,000 to get the rate below 8 percent by November--unless more Americans drop out of the labor force or stop looking for work. That’s what caused the April headline unemployment rate to fall from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent; labor-force participation is now at its lowest point in 31 years. That’s not the story an incumbent wants to tell.
There is little good news for the Obama administration to point to. The number of long-term unemployed, the plight of which has dogged the White House, remained staggering and largely unchanged at 5.1 million and 41.3 percent of the total unemployed. The economy seems now to be treading water, rather than surging forward.
http://news.yahoo.com/april-employment-report-bad-news-team-obama-095803610.html

And this is why BO will get beat.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
By Lee Fang on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:30 am

6 month old "story". Devastating :)

Yeah I know the republican memory and attention span only works for a few minutes at a time, but stuff that happened prior to yesterday's fox news cycle is still important for those of us with a working cerebral cortex.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
April Employment Report Is Bad News for Team Obama






http://news.yahoo.com/april-employment-report-bad-news-team-obama-095803610.html

And this is why BO will get beat.
This is why republicans fail middle school math and should be banned from the earth

+115,000 > -800,000 per month.

After 8 years of destroying the economy with delusional repulienomics it's not fixed in three and so we should go back to the same brilliant philosophies that got us here.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Those are individual occupations. Sectors, man, let's talk sectors!

If you guessed "green jobs", take a bow! D'ya suppose that might be one reason Californians resoundingly voted against Prop 23? And why Prop 23 was funded primarily by oil companies? Oh and why the Koch bros kicked in a cool "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" in support of Prop 23?

In any case, you might want to read this.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/01/story5.html?page=2

According to Sweeney, most studies show AB 32 will have a modest impact on the economy. “Every single one says it will be minor either way, except Varshney’s study,” he said
And why is Varshney's study such an outlier? Could it be because they calculated the costs while ignoring the offsetting benefits? Well that ain't right. Or perhaps it was because the authors were contracted to produce the ONE MILLION JOBS lost by small business by the - er - California Small Business Roundtable? That's a bit smelly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Are you saying Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Trump aren't nutters?

OK. Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush. Although to be fair, compared to the loony bin that the Republican Party has become today, even nutters like Nixon and Reagan are comparatively tame.

It's embarrassing when one of the two major parties wants to be represented by Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and/or Trump.

Canada's done quite nicely for itself. We could learn a thing or two from their example. We won't, because of people like you, but we should.

You really don't know much about these programs if you think that "someone else" is going to pay for them.

Here's the difference, Scott: unlike conservatives, we don't tie our own hands by trying to stay within the bounds of rigid ideological consistency. If something works elsewhere, we say, hey, let's try that here - universal health care, for eg, or alternative energy programs. Sadly, conservatives are so tied down by ideology, especially the American exceptionalism idiocy, that admitting that another country got it right and we got it wrong is tantamount to treason. That's just pathetic.

We can learn a lot from the experiences of other countries (both good and bad, what works and what doesn't). Refusing to even acknowledge that other countries got some things more right than we did, as seems to be the conservative default, is just flat-out stupid.

What's naive about wanting to adopt policies and programs that have been shown to work elsewhere? That's being practical.

Try to wrap your head around this simple fact, Scott: government-run, single-payer health care systems have been proven, out there in the real-world and not some economists think tank, to work better than ours. They're not experimental, they're not hypothetical, they are proven to work. What's the big deal about adopting programs that have proven to be effective elsewhere?

What exactly do you find so terrifying?

Yes, sorry, in the case of health care and social safety nets, government is in fact the only real solution. Markets can't. Private insurance companies won't do it unless they're forced to. By government.

um, maybe when two-thirds agree that they would prefer universal health care to our present system?

Dunno. But I almost hope that they do, as killing the mandate might just be the best thing that ever happened for proponents of single-payer. Careful what you wish for. ;)
Are you saying Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and Trump aren't nutters?
I'm asking why you keep referring to these folks. What did they win?

Lessee, Obama rose from the clutter that included Kucinich, that peach of a man Ewards and Chris Dodd. He then chose gaff-a-minute former competitor Joe Biden as the veep. You want to discuss nutters? Let's talk about Edwards or Kucinich.

You arguing "my side is better than your side" is childish. They both suck.

OK. Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush. Although to be fair, compared to the loony bin that the Republican Party has become today, even nutters like Nixon and Reagan are comparatively tame.
Yeah, "price control" Nixon was waaaay out there. Reagan raised taxes at one point.... GHW Bush raised taxes and GW Bush push through another entitlement we can't afford. Yes, far right wingers this group was.

It's embarrassing when one of the two major parties wants to be represented by Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and/or Trump.
Don't know why you are stuck on who didn't win.:confused:

You do know who ran with Obama in 2008, right?

Canada's done quite nicely for itself.
Which is why you might consider buying a house there.

You really don't know much about these programs if you think that "someone else" is going to pay for them.
I think you got the point here.

Here's the difference, Scott: unlike conservatives, we don't tie our own hands by trying to stay within the bounds of rigid ideological consistency. If something works elsewhere, we say, hey, let's try that here - universal health care, for eg, or alternative energy programs. Sadly, conservatives are so tied down by ideology, especially the American exceptionalism idiocy, that admitting that another country got it right and we got it wrong is tantamount to treason. That's just pathetic.
We conservatives actually feel that a better system can be had. There are four primary reasons healthcare in the US is on the wrong path. They are the disappearance of the Primary Care sector, lack of health insurance reform, ridiculous malpractice issues/unwillingness for anybody to address tort reform and predatory behavior allowed by big pharma. All of these things can be fixed in the context of a private system.

We can learn a lot from the experiences of other countries (both good and bad, what works and what doesn't). Refusing to even acknowledge that other countries got some things more right than we did, as seems to be the conservative default, is just flat-out stupid.
You are stuck thinking in a box. We can design a better system than any country in the world. But at long as people believe the govt is the only solution then we will continue to be at odds.

What's naive about wanting to adopt policies and programs that have been shown to work elsewhere? That's being practical.
No, it's being lazy.

Try to wrap your head around this simple fact, Scott: government-run, single-payer health care systems have been proven, out there in the real-world and not some economists think tank, to work better than ours. They're not experimental, they're not hypothetical, they are proven to work. What's the big deal about adopting programs that have proven to be effective elsewhere?

What exactly do you find so terrifying?
At one time, not too long ago, our healthcare system was functioning on a very high level. It can again without spending trillions on it.

Stupid is to pattern a system after one that's nearing insolvency as we speak.

Markets can't.
Says you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Those are individual occupations. Sectors, man, let's talk sectors!

If you guessed "green jobs", take a bow! D'ya suppose that might be one reason Californians resoundingly voted against Prop 23? And why Prop 23 was funded primarily by oil companies? Oh and why the Koch bros kicked in a cool "ONE MILLION DOLLARS" in support of Prop 23?

In any case, you might want to read this.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/01/story5.html?page=2

And why is Varshney's study such an outlier? Could it be because they calculated the costs while ignoring the offsetting benefits? Well that ain't right. Or perhaps it was because the authors were contracted to produce the ONE MILLION JOBS lost by small business by the - er - California Small Business Roundtable? That's a bit smelly.
You should come out to Cali and run for office. This State loves people like you.

Governor Moonbeam is trying to float some bonds out here for a $100 Billion plus High Speed Rail system from Palmdale (WTF?!?) to Frisco. Same people say it's a winner are touting all the green job creation and how good AB32 is for our economy. Meanwhile unemployment is steady at 11%, real estate values are off by 50% and if you used to work in construction it's likely you have not seen anything other than food stamps since early 2009.

With the never ending BS you toss around I'm quite sure you'd be paid handsomely to get this HS Rail boondoggle off and running.

Lessee, federal subsidies abound in home solar panel installs and home energy-wise retrofitting. We have a booming green energy sector due to federal govt manipulation. Built to last, right?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rip:30 said:
Yeah I know the republican memory and attention span only works for a few minutes at a time, but stuff that happened prior to yesterday's fox news cycle is still important for those of us with a working cerebral cortex.
You may wish to step away from the ThinkProgress propaganda. Or not.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rip:30 said:
This is why republicans fail middle school math and should be banned from the earth

+115,000 > -800,000 per month.

After 8 years of destroying the economy with delusional repulienomics it's not fixed in three and so we should go back to the same brilliant philosophies that got us here.
This is why republicans fail middle school math and should be banned from the earth
Okay, but if that happened then who would you tax to get all your freebies?

+115,000 > -800,000 per month.
Advanced calculus was always a bit puzzling.

So why is the economy slowing down? Why is the smallest percentage of the American population working since the last awesome democrat preezy was in the Oval office (Carter, in case you didn't already know).

After 8 years of destroying the economy
:D I see history revisionism is not one of your strong suits.

BTW, why are you so hostile? I don't really care one way or another but you can converse here without the hostility. It's possible.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'm asking why you keep referring to these folks. What did they win?

Lessee, Obama rose from the clutter that included Kucinich, that peach of a man Ewards and Chris Dodd. He then chose gaff-a-minute former competitor Joe Biden as the veep. You want to discuss nutters? Let's talk about Edwards or Kucinich.

You arguing "my side is better than your side" is childish. They both suck.



Yeah, "price control" Nixon was waaaay out there. Reagan raised taxes at one point.... GHW Bush raised taxes and GW Bush push through another entitlement we can't afford. Yes, far right wingers this group was.



Don't know why you are stuck on who didn't win.:confused:

You do know who ran with Obama in 2008, right?



Which is why you might consider buying a house there.



I think you got the point here.



We conservatives actually feel that a better system can be had. There are four primary reasons healthcare in the US is on the wrong path. They are the disappearance of the Primary Care sector, lack of health insurance reform, ridiculous malpractice issues/unwillingness for anybody to address tort reform and predatory behavior allowed by big pharma. All of these things can be fixed in the context of a private system.



You are stuck thinking in a box. We can design a better system than any country in the world. But at long as people believe the govt is the only solution then we will continue to be at odds.



No, it's being lazy.



At one time, not too long ago, our healthcare system was functioning on a very high level. It can again without spending trillions on it.

Stupid is to pattern a system after one that's nearing insolvency as we speak.



Says you.
How 'bout we just adopt a system that's already been proven to work in the real world?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You should come out to Cali and run for office. This State loves people like you.

Governor Moonbeam is trying to float some bonds out here for a $100 Billion plus High Speed Rail system from Palmdale (WTF?!?) to Frisco. Same people say it's a winner are touting all the green job creation and how good AB32 is for our economy. Meanwhile unemployment is steady at 11%, real estate values are off by 50% and if you used to work in construction it's likely you have not seen anything other than food stamps since early 2009.

With the never ending BS you toss around I'm quite sure you'd be paid handsomely to get this HS Rail boondoggle off and running.

Lessee, federal subsidies abound in home solar panel installs and home energy-wise retrofitting. We have a booming green energy sector due to federal govt manipulation. Built to last, right?
You claimed that AB 32 was going to cost 1 million jobs. That was complete BS. Just pointing that out.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
What is all this about Romney the businessman better understanding the economy?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/477983/romney-claims-economy-should-be-adding-500000-jobs-a-month-which-it-has-done-only-four-times-in-50-years/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/holtz-eakin-romneys-four-percent-unemployment-target-is

So let's get this straight: Romney thinks that adding 500,000 jobs per month - which has only been done 4 times in the past 50 years - is "normal" growth? And that 4% unemployment - which even conservative economists know to be unrealistic - is normal?

"Unrealistic and borderline impossible", and yet there are voters who are still convinced that this guy understands the economy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
You claimed that AB 32 was going to cost 1 million jobs. That was complete BS. Just pointing that out.
You don't know that. Just pointing that out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
What is all this about Romney the businessman better understanding the economy?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/477983/romney-claims-economy-should-be-adding-500000-jobs-a-month-which-it-has-done-only-four-times-in-50-years/

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/holtz-eakin-romneys-four-percent-unemployment-target-is

So let's get this straight: Romney thinks that adding 500,000 jobs per month - which has only been done 4 times in the past 50 years - is "normal" growth? And that 4% unemployment - which even conservative economists know to be unrealistic - is normal?

"Unrealistic and borderline impossible", and yet there are voters who are still convinced that this guy understands the economy.
:confused:

How is this any different than Obama claiming if the stimulus is passed unemployment would keep unemployment below 8%?

Romney is a politician. Over the top rhetoric is standard procedure.

"Unrealistic and borderline impossible", and yet there are voters who are still convinced that this guy understands the economy.
You have to be kidding.... given what we have currently and you come up with this? On the other hand you are probably correct. Obama understands exactly what he's doing economically. All part of the plan... the bigger picture. The European model...
 
Scott SoCal said:
:confused:

How is this any different than Obama claiming if the stimulus is passed unemployment would keep unemployment below 8%

You have to be kidding.... given what we have currently and you come up with this? On the other hand you are probably correct. Obama understands exactly what he's doing economically. All part of the plan... the bigger picture. The European model...
Scott, you deride Rip and VC for playing the sides card. Clearly Obama and Romney are both aware that unemployment won't drop until people are reeducated and new technologies developd (same as in many countries). And while it's clear that for what Fernand Braudel called the economic sharks there's a fair certainty where the economy is going, would you allow that at the administative and societal levels there is a more thoroughgoing transformation underway-one to which none of the old modern models apply? So that taking BO to task for failing old criteria is neither relevant, nor going to cost him the election.


@velocity: nixon was left of today's dems at the policy level
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Obama understands exactly what he's doing economically.
OK, let's look at what we have:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/apriljobschart.jpg

See the left side, the sharp drop down? That's in Obama's first year, ie what he inherited from your guys. See the right side, the one slowly but steadily going up? That's been under the past 2 1/2 years of Obama's presidency. Yes, no president can take all the credit for employment levels or the general state of the economy, but clearly they're doing something right - private sector jobs are right back where they were when Obama took office. And with no thanks to the do-nothing-and-hope-the-economy-tanks-on-Obama's-watch congressional Rs.

Boy, this NRO'er is going to be crucified by the right:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299010/april-jobs-not-bad-you-think-bob-stein

The labor market is still far from where it was before the recession started. In the 20 years before this recession, the unemployment rate averaged 5.5 percent. With the right set of public policies, we see no reason why we can’t get there again. But the fact that we’re not there yet should not prevent us from recognizing the progress that we’re making.
The European model...
...which is currently suffering from the same ***-backwards austerity measures that Republicans, including Romney, want to introduce here. Except with massive tax cuts thrown in for good measure.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You don't know that. Just pointing that out.
Yeah, actually, we do know that, as we know that the one million jobs lost was (a) the high end estimate of a study that (b) only included costs and not benefits.

We also know that you cherry-picked the outlier - and the one that's been shredded to pieces -and presented it as mainstream solely because it was the only one that squared with your preconceived and ideologically-based viewpoint.

btw you are aware that even one of the authors of that study has backed away from their claims, I assume?

Just pointing that out.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Oh right, I forgot about this:

BLITZER: A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.
Who’s going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical
policy, but not be forced –

BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –
(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

CROWD: Yes! Yeah! (LAUGHTER)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Yeah, actually, we do know that, as we know that the one million jobs lost was (a) the high end estimate of a study that (b) only included costs and not benefits.

We also know that you cherry-picked the outlier - and the one that's been shredded to pieces -and presented it as mainstream solely because it was the only one that squared with your preconceived and ideologically-based viewpoint.

btw you are aware that even one of the authors of that study has backed away from their claims, I assume?

Just pointing that out.
Actually we don't know as AB32 has barely began implementation. Much like your claims of Obamacare actually being a money saver only then to suggest, when CBO says it will increase cost much more than advertised, you then attempt to say "see, i told you so" because the revenue from the fines will offset the increase. It's dishonest but hardly surprising.

It's a lie, but once implemented there will be no turning back. By design. It's how you guys roll.

Something you may want to see;
http://ab32ig.com/documents/SacBusJournal_3-5-10.pdf

I realize it is wasted breath on you but there are some valid concerns here.

You might look here too, but I am quite sure you can find somebody to discredit everything mentioned or posted.

http://ab32ig.com/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Oh right, I forgot about this:
What's your point? That a staunch Libertarian would allow people to make choices and reap rewards or suffer consequences of those choices?

Noooooooooooooo. Not sure how that could possibly surprise you.

See, what we need is do-gooder like you to ensure, via legislation, that everyone bow to the will of the bureaucrat. Better to make that guy buy an insurance policy against his will.... You probably wouldn't allow him to end his own life if he so chose either.... Because the Bureaucrat always knows what's best.:rolleyes:

Then you can pound you chest and say we live in a society. This has all been done before.

And in Blitzers example, if the 30 year old knew for a fact that uncle Sam would not keep him on life support, he'd have an insurance policy. It was an extraordinarily stupid hypothetical that you managed to fall for.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Interesting read

Economists are rethinking the view that capital should not be taxed

In fact, America’s taxation of capital is more murky than confiscatory. At 39.2% (including state and local tax) its top corporate rate is the rich world’s highest but loopholes mean most companies end up paying 27.6%, similar to Britain’s effective rate of 27.4% and below Germany’s 31.6%. America’s tax rate on capital gains, at 15%, is lower than in many other countries.
[...]

[...] taxing capital was “not a bad idea after all”. Capital markets are imperfect, they observe, and households are unable to insure themselves against all of life’s ups and downs. Taxing away some of the return to capital to provide social insurance against risks is appropriate.

That is because the growth costs of capital taxes are overestimated. The old models contend that capital supply is highly sensitive to changes in tax policy, and that a zero tax rate is needed to prevent capital from drying up over the long run. This looks unrealistic, the authors reckon. Most capital-income taxes are paid by working-age adults saving for retirement, who will continue to save despite taxes. Stubborn savers make for a stable supply of investment capital, limiting the impact of taxes on growth. In the authors’ estimation, a 36% capital-income tax rate is justified.
And taxation in relation to equality

[they] makes another argument against abolition. The authors point out that rising inequality is a destabilising political force, which may encourage future governments to expropriate wealth through heavy taxation. That threat could discourage saving and investment now, something a weak economy cannot afford. Paradoxically, a progressive tax on capital in the present may lead to more investment by keeping inequality in check and by convincing firms that their wealth is (mostly) safe over the long term.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
VeloCity said:
Oh right, I forgot about this:
What these mental midgets on the right fail to realize that even they would be averse to it this scenario once it started happening. Maybe the police state could just put a cap in people and haul them off, if they decided to start dying outside of the privacy of their homes. :rolleyes:

This is a perfect example of shock emotional rhetoric that gets votes from the mouth breathers. People choose not to protect themselves, then **** 'em let 'em die, right? This happens to be a very logical (IMO) on the surface if the decision of the individual was contained to themselves. But, such a society would create conditions that would not be tolerated by others affected.
 
Apr 19, 2009
277
0
0
We are still in negative territory in terms of jobs numbers since Obama took office. We still have 740,000 FEWER jobs now than when Obama was inaugurated. Hope and Change was a false promise just like all his other promises. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. 85% of College Graduates are likely to be unemployed and have to move back in with their parents as they are unable to get a job in this economy.
Obama= Total economic fail!
 
VeloCity said:
Oh right, I forgot about this:
In a public healthcare system you don't have this problem at all, since everyone is provided for and there is no insurance to decide whether to pay or not.

What also isn't being conceptualized here is that allowing private insurance to be the healthcare provider isn't freedom, but having citizens owing their very lives to business. By contrast in a public healthcare system, each has ownership, in equal measure, to a vital service to each citizen's reasonable survival. Though it isn't the government that provides nor owns anything, but delegates funds that its contributors, i.e. the taxpayers, have subsidized to the State. Now it becomes quite obvious that children, the aged, the infirm who can't earn a living for themselves, neither will be asked to contribute to something which they in any case have nothing to give. However this is the same for families in a private system. Nor will the poor be asked to pay as much as the rich; the latter, being privileged, will be asked naturally to give more. Although this is so with any proportional tax structure, in any public sector, be it roads, bridges, stadiums, sewers, gaslines, street lights, schools and so forth.

A nation that doesn't even know how to take care of its own, is one in which the private interests of the rich and the corporations have determined who has the privilege of being properly treated and who simply must rely on charity, or divine grace or else just dies. If anything, it isn't very civilized.
 
I conclude from the following that Scott and VeloCity better not take a hiking trip in the desert together:

Politics vs. Empathy
Will Wilkinson on April 4, 2012

Politics makes us stupid. This is one of my recurring themes. This is the principal reason I refuse to be a partisan or ideological team player. People call me libertarian but I don't in part because I'm not one, but mostly because I suspect that accepting any such label dings my IQ about 15 points. It turns out politics not only makes us stupid. It also makes us callous. Here's the abstract of "More Than Skin Deep: Visceral States Are Not Projected Onto Dissimilar Others" by Ed O'Brien and Phoebe C. Ellsworth of the University of Michigan [via : healthcanal.com]

What people feel shapes their perceptions of others. In the studies reported here, we examined the assimilative influence of visceral states on social judgment. Replicating prior research, we found that participants who were outside during winter overestimated the extent to which other people were bothered by cold (Study 1), and participants who ate salty snacks without water thought other people were overly bothered by thirst (Study 2). However, in both studies, this effect evaporated when participants believed that the other people under consideration held opposing political views from their own. Participants who judged these dissimilar others were unaffected by their own strong visceral-drive states, a finding that highlights the power of dissimilarity in social judgment. Dissimilarity may thus represent a boundary condition for embodied cognition and inhibit an empathic understanding of shared out-group pain. Our findings reveal the need for a better understanding of how people’s internal experiences influence their perceptions of the feelings and experiences of those who may hold different values from their own.

Got that? We overestimate the extent to which others feel what we're feeling, unless they're on another team.

The authors call the tendency to generalize our own feelings "egocentric projection." What's the point of it?

[T]he social projection of visceral feelings may derive from the tendency to imagine another person’s situation by first imagining oneself in the same situation (Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003); in other words, social projection of visceral feelings may reflect a more general projection of similarity.
If this rationale is correct, it suggests that people may not project visceral states onto others who are clearly different from themselves.


Makes sense, right? If we want to know how others are feeling, one quick and dirty trick is just to imagine ourselves in their shoes, see how we feel, and then attribute those feelings to others. But we're not perfect at abstracting away from the atypical particularities of own present internal states. So, if we happen to be a little cold or thirsty, we'll project our chill or thirstiness into our little internal simulation of others. But not if others have, as in this study, different politics. What does politics have to do with thirst or chill. Nothing at all. That we are so quick to find our own feelings irrelevant to the understanding of people with different politics, just think how intuitively alien people who eat strange food and speak other languages much seem.

On one hand, the lack of egocentric projection onto out-group members eliminates errors of overprojection. Thirsty liberals will overestimate the thirstiness of other liberals, but not of conservatives. So a sense of difference can eliminate a certain common bias. On the other hand, this trivial gain in objectivity seems to be due to a sense that out-groupers are so dissimilar that it's not worth putting ourselves into their shoes, which is a harrowing thought.

Now, O'Brien and Ellsworth's study was designed to pick up the absence of projection, which does suggests a certain failure of empathy. But there is nothing in the study to suggest that this necessarily leads us to make other errors about what outgroupers feel. We'd need to better understand the positive value of egocentric projection of visceral states in order to fully grasp the implications of our tendency not to project our feelings into outgroupers. O'Brien and Ellsworth do take a stab at some practical implications:

Our research ... suggests that people may be uninfluenced by their own pain when gauging pain felt by dissimilar others. Thus, if lawmakers first test interrogation practices (as suggested by Nordgren et al., 2011), they may not project the experience onto those for whom it is designed (e.g., suspected terrorists), and this could lead to an unintended acceptance of torture. Similarly, homeless populations often struggle with poor nutrition and intemperate weather; personally feeling hungry and cold may be insufficient to sensitize people who have no long-term worries about food and shelter to the plight of this highly stigmatized out-group (Harris & Fiske, 2006). These consequences suggest a surprising limitation in people’s capacity to empathize with others with whom they disagree or differ from. Perceptions of dissimilar others are apparently uninformed by visceral feelings.
http://integral-options.blogspot.com/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Merckx index said:
I conclude from the following that Scott and VeloCity better not take a hiking trip in the desert together:



http://integral-options.blogspot.com/
Well, you are keeping up with thought provoking posts. Well done.

In truth, VeloCity and I probably have a lot more in common than you might think. I have a few pretty close friends that I would consider more liberal than Velo. We just don't talk about politics.

There are a few posters on this and the politics thread that are very aggressive and don't want to discuss anything. They have their technique finely honed to immediately label those they disagree with.... Stupid, idiotic, evil, should be banned from earth I read recently... That kind of stuff. I think there are likely many more conservative-ish posters on this forum that avoid this thread like the plague.

At any rate, after time spent on this and the politics thread I have a much better understanding why the political process in the US and many other countries is probably damaged beyond repair. These days one cannot disagree and debate.

Many of the conclusions that Wilkinson makes are probably right on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts