posted November 01, 2016 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
A discussion about Trump's supposed racism would be remiss without discussing Hillary's overt racism.

---

posted November 01, 2016 07:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Novabronte:
Ignore it. Insults are cheap and achieve nothing.
I've been watching Trey Gowdy speeches all afternoon, he is a master of a well articulated argument. He made a great speech at a youth event where he talked about values and manner of communication, as these kids are growing up in an era where a discussion usually stoops to insults.
He is so inspiring...

---

posted November 01, 2016 09:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
"When my side does it, it's setting the record straight. When the other side does it, it's slinging mud."

That's more true than I thought, now that I see Trump supporters saying insults accomplish nothing and is a bad example in Washington.

---

posted November 01, 2016 11:46 PM            

Typical dodge, and misunderstanding on purpose (though probably for this reason rather than a conscious one). Maybe I should explain where I see the irony that genuinely surprised me, but if I did then I know it would also be turned into something else, or even more likely, would bring something up unrelated and argue something I never said. It seems futile.

posted November 02, 2016 06:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Novabronte:
Not dealing with illegal immigration creates long terms problems which may not be obvious to the public, but citizens are paying for this problem with their taxes or worse.

We had a problem of people arriving to Australia on boats, dumping their documents into the water and trying to stay illegally. Over the years this became a huge problem - chinese mafia set up major operations that are now impossible to eradicate - and the government finally had to do something because their native countries did not bother to do anything about it. So a immigrant detention centre was set up on an island far away from our shores, and those people were sent there for verification, the process that takes a year or two. If these people don't pass the migration entry requirements, they are deported back to where they came from. This sent a clear message to all those that try to bypass the official migration route. There was an immense peer pressure from UN and bad publicity from around the world criticizing Australia, but none of these 'concerned' screamers were willing to take these illegal immigrants into their countries. In the end its our local problem to solve.

The point of having an official migration program route, is to screen and verify who we let into the country or not. People with infectious diseases not existent in Australia like tuberculosis, criminal offenders, or the ones who will potentially become a burden (rely on wellfare system) are not accepted. These are the rules for everybody, it ensures the wellbeing and safety of all citizens. Exceptions from this rule are granted in special circumstances, but they are rare.

To enter Australia illegally is a criminal offense. You will be banned or restricted from getting an entry visa in the future.

---

...said the immigrant.

posted November 02, 2016 06:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I guess the left doesn't want to discuss the blatant racism of their candidate.

---

They don't want to talk about their candidate at all, not that I can see.

They're not here saying "Go go go Hillary is awesome!!!" and ignoring her flaws the way the Trump people ignore Trump's.

Also, she is more secretive.

posted November 02, 2016 06:41 PM            

So this was the experiment mentioned in the article- they had 30 men, half of them considered themselves strongly republican, the other half, strongly democrat.
The person who came up with the experiment realized that whatever the discussion was, both sides thought that the evidence in the experiment was supportive of their political position.

The author explains,

quote:

---

This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and
ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence.

---

Surety? This sounds more like an opinion than a scientific or behavioral explanation. Of course there are people whose cognitive thoughts may mirror this idea, but it's not something that can be proven unless you're a mind reader.

The experiment was conducted using and MRI to show how "confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions".

Basically what the subjects in the experiment did was analyze statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry,
"in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves." I think it is important to make the questions accessible to really understand the outcome of this experiment, which this article did not do.

The article goes on to explain how both sides of the spectrum were critical towards the opposite party (no kidding, lol) and let their candidate off the hook with their supposed contradictory statements.

So here is the science behind how the subjects assessed the statements from the politicians...

quote:

---

The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the
brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate,
which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability;
and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.

---

Processing of emotions- processing your emotional reaction, your emotional understanding of something.
Conflict resolution- taking a look at both sides and create or come to a solution.
Judgments about moral accountability- forming an opinion on moral actions and responsibility.

These are all parts of the brain lighting up while thinking, to form an opinion with the information in front of you.

As for the mentioned lack of activity of the Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the area of "reasoning"... The brain is a very complex thing, and don't get me wrong, I'm no scientist. But after doing a google search I continued to read that all of these parts function together. This part in particular powers mostly motor planning, organization and regulation and decision making. I'm not sure what this evidence shows though? Even though this part of the brain isn't as active as the others mentioned, these people are still forming a logical opinion.

Of course emotions play a part in our decision making, duh. That doesn't make it a "confirmation bias". It's a normal human thought process.

That was followed by this quote from Weston,

quote:

---

Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they
get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.

---

Just pointing out that this is an opinion, and not explained as a scientific fact.

This is one study, as I'm sure there may be more. Nonetheless, this really didn't prove anything. What people are claiming is an unconscious bias has yet to be a proven concept.

quote:

---

Politicians need a stronger peer-review system that goes beyond the churlish opprobrium of the campaign trail, and I would love to see a political debate in which the candidates were required to make the opposite case.

---

Why would politicians make the opposite case during a debate when the debate is
is between two opposite political parties? That doesn't make any sense and it's counter-productive.

Alas, the article ends with this line.

quote:

---

Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias.

---

posted November 02, 2016 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by etherealsaturn:
I read the article you posted talking about unconscious bias as well, and have a few comments. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/

So this was the experiment mentioned in the article- they had 30 men, half of them considered themselves strongly republican, the other half, strongly democrat.
The person who came up with the experiment realized that whatever the discussion was, both sides thought that the evidence in the experiment was supportive of their political position.

The author explains,

SURE.
If you don't realize your experiencing and unconscious biased thought, how do you stop it? How does one realize they're having an unconscious biased thought? It's so silly. Many people form their opinions or judgements and decisions based on experience, and knowledge, molding their conscious point of view.

---

Actually, you can realize an unconscious bias (which btw has been "proven" since Freud), the mind is fluid, adapts itself, and there are many moments in life when we realize a choice was made based on conditioned, unconscious, irrational patterns. For example voting for a candidate who looks like your father and screams like him and even if you didn't like that or not even the father, it sounds and feels "familiar". Or liking someone because they look like you. And peers help a lot in creating these moments of realization, so does skepticism. It's a whole process though, not that easy, happening in its own time.

Unconscious bias is, for example, to watch a video where a candidate loudly and clearly states a fact anyone can see and hear yet to think and say that the media "distorts" the message.

My advice in correcting unconscious biases is to have a step-by-step approach of the facts, to accept the "flaws" and to acknowledge accepting obvious, realistic flaws does not equal character assassination.

For example, did Donald Trump speak bad about a whole country, Mexico? Yes. (fact)

Is badmouthing a country bias and racism? Yes (fact, definition)

Is it good/modern/politically intelligent etc etc to badmouth a country? No. Unless you want to be racist. (logic)

Will this stop me from voting Donald? No. Why? (because I hate Mexico, or because I don't care even if he were a serial killer, he is my candidate, I will vote him nevertheless, or because I believe in him despite this racist speech, or because of the racist speech etc etc.)

The same applies to any candidate, just using the example at hand.

And then, bam! something is bound to happen, sooner or later, in your mind, out of being honest with the facts and oneself.

In short, self-analysis on the "why" we make certain choices is claiming your mind back, the candidates are less important. They are supposed to represent our higher self, not the lower. ( and for the higher self, you need a clear mind). You will be surprised how many choices happened because our parents/ small community taught us or told us to think that way, which is wisdom but also indoctrination, since it's not exactly our own ideas, and bigotry is taught and implemented the same way as its opposite. We've been taught many things, good and bad, while our purpose here and now is to learn from the past, but go further.