Ugly People Support Liberal Causes!

[seer]

That explains it! Liberals are ugly, unhappy people with no self-confidence .

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/to...-to-donate-to-

A new series of studies from Stanford researchers has found that people who feel “unattractive” are more likely to donate to the Occupy movement.

Professor Margaret Neale and doctoral student Peter Belmi tested perceived concepts of beauty in relation to social hierarchies. The researchers told half of the participants to write about a time when they felt physically attractive or unattractive. The remaining participants wrote about an incident in which they were sensitive or insensitive to the needs of others...

...Researchers found that those who perceived themselves to be less attractive were almost twice as likely to donate to Occupy. Those who related memories of self-confidence about their appearance viewed themselves as part of an elite social class and were less likely to donate to social inequality causes.

[fm93]

So what's the flip side? Shallow, stupid people support conservative causes? Sure seems like it from the OP.



I'm being facetious, of course, but only partially. Sure, some ugly people support liberal causes. So do attractive people, thin people, fat people, short people, tall people, religious people, irreligious people, and so on. The same applies to supporters of conservative causes. Bottom line is, PEOPLE are diverse, complex, and support various causes for different reasons, hardly any of which are based on those qualities. But you don't seem to be viewing people you disagree with as, well, actual people. Otherwise, I doubt you would've written something THAT mind-numbingly stupid and pathetic.

[seer]

So what's the flip side? Shallow, stupid people support conservative causes? Sure seems like it from the OP.



I'm being facetious, of course, but only partially. Sure, some ugly people support liberal causes. So do attractive people, thin people, fat people, short people, tall people, religious people, irreligious people, and so on. The same applies to supporters of conservative causes. Bottom line is, PEOPLE are diverse, complex, and support various causes for different reasons, hardly any of which are based on those qualities. But you don't seem to be viewing people you disagree with as, well, actual people. Otherwise, I doubt you would've written something THAT mind-numbingly stupid and pathetic.

LOL, don't try and clean it up square - this is science! ; )

[fm93]

You lack the ability to come up with any actual arguments, so you resort to dumb tactics like calling people you disagree with "ugly." That's just sad. In the past you still lacked the ability to come up with actual arguments, but at least back then you addressed ideas and policies from the other side. Now your threads are just pure ad hominem.

[Darth Executor]

Sure, some ugly people support liberal causes. So do attractive people, thin people, fat people, short people, tall people, religious people, irreligious people, and so on. The same applies to supporters of conservative causes. Bottom line is, PEOPLE are diverse, complex, and support various causes for different reasons, hardly any of which are based on those qualities.

Actually according to the study seer quoted that's not true. I'm not sure if height is a factor but saying religion or irreligion isn't a factor is pretty stupid. Another factor, apparently, is the perception that one is unattractive (which generally correlates with actually being unattractive).

But you don't seem to be viewing people you disagree with as, well, actual people. Otherwise, I doubt you would've written something THAT mind-numbingly stupid and pathetic.

I dunno why you're so mad at seer, take it out on Stanford University instead.

[Jedidiah]

Messenger.

[Epoetker]

Ugliness isn't a necessary precondition.

The term is "rabbit people."

A lack of a true sense of humor may be, though:

Do conservatives have more fun? Should liberals start describing themselves as humor-challenged? To investigate these questions, we need to delve into the science of humor (not a funny enterprise), starting with two basic kinds of humor identified in the 1980s by Willibald Ruch, a psychologist who now teaches at the University of Zurich.

The first category is incongruity-resolution humor, or INC-RES in humor jargon. It covers traditional jokes and cartoons in which the incongruity of the punch line (the husband who misses his wife’s funeral) can be resolved by other information (he’s playing golf). You can clearly get the joke, and it often reinforces stereotypes (the golf-obsessed husband).

Dr. Ruch and other researchers reported that this humor, with its orderly structure and reinforcement of stereotypes, appealed most to conservatives who shunned ambiguity and complicated new ideas, and who were more repressed and conformist than liberals.

The second category, nonsense humor, covers many “Far Side” cartoons, Monty Python sketches and “Deep Thoughts.” The punch line’s incongruity isn’t neatly resolved — you’re left to enjoy the ambiguity and absurdity of the reindeer effect or Hambone’s affection for dolphins. This humor was reported to appeal to liberals because of their “openness to ideas” and their tendency to “seek new experiences.”

But then why didn’t the liberals in the Boston experiment like the nonsense humor of “Deep Thoughts” as much as the conservatives did? One possible explanation is that conservatives’ rigidity mattered less than another aspect of their personality. Rod Martin, the author of “The Psychology of Humor,” said the results of the Boston study might reflect another trait that has been shown to correlate with a taste for jokes: cheerfulness.

“Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals in general,” said Dr. Martin, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario. “A conservative outlook rationalizes social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy.”

Another possible explanation is that conservatives, or at least the ones in Boston, really aren’t the stiffs they’re made out to be by social scientists. When these scientists analyze conservatives, they can sound like Victorians describing headhunters in Borneo. They try to be objective, but it’s an alien culture.

I like Vox Day's rejoinder:

Actually, it's not quite true to say that progressives are completely humorless. They do enjoy one single joke that they repeat over and over again, in a myriad of variants.

"That X, he sure is stupid, isn't he!"

It's such a great joke because it works for everyone. They should have tried these three jokes on the progressives in the study:

A) George Bush is so stupid, he is really dumb!" (hilarity ensues)

B) Ronald Reagan is so stupid, he forgot he was senile! (a wave of laughter)

C) Barack Obama is so stupid, he married a Klingon! (stone cold silence)

What passes for progressive humor isn't actually humor per se, it is merely group reinforcement behavior. It's how the rabbits police the bounds of what is, and what is not, currently deemed acceptable to the warren. And speaking of humor, there are few things funnier than seeing the expression on the face of a progressive who hasn't realized that the borders have been moved again tell a "joke" that is based on the previously defined limits, waiting expectantly for his endorphin rush of group approval, and then failing to receive it.

[fm93]

Messenger.

Seer was the one who interpreted the results of the study as "Liberals are ugly, unhappy people with no self-confidence," which is a blatant misrepresentation used to attack people instead of arguments.

[Epoetker]

Seer was the one who interpreted the results of the study as "Liberals are ugly, unhappy people with no self-confidence," which is a blatant misrepresentation used to attack people instead of arguments.

I question the mis in the representation. If the liberals do indeed resemble that remark, it tends to explain why they put so much stock in certain arguments.

I don't think it's all physical in any case, as the corrupt mental practices tends to lead and cement the eventual physical degradation. Just as crime causes poverty, any deeply held equalist beliefs in the soul will eventually wear down the Image of God in man. The wall hits everyone, but conservatives are at least under no illusions that it's coming.

[Sparko]

Seer was the one who interpreted the results of the study as "Liberals are ugly, unhappy people with no self-confidence," which is a blatant misrepresentation used to attack people instead of arguments.

It was a joke son, you're s'posed to laugh, I say.

[fm93]

So I assume you also laugh when predominantly liberal websites say that unintelligent, uneducated people are more likely to support conservative causes?

[Sparko]

So I assume you also laugh when predominantly liberal websites say that unintelligent, uneducated people are more likely to support conservative causes?

sure.