What is the scientific reasoning for liberals not being able to process opposing viewpoints?

What is the scientific reasoning for liberals not being able to process opposing viewpoints?

If you are genuinely interested in this stuff there are some political science books
Try Avi Tuschman, Jonathan Haidt, John R. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford

You can also look for papers of course

As if pol could deal with opposing viewpoints without getting as triggered as a tumblrina. Also you're generalizing, people like Chomsky are fervently in favor of freedom of speech.

>Chomsky
>liberal

Brainlets believe what their subconscious wants to be true thats why they invented psychology

It's not like conservacucks can process opposing viewpoints either.

For example. Black people are perfectly functional members of society.

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>SHUT IT DOWN
>GOOD GOY
> HERE ARE 50 LINKS TO FAKE RESEARCH THAT SAYS BLACKS ARE APES
>FUCKING PAID SHILLS INVADING MY BOARD REEE
>IF ONLY WE HAD GASSED ALL THE JEWS

Chomsky is literally as far down the social liberty axis as you can go. Liberal is only a dirty word if you're a poltard.

desu liberals are probably more open to others views in general.overall.

Hide /pol/ threads.
Do not reply to /pol/ threads.

By definition, yes.

Liberal: Open-minded, maybe there are other ideas out there?
Conservative: close-minded, the past is best, past ideas are correct

which seems more conducive to science, which is constantly refreshing it's stance based on current information? Which seems more able to hear/process opposing viewpoints?

not all liberals are antifa, i hope you realize.

>By definition, yes.
Yet in reality, no.

Because someone identifies as a liberal does not make them one.

>not all liberals are antifa, i hope you realize.
Okay, I realize that "not all liberals are antifa" is a objectively true statement.

I will accept it, but in return you must accept an objective fact of my choosing. I choose "blacks are inferior to whites".

If you accept that fact for me, then I will accept your fact. Deal?

Confirmation bias. "Backfire Effect".

It happens to conservatives, communists, libertarians and basically anyone who is an average human.

lol
checkmate libruls

>and basically anyone who is an average human.

So is this good reason for why we should advance nuclear weapons with the purpose of nuking all average human beings (perhaps a good measure of who gets nuked should be anyone with an IQ lower than 160).

>(perhaps a good measure of who gets nuked should be anyone with an IQ lower than 160).
>with nukes

et tu bait?

but then who will I employ in my sweatshop

dunning kreuger + moderate IQ and media providing echo chamber of celebrities.

>but then who will I employ in my sweatshop

If we live in a small community of like 100 humans we won't need sweatshops. We all could just get enough food for the year in like a week and then just chill for the rest of the year. And our communities will grow slowly as we will make it mandatory that kids born to us must take an IQ test every 5 years and based on the average scores of all the kids, we will kill everyone in the bottom 50%.

Pretty easy.

/pol/ is almost the most open and free forum on the entire internet. Pretty much zero places have as much free flow of information aside. Anyone with any view can post on /pol/, there is no controls preventing it or censoring your views

This is a false statement. even "White people are _______" is wrong. There are White murderers and black murderers. The statistics show more black people commit murder though.

You can argue over causation but that is incredibly complex and anyone saying why is a fucking retard. We have only limited patterns to go from and GWAS studies are still growing.

facts dont care if you accept them or not.

Even China is investing in robotics and automation over more sweatshop workers. The usage of cheap labor probably slowed down automation and technology advancement considerably. We could have invented and worked on automation for textiles 20 years ago and had good progress instead of using slave labor.

Slave labor in general slows down advancement of society because it slows technology.

you should actually listen to Chomsky sometime on what liberal, or more precisely, neo-liberal means. He has a LOT to say on the subject, and you'll realize calling Noam a lib is terribly ignorant given what he has to say.

This is a wrong viewpoint. There is a "potential space" for all sort of different spaces. We will never know for instance what a anti-immigration and more eugenic Rome would look like. We won't know what China would look like if the Mongols had been stopped by a united China, etc.

In these cases we only look at the states that exist and will not plausibly have a way to analyze potential states and doing so is actually kind of pointless.

Because of "Time", abstract concepts like FACTS, TRUTH, etc don't matter. It is far more important to have a widely believed meme than it is what the truth or facts are. You can see how for instance pro-immigration memes about economics or "everyone is equal" are taken as fact.

This is not "Math", this is the real world and time passes. If no one accepts the things closest to truth and reality then it doesn't matter because time will pass.

If in 20 years we realize some genetic secret to some ethnicity no one is going to go "I was right, we should have done X 100 years ago and we wouldn't have lost WW3". Truth becomes meaningless over time.\

Let's take the hypothetical example of a multi cultural europe/usa/canada actually being a horrible decision. IF in 50 years we realize this and China has already secured complete domination over humanity will it matter? We can objectively see the Iraq war was most likely a bad mistake, does it matter?

With "average humans", I was talking about basically any person, independent of their intelligence. For non-average humans, I would consider people with cognitive disabilities.

For example, you are treating IQ like an absolute measurement instead of a ratio of a person compared to the average of a population of certain age group, and you are going to reject any evidence to the contrary because of confirmation bias.

Chomskey dislikes post modernism and SJW thought patterns. He is more closely aligned with anti-americanism, which is actually in line with pol to some degree. He is too emotional though and would never advocate for the type of brutality or eugenics some avg pol member would want.

chomsky is ineffective though and I would rate his political ideas a 5/10. Yes if we had listened to him on Iraq etc we would be in a better spot, but his attitude is too cucked overall.

Everything you just said is a big hypothetical, which i dont give a fuck about because it's a pointless exercise. The world doesnt give a fuck that your feelings are hurt because history didnt go the way you wanted it to. Just because you feel personally victimized by whatever it is, doesnt mean everyone else does.
>We can objectively see the Iraq war was most likely a bad mistake, does it matter?
no it doesnt, because the past is past and there's nothing we can do about it but learn from it. And frankly, nothing you can do or say is going to change international policy regarding everything you've mentioned

>his attitude is too cucked overall
>cucked

You lost me there.

Who kind of person uses that word in a serious conversation?

we will have an absolute measure for intelligence soon. It's pointless to quibble about IQ being an "average". It's done that way for obvious reasons and anyone who takes that as evidence IQ is pointless or to denigrate IQ studies is a fucking shithead. It's literally the worst argument liberals use. Example of shit - "Well, increasing IQ is pointless through enhancement because the average will always be 100".

The insane stupidity of such arguments should not be used or even brought up. The fact you brought it up should fill you with great shame or your intelligence and thought patterns are so fucking terrible you should probably just die or never go back on sci again.

In practical terms, Truth doesn't matter in reality. Yes, as a decision maker you would want to base your choices on reality, but the vast majority of humans do not. The choices humans are what matters. As time passes, past truth becomes pointless.

My point is popular opinion and memes are more important than objectively proving something. You can have a very good, high sample size, array of studies proving something and it won't matter unless you spread it and the minds you spread it to want to believe it.

Look at religion. My point is a truth like "blacks are inferior" doesn't actually matter. It's like saying "The Bible is as fake as Greek Mythology". Even if you know it is true, and rational people will know it is true, it doesn't matter.

Truth is pointless. Anyone intelligent needs to discard such notions and instead working on manipulation and trickery to influence society

How very post modern of you. Why don't we test your theory? Convince a bunch of people to reject the fact that gravity exists and go jump off a cliff. As you fly away you can smugly talk about how abstract concepts like F=ma don't matter.

>. It's done that way for obvious reasons and anyone who takes that as evidence IQ is pointless or to denigrate IQ studies is a fucking shithead. It's literally the worst argument liberals use.

As you can see, the confirmation bias kicks in. Even to the point to use words like "shithead" and "stupidity" and saying that arguments that contradict yourself should not "even brought up", violating the principle that all ideas should be brought up, because if they are right, they increase our knowledge, and if they are wrong, they also increase our knowledge about what's wrong.

ahhhh yes.... i will surely use maths as a computer scientist... nobody just stands on the shoulders of giants, what do you mean, I don't get it.

>Anyone intelligent needs to discard such notions and instead working on manipulation and trickery to influence society
I suppose one positive about our current political climate is conservatives have dropped any pretense of being decent human beings who want what's best for the society.

lol

>what do you mean, I don't get it.
Yes, because you're an idiot. Now go jump off that cliff.

I don't think you get it. Everything we know, see, etc are a slice of pattern in time. F=Ma is just a "pattern" you have recognized. The way religion is not eradicated by science being superior is what I mean. The pattern to influence and change humans is not based on truth. It's based on manipulation and trickery specific to irrational human brains.

"Truth" is pointless, the truth to humans are the best spreading idea viruses like religion or political teams.

Arguing about facts would matter if you are trying to make a rocket. When it comes to society, truth is a self-masturbation post-facto thing.

>Anyone intelligent needs to discard such notions and instead working on manipulation and trickery to influence society
no anyone intelligent needs to realize that talking to those kinds of irrational people is a waste of time. Again, if 99% of humans dont accept a fact, it's still a fact.
>My point is popular opinion and memes are more important than objectively proving something.
maybe to a society overall, but not to a scientist. maybe you're on the wrong board, you should be on Veeky Forums or something.

Trump winning was better for society. The manipulation and trickery was totally worth it for the future of humanity.

>>no anyone intelligent needs to realize that talking to those kinds of irrational people is a waste of time. Again, if 99% of humans dont accept a fact, it's still a fact.

Then you will watch societies spiral off into shit. The alt-right movement is entirely about saving humanity.

Trump, Irak, elections, "libertard", "conservacucks"

This is officially a /pol/ thread.

>Then you will watch societies spiral off into shit.
i dont fucking interact with society, i sit in an ivory tower because society is moronic. Sure, let it spiral off into shit, ill go to a new society that will fund my research.
>The alt-right movement is entirely about saving humanity.
yea except i happen to be a shade of brown to dark to be saved. go fuck yourself with your "know better than thou" bullshit

>not understanding that a swinging pendulum of power is most important so that technology and science can progress humanity.

The only great strength of democracy is that it stops power from accumulating. Hillary winning would have lead to more power accumulation in one side.

>shade of brown to dark to be saved. go fuck yourself with your "know better than thou" bullshit

The death squads are forming right now! You are moronic for believing the hype about it. We are a million miles from that happening.

Don't you have back to school supplies to buy, kid?

>there are people in this thread without a view of politics and society that includes both right/left as healthy dynamics of conflict meanwhile technology provides actual advancement.

The main push anyone supported Trump for was simply to counteract the power of the left which had been growing tremendously especially in popular culture.

>Trump winning was better for society.
Oh, is that a [math]fact[/math]? If you throw out truth, all you're left with is delusion, and that's all you've got, fellow.

so i should support your cause until you have the means to get rid of me. again, go fuck yourself. Maybe go and achieve something for yourself, it will give you a sense of accomplishment that joining a group based on skin color can never give.

There is truth (predictable patterns) and at least a highly if not fully deterministic universe.

When it comes to dealing with humanity though the patterns that work is not presenting truth or something as close to truth as possible. It's manipulation and trickery to persuade them while coddling their existential fears.

lol, if you went to a trump rally as "brown" or whatever you would get more love than the white people at the event you dumbfuck. You have been persuaded by trolls and outrageous media to believe in a very far from reality perspective.

The alt-right is about having a meme-fueled ethnostate. Literally meme-fueled, as they have replaced facts and science.

>The way religion is not eradicated by science being superior is what I mean.
Science and religion aren't remotely comparable to one another so neither can be "superior."
>"Truth" is pointless, the truth to humans are the best spreading idea viruses like religion or political teams.
While simple lies can spread more quickly that complex truths, truth wins in the end because it yields long term results. Of course none of that matters to you because you've thrown out objectivity in favor of your opinion, but since the facts aligns with the consensus opinion in this matter, your philosophy is revealed to be internally inconsistent as well. The only way to prove you're case now is to fly off a cliff, which I strongly advise you do.

The alt right is more complex than that. It started with people believing it meant "alternative right", which makes sense as most republicans hate the republican establishment (trump won). Then Richard Spencer came out and took over it to mean something more specific. His rallies get a few 100 people at most which is minuscule.

Your perception of it is far from reality. It's similar to imagining all BLM activists murder cops or want to chant fry them like bacon.

>It started with people believing it meant "alternative right", which makes sense as most republicans hate the republican establishment (trump won). Then Richard Spencer came out and took over it to mean something more specific.
But Spencer's been working under the alt-right label for almost a decade... way before anything to do with Trump

Too bad it's exactly the same on /pol/, Breitbart, InfoWars, etc. Memes, a strange fascination with cuckoldery, and politically who gets BTFO.

Shows you have poor thinking. The state of existence you talk about relies on certain parameters. How did human technology and intelligence come about? Was it something that had to happen?

We could easily reach a stasis society or stasis state in which certain improvement completely stop. All that is required is survival to exist. The idea we will continually learn more, grow more, change towards the "truth", is false.

It's possible we could continue to advance in that type of way but it's not assured. Again, the potential space is near infinite compared to what we will ever explore through time (not counting multiverse theories).

>lol, if you went to a trump rally as "brown" or whatever you would get more love than the white people at the event you dumbfuck
no shit you would, because I would be paraded around as a "LOOK NOT ALL X OPPOSE TRUMP"
Again, please explain to me why i would support the group which would eventually call for my demise.

No, Spencer coined the term. Brietbart and others then tried to sanitize it so they could use it to distinguish themselves from the neocons (they needed a word to do this since they're ideologically identical)

>muh facts

Perception dumbfuck, we aren't talking about mathematics.

>no shit you would, because I would be paraded around as a "LOOK NOT ALL X OPPOSE TRUMP"
Wow it's almost like every political party uses identity politics to target voters...

it's wrong to do that for both parties. What's your point?

>Anyone with any view can post on /pol/, there is no controls preventing it or censoring your views
Aside from the spamming, derailment, and huge number of posters that makes threads go way too fast and overwhelmingly favors witty quips, memes and drive-by discourse over actual argument at any level of depth or sophistication, you mean. Presumably. Coupled with a collective inability to do any actual work to understand the most basic concepts of certain ideas, say marxism

Leftists aren't liberals lmao

tell us what you mean by liberal, OP

it may be illuminating for discussion

>it's wrong to do that for both parties. What's your point?
Political parties have to pander, that's how they win elections, remaining apolitical because someone might make an example out of you means you probably don't care about which party wins either way

Fuck off to /pol/ already.

you're not teaching me anything.
>remaining apolitical because someone might make an example out of you means you probably don't care about which party wins either way
i am not apolitical, but i certainly am not for the party that would use me as a token. And it just so happens that party is also the one who, even ironically, wants my demise. So why the fuck would i support you

>wants my demise
why do you think this?

>we were only joking about killing all the subhumans!

>we were only joking about killing all the subhumans!
/pol/ isn't representative of the Republican party

and radical leftist are not representative of the Democratic Party.

>and radical leftist are not representative of the Democratic Party.
Of course they aren't, what's your point?