Conservatives and liberals united only by interest in dinosaurs, study shows - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]Hopes that science and its unending quest for the truth can mend the cracks in a divided society have taken a hit as new research has found liberals and conservatives share little common ground on the subject – apart from a fascination with dinosaurs.[/B] Because science intends – in theory at least – to accrue facts from solid evidence, it stands a chance of bringing people together on issues they all agree with, such as the Earth circling the sun, and the first five digits of pi. That, the hope goes, might help reverse the social fragmentation that increasingly pits different groups against one another.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/03/conservatives-and-liberals-united-only-by-interest-in-dinosaurs-study-shows?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience[/URL]

The one statement that unites humanity regardless of race, religion or Political standing: [I]"Dinosaurs are fucking awesome"[/I] Atleast we can all agree on that.

""dinosaur"" bones are actually just the remains of animals drowned in the great flood 6000 years ago.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52083550]""dinosaur"" bones are actually just the remains of animals drowned in the great flood 6000 years ago.[/QUOTE] mdeceiver, this article only concerns things that unite conservatives and liberals. You're just an anarchist.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52083550]""dinosaur"" bones are actually just the remains of animals drowned in the great flood 6000 years ago.[/QUOTE] "It's simple really, when Noah sailed, the dinosaurs missed the boat!"

[QUOTE=snookypookums;52083554]mdeceiver, this article only concerns things that unite conservatives and liberals. You're just an anarchist.[/QUOTE] I prefer techno-mutualist. Sir.

well, duh dinosaurs make oil

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52083550]""dinosaur"" bones are actually just the remains of animals drowned in the great flood 6000 years ago.[/QUOTE] I used to work with a guy who believed this to be 100% true. He claimed that they died in the flood, and not because a meteorite or comet impacted the Earth, kicked up a huge dust cloud, chilled the Earth, and killed them/their food sources. When told that there's not enough water on the planet to flood the Earth to the levels described in the Bible, he stated that what happened was that a meteorite or comet impacted the Earth and... kicked up a huge dust cloud... that chilled the Earth which then... cooled... and [I]it shrunk[/I].

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52083614]I used to work with a guy who believed this to be 100% true. He claimed that they died in the flood, and not because a meteorite or comet impacted the Earth, kicked up a huge dust cloud, chilled the Earth, and killed them/their food sources. When told that there's not enough water on the planet to flood the Earth to the levels described in the Bible, he stated that what happened was that a meteorite or comet impacted the Earth and... kicked up a huge dust cloud... that chilled the Earth which then... cooled... and [I]it shrunk[/I].[/QUOTE] well it would have shrunk if it were to cool, but not to that degree. I don't know the thermal expansion of the billion different rocks between me and the core but the rule of thumb for steel is 1 thou per inch per 100 degrees. so if by his theory the earth cooled all the way to the core by on average 100 degrees (no) the earth would have shrunk in diameter by roughly 8 miles given that the thermal coefficient of rock is similar to that of steel

that and our hate for pepsi

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52083614]I used to work with a guy who believed this to be 100% true. He claimed that they died in the flood, and not because a meteorite or comet impacted the Earth, kicked up a huge dust cloud, chilled the Earth, and killed them/their food sources. When told that there's not enough water on the planet to flood the Earth to the levels described in the Bible, he stated that what happened was that a meteorite or comet impacted the Earth and... kicked up a huge dust cloud... that chilled the Earth which then... cooled... and [I]it shrunk[/I].[/QUOTE] Oh man you reminded me of this staunch creationist who was in my world religions class in high school. The fuck made the whole class hate him because he would always go on about Christianity and how the other religions were wrong and would get into debates that radio-carbon dating was wrong and there are dinosaurs frozen in the ice caps. Oh good times.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;52083901]that and our hate for [B]pepsi[/B][/QUOTE] It's like we could never be friends.

Dinosaurs are so scientifically awesome that they're the only constant between the two most polar opposites of groups on Earth.

From the [URL="http://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0079"]Nature Communications article[/URL]: [QUOTE]Our finding that red books tend to link to a narrow cluster of relatively peripheral books in the more polarized disciplines is consistent with recent research documenting growing scepticism among conservatives of the cultural authority held by professional scientists. This may also reflect efforts by conservative political movements to offer politicized alternatives to consensus scientific positions. Such efforts have been observed in previous research on climate change and a range of other areas. Science may not be on the front lines of the culture wars, but it is not above the battle, nor is it immune to the ‘echo chambers’ that have been widely observed in political discourse.[/QUOTE] It almost sounds like a lot of the complaints about science being politicized might just be people projecting.

[quote]“You could say that liberals were a bit more interested in science for its own sake. Conservatives seem somewhat more interested in science where there is a conservative political alignment,” said Macy, whose study appears in Nature Human Behaviour.[/quote] Disappointing, but unsurprising. "Feelings over facts" has been the unofficial Conservative motto for the last decade, at least.

Maybe if we could get some sort of Raptor Jesus, that would solve all our problems.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52084261]Disappointing, but unsurprising. "Feelings over facts" has been the unofficial Conservative motto for the last decade, at least.[/QUOTE] Conservatism at its core is anti-intellectualism, I'm sorry to say. Conservative voters are anti-intellectuals, and those who stand to gain the most from an uneducated, gullible and easily manipulated populace.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52084665]Conservatism at its core is anti-intellectualism, I'm sorry to say. Conservative voters are anti-intellectuals, and those who stand to gain the most from an uneducated, gullible and easily manipulated populace.[/QUOTE] You say that, but so are safe spacers. But then again I think they've got the same mindset and were just brought up differently. I love all science Except Geology. Why the fuck would you wanna study rocks. How could this possibly be interesting once you get past how the types of rocks are made. Anyone who expresses enthusiasm in the subject is granted wide berth. It's very interesting to me that criminology is apparently conservative, because when I was studdying sociology (very related) I found it overwhelmingly supportive of marxism (though the New Right movement is easily the next most interesting stance)

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;52083901]that and our hate for pepsi[/QUOTE] How can one man be so wrong about everything.

[QUOTE=The Jack;52084719]You say that, but so are safe spacers. But then again I think they've got the same mindset and were just brought up differently. I love all science Except Geology. Why the fuck would you wanna study rocks. How could this possibly be interesting once you get past how the types of rocks are made. Anyone who expresses enthusiasm in the subject is granted wide berth. It's very interesting to me that criminology is apparently conservative, because when I was studdying sociology (very related) I found it overwhelmingly supportive of marxism (though the New Right movement is easily the next most interesting stance)[/QUOTE] Criminology is a pretty fascinating field. If I had to guess, I would say that it tends to be a more prevalent interest among conservatives due to the increased focus on the hardline criminal justice platform favored by the party.

[QUOTE=Ta16;52083538]The one statement that unites humanity regardless of race, religion or Political standing: [I]"Dinosaurs are fucking awesome"[/I] Atleast we can all agree on that.[/QUOTE] ya but we can't agree on how old they are, one side says 6000 years from the time of noah, the other says hundreds of millions of years old.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;52083901]that and our hate for pepsi[/QUOTE] Them's fightin words.

[QUOTE=The Jack;52084719]You say that, but so are safe spacers. But then again I think they've got the same mindset and were just brought up differently. I love all science Except Geology. Why the fuck would you wanna study rocks. How could this possibly be interesting once you get past how the types of rocks are made. Anyone who expresses enthusiasm in the subject is granted wide berth. It's very interesting to me that criminology is apparently conservative, because when I was studdying sociology (very related) I found it overwhelmingly supportive of marxism (though the New Right movement is easily the next most interesting stance)[/QUOTE] What the hell is a safe spacer? The first thing that comes to mind are the people that hang on /pol/ and the_Donald. I guess Tumblr SJWs also qualify. I call conservatives anti-intellectual because conservatism is intrinsically associated with resistance to change, a slowness to learn, and embracing damaging social heirarchies that take away from rather than contributing to a free, equal, and above all productive society. They trend towards a disinterest in science because it frequently shakes up the social order they've dreamed up as an explanation for the way the world works. Are there smart conservatives? Absolutely. But they're the exception, not the rule. Is the political perspective as a whole anti-intellectual? You need merely look at the GOP.

[QUOTE=The Jack;52084719]You say that, but so are safe spacers. But then again I think they've got the same mindset and were just brought up differently. I love all science Except Geology. Why the fuck would you wanna study rocks. How could this possibly be interesting once you get past how the types of rocks are made. Anyone who expresses enthusiasm in the subject is granted wide berth. It's very interesting to me that criminology is apparently conservative, because when I was studdying sociology (very related) I found it overwhelmingly supportive of marxism (though the New Right movement is easily the next most interesting stance)[/QUOTE] Geology is how you learn to find gold and other valuable mineral deposits. :sax:

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52087800]Geology is how you learn to find gold and other valuable mineral deposits. :sax:[/QUOTE] geologists make dumptruck loads of cash working in upstream oil production, sure you're most likely going to be in some remote shithole for a couple of years but holy shit they'll often pay off your student loans on top of your not entirely modest starting salary because they can't get any seasoned geologists to work these remote jobs.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52085168] I call conservatives anti-intellectual because conservatism is intrinsically associated with resistance to change, a slowness to learn, and embracing damaging social heirarchies that take away from a free, equal, and productive society.[/QUOTE] I agree, conservatism tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Conservatism slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. In our current unparalleled enterprise, refusal to liberalize is simply a refusal to grow - an insistence on suicide, if you will. In order to be true to our nation, and our manifest destiny, we must aspire to greater things. Be wise. Be smart. Don't be an imbecile.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52084665]Conservatism at its core is anti-intellectualism, I'm sorry to say. Conservative voters are anti-intellectuals, and those who stand to gain the most from an uneducated, gullible and easily manipulated populace.[/QUOTE] As a fellow liberal, I have to say that is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint. You are correct that conservatism is anti-intellectualism - in it's current and most widely held form. Historically however, conservatism hasn't been a force of anti-intellectualism but rather a cautious version of intellectualism. Traditional, actual conservatism understands that change is a necessary part of the human condition, but rather than blindly accept it like some forms of liberalism, it takes a careful coordinated approach to it to ensure that it does not negatively affect society in ways that could cause irreparable harm. This has actually brought traditional conservatism at extreme odds with capitalism, since capitalism is a constantly changing evolving system that frequently mixes up society. What is currently considered conservatism would actually traditionally be regarded as reactionaryism, where people want a return to and older way of life with a constantly changing society put in place with regards to capitalism. I'd suggest you read this guy's article on it: [url]https://goplifer.com/what-is-conservatism/[/url]

The conservatives I've talked to on the internet weren't too keen on my interest in dinosaurs to be honest

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;52114137]As a fellow liberal, I have to say that is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint. You are correct that conservatism is anti-intellectualism - in it's current and most widely held form. Historically however, conservatism hasn't been a force of anti-intellectualism but rather a cautious version of intellectualism. Traditional, actual conservatism understands that change is a necessary part of the human condition, but rather than blindly accept it like some forms of liberalism, it takes a careful coordinated approach to it to ensure that it does not negatively affect society in ways that could cause irreparable harm. This has actually brought traditional conservatism at extreme odds with capitalism, since capitalism is a constantly changing evolving system that frequently mixes up society. What is currently considered conservatism would actually traditionally be regarded as reactionaryism, where people want a return to and older way of life with a constantly changing society put in place with regards to capitalism. I'd suggest you read this guy's article on it: [url]https://goplifer.com/what-is-conservatism/[/url][/QUOTE] But the 'traditional conservatism' you're talking about here is what is today considered liberalism. It simply doesn't exist any more in the American GOP or its voters. When I call conservatism anti-intellectualism, I'm referring directly to what passes for conservatism today. Not some pure platonic absolute that no longer reflects reality.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;52114137]As a fellow liberal, I have to say that is an incredibly ignorant viewpoint. You are correct that conservatism is anti-intellectualism - in it's current and most widely held form. Historically however, conservatism hasn't been a force of anti-intellectualism but rather a cautious version of intellectualism. Traditional, actual conservatism understands that change is a necessary part of the human condition, but rather than blindly accept it like some forms of liberalism, it takes a careful coordinated approach to it to ensure that it does not negatively affect society in ways that could cause irreparable harm. This has actually brought traditional conservatism at extreme odds with capitalism, since capitalism is a constantly changing evolving system that frequently mixes up society. What is currently considered conservatism would actually traditionally be regarded as reactionaryism, where people want a return to and older way of life with a constantly changing society put in place with regards to capitalism. I'd suggest you read this guy's article on it: [url]https://goplifer.com/what-is-conservatism/[/url][/QUOTE] Traditional conservatism has been dead in the United States ever since Goldwater lost to LBJ, resulting in Reagan and Nixon creating a new-wave conservative backlash to the liberal policies being put forth during that time period. "Conservatives" are usually relegated to being Republican supporters, and "liberals" to Democrats. I despise a number of the Democrats in office, but it's not like I didn't vote for them last election. I'm sure there's quite a bit of Republicans that loathed Trump, but voted for him anyway because he's a Republican. Political ideology has been dimly simplified in the United States ever since the big political shift, so your point doesn't hold much weight in that regard.