Here's a shameless cut/paste job from an interesting book on the topic…seems like if you're down on your luck, you're probably better off in a conservative town. The overriding theme is always the same give & take we always argue over, i.e., conservatives 'give' to charity and liberals 'take' from conservatives to give to charity (and failing solar companies).
Insert plagerism here… Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Findings include: -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). -- Conservatives donate more time and give more blood. -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated 1.9 percent. -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Mark apparently believes in the personhood of government, just what he would deny to corporations, so that government can carry out Jesus' instructions for the poor. The problem is, government has no money except what it takes from citizens. Nowhere in the Bible did I see a line where Jesus said, "Take from them that has so that you can giveth to those who hath not." I saw no "Robin Hood" directive in the New Testament nor in any of the "lost" gospels.
So Mark apparently promotes the State to be some sort of Nietschean überman that isn't bound by the same rules as the rest of us are, though with similar onbligations to God. (never mind the fact that the government can only have the powers granted to it from the people via the states). I guess Mark likes his theocracy as long as it's pushing his own theos.
Yes, Santa, he surely did. dave, this photo was meant for you to reflect upon given a few of the derisive comments you've made regarding the OWS folks. Clearly, you didn't get it and (what a shock) listed off how conservatives "win" in being more generous. Must it always be about proving the left wrong and winning the argument?
I'll set aside the obvious confirmation bias in your comment above and look at something deeper. If you are a Christian, it's pretty clear that the Bible tells us that showboating generosity isn't a good thing.
Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4
So why the need to "prove" that conservatives are more giving? That's certainly not what God asks of us.
Oh you got me…I reflected for days and days on my cruel behavior and then went out and slapped a Changey-Hopey bumper sticker on my car. So, just to clarify, is this chap an OWS protestor, a bum or both? Too close to call, really…
The "winning the argument" mantra again? It's probably in the upper half of the least sensible things you're regularly caterwaulin' about. If someone says the earth is flat, Dale Carnegie would of course advocate politely shining them on, however, since the whole point is debate (or mockery) in such forums, it would be silly not to point out the error. And for the record, I don't think it's really trumpeting virtues to correct an inaccurate portrayal of how heartless conservatives are. It's just sayin'…
Going back to your OWS post/link…one of the vagrants in the link was Kristen, age 20, unemployed. Her caption states, "As an individual, or even as a small business, I can't function in a world where a massively wealthy corporation has the same legal rights as me. I can't fight against that - I don't have the money, and I don't have the political power."
That has really stuck with me…still trying to figure it out, because, come on man, really, Kristen? Really? Please, dear girl, tell me why Bill Gates' salary is holding you back. Why are you limited because the Home Depot Inc has legal rights? How is GE's low tax rate preventing you from reaching your goals? You're 20! What's your expectation for income at 20? It seems to me you're giving up on life at 20 and you've found the perfect scapegoat to help you reconcile it all.
PS: love all the religion...bad when (insert GOP person here) uses it, good when (insert liberal person here) does. Fortunately, we're a secular gov't…and besides, I gave at church.
The "winning the argument" mantra again? It's probably in the upper half of the least sensible things you're regularly caterwaulin' about.
which obviously means that it makes sense and you're just pissed about it. If you're only goal is to prove "someone wrong" and "win the argument," then you will continually suffer from confirmation bias and lack any sort of critical thinking or engage in serious analysis. Of course, confirmation bias is only the start. Recall Boaz's 14 points.
I think you make a couple of fair points about Kristen but she is only 20, dave, so cut her some slack. Her brain isn't even fully developed yet.
I think what you are missing, though, is the implications from the Citizen's United case. I get Romney when he says the corporations are people because they are made up of people working and contributing to society. I have no problem with that. My problem is when the concept of rights carries over to corporation who clearly has more money and power to abuse those rights than an individual. Truly, this case was an abomination for anyone who cares about individual liberty and freedom.
And it's going to bite you guys hard on the ass. Corporations aren't all made up of right wingers not to mention the fact that this means unions and other organizations now also have these enhanced rights. So, none of this is any good...honestly.
Obviously you have never taken a basic developmental psych class, dumb ass. Hell, it'll take you 30 seconds of research on the inter webs to find out that Mark is right.
The brain becomes fully developed in a person's early 20's, when we see the development of the frontal lobe....the area responsible for logic, fore thought, planning, and reduction of impulsive behavior seen in adolescence.....recent functional MRI research has confirmed this.
Brilliant! Thanks Thrilla, it's always a….a….a…pleasure…ya, that's it…a pleasure to see your insights. I'm guessing Mark's frontal lobe is also in need of a little further development since it was he who posted the link to these vagrants called OWS, 7 out of 10 of which were in the 20s. How embarassing that the best y'all can fall back on is that they're brains aren't fully developed yet…priceless.
No, I stayed away from psych classes back when I was in college. It seemed that most of the people in them were kinda fucked up.
So, let's say there is a scientific consensus that a person (at least their brain) isn't sufficiently developed to support an age of majority of 18. Are you suggesting we raise that to 21? 25? What?
Aren't we supposed to be enacting law/policy based on science?
dave, I believe your gripe was that they were all unemployed, right? My link shows that they weren't.
juris, I've taken several developmentally psych classes in my time and the latest research indicates that even when young adults are in their early 20s, their reasoning is not yet fully developed. I think most of us who spend time with this age group can recognize this without a study. So, dave's point about Kristen is silly because her capability to reason is still biologically immature.
So, dave's point about Kristen is silly because her capability to reason is still biologically immature.
Okay, let's assume the science is settled then. When you are going to propose raising the age of majority from 18 to something higher (21+)? You don't really think 18 year olds should be allowed to do all the things they now do if their brains aren't sufficiently developed!?
You are fully of good points today, juris, and this brings up a larger issue. I've been heavily involved with young people for the past decade. One thing that I have noticed is they are a lot more immature these days then they used to be at 18. Compare them to my grandparents and it's essentially like they are 12. It's not simply a matter of biology. It's how our culture is socializing them right now as well. I have a friend who has four kids...two of them are boys who are 19 and 21. Both still live at home and it's largely due to her reluctance to launch them into the world. They are terribly immature for their age.
This does make me question whether or not 18 year olds should be allowed to do the things they can (vote, join the military). Are they ready? Biologically they may not be and our society is raising them to not be as well. I guess my answer to your question is that I'm not sure given my experiences these days.
One thing that I have noticed is they are a lot more immature these days then they used to be at 18.
While it may well be that our society is retarding social maturation, there ain't no way in hell we are regressing brain structure/function. You just contradicted the contention that this is biologically based. We are then into the "sciences" of psychology and sociology - which have all the scientific rigor of economics; none of which should ever be confused with biology.
The 16 year old in our house does not act 16 many times....she acts more like a 10 year old, especially when she plays with her little brother.
She is very responsible with school and schoolwork and she is a very good driver.
So we take the good with the bad - nobodys perfect.
She has a pretty good circle of friends and based on our research, only 1 of her freinds has discovered boys. Then again, the 16 year old boys don't really ask girls out on dates anymore because they're all "friends", and I remind them that being in the Friend Zone sucks.
Your friends who have the kids who refuse to launch - indeed the reason they haven't launched is because the parents haven't taken charge and told them what the deal is. For me, I may go with the 4 E's - Enrolled, Enlisted, Employed or Evicted. Our girl already mentioned taking a year off from school after high school to just work some retail job, then go to college after that. That idea was shot down in 45 seconds by us because too many kids don't make it back to school once they do that.
It's both. We have a culture that doesn't follow the 4 E's mentioned by last above (very fantastic, b to the w!!!!) AND science has now shown us that the brain isn't fully developed for higher reasoning until the early 20s. It's the combination of both that led me to encourage dave to give Kristen a break.
I remain skeptical about the "science" that shows this, particularly if it is psych. As for talking down about the next generation - well that's been going on since Socrates.
21 comments:
So M just to be sure I get this straight - you want the govt to be a Christian govt, doing as the Bible says.
Yawn…I think we've been down this road before…
Here's a shameless cut/paste job from an interesting book on the topic…seems like if you're down on your luck, you're probably better off in a conservative town.
The overriding theme is always the same give & take we always argue over, i.e., conservatives 'give' to charity and liberals 'take' from conservatives to give to charity (and failing solar companies).
Insert plagerism here…
Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."
Findings include:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
I think he missed the point, Mark.
Mark apparently believes in the personhood of government, just what he would deny to corporations, so that government can carry out Jesus' instructions for the poor. The problem is, government has no money except what it takes from citizens. Nowhere in the Bible did I see a line where Jesus said, "Take from them that has so that you can giveth to those who hath not." I saw no "Robin Hood" directive in the New Testament nor in any of the "lost" gospels.
So Mark apparently promotes the State to be some sort of Nietschean überman that isn't bound by the same rules as the rest of us are, though with similar onbligations to God. (never mind the fact that the government can only have the powers granted to it from the people via the states). I guess Mark likes his theocracy as long as it's pushing his own theos.
Yes, Santa, he surely did. dave, this photo was meant for you to reflect upon given a few of the derisive comments you've made regarding the OWS folks. Clearly, you didn't get it and (what a shock) listed off how conservatives "win" in being more generous. Must it always be about proving the left wrong and winning the argument?
I'll set aside the obvious confirmation bias in your comment above and look at something deeper. If you are a Christian, it's pretty clear that the Bible tells us that showboating generosity isn't a good thing.
Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4
So why the need to "prove" that conservatives are more giving? That's certainly not what God asks of us.
That's certainly not what God asks of us.
Nor is increasing taxes so the govt will take care of 'those folks'. Or did I miss that part of the sermon on the mount?
Oh you got me…I reflected for days and days on my cruel behavior and then went out and slapped a Changey-Hopey bumper sticker on my car. So, just to clarify, is this chap an OWS protestor, a bum or both? Too close to call, really…
The "winning the argument" mantra again? It's probably in the upper half of the least sensible things you're regularly caterwaulin' about. If someone says the earth is flat, Dale Carnegie would of course advocate politely shining them on, however, since the whole point is debate (or mockery) in such forums, it would be silly not to point out the error. And for the record, I don't think it's really trumpeting virtues to correct an inaccurate portrayal of how heartless conservatives are. It's just sayin'…
Going back to your OWS post/link…one of the vagrants in the link was Kristen, age 20, unemployed. Her caption states, "As an individual, or even as a small business, I can't function in a world where a massively wealthy corporation has the same legal rights as me. I can't fight against that - I don't have the money, and I don't have the political power."
That has really stuck with me…still trying to figure it out, because, come on man, really, Kristen? Really? Please, dear girl, tell me why Bill Gates' salary is holding you back. Why are you limited because the Home Depot Inc has legal rights? How is GE's low tax rate preventing you from reaching your goals? You're 20! What's your expectation for income at 20? It seems to me you're giving up on life at 20 and you've found the perfect scapegoat to help you reconcile it all.
PS: love all the religion...bad when (insert GOP person here) uses it, good when (insert liberal person here) does. Fortunately, we're a secular gov't…and besides, I gave at church.
The "winning the argument" mantra again? It's probably in the upper half of the least sensible things you're regularly caterwaulin' about.
which obviously means that it makes sense and you're just pissed about it. If you're only goal is to prove "someone wrong" and "win the argument," then you will continually suffer from confirmation bias and lack any sort of critical thinking or engage in serious analysis. Of course, confirmation bias is only the start. Recall Boaz's 14 points.
I think you make a couple of fair points about Kristen but she is only 20, dave, so cut her some slack. Her brain isn't even fully developed yet.
I think what you are missing, though, is the implications from the Citizen's United case. I get Romney when he says the corporations are people because they are made up of people working and contributing to society. I have no problem with that. My problem is when the concept of rights carries over to corporation who clearly has more money and power to abuse those rights than an individual. Truly, this case was an abomination for anyone who cares about individual liberty and freedom.
And it's going to bite you guys hard on the ass. Corporations aren't all made up of right wingers not to mention the fact that this means unions and other organizations now also have these enhanced rights. So, none of this is any good...honestly.
"Do you really want to hear Jesus say: For I was..."
Does this mean government = Jesus in your mind?
which obviously means that it makes sense and you're just pissed about it.
Said with all the gusto and elan of a middle school girl called on being a catty little brat.
Her brain isn't even fully developed yet.
Wow.
"Wow."
Obviously you have never taken a basic developmental psych class, dumb ass. Hell, it'll take you 30 seconds of research on the inter webs to find out that Mark is right.
The brain becomes fully developed in a person's early 20's, when we see the development of the frontal lobe....the area responsible for logic, fore thought, planning, and reduction of impulsive behavior seen in adolescence.....recent functional MRI research has confirmed this.
Brilliant! Thanks Thrilla, it's always a….a….a…pleasure…ya, that's it…a pleasure to see your insights. I'm guessing Mark's frontal lobe is also in need of a little further development since it was he who posted the link to these vagrants called OWS, 7 out of 10 of which were in the 20s. How embarassing that the best y'all can fall back on is that they're brains aren't fully developed yet…priceless.
a basic developmental psych class
No, I stayed away from psych classes back when I was in college. It seemed that most of the people in them were kinda fucked up.
So, let's say there is a scientific consensus that a person (at least their brain) isn't sufficiently developed to support an age of majority of 18. Are you suggesting we raise that to 21? 25? What?
Aren't we supposed to be enacting law/policy based on science?
dave, I believe your gripe was that they were all unemployed, right? My link shows that they weren't.
juris, I've taken several developmentally psych classes in my time and the latest research indicates that even when young adults are in their early 20s, their reasoning is not yet fully developed. I think most of us who spend time with this age group can recognize this without a study. So, dave's point about Kristen is silly because her capability to reason is still biologically immature.
So, dave's point about Kristen is silly because her capability to reason is still biologically immature.
Okay, let's assume the science is settled then. When you are going to propose raising the age of majority from 18 to something higher (21+)? You don't really think 18 year olds should be allowed to do all the things they now do if their brains aren't sufficiently developed!?
You are fully of good points today, juris, and this brings up a larger issue. I've been heavily involved with young people for the past decade. One thing that I have noticed is they are a lot more immature these days then they used to be at 18. Compare them to my grandparents and it's essentially like they are 12. It's not simply a matter of biology. It's how our culture is socializing them right now as well. I have a friend who has four kids...two of them are boys who are 19 and 21. Both still live at home and it's largely due to her reluctance to launch them into the world. They are terribly immature for their age.
This does make me question whether or not 18 year olds should be allowed to do the things they can (vote, join the military). Are they ready? Biologically they may not be and our society is raising them to not be as well. I guess my answer to your question is that I'm not sure given my experiences these days.
One thing that I have noticed is they are a lot more immature these days then they used to be at 18.
While it may well be that our society is retarding social maturation, there ain't no way in hell we are regressing brain structure/function. You just contradicted the contention that this is biologically based. We are then into the "sciences" of psychology and sociology - which have all the scientific rigor of economics; none of which should ever be confused with biology.
So which is it?
The 16 year old in our house does not act 16 many times....she acts more like a 10 year old, especially when she plays with her little brother.
She is very responsible with school and schoolwork and she is a very good driver.
So we take the good with the bad - nobodys perfect.
She has a pretty good circle of friends and based on our research, only 1 of her freinds has discovered boys. Then again, the 16 year old boys don't really ask girls out on dates anymore because they're all "friends", and I remind them that being in the Friend Zone sucks.
Your friends who have the kids who refuse to launch - indeed the reason they haven't launched is because the parents haven't taken charge and told them what the deal is. For me, I may go with the 4 E's - Enrolled, Enlisted, Employed or Evicted. Our girl already mentioned taking a year off from school after high school to just work some retail job, then go to college after that. That idea was shot down in 45 seconds by us because too many kids don't make it back to school once they do that.
So which is it?
It's both. We have a culture that doesn't follow the 4 E's mentioned by last above (very fantastic, b to the w!!!!) AND science has now shown us that the brain isn't fully developed for higher reasoning until the early 20s. It's the combination of both that led me to encourage dave to give Kristen a break.
I remain skeptical about the "science" that shows this, particularly if it is psych. As for talking down about the next generation - well that's been going on since Socrates.
Post a Comment