No, but if I'm going to evoke that data to support an argument, I'm sure as heck going to refresh my memory first instead of making a claim I can't immediately back up.

Anybody can make a claim based on "something I remember seeing but can't remember where."  If you can't remember where you saw it, how can you be sure you're remembering the facts any better?

I would verify my info, or not mention it at all.

'

I remember what I learned it just isn't that easy to find a source for something I learned from a radio interview.

I found this link, I don't know if it is the exact one I heard on the interview or not but it is certainly related. It also leads to a discussion on whether conservatives and liberals may actually be wired differently, whether through nurture or nature but that is getting into a whole separate area of study.
https://www.psypost.org/2020/05/new-research-suggests-that-conservatives-and-liberals-show-differences-in-executive-functioning-56867

I think that I was having a hard time putting into works the example of this phenomenon I was seeing in the pandemic but I think maybe I have figured out a way to state it.

I have noticed that among those who are against the mandates they tend to repeat all arguments against masking, lockdowns, and the vaccine. By that I mean when if they are taking a negative stance against the government response (masks and vaccines) they seem to take all of the negative views about it. Masks aren't effective, vaccines are too new, ivermectin works, mandates are unconstitutional, vaccines aren't effective, etc etc. In moderates I see more varied positions but in the more conservative side I notice less variance. I never see anyone claim the vaccines are dangerous but also effective for example.

And this isn't a one sided thing either, I see the people who are strongly in favor of the vaccine adopt all of the positive views about the vaccine as well with less willingness to admit anything negative either.

The thing is that I don't think the actual science is all negative or all positive for the vaccine but when battle lines are drawn and people choose sides they seem to adopt all the arguments of the side they have joined. When is science or truth ever that clean where it only favors one side or the other? If humans were all rational thinking beings why would we #1 disagree about the data and #2 arrive at such clean different points of views? For ideological arguments of course differences are understandable but when it comes to data these differences are not understandable, unlike with opinions, these arguments are mostly matters of something that is a factual question. And political ideology seems to correlate with this.

I hope what I am trying to explain makes sense even if you disagree

'

I remember what I learned it just isn't that easy to find a source for something I learned from a radio interview.

I found this link, I don't know if it is the exact one I heard on the interview or not but it is certainly related. It also leads to a discussion on whether conservatives and liberals may actually be wired differently, whether through nurture or nature but that is getting into a whole separate area of study.
https://www.psypost.org/2020/05/new-research-suggests-that-conservatives-and-liberals-show-differences-in-executive-functioning-56867

Your comment/opinion was that liberals are more tolerant and openminded than Conservatives.

The studies you offered up to support that "theory" have nothing to do with tolerance and open-mindedness.  They have to do with the ability of each to excel at tasks of distinct working memory processes (i.e., inhibition and updating, respectively).  In plain language, Conservatives are more focused and are more likely to succeed at response inhibition, whereas Liberals are more likely to succeed at response updating, or taking in changes in the task as they work.

Cognitive flexibility was the premise of the studies.  That has nothing to do with social attitudes of acceptance and tolerance.  If you try to extrapolate those studies to tolerance, you'll need to find a bridging source to show how that works and how it was studied.

Try again.

I think that I was having a hard time putting into works the example of this phenomenon I was seeing in the pandemic but I think maybe I have figured out a way to state it.

I have noticed that among those who are against the mandates they tend to repeat all arguments against masking, lockdowns, and the vaccine. By that I mean when if they are taking a negative stance against the government response (masks and vaccines) they seem to take all of the negative views about it. Masks aren't effective, vaccines are too new, ivermectin works, mandates are unconstitutional, vaccines aren't effective, etc etc. In moderates I see more varied positions but in the more conservative side I notice less variance. I never see anyone claim the vaccines are dangerous but also effective for example.

And this isn't a one sided thing either, I see the people who are strongly in favor of the vaccine adopt all of the positive views about the vaccine as well with less willingness to admit anything negative either.

The thing is that I don't think the actual science is all negative or all positive for the vaccine but when battle lines are drawn and people choose sides they seem to adopt all the arguments of the side they have joined. When is science or truth ever that clean where it only favors one side or the other? If humans were all rational thinking beings why would we #1 disagree about the data and #2 arrive at such clean different points of views? For ideological arguments of course differences are understandable but when it comes to data these differences are not understandable, unlike with opinions, these arguments are mostly matters of something that is a factual question. And political ideology seems to correlate with this.

I hope what I am trying to explain makes sense even if you disagree

but earlier you said "all available data"...

I think that I was having a hard time putting into works the example of this phenomenon I was seeing in the pandemic but I think maybe I have figured out a way to state it.

I have noticed that among those who are against the mandates they tend to repeat all arguments against masking, lockdowns, and the vaccine. By that I mean when if they are taking a negative stance against the government response (masks and vaccines) they seem to take all of the negative views about it. Masks aren't effective, vaccines are too new, ivermectin works, mandates are unconstitutional, vaccines aren't effective, etc etc. In moderates I see more varied positions but in the more conservative side I notice less variance. I never see anyone claim the vaccines are dangerous but also effective for example.

And this isn't a one sided thing either, I see the people who are strongly in favor of the vaccine adopt all of the positive views about the vaccine as well with less willingness to admit anything negative either.

The thing is that I don't think the actual science is all negative or all positive for the vaccine but when battle lines are drawn and people choose sides they seem to adopt all the arguments of the side they have joined. When is science or truth ever that clean where it only favors one side or the other? If humans were all rational thinking beings why would we #1 disagree about the data and #2 arrive at such clean different points of views? For ideological arguments of course differences are understandable but when it comes to data these differences are not understandable, unlike with opinions, these arguments are mostly matters of something that is a factual question. And political ideology seems to correlate with this.

I hope what I am trying to explain makes sense even if you disagree

This pretty much sums up my "refer to the past 5 years" concept of why trust the government, media, experts when they've lied for 5 years.

So 1 wants to get vaxxed, that's fine. 1 doesn't want to, that should be fine too. Where the line is crossed is when people are forced to vaxx.  And 1 reason why people are against this vaxx is because it's so new. There are unknown what the long term effects are.  It's only been injected into humans for a year.  Smoking cigarettes once probably won't give you lung cancer. But smoke for 5 years then your odds increase.  And there are those who smoke like a chimney for 30 years area have healthy lungs.  Smokes is not in the constitution.  So the government can regulate as they see fit.  I don't want to get further into this specific example, so refer to it as a concept.

People like to also use the regulation of booze.  But they are not educated on the amendments, even after they were told to look them up.  1 amendment states booze is illegal (prohibition era, Al Capone). Then a few down it states that each state can make what ever law they want about booze. So drinking and driving laws are allowed per the amendments to the constitution.

So I don't see it as what if Trump was pro vaxx, he pretty much green lighted the process.  Even though he never said for people to get vaxxed. Isn't that what's great about him, he never forced it on anyone. He let people make their own choice.  He never stopped anyone from getting it either.

This whole "argument" is moot because if Trump was still President he wouldn't mandate such measures.

So 1 wants to get vaxxed, that's fine. 1 doesn't want to, that should be fine too. Where the line is crossed is when people are forced to vaxx.

Nutshell.

Trump was super proud he pushed to get the vaxx developed and passed faster than any in history.
But I don’t think he would’ve mandated it.

Unless they named the vaxx after him. Then maybe…Get the Trump vaxx. Safest Ever.  Super effective. It’s Amazing. 
Just my opinion.

Nutshell.

Trump was super proud he pushed to get the vaxx developed and passed faster than any in history.
But I don’t think he would’ve mandated it.

Unless they named the vaxx after him. Then maybe…Get the Trump vaxx. Safest Ever.  Super effective. It’s Amazing. 
Just my opinion.

If they did name it Trump vaxx, how many would not get it...

 barrycare got a name.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Your comment/opinion was that liberals are more tolerant and openminded than Conservatives.

The studies you offered up to support that "theory" have nothing to do with tolerance and open-mindedness.  They have to do with the ability of each to excel at tasks of distinct working memory processes (i.e., inhibition and updating, respectively).  In plain language, Conservatives are more focused and are more likely to succeed at response inhibition, whereas Liberals are more likely to succeed at response updating, or taking in changes in the task as they work.

Cognitive flexibility was the premise of the studies.  That has nothing to do with social attitudes of acceptance and tolerance.  If you try to extrapolate those studies to tolerance, you'll need to find a bridging source to show how that works and how it was studied.

Try again.

I said open minded, I didn't say tolerant.

I also said by certain metrics, meaning that depending on how being open minded is measured and defined.

From the article
"This possibility is important as liberals are more open to experience (Carney et al., 2008) and openness is linked to elevated intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). "

Maybe you are thinking of mindedness differently than I am.

"Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas....
Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ ”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-and-conservatives-dont-just-vote-differently-they-think-differently/2012/04/12/gIQAzb1kDT_story.html

Liberals are more likely to welcome in immigrants than conservatives for example. Conservatives are more concerned with safety. (being too open minded obviously can be bad too)
There is some evidence liberals are more open to trying different foods.
https://dietsinreview.com/diet_column/07/conservatives-and-liberals-make-different-food-choices/
Liberals are more likely to use psychedelics
https://www.psypost.org/2017/05/study-finds-people-use-psychedelic-drugs-tend-liberal-48966

I said open minded, I didn't say tolerant.

I also said by certain metrics, meaning that depending on how being open minded is measured and defined.

From the article
"This possibility is important as liberals are more open to experience (Carney et al., 2008) and openness is linked to elevated intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). "

Maybe you are thinking of mindedness differently than I am.

"Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas....
Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ ”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-and-conservatives-dont-just-vote-differently-they-think-differently/2012/04/12/gIQAzb1kDT_story.html

Liberals are more likely to welcome in immigrants than conservatives for example. Conservatives are more concerned with safety. (being too open minded obviously can be bad too)
There is some evidence liberals are more open to trying different foods.
https://dietsinreview.com/diet_column/07/conservatives-and-liberals-make-different-food-choices/
Liberals are more likely to use psychedelics
https://www.psypost.org/2017/05/study-finds-people-use-psychedelic-drugs-tend-liberal-48966

Those have nothing to do with real life studies.  It's purely academic, and the conclusions are based on theories and observations that conform to their own definitions. 

I think observing actual Liberals and Conservatives as they interact socially has much more validity than pure academics.

Liberals love to say the woke talking points, but they quickly behave in the opposite manner when they think no one who cares is watching.

This pretty much sums up my "refer to the past 5 years" concept of why trust the government, media, experts when they've lied for 5 years.

So 1 wants to get vaxxed, that's fine. 1 doesn't want to, that should be fine too. Where the line is crossed is when people are forced to vaxx.  And 1 reason why people are against this vaxx is because it's so new. There are unknown what the long term effects are.  It's only been injected into humans for a year.  Smoking cigarettes once probably won't give you lung cancer. But smoke for 5 years then your odds increase.  And there are those who smoke like a chimney for 30 years area have healthy lungs.  Smokes is not in the constitution.  So the government can regulate as they see fit.  I don't want to get further into this specific example, so refer to it as a concept.

People like to also use the regulation of booze.  But they are not educated on the amendments, even after they were told to look them up.  1 amendment states booze is illegal (prohibition era, Al Capone). Then a few down it states that each state can make what ever law they want about booze. So drinking and driving laws are allowed per the amendments to the constitution.

So I don't see it as what if Trump was pro vaxx, he pretty much green lighted the process.  Even though he never said for people to get vaxxed. Isn't that what's great about him, he never forced it on anyone. He let people make their own choice.  He never stopped anyone from getting it either.

Historically, the vast majority of complications from vaccinations happen relatively quickly after the vaccine is administered. The chance that there is some serious complication that is going to come out a year, 5 years, 10 years from now is exceedingly remote going by the data. I also think that medicine has advanced quite a bit such that based on the ingredients and understanding how biology and chemistry works that scientists have a pretty good idea of the risk levels of new vaccines but I know not everyone has that faith in current science. However I will also admit that I still worry about the potential unknowns of the vaccine I took even though I consider the fear irrational. Given that I totally get why people are hesitant about a new vaccine, it is an understandable reaction.

On that note though, the people who are the test subjects for these vaccines should be given a fair amount of credit. If everyone had the attitude of the vaccine was too new then no one would ever participate in the studies and we would never have new vaccines.

I would be interested if there was a way to study how many people would be vaccinated if mandated vs just educated and encouraged. I feel pretty strongly that there are a lot of people in America who will refuse the vaccine purely on the ground that someone is making them do it. I just don't know whether that amount of people outweigh the number who take it because they don't want to lose their job. I think force was always a bad call. I liked the idea of lotteries, more innovative positive encouragement idea to get people vaccinated.

Those have nothing to do with real life studies.  It's purely academic, and the conclusions are based on theories and observations that conform to their own definitions. 

I think observing actual Liberals and Conservatives as they interact socially has much more validity than pure academics.

Liberals love to say the woke talking points, but they quickly behave in the opposite manner when they think no one who cares is watching.

Are there any "real life studies" which suggest contrary, that conservatives are open minded?

I don't see how everything I posted is purely academic, attitudes towards immigration isn't an academic only issue. 

Those have nothing to do with real life studies.  It's purely academic, and the conclusions are based on theories and observations that conform to their own definitions. 

I think observing actual Liberals and Conservatives as they interact socially has much more validity than pure academics.

Liberals love to say the woke talking points, but they quickly behave in the opposite manner when they think no one who cares is watching.

Just the liberals ?

gay conservative scandals (Google. Most can do a better search parameter.)
Pretty open on both sides.

Are there any "real life studies" which suggest contrary, that conservatives are open minded?

I don't see how everything I posted is purely academic, attitudes towards immigration isn't an academic only issue.

I consider the videos and interviews from reputable sources to be as reliable as "studies" when it comes to human behavior.

One such report etched in my mind was when a reporter asked several people at the Democrat National Convention in North Carolina if the Democrat platform was one of tolerance, acceptance and inclusion.  Everyone was like, "Of course!  We welcome everyone no matter your race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or any other trait that defines you!"

Then the question was asked, "What about Republicans?  You know, the GOP?  Are they welcome in the party?"

Answers were all similar:  "Oh, no.  They aren't as tolerant and open minded as we are.  We just don't need them in our party."

After repeating the questions and answers to the respondents several times, the light bulbs eventually clicked on, and they realized that their tolerance and inclusiveness were not as broad as they believed.

This is how I predict many of the respondents to "studies" act.  They SAY the things they THINK they believe, and the traits the testers look for are based on self-assessment questionnaires. 

I'm not trying to say there are existing studies that are better.  I'm simply pointing out that the usefulness of the studies you posted are easily disproven with mere observation and simple analysis.

The "stereotype" is that Conservatives are homophobic and racist, yet some of the most hatefully racist and gay-bashing people I know are Liberals.  Somehow, these people (some, not all) believe if they join the right tribe, they can do and say whatever they want as long as "the wrong people" aren't listening.  Several hot mic statements by prominent Liberals and their supporters come to mind.

Liberals are more likely to welcome in ILLEGAL immigrants than conservatives for example.

FIFY


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Historically, the vast majority of complications from vaccinations happen relatively quickly after the vaccine is administered. The chance that there is some serious complication that is going to come out a year, 5 years, 10 years from now is exceedingly remote going by the data. I also think that medicine has advanced quite a bit such that based on the ingredients and understanding how biology and chemistry works that scientists have a pretty good idea of the risk levels of new vaccines but I know not everyone has that faith in current science. However I will also admit that I still worry about the potential unknowns of the vaccine I took even though I consider the fear irrational. Given that I totally get why people are hesitant about a new vaccine, it is an understandable reaction.

On that note though, the people who are the test subjects for these vaccines should be given a fair amount of credit. If everyone had the attitude of the vaccine was too new then no one would ever participate in the studies and we would never have new vaccines.

I would be interested if there was a way to study how many people would be vaccinated if mandated vs just educated and encouraged. I feel pretty strongly that there are a lot of people in America who will refuse the vaccine purely on the ground that someone is making them do it. I just don't know whether that amount of people outweigh the number who take it because they don't want to lose their job. I think force was always a bad call. I liked the idea of lotteries, more innovative positive encouragement idea to get people vaccinated.

past performance does not guarantee future returns...

Historically, the vast majority of complications from vaccinations happen relatively quickly after the vaccine is administered. The chance that there is some serious complication that is going to come out a year, 5 years, 10 years from now is exceedingly remote going by the data. I also think that medicine has advanced quite a bit such that based on the ingredients and understanding how biology and chemistry works that scientists have a pretty good idea of the risk levels of new vaccines but I know not everyone has that faith in current science. However I will also admit that I still worry about the potential unknowns of the vaccine I took even though I consider the fear irrational. Given that I totally get why people are hesitant about a new vaccine, it is an understandable reaction.

On that note though, the people who are the test subjects for these vaccines should be given a fair amount of credit. If everyone had the attitude of the vaccine was too new then no one would ever participate in the studies and we would never have new vaccines.

I would be interested if there was a way to study how many people would be vaccinated if mandated vs just educated and encouraged. I feel pretty strongly that there are a lot of people in America who will refuse the vaccine purely on the ground that someone is making them do it. I just don't know whether that amount of people outweigh the number who take it because they don't want to lose their job. I think force was always a bad call. I liked the idea of lotteries, more innovative positive encouragement idea to get people vaccinated.

Except lotteries didnt work. This was covered already.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Historically, the vast majority of complications from vaccinations happen relatively quickly after the vaccine is administered. The chance that there is some serious complication that is going to come out a year, 5 years, 10 years from now is exceedingly remote going by the data. I also think that medicine has advanced quite a bit such that based on the ingredients and understanding how biology and chemistry works that scientists have a pretty good idea of the risk levels of new vaccines but I know not everyone has that faith in current science. However I will also admit that I still worry about the potential unknowns of the vaccine I took even though I consider the fear irrational. Given that I totally get why people are hesitant about a new vaccine, it is an understandable reaction.

On that note though, the people who are the test subjects for these vaccines should be given a fair amount of credit. If everyone had the attitude of the vaccine was too new then no one would ever participate in the studies and we would never have new vaccines.

I would be interested if there was a way to study how many people would be vaccinated if mandated vs just educated and encouraged. I feel pretty strongly that there are a lot of people in America who will refuse the vaccine purely on the ground that someone is making them do it. I just don't know whether that amount of people outweigh the number who take it because they don't want to lose their job. I think force was always a bad call. I liked the idea of lotteries, more innovative positive encouragement idea to get people vaccinated.

have you read how long they have been working on mRNA vaccines and the previous success rate?
have you read what happened when they actually tried to use an mRNA vaccine?

Are there any "real life studies" which suggest contrary, that conservatives are open minded?

I don't see how everything I posted is purely academic, attitudes towards immigration isn't an academic only issue.

Youre confusing illegal aliens and legal immigration. Conservatives are all for legal immigration. And liberals support illegal immigration. Huge difference.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Except lotteries didnt work. This was covered already.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

several people reported taking vaxx because of the lottery
bruh, it works, lul