Knee-jerk partisanship is running amok these days. It seems that no matter what a Democratic politician says many Republicans reflexively disagree. And ditto for Democrats’ reflexes. Examples?

Republicans loved states’ rights when some states didn’t want Obamacare, and Democrats opposed states’ rights for the same reason (opposition to Obamacare).

Democrats loved states’ rights when some states wanted to allow sanctuary cities, and Republicans opposed states’ rights for the same reason (opposition to sanctuary cities).

Analyses of the fMRI data showed the policy-candidate stimuli generated significant neural activation in all of the areas of interest of their respondents’ brains. They found in particular that the incongruent stimuli activated all three regions of interest: the dorsal ACC and paracingulate, the insula and lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and the right amygdala.


They found that more liberal subjects showed greater activation in the ACC and left insula to incongruent versus congruent policies for ingroup (Democratic) candidates, but more conservative subjects showed greater ACC and left insula activation to incongruent versus congruent policies for outgroup (Democratic) candidates.


These results suggest that Democrats may be more likely to scrutinize their party’s candidates than Republicans are to scrutinize their own candidates. They may also mean that despite suggestions Republicans are more rigid in their political positions than Democrats, Republicans may actually be more open to liberal policies than Democrats are to conservative policies.

And, most importantly to me at least, they may mean that while knees are jerking some brain neurons are firing, too.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201802/how-politicians-statements-register-in-the-partisan-brain

I refuse to read about or accept voodoo psychology

There was a gallop poll in the late 90's that showed 18% of Americans believed the sun rose in America in the mornings.

I wonder how many of them are Democrats or inbred?

If you dont read it how do you know if it is 'voodoo' or not. This was a study of brain scans. Do you not go to doctors either?

If one were to look at the laws and policies enacted since the JFK assassination, they would begin to see a merger of the two parties, as well as, policies on both sides progressively getting more socialist in nature.

you're going to tell me that there are differences between Democrat voters brain and republican voters brain? particularly the dorsal ACC and paracingulate, the insula and lateral orbitofrontal cortex

what about Libertarians?
what about Marxists?
what about Socialists?
What about democrat socialists?
what about Communists?
What about Green party folks?

When is the report about Wall street financiers coming?

If I believe any of that crap I would need more than visit to my doctor and why you even mention if I visit my doctor?

Do you think I visit my doctor during election time?

Good Lord.

thats an interesting perspective. I agree as to their being overlap in a two party that splits a population of hundreds of millions into two, there are bound to be issues that individuals on each side agree or disagree with, because they are INDIVIDUALS first.

as to the other point, I have two questions to follow up

1. what do you consider as being 'socialist'?
2. do you consider 'socialist' to be a bad thing?

well, brain scans are anatomical science, not 'voodoo' for one

and as to why everything is not always covered all the time, which seems a recurring theme to every thing I post,, I do not have an answer, but i imagine it would be difficult for any one person or even one limited group to do....

While I dont speak for tattedone and you replied to him.

But your question about socialism what is it?

Depends on who you talk to for their definition.

As a right winger I accept Marx's version of what socialism is, a economic theory that advocates the means of production is controlled by the working class.

is socialism a bad thing? YES.

Socialism cannot work, will never work, no matter how many versions have been tried, from the workers revolution in the Paris Commune, Israeli's kibbutzes , communes in the 18th and 19th century , state socialism in various countries from the Soviet Union to China to Cuba, it doesn't work, why?

Because Central planning creates more problems than a market economy.

It sure hasn't worked in Venezuela. North Korea sure isn't a hotbed of prosperity. The USSR flopped. Cuba has been struggling for decades.

So tell me, what socialist country has been wildly successful?

I dont know what marker is used to measure a 'successful' country, let alone a 'wildly successful' one.

however, the question depends entirely upon what one is CONSIDERING to be socialist,

according to livescience, for instance

Communism differs from socialism, though the two have similarities. Both philosophies advocate economic equality and state ownership of various goods and services. However, socialism usually works through the existing democratic structures of capitalist countries. Almost all capitalist countries, in fact, have some socialist characteristics, like the public schools and Social Security program in the United States.


So I suppose I wonder why people feel that any socialist economy features are automatically bad. I would think that allowing ownership by both GOVERNMENT and the public would be the goal. Instead of putting all the economic eggs in one barrel, so to speak.

I dont know what marker is used to measure a 'successful' country, let alone a 'wildly successful' one.

however, the question depends entirely upon what one is CONSIDERING to be socialist,

according to livescience, for instance

Communism differs from socialism, though the two have similarities. Both philosophies advocate economic equality and state ownership of various goods and services. However, socialism usually works through the existing democratic structures of capitalist countries. Almost all capitalist countries, in fact, have some socialist characteristics, like the public schools and Social Security program in the United States.


So I suppose I wonder why people feel that any socialist economy features are automatically bad. I would think that allowing ownership by both GOVERNMENT and the public would be the goal. Instead of putting all the economic eggs in one barrel, so to speak.

It's the way the opposition work,
They'll do there hardest to disrupt the government and there policies at the expense of the country and people.

I think there's a lot more of the nature of international circumstances behind that, than there is anything to do with the parties actually "merging."

In fact, the rather EXTREME divergences going on around us right now, are likewise not due to the parties trying to "merge," either on purpose, or due to some hidden powerful overlord group.

The single biggest factor driving extreme refusal to cooperate right now, isn't the difference between the parties philosophy, it's the difference between the parties POLITICAL STRATEGIES.

In times past, more people responded positively to measured, conservative political messages, and recently, what drives people to the polls, is extreme antagonistic rhetoric.

As for the brain scans, as far as I have been able to read, we can't yet know WHAT people are thinking as their various brain centers become active. How do you tell the difference between someone who is scrambling to find a way to lie to themselves, and someone who is scrambling to push an agenda, if both use the same brain centers to perform those activities?

This thread made me laugh. If I ever get dementia, don't let me vote for a Democrat.

Democrats will thank you ...

wealthy, healthy, freedom and opportunity to succeed, decent infrastructure and healthcare




actually Communism according to their founder Marx isnt state ownership of the means of production, society owns the means of production .

Socialism is workers own the means of production and its the transitional stage from Capitalism to communism.

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism are all hybrids there is no such thing as a pure economic system




problem with socialism its known for central planning and with central planning you have economic inefficiencies caused by the abolishing the pricing mechanism which you find in capitalism and a market economy.

In socialism they say the workers are supposed to be in charge but you elites in charge or Bureaucrats which gives way to tyranny, interdependence, shortages and black markets?