Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

[Alceste]

There is some pleasure but little reality in comparing one country to another, with the eyes and ears of a native of either.

Canada Is a complex country of at least three peoples.. The French the English and the native populations. None of them have any good reason to love the other.
However they are learning to get along.
In the process they have ended up rather more with the attitudes of the European than the American.

The same applies to the ownership of arms. They Like Europe (including the UK) Know That guns are not the answer to anything. If you need one for hunting fine, but they have no place amongst towns people. This is difficult to achieve, but worth the effort.

Exactly. There are so many complex differences between any country and any other that comparisons based on statistics alone can be very misleading. (As misleading as you want them to be.)

Having travelled to 17 countries myself, I would never presume to sum up any country's collective attitude about any subject using only a handful of statistics.

But that doesn't mean you don't very a sense of things from being there and talking to people. Ozzies like rugby and recreational drugs. Cornish folks aren't particularly fond of immigrants (especially Polish ones). The Irish aren't very fond of the English. Americans are generally confused about what universal health care is. The French don't like anybody but the French. Moroccans don't approve of alcohol, etc.

Oh yeah, and Canadians are pretty relaxed. :beach:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Exactly. There are so many complex differences between any country and any other that comparisons based on statistics alone can be very misleading. (As misleading as you want them to be.)

Or as misleading as you wish them to be without knowing them:

Arguing with statistics is a fool's game. They will tell you whatever you want to hear.

You use statistics when it suits you, as I've shown. And you've mocked those who dismiss quantitative analysis the way you did yourself. And when others argued for their postions, you demanded that they provide statistics:

I'm not seeing it - you haven't provided any support for your theory that women are having unprotected sex freely and having an abortion every time they conceive. Where are your statistics for women having 30 + abortions?

Having travelled to 17 countries myself, I would never presume to sum up any country's collective attitude about any subject using only a handful of statistics.

You have demanded from others that they provide statistics. You have asked for authoritative sources. You have attacked the views of those you don't agree with via the use of statistics and applied mathematics.

However, when someone actually responds with what you ask for, all of a sudden these don't matter.

But that doesn't mean you don't very a sense of things from being there and talking to people.

This thread began with political views and the brain. The vast majority of "being here or there" comes from before you were alive, and is in texts you can't even read. But you've been in many places in your life. You think that even if you lived to be well beyond 100 you're subjective experience would mean anything compared to the actual research you have demanded others to provide? Or that because you've been here or there your condescending attitude is warranted?

Ozzies like rugby and recreational drugs. Cornish folks aren't particularly fond of immigrants (especially Polish ones). The Irish aren't very fond of the English. Americans are generally confused about what universal health care is. The French don't like anybody but the French. Moroccans don't approve of alcohol, etc.

"etc." In other words, you've distilled vast cultural diversities in accordance with political and national demarcations, and made sweeping generalizations in the process.

You havae rhetoric, sure. I'll wait for the evidence you demand of others.

 

[Alceste]

Or as misleading as you wish them to be without knowing them:



You use statistics when it suits you, as I've shown. And you've mocked those who dismiss quantitative analysis the way you did yourself. And when others argued for their postions, you demanded that they provide statistics:




You have demanded from others that they provide statistics. You have asked for authoritative sources. You have attacked the views of those you don't agree with via the use of statistics and applied mathematics.

However, when someone actually responds with what you ask for, all of a sudden these don't matter.


This thread began with political views and the brain. The vast majority of "being here or there" comes from before you were alive, and is in texts you can't even read. But you've been in many places in your life. You think that even if you lived to be well beyond 100 you're subjective experience would mean anything compared to the actual research you have demanded others to provide? Or that because you've been here or there your condescending attitude is warranted?



"etc." In other words, you've distilled vast cultural diversities in accordance with political and national demarcations, and made sweeping generalizations in the process.

You havae rhetoric, sure. I'll wait for the evidence you demand of others.

I didn't demand anything from you. You just jumped in there making nonsensical claims about a country you've never been to. Basing those claims on statistics was your choice.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I didn't demand anything from you.

I didn't say you did:

You have demanded from others that they provide statistics.

It case you missed or forgot, I showed that here:

REALLY!? You've used the statistics to understand your own country:

You've relied on them to judge the US (and attacked someone who suggested that statistics just "tell you what you want to hear" in the process):

You've even used them on topics related to the one under discussion:

You just jumped in there making nonsensical claims about a country you've never been to.

Canada is not as I depict it? Lol. I've lived in four provinces and traveled extensively through the rest. I've also been to the US, so I'm in a reasonably good position to compare our cultures.

You'd say your in a good position to judge the cultures of the Aboriginal peoples in Canada? How about the Native Americans in the US? I'm doing what you do when it suits you (even to describe Canada), and what (again) you have mocked others for ignoring.

Basing those claims on statistics was your choice.

It was. Because what's the point of subjective experience

when divorced from comparison with actual scientific research?

And, as you point out,

you can just dismiss the whole notion of facts, research and analysis and stick to simplistic, vague "expert opinions"

or one can rely on statistis, analysis, data, etc. In this case, the "expert opinion" is you having lived in some places. Of course, living there hasn't stopped you from using statistics to describe Canada, the US, or Norway, at other times. And the "vague" part of your "expert opinion" is how it can inform you about things that you cannot know from experience, as no matter how much you travel or live in different places, you will not experience most of what happens anywhere and will always be relying on subjective evaluation that is necessarily biased.

Are you really saying that your subjective opinion, based on your experiences, is so much greater than "simplistic, vague, 'expert opinions'" that you yourself can "just dismiss...research and analysis"? Or is it just easier to claim a special access to knowledge of crime trends, dynamics, statistcs, & data of both the US and Canada and elsewhere because you understand the "cultures" of these countries? (I'm also still eager to know how you are equating cultures and countries when you talk about understanding cultures)

 

[Alceste]

Sorry, legion, I can't make sense of your post. The way you've cut up my quotes makes them and therefore your responses to them meaningless to me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry, legion, I can't make sense of your post. The way you've cut up my quotes makes them and therefore your responses to them meaningless to me.

They are your posts. They are you using statistics to make arguments. I provided the links, so you can view the entire posts if you wish, as can everyone. Your attitude about statistics here is contradicted by your own use and your own dismissal of those who appeal to authorities rather than science.

If, as you say, your own words in your own posts are meaningless, despite the fact that I have quoted portions but also provided links to your entire posts, fine. That still leaves the questions I asked.

I have asked you about how you are equating countries and cultures.

I have asked why you believe your subjective experience is more important when it comes to things that you haven't experienced, such as the history of legislature before you were alive, or the mentality of gang membership, or the actual crime that has occured that you weren't around for.

You have stated:

Exactly. There are so many complex differences between any country and any other that comparisons based on statistics alone can be very misleading. (As misleading as you want them to be.)

Yet you have used statistics yourself to describe Norway. So in what way does your personal, subjective experience, which is necessarily biased by your opinions and worldview, mean that analysis of criminal activity, mentality, motivations, and trends should be trumped because you've travelled to places?

You have, for example, cited WHO as a reputable source. The authors of such reports do not generally speaking visit the countries they talk about. They get data and analyze. What makes your biases superior to data analysis? If your "statistics can be manipulated" attitude is the reason, then one would have to ask why you have dismissed others who have said so (I quoted you doing so, so you can see for yourself)? And what about my use of statistics, gathered by (among others) Canadian groups, WHO, and canadian researchers, is inaccurate.

The reason "statistics" can show anything is through misuse. This can be pointed out using logic and analysis. Not by reference to personal experience. You've said as much yourself.

 

[Alceste]

Legion, this is not a debate or a discussion. This type of nonsense is boring for everyone, and I'm no exception.

I'll just reiterate that Canadians are pretty relaxed and liberal compared to Americans and leave it at that.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Legion, this is not a debate or a discussion. This type of nonsense is boring for everyone, and I'm no exception.

I'll just reiterate that Canadians are pretty relaxed and liberal compared to Americans and leave it at that.

But relaxed is bad. That means feeling good and that's librul soshalism.

 

[Alceste]

But relaxed is bad. That means feeling good and that's librul soshalism.

...She read, while unwinding beside the vegetable garden with a glass of cheap white wine.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

...She read, while unwinding beside the vegetable garden with a glass of cheap white wine.

Ahhhhh! That's New Ageism Marxism! We need to be stressed out and kept under control, dammit!