People with lower emotional intelligence are more likely to hold right-wing views, study finds

Nov 2005
8,964
3,443
California
What "source" have you provided in this thread?
What "fact"?
You claim to be using things that you clearly do not.
Do you want a source that says PC is being used to destroy (America) Western civilization?
Without surprise, that is not what I asked you, is it.

You have made claims in this thread that you have been challenged to back up, and you cowardly ducked the challenge.
And then, when asked what have you provided in this thread, you refuse to be honest and give the truthful answer of "Not a damn thing".
Instead, you simply provide a link which has absolutely no relevance to this thread. :rolleyes:
 
Nov 2018
4,402
2,343
Inner Space
Isn't it the Left that continually scours the internet looking for anything to attack the Right with? Seems to me, TDS is one of those emotions that you can't control. So...BOOM, look to yourself when pointing fingers.
It is natural for a conservative to bristle at any criticism. What do YOU think are the weaknesses of conservative ideology?
Do you agree that it seems to attract a certain "typical" personality?
 
Nov 2018
4,402
2,343
Inner Space
The title is not misleading.

If I were to say "English Sheepdogs typically make good herding animals", intelligent people would recognize that the statement being made is not that all or most dogs typically make good herding animals.
The title says "People with lower emotional intelligence ..." For those who can successfully picture Venn diagrams, this in no way gives any intelligible understanding about right-wingers as a whole.



I agree 100% with the rest of your statements.

I think part of the problem is that there are more people with "lower emotional intelligence" who are speaking louder within the Republican party, and this should not be confused with a majority. Unfortunately, both sides do that where they start stereo-typing the louder voices onto the whole.
causation vs correlation is always confusing.
 
Likes: foundit66
Nov 2018
4,402
2,343
Inner Space
Look, typical of most conservatives, instead of actually providing arguments to show why their statement is true, just post a dumb one liner saying "you don't understand" while providing absolutely no argument to show you even understand what you are arguing. Proving once again you don't have any facts, any logic or reasoning to support your position and counter the facts presented in this thread
This observation is not surprising as there is a tendency toward anti-intellectualism, a belief that all is known that needs to be known, traditionalism, and suspicion of change as a threat among many conservatives in my experience.
 
Apr 2019
1,946
269
America
Without surprise, that is not what I asked you, is it.

You have made claims in this thread that you have been challenged to back up, and you cowardly ducked the challenge.
And then, when asked what have you provided in this thread, you refuse to be honest and give the truthful answer of "Not a damn thing".
Instead, you simply provide a link which has absolutely no relevance to this thread. :rolleyes:
I replied to post #89. PC is mentioned by the poster you quoted. I said I agreed with him. Try to follow the conversation.
 
Nov 2005
8,964
3,443
California
I replied to post #89. PC is mentioned by the poster you quoted. I said I agreed with him. Try to follow the conversation.
None of that is in dispute. There is no confusion about that.

I challenged you with the following:
What "source" have you provided in this thread?
What "fact"?
You claim to be using things that you clearly do not.​

To help you out with English comprehension, "provided" => PAST TENSE.
As I stated, the truthful answer to my challenge would be to say that you have provided no sources and no facts.
Instead, you responded by providing a brand new "source" which gave AN OPINION.

Again, although you will again refuse to respond to what is actually said, you obfuscated what I said.
You did try to tie it into something previously said, but as I pointed out in that earlier exchange you were clearly taking statements out of context in an attempt to derail the discussion even further.