Policy being driven by science, risk tolerance (1 Viewer)

So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

i would say that 'conservatism' has had a back and forth between science & philosophy since the moral majority took over the party

this happened before with liberals and civil/equal rights, when socio/economic science did not really support a push for progressive policies - at least in the short term

but as i've argued a few times, Rs no longer even has a philosophy it follows - it is almost entirely an 'anti-lib' position. aside from the 2nd amendment, there doesn't seem to be a stated positions that Rs are FOR - every position they hold requires a restriction on another entities rights or self-identity

UncleTrvlingJim said:

So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

Click to expand...

Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.

Beach Friends said:

Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.

Click to expand...

what field does Tucker Carlson work in?

GMRfellowtraveller said:

what field does Tucker Carlson work in?

Click to expand...

I know you are doing the best you can.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

Click to expand...

A great deal of conservatives are more likely to believe that an invisible sky man whose half-human son died 2,000 years ago will save them better than any 'science' can. That would seem to be opposite to your theory that they "require a much higher threshold of proof" because they've been taught to ignore "proof" and focus instead on "faith."

Non-religious conservatives generally just don't care about anyone outside of themselves and those immediately around them. If me and my immediate family and close friends are fine, nothing needs to change. "It's just the flu, I'm not old and I'm not going to die so I should be able to eat in a restaurant." "I'll be dead by 2050 so why should I be inconvenienced by climate change?" They generally don't believe that people working together as a society can improve anything (hence the complete revulsion to anything they can call "socialism"). They elect leaders destined to fail and when they fail say "yep, told you government can't work!!!!"

Beach Friends said:

Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.

Click to expand...

So, generally I agree that the media is sensationalist and there is a lot to be desired when it comes to science reporting, but in all cases it's pretty easy to find the actual raw data.

And to be clear, I don't think we need to just whole-heartedly do whatever experts tell us without questioning. But it generally seems to me to be advisable to take what they are saying pretty seriously.

I don't think this used to be the case. One of the things that drove me from the Republican party was a stronger anti-science bent and a turn towards populism. There used to be more of a stronger environmental movement in the Republican party for example -- different solutions presented, but general agreement on the basic facts. That seems to have changed.

GMRfellowtraveller said:

what field does Tucker Carlson work in?

Click to expand...

Entertainment - the only one that matters.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

So, generally I agree that the media is sensationalist and there is a lot to be desired when it comes to science reporting, but in all cases it's pretty easy to find the actual raw data.

And to be clear, I don't think we need to just whole-heartedly do whatever experts tell us without questioning. But it generally seems to me to be advisable to take what they are saying pretty seriously.

I don't think this used to be the case. One of the things that drove me from the Republican party was a stronger anti-science bent and a turn towards populism. There used to be more of a stronger environmental movement in the Republican party for example -- different solutions presented, but general agreement on the basic facts. That seems to have changed.

Click to expand...

The way the climate change issue has been politicized has not helped. Example, the Green New Deal. If people don't want it to be seen as a power grad, stick to the issue and don't throw in side issues such as addressing the "gender pay gap," which in itself is a highly debatable issue.

Sorry for the add on graphics, but there is a point there.

Beach Friends said:

The way the climate change issue has been politicized has not helped. Example, the Green New Deal. If people don't want it to be seen as a power grad, stick to the issue and don't throw in side issues such as addressing the "gender pay gap," which in itself is a highly debatable issue.

Click to expand...

I think the resistance to climate change is actually driving people to adopt more extreme stances.

But that's also besides the point. Allowing other people to define your stance should not be desirable.

I hate to have to point this out, but it was the Democratic party that brought us a candidate who declared in a debate on national television that he would ensure that transgender women had access to free abortions. And the audience applauded with approval.

Kind of hard to make the case that the Democratic party is the party of science in light of such.

Beach Friends said:

Sorry for the add on graphics, but there is a point there.

Click to expand...

? That a reporter on March 19th had a different take on Covid-19 than a different reporter had on February 1st?

Beach Friends said:

I hate to have to point this out, but it was the Democratic party that brought us a candidate who declared in a debate on national television that he would ensure that transgender women had access to free abortions. And the audience applauded with approval.

Kind of hard to make the case that the Democratic party is the party of science in light of such.

Click to expand...

Ummm... that's a pretty poor example there. It's pretty easy to see that Castro just misspoke in that instance. You could accuse him of pandering, but it would be hard to make the case that he believes that a trans-woman would ever need an abortion.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

Ummm... that's a pretty poor example there. It's pretty easy to see that Castro just misspoke in that instance. You could accuse him of pandering, but it would be hard to make the case that he believes that a trans-woman would ever need an abortion.

Click to expand...

You would think, but the audience lapped it up.

Why did he even need to say that in the first place? If you are going to have free abortions, what difference would it make if it was a transgender man (assuming that is what he actually meant) seeking treatment?

I think the bigger issue is that it is not really clear he misspoke. That's how crazy people have become. It's not doing anyone any good - perhaps especially the people who are actually dealing with those issues.

Beach Friends said:

You would think, but the audience lapped it up.

Why did he even need to say that in the first place? If you are going to have free abortions, what difference would it make if it was a transgender man (assuming that is what he actually meant) seeking treatment?

I think the bigger issue is that it is not really clear he misspoke. That's how crazy people have become. It's not doing anyone any good - perhaps especially the people who are actually dealing with those issues.

Click to expand...

So, I watched that clip afterwards, and I think it seemed clear that everyone deserves medical care. It seemed more like a pandering moment to me, to show that he was in favor of providing medical services to transgender and non-binary people, and that's how the audience took it.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

So, I watched that clip afterwards, and I think it seemed clear that everyone deserves medical care. It seemed more like a pandering moment to me, to show that he was in favor of providing medical services to transgender and non-binary people, and that's how the audience took it.

Click to expand...

I hope we don't have to struggle through whether we have seen some equally odd science denying behavior, such as people throwing fits because someone made cupcakes with vagina shaped icing on top for national women's day because ---- not all women have vaginas. Same with the pink hats.

And the outcry was so loud that the targets of the fury had to apologize.

Beach Friends said:

I hate to have to point this out, but it was the Democratic party that brought us a candidate who declared in a debate on national television that he would ensure that transgender women had access to free abortions. And the audience applauded with approval.

Kind of hard to make the case that the Democratic party is the party of science in light of such.

Click to expand...

So when the Saints are up by 50 on the Falcons and the 3rd string qb ad backup center have a bad exchange and the ball rolls through the end zone for a safety- you think that means the Saints lost the game?