Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Tell us something we don't know!!!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/low-effo ... tudy-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A new study suggests that people’s first response tends to be one that reflects a more politically conservative view. Published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, it notes that conservatism is tied to “low-effort thought.”

The study suggests “that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.” In a statement released by the University of Arkansas, psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman said, “People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a first or fast response.”

In an email to The Huffington Post, Eidelman clarified that this conclusion does not imply that conservatives are intellectually lazy. “Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking,” he said.

From The Huffington Post:

For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory setting.

Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.

Alcohol isn’t solely to blame: “Keeping people from thinking too much…or just asking them to deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact people’s political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes political conservatism,” Eidelman said in the email.




"Sir, please give me your thoughts on the cancellation of the New Jersey bridge project."

"Um, um, well, uh...it has to do with niqqers, I know that!"

89Hen wrote:viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27175&p=636109#p606556

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=29841" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Boy, if that doesn't play into the holier-than-thou-we-know-better-than-you-whats-good-for-you-because-we're-smarter-than-everybody-else donk mentality.

AZGrizFan wrote:Boy, if that doesn't play into the holier-than-thou-we-know-better-than-you-whats-good-for-you-because-we're-smarter-than-everybody-else donk mentality.

Real clever, Sluggo.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Boy, if that doesn't play into the holier-than-thou-we-know-better-than-you-whats-good-for-you-because-we're-smarter-than-everybody-else donk mentality.

Real clever, Sluggo.

I've not met a donk yet who was just SURE their shit didn't stink.

Seems like some shrink runs off to HuffPo with a " study" like that every six months.

University of Arkansas, eh? Probably blew Bobby Petrino.

Ivytalk wrote:Seems like some shrink runs off to HuffPo with a " study" like that every six months.

University of Arkansas, eh? Probably blew Bobby Petrino.

Then got dumped off the back of a motorcycle.

AZGrizFan wrote:Boy, if that doesn't play into the holier-than-thou-we-know-better-than-you-whats-good-for-you-because-we're-smarter-than-everybody-else donk mentality.

Ahem. I believe the study helps prove that Conk thoughts are low order, Bruce. So, if the foo shits....

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Boy, if that doesn't play into the holier-than-thou-we-know-better-than-you-whats-good-for-you-because-we're-smarter-than-everybody-else donk mentality.

Ahem. I believe the study helps prove that Conk thoughts are low order, Bruce. So, if the foo shits....

“Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking,” he said.

As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.

This is because conservatives are trying to drink themselves into a stupor to forget, just for a few moments, what Obama has done to this once great nation.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Ahem. I believe the study helps prove that Conk thoughts are low order, Bruce. So, if the foo shits....

“Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking,” he said.

As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.

This is because conservatives are trying to drink themselves into a stupor to forget, just for a few moments, what Obama has done to this once great nation.

And, just what has he down to this once great nation? You're no less free than you were four years ago and your stock portfolio is probably fatter, Rovey. The guy is doing nothing less than trying very hard to reverse 30 years of discriminatory, unfair and abusive Conk rule.

Four more years.

BTW, where's W, Z?

Cap'n Cat wrote:
And, just what has he down to this once great nation? You're no less free than you were four years ago and your stock portfolio is probably fatter, Rovey. The guy is doing nothing less than trying very hard to reverse 30 years of discriminatory, unfair and abusive Conk rule.

If I thought you seriously wanted an answer to that question, I'd start the laundry list, but it'd just fall on deaf ears anyway...

Conks ridicule nuance.

The bit about alcohol is interesting, considering this recent study that shows that a light buzz can actually sharpen some cognitive abilities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... finds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe sharp-mindedness promotes political conservatism too?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
And, just what has he down to this once great nation? You're no less free than you were four years ago and your stock portfolio is probably fatter, Rovey. The guy is doing nothing less than trying very hard to reverse 30 years of discriminatory, unfair and abusive Conk rule.

If I thought you seriously wanted an answer to that question, I'd start the laundry list, but it'd just fall on deaf ears anyway...

You're right, I don't want a list, Z. It would be all conjecture on the part of Conkunists like you. The guy is doing a good job and is headed for a second term.

Enlighten us as to why none of your Conk superheroes are running again??????????? Please????

I'll wait.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Enlighten us as to why none of your Conk superheroes are running again??????????? Please????

So Mr. Einstein, what promotes what most American's believe, conservative spending, liberal social views.

Cap'n Cat wrote:The guy is doing a good job and is headed for a second term.

You're half right.

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:The guy is doing a good job and is headed for a second term.

You're half right.

Why is the guy headed for a second term, Hen?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: You're half right.

Why is the guy headed for a second term, Hen?

Romney is the republican's John Kerry.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: You're half right.

Why is the guy headed for a second term, Hen?

Incumbents have become tough to defeat in the White House. Three of last four have won. People just don't like change. Look at Obama. He ran his entire campaign on change and he's no different than anything we've seen in two decades. Throw in the fact that the R choices suck as much as Mondale, Gore and Kerry.

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Why is the guy headed for a second term, Hen?

Incumbents have become tough to defeat in the White House. Three of last four have won. People just don't like change. Look at Obama. He ran his entire campaign on change and he's no different than anything we've seen in two decades. Throw in the fact that the R choices suck as much as Mondale, Gore and Kerry.

Bullsh*t.

Maybe, just maybe, despite Conksteria, the guy is doing a good job. Lots of people like him, Hen. That you don't doesn't matter. People are comfortable with him.

If he was doing as poorly as you Conks make out, why is there no credible, rational, serious effort to throw him out???

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: Incumbents have become tough to defeat in the White House. Three of last four have won. People just don't like change. Look at Obama. He ran his entire campaign on change and he's no different than anything we've seen in two decades. Throw in the fact that the R choices suck as much as Mondale, Gore and Kerry.

Bullsh*t.

Maybe, just maybe, despite Conksteria, the guy is doing a good job. Lots of people like him, Hen. That you don't doesn't matter. People are comfortable with him.

If he was doing as poorly as you Conks make out, why is there no credible, rational, serious effort to throw him out???

Hen, Z, Tbag, Dobie....they're all fucking racists. They just didn't realize it till a black man became president.

Hen is probably the worst. Smarmy fuck.

D1B wrote:Hen, Z, Tbag, Dobie....they're all **** racists. They just didn't realize it till a black man became president.

Hen is probably the worst. Smarmy ****.

Says the second biggest bigot on CS.com

Gil Dobie wrote:

D1B wrote:Hen, Z, Tbag, Dobie....they're all **** racists. They just didn't realize it till a black man became president.

Hen is probably the worst. Smarmy ****.

Says the second biggest bigot on CS.com

How so, Gilmont?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Says the second biggest bigot on CS.com

How so, Gilmont?

You are the bigger brother.

Lumping people racist because they didn't vote for Obama is bigotry.