Dunham scale of liberal disgust?


Too good not to post entirely, please give traffic to original site though. ‘Tis amazeballs, like.

Science is gradually confirming what anyone who pays attention to the way left-liberals live has known all along:

A wide range of brain regions contributed to the prediction of political ideology (Figure 3A), including those known from past work to be involved in the processing and interoception of disgust and other stimuli with negative affective valence, but also those involved in more basic aspects of attentive sensory processing: we found regions known to be involved in disgust recognition [17, 36, 37, 38] (e.g., insula, basal ganglia, and amygdala), perception of bodily signals [39] (e.g., insula), the experience of physical/social pain [40] or observing others in pain [41] (e.g., S2, insula, PAG, and thalamus), and emotion regulation [42] (e.g., DLPFC, insula, amygdala, and pre-SMA), along with regions involved in information integration [43] (e.g., thalamus and amygdala), attention [43, 44] (e.g., amygdala, IPL, FFG, STG/MTG), memory retrieval [44, 45] (e.g., hippocampus, amygdala, and IPL), and also inhibitory control [46] (e.g., IFG, DLPFC, and pre-SMA), perhaps to suppress innate responses. Although our results suggest that disgusting pictures evoke very different emotional processing in conservatives and liberals, it will take a range of targeted studies in the future to tease apart the separate contribution of each brain circuit.

We proposed that conservatives, compared to liberals, have greater negativity bias [13], which includes both disgusting and threatening conditions in our study. Our finding that only disgusting pictures, especially in the animal-reminder category, differentiate conservatives from liberals might be indicative of a primacy for disgust in the pantheon of human aversions, but it is also possible that this result is due to the fact that, compared to threat, disgust is much easier to evoke with visual images on a computer screen.

Translated from the jargon, what that means is that there is solid scientific grounds for believing that leftists are too stupid to understand potential threats and too filthy to be repulsed by disgusting things.

Which one hardly needs any scientific evidence to correctly conclude as simple observation of the behavior of most left-liberals is sufficient to prove the case beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt.

I had previously recommended that Lena Dunham be harpooned and processed for oil, but now I think that she may have some additional utility to science before her Innsmouth genes come to the fore and she shambles off to join the shoggoths deep under the sea. It seems to me that we could measure units of disgust in terms of a Dunham scale, similar to the Kelvin scale, with the null point absolute zero indicating a perfect Dunhamian left-liberal who is completely inert and incapable of being disgusted by anything except someone failing to toe the politically correct line du jour.

Cell article here

What caught my interest;

Recent work suggests that BOLD time-series data from a single stimulus can categorically differentiate healthy individuals from those diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (unpublished data).

The best data is, ironically, unpublished data.

The Discussion section is, as always, a laughriot of pure sarcasm for those who can read between the lines.

People tend to think that their political views are purely cognitive (i.e., rational). However, our results further support the notion that emotional processes are tightly coupled to complex and high-dimensional human belief systems [13], and such emotional processes might play a much larger role than we currently believe, possibly outside our awareness of its influence.


Several groups have suggested that people are born with certain dispositions and traits that influence the formation of their political beliefs [3, 4]. Also, several studies have shown that life history (e.g., [34]) and traumatic experiences [35] can affect political views.

Which side of the spectrum has more fuck-ups. Go on.

Although our results suggest that disgusting pictures evoke very different emotional processing in conservatives and liberals, it will take a range of targeted studies in the future to tease apart the separate contribution of each brain circuit.

Don’t forget pathological altruism.

Our finding that only disgusting pictures, especially in the animal-reminder category, differentiate conservatives from liberals might be indicative of a primacy for disgust in the pantheon of human aversions

dare you to say one is more evolved. Double dare.

Second, and relatedly, it is important also to know how individual differences in the capacity to regulate emotion [26], and the neural bases of that capacity, are related to political ideology.

One cannot. Symptoms include over-sensitivity, crying and being offended at literally everything.

what are the links between political ideology and other forms of disgust, such as moral disgust?

No such thing in the world of ‘tolerance’ and moral relativism.

 And, finally, the present study raises important questions about the possibility of, and obstacles to, understanding and cooperation across divides in political ideology. Would the recognition that those with different political beliefs from our own also exhibit different disgust responses from our own help us or hinder us in our ability to embrace them as coequals in democratic governance? Future work will be necessary to answer these important questions.

Translation: When we’ve found a way to diagnose the idiots, how can we stop them from dragging us all down?
Lololololol-ing into the sunset…

emotion mental illness disorder sensitive


Study shows teachers are stupid when it comes to … brains.

study here

I think it’s self-selecting.
Education majors have lower IQ.
For laughs, you should’ve asked whether they believe in IQ.

Teachers in the UK, Holland, Turkey, Greece and China were presented with seven so-called ‘neuromyths’ and asked whether they believe them to be true.

A quarter or more of teachers in the UK and Turkey believe a student’s brain would shrink if they drank less than six to eight glasses of water a day, while around half or more of those surveyed believe a student’s brain is only 10 per cent active and that children are less attentive after sugary drinks and snacks.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

Over 70 per cent of teachers in all countries wrongly believe a student is either left-brained or right-brained, peaking at 91 per cent in the UK.


And almost all teachers (over 90 per cent in each country) feel that teaching to a student’s preferred learning style — auditory, kinaesthetic or visual — is helpful, despite no convincing evidence to support this approach.

Couldn’t hurt though, that one. Individual learning styles do exist because each brain is different.

The new research from the University of Bristol, published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, calls for better communication between neuroscientists and educators.

…The report blames wishfulness, anxiety and a bias towards simple explanations as typical factors that distort neuroscientific fact into neuromyth.

It’s their politics.

Death to Urban Elves

As a LOTR fan, I disagree with the direction of this metaphor because the elves were superior to everyone else (in beauty, art, wisdom, power…)

Interesting thought experiment though, the soft-handed urban liberals will scurry from danger as the elves left Rivendell when Sauron closes in on everyone else (their former friends).


Spectator, 1828: The ‘Genuine Briton’ and the ‘Liberal’


I credit my love of the classics for being able to read this as easily as a modern broadsheet, but if you take it slow I promise it’s very funny.

” The disposition of a genuine Briton is to make

up his mind upon what he ought to do, and having once determined that, to adhere to his resolution with a fixedness of purpose, which more fre- quently proceeds to the length of obstinacy, than deviates into vacillation and uncertainty. Now this is a character quite opposite to that of the Liberals, and much to be preferred before it ; for while the Briton of the old school may possibly carry his principle to an extent which is not right, he of the new or Liberal school will most probably tumble through sheer weakness into what is wrong. In the Liberal there is a total absence of the sound healthy firmness, which is absolutely essential to eminent useful- ness – he yields this; he concedes that ; he compromises the other thing ; he

wi ‘nds, and twists, and hesitates ; and when he wants to accomplish a thing,

chooses rather to do it by a trick or stratagem, than by candour and plain dealing. You are never sure of him ; you are doubtful as to his object, and

quite uncertain as to the means he will adopt. Even his principles he yields

to circumstances, and lie is particularly deferential to a vague impalpable soMething, which he is pleased to call the spirit of the age,’ but which, on investigation, appears to be nothing more than the affected tone of the weak trash which the press pours forth in such quantity. Your Liberal has

no strong hold “f anything; he has cast away the anchors of the old law, and national feeling, and exclusive privileges of Britons, as mere prejudices, and useless shackles to his enlarged comprehension. He floats about upon the wide sea of the world’s opinion, and is blown hither and thither by every gust which may come from the various quarters of the globe. He neglects the interests of the people round about him, while he considers what may most promote the prosperity of the new kingdoms of the new world, and sacrifices the most important interests of his own country in a paroxysm of general philanthropy and universal benevolence. But in every thing he does, he is most anxious that he himself should appear ; he is not only of opinion that he knows better than all who have gone before him, but that the world should see that he is the person who has made the grand discovery that every one else was wrong ; and this he generally accomplishes, not in the ego hoe fe,,i fashion of Mr Cenning, but by getting some other disciple of the same schoe’ to beslobbei him with nauseous flattery, for which he on the next suitable occasion beslobbers his friend in return ; and thus, sickening effeminate praise: get forth into the newspapers, and these people get a name amongst the millmn. eta’, this time, however, no- thing solid is done ; your Lii.atral is the worst -tan of business in the world ; it is true. he seems busy, but it is in making speeches, and devising plans and complicated refinements upon what works well enedgh already. while the more arduous and important concerns of the State ate frequently neg- lected, because they afford no opportunity to display, or for shewing off the advantages of the new and improved system. To make amends. however, for the little he does, li^ is always ready to talk, or if you choose, to write you an essay, which is -nglish in nothing but its language, and not always even in that. His vanity is concerned in this, his name is in the mouths of men, as a speaker or an author, and his childish desire for popular at- .tention towards himself is gratified. * * * * The Liberals have sunk, we hope never to rise again…..’

Study: Liberals love being special snowflakes, are actually still sheep

study coverage

This is an important study imo. Note the anti-conservative slant too? Have to get it in there.

“Contrary to stereotype, conservatives are not more accepting of authority than are liberals. But they are less concerned that their opinions appear unique. [see: Tumblr]

However, the political right’s valuation of consensus over uniqueness might explain why the Tea Party had more success than Occupy Wall Street. “Conservatives’ stronger perceptions of consensus with like-minded others might give them an edge in mobilizing their ranks during the incipient stages of forming a movement,” [DS: they can organize themselves because they are useful to society and have real jobs]

People make judgments about sexual orientation based on stereotypes, and previous research has found that conservatives are more likely to lean on stereotypes about masculinity and femininity when making such judgments than are liberals. [as opposed to…?]

Stern’s findings might seem to back up the stereotypes of conservatives as conformists and liberals as free spirits. But a second study by another group of researchers found the two sides are not so different, after all — at least when authority is concerned. [Liberals replaced God with Government.]

I had stumbled upon a kind of deference to authority that forbids asking questions,” Frimer told Live Science. “It was just like the U.S. culture war, only with left and right reversed.”

This time, the answers revealed that most people accept authority, as long as the authority is on their side. [also: water is wet]

“When the authority demanding obedience is a liberal advocate, liberals are the ones who demand obedience,” Frimer said. “When the authority has no ideological leaning, liberals and conservatives have similar feelings about obedience.”

No other studies had picked up on this shared love of authority for a simple reason: When people on both the left and right hear “authority,” their brains substitute “conservative authority.” [they are the ones with boundaries]

“In the ongoing culture war, it often feels like the other side is biased, corrupt or even crazy,” he said. “Liberals often struggle to understand [everything] why conservatives seem to blindly follow the orders of their leaders. These new findings suggest that liberals may do the same. Deep down, liberals and conservatives may be more similar than they appear at first.””

Conversion efforts, anyone?


The strange death of the socially conservative man

article, good site;

“Are there any conservative men left? Oh, for sure there are Conservative Men. They are ten a penny in the think-tanks and down Westminster way, but they are not really conservative. They say things to you like: ‘I am economically conservative, but socially liberal’.

This is funny; because they say it with exactly the same smug look you get from the card-carrying Guardian-reading liberals. Well here is some news for you men: if you are not socially conservative, you are not Conservative.

If you say, I am economically conservative, but socially liberal, that just means are in favour of ruthless individualism and do not see why you should hand over any of your hard-earned cash to anyone else who may have made a poor personal decision or suffered from some bad luck. But that just makes you selfish – so you can wipe that smug look off your face.

Let’s take what every Conservative should be fighting to the death to protect: the married family. The married family, as I have written many times before, is a pretty lean economic machine….”

*spits* Cowards.

Article: Liberal Sex Education and Rational Opposition

article here;

Sexual Education is often a go-to topic used by liberals to attack conservatives as being unreasonable and uneducated. The cliché of the sexually lacking ignorant Christian opposition is well known. It is equally accepted as truth that people, in general, were repressed and unhappy until liberal sexual liberation flooded the cultural mindset and freed them all. The argument over abstinence – only education implies that the only choice parents have is to accept whatever sexual education is presented or hope their kids don’t have sex. The problem, however, is not in the nature of sexual education, but the agenda behind it.

In a piece mocking conservative opposition to sexual education beginning in kindergarten, Thinkprogress.org defended the program stating, “…students will receive age-appropriate information about wellness, anatomy, puberty, and sexual health that’s tailored for every grade.” This is used to demonstrate that clearly conservatives are being irrational about the whole thing. Why would anyone oppose discussing wellness, puberty and sexual health that are “appropriate” for each grade? What does modern psychology think appropriate is? Psychology Today, in an article titled Is Your Child’s Sexual Behavior Normal? states, “…the vast majority of children, from a young age, derive enjoyment from genital manipulation… As long as children are nurtured through this time and taught to cherish their sexuality without flaunting or exposing it indiscriminately, it can be a healthy experience for the child.” Stopitnow.org, a website reporting to prevent sexual abuse of children, openly discusses children under age 5 enjoying sexual activity with peers.

The same Psychology Today magazine defines pedophilia as a combination of abnormal sex hormones and possibly experiencing sexual abuse as a child. It even implies witnessing sexuality may cause the potential pedophile to imitate. It opines, “The prognosis for pedophilia is difficult to determine. For pedophiles, these longstanding sexual fantasies about children can be very difficult to change.” At no point does the liberal mindset behind both concepts connect the dots to see how aggressively asserting children hold valid and equal – to – adult standards of sexuality and pedophilia could be associated.

As Breeanne Howe discusses in an article, Planned Parenthood recently engaged in discussing Sadomasochism, bondage and other “kinky sex” with a young girl. While there has been outrage over this specific and controversial event, in general liberalism has no moral opposition to the concept. Writing in 2012 about the book Fifty Shades of Grey, Debby Herbenick, a sexual health educator at the Kinsey Institute, defended BDSM(Bondage/Discipline/Dominance/Submission/Sadism/Masochism) stating: “Like many, many other sexual behaviors, BDSM is part of a normative sexual experience that feels healthy and enjoyable to many people[.]”

Dan Savage, a well-known liberal sex advice columnist tweeted in response to Breeanne Howe’s post: “@breeannehowe seeking out kinky sex in the absence of info about consent, reality vs. fantasy, etc. That can have disastrous consequences.” and  “Some young people are into BDSM. Shouldn’t they have access to info about safe BDSM practices?” Just as Richard Dawkins stated in 2013 that his own sexual contact with an adult when he was a child was not harmful [DS: ???!] and described the perpetrator as expressing “mild pedophilia”, Savage tweets in defense of Planned Parenthood stating: “…some kids are kinky. If you talked to kinksters you would hear from kids who were tying themselves up at 13…” [DS: No. Anecdotes aren’t evidence either.]

The driving issue is not whether adults should participate in BDSM or if it is right or wrong. It is ironic that the “rape culture” obsessed left would be so enthusiastic about sexual practices that are driven by the domination and intentional application of pain to the sexual partner often involving violent and humiliating actions. But, as in all consensual sexual activity, freedom does not restrict this with adults. The underlying problem is that the acceptance of this activity as being part of adult sexuality is not enough for liberal thinkers. Because liberals focus on “educating” adults on the possibilities of sexuality, they assume dominion over children in the same area. This is what conservatives oppose.

Sexual education is always described as teaching kids about their bodies, diseases, protection and healthy sexuality, but as we can see liberals define those terms differently than an average person might. The agenda liberalism promotes is the idea that sexuality is fluid, amoral and absolutely natural in all of its forms. Children experience sexuality early and should be taught to embrace it fully without question. Parents should encourage exploration and as long as everyone is fully knowledgeable and protected the experiences thereafter will be wonderful and healthy. To deny children access to this is to set them up for dangerous experimentation, exploitation and emotional damage. The assumption is that because liberal thinking people view the world exclusively through sexuality, all people do and therefore everyone must be provided the fullest access to liberal sexual theory as an absolute.

The key piece that is missing, however, is personal responsibility. Where is the individual in all of this? Are we purely driven by various sexual impulses that can only be expressed through mindless action? Assuming every single theory on sexual development by liberal psychology is true, why are we bound to it? Liberalism seems to define itself by its lack of control over its environment.  In order to survive one must be surrounded by warnings, labels, education, protections and emotional support.  There is simply no concept that a person can choose differently.

Underlying the belief of child sexuality, pedophilia, and teenagers engaging in BDSM is that they simply have no other option available to them and must simply do the best with what they have been programmed with. Sexual education has always been driven by the demand that “kids will have sex anyway!”  In 2011 the Heritage Foundation linked to an article about teen sexual behavior stating: “The toll that early sexual activity takes on youths’ physical and emotional well-being and the association of abstinence with greater academic achievement all signal the importance of promoting the upward trend of abstinence through family, community, and public policy.” It also concluded that “…numerous studies have documented the impact that parents can have on their children’s sexual behavior. Youths whose parents discuss the consequences of sexual activity and monitor them more closely are less likely to be sexually active, and teens who feel that their parents would strongly disapprove of their becoming sexually active are less likely to contract a sexually transmitted infection.”

It is important to recognize that if a young person respects themselves and is actively building their future they are less likely to take risks or allow themselves to be devalued. Abstinence is not about denying a person sexuality, it is about empowering a person to choose sexuality with purpose. We are free to explore sexuality as we choose, but why can’t that include experiencing sex in a meaningful or spiritual way? Young people have the opportunity to define their entire lives based on how they view themselves in the present. Why do we assume sexuality is the only lens they have available to them? [Control.] Conservatives do not oppose sexual education, they just simply do not want their children, or children in general, exposed to the liberal version of it. Young people deserve to be more than the sum of their sexual impulses.”

Deny the teen pregnancy rate.
If you get ’em young, they’ll vote in welfare checks. Or consequence-free abortions. Abortions aren’t factored into pregnancy stats because then it’s too obvious.



The essence of liberalism: the Cheerleader effect and self-esteem


“It caught everyone by surprise, how successful liberalism has been.

I should clarify: liberalism is successful at taking over societies. It is not successful at making them thrive. In fact, it tends to destroy them and leave behind burnt shells with third-world levels of social order, hygiene, corruption and morality.

In other words, liberalism is a successful illusion and motivator, but doesn’t work so well in reality. In contrast to what your television says, reality does not have a liberal bias, because if it did, all those liberal republics would be doing well.

Instead we have disaster. ”

Society doesn’t tolerate you? We do, because we’re so rich and powerful that we can afford to like everyone and accept everyone. Those who need to limit their social groups to functional people only aren’t making it rain like we are!

The Human Conceit

It’s like a social justice stereotype before they started labelling themselves ecowarriors.
If there’s any justice in the world, these social butterflies will die from chronic conditions caused by backbreaking factory work where their inane repetition is a valuable asset.

Article on the future of humanity.

Titular term is personal label, derived from philosophy but used by others too, see here: http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2013/07/the-human-conceit.html and it’s also known by other terms including anthropocentrism aka why monkeys are better than dogs.