HuffPo is at it again

Jonathan Bishop
On April 9, it published a piece that discussed a pseudo-psychological study, where the results reportedly demonstrated that conservatives utilize "low-level" thinking when engaging the political sphere. This followed up a previous piece that stated conservatives, generally, are of lower intelligence than those on the left.

According to the "study," researchers "tested" people in a bar, and later, in a lab. Distractions, they said, made people more receptive to conservative thought.

This supposed study is nothing more than a method for promoting what is already a corrupt and debased form of "thought."

First, it is incredibly flippant for a group of "scientists" -- as well as the Huffington Post -- to be so dismissive of adherents to a particular philosophy. A bar, for instance, is not a controlled environment. And they did not publish what kinds of questions they asked. A man who is having a few drinks with friends will likely only give cursory responses to the "scientist." But such people do not understand this -- for the left, as it were, people can be easily grouped into categories. The rubes deeply imbibing in drink, then, are the "conservatives," while the abstainers -- those urbane sophisticates -- are the enlightened liberals. What is amusing about that is this:  those drinking demonstrate that they are willing to engage with those around them. They are serious about social interaction. And thus, they are open; they have deeper connections with their fellow man. The abstainers are shy, reserved, and guarded. Alcohol, to them, likely is an inhibitor. Thus, they truly are the leftists, as they would likely be the same people who would have instituted prohibition, which was such a high accomplishment of "progressive" thinking.

The study is flawed. One would think that its publication would be laughed off, as it is extremely subjective.

And second, what, then, do said researchers make of great thinkers like Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton, George Washington, Leo Strauss, Abraham Lincoln, and Cicero? And what about William F. Buckley and his son Chris, who was referred to by Tom Wolfe -- another right-of-center writer -- as the preeminent satirist of his generation?

Or even current commentators like George Will:  I am sure that he would be aghast to find himself consider a low-level, unintelligent thinker.

It would be unnecessary to continue. I think I have already demonstrated the arrogance of ignoring the accomplishments of such prominent people.

The Left operates in groupthink. And it is they who demonstrate low-level thinking:  everything, to them, exists in the realm of identity politics. They ignore history:  why else would they unceasingly desire the establishment of a utopian state?

Their politics -- and thought -- exist in the impossible. And the impossible and the idealistic belong to the immature -- which, of course, shows that they never fully developed the means for serious, sober thought. For the Left believes that one can do whatever he wants -- without scruple, without regard to others.

But the Left is further attempting to shift the culture away from conservatism. Leftism, which constitutes a rejection of all that came before it and, as such, is low-level and unintelligent, cannot survive as a stand-alone way of thinking. Rather, it must continuously work to discredit its opposition.

It is why leftism is an ideology, rather than a philosophy:  there is no thought required. One must simply subscribe to its tenets.

But this article also shows that modern psychology has become a kind of junk science that relies on bogus "studies" in order to produce results that swing in the direction of a certain political affiliation. None of these studies tell something about the soul, which is why psychology was originally intended to do. It was a way to examine the intrinsic.

Now, it does none of that. Instead, it wishes to create pathologies out of undesirable or disagreeable aspects of the human condition -- psychologists, it should be noted, are mostly left-wing. Or, darker still, it hopes to turn the entirety of what it means to be human into some sort of disorder.

And, because of this, we have the influx of the popular psychologist -- those who, despite any sort of training or study, hurl "diagnoses" at family, friends, co-workers. Such behavior is aided and abetted by television networks like TLC and E and Discovery.

It doesn't take much thought to denounce one's opponents as "low-level" thinkers. Quite the contrary -- it is something that is quick and painless and brief. It turns people into caricatures, cartoons -- which is, by the way, demonstrative of a lack of effort to seriously engage, to think deeply.

But here is the problem:  such caricatures spread. And soon they are believed.

From the John Ford film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

And thus, we have the modern state of affairs.

Excuse me:  I need a drink.

On April 9, it published a piece that discussed a pseudo-psychological study, where the results reportedly demonstrated that conservatives utilize "low-level" thinking when engaging the political sphere. This followed up a previous piece that stated conservatives, generally, are of lower intelligence than those on the left.

According to the "study," researchers "tested" people in a bar, and later, in a lab. Distractions, they said, made people more receptive to conservative thought.

This supposed study is nothing more than a method for promoting what is already a corrupt and debased form of "thought."

First, it is incredibly flippant for a group of "scientists" -- as well as the Huffington Post -- to be so dismissive of adherents to a particular philosophy. A bar, for instance, is not a controlled environment. And they did not publish what kinds of questions they asked. A man who is having a few drinks with friends will likely only give cursory responses to the "scientist." But such people do not understand this -- for the left, as it were, people can be easily grouped into categories. The rubes deeply imbibing in drink, then, are the "conservatives," while the abstainers -- those urbane sophisticates -- are the enlightened liberals. What is amusing about that is this:  those drinking demonstrate that they are willing to engage with those around them. They are serious about social interaction. And thus, they are open; they have deeper connections with their fellow man. The abstainers are shy, reserved, and guarded. Alcohol, to them, likely is an inhibitor. Thus, they truly are the leftists, as they would likely be the same people who would have instituted prohibition, which was such a high accomplishment of "progressive" thinking.

The study is flawed. One would think that its publication would be laughed off, as it is extremely subjective.

And second, what, then, do said researchers make of great thinkers like Edmund Burke, Roger Scruton, George Washington, Leo Strauss, Abraham Lincoln, and Cicero? And what about William F. Buckley and his son Chris, who was referred to by Tom Wolfe -- another right-of-center writer -- as the preeminent satirist of his generation?

Or even current commentators like George Will:  I am sure that he would be aghast to find himself consider a low-level, unintelligent thinker.

It would be unnecessary to continue. I think I have already demonstrated the arrogance of ignoring the accomplishments of such prominent people.

The Left operates in groupthink. And it is they who demonstrate low-level thinking:  everything, to them, exists in the realm of identity politics. They ignore history:  why else would they unceasingly desire the establishment of a utopian state?

Their politics -- and thought -- exist in the impossible. And the impossible and the idealistic belong to the immature -- which, of course, shows that they never fully developed the means for serious, sober thought. For the Left believes that one can do whatever he wants -- without scruple, without regard to others.

But the Left is further attempting to shift the culture away from conservatism. Leftism, which constitutes a rejection of all that came before it and, as such, is low-level and unintelligent, cannot survive as a stand-alone way of thinking. Rather, it must continuously work to discredit its opposition.

It is why leftism is an ideology, rather than a philosophy:  there is no thought required. One must simply subscribe to its tenets.

But this article also shows that modern psychology has become a kind of junk science that relies on bogus "studies" in order to produce results that swing in the direction of a certain political affiliation. None of these studies tell something about the soul, which is why psychology was originally intended to do. It was a way to examine the intrinsic.

Now, it does none of that. Instead, it wishes to create pathologies out of undesirable or disagreeable aspects of the human condition -- psychologists, it should be noted, are mostly left-wing. Or, darker still, it hopes to turn the entirety of what it means to be human into some sort of disorder.

And, because of this, we have the influx of the popular psychologist -- those who, despite any sort of training or study, hurl "diagnoses" at family, friends, co-workers. Such behavior is aided and abetted by television networks like TLC and E and Discovery.

It doesn't take much thought to denounce one's opponents as "low-level" thinkers. Quite the contrary -- it is something that is quick and painless and brief. It turns people into caricatures, cartoons -- which is, by the way, demonstrative of a lack of effort to seriously engage, to think deeply.

But here is the problem:  such caricatures spread. And soon they are believed.

From the John Ford film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

And thus, we have the modern state of affairs.

Excuse me:  I need a drink.