We make the point here that Conservatives argue logically, and Liberals argue emotionally and socially. This difference in cognitive styles can be seen on MRI’s, and manifests in our dialog. Conservatives try to convince an audience that they are right, by citing facts. Liberals try to amass support for their position, by portraying the Conservative as an enemy, or a member of an out-group to be shunned.
The recent push for an Assault Weapons Ban has produced the following arguments. The advocate for gun bans owns a gun (which in-groups himself). Those who oppose an Assault Weapons ban are extremists (which out-groups them). If you need more than X rounds to kill a deer or defend yourself, come to me and I will show you how to shoot (Diminution of Stature of the gun-rights supporter, and presentation of anti-gunner as an expert, to ally behind, thereby elevating his stature).
A good response would be as follows.
“If Governor Cuomo knew anything about being a man or protecting his family from violent attack, he might understand why a real man might want more than a paltry number of bullets in his gun’s magazine. If I need to defend my wife and children from attack in my own home, I don’t want some Liberal pansy, who wouldn’t last two seconds in a state of nature, dictating how many bullets I am allowed to have in my gun when my family’s life is at stake.”
Of course, it helps if you know what you are talking about regarding personal defense, since the retort can go something like this, as the Liberal tries to diminish your stature in the eyes of the crowd (and elevate their own by comparison) by making you look incapable:
“Well, I’ll teach you how to shoot, so you don’t need so many bullets.”
As noted above, this is a Diminution of Stature attack. If you are a typical GOPe intellectual type, you won’t know what to say, since you are really no more able to defend yourself than a Liberal (which is so astonishingly pathetic that as I read it again, I am sad for you). Obviously the answer is to attack the Liberal’s stature in return, like this:
That is so tactically ignorant I don’t even know where to begin. Why am I not surprised to see a Liberal who knows nothing about how to defend his wife and children from violent attack? Do you know how violent and chaotic a gunfight can be? People die in them, all the time, horribly – bleeding to death, disfigured, maimed, or worse. In that chaotic, violent environment, multiple trained law enforcement officers who confront a single suspect will routinely empty multiple high-capacity magazines, without seeing him “stopped.”
There is a reason for that. The reason is an immediate stop requires a hit to the central nervous system. Without that CNS hit, even a shot to the heart doesn’t immediately stop an attack. The CNS has an exceedingly small target profile, much of which is located out of center mass, in the skull, making targeting it in the fluid environment of a moving gunfight, on a live two-way shooting range, a risky proposition – and one which you are specifically trained not to do.
You always fire center mass, you always try to hit your opponent, center mass. Are you really so detached from reality you are going to sit here and tell me that Secret Agent Double ‘O Cuomo is going to ignore the center mass rule to score a first-shot head-shot every time in every gunfight, while angry bullets are buzzing around him? Why did we send Seal Team Six after bin Ladin when we have you? I mean, that statement stuns me. Were you just lying to the audience to fool them into thinking you know what you are talking about, or are you delusional, and really believe that you are a super gunfighter, who only needs one shot in the chaos of a gunfight to end it?Either way, you shouldn’t pass any more laws, because you are detached from reality, my friend, and you could easily get an innocent, law-abiding citizen killed with your ignorance. (followed by head shaking at his stupidity)
Here, we first amygdala hijack the Liberal by diminishing their stature and saying they are tactically ignorant. Then present an image of violence and K-selection, to set the mood.
Then back it up by talking about violence in a more technical fashion, to both present an image of violence, and point out to the crowd that the Lib is a poseur. (ie, Diminution of Stature through Ignorance, Distrust, and Patheity attacks). This will have more effect on the Liberal than you would think, because they begin from a perception that they are a poseur, so when you expose them to the crowd, the immediate reaction is terror at being outed. Someone saying something about you is much different from being undercover, and having your cover suddenly blown.
Notice also, here, you are using logic to hammer the Liberal, but you are not arguing logically. You are merely unloading the logic suddenly, in such a fashion, as to make the Liberal look inferior, stupid, ignorant, and of lower status. The Liberal will not even listen to the logic, and probably wouldn’t be able to recount what you said, if he was asked after the debate. All he knows is he was humiliated in front of other people by someone spouting what sounded like logic, and that produced an aversive emotional response.
Then poke fun at how ridiculous his assertions are, and get the crowd laughing at him. Finish with a bad two-fer and an attack on his sanity.
Note that the bad two-fer question, asking if he was lying or delusional, is not for the audience, nor is it asking an honest question of the opponent. If you read it in either of those contexts, it may sound “off.” It was a quick hit targeted at the Narcissistic Lib’s inner psyche. As I have said, they barely listen to what you say. Rather, they focus on what is happening to them and their status in the debate. In that context, that question will have its effect as written, because they will say, “Was I lying or am I delusional?” Libs and Narcissists will get caught in that amygdala trap for a moment, and exit stunned. By the time they catch up, you are on something else, and they have endured the amygdala hit.
If this had happened to Bob, he would have had an aneurism, and though he would have made every effort to look unaffected, inside his brain would have been toast for the rest of the interaction.
There is a very strong drive in our natures to not unite behind weak and pathetic leaders, who people tend to laugh at. Those who have done this in the past have seen their genes culled from the population. But you must offer the populace a choice between a weak leader and a strong leader, by pointing out the difference, in a socially dominant fashion. r-type Liberals are inherently weak and pathetic by the very nature of their psychology and our species’ nature, so it is easy to portray them this way to the crowd.
Again, you can use logic and facts in the debate, but it should only be done to out-group your opponent as incompetent, stupid, ignorant, and unworthy of the group’s trust and respect. Of course there is nothing that will be as effective as pointing out the r-selected Liberal’s innate patheity, by our species’ own K-selected standards, and their inherent incapability as leaders of men. Nobody wants a pathetic leader.
This is how Liberals argue. Facts, logic, and so forth have nothing to do with what they are doing in debate. They want power, and they will pursue it by trying to mass the group behind them, and mass the group against those who support freedom and good. It is the whole focus of their brain. Logic, reason, none of it can penetrate, while they are focused on how to out-group you, and how to turn the group against you.
The truth is, the Liberal is right. If you don’t focus your argument on massing the group behind you, all the factual support and logical correctness in the world will not grant you the power to fend off evil. You need the group, so fight for it.
