Wapo Touches On Political Psychology

If you’ve read anything on r/K, you see the deeper picture:

The world can feel like a complicated place. There may be no good answers to the problems we confront individually and as a society. It is hard to know whom or what to believe. Things are changing, and the future might be different in unpredictable ways. For many people, this uncertainty is deeply unpleasant…

One way that psychologists measure these preferences is by giving people a questionnaire that poses statements such as, “It’s annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind,” “I dislike it when a person’s statement could mean many different things” and “In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong.”

Conservative subjects are more likely to agree with these statements, whether psychologists give this test in the United States, Germany, Italy, Belgium or Poland.

Obviously amygdalae that are irritated by an inability to discern truth would be required if resources were scarce and survival were dependent on being able to decide and then act intelligently. If you have an environment with a resource glut and no competition, where everyone survives easily, then you get amygdalae which don’t care, and which are baffled by nuance. Only people with free resources can afford to sit around navel gazing, unable to come to any clear conclusion from the facts before them.

Of course the rabbits in the field try to wrap that uncomfortable reality in this bullshit:

Over the years, conservative commentators have objected to this characterization of their beliefs. They argue that conservatism isn’t a psychological condition, but a set of ideas with a rich intellectual history, developed across generations through rational deliberation.

For their part, psychologists have responded that they aren’t dismissing conservativism as irrational. After all, just because people are predisposed to believe something doesn’t make them wrong. Saying someone is more likely to find an argument persuasive because of their psychology doesn’t invalidate the argument. As psychologists see it, the desire for simplicity is just a fact about the way people think — one that several decades of research has now confirmed.

It is well accepted that diminished volume of a brain structure usually indicates diminished development and diminished functionality. Given that the amygdala is a vital structure to drive action, decision, threat perception, morality, loyalty, and disgust/disease avoidance, leftist’s diminished amygdala volume would indicate that they are the defectives who can’t process reality logically. Add in the prevalence of whining about triggers, micro-aggressions, and dogwhistles that only leftist neuroses are able to perceive and freak out about, and the case is far stronger for leftism as a reality-detached mental disorder, than for conservatism as somehow inferior and illogical.

Finally:

These experiments show that conservative subjects react differently from liberal ones. They sweat more heavily when shown a picture of a dangerous animal. Their pupils focus on disgusting images, and they don’t look away.

Notice liberals encounter an uncomfortable image, and they look away. That is the cognitive origin of the triggering freak out. But don’t wait to hear about it in the WaPo. In their mind, not avoiding discomfort is a sign of conservative inferiority.

Apocalypse cometh™ to wash all our evils away.