leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 15 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Does make sense. Pretty people more selfish: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/16/study-pretty-people-are-more-selfish/ Attractive people are not only selfish by nature, but also more self-sufficient. Makes logical sense, for a couple of reasons. If you're only interested in the material and power then it follows you're only going to look at surface appearances anyway and also assume that practically everyone else does (which is a reasonable assumption), as well as having a keen appreciation of just how much other people value surface appearances and how it can affect power dynamics. So you cultivate your appearance carefully because you know of the effect it has.
Strokes Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 19 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Makes logical sense, for a couple of reasons. If you're only interested in the material and power then it follows you're only going to look at surface appearances anyway and also assume that practically everyone else does (which is a reasonable assumption), as well as having a keen appreciation of just how much other people value surface appearances and how it can affect power dynamics. So you cultivate your appearance carefully because you know of the effect it has. I’m just naturally handsome.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 28 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Makes logical sense, for a couple of reasons. If you're only interested in the material and power then it follows you're only going to look at surface appearances anyway and also assume that practically everyone else does (which is a reasonable assumption), as well as having a keen appreciation of just how much other people value surface appearances and how it can affect power dynamics. So you cultivate your appearance carefully because you know of the effect it has. True. So they're pretty, selfish and right wing. And less intelligent apparently: https://www.economicvoice.com/right-wing-people-are-less-intelligent/50027721/ Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, 1
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: True. So they're pretty, selfish and right wing. And less intelligent apparently: https://www.economicvoice.com/right-wing-people-are-less-intelligent/50027721/ Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with that, though. A lot of right-wingers are very smart indeed - note that I'm not talking about your Alabama rednecks here, I'm talking about the CEO's, the political leaders, the religious superchurch heads who have more money than their God...all of these are mostly economically and often socially conservative. When you rely on hierarchy you have to have someone at or near the top that knows who to manipulate the levers of power, after all.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 6 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Wouldn't wholeheartedly agree with that, though. A lot of right-wingers are very smart indeed - note that I'm not talking about your Alabama rednecks here, I'm talking about the CEO's, the political leaders, the religious superchurch heads who have more money than their God...all of these are mostly economically and often socially conservative. When you rely on hierarchy you have to have someone at or near the top that knows who to manipulate the levers of power, after all. Yes and a lot of left-wingers are very attractive. Just look at me for instance. The people you’re talking about (CEOs and political leaders) are generally right-wing for selfish reasons. Low taxes and small Government benefits them and their family and friends. And they’re not actually that interested in inequality or the third world. My guess is that if you asked a lot of them, not many would, hand-on-heart, actually believe in right-wing politics and ideologies.
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 9 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Yes and a lot of left-wingers are very attractive. Just look at me for instance. The people you’re talking about (CEOs and political leaders) are generally right-wing for selfish reasons. Low taxes and small Government benefits them and their family and friends. And they’re not actually that interested in inequality or the third world. My guess is that if you asked a lot of them, not many would, hand-on-heart, actually believe in right-wing politics and ideologies. Right-wing ideology by definition focuses on the self first, so IMO those two things go hand in hand.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Right-wing ideology by definition focuses on the self first, so IMO those two things go hand in hand. Hmm maybe. Although so does Liberalism. Would you say that Liberalism was a right-wing ideology? I guess there’s two distinct types of right-wingers. There’s the intelligent, selfish (and attractive) individuals who actually benefit from right-wing ideologies. These are probably the top 5 or 10% of society. Then there’s the millions of unintelligent people who actually vote for it, against their own self-interests. 1
Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 hour ago, MattP said: Right wingers more attractive than socialists. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/socialists-will-probably-always-be-uglier-than-tories-research-finds-ppwgjr2f2 https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jan/31/hunky-tory-attractive-people-more-likely-to-be-rightwing-study-finds Hmmmm..... Someone more right-wing than Matt.... ....or Liz, the socialist hugger? (Mind you, Attila and Jezza have a similar expression there....some truth in the theory that the political spectrum is circular?)
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Seems like us good looking bastards are holding our own Weeks of negative publicity and Labour still can't pull away.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: Seems like us good looking bastards are holding our own Weeks of negative publicity and Labour still can't pull away. Hmmm I wonder why? https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/911665/Labour-activist-anti-Churchill-protest-Blighty-cafe-Finsbury-Park-London-Jeremy-Corbyn THE RINGLEADER of a crowd that stormed a Winston Churchill-themed cafe and branded the wartime hero a “racist”, is a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, it emerged yesterday. They demanded the cafe stop serving “The Winston”, a traditional full English breakfast, and shouted: “Churchill was a racist.” Yesterday Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called on Mr Corbyn, the local MP, to condemn the activists. Edited 2 February 2018 by Fox Ulike
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 18 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Hmm maybe. Although so does Liberalism. Would you say that Liberalism was a right-wing ideology? I guess there’s two distinct types of right-wingers. There’s the intelligent, selfish (and attractive) individuals who actually benefit from right-wing ideologies. These are probably the top 5 or 10% of society. Then there’s the millions of unintelligent people who actually vote for it, against their own self-interests. TBH I'm not that well versed on how labels are applied to these philosophies and they seem to get thrown around the changed up so much now that I'm not sure how much meaning they have anyway. Perhaps this is a postmodernist way of looking at it, but almost all of this stuff can be viewed through the lens of power dynamics IMO.
Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: Seems like us good looking bastards are holding our own Weeks of negative publicity and Labour still can't pull away. Could just be further proof that 99% of people pay little attention to politics unless it's election time or a major crisis affecting them. Likewise, there's little trust for for what politicians say. Only sad gits like us lot in this thread pay much attention outside crises/election-time. How many people use Foxes Talk.....and what proportion ever visit this thread, I wonder? Barring some truly dramatic event, I'd only expect those poll ratings to move significantly once the Brexit outcome becomes clear: in favour of the Tories if they get a have-cake-and-eat-it deal, against them if they get a crap deal. A leadership change could affect that, of course....for better, if they find someone more appealing than Theresa, or for worse if they don't and/or if it descends into all-out civil war. 1
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 Has anyone told George Clooney he's a conservative? Honestly, who actually believes this shit? It's like the "left wingers are more intelligent" stories we hear, you've only got to look at the shadow cabinet to disprove that.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: TBH I'm not that well versed on how labels are applied to these philosophies and they seem to get thrown around the changed up so much now that I'm not sure how much meaning they have anyway. Perhaps this is a postmodernist way of looking at it, but almost all of this stuff can be viewed through the lens of power dynamics IMO. No me neither. Liberalism and free market capitalism seem pretty entwined though. Can you have one without the other? Power dynamics? Can you explain what you mean by that?
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Has anyone told George Clooney he's a conservative? Honestly, who actually believes this shit? It's like the "left wingers are more intelligent" stories we hear, you've only got to look at the shadow cabinet to disprove that. The generalisations are inaccurate (obviously), but I think there's something in the idea of those who enjoy exercising power over others working to appear more attractive as they know that it helps them do so.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: Has anyone told George Clooney he's a conservative? Honestly, who actually believes this shit? It's like the "left wingers are more intelligent" stories we hear, you've only got to look at the shadow cabinet to disprove that. I notice you had no objections to the "right-wingers are more attractive" 'shit' that your buddy posted?
Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: I notice you had no objections to the "right-wingers are more attractive" 'shit' that your buddy posted? I assumed Webbo's Clooney reference was debunking that idea, tbf, seeing as Clooney is a noted lefty / liberal / "hunk of throbbing beefcake" or whatever heterosexual females call attractive males these days. Edited 2 February 2018 by Alf Bentley 1
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: The generalisations are inaccurate (obviously), but I think there's something in the idea of those who enjoy exercising power over others working to appear more attractive as they know that it helps them do so. What is good looking? Anyone who makes a bit of an effort can look half decent. Here's my theory people who are right wing have right wing instincts and people who are left wing have left wing instincts and we're all somewhere inbetween. Trying to invent theories why people have different opinions are as pointless as they are stupid.
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I assumed Webbo's Clooney reference was debunking that idea, tbf, seeing as Clooney is a noted lefty / liberal / "hunk of throbbing beefcake" or whatever heterosexual females call attractive males these days. Ah OK. I'm not that au fait with the political leanings of Hollywood heart throbs as much as Webbo clearly is. I don’t think young women refer to men as beefcakes much anymore, sir. It’s all genderless these days. I think “(s)he is well fit” covers all bases.
leicsmac Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: No me neither. Liberalism and free market capitalism seem pretty entwined though. Can you have one without the other? Power dynamics? Can you explain what you mean by that? There's what is called classical liberalism and then there's what we have now that are rather different beasts, I know that much, but it would take someone better versed than me to elaborate further on the differences. What I mean is that almost all human activity can be seen as power exchange - the idea that as humans we're programmed to look after the self first and so are driven to seek power over other people in order to guarantee the best deal for ourselves and our immediate social group. However, it is possible to overcome this instinct and to seek to benefit those beyond your immediate social group as well as them and yourself. Money and physical attractiveness are two ways of keeping score on that front - the more you have of both, the more power you tend to have. And when you have that power, you can make choices with it - benefit the self first and always at the expense of other people, try to reach out to other people, or somewhere in between. Politics is tied into human nature and therefore biological science a lot more than people think, IMO. 1 minute ago, Webbo said: What is good looking? Anyone who makes a bit of an effort can look half decent. Here's my theory people who are right wing have right wing instincts and people who are left wing have left wing instincts and we're all somewhere inbetween. Trying to invent theories why people have different opinions are as pointless as they are stupid. 3 But then what would we have to talk about on here? It'd be all the ongoing Mahrez saga.
Alf Bentley Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: Ah OK. I'm not that au fait with the political leanings of Hollywood heart throbs as much as Webbo clearly is. I don’t think young women refer to men as beefcakes much anymore, sir. It’s all genderless these days. I think “(s)he is well fit” covers all bases. So, will I get myself in trouble if I go around describing women as "foxy chicks" these days? It was perfectly acceptable in the 70s, a golden era for gender relations, as we now know...
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: So, will I get myself in trouble if I go around describing women as "foxy chicks" these days? It was perfectly acceptable in the 70s, a golden era for gender relations, as we now know... Depends where you are. You should be alright with that sort of chat if Krystals ever reopens and does a retro night. Don't try any of that shit down Sector 5 though. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 9 minutes ago, leicsmac said: There's what is called classical liberalism and then there's what we have now that are rather different beasts, I know that much, but it would take someone better versed than me to elaborate further on the differences. What I mean is that almost all human activity can be seen as power exchange - the idea that as humans we're programmed to look after the self first and so are driven to seek power over other people in order to guarantee the best deal for ourselves and our immediate social group. However, it is possible to overcome this instinct and to seek to benefit those beyond your immediate social group as well as them and yourself. Money and physical attractiveness are two ways of keeping score on that front - the more you have of both, the more power you tend to have. And when you have that power, you can make choices with it - benefit the self first and always at the expense of other people, try to reach out to other people, or somewhere in between. Politics is tied into human nature and therefore biological science a lot more than people think, IMO. But then what would we have to talk about on here? It'd be all the ongoing Mahrez saga. Wow. Yes. That makes total sense. I think you've nailed the whole politics debate. Close thread.
Buce Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: So, will I get myself in trouble if I go around describing women as "foxy chicks" these days? It was perfectly acceptable in the 70s, a golden era for gender relations, as we now know... I still call women 'birds' - my missus is my 'bird'. Screw political correctness.
Webbo Posted 2 February 2018 Posted 2 February 2018 9 minutes ago, leicsmac said: There's what is called classical liberalism and then there's what we have now that are rather different beasts, I know that much, but it would take someone better versed than me to elaborate further on the differences. What I mean is that almost all human activity can be seen as power exchange - the idea that as humans we're programmed to look after the self first and so are driven to seek power over other people in order to guarantee the best deal for ourselves and our immediate social group. However, it is possible to overcome this instinct and to seek to benefit those beyond your immediate social group as well as them and yourself. Money and physical attractiveness are two ways of keeping score on that front - the more you have of both, the more power you tend to have. And when you have that power, you can make choices with it - benefit the self first and always at the expense of other people, try to reach out to other people, or somewhere in between. Politics is tied into human nature and therefore biological science a lot more than people think, IMO. But then what would we have to talk about on here? It'd be all the ongoing Mahrez saga. If you look at these academic theories you'll notice there's a theme to them. "Right wing people are less intelligent", "Rightwingers are more attractive therefore they are more selfish", it's as if they're trying to prove that not being leftwing is a genetic fault, if you don't agree with us there's something wrong with you. And people wonder why nobody has any faith in so called experts? It's not real science, it's people making the evidence fit the preordained theory
Recommended Posts