Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (90585)	12/14/2004 9:08:44 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793715

13 December 2004 Deliver Us From Evil Reminding people of their mortality may make them more likely to vote for bold political leaders who promise to keep them safe, a new study suggests. The research builds on terror-management theory, which states that fear of death affects a wide range of human activities and attitudes and that many people turn to aggression, risk-taking, and nationalism to manage their fears. In the current study, Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, and his colleagues randomly assigned 190 students to two groups. They asked one group to respond to open-ended questions such as: "Jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die." The other group responded to questions about their next important exam. Next, participants in both groups read campaign statements by three imaginary gubernatorial candidates with distinctly different leadership styles: a bold candidate who emphasizes the nation's greatness and the need for victory over evil; a second candidate who focuses on cooperation between leader and citizens; and a third candidate who emphasizes the accomplishment of realistic goals. After reading the statements, the subjects cast their votes. The third, pragmatic candidate received more votes than any other candidate in both groups. But the nationalist candidate did much better among the students who had been thinking about death, receiving 30% of their votes, compared with only 4% of those who had been pondering their upcoming exam. According to Solomon, the results, which are published in Psychological Science's December issue, indicate that in times of mental distress, individuals prefer an audacious leader who promises to rid the world of evil. Solomon sees a real-life parallel in the recent U.S. presidential election, in which he says President George W. Bush's decisive leadership style and emphasis on patriotism played well with an electorate constantly reminded of the threat of terrorist attacks. Daniel McIntosh, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is impressed by the study. "I was struck by the magnitude of the effect," he says. According to McIntosh, the new study adds an important dimension to terror-management theory by demonstrating that fear of death greatly affects political preference. --NADJA GEIPERT Related sites Daniel McIntosh's page du.edu Ernest Becker Foundation faculty.washington.edu Link to a related study psp.sagepub.com Link to original study psychologicalscience.org Copyright © 2004 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

To: Lane3 who wrote (90585)	12/14/2004 10:47:42 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793715

kholt, I don't like to be accosted by some religious zealot any more than anyone else. Religion is a personal thing and it is up to each individual to decide what their beliefs, in that area, really are. I sometimes am disturbed that groups, such as NOW, the KKK, and gay groups that prance around in a gay pride parade, showing their bare butts, and making offensive gestures, seem to be allowed to air their beliefs with impunity, but let a Christian group make a public display, and all hell breaks loose. In many cases, I believe the Christian groups are getting the short end of the stick in that respect. I consider the use of the phrase, "Merry Christmas", just a long held tradition, and is harmless, unless someone is carrying a chip on their shoulder. As a Christian, I see no harm in the phrase, "Happy Hannukah" either. Traditions are centuries old, and will not go away because of some political correctness malcontent getting offended for no good reason. IMO, if all things are done in moderation, and does no physical harm to other individuals, they present no problem to society. BTW, because of some of the controversy seen in some posts, I have become aware that the term "Merry Christmas", is being said quite often on national tv, in newspapers, and on the radio. If the welcome of a friendly "Merry Christmas" offends one, they had just better get used to it, and lighten up with their petty objections.

To: Lane3 who wrote (90585)	12/14/2004 3:01:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793715

Reasonable people can disagree about where the bullying line is. I asserted that cavalierly saying "Merry Christmas" to people not reasonably expected to be celebrants of that holiday is across the line. I'm prepared to debate and/or negotiate that, though, since drawing social lines is a collaborative process, or should be. I don't think that any line is crossed by wishing people "Merry Christmas". I also don't think Christians should be offended by "Seasons Greetings", or "Happy Holidays", or "Happy Hanukah", or "Have a nice Kwanzaa" ect. Many non-Christians celebrate Christmas and it is a national holiday but even if this was not the case I think it would be overly sensitive to be offended by Merry Christmas. OTOH if you know that a certain person is offended by "Merry Christmas", I can't think of any good reason to use the term to them. But the group of people who you know (or have a strong reason to suspect) would be offended is smaller then the group of "people not reasonably expected to be celebrants of that holiday". And while I would seek to avoid offense by not saying "Merry Christmas" directly to these people I don't think they can reasonably expect people to avoid using the phrase in their presence to third parties. Tim