If the connections to liberals and conservatives has you wondering, then you should check out the The Media Insight Project done by the American Press Institute and The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Make sure to really look at the underlying material and you will see a remarkable continuity in their questions, conclusions, verbiage, and tone - with this piece above.
In the above mentioned joint research, you will see they used, for example, the question "One ofthe worstthings a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" (emphasis mine), to conclude a person's empathy and how much they care about people in need (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, using any question with "the worst", or "always", or "never", or "every", etc. ensures the results will be impossible to reliably interpret. For example, if someone strongly disagrees, is it because they don't care about people who need help, or is it because they think one of the worst things a person can do is light a homeless person on fire? However, 'disagreeing' with that statement is linked toconservatives, and I believe people who are less concerned with 'equality'.
然后把这篇关于“传感文化”. It states that 'there are almost three times as many Sensors as Intuitives in the US, and around the world'. It continues, 'An important finding of our research is that politically, Intuitives are considerably more liberal, and Sensors considerably more conservative'. So with 75% of the population being considerably more conservative, the country elected a democratic House, Senate, and President? Maybe we should conclude then that a considerable portion of Democrats are conservative? Or maybe there's something else we should be considering.
Also note the phrase 'in the US, and around the world'. Why not just say 'around the world'? Why make this article title about US culture instead of global culture? One might look to see if this is similar to, and if so, then part of, any larger storyline being told today. One might even wonder if there were any global goals signed off on by every member state of the United Nations that might have a 2030 target. One might wonder what all 16 US intelligence agencies might have to say about the country's remaining lifespan as a global leader, were there to be some several hundred page report on the topic, or a sub-200 page write up of that report put out by Bloomberg.
For the really curious, one might wonder to what extent behavior change theories are integrated into entertainment, news, branding, etc. One might even wonder what the target behavior is, if society seems to be more peaceful or angrier than ever, if anger ever led to anything good, let alone peace and happiness, and if a company like Population Media, might openly discuss their work in the area.
This is just afact based,data driven(note non-intuitive, yet not conservative) response that tries tofollow the science, so that people can live withdignity.
Nick Staff (not verified)says...
If the connections to liberals and conservatives has you wondering, then you should check out the The Media Insight Project done by the American Press Institute and The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Make sure to really look at the underlying material and you will see a remarkable continuity in their questions, conclusions, verbiage, and tone - with this piece above.
In the above mentioned joint research, you will see they used, for example, the question "One ofthe worstthings a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" (emphasis mine), to conclude a person's empathy and how much they care about people in need (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, using any question with "the worst", or "always", or "never", or "every", etc. ensures the results will be impossible to reliably interpret. For example, if someone strongly disagrees, is it because they don't care about people who need help, or is it because they think one of the worst things a person can do is light a homeless person on fire? However, 'disagreeing' with that statement is linked toconservatives, and I believe people who are less concerned with 'equality'.
然后把这篇关于“传感文化”. It states that 'there are almost three times as many Sensors as Intuitives in the US, and around the world'. It continues, 'An important finding of our research is that politically, Intuitives are considerably more liberal, and Sensors considerably more conservative'. So with 75% of the population being considerably more conservative, the country elected a democratic House, Senate, and President? Maybe we should conclude then that a considerable portion of Democrats are conservative? Or maybe there's something else we should be considering.
Also note the phrase 'in the US, and around the world'. Why not just say 'around the world'? Why make this article title about US culture instead of global culture? One might look to see if this is similar to, and if so, then part of, any larger storyline being told today. One might even wonder if there were any global goals signed off on by every member state of the United Nations that might have a 2030 target. One might wonder what all 16 US intelligence agencies might have to say about the country's remaining lifespan as a global leader, were there to be some several hundred page report on the topic, or a sub-200 page write up of that report put out by Bloomberg.
For the really curious, one might wonder to what extent behavior change theories are integrated into entertainment, news, branding, etc. One might even wonder what the target behavior is, if society seems to be more peaceful or angrier than ever, if anger ever led to anything good, let alone peace and happiness, and if a company like Population Media, might openly discuss their work in the area.
This is just afact based,data driven(note non-intuitive, yet not conservative) response that tries tofollow the science, so that people can live withdignity.