I grew up in a big city (sacramento, calif) in my formative years and a rural (prescott, az)area in my teenage years. Single parent who i saw mostly on weekends (she worked evenings and nights). Tv was my babysitter, so i guess whatever was pop culture or the "in" at the time. In my yonger years we mainly ate real food, in my teenager years it was processed food. I was overweight since 12. But i believe now a lot of it was allergies to food that was not recognized. When i had a test done around 8 it showed out of 100 i was allergic to 98 things, but since it didn't show outward sign (rashes, wheezing, etc) it was mainly ignored.
[QUOTE=Kochin;988619]OK, could people stop having arguments about political generalisations?
It's a given that, in any area, the dominant ideology will have more people believing Conventional Wisdom. Why? People are typically lemmings. If your area is largely Liberal, there'll be Liberals who reached their conclusions on their own, Conservatives who reached their conclusions on their own and Liberals who decided to follow the "popular" choice just because it's popular. Ditto for Conservative areas: some people believe it, some don't, some people are copying mommy and daddy or their friends. If we say (random numbers!) 60% of people are undecided and 40% are educated, the educated side with the most people (30% Liberal vs 10% Conservative, for example) will absorb up to 5/6 of those "undecided" people. And OF COURSE the "lemming" people will believe more Conventional Wisdom. Were they raised in Nazi Germany, these people would likely be Nazis. Were they raised in Noth Korea, they'd likely be avid supporters of the Kim-Jongs' Communist regime. And, in a mostly "X" area, they will probably be "X". Hence, in a society which promotes Conventional Wisdom, the lemmings will be in favour of it, giving you a coincidental correlation: in some areas, it will look like Liberals are more CW, in some it will look like Conservatives are, in some Baptists, in some atheists...
As far as rural areas go: if raised in a rural area, you're more likely to be:
-physically active and more in tune with your body
-eating local and seasonal produce
-watching less TV
All this will lead to less obsession with "correct" eating and more of a focus on eating what gives you energy, strength and makes you feel happy and good in yourself.
I once lived in a rather Liberal-minded rural area (admittedly in Spain), where people who had farmer/hunter parents were healthier and ate less grain than your "wannabe city kids" who watched more TV, ate more doughnuts and were generally lazier and more focused on being "skinny".[/QUOTE]
I agree with your second point, and that was one thing I was trying to say.
As for your first point, I think you make sense. Basically, the educated people in a given area are the agenda setters for the rest of that area. Whichever side (liberal/conservative) that the educated people swing, that is where the total population will be because they are lemmings.
I disagree though because I think we are not isolated communities anymore. The TV, movies, social networking, blogs, websites, and video games are all sending messages, and they are being sent to every corner of the nation. Actually, make that 'world' to a certain extent. Our interconnectedness has strong leverage on the minds of everyone. So to borrow from your point, if the media is liberal: the dumb people, the leaderless people, the activityless people, the less connected with themselves people will follow and be liberal too.
I somewhat hesitate to argue 'liberal/conservative' without explaining which definitions I am using for these words. There are many. I support old liberalism, but not the new kind. Instead of blabbering, here's a link that states it for me.
[url=http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2012/10/liberal-vs-libertarian.html]The Whited Sepulchre: Liberal vs. Libertarian[/url]
[QUOTE]On Libertarian Reddit, someone posed the question "What's the difference between Liberal vs. Libertarian?"
Here's the best answer:
I'm not sure if this relates to what you mean, but "liberal" used mean what libertarian means today, but the socialists co-opted the word, and so in now the USA "liberal" means socialism-lite.
Anyhow, to understand the false dichotomy between "liberal" and "conservative" you need to understand it's a divide and conquer strategy. Take those who believe very strongly in personal property rights over their body, and the right to do what they want with their bodies, and play them as enemies against those who believe very strongly in private property rights that are external to the body, and who believe they have the right to use their property in any peaceful way they see fit. And then try to sideline and treat like a loon, anybody who believes in both.
So today the liberals tend to believe very strongly in personal rights, but tend not to give a shit about economic liberties, and today the conservatives tend to believe rather strongly in economic liberties, but tend not to give a shit about personal liberties, and the libertarians believe in both personal liberties, and economic liberties. So in that sense, the conservatives try to treat the libertarians as liberal enemies, and the liberals try to treat libertarians as ultra conservative right-wing enemies. And libertarians tend to think of conservatives and liberals, well, as the same, not giving a shit about peoples' freedoms. [/QUOTE]
I think actualized humans basically want to be libertarians. In other words, we all want personal and economic liberty. This is an element of Wisdom, not 'Conventional Wisdom' that I spoke of in the first paragraph. Humans want to be healthy, so they naturally crave meats, fresh fruits, etc. This is wisdom, not CW. CW is my term for bad wisdom that is thrown around these days. I hope you catch my drift. These terms can get confusing, but I chose them because they are the vernacular.
PS- that last paragraph is the story of my life. My liberal friends see me as conservative, my conservative friends see me as liberal.
If one wanted to ask these questions in an unbiased way, perhaps:
1. How much conventional wisdom were you taught?
2. Were you raisedd urban/suburban/rural/other?
3. Do you think where you were raised influenced the amount and/or type of CW you were taught.
By injecting politics into the initial question, you automatically skew answers, open the thread up to much digression, and turn off at least one poster who initially thought the question might be interesting to discuss.
I don't really get this question. I mean...isn't pretty much everyone taught a lot of CW, from a number of different sources, growing up? I dunno.
The original question is so full of bias that I wouldn't take the time to formulate a response.
*laughing, and moving on*
I think those most affected by CW are those who don't question so much what they're taught, and who don't research deeper than what's in current newspapers/magazines/TV... I don't think it comes down to where you live much, however. In fact, I think those who have lower levels of education are more likely to fall sway to CW (and this includes a lot of people from the country/small towns etc. who may be less inclined to get a university education, or mix with a wide and varied group of people).
I got most of my CW from my education, reading magazines etc. however, things have changed a lot for me since I've had unlimited access to the Internet, and thus more access to a variety of ideas and concepts. Honestly, if it wasn't for the Internet, I would probably be mired in CW.
That being said I don't think you can generalise with any group of people. People are all individuals! As I said, most people I know are stuck in CW... It's always exciting for me when I meet someone who isn't ;). So I'm not going to assume that everyone in a certain "group" feels a certain way.
I do think that people who read more and who delve more into a variety of topics, are more likely to explore ideas outside of CW, however. Generally, though, these people can come from any group or area or whatever.
I grew up on the liberal left coast. My biology teacher still taught the value of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Fletcher"]Fletcherizing[/URL] your food.
The underlying question, if I read it right, is this: Assuming there are differences in a) how much conventional wisdom (CW) people are taught, and/or b) how much they buy (or bought) into said CW, are there social variables, broadly defined, that are associated with with those differences (understanding we'll never get causation out of a non-experimental design)?
While an intriguing question, it seems to me that the answer is not going to come from self-reports of those who are subscribed to a Primal forum and are willing to respond to any question, no matter the quality of its formulation. Not quite a random sample....
I didn't grow up in the countryside, but I was a sheeple of dietary wisdom until the end of my college career. I followed American CW, even though I was taught Chinese CW (which is actually for the most part correct according to PB!) from childhood until high school, and because I was Americanized, I rejected my culture and embraced the sheepleness of American media.
I saw MDA back when I was still in college, but I only picked it up after I graduated from university education. My culture has handed down a large amount of wisdom and I have have started to consider even rejecting some parts of PB CW and embracing my own culture's. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, just that I know what is better for my own body.
Besides, CW is basically lack of information and knowledge. Of course when you don't have as much education, you're going to have to depend on somebody for what you are lacking. I don't think it's something to look down upon, though, like what many paleo people do.