That's right. Try to divert attention away from the fact you are judging something before knowing anything about it. Is there anything more ignorant than that?
It's okay giant. I understand you're desire to lash out. I mean it is founded in your numerous fears and views about the way the world HAS to be.
As for this...
Quote:
I'm not defending the study (I haven't yet read it, but have downloaded it and will). I'm just pointing out how your identification with an idology has you constructing a world view based on guesses rather than actual fact. Have fun riding your unicorn to inside-out land.
All these replies from you constitute.... a defense..
So you are ignorant from not having read it and in denial about the fact you are defending something you haven't even read.
That's okay though because you do this as part of your mental illness. Don't be angry, go read the study in order to better understand why you have the sickness you do.
BTW, the above is an example of IRONY, in case giant just doesn't get it.
Would your desire to defend what you haven't read be considered....closemindedness...get this boy a swastica!
Maybe you were responding to someone else and quoted me on accident, because I can't figure out how my criticism of trumptman's inability to inform himself before making judgements leads you to the interpretation above.
I didn't quote you by accident. In your reply to trumpetman, who I wasn't referring to, you also pass off George Will as if he's a close-minded, cave-dwelling dinosaur.
It's okay giant. I understand you're desire to lash out. I mean it is founded in your numerous fears and views about the way the world HAS to be.
As for this...
All these replies from you constitute.... a defense..
So you are ignorant from not having read it and in denial about the fact you are defending something you haven't even read.
That's okay though because you do this as part of your mental illness. Don't be angry, go read the study in order to better understand why you have the sickness you do.
BTW, the above is an example of IRONY, in case giant just doesn't get it.
Would your desire to defend what you haven't read be considered....closemindedness...get this boy a swastica!
Nick
Except that you are the one making judgements about something you haven't read.
And you are the one saying I am defending something I have expressed no view on.
Look at you!
I'm on you for forming opinions about something you have had ZERO contact with, not what the content of your opinion is. How could your opinion on this matter? YOU HAVEN'T READ THE STUDY! It's like saying "Oh, surya in India. I don't like that guy. Sure, I never heard of him before now and know nothing about him, but I don't like him JUST BECAUSE."
Since you have had ZERO, let me remind you: ZERO, contact with the actual study, you are in no position whatsoever to make a judgement, regardless if the study is on the composition of styrofoam or if it's about something that might upset you.
How is forming opinions on things you have had ZERO contact with anything less than absolutely close-minded?
I just noticed how you tried to invoke Godwin's Law to deflect attention away from your formation of opinions on things you have had ZERO contact with. You really have issues, trumotman.
Except that you are the one making judgements about something you haven't read.
And you are the one saying I am defending something I have expressed no view on.
Look at you!
I'm on you for forming opinions about something you have had ZERO contact with, not what the content of your opinion is. How could your opinion on this matter? YOU HAVEN'T READ THE STUDY! It's like saying "Oh, surya in India. I don't like that guy. Sure, I never heard of him before now and know nothing about him, but I don't like him JUST BECAUSE."
Since you have had ZERO, let me remind you: ZERO, contact with the actual study, you are in no position whatsoever to make a judgement, regardless if the study is on the composition of styrofoam or if it's about something that might upset you.
How is forming opinions on things you have had ZERO contact with anything less than absolutely close-minded?
As for you eugene, you are so far off in your own little world here I don't know what to make of you.
What are you...5 years old? Why don't you say I know you are but what am I or I'm a rubber tree and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you?!?
You posted and admitted you hadn't read the study. You claimed you have it so pm me and I'll let you send it to me. But don't sit there hypocritically and claim that you are right in defending a study you haven't read and I am wrong in condemning it.
Even before I read the study though, I can question the base line assuption. The assuption is that only certain people who almost all happen to belong to the same political party act on their mental shortcomings, not on how they view the world or what they believe. That assumption would be pretty hard to prove regardless of politics. If I claimed 40-45% of everyone everywhere were mentally sick and acting on it, you would question the study. Heck I would expect people to question a study that said homosexuals were only acting on mental shortcomings and that is 3-10% of the population depending upon the statistics you use. So if you can't understand why I am skeptical about a study that claims pretty much half of everyone everywhere has a mental problem or that calls socilists conservatives, then that is your problem with which to deal.
What are you...5 years old? Why don't you say I know you are but what am I or I'm a rubber tree and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you?!?
What are you, nuts?
Quote:
You posted and admitted you hadn't read the study. You claimed you have it so pm me and I'll let you send it to me. But don't sit there hypocritically and claim that you are right in defending a study you haven't read and I am wrong in condemning it.
a) Point to the place in this thread that I expressed a judgement on the study. Oh...what's that? You can't? That's because I didn't. Of course, it's no great suprise that you see things that don't exist.
b) I'm not sending you shit. It's called copyright law. Look it up. The Ovid license agreement does not allow transmission of documents obtained throught it, not even for fair use. As much as you or I may disagree with the license agreement, that the way it is for now until someone attacks it in court. You have no excuse for not obtaining it yourself in a legal manner.
Quote:
Even before I read the study though, I can question the base line assuption. blah, blah, blah
You have not read the study and do not know what it says. All you know are second hand accounts by reporters and columnists looking to sell papers and feed ideologies (in short, sell papers). God help you if you can't realize that a study of this kind will naturally be portrayed in the media in a dramatic light and, as such, any media accounts are worthless.
a) Point to the place in this thread that I expressed a judgement on the study. Oh...what's that? You can't? That's because I didn't. Of course, it's no great suprise that you see things that don't exist.
b) I'm not sending you shit. It's called copyright law. Look it up. The Ovid license agreement does not allow transmission of documents obtained throught it, not even for fair use. As much as you or I may disagree with the license agreement, that the way it is for now until someone attacks it in court. You have no excuse for not obtaining it yourself in a legal manner.
You have not read the study and do not know what it says. All you know are second hand accounts by reporters and columnists looking to sell papers and feed ideologies (in short, sell papers). God help you if you can't realize that a study of this kind will naturally be portrayed in the media in a dramatic light and, as such, any media accounts are worthless.
You said you weren't going to defend it. You obviously have been doing so. I'll call you what you are, a liar.
As for not sending me "shit." Stop your bluffing. List where you obtained it, give a link to read, purchase, etc. it. Otherwise you are just a liar who claims to have it (but didn't read it..yet) and claims to not judge it (even while defending which you would not do if you hadn't "judged it to be okay")
As for second hand accounts, big deal. In a court it would be called a witness. If thoughtful people cannot provide thoughtful discussion on a paper, then what are the alternatives? I can't go through life with first hand information of everything before acting. There aren't enough hours in the day. Do you dispute the weather forecasts or do you have to read the atmospheric data yourself?
Heck aren't the scientists just third parties interpreting data as well? Why trust them either?
You said you weren't going to defend it. You obviously have been doing so. I'll call you what you are, a liar.
Where oh where oh where did I defend it? Point out the quotes or quit with the accusations. All I have done here is get on your case for criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with.
Quote:
As for not sending me "shit." Stop your bluffing. List where you obtained it, give a link to read, purchase, etc. it. Otherwise you are just a liar who claims to have it (but didn't read it..yet) and claims to not judge it (even while defending which you would not do if you hadn't "judged it to be okay")
As for second hand accounts, big deal. [blah, blah, blah...waxing philosphic]
Stop with these BS attempts to avoid owning up to the fact that you are criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with.
Really, you are obviously not capable of having a serious discussion based in fact.
PS The one thing that you have to accept is that it wouldn't have been published in this journal had their methods not been sound. If you want to criticize the methods, then get the article and do so point by point.
Yep and amazingly enough it sounded like most liberal notions regarding change.
If you want to see some closed-mindedness around here. Visit my threads on Men's Choice, speech codes, etc. There is plenty of closemindedness from the liberal side of issues.
Nick
Nope, your views are simply those pre 1960s America. Being a conservative means you wish to conserve an idealized version of the past.
If we only had conservatives we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages. No Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution, Glorious Revolution in England, American Revolution, Capitalism, etc etc etc.
Why do you think so much of history is covered up in American schools? So people can look back and think the 1950s was a good/happy/prosperous decade. Or skim over what settlers did Native Americans. Or the "red" scares in the 1920s. Labor union fights etc.
How do you think we got the 40 hour work week? Conservatives would have us all slaving in factories 80 hours a day. (records from England show factory owners complaining that workers were weak since they couldn't work 90 hours a week and had to work 80).
Okay enough of a rant but if this study is true then the US has some problems. A NYTimes poll found that "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)." This even though almost all biblical scholars believe this isn't true.
Quote:
Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).
This goes back to the study that found:
Quote:
political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance
In other words there is no real evidence in the bible for anyone to believe virgin birth(which is impossible anyway) but it was created by the RCC as a way to admonish women as unpure etc. Half of what the RCC does seems designed to keep women down.
Nope, your views are simply those pre 1960s America. Being a conservative means you wish to conserve an idealized version of the past.
Since I was born in 1970 how would I even know? Likewise what did conservatives do before the 1950's? Could that litle mantra repeat be a sign of what you claim?
Quote:
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
Could it be that you have formed a few ideas about people who are conservative and refuse to believe them capable of what you claim because you are unreceptive to new ideas?
If you looked at those threads I mentioned you would see what I have posted is hardly from the 1950's. I suppose you were to closeminded to read it.
Quote:
If we only had conservatives we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages. No Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution, Glorious Revolution in England, American Revolution, Capitalism, etc etc etc.
Why do you think so much of history is covered up in American schools? So people can look back and think the 1950s was a good/happy/prosperous decade. Or skim over what settlers did Native Americans. Or the "red" scares in the 1920s. Labor union fights etc.
Yes because conservatives never endorse things like capitalism, progress or anything like that.
Who wanted to keep slavery? Republicans or Democrats?
Likewise maybe the reason children get idealized versions of the past is because adults want to give them heros instead of filling up their head with adult matters. So if I read a book to a 6 year old that mentioned that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar but not the semen stained dress, fellatio, etc. Does that mean I am harming him or her? Or does it mean I let them visit adult issues when they are adults?
I should definately know what is in those textbooks because I happen to be a teacher. Likewise while they don't mention the thing you added in full detail. They also don't mention that the founder of planned parenthood was a eugenicist, that Democrats filibustered to keep the civil rights bill from being passed. That Al Gore's Dad grew tobacco and was one of those senators fighting the change of civil rights, etc.
As for the virgin birth...what the hell does that have to do with anything here?
Yes because conservatives never endorse things like capitalism, progress or anything like that.
Likewise maybe the reason children get idealized versions of the past is because adults want to give them heros instead of filling up their head with adult matters.
As for the virgin birth...what the hell does that have to do with anything here?
Nick
The conservative landed aristocrats in the 1600s-early 1900s hated capitalism. They wanted to keep the Middle Ages going to protect their economical interests. Eventually capitalism won, though, and a new elite of business men took over the Parliament of England the Congress in the US. So by the Gilded Age in America the US Government was setup for and by business. Thus new conservatives wanted to preserve capitalism and their wealth.
And the issues you mention Clinton, Democrats, Republicans are minor. You can have liberal republicans and conservative democrats.
Remember everything is relative. Christianity was radical in the Roman Empire but by the Middle Ages it was conservative.
This dumbing down of history isn't just about 6 year olds it is about high schools.
The virgin birth as the article states is simply evidence of what is going on in America: people are trying to escape reality by turning to religion. Don't want to believe the Iraqi people are suffering, simply believe they have been "liberated." Can't deal with complexity of the "war on terror" view it as good verse evil.
I am not saying religion is bad but if you start to look at everything as black and white you run into major problems. The NYTimes article points out the intellectual side of religion is disappearing in America. The same thing happened with Islam and now look what a lot of it has turned into.
You apparently completely missed that Shawn DIDN'T POST a Will quote but someone else's snarky, shorter version of Will's column. Good job.
Well, you got me there.
Quote:
I think that's really, really, really telling...
Really, really, really telling of what? Seriously. Really, really, really telling of what? And back it up with past examples, since it is telling of a trend. I can certainly cite many posts where trumptman has criticized things without knowing anything about them, which is why it is really, really, really telling.
Really, really, really telling of what? Seriously. Really, really, really telling of what? And back it up with past examples, since it is telling of a trend. I can certainly cite many posts where trumptman has criticized things without knowing anything about them, which is why it is really, really, really telling.
giant, not to be rude, but do you ever make a legitimate point or do you just get hung up on logistics everytime?
In two threads now I have witnessed you do this. Essentually repeat the same point over and over about some minor quibble instead of addressing the issue at hand.
You: Hey, you didn't read the study about the moon, being made of cheese, so you can't comment on it.
Me: The premise is flawed, no one would believe that the moon is made of cheese.
You: Yeah, but you didn't read it.
Me: Regardless, the moon cannot be made of cheese.
You: Yeah, but you didn't read it, so don't judge.
I stated point blank that any study that begins with the premise that certain political viewpoints are a neurosis from which 40-45% of the population (and more everyday) suffers is not likely to hold credibility with me, nor most intelligent people. If you told me there was a study that claimed anyone who was married was mentally ill, I wouldn't care if I read third party summaries or the study itself, the premise is flawed.
If you want me to believe that almost half of society is suffering from a mass delusion called The Republican Party aka Conservatism, you had best put up something or shut up. The assertion is yours. Give some proof, (I asked for the study or even a source to look it up myself, you whined on and on about again.. not reading it.) or shut up.
BTW, you still haven't indicated you have read the study and yes, you are still defending a bizarre assertion you haven't even read. That is the height of lunacy to me. You take at face value something that declares almost half of society mentally ill without reading a single word.
The conservative landed aristocrats in the 1600s-early 1900s hated capitalism. They wanted to keep the Middle Ages going to protect their economical interests. Eventually capitalism won, though, and a new elite of business men took over the Parliament of England the Congress in the US. So by the Gilded Age in America the US Government was setup for and by business. Thus new conservatives wanted to preserve capitalism and their wealth.
And the issues you mention Clinton, Democrats, Republicans are minor. You can have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Remember everything is relative. Christianity was radical in the Roman Empire but by the Middle Ages it was conservative.
This dumbing down of history isn't just about 6 year olds it is about high schools.
The virgin birth as the article states is simply evidence of what is going on in America: people are trying to escape reality by turning to religion. Don't want to believe the Iraqi people are suffering, simply believe they have been "liberated." Can't deal with complexity of the "war on terror" view it as good verse evil.
I am not saying religion is bad but if you start to look at everything as black and white you run into major problems. The NYTimes article points out the intellectual side of religion is disappearing in America. The same thing happened with Islam and now look what a lot of it has turned into.
I think you are interchanging the definition of the word conservative with the actual party whenever you just happen to find it convenient.
Would someone who argues that evolution must be gradual instead of punctuated equalibrium be a conservative or liberal?
Would someone who argued that slavery should be ended be a conservative or a liberal?
Your definition, basically anyone who has opposed a change..ever... is too broad to be useful.
Is someone who supports affirmative action but believes it should also include income instead of just race alone be liberal or conservative?
Help narrow your definition.
As for the virgin mary, you can keep her. I don't really care about how people feel about her.
giant, not to be rude, but do you ever make a legitimate point or do you just get hung up on logistics everytime?
Trumptman, have you ever said any legitimate? Like, say, about Iraq's weapons capabilities?
Quote:
In two threads now I have witnessed you do this. Essentually repeat the same point over and over about some minor quibble instead of addressing the issue at hand.
1. In this thread you are insisting on criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with. It is this tendency of yours that has lead you top other dramatically false conclusions, such as your conclusion that Iraq had a threatening chemical weapon arsenal.
2. In the gays and marriage thread, you were the one irrationally hung up on the word 'marriage.' That was your issue, and all I was doing was pointing out how rediculous and nonsensical it was.
Quote:
I stated point blank that any study that begins with the premise that certain political viewpoints are a neurosis from which 40-45% of the population (and more everyday) ...the premise is flawed.
Man. Man oh man. You have it backwards, genius. That's not the premise, that's the finding.
If you got a copy of the study, you might be able to know what the difference is.
Quote:
If you want me to believe that almost half of society is suffering from a mass delusion called The Republican Party aka Conservatism, you had best put up something or shut up. The assertion is yours.
WHERE OH WHERE DID I ASSERT THAT? YOU ARE A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Quote:
BTW, you still haven't indicated you have read the study and yes, you are still defending a bizarre assertion you haven't even read. That is the height of lunacy to me. You take at face value something that declares almost half of society mentally ill without reading a single word.
WHERE DID I MAKE A VALUE JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE STUDY'S FINDINGS? YOU ARE A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY THAT I HAVE.
You have said this over and over again and YOU ARE LYING.
Furthermore, if you looked at the actual study, you would see that in the set-up of criteria there are references upon references to a massive amount of research done on this topic, so much so that it is difficult to get through each sentence because of the number of citations. So really, if you want to argue with the way it is set up, something that you have ZERO knowledge of because you don't have the study, then you are arguing with the massive body of work that has been done by many, many researchers on the psychology of politics.
But this wouldn't be news to someone that ever had to do a research paper. Do you really think any researcher, or this journal, would publish a finding of this kind without a mountain of work to back it up? It's certainly a lot more than your grain of sand, or less, considering you have had ZERO contact with this study or any of the many it cites
How many citations? I see ~7 pages worth, with ~50 per page. And this isn't even a meta-analysis. This is a study that did it's own work.
How much you want to bet you are going to lie again and try to say I am defending the findings?
Trumptman, have you ever said any legitimate? Like, say, about Iraq's weapons capabilities?
Sure I do. Then you ignore it and complain repeatedly about some point you have made important only in your head. Things like, "Yeah, but did you use a comma in that statement."
Quote:
1. In this thread you are insisting on criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with. It is this tendency of yours that has lead you top other dramatically false conclusions, such as your conclusion that Iraq had a threatening chemical weapon arsenal.
2. In the gays and marriage thread, you were the one irrationally hung up on the word 'marriage.' That was your issue, and all I was doing was pointing out how rediculous and nonsensical it was.
Wrong, numerous articles have quoted from it and so have you. (hang on this will come back to haunt you) Likewise I have now gone, found and read the study. In conclusion you are so off, you are practically delusional.
In the gays and marriage thread. I wasn't hung up on the word. I said others were so rather than argue with them about a word. (Thus denying homosexuals their full rights) Simply use a different word. You were the one who went off on some tantrum, crying in a corner trying to convince all those people who wouldn't reply in support that I was trying to equate religious actions with free speech. They ignored you and eventually so did I. (and will again soon, when you likely claim I didn't read the report I have in my possession.)
Quote:
Man. Man oh man. You have it backwards, genius. That's not the premise, that's the finding.
Wrong bucko. It is both. They start with an assumption. Run it through a meta-analysis, and, hey, what a surprise, support their assumption.
From the study...
Quote:
Our first assumption, too, is that conservative
ideologies?like virtually all other belief systems?are adopted in part because they satisfy some psychological needs..
They did not start with an test and it determined that 45% of the population was going to be conservative. In fact the findings don't declare anything about a percentage of the population. (Guess you didn't read it, did you.) The findings were for traits that conservatives would have. Traits which were listed in the first post of this thread.
What I claimed stands, when you declare that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis, don't expect me to give you credence.
Quote:
WHERE OH WHERE DID I ASSERT THAT? YOU ARE A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Want to have your cake and eat it too? I just quoted where you declared that the findings of the study were what I said. I declared it the premise. You said, no it was the findings. Thus you have said that the findings of this study are that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis called conservatism.
Quote:
WHERE DID I MAKE A VALUE JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE STUDY'S FINDINGS? YOU ARE A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY THAT I HAVE.
I said you would defend it. You have repeatedly. You claim criticism of the premise is not valid unless you have read the full study.
Now on to the conclusion...
Quote:
An important conclusion that follows from our analysis is that political attitudes and beliefs possess a strong motivational basis (e.g., Duckitt, 2001; Dunning, 1999; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Kruglanski, 1996; Kunda, 1990). Conservative ideologies, like virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs.
This was at the end under the heading, "What have we learned?"
We have learned that you can start with an assumption, look at a bunch of other studies that claim support for your assumption and then... hey claim your assuption was right.
Again there was no new science it was a meta-analysis.
Here is a little proof.
Quote:
In conclusion, our comprehensive review integrates several decades of research having to do with the psychological bases of political conservatism.
Review, not research, review. It is a meta-analysis of previous work.
Quote:
But this wouldn't be news to someone that ever had to do a research paper. Do you really think any researcher, or this journal, would publish a finding of this kind without a mountain of work to back it up? It's certainly a lot more than your grain of sand, or less, considering you have had ZERO contact with this study or any of the many it cites
Sure they would. They will publish so that others can read and peer review it. How is peer review accomplished unless something is published? For every scientific theory that has been overturned you can find hundreds of papers supporting it, that then were no longer valid. The assumptions can change the results. Science is a human endeavor and suffers from human shortcomings. Welcome to reality. Likewise there are plenty of well supported papers that hold completely polar opposite views on subjects that are well supported by citations from experts in the field and their writings. It doesn't prove anything.
Quote:
How many citations? I see ~7 pages worth, with ~50 per page. And this isn't even a meta-analysis. This is a study that did it's own work.
How much you want to bet you are going to lie again and try to say I am defending the findings?
You are defending them. However I suppose that won't be true anymore since I have taken the study and proven your claims about it are false. (even though they wouldn't be a defense )
Here is a quote you might find credible. It is from someone I like to call...giant.
Quote:
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18 ); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
Trust that guy? He quotes the abstract saying it is a meta-analysis.
guess what, liar. Here's what's going to happen. You are going to quote my exact words where I said what you claimed in this sentence: " when you declare that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis". Put it down or shut the **** up.
As for whether it's a meta-analysis, it's irrelevant. I thought they did their own work because of the way it looked when skimming through it. My mistake. But your correction only reinforces my point by a lot more, since any attack on this study has to deal with the mountain of research on which it is based. Good luck, and thanks for defeating your position for me.
As for your bit on peer review, that's nice and dandy that you like to wax philosophic, but the cold hard fact is that it was reviewed and considered worthy of being published. The journal has a reputation that is extremely important, and you can be sure that this study had a long review process before being published. And this isn't just speculation; dealing with these journals is what I do for a living.
Oh, and you might want to actually read the study before attacking it, if you can find the time in between checking out porn at 11 PM on a friday night.
guess what, liar. Here's what's going to happen. You are going to quote my exact words where I said what you claimed in this sentence: " when you declare that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis". Put it down or shut the **** up.
As for whether it's a meta-analysis, it's irrelevant. I thought they did their own work because of the way it looked when skimming through it. My mistake. But your correction only reinforces my point by a lot more, since any attack on this study has to deal with the mountain of research on which it is based. Good luck, and thanks for defeating your position for me.
As for your bit on peer review, that's nice and dandy that you like to wax philosophic, but the cold hard fact is that it was reviewed and considered worthy of being published. The journal has a reputation that is extremely important, and you can be sure that this study had a long review process before being published. And this isn't just speculation; dealing with these journals is what I do for a living.
Oh, and you might want to actually read the study before attacking it, if you can find the time in between checking out porn at 11 PM on a friday night.
Giant pretends to be so scary smart and well read but as far as I can tell he hasn't ready everything in the journal about that article. If he hasn't read it all we can only conclude that he's a bit player in the area of scholarly inquiry and can be disregarded as a novice.
I ready about this "research" several weeks ago and quickly found the relevant publications in the journal. It's very sad what passes for academic research these days. I hope these guys don't get tenure for publishing political opinions filled with bias.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
That's right. Try to divert attention away from the fact you are judging something before knowing anything about it. Is there anything more ignorant than that?
It's okay giant. I understand you're desire to lash out. I mean it is founded in your numerous fears and views about the way the world HAS to be.
As for this...
I'm not defending the study (I haven't yet read it, but have downloaded it and will). I'm just pointing out how your identification with an idology has you constructing a world view based on guesses rather than actual fact. Have fun riding your unicorn to inside-out land.
All these replies from you constitute.... a defense..
So you are ignorant from not having read it and in denial about the fact you are defending something you haven't even read.
That's okay though because you do this as part of your mental illness. Don't be angry, go read the study in order to better understand why you have the sickness you do.
BTW, the above is an example of IRONY, in case giant just doesn't get it.
Would your desire to defend what you haven't read be considered....closemindedness...get this boy a swastica!
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Maybe you were responding to someone else and quoted me on accident, because I can't figure out how my criticism of trumptman's inability to inform himself before making judgements leads you to the interpretation above.
I didn't quote you by accident. In your reply to trumpetman, who I wasn't referring to, you also pass off George Will as if he's a close-minded, cave-dwelling dinosaur.
"joined the ranks..." ... Heh.
Originally posted by trumptman
It's okay giant. I understand you're desire to lash out. I mean it is founded in your numerous fears and views about the way the world HAS to be.
As for this...
All these replies from you constitute.... a defense..
So you are ignorant from not having read it and in denial about the fact you are defending something you haven't even read.
That's okay though because you do this as part of your mental illness. Don't be angry, go read the study in order to better understand why you have the sickness you do.
BTW, the above is an example of IRONY, in case giant just doesn't get it.
Would your desire to defend what you haven't read be considered....closemindedness...get this boy a swastica!
Nick
Except that you are the one making judgements about something you haven't read.
And you are the one saying I am defending something I have expressed no view on.
Look at you!
I'm on you for forming opinions about something you have had ZERO contact with, not what the content of your opinion is. How could your opinion on this matter? YOU HAVEN'T READ THE STUDY! It's like saying "Oh, surya in India. I don't like that guy. Sure, I never heard of him before now and know nothing about him, but I don't like him JUST BECAUSE."
Since you have had ZERO, let me remind you: ZERO, contact with the actual study, you are in no position whatsoever to make a judgement, regardless if the study is on the composition of styrofoam or if it's about something that might upset you.
How is forming opinions on things you have had ZERO contact with anything less than absolutely close-minded?
Originally posted by giant
Except that you are the one making judgements about something you haven't read.
And you are the one saying I am defending something I have expressed no view on.
Look at you!
I'm on you for forming opinions about something you have had ZERO contact with, not what the content of your opinion is. How could your opinion on this matter? YOU HAVEN'T READ THE STUDY! It's like saying "Oh, surya in India. I don't like that guy. Sure, I never heard of him before now and know nothing about him, but I don't like him JUST BECAUSE."
Since you have had ZERO, let me remind you: ZERO, contact with the actual study, you are in no position whatsoever to make a judgement, regardless if the study is on the composition of styrofoam or if it's about something that might upset you.
How is forming opinions on things you have had ZERO contact with anything less than absolutely close-minded?
As for you eugene, you are so far off in your own little world here I don't know what to make of you.
What are you...5 years old? Why don't you say I know you are but what am I or I'm a rubber tree and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you?!?
You posted and admitted you hadn't read the study. You claimed you have it so pm me and I'll let you send it to me. But don't sit there hypocritically and claim that you are right in defending a study you haven't read and I am wrong in condemning it.
Even before I read the study though, I can question the base line assuption. The assuption is that only certain people who almost all happen to belong to the same political party act on their mental shortcomings, not on how they view the world or what they believe. That assumption would be pretty hard to prove regardless of politics. If I claimed 40-45% of everyone everywhere were mentally sick and acting on it, you would question the study. Heck I would expect people to question a study that said homosexuals were only acting on mental shortcomings and that is 3-10% of the population depending upon the statistics you use. So if you can't understand why I am skeptical about a study that claims pretty much half of everyone everywhere has a mental problem or that calls socilists conservatives, then that is your problem with which to deal.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What are you...5 years old? Why don't you say I know you are but what am I or I'm a rubber tree and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you?!?
What are you, nuts?
You posted and admitted you hadn't read the study. You claimed you have it so pm me and I'll let you send it to me. But don't sit there hypocritically and claim that you are right in defending a study you haven't read and I am wrong in condemning it.
a) Point to the place in this thread that I expressed a judgement on the study. Oh...what's that? You can't? That's because I didn't. Of course, it's no great suprise that you see things that don't exist.
b) I'm not sending you shit. It's called copyright law. Look it up. The Ovid license agreement does not allow transmission of documents obtained throught it, not even for fair use. As much as you or I may disagree with the license agreement, that the way it is for now until someone attacks it in court. You have no excuse for not obtaining it yourself in a legal manner.
Even before I read the study though, I can question the base line assuption. blah, blah, blah
You have not read the study and do not know what it says. All you know are second hand accounts by reporters and columnists looking to sell papers and feed ideologies (in short, sell papers). God help you if you can't realize that a study of this kind will naturally be portrayed in the media in a dramatic light and, as such, any media accounts are worthless.
Originally posted by giant
What are you, nuts?
a) Point to the place in this thread that I expressed a judgement on the study. Oh...what's that? You can't? That's because I didn't. Of course, it's no great suprise that you see things that don't exist.
b) I'm not sending you shit. It's called copyright law. Look it up. The Ovid license agreement does not allow transmission of documents obtained throught it, not even for fair use. As much as you or I may disagree with the license agreement, that the way it is for now until someone attacks it in court. You have no excuse for not obtaining it yourself in a legal manner.
You have not read the study and do not know what it says. All you know are second hand accounts by reporters and columnists looking to sell papers and feed ideologies (in short, sell papers). God help you if you can't realize that a study of this kind will naturally be portrayed in the media in a dramatic light and, as such, any media accounts are worthless.
You said you weren't going to defend it. You obviously have been doing so. I'll call you what you are, a liar.
As for not sending me "shit." Stop your bluffing. List where you obtained it, give a link to read, purchase, etc. it. Otherwise you are just a liar who claims to have it (but didn't read it..yet) and claims to not judge it (even while defending which you would not do if you hadn't "judged it to be okay")
As for second hand accounts, big deal. In a court it would be called a witness. If thoughtful people cannot provide thoughtful discussion on a paper, then what are the alternatives? I can't go through life with first hand information of everything before acting. There aren't enough hours in the day. Do you dispute the weather forecasts or do you have to read the atmospheric data yourself?
Heck aren't the scientists just third parties interpreting data as well? Why trust them either?
Your hypocracy is astounding.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You said you weren't going to defend it. You obviously have been doing so. I'll call you what you are, a liar.
Where oh where oh where did I defend it? Point out the quotes or quit with the accusations. All I have done here is get on your case for criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with.
As for not sending me "shit." Stop your bluffing. List where you obtained it, give a link to read, purchase, etc. it. Otherwise you are just a liar who claims to have it (but didn't read it..yet) and claims to not judge it (even while defending which you would not do if you hadn't "judged it to be okay")
I just said where I got it! OVID! (http://gateway.ovid.com/) And here's a link to the journal's website: http://www.apa.org/journals/bul.html
Now pay for a subscription or ILL it.
As for second hand accounts, big deal. [blah, blah, blah...waxing philosphic]
Stop with these BS attempts to avoid owning up to the fact that you are criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with.
Really, you are obviously not capable of having a serious discussion based in fact.
PS The one thing that you have to accept is that it wouldn't have been published in this journal had their methods not been sound. If you want to criticize the methods, then get the article and do so point by point.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep and amazingly enough it sounded like most liberal notions regarding change.
If you want to see some closed-mindedness around here. Visit my threads on Men's Choice, speech codes, etc. There is plenty of closemindedness from the liberal side of issues.
Nick
Nope, your views are simply those pre 1960s America. Being a conservative means you wish to conserve an idealized version of the past.
If we only had conservatives we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages. No Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution, Glorious Revolution in England, American Revolution, Capitalism, etc etc etc.
Why do you think so much of history is covered up in American schools? So people can look back and think the 1950s was a good/happy/prosperous decade. Or skim over what settlers did Native Americans. Or the "red" scares in the 1920s. Labor union fights etc.
How do you think we got the 40 hour work week? Conservatives would have us all slaving in factories 80 hours a day. (records from England show factory owners complaining that workers were weak since they couldn't work 90 hours a week and had to work 80).
Okay enough of a rant but if this study is true then the US has some problems. A NYTimes poll found that "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)." This even though almost all biblical scholars believe this isn't true.
Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book "Mary Through the Centuries" that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark's gospel, the first to be written, or Paul's letter to the Galatians) don't mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).
This goes back to the study that found:
political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness, including (a) increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, (b) decreased cognitive complexity, (c) decreased openness to experience, (d) uncertainty avoidance
In other words there is no real evidence in the bible for anyone to believe virgin birth(which is impossible anyway) but it was created by the RCC as a way to admonish women as unpure etc. Half of what the RCC does seems designed to keep women down.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/index.html
I hope my post doesn't start a flame war . . . .
Originally posted by jante99
Nope, your views are simply those pre 1960s America. Being a conservative means you wish to conserve an idealized version of the past.
Since I was born in 1970 how would I even know? Likewise what did conservatives do before the 1950's? Could that litle mantra repeat be a sign of what you claim?
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
Could it be that you have formed a few ideas about people who are conservative and refuse to believe them capable of what you claim because you are unreceptive to new ideas?
If you looked at those threads I mentioned you would see what I have posted is hardly from the 1950's. I suppose you were to closeminded to read it.
If we only had conservatives we would still be stuck in the Middle Ages. No Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, French Revolution, Glorious Revolution in England, American Revolution, Capitalism, etc etc etc.
Why do you think so much of history is covered up in American schools? So people can look back and think the 1950s was a good/happy/prosperous decade. Or skim over what settlers did Native Americans. Or the "red" scares in the 1920s. Labor union fights etc.
Yes because conservatives never endorse things like capitalism, progress or anything like that.
Who wanted to keep slavery? Republicans or Democrats?
Likewise maybe the reason children get idealized versions of the past is because adults want to give them heros instead of filling up their head with adult matters. So if I read a book to a 6 year old that mentioned that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar but not the semen stained dress, fellatio, etc. Does that mean I am harming him or her? Or does it mean I let them visit adult issues when they are adults?
I should definately know what is in those textbooks because I happen to be a teacher. Likewise while they don't mention the thing you added in full detail. They also don't mention that the founder of planned parenthood was a eugenicist, that Democrats filibustered to keep the civil rights bill from being passed. That Al Gore's Dad grew tobacco and was one of those senators fighting the change of civil rights, etc.
As for the virgin birth...what the hell does that have to do with anything here?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes because conservatives never endorse things like capitalism, progress or anything like that.
Likewise maybe the reason children get idealized versions of the past is because adults want to give them heros instead of filling up their head with adult matters.
As for the virgin birth...what the hell does that have to do with anything here?
Nick
The conservative landed aristocrats in the 1600s-early 1900s hated capitalism. They wanted to keep the Middle Ages going to protect their economical interests. Eventually capitalism won, though, and a new elite of business men took over the Parliament of England the Congress in the US. So by the Gilded Age in America the US Government was setup for and by business. Thus new conservatives wanted to preserve capitalism and their wealth.
And the issues you mention Clinton, Democrats, Republicans are minor. You can have liberal republicans and conservative democrats.
Remember everything is relative. Christianity was radical in the Roman Empire but by the Middle Ages it was conservative.
This dumbing down of history isn't just about 6 year olds it is about high schools.
The virgin birth as the article states is simply evidence of what is going on in America: people are trying to escape reality by turning to religion. Don't want to believe the Iraqi people are suffering, simply believe they have been "liberated." Can't deal with complexity of the "war on terror" view it as good verse evil.
I am not saying religion is bad but if you start to look at everything as black and white you run into major problems. The NYTimes article points out the intellectual side of religion is disappearing in America. The same thing happened with Islam and now look what a lot of it has turned into.
Originally posted by giant
... you apparently completely missed the irony of the will quote Shawn posted. Good job.
You apparently completely missed that Shawn DIDN'T POST a Will quote but someone else's snarky, shorter version of Will's column. Good job.
I think that's really, really, really telling...
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You apparently completely missed that Shawn DIDN'T POST a Will quote but someone else's snarky, shorter version of Will's column. Good job.
Well, you got me there.
I think that's really, really, really telling...
Really, really, really telling of what? Seriously. Really, really, really telling of what? And back it up with past examples, since it is telling of a trend. I can certainly cite many posts where trumptman has criticized things without knowing anything about them, which is why it is really, really, really telling.
Originally posted by giant
Well, you got me there.
Really, really, really telling of what? Seriously. Really, really, really telling of what? And back it up with past examples, since it is telling of a trend. I can certainly cite many posts where trumptman has criticized things without knowing anything about them, which is why it is really, really, really telling.
giant, not to be rude, but do you ever make a legitimate point or do you just get hung up on logistics everytime?
In two threads now I have witnessed you do this. Essentually repeat the same point over and over about some minor quibble instead of addressing the issue at hand.
You: Hey, you didn't read the study about the moon, being made of cheese, so you can't comment on it.
Me: The premise is flawed, no one would believe that the moon is made of cheese.
You: Yeah, but you didn't read it.
Me: Regardless, the moon cannot be made of cheese.
You: Yeah, but you didn't read it, so don't judge.
I stated point blank that any study that begins with the premise that certain political viewpoints are a neurosis from which 40-45% of the population (and more everyday) suffers is not likely to hold credibility with me, nor most intelligent people. If you told me there was a study that claimed anyone who was married was mentally ill, I wouldn't care if I read third party summaries or the study itself, the premise is flawed.
If you want me to believe that almost half of society is suffering from a mass delusion called The Republican Party aka Conservatism, you had best put up something or shut up. The assertion is yours. Give some proof, (I asked for the study or even a source to look it up myself, you whined on and on about again.. not reading it.) or shut up.
BTW, you still haven't indicated you have read the study and yes, you are still defending a bizarre assertion you haven't even read. That is the height of lunacy to me. You take at face value something that declares almost half of society mentally ill without reading a single word.
Nick
Originally posted by jante99
The conservative landed aristocrats in the 1600s-early 1900s hated capitalism. They wanted to keep the Middle Ages going to protect their economical interests. Eventually capitalism won, though, and a new elite of business men took over the Parliament of England the Congress in the US. So by the Gilded Age in America the US Government was setup for and by business. Thus new conservatives wanted to preserve capitalism and their wealth.
And the issues you mention Clinton, Democrats, Republicans are minor. You can have liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Remember everything is relative. Christianity was radical in the Roman Empire but by the Middle Ages it was conservative.
This dumbing down of history isn't just about 6 year olds it is about high schools.
The virgin birth as the article states is simply evidence of what is going on in America: people are trying to escape reality by turning to religion. Don't want to believe the Iraqi people are suffering, simply believe they have been "liberated." Can't deal with complexity of the "war on terror" view it as good verse evil.
I am not saying religion is bad but if you start to look at everything as black and white you run into major problems. The NYTimes article points out the intellectual side of religion is disappearing in America. The same thing happened with Islam and now look what a lot of it has turned into.
I think you are interchanging the definition of the word conservative with the actual party whenever you just happen to find it convenient.
Would someone who argues that evolution must be gradual instead of punctuated equalibrium be a conservative or liberal?
Would someone who argued that slavery should be ended be a conservative or a liberal?
Your definition, basically anyone who has opposed a change..ever... is too broad to be useful.
Is someone who supports affirmative action but believes it should also include income instead of just race alone be liberal or conservative?
Help narrow your definition.
As for the virgin mary, you can keep her. I don't really care about how people feel about her.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
giant, not to be rude, but do you ever make a legitimate point or do you just get hung up on logistics everytime?
Trumptman, have you ever said any legitimate? Like, say, about Iraq's weapons capabilities?
In two threads now I have witnessed you do this. Essentually repeat the same point over and over about some minor quibble instead of addressing the issue at hand.
1. In this thread you are insisting on criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with. It is this tendency of yours that has lead you top other dramatically false conclusions, such as your conclusion that Iraq had a threatening chemical weapon arsenal.
2. In the gays and marriage thread, you were the one irrationally hung up on the word 'marriage.' That was your issue, and all I was doing was pointing out how rediculous and nonsensical it was.
I stated point blank that any study that begins with the premise that certain political viewpoints are a neurosis from which 40-45% of the population (and more everyday) ...the premise is flawed.
Man.
If you got a copy of the study, you might be able to know what the difference is.
If you want me to believe that almost half of society is suffering from a mass delusion called The Republican Party aka Conservatism, you had best put up something or shut up. The assertion is yours.
WHERE OH WHERE DID I ASSERT THAT? YOU ARE A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
BTW, you still haven't indicated you have read the study and yes, you are still defending a bizarre assertion you haven't even read. That is the height of lunacy to me. You take at face value something that declares almost half of society mentally ill without reading a single word.
WHERE DID I MAKE A VALUE JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE STUDY'S FINDINGS? YOU ARE A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY THAT I HAVE.
You have said this over and over again and YOU ARE LYING.
Furthermore, if you looked at the actual study, you would see that in the set-up of criteria there are references upon references to a massive amount of research done on this topic, so much so that it is difficult to get through each sentence because of the number of citations. So really, if you want to argue with the way it is set up, something that you have ZERO knowledge of because you don't have the study, then you are arguing with the massive body of work that has been done by many, many researchers on the psychology of politics.
But this wouldn't be news to someone that ever had to do a research paper. Do you really think any researcher, or this journal, would publish a finding of this kind without a mountain of work to back it up? It's certainly a lot more than your grain of sand, or less, considering you have had ZERO contact with this study or any of the many it cites
How many citations? I see ~7 pages worth, with ~50 per page. And this isn't even a meta-analysis. This is a study that did it's own work.
How much you want to bet you are going to lie again and try to say I am defending the findings?
Originally posted by giant
Trumptman, have you ever said any legitimate? Like, say, about Iraq's weapons capabilities?
Sure I do. Then you ignore it and complain repeatedly about some point you have made important only in your head. Things like, "Yeah, but did you use a comma in that statement."
1. In this thread you are insisting on criticizing something you have had ZERO contact with. It is this tendency of yours that has lead you top other dramatically false conclusions, such as your conclusion that Iraq had a threatening chemical weapon arsenal.
2. In the gays and marriage thread, you were the one irrationally hung up on the word 'marriage.' That was your issue, and all I was doing was pointing out how rediculous and nonsensical it was.
Wrong, numerous articles have quoted from it and so have you. (hang on this will come back to haunt you) Likewise I have now gone, found and read the study. In conclusion you are so off, you are practically delusional.
In the gays and marriage thread. I wasn't hung up on the word. I said others were so rather than argue with them about a word. (Thus denying homosexuals their full rights) Simply use a different word. You were the one who went off on some tantrum, crying in a corner trying to convince all those people who wouldn't reply in support that I was trying to equate religious actions with free speech. They ignored you and eventually so did I. (and will again soon, when you likely claim I didn't read the report I have in my possession.)
Man. Man oh man. You have it backwards, genius. That's not the premise, that's the finding.
Wrong bucko. It is both. They start with an assumption. Run it through a meta-analysis, and, hey, what a surprise, support their assumption.
From the study...
Our first assumption, too, is that conservative
ideologies?like virtually all other belief systems?are adopted in part because they satisfy some psychological needs..
They did not start with an test and it determined that 45% of the population was going to be conservative. In fact the findings don't declare anything about a percentage of the population. (Guess you didn't read it, did you.) The findings were for traits that conservatives would have. Traits which were listed in the first post of this thread.
What I claimed stands, when you declare that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis, don't expect me to give you credence.
WHERE OH WHERE DID I ASSERT THAT? YOU ARE A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Want to have your cake and eat it too? I just quoted where you declared that the findings of the study were what I said. I declared it the premise. You said, no it was the findings. Thus you have said that the findings of this study are that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis called conservatism.
WHERE DID I MAKE A VALUE JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE STUDY'S FINDINGS? YOU ARE A LIAR WHEN YOU SAY THAT I HAVE.
I said you would defend it. You have repeatedly. You claim criticism of the premise is not valid unless you have read the full study.
Now on to the conclusion...
An important conclusion that follows from our analysis is that political attitudes and beliefs possess a strong motivational basis (e.g., Duckitt, 2001; Dunning, 1999; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Kruglanski, 1996; Kunda, 1990). Conservative ideologies, like virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs.
This was at the end under the heading, "What have we learned?"
We have learned that you can start with an assumption, look at a bunch of other studies that claim support for your assumption and then... hey claim your assuption was right.
Again there was no new science it was a meta-analysis.
Here is a little proof.
In conclusion, our comprehensive review integrates several decades of research having to do with the psychological bases of political conservatism.
Review, not research, review. It is a meta-analysis of previous work.
But this wouldn't be news to someone that ever had to do a research paper. Do you really think any researcher, or this journal, would publish a finding of this kind without a mountain of work to back it up? It's certainly a lot more than your grain of sand, or less, considering you have had ZERO contact with this study or any of the many it cites
Sure they would. They will publish so that others can read and peer review it. How is peer review accomplished unless something is published? For every scientific theory that has been overturned you can find hundreds of papers supporting it, that then were no longer valid. The assumptions can change the results. Science is a human endeavor and suffers from human shortcomings. Welcome to reality. Likewise there are plenty of well supported papers that hold completely polar opposite views on subjects that are well supported by citations from experts in the field and their writings. It doesn't prove anything.
How many citations? I see ~7 pages worth, with ~50 per page. And this isn't even a meta-analysis. This is a study that did it's own work.
How much you want to bet you are going to lie again and try to say I am defending the findings?
You are defending them. However I suppose that won't be true anymore since I have taken the study and proven your claims about it are false. (even though they wouldn't be a defense
Here is a quote you might find credible. It is from someone I like to call...giant.
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18 ); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
Trust that guy? He quotes the abstract saying it is a meta-analysis.
Nick
As for whether it's a meta-analysis, it's irrelevant. I thought they did their own work because of the way it looked when skimming through it. My mistake. But your correction only reinforces my point by a lot more, since any attack on this study has to deal with the mountain of research on which it is based. Good luck, and thanks for defeating your position for me.
As for your bit on peer review, that's nice and dandy that you like to wax philosophic, but the cold hard fact is that it was reviewed and considered worthy of being published. The journal has a reputation that is extremely important, and you can be sure that this study had a long review process before being published. And this isn't just speculation; dealing with these journals is what I do for a living.
Oh, and you might want to actually read the study before attacking it, if you can find the time in between checking out porn at 11 PM on a friday night.
Originally posted by giant
guess what, liar. Here's what's going to happen. You are going to quote my exact words where I said what you claimed in this sentence: " when you declare that 40-45% of the population is suffering from a neurosis". Put it down or shut the **** up.
As for whether it's a meta-analysis, it's irrelevant. I thought they did their own work because of the way it looked when skimming through it. My mistake. But your correction only reinforces my point by a lot more, since any attack on this study has to deal with the mountain of research on which it is based. Good luck, and thanks for defeating your position for me.
As for your bit on peer review, that's nice and dandy that you like to wax philosophic, but the cold hard fact is that it was reviewed and considered worthy of being published. The journal has a reputation that is extremely important, and you can be sure that this study had a long review process before being published. And this isn't just speculation; dealing with these journals is what I do for a living.
Oh, and you might want to actually read the study before attacking it, if you can find the time in between checking out porn at 11 PM on a friday night.
Got it, you're wrong so flame me.
Nick
I ready about this "research" several weeks ago and quickly found the relevant publications in the journal. It's very sad what passes for academic research these days. I hope these guys don't get tenure for publishing political opinions filled with bias.