Politics on your mind?

The irony here is that when conservatives say the research is bogus, liberals can point to the research and say "of course you think that way".

Glad you get the humorous part of the research. I wonder if Robert Crowther understood...

PZ Myer on the flawed protocol although the real protocols shows how the research was actually performed

Anyone asked what was the political, social and religious orientation of the scientists who made this "research" ? Can I make a wild guess?

By the way, what can be said about people who, at some time in their lives, were liberals, and then later on, became conservatives? And the reverse?

Anyone asked what was the political, social and religious orientation of the scientists who made this “research” ? Can I make a wild guess?

Anyone know what is the political, social and religious orientation of Mats? Can I make a wild guess? :)

What exactly is a conservative vs a liberal?

I used to classify myself a conservative. But since the evangelicals have hijacked the term, I no longer do.

Mats wrote: By the way, what can be said about people who, at some time in their lives, were liberals, and then later on, became conservatives? And the reverse?

Anyone know what is the political, social and religious orientation of Mats? Can I make a wild guess? :)

By the way, what can be said about people who, at some time in their lives, were liberals, and then later on, became conservatives? And the reverse?

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

What exactly is a conservative vs a liberal? I used to classify myself a conservative. But since the evangelicals have hijacked the term, I no longer do.

— 2hulls

The critical political orientation item asked participants to indicate their political orientation on a scale ranging from Extremely Liberal (–5) to Extremely Conservative (+5), with neutral corresponding to 0. This single item has been shown to provide a valid and reliable measure of political orientation that is very strongly predictive of intended and actual behavior (e.g., voting decisions).1,2

There was already known a strong possitive correlation between IQ, education achievment and liberalism. But, I suspect that this is vulnerable to an excluded middle error.

I read the research article. I noticed a distinct bias in the wording of the article, but it was nowhere nearly as horrible as the wording of that Seattle times article.

The most basic finding on the go/no-go task is interesting, and the corresponding ACC activity is an expected neural correlate to the behavior, but I would hope that anyone with even the most basic critical thinking skills would be rather careful extrapolating beyond that most basic of tasks.

I used to classify myself a conservative. But since the evangelicals have hijacked the term, I no longer do.

Perhaps our thoughts are no more a reliable indication of the true nature of reality than a monkey brain, as Darwin mused.

"Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature."

This makes me PROUD to be a liberal!

So......what was the political, social and religious orientation of the scientists who made this “research”?

What exactly is a conservative vs a liberal?

You tell us; apparently you have some information you're dying to share.

Does this mean that liberals are "hard wired" to be different from conservatives? This data alone certainly doesn't support that claim. After all, the go/no go task is a learned activity. The reason that it's hard to inhibit tapping when the "M" appears is that you've learned to tap when you see a letter. You could also learn to tap only when you see an M, and you might be able to learn to be better at this task. Could you learn to be liberal (or conservative)? This study doesn't answer that question, but my suspicion is you could. After all, what's considered liberal in the U.S. is considered conservative in many places. In other places, a U.S. conservative would be considered a flaming liberal.

Anyone asked what was the political, social and religious orientation of the scientists who made this “research” ? Can I make a wild guess?

— Mats

Anyone asked what was the political, social and religious orientation of the scientists who made this “research” ? Can I make a wild guess?

— Mats

Anyone asked what was the political, social and religious orientation of the scientists who made this “research” ? Can I make a wild guess?

— Mats

Most of the famous converts to hard core, right wing “conservative” positions, along the lines of Norman Podohertz (sp?) were rigid, ideological leftists before they converted, not “liberals”. My guess would be that they were unable to function except in a rigid ideology, but somehow were able to switch between rigid ideologies.

— Harold

Sorry about the multiple post. The site kept giving me an error, but then posted the comment anyway!

so, would the posers who call themselves critics please go on and show the flaws in methods, results, and analysis, instead of making idiotic assumptions of bias and "nonscience"?

seriously.

put up or stfu.

there is always room for debate as to the interpretation of results in a discussion section, but to call it "not science" means you have to go and point out where the methods and analysis are so flawed as to have not been worthy of publication to begin with.

so, gerard, this means you, specifically, since you're not an idiot like Realpc.

Which research would you like me to comment on? The recent Nature paper, or the more tendentiously described 'meta-analysis'? This post discusses both.

About the meta-analysis, two of whose authors' political contributions I've given, it is claimed "Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature."

That doesn't strike you as biased, eh? Perhaps you're not open-minded enough? Maybe you need to think outside the box.

No true Scotsman doesn’t like haggis.

Which research would you like me to comment on? The recent Nature paper, or the more tendentiously described ‘meta-analysis’? This post discusses both.

That doesn’t strike you as biased, eh? Perhaps you’re not open-minded enough? Maybe you need to think outside the box.

That doesn’t strike you as biased, eh?

...again, think about how Dembski's "No Free Lunch" was taken apart.

of course there is bias on Dembski's part, but nowhere did that play a role in the scientific trashing of the failed math and statistics used in that work. bias plays a role in motivation, not necessarily execution.

If Dembski hadn't made so many poor assumptions and mistakes in his formulas, the bias he presents wouldn't make a dent in whether or not the paper was publishable.

think about it:

by assuming bias on the part of the researchers, you in essence are saying that the peer review process is so flawed that none of the reviewers ever even thought to look for it in the paper before recommending it for publication.

Is that really what you're trying to say?

'cause if so, then, I'd say the bias all falls on you.

By the way, what can be said about people who, at some time in their lives, were liberals, and then later on, became conservatives? And the reverse?

That doesn’t strike you as biased, eh? Perhaps you’re not open-minded enough? Maybe you need to think outside the box.

It’s not as if it’s science, or anything.

About the meta-analysis, two of whose authors’ political contributions I’ve given

it is claimed “Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.” That doesn’t strike you as biased, eh?

No true Scotsman doesn’t like haggis.

gerard, just like with all the putative ID “papers” out there that were so patiently dismantled here and elsewhere, pointing out both the flaws in method and conclusion, so too if you want to claim the nature paper “not science”, must you also go and painstakingly point out the egregious flaws in method that were so obvious that they were missed by all the peer reviewers in cognitive science the paper was sent to for review.

— Sir_Tiejam

Regardless of whether the report’s claims are accurate, all conservatives are aholes, and Harbison is certainly no exception.

A general observation. I've noticed there are two sorts of people in the anti-creationism movement. There are scientists, like myself, who are interested in defending science from external interference by the religiously- or politically-motivated. And there are hangers-on, usually not scientists, for who the evolution/creation issue is nothing more than a useful stick to beat conservatives, and who really don't know the science or give a damn much about it.

A thread like this brings the latter crowd out in droves.

Let's be clear here. Jost's work in general is sociology/psychology. He looks for psychological origins of political views. It's not what a hard scientist regards as hard science.

Political reporters for newspapers are usually forbidden to make political contributions or work on campaigns. There's a very good reason for that; to avoid even the appearance of bias in coverage. I see no reason why academics - Jost is not what I personally would call a scientist - should not be subject to the same strictures. Now, I'm in two minds about this; I like to be able to see a record of political contributions, because it's a sign the contributor is first of all unusually politically engaged - most scientists do not contribute to political campaigns - and it says where those biases lie. I see no way Jost, a heavily politically engaged individual whose 'research' happens to find all sorts of reported defects in his political opponents, and virtues in people who think like him - should be mistaken for an objective researcher.

This isn't molecular biology, where a gene sequence is what it is, and, absent fraud, the politics of the researcher won't change a C to a G. This is sociology, where bias pervades everything from the phrasing of the questions, to the construction of hyportheses, to their interpretation.

And, once again I ask, why is this research reported on a pro-evolution website? This has nothing to do with evolution.

Gerard,

"A general observation. I’ve noticed there are two sorts of people in the anti-creationism movement. There are scientists, like myself, who are interested in defending science from external interference by the religiously- or politically-motivated. And there are hangers-on, usually not scientists, for who the evolution/creation issue is nothing more than a useful stick to beat conservatives, and who really don’t know the science or give a damn much about it."

I would fall into the second camp, however...I do care about science and this issue. I care about what is being taught in our public schools and how that might be funded with public dollars.

I care about how this country, assuming you are also from the US, competes on a global scale in the future. I understand that raising a generation of morons who think "goddidit" is dangerous for the future of the US.

I also care about how this one fight has far reaching implications on other aspects of my life and that of my 11 year old daughter.

So, while I may not be a scientist, I do have a dog in this fight.

'A general observation. I’ve noticed there are two sorts of people in the anti-creationism movement. There are scientists, like myself, who are interested in defending science from external interference by the religiously- or politically-motivated. And there are hangers-on, usually not scientists, for who the evolution/creation issue is nothing more than a useful stick to beat conservatives, and who really don’t know the science or give a damn much about it.

A thread like this brings the latter crowd out in droves.'

I wonder, in this rather strange dichotomy, which am I? I certainly am not a scientist, and I absolutely hate the neo-conservative position (don't call me a liberal, liberal is NOT the opposite of conservative) but I don't use creationism to beat conservatives, I use my studies in politics for that.

Indeed, I use the 'debate' more as an interesting look at an anti-science world I don't know much about, and admittedly stuff to use to laugh at the rubes.

Most of the famous converts to hard core, right wing “conservative” positions, along the lines of Norman Podohertz (sp?) were rigid, ideological leftists before they converted, not “liberals”. My guess would be that they were unable to function except in a rigid ideology, but somehow were able to switch between rigid ideologies.

No true Scotsman doesn’t like haggis.

it is claimed “Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.”

It’s not what a hard scientist regards as hard science.

What they actually detected were small electrical differences between the responses of self-declared liberals and conservatives. These sorts of EEG measurements are fraught with all sorts of difficulty; they are grossly inferior, IMHO, to fMRI; so one needs to be very cautious in interpreting what this means, and they were.

A general observation. I’ve noticed there are two sorts of people in the anti-creationism movement. There are scientists, like myself, who are interested in defending science from external interference by the religiously- or politically-motivated. And there are hangers-on, usually not scientists, for who the evolution/creation issue is nothing more than a useful stick to beat conservatives, and who really don’t know the science or give a damn much about it.

“Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.”

Liberals are so cool!! Can I be a liberal even if I believe in ID?

Sure. Except that you will then be known as "A new-age flake".

Liberals are so cool!! Can I be a liberal even if I believe in ID?

The Nature paper is barely mentioned in PvM’s post. It is simply a vehicle to unload the rest of this tendentious nonsense.

harold,

I am a liberal because I believe in group inter-species marriage.

And, once again I ask, why is this research reported on a pro-evolution website? This has nothing to do with evolution.

Besides the overinterpretation of the results and eventual errors in the research, I think this may be the larger problem for interpreters. These are relative groups. At least one blog (which?) noted that a US conservative can look liberal or superconservative in other countries.

Liberals are cooler than conservatives. God bless liberals.

I am a liberal because I believe in group inter-species marriage.

It may have a lot to do with why religious conservatives are quick to deny science when it comes to such issues as global warming, evolution, etc…

I don't know why this piece is on this website. Generally this blog stays away from stereotypes of the religious and of political folk. If it's science, then fine, but we'd need the science, not a report on the brains of "conservatives" when we have no idea what the criteria for picking them out were.

I mean, were "conservatives" picked out because they had less tolerance for ambiguity and were less open? Okay, probably not. But then were they picked out because of proxies for being less open and less tolerant of ambiguity? Then again, how could we know? It's a meta-analysis of 88 studies, some of which may have had conflicting criteria for who the "conservatives" were and who the "liberals" were, and perhaps came to varying conclusions as well. Well sure, you say, it's a meta-analysis.

Fine, but it does matter who did the studies, and the mere fact that academics tend to be liberal does not void the potential bias. I do not ask whether liberals or conservatives did evolutionary studies or did physics, but I do ask who were the ones who studied conservatives and liberals, because liberals and conservatives typically have prior conceptions about each other.

I can't find the article in a timely fashion, but I recall a piece in the Economist about one of the studies on "conservative" minds which had found them to be the results of secure upbringing. The matter was discussed for a while, then they brought up the fact that another study had found the complete opposite, that "conservative" minds were the result of anxious upbringings. I don't doubt much that one could find "conservatives" of either stripe, and a host of issues of selection bias and what academics think are the markers of "conservatism" could play into the studies.

I'd note that the "conclusions" are almost completely what one would expect. Perhaps that means that it is right, but perhaps it means that our (and their) expectations were a selectional aspect of many or most of the studies. I have to wonder, are the "conservatives" simply "liberals" who managed to get into life situations which they wish to preserve? I mean, does anybody really think that "conservatives" and "liberals" are immutable categories? I know that the switch isn't as immediate or complete as the second to the last sentence might suggest, but it's startling how rapidly some people change. There is truth in the observation that every revolution becomes conservative the day that it takes power.

One aspect of which I would not be concerned is whether or not "American liberals" and "American conservatives" are representative of "liberals" and "conservatives" throughout the world. First of all, I suspect that the analysis wasn't claimed to be universally applicable. Secondly, it is unlikely that "conservative" or "liberal" minds have anything to do with any "absolute measure" of political or social conditions, but instead it would be expected that "conservatives" and "liberals" would sort themselves out to roughly equivalent areas of each society's spectrum. Cross-cultural studies would tell us whether or not that assumption is true, at least if we have good information with which to work.

The truth of the matter is that there are a whole lot of questions that ought to be asked of a "meta-analysis" of 88 studies, the latter of which we know almost nothing, and few are in fact being asked. Nor do we hear the familiar refrain that at most these are tendencies, and they may (probably, IMO) not tell us much about any individual "liberal" or "conservative". The confirmation bias appears to be too comforting to raise the "hard questions," yet there's little excuse for acquiescing to what may be "junk science" (I question more the studies than the analysis, the latter of which presumably follows fairly good methods---but if garbage is going in...) in this case, while complaining that IDists accept junk "science" for the sake of their own biases.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

'Liberals are cooler than conservatives. God bless liberals.'

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Why do a large number of people, specifically in the US use them as if they are?

I should have mentioned that I was only addressing the meta-analysis in my last post.

One thing I'd note about the more recent study is that not only might it be skewed due to the fact that extremists tend to go more toward the right in America, as Skitka notes, but that these are college students who self-identify as conservatives in an environment that tends to be liberal.

That is to say, they have to be resistant to change in order to remain conservative where the environment favors liberalism. The "flexible" (or possibly the easily influenced) ones are more likely to fit in with liberalism that exists on the campuses.

Thus there is likely to be an inherent selection bias by choosing "conservative" college students. If you went to an environment where the environment favored conservatism, you might find rather more "flexible" conservatives. Indeed, the most "flexible" minds might tend to cluster wherever the dominant ideology happens to be at a given time, and in college that is quite arguably toward the left of the spectrum.

For myself, I've pretty much given up looking for truly open minds. I tried the left, I tried the right, and as far as I can tell, most people have beliefs that resist change.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

I understand that you’re just a right wing hard-ass who wants to cut the free lunches at public schools, or ramp up the use of the death penalty, or some such thing

One thing I’d note about the more recent study is that not only might it be skewed due to the fact that extremists tend to go more toward the right in America, as Skitka notes, but that these are college students who self-identify as conservatives in an environment that tends to be liberal. That is to say, they have to be resistant to change in order to remain conservative where the environment favors liberalism. The “flexible” (or possibly the easily influenced) ones are more likely to fit in with liberalism that exists on the campuses.

I made a valid factual claim, and backed it with one example. My statement does not remotely resemble a “no true Scotsman” claim. I most certainly did not say that someone who switches from “ regular liberalism” to being a right wing is not a “true” conservative. Of course they would be.

harold wrote: I understand that you’re just a right wing hard-ass who wants to cut the free lunches at public schools, or ramp up the use of the death penalty, or some such thing

'I see it blew right by you. You claimed that a liberal who switched to conservative is not a “regular liberal”, but a dogmatist who happened to adopt a left wing positions. No true liberal, in other words.'

I know I'm not important, and my knowlege of this matter as a student of politics will go unnoticed, but seriously, left wing=/= liberal.

Please, stop saying it does. It's a massive pet peeve of mine.

I don’t know why this piece is on this website. Generally this blog stays away from stereotypes of the religious and of political folk. If it’s science, then fine, but we’d need the science, not a report on the brains of “conservatives” when we have no idea what the criteria for picking them out were.

One thing I’d note about the more recent study is that not only might it be skewed due to the fact that extremists tend to go more toward the right in America, as Skitka notes, but that these are college students who self-identify as conservatives in an environment that tends to be liberal. That is to say, they have to be resistant to change in order to remain conservative where the environment favors liberalism. The “flexible” (or possibly the easily influenced) ones are more likely to fit in with liberalism that exists on the campuses.

I know I’m not important, and my knowlege of this matter as a student of politics will go unnoticed, but seriously, left wing=/= liberal

I see it blew right by you. You claimed that a liberal who switched to conservative is not a “regular liberal”, but a dogmatist who happened to adopt a left wing positions. No true liberal, in other words.

I understand that you’re just a right wing hard-ass who wants to cut the free lunches at public schools, or ramp up the use of the death penalty, or some such thing

And you’re a person who substitutes slogans for thought and ad hominems for argument.

Well, doesn’t that pretty much support what I wrote? I used to hope that conservatives might be relatively open and flexible, but haven’t found that generally to be the case. But those hopes (and inevitable disillusionment) came after my disillusionment with a “liberalism” which had its mind made up about issues, and about people like Gerard here (to be fair, today’s “liberalism” is not as puritanical and intolerant as an earlier “liberalism”).

Well, it's too late now, but my post above may be too harsh.

Such is the tenor in the US today. There is an atmosphere of intense and bitter political division. Tempers flare, including mine.

I've seen better days in the past, and I'm looking forward to better days in the future.

‘Libertarian’ in ‘murrican is probably closest to European ‘liberal’.

'is probably closest to European ‘liberal’.'

Stupid statement. There's no such thing as a "European liberal" nor is the CORRECT definition of the word (that is, the one that doesn't stupidly insist liberals are left wing, I'm certainly not a liberal but I'm left wing as hell) "european". The abuse of a political term by the USA and others really pisses me off, is all.

Incidentally, libertarians would be considered as centerists/center conservatives here. Your left wing is our center-left. Our left wing gets branded as "commie" over on your side of the pond.

In fact, after reading the bits from the Libertarian website, libertarians are actually pretty much neo-liberals.

Like Maggie "milk snatcher" Thatcher.

*Individuals have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies, including ingest drugs, have abortions, have sex however they want, as long as it doesn’t harm others.

* Freedom of religion, communication, and press.

* Right to bear arms with no restrictions.

* Government is inefficient, free-markets are great, people pay their own way, etc.

I agree with about half of that Libertarian stuff…
Forgive me, but why should we care what your political views are?

I agree with about half of that Libertarian stuff…

My analysis of the Nature paper; it’s a collaboration between Jost, whose political bias is clear, and who is a social ‘scientist’, and an EEG group, who did the actual measurements.

And you’re a person who substitutes slogans for thought and ad hominems for argument.

Frankly, this is not very good science, and I think the only reason it got into a Nature journal is the political ‘hook’.

Sorry, but how are your political views pertinent?

Of course, now you've got neurological effects demonstrated, you can come up with 'treatments' for conservatism, and put us away in nice friendly hospitals until we're 'cured'. It's not as if the left hasn't tried this before.

Stupid statement. There’s no such thing as a “European liberal” nor is the CORRECT definition of the word (that is, the one that doesn’t stupidly insist liberals are left wing, I’m certainly not a liberal but I’m left wing as hell) “european”. The abuse of a political term by the USA and others really pisses me off, is all.

In fact, after reading the bits from the Libertarian website, libertarians are actually pretty much neo-liberals.

that’s not an analysis, that’s a personal attack on the researchers.

next time you want to voice your opinion on how scientific journals work, you’d be far better off NOT.

Man o’ man. This agonizing thread reminds me why, at times, PT can be the Edsel of the science blogs.

I’m amused to encounter that rare beast, a normative linguist, who thinks there is a ‘correct’ definition of a word.

My paper count just hit 88. I get called to NIH two or three times a year to review. How about you?

You cherry-picked a mild, humorous insult out of my posts, while ignoring the substance, so that you could claim victimhood.

'Funny about that. Maybe it’s better to do your research before you flame.'

Err....what?

First of all, I wasn't flaming anyone. Being a pedant, yes, but then, as a student of international politics, when I see the use of a political term that goes against political philosophy and the definitions in place, it kinda makes me a tad peeved.

Secondly, I pointed out that they are effectively neo-liberals. Your point was libertarians were like european liberals, which I told you was nonsense, because there is no such thing. This isn't a victory for you.

Thirdly, since I do this kind of thing at university, it's fair to say I do my research, so the next time you want to make an asinine attempt to label someone as an uneducated fool trolling for fun, pick someone who actually is, m'kay?

On the other hand, there is such a thing as using almost any word in a completely wrong way. And including pro-Soviet Marxists as “liberals” would be an example of that.

'I could care less about victimhood.'

The phrase is couldn't care less. what you said is the exact opposite of what you meant.

Your point was libertarians were like european liberals, which I told you was nonsense, because there is no such thing.

The phrase is couldn’t care less. what you said is the exact opposite of what you meant.

You then said the famous cases were often actually rigid, dogmatic leftists. Either that remark is completely off-topic, or else you were the one who initiated the conflation

'Be sure and tell these guys. Be gentle. They haven’t done well electorally recently; but still, hearing they don’t actually exist may be a bit of a blow to them.

Oh, there’s another url for them, by the way. It’s http://www.liberale.de'

Point was that there is no such thing as 'European liberal' as distinct from American liberal, jackass.

There is but one liberal, popular misuse or no. So next time, try actually reading for comprehension.

I have no idea where harold gets his ideas about the neo-cons being pro-Soviet rigid ideologs. "The family" was anti-Soviet well before a number of them became neo-cons. Remember, the Soviets were opposed to Israel, and the neo-cons are pro-Israel (mostly Jewish).

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that to be leftist is to be a rigid ideologue. Indeed, the shifting of "the family's" allegiances ought to suggest that many were not, along with the evolution of the Nation over the years (unfortunately, they're pretty much just liberal now). Sure, both conservatives and liberals want to say that leftists are unthinking ideologues, but from my perspective they have been generally diverse, often fighting with each other, and with changing alliances.

Perhaps the real liberals, by today's standards (where libertarian and liberal are not synonymous), were indeed the leftists of the fifties and sixties, since a number of once-leftist ideas are incorporated into today's mainstream (even if economic "conservatism" has taken over liberalism and conservatism for the most part).

Anyway, one ought to actually have some sort of evidence that being leftist, or being neo-con, is a matter of rigid ideology, rather than simply assuming it and condemning both based on flimsy claims of liberal superiority.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Point was that there is no such thing as ‘European liberal’ as distinct from American liberal, jackass.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as using almost any word in a completely wrong way. And including pro-Soviet Marxists as “liberals” would be an example of that.

— harold

I have no idea where harold gets his ideas about the neo-cons being pro-Soviet rigid ideologs.

My paper count just hit 88. I get called to NIH two or three times a year to review. How about you?

In fact, after reading the bits from the Libertarian website, libertarians are actually pretty much neo-liberals.

I could care less about victimhood.

then you’re just choosing to out and out lie about how papers get reviewed then?

— Sir_Toejam

...and before mr. "I don't care about victimhood" accuses me of piling on, do note that i couldn't care less about your politics.

you're supposed to be a scientist, damnit, and letting your own personal biases influence your commentary on a paper that HAS gone through peer review is shameful at best.

I only see this in academia when someone is nearing retirement age, usually.

think about it hard, before you review your next paper.

FYI, bad papers occaisonally get published for ideological reasons, even in the best journals, and no field is completely immune. The review process is good (at least in the hard sciences as well as the more quantitative social sciences), but not perfect.

What I really do care about, and you can believe this or not, is that this forum is supposed to be about evolution and its antagonists. There are a hundred places online where you can discuss what Neanderthals conservatives are.

I would think we’d want to reach out to conservatives who support science, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

'Oh dear, it appears you’re blaming me for your inability to express yourself.

But even so, you’re still completely wrong, oh student of politics.

“ “Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain” - Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

“The term “liberal” is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state.” Fareed Zakaria'

Firstly, I appologise for my inability to get hat I meant across, and then blaming it on you. I thouhgt I had implicitly stated what I meant, I was wrong.

Secondly, however, those quotes are not technically correct. While they may be correct in terms of general usage, they are not correct in academic terms. In a similar way to how theory is misapropraited by the "it's only a theory" crowd, the common usage isn't what the term actually means.

Just because your average person on the street thinks liberal= left wing does not technically make it so, just as how to the average Joe Bloggs, a theory is similar to a guess, or hypothesis.

they are not correct in academic terms.

... I hope you all understand why this issue has my dander up, but if not, here's the bullet points:

-what Gerard has done fuels the fires of those who claim bias controls the publications of articles in journals to begin with

-shovels shit on all those who actually spend the time to carefully review the methods, results, and statisticaly analyses within a given paper, and judge the paper on those INSTEAD of bias

-suggests that, since he reviews papers for NIH (his words), that his personal bias, and by extension that of other scientists, would affect how the final review of a paper would look.

It's like "reverse Sternberging", and simply cannot be tolerated if we want to maintain the value of the peer review process, and indeed attempt to minimalize the amount of bias present within the review process.

Gerard can easily fix this by simply actually reading the paper, doing some background research on the methods used, and then evaluating the methods and results as to their veracity.

goddamn simple. We used to have graduate students do this on a weekly basis, so surely someone with Gerard's background can do it, right?

again, it really doesn't matter if the author's are left of West if you're facing North, an automatic assumption of bias without review is unwarranted at best, and damaging to everyone involved at worst.

... I hope you all understand why this issue has my dander up, but if not, here's the bullet points:

-what Gerard has done fuels the fires of those who claim bias controls the publications of articles in journals to begin with

-shovels shit on all those who actually spend the time to carefully review the methods, results, and statisticaly analyses within a given paper, and judge the paper on those INSTEAD of bias

-suggests that, since he reviews papers for NIH (his words), that his personal bias, and by extension that of other scientists, would affect how the final review of a paper would look.

It's like "reverse Sternberging", and simply cannot be tolerated if we want to maintain the value of the peer review process, and indeed attempt to minimalize the amount of bias present within the review process.

Gerard can easily fix this by simply actually reading the paper, doing some background research on the methods used, and then evaluating the methods and results as to their veracity.

We used to have graduate students do this on a weekly basis, so surely someone with Gerard's background can do it, right?

again, it really doesn't matter if the authors are left of West if you're facing North, an automatic assumption of bias without review is unwarranted at best, and damaging to everyone involved at worst.

I have no stake in this paper, only in the review process, and if the paper passed review with serious flaws in it still, this is what is important to know, not what the sociological bent of the authors is.

Watch out, Ian, you’re going to be conservative in 20 years

For some time, it's been a tactic of much of the left to expose the personal lives of their opponents.

What Karl Rove's dad did in his spare time is (1) nothing to do with Karl Rove or his political career (2) nobody's business but his dad's and (3) appeals to the lowest level of human prurience. What a foul bunch.

The Right Wing Professor is the web name of Gerard Harbison, an atheist, libertarian-conservative chemist. That enough cognitive dissonance for you?

then you’re just choosing to out and out lie about how papers get reviewed then?

I’m just discounting what you write as the ravings of a lunatic, now, if that’s OK? Plonk.

Funny about that. Maybe it’s better to do your research before you flame.

Secondly, however, those quotes are not technically correct. While they may be correct in terms of general usage, they are not correct in academic terms. In a similar way to how theory is misapropraited by the “it’s only a theory” crowd, the common usage isn’t what the term actually means.

that's right, focus on the deflective issue of no consequence, and try to avoid dealing with the fist in your mouth.

so tell us, Gerard, those papers you supposedly review for NIH...

do you apply the same "rigorous analysis" you did with this paper?

I'm gonna keep grinding you on this until you either admit your comments were nothing more than unsubstantiated bias coming from someone who should know better, or you leave this thread altoghether.

Perhaps, son,

Having heard the cliche "it takes all kinds," and having observed that there are indeed all kinds (of people, of course), and having to continue to suffer the embarrassment of this administration, its opposition and the disinterest of so many citizens, I can only say that I would rather risk error with the fleet of mind than stand solidly in mud with the smugly dogmatic. More Brain Research!

Jost is not what I personally would call a scientist

A general observation. I’ve noticed there are two sorts of people in the anti-creationism movement. There are scientists, like myself, who are interested in defending science from external interference by the religiously- or politically-motivated. And there are hangers-on, usually not scientists, for who the evolution/creation issue is nothing more than a useful stick to beat conservatives, and who really don’t know the science or give a damn much about it. A thread like this brings the latter crowd out in droves.

'Perhaps, son, you should google ‘Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’, before you question his credentials to speak authoritatively about American liberalism. Actually, you really ought to know Fareed Zakaria also, but let’s take small steps.'

The definition of liberalism, much like the definition of theory hasn't changed, ok?

Just because it's begining to spread into common usage with a different meaning, and this meaning is accepted as the common usage by academics doesn't mean that it is the correct political theory term.

Do you no longer use theory in the common meaning?

If the definition of liberal has changed then so be it, but since the classical definition remains the same, and liberalism is still defined by it's classical tenents, the common american usage is still wrong in academic terms. If you were to point out to me anywhere where the general agreed use of the term liberal has been totally altered across the board then I would recant my defence of this and offer a full appology. You haven't, you've just shown two people using it in the common parlance, rather than the academic term.

Sorry, Harold, but in modern American usage, “liberal” is synonymous with “leftist”. Of course, there are degress of leftism, and pro-Soviet Marxists are at the very extreme end of it, and most liberals are not communists. Nevertheless, they are all on the left side of the political spectrum.

Sorry, Adam, but in modern American usage, “conservative” is synonymous with “rightist”. Of course, there are degress of rightism, and pro-Nazi fascists are at the very extreme end of it, and most conservatives are not fascists. Nevertheless, they are all on the right side of the political spectrum

All it takes for liberals to become conservatives is for them to be mugged. For conservatives to become liberals, all they need is to be questioned by the police.

How would you like it if I simply did the same thing to you, and claimed that “conservative” means “rightist”? Sorry, Adam, but in modern American usage, “conservative” is synonymous with “rightist”. Of course, there are degress of rightism, and pro-Nazi fascists are at the very extreme end of it, and most conservatives are not fascists. Nevertheless, they are all on the right side of the political spectrum

In the first few years of the Dungeons and Dragons game (or what became that game) there was a simple "Good v Evil" dichotomy. This was unsuccessful prompting many arguments about how a particular PC or NPC action was either consistent or inconsistent. The response was to add a second dimension, Law v Chaos. This prompted just a much meta-game as the prior rules, but the arguments were more interesting.

American conservatives have become theocratic neo-fascists, or in D&D terms "Lawful Evil."

The Libertarians are opposed to government generally but particularly laws protecting the environment, workers, immigrants, and public education, but in favor of unlimited greed, drugs and sex. In D&D they are clearly "Chaotic Evil."

The new-age, post-modern touchy-feely crowd fall in the D&D "Chaotic Good" corner. Examples are too numerous and common to need presentation.

The American founders believed that people could by law collectively work for the common good, and that these Laws could stem from the ideas of humankind by rational thought (not the emotions of greed and fear, or revelation from gods). Clearly they were liberals in the classic condition or in D&D terms, "Lawful Good."

So, Gary, are the Swiss "Lawful Neutral," or are they "True Neutral"?

Obviously, the anarchists are "Chaotic Neutral"...

The American founders believed that people could by law collectively work for the common good, and that these Laws could stem from the ideas of humankind by rational thought (not the emotions of greed and fear, or revelation from gods). Clearly they were liberals in the classic condition or in D&D terms, “Lawful Good.”

So, Gary, are the Swiss “Lawful Neutral,” or are they “True Neutral”? Obviously, the anarchists are “Chaotic Neutral”…

The founding fathers, what with the revolution against a tyrannical state, were clearly Chaotic.

Yeah, that would be why they wrote the Constitution. (And many many LAWS beforehand). They really didn't like taxes without representation. A legal concept. That is to say a matter of law. ;)

The founding fathers, what with the revolution against a tyrannical state, were clearly Chaotic.

RIGGING A STUDY TO MAKE CONSERVATIVES LOOK STUPID.

why is that worth reading, Gerard?

because it does the same thing you did in not even bothering to analyze the paper itself, and instead just poot the same kind of biased metanalysis you criticized in your first post in the thread?

you really can't even see how much your own personal biases affect what you view as science, can you?

pathetic.

Who was it that said, “Not all conservatives are stupid, but nearly all stupid people are conservative.”

I still vote “Law/Good.”

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

That is why they wrote a Constitution.

In fact, that’s exactly what you’ve done in this study: You’ve manufactured a tiny world of letters, half-seconds, and button-pushing, so you can catch us in clear errors and keep out the part of life where our tendencies correct yours. And now you feel great about yourselves. Congratulations. You haven’t told us much about our way of thinking. But you’ve told us a lot about yours.

Nice proxy for a real scientific analysis.

I think you missed the point. Saletan concedes, or at least stipulates, the science.

Frankly, this is not very good science, and I think the only reason it got into a Nature journal is the political ‘hook’.

Neutral/Good was how I always tried to play.

damnit, you're making me all nostalgic for a game of PnP DnD

btw, I always let my actions determine my character's alignment, but it usually worked out to neutral good.

seems a pretty good catchall for most people, anyway.

Gerard Harbison's arguments have been like a trip down memory lane for me. When I was in graduate school in sociology the USSR was in its dying throes. Naturally, economic sociologists were seeing major problems with the Soviet economic system. And yet all of the arguments coming from the Marxists were along the lines of, "we don't have to consider your points. If you reached a conclusion that agreed with your politics, it's obviously biased."

And, gee, here we are with an actual HARD SCIENTIST making exactly the same argument! It kind of lends credence to Harold's contention that the extremes of left and right are pretty much alike, doesn't it?

Glen D's point about the research possibly only applying to undergrads, on the other hand, is exactly the sort of issue that sociologists have to pay attention to. Like, they come up with an hypothesis, test it, get feedback, refine the hypothesis, retest it.... Kind of like, you know, science....

Guy Fauxe -

I took the time to re-rebut something that I rebutted and you repeated.

My post was lost.

I'll try again.

Political views are NOT a bipolar spectrum.

Your "spectrum" ignores the individual rights dimension, and lumps authoritarians with democrats for perceived similarities in economic policy. And it oversimplifies economics, too.

I am adamently opposed to authoritarianism regardless of economic system.

I am adamently opposed to a command Marxist economy, too. And in practice, that couldn't exist without authoritarianism.

If you must use a simple classification system, try a quadrant, with human rights on one axis, and degree of economic and social cooperation on the other.

I support very strong human rights.

Within the group of people who support human rights, I support fairly high economic and social cooperation. But I am not a "socialist" (although I don't take that word as an insult, and am aware that some people whose views are similar to mine use that word). I am utterly a capitalist. I am a capitalist who believes that capitalist societies should and must be generous and respectful of the common environment, if they want a sustainable and relatively crisis-free existance, but I am still a capitalist.

Kind of like, you know, science….

The major dispute here is about the ‘meta-analysis’ published in Psych. Bulletin, by Jost, Sulloway, et al.,

and yet, one more time, you failed to recognize that you indeed attacked the original paper, and essentially still are, along with entire fields of science. Moreover, while you appear to now accept (based on the article from Saletan???) that the original nature paper is indeeed "science", you fail to oepnly admit you made an error in judgement, and instead choose to focus on the meta-analysis of your own making. Strangely enough, you even choose to end your missive by implying that the very meta analysis you yourself are pushing isn't even appropriate discussion for the likes of the 'Thumb, which makes one wonder why you even bothered to comment at all! BTW, CHEMIST, cognitive psych IS considered a subset of the natural sciences, which you would have known if you had even bothered to consider biology as more than just "stamp collecting". heck, a cognitive psychologist was on my advisory committee at Berkeley long ago when I was a grad student in Zoology. funny, but if psych, sociology, and related were not considered "science", I wonder why my major prof would have thought they were, considering he's published 3 times as many articles in his field as you have in yours (since you seem to think authority is important to argument).

You simply appear mentally incapable of not only recognizing that a pattern of obvious bias appears repeatedly throughout the vast majority of your opinion pieces wherever you post, especially on your own blog, btw, but when it is pointed out to you repeatedly (not just by me, that's for sure), you then exhibit a perfect case example of deflection and denial.

so, you start off with massive projections based entirely on your worldview, followed by deflection and denial.

regardless of the fact that you knock creationists, you suffer the same exact psychological maladies that prevent them from evaluating evidence.

this doesn't concern you?

It's not like I haven't seen this before; I've seen several older profs in various depts. over the years succumb to such "hardening of the mind".

face it, you're simply a chemist, albeit an above average one, and all you have been doing here is showing your LACK of knowledge of how cognitive psych works, and attempting to bully others into thinking all sociology is merely the biased work of extremeists like yourself.

I rather think you started your blog as an unconscious cry for help. I do hope that, rather than continue in the vein of pretending to be a serious reviewer of anything outside of your own field, you consider pulling your public persona and having third parties begin to analyze your thinking processes.

as far as you reviewing papers from NIH, I do hope you manage to keep your biases out of your professional evaluations there, even if the papers are only related to issues within the field of chemistry.

Of course, much of the social sciences has been infected with postmodernism, which rejects the very idea of objectivity.

see? another bold assertion, uncluttered by something real scientists like to call "evidence".

shall I compare your statement to a current creationist that has posted on numerous threads within the last few days, or would you like to do that yourself to avoid further embarrassment?

'cause, damn, man, it sure does sound like the endless bleating of the sheep who call all of evolutionary biology infected with the "religion of atheism and darwinism".

can't you see exactly how much you sound JUST LIKE THEM??

Well, I suppose that no thread can stay on topic for this many posts.

I took my doctorate in anthropology because I wanted to work in anthropology. My orals committee had a biologist and a chemist as well as three anthropologists and a sociologist. My disertation committee was a sociologist, an anthropologist and a chemist (all had sat on my orals). The sociologist was the chair. I have more papers coauthored with the chemist. The fuss that some "hard" science workers make about their intellectual superiority is pathetic.

Paul Gross, for example, has an irrational and overwhelming hatred of anthropology. I found it very funny that in his puiblished review of "Why Intelligent Design Fails" (2004, Rutgers University Press) he identified me as a taphonomist. It is true that I am a taphonomist. Indeed most taphonomists I am aware of are anthropologists. But taphonomy is a minor part of my published work with the majority in medicine, cultural anthropology or archaeology. To have correctly acknowledged I am an anthropologist Paul would have had to say something nice about an anthropologist. That was too much for him to bear!

The fuss that some “hard” science workers make about their intellectual superiority is pathetic.

Hmm. It sounds like Gerald Harbison has spent considerably less time trying to eliminate bias in sociology questionnaires than I have spent in chemistry labs.

If you give a group of people a questionnaire with descriptive terms and ask which ones apply to them, the collective self-reports will ALWAYS come out somewhat positive. Without seeing how the conservative students described themselves it's impossible to say the survey was slanted in favor of liberals.

I think it's good that Gerald Harbison, who is apparently a conservative, is fighting the good fight against the forces of anti-science. We need people from various backgrounds. But I also think my graduate work in the sociology and history of science allows me to contribute in ways a chemist might not. Being hard-nosed about only admitting 'real' scientists strikes me as counterproductive.

And GH's insistence that PvM shouldn't even have raised this topic here is probably not the best way to convince others that he's open to new experiences.

P.S. Sorry. I just realized I'd said Gerald not Gerard.

That’s irrelevant for the study, which clearly defines “conservative” and “liberal” based on subjects’ self-identification,

Rigging a study to make conservatives look stupid.

As a counterbalance I offer Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

The whole concept of authoritarianism and its evolutionary components seem quite interesting.

American conservatives have become theocratic neo-fascists, or in D&D terms “Lawful Evil.” There is no need to rig anything to make conservatives “look” stupid- they are mostly stupid. Who was it that said, “Not all conservatives are stupid, but nearly all stupid people are conservative.

The Libertarians are opposed to government generally but particularly laws protecting the environment, workers, immigrants, and public education, but in favor of unlimited greed, drugs and sex.

Then consider which is closer to reality.

what you really mean:

"Then consider which fits my projection onto reality better"

which of course, is an impossible task, without any reference to wtf you mean when you say "reality".

I wouldn't exactly paint modern conservatives with quite as broad a brush, but you haven't actually done much to assuage his criticisms yet, either.

that said, I'll bite:

what is "the basis of conservatism"

pray tell.

And GH’s insistence that PvM shouldn’t even have raised this topic here is probably not the best way to convince others that he’s open to new experiences.

So post some porn. Oh, wait, you say this isn't a porn site...?

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Mark Twain

This thread has worked out the way soteos suggested:
"The irony here is that when conservatives say the research is bogus, liberals can point to the research and say 'of course you think that way'"

I wonder if those who defend this study as real science and the comments of the authors and their associates ("Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty")as valid have bothered to read the Nature article?

The study involved 42 college students. The political scale question was part of a larger questionnaire involving multiple personality and attitude questions. They took a bunch of EEG measurements, and measured the accuracy of responses to the "W" and "M" flashes.

The political scale goes from -5, "most liberal," through "0" to +5, "most conservative." No tabular breakdown was given, but there is a graph (available at the Nature link) showing apparently only seven students whose scores ranged from +1 to +3; there were no +4 or + 5 students. There were -4/-5 students; the bulk of the scores were on the left side of the scale.

Given that there were apparently only seven students on the right side of scale, and those only moderately so, is it appropriate to make the generalization that differences in EEG scores and apparent accuracy in responding to a "W" stimulus that liberals are better able to handle informational complexity?

Looking at the graphic comparing ENG (one of the EEG measurements) vs. political orientation, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the students who scored +1 to +3 (remember there were no +4/+5s) and the -2s, -1s, and 0s. The regression line is below the averages of the +2 and +3 students, and seems weighted down by the -2, -2, 0, and +1 students. In other words, it's meaningless.

The study claims an r of .30 for measured accuracy (not well described) significant at the .05 level. No graph is shown of this data, but one could suspect that it was less impressive than the ENG graph, which had a larger r. An r of .30 is of course an <>R-squared of 0.09. Potential confounding factors, such as sex, age, etc. are not provided nor is any indication that they are controlled for.

The study states that multiple personality and attitude questions were asked, and multiple EEG measurements were taken. If say some 20 personality and attitude factors were measured, and one of them turns out to be "statistically significant" at the .05 level vs. some measurement (even forgetting the multiple EEG measurements) what does that really mean?

If the purpose of the study was to measure accuracy on some test of liberals vs. conservatives, one would think that the experimenters would have made sure that the sample size was large enough so that they had more than seven data points in the conservative side of the scale and that there were enough on the right side to cover the entire range of the scale, all the way to +5. They wouldn't have regressed a bunch of personality/attitude variables against a bunch of EEG measurements would they?

So post some porn. Oh, wait, you say this isn’t a porn site…?

so, because you can't see the relevance in discussing human behavior on a site about evolution and the antiscience movement, it's irrelevant.

congratulations.

you're a chemist. ever think the reason you are challenging its relevancy is simply because the results make you cry?

so what is you experience in sociology and evolution again?

yeah, that's what I thought.

better pull down your entire blog, GH, as 99.99% of it is entirely irrelevant to anything but hearing a bigot rant.

good luck with that.

btw, Gerard, take a look at what David wrote, and compare it to what you wrote.

do you see a difference?

boy, I sure do.

he gives something more to chew on than ragged assertions of bias.

Fine, but it does matter who did the studies, and the mere fact that academics tend to be liberal does not void the potential bias.

I wonder if those who defend this study as real science

david brook's analysis of the Nature article raises an interesting point. Since there were so few students on the conservative side of the scale, was this study really measuring libralism vs. conservatism-- or was it actually measuring political involvement?

This is the sort of issue sociologists end up having to address if they want their research to be respected.

I really don't care if people consider sociology 'real' science. But good sociology does involve a lot of hard work, and actually, a lot more questioning of assumptions and searching for unconscious sources of bias than I ever saw during the many hours I spent in chemistry labs.

The study involved 42 college students.

sandefur does a disservice to those actually interested in the work itself (in a thread above this one) by referring to "a more skeptical view" that is no better than that Gerard posed here in this thread wrt to the actual work itself.

just more idiotic meta analysis.

for those interested in addressing actual criticisms of the paper itself, you'd probably be better off checking out some of the author's own responses here:

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/09/amodio_answers_some_of_the_cri.php

as i said earlier; I'm rather tired of seeing the same patterns emerge as I saw after EO Wilson published "Sociobiology", where none of the work he based his conclusions on was even discussed; the only thing that was being bantyed about was the metanalysis of reactionaries and the press.

maybe we should ask Nisbet the framer to look at framing this issue too.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Catching up on threads. Dizzy:

That’s irrelevant for the study, which clearly defines “conservative” and “liberal” based on subjects’ self-identification,

I'm confused by you drawing this conclusion from the study. How does self-identification not support the claim of relative groups? See also my comment #206689.

At least one blog (which?) noted that a US conservative can look liberal or superconservative in other countries.

Obviously the results are skewed in favor of liberals because most university staff is 80% liberal, especially at those two universities. But of course that study was flawed from the beginning because we all know liberalism is a mental disorder.