Unbiased study essentially shows liberals are social undesirables

[seanD]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in the NatSci thread or here, but since it was a social science study, I decided to put it here.

The study was conducted by Virginian academicians in American Journal of Political Science. What makes it unbiased is that, contrary to what was initially thought before and during the the study -- that conservatives were more inclined to show less "Social Desirability" than liberals -- to their dismay, the complete opposite was true.

Here's the original study...

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...cal_Ideologies


And here's commentary on it...

People higher in Neuroticism tend to be more economically liberal. What is intriguing about this relationship is that it is in the opposite direction of what past theories would predict. . . That is, neurotic people are more likely to support public policies that provide aid to the economically disadvantaged (public housing, foreign aid, immigration, etc).http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...the-decade.php

[Sea of red]

Who cares?

I thought conservatives didn't trust political science, social science, or psychology. I guess it depends on the results.

[Starlight]

Who cares?

Because one error-ridden study that differs to other studies in its results definitively proves his point!

Whatever that point was.

[seanD]

Who cares?

I thought conservatives didn't trust political science, social science, or psychology. I guess it depends on the results.

Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[Jaecp]

Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

And this thread could be titled 'conservatives ignore science unless it confirms their biases"

Not that a thread title is an argument.

Oh, Sor, clean up your inbox

[Sea of red]

Those liberals and their political science, you can't trust studies.

*Study comes along that agrees with their idea.*

Oh, now they are completely reliable, and don't you dare challenge the experts.Gomer.gif

[seanD]

You guys look like you're in panic mode lol. Calm down

[Sea of red]

And this thread could be titled 'conservatives ignore science unless it confirms their biases"

Not that a thread title is an argument.

Oh, Sor, clean up your inbox

Gomer.gifI cleaned my box in the name of Murica'. Gomer.gif

[Sea of red]

You guys look like you're in panic mode lol. Calm down

Ain't no panicin' around here. We just agreein with ya', Sean. drinkin2.gif

[Spartacus]

You guys look like you're in panic mode lol. Calm down

I posted one of those links to the study/retraction in the shoutbox a couple days ago, since I didn't feel like making a thread about it at the time and I figured that one of the site's conservatives would be happy to make a thread about it (why deny them the fun?). I also figured that they'd make some stupid thread title that obscures the actual meaning of the study. But you fumbled this story even worse than I expected.

This study provides at least a minimal opening to discuss the connection between contemporary progressivism and authoritarian tendencies or psychological patterns. It could be an opportunity for introspection. Not that the folks around here who need more introspection are susceptible to it or the ones that are more susceptible to it really need it, but even so, you done goofed.

Both sides deserve better, and both sides can give better than this thread suggests.

[seanD]

I posted one of those links to the study/retraction in the shoutbox a couple days ago, since I didn't feel like making a thread about it at the time and I figured that one of the site's conservatives would be happy to make a thread about it (why deny them the fun?). I also figured that they'd make some stupid thread title that obscures the actual meaning of the study. But you fumbled this story even worse than I expected.

This study provides at least a minimal opening to discuss the connection between contemporary progressivism and authoritarian tendencies or psychological patterns. It could be an opportunity for introspection. Not that the folks around here who need more introspection are susceptible to it or the ones that are more susceptible to it really need it, but even so, you done goofed.

Both sides deserve better, and both sides can give better than this thread suggests.

Nah, it's pretty funny, considering the initial objective of the study was to find the reverse results. Now they imply political impartiality as a disclaimer when the results had to be flipped. Come on, lighten up, that's funny.

[Jedidiah]

I agree with the study, but I still do not trust Psychological Studies, and that goes for most of the social sciences.

[Spartacus]

Nah, it's pretty funny, considering the initial objective of the study was to find the reverse results. Now they imply political impartiality as a disclaimer when the results had to be flipped. Come on, lighten up, that's funny.

The thing itself is slightly amusing, but your presentation of it is pathetic.

[Jaecp]

I posted one of those links to the study/retraction in the shoutbox a couple days ago, since I didn't feel like making a thread about it at the time and I figured that one of the site's conservatives would be happy to make a thread about it (why deny them the fun?). I also figured that they'd make some stupid thread title that obscures the actual meaning of the study. But you fumbled this story even worse than I expected.

This study provides at least a minimal opening to discuss the connection between contemporary progressivism and authoritarian tendencies or psychological patterns. It could be an opportunity for introspection. Not that the folks around here who need more introspection are susceptible to it or the ones that are more susceptible to it really need it, but even so, you done goofed.

Both sides deserve better, and both sides can give better than this thread suggests.

I was surprised it wasn't seer this time, tbh, as you posted the study when you were chatting with me in da box.

Seriously though, half the reason I post here is because it keeps me up to date on whatever crazy nonsense the hardcore right is butthurt about so I know how to answer my vols questions

[seanD]

I was surprised it wasn't seer this time, tbh, as you posted the study when you were chatting with me in da box.

Seriously though, half the reason I post here is because it keeps me up to date on whatever crazy nonsense the hardcore right is butthurt about so I know how to answer my vols questions

The heck are you going on about? How does the thread translate to "crazy nonsense hardcore right" being "butthurt"? Judging by to the initial objective of the study, it wasn't done by those of the political right at all

Sheesh, dude, chill out.