Epic Correction of the Decade - I'm not Psychotic ... But You Might Be

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
politics has gotten to where the insults and jokes just write themselves.

Which is why I feel so much more relived that I am out of the left/right paradigm. There is insanity at both ends and they are both so blinded by partisanism that they do not realize the end result of their polices are the same totalitarian end game being pushed by the same special interest players.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: superluminal11

Yeah but the OP makes it sound like the correction leaves concervatives looking good when both the original and the correction sling poo in both directions.

Don't worry. The retraction was buried in a PDF file. When the original was published, the media found it and ran with it, and conservatives were slimed far and wide. It was part of a whole category of junk science aimed at making it look like we were mentally defective.

It is highly unlikely that outside of places like this where I was quick enough to find it and a few minor conservative blogs anyone who read the initial onslaught will have their warm fuzzies interrupted.

a reply to: ketsuko

Makes no difference to me but the original called liberals neurotic and conservatives psychotic but now liberals are psychotic and conservatives neurotic.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but it seems like a centrist agenda to pull people from both extremes.

Either way conservatives are still "mentally defective" even with the reversal.

I think the point that is missed after this is run through the media filter is that the core psychology between the 2 extremes seems to be statistically stable.

I don't think the study (or, in this case, what passes for a study) intends to paint one view as being more insane than the other. I think its attempting to broad brush belief systems in general.

Now...understanding the methods used might make me less cynical overall. The bush league analysis run with initially makes that hard. I mean, if you think the numbers are surprising, its your first clue that you need to audit your results to verify. Maybe even call in a fresh set of eyes.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No, it's perfectly fine to be cynically of anything masquerading as social science these days. Most studies like this can't even be reproduced with any accuracy, but that doesn't stop the press from running with any result they think they can make hay out of. You know as well as I do that while they ran with the original result when it came out 4 years ago, they won't mention this retraction at all.

And it shows why people like myself are losing faith in the scientific community.

A new study just released by a sociologist at the University of North Carolina provides two pieces of interesting information. The study finds that conservatives, particularly college-educated conservatives, are losing confidence in the scientific community.

The study also provides an unexpected and surely unplanned bonus: it serves as a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty that has led educated conservatives to lose their faith in the scientific community.

Of course, this piece is four years old, but it still stands. This is the sort of thing that happens. And the retraction is just another example.

The study shows the conservatives are losing faith in mainly scientists and the ability of processes like peer review to deliver solid, unbiased results.

But the headlines conflated losing faith in the scientific community to losing faith in science itself.

Just check out the story about the study in the well-respected Scientific American. The headline reads, "Conservatives Lose Faith in Science over Last 40 Years."

The subtitle adds detail, saying "a new academic analysis finds conservatives expressing more and more distrust in science in recent decades, particularly educated conservatives."

Unfortunately for the reputation of Scientific American, the study says no such thing. In fact it reports that educated conservatives have lost faith in the "scientific community." The two -- science and the scientific community -- are without basis simply assumed to be one and the same.

Heck, even the person who did the study made that mistake.

Author Gordon Gauchat says his study is based on the data found in the 2006 through 2010 General Social Surveys, which he chose "because it contains a wide variety of items that probe different aspects of public trust in the scientific community."

So far, so good. But then he makes a leap of faith that is simply breathtaking: "These analyses suggest that the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science."

I love science ... so long as I don't see stuff like this happening. But knowing that UT got a grant at one point to produce a study to prove that Kansas is flatter than a pancake along with all the other junk science that gets funded like why lesbians are fat which I would think could be due to many of the same reasons the rest of us are overweight.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I tnink there are extremists and phycos both sides of the political spectrum.

Ummm...no...No...your being much too...liberal...in your interpretation...


YouSir

a reply to: ketsuko

I remember this one! I wonder, now that they have admitted it's like people with sense already knew it was, how many members will pop in to apologize.....

I don't think I'll hold my breath on that one!

Nice find.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Ummm...you are sooooo...NOT...out of the paradigm...






YouSir

originally posted by: YouSir
Ummm...you are sooooo...NOT...out of the paradigm...

Not a Republican or a Democrat so I would say, yes, I am.