A civil debate?

[UncleBuck]

It definitely was well received. Forbes and the Guardian (and some peer scientists they report of) loved it it seems.

Scientific Paper: Conservatives Are Stoopid So There!

....There's really a rather serious problem at least with the racism part of the paper, which is that they've used British information, British data, to study their claim. And it really isn't true that the conservative (please, note, with a small "c") or racist political parties in the UK are in fact right wing. There are other problems as well but that hasn't stopped various people leaping upon the result with glee......

Watch out Sam Harris, Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University are giving you competition for the worst use of statistics in an original paper.
Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics.
Hodson and Busseri on are track to beat out Harris’s magnificent effort, and they might also triumph over the paper which “proved” brief exposure to the American flag turns one into a Republican and the peer-reviewed work “proving” exposure to 4th of July parade turns one into a Republican.....​

Notes
1. We focused on social-cultural conservatism rather than economic
conservatism, given that the former is more clearly related to prejudice
(Jost et al., 2003; Van Hiel et al., 2010).​

So, no, there is absolutely nothing at all there to buttress the idea that tax cuts, small government, negative rights are just great, positive rights not so much, no one likes bureaucrats anyway....well, run through your own list of conservative economic ideas....has anything at all to do with what was being studied.

The second reason this paper doesn't work well is that the authors seem not to know very much about the society, Britain, that they are supposedly studying. I can't deny that we have racists in the UK. I certainly wouldn't disagree with the idea that I think that racists are more than a little thick. But racism and conservatism simply aren't correlated in the UK: not in the sense of conservative (and please note, I am using the small "c", so meaning rightwards leaning politics rather than the politics of the Conservative Party) politics at least.​

abandonedintellect, There is a difference between thinking you're intelligent because you can do a google search and actually reading the linked article and reviews of it with valid points about its veracity.


Assume what you will.
From what you say it would seem you do a lot of that.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[choomer]

Peer reviewed and cited hundreds of times. It is still there in the scientific journal. Just because a bunch of Trump supporting idiots think they're smart doesn't mean that peer reviewed empirical research is wrong.

It still doesn't prove that you read the paper and since you have to pay to view anything but the abstract I doubt you will.

Here's something that someone who did had to say about it.

Simple viewpoints
https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
​

All you've proven to know of it is that it has a clickbait title and that is popular on websites.

 

[abandonconflict]

It still doesn't prove that you read the paper and since you have to pay to view anything but the abstract I doubt you will.

Here's something that someone who did had to say about it.

Simple viewpoints
https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
​

All you've proven to know of it is that it has a clickbait title and that is popular on websites.

You really need to learn brevity, mouthbreather. I already know that the study only proves correlation, ya dingus. That's why I keep pointing out that peer reviewed empirical research has proven that conservatism and cognitive function are negatively correlated. We have not even begun to discuss WHY right wing blow hards like yourself are dumb as fuck.

Now go back to your thesaurus and write another completely useless diatribe.

 

[Rob Roy]

Can you cite me some sources to give me some examples to apply your argument to? And you are talking about property tax only, or multiple taxes?

I'm not interested in chasing down things which are self evident.

 

[Rob Roy]

View attachment 4069576

That was pretty funny, but the attackers need to work on their gastrocnemius muscles.

 

[choomer]

You really need to learn brevity, mouthbreather. I already know that the study only proves correlation, ya dingus. That's why I keep pointing out that peer reviewed empirical research has proven that conservatism and cognitive function are negatively correlated. We have not even begun to discuss WHY right wing blow hards like yourself are dumb as fuck.

Now go back to your thesaurus and write another completely useless diatribe.

What a nice way to try to deflect that it's a questionable study and that you haven't read it.
I just copy/pasted why it is questionable yet since it's in "print" and you think it unassailable.

Maybe there were just too many words for you....let me help:

That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice.

But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
​

I bolded them and everything but it doesn't seem like the reading aids help you much as these comments about the study seem to point out that its researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice.
In fact, they go on to say Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive.

That's a far cry from "proven".

Now, unless you've invested in the report and are willing to share it in its entirety, it seems that your reliance upon the many sites citing the report that are using it for clickbait is misplaced.

It's too bad you vested so much in something you haven't even read because websites tout it.

 

[ANC]

Get the fuck out of here!

 

[choomer]

Seems that the statement "that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive" proves out again.

 

[PCXV]

I'm not interested in chasing down things which are self evident.

Then how did you learn about it if not for evidence? It really isn't self evident, I've never heard of it happening. Also, are you talking strictly about property taxes?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Then how did you learn about it if not for evidence? It really isn't self evident, I've never heard of it happening. Also, are you talking strictly about property taxes?

I think you might be approaching the point where you realize why not to bother with his blather.

 

[abandonconflict]

What a nice way to try to deflect that it's a questionable study...

It is a peer reviewed scientific study that is still in the journal and has been cited hundreds of times. Just because you think you're smart doesn't mean that science is negated. By insisting that I either don't understand or have not read it you only highlight the fact that you have not comprehended what I have written though you keep showing up in my alerts to plead that I will see you as an intelligent right wing blow hard.

Just deny science like the rest of your ideological peers. You don't have to try to convince me of anything.

 

[UncleBuck]

It still doesn't prove that you read the paper and since you have to pay to view anything but the abstract I doubt you will.

Here's something that someone who did had to say about it.

Simple viewpoints
https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.

"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
​

All you've proven to know of it is that it has a clickbait title and that is popular on websites.

What a nice way to try to deflect that it's a questionable study and that you haven't read it.
I just copy/pasted why it is questionable yet since it's in "print" and you think it unassailable.

Maybe there were just too many words for you....let me help:

That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice.

But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
​

I bolded them and everything but it doesn't seem like the reading aids help you much as these comments about the study seem to point out that its researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice.
In fact, they go on to say Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive.

That's a far cry from "proven".

Now, unless you've invested in the report and are willing to share it in its entirety, it seems that your reliance upon the many sites citing the report that are using it for clickbait is misplaced.

It's too bad you vested so much in something you haven't even read because websites tout it.

WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[choomer]

It is a peer reviewed scientific study that is still in the journal and has been cited hundreds of times. Just because you think you're smart doesn't mean that science is negated. By insisting that I either don't understand or have not read it you only highlight the fact that you have not comprehended what I have written though you keep showing up in my alerts to plead that I will see you as an intelligent right wing blow hard.
Just deny science like the rest of your ideological peers. You don't have to try to convince me of anything.

It is the science that is negated by a peer, how can you imagine a social science is the same as mathematics?
You don't like that you can't prove you've read the report and are only going on what others who MIGHT have read it say.
Neither have I (read the report, as I'm not going to pay to see what silly researchers in CA have to say about GB/US statistics. Why can't they use CA statistics?).
Pull some other magic crap out of your bag or post the report you paid for to prove me wrong.
Until then, you're as worthless a poster as Buckold.

 

[UncleBuck]

It is the science that is negated by a peer, how can you imagine a social science is the same as mathematics?
You don't like that you can't prove you've read the report and are only going on what others who MIGHT have read it say.
Neither have I (read the report, as I'm not going to pay to see what silly researchers in CA have to say about GB/US statistics. Why can't they use CA statistics?).
Pull some other magic crap out of your bag or post the report you paid for to prove me wrong.
Until then, you're as worthless a poster as Buckold.

WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[choomer]

WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Case in point.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

It is the science that is negated by a peer, how can you imagine a social science is the same as mathematics?
You don't like that you can't prove you've read the report and are only going on what others who MIGHT have read it say.
Neither have I (read the report, as I'm not going to pay to see what silly researchers in CA have to say about GB/US statistics. Why can't they use CA statistics?).
Pull some other magic crap out of your bag or post the report you paid for to prove me wrong.
Until then, you're as worthless a poster as Buckold.

Are you afraid of California?

 

[choomer]

Are you afraid of California?

Oh yeah, because CA can only mean california to someone as worldly as you.
I assume from your question you think GB stands for Georgia Bottom and US stands for Utah South.
Still doesn't answer why researchers in one country ignore the information their own country can provide and they might be more qualified to expound upon.

 

[abandonconflict]

You can't prove you've read the report

LOL.

Behold the argument that the right wing blow hard carts out when he can't deal with peer reviewed empirical research...

 

[choomer]

LOL.
Behold the argument that the right wing blow hard carts out when he can't deal with peer reviewed empirical research...

If it is such a blowhard statement why don't you just prove you've read the document instead of relying on the reporting of people who have?
Because your anus is getting raw from passing large unfamiliar words?

You didn't even know what groups were sampled from where as a basis for the report.
But tell me more about how it's peer reviewed.

 

[abandonconflict]

If it is such a blowhard statement...

But tell me more about how it's peer reviewed.

No, I said you are a right wing blow hard, ya dingus.

Also, that study, which you are so desperate to convince me is false, is actually PEER REVIEWED.