How Social Science Might be Misunderstanding Conservatives

[Jazz Spazz]

I have no clue why I clicked on this article, but I enjoyed the read, even it it's long.


Here is a small section on the rigidity of the right model.

More broadly, this model still has a great deal of purchase within social and personality psychology. It isn’t going away. Neither a handful of intriguing studies nor a book chapter should, on their own, be seen as overturning it. “Debunked is definitely too much,” said Yoel Inbar, the University of Toronto researcher who has studied bias in social and personality psychology, “but doubt/reassessment sounds about right.” But the idea that political ideology is a bit more complicated than the field of social and political psychology has led us to believe does seem to be gaining some purchase among experts, and it feels like the conversation on these subjects is getting broader and more nuanced.

Give it a read, and post about it if you want.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-might-be-misunderstanding-conservatives.html

 

[One Brow]

In fact, there was little difference between how conservatives scored on the original scale and the tweaked-to-be-more-explicitly-conservative version, lending credence to the claim that the original scale was biased in a direction that captured more conservative than liberal dogmatism.

I can think of five other interpretations for that phenomenon. The article generally reads as if it had a conclusion in mind to support, regardless of evidence, and is projecting that belief into the science.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I can think of five other interpretations for that phenomenon. The article generally reads as if it had a conclusion in mind to support, regardless of evidence, and is projecting that belief into the science.

Or that they wrote it after doing the work so they knew their interpretation of the result as they wrote it. It’s not their notes from the “experiment”.

How is reassessment and looking at things again a bad idea? Isn’t that what you push constantly at people you think don’t think like you?

 

[addictionary]

Or that they wrote it after doing the work so they knew their interpretation of the result as they wrote it. It’s not their notes from the “experiment”.

How is reassessment and looking at things again a bad idea? Isn’t that what you push constantly at people you think don’t think like you?

Hence @Grayson's Hands reposting last year’s matchups for ballot.

 

[One Brow]

How is reassessment and looking at things again a bad idea?

It's not a bad idea at all. I fully support a post-modernist understanding of science. Doesn't mean I agree with every re-assessment, nor that the re-assessments themselves are free from criticism.