Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rigging a study to make conservatives look stupid.
Slate ^ | Sept. 14, 2007 | William Saletan

Posted on 09/14/2007 1:29:14 PM PDT by neverdem

Are liberals smarter than conservatives?

It looks that way, according to a study published this week in Nature Neuroscience. In a rapid response test—you press a button if you're given one signal, but not if you're given a different signal—the authors found that conservatives were "more likely to make errors of commission," whereas "stronger liberalism was correlated with greater accuracy." They concluded that "a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change."

Does this mean liberal brains are fitter? Apparently. "Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty," the authors wrote. New York University, which helped fund the study, concluded, "Liberals are more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses." The study's lead author, NYU professor David Amodio, told London's Daily Telegraph that "liberals tended to be more sensitive and responsive to information that might conflict with their habitual way of thinking."

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bias; conservatism; conservatives; liberalism; liberals; psychobabble; psychology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.

That's the abstract which is linked in the second sentence of the article at the source. You can't make this stuff up.

1 posted on 09/14/2007 1:29:16 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If they did the same experiment with blacks and whites, the libs would go bezerk.


2 posted on 09/14/2007 1:30:56 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Summary: Liberals have no attention span.


3 posted on 09/14/2007 1:32:21 PM PDT by donna (A new study says that Ritalin may stunt growth. Men ARE getting shorter than women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I wonder how they know who’s conservative and who’s liberal?


4 posted on 09/14/2007 1:33:03 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.

So if you are wishy-washy that somehow means you are more intelligent????? What a load of crap.

5 posted on 09/14/2007 1:33:13 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I read this and scoffed.

Liberals continued to be stimulated on a mindless exercise while conservatives tuned out faster.

Give a baby a rattle and it will entertain for hours.

(See? I can make specious claims based on these results, too!)


6 posted on 09/14/2007 1:33:48 PM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Garbage in, garbage out!


7 posted on 09/14/2007 1:33:50 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (We all need someone we can bleed on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I wonder how they know who’s conservative and who’s liberal?

Liberals were all driving hybrid cars with bumper stickers on the back.

8 posted on 09/14/2007 1:34:26 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We don’t need no study to show how stupid some of our conservative leaders are do we?
9 posted on 09/14/2007 1:34:26 PM PDT by hophead ( "Enjoy Every Sandwich")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant; All

Read Saletan’s article if you haven’t. Is he Slate’s token conservative? I don’t read Slate much.


10 posted on 09/14/2007 1:34:42 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So they pitted an 84 year old Republican against a 18 year old college student?


11 posted on 09/14/2007 1:35:15 PM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (California : home of the fruits, nuts and flakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

All I know is that our spelling, punctuation, and grammar beats the norm found at DU!


12 posted on 09/14/2007 1:35:45 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I read somewhere else the sample size was seven. That’s not enough people to draw a conclusion from either.


13 posted on 09/14/2007 1:37:28 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Oh my god - if the sample size was seven... well... I’d crap myself over the foolishness of all the libs latching on to an obviously flawed study.

I also like that they used the letter “W”. We all know that libs have a HUGE reaction to that letter nowadays... ;-)


14 posted on 09/14/2007 1:39:28 PM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
From today's Wall Street Journal: Most Science Studies Appear To Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis

This study appears to be a case in point.

15 posted on 09/14/2007 1:40:04 PM PDT by gridlock (I do not support Hillary Clinton because I am afraid of strong women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity,

a nice way of saying they are brain damaged?

16 posted on 09/14/2007 1:40:09 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern

Translation: liberals are more "flighty."

17 posted on 09/14/2007 1:40:25 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If liberals are so smart...why are they liberals?


18 posted on 09/14/2007 1:40:37 PM PDT by svcw (There is no plan B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Liberals were all driving hybrid cars with bumper stickers on the back.

Put enough bumper stickers on it, and the deputies mightn't notice that your tag has expired.

19 posted on 09/14/2007 1:41:24 PM PDT by thulldud (Millete adi politikacilar gibi yalanci vaadlerde bulunmaktan nefret ederiz. -- (Ataturk))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

20 posted on 09/14/2007 1:41:34 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson