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

Skip to comments.

OKAY: I WAS WRONG
NRO - Corner ^ | Aug 29, 2003 | N/A

Posted on 08/29/2003 8:45:00 PM PDT by swilhelm73

An email:

Ramesh must have been having a bad day yesterday. The editorial page article by Jost et. al. defending their research on political conservatism is simply terrible. It is terrible not because of what it says but rather how it distorts what they previously said in thier research. They claim that they did this research as arm's length unbiased academic research and their findings have been distorted by an irresponsible press. As much as I hate to defend the press, they interpreted what Jost et. al. was saying in their reprehensible articles correctly. (Indeed, the cause of the press's interpretation was most likely a Stanford university press release that described the research. Having read the original articles, I do not believe that a journalist would have the patience to read the things in the first place.) Anyway several points need to be made.

1. The press did not create the pejorative terms to describe conservative or conservative beliefs, the researchers did. The terms dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity to describe conservatives appear throughout both articles (They wrote two articles. The original article and then one responding to a criticism of that article. Both articles appear in the May issue of Psychology Bulletin) but most prominantly in the abstract of the original article. In the abstract of the reply article, the following terms to describe conservatives also appear, "lack of openess to experience; uncertainty avoidence; personal needs for order, structure and closure; fear of death; and system threat." They then repeat these claims in the first paragraph of the article itself. Moreover, they repeat these claims throughout the article and the follow-up Reply article. In short, despite the protests of the authors, the pejorative description of conservatives is not due to any misinterpretation of the article by the press but rather the content of the article.

2. The most outrageous comparisons of conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler and Mussolini is based solely on their claim that all preached a return to some idealized past. This is a claim that remains unproven. I do not remember Reagan championing such a thing nor have I heard Limbaugh champion such a notion. If one could link political ideologies to Hitler and Mussolini by one possible similarity then on the basis of their support for and creation of social security, New Deal liberals could be placed in the same camp as these two. Furthermore, German Greens could be linked to Hitler as they share certain reverences for nature. In the Washington Post article, Jost et. al. simply do not address why they rely so heavily on such a tenuous link between Reagan and Hitler and Mussolini.

3. They selectively attribute motivations to conservatives (from their Exceptions reply). "American conservatives may support a market-based economy (which introduces uncertainty and risk) because it preserves the status quo and results in inequality of outcomes even though it may conflict with personal needs for stability and security." In other words, if a policy has an impact that conflicts with their hypothesis, they will search among other possible impacts until they find one that is consistent with their hypothesis. In short, it is impossible to test their hypothesis. This is not science.

4. Finally there is no control group. Suppose that everything else these guys find is true, it does not prove that these are "conservative traits." These may be human traits and by focusing only on research examining conservative (and fascist) beliefs, they are attributing to conservatives, personality traits that exist in people of all political ideologies (and even among those who are completely apolitical). This too means that Jost et. al.'s research is not science.

To understand how completely these guys are out of touch with reality consider this statement in their Exceptions Reply, "(Reagan's) chief accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal era and the 1960's, which was also the goal of former Speaker of the House of Represenatives Newt Gingrich and many other neo-conservatives often regarded as advocates of change." In addition to being factually wrong, there is a logical error. Why would rolling back the New Deal and 1960's be a goal of Newt Gingrich and Neo-conservatives if that had already accomplished by Reagan?

Another statement in the Exceptions Reply illustrates the contempt and bias these researchers have for conservatives. "there seems to be no shortage of ideological rigidity among right-wing emigres from Cuba living in the United States, as demonstrated by the Elian Gonzales case." It is simply unclear to me (and unexplained by them) how the Elian Gonzales case illustrates any such thing except the author's hostility to hispanics who do not follow the liberal party line.

I realize this email is long (and probably late given that Remesh's original post was from yesterday and about yesterday's Washington Post editorial page), but my main point is that we should not be decieved by an academic's self-serving description of his own research. Consulting that research to determine what it says and its purpose is much better. We do this with regard to many other kinds of research, we should also do it with psuedo-psychological research into the psychology of conservatives, especially research by Dogmatic Liberal ideologues who think it is reasonable to liken conservatives to fascists and Nazis.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: conservatism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

1 posted on 08/29/2003 8:45:00 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Who was wrong and what was he wrong about?
2 posted on 08/29/2003 9:15:43 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
My pedantic streak compels me to point out that et al., latin for and others, requires a period only after al., which is an abbreviation of the latin word alia (others). Et, the latin word for and, is complete and unabbreviated.

It's et al., not et. al.

Now I feel better.

3 posted on 08/29/2003 9:17:16 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
This is all in relation to a recent study out of Stanford (IIRC) that conservatives are mentally ill and notable conservatives include Limbaugh, Reagan, Hitler, and Stalin.

Ramesh argued the follow up to the zstudy was persuasive...and someone emailed this article in to him, arguing to the contrary...and rather effectively.
4 posted on 08/29/2003 9:21:15 PM PDT by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
This thread should help explain it. Basically four professors wrote a paper for the American Psychological Association claiming to prove that conservatives are nuts.
5 posted on 08/29/2003 9:23:01 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
I thought this was going to be a pro-McClintock thread.
6 posted on 08/29/2003 9:23:12 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Good Point. I will try and remember that.

My egotistical streak, compels me to point out the link below, to a story, of what could happen, were the world to accept this study's phsyco-babble, as Truth.

And please feel free to point out all of my punctuation errors. It should keep you busy for sometime.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/971746/posts
7 posted on 08/29/2003 9:24:11 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
Hey..I like it when I learn something I might have over looked ,forgotten,or never known!
8 posted on 08/29/2003 9:31:15 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
That makes too of us.
9 posted on 08/29/2003 9:38:40 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
LOL!
10 posted on 08/29/2003 9:41:09 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
If you think that's funny, you should see the way I spell neccessary. I can never remember if it's 2 s's and 1 c, or vice versa, so I just use too of each.
11 posted on 08/29/2003 9:52:00 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beckett
You are correct! Let us also take a brief moment to remember that recap. is an abbreviation of recapitulation.

There, now I feel better too!
12 posted on 08/29/2003 9:55:33 PM PDT by jocon307 (Word warriors on patrol!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
nessa...pause...sary except c's for s's
13 posted on 08/29/2003 9:59:08 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Far from proving that Conservatism is caused by mental illness, these "academicians" unwittingly prove that leftist ideology is a paranoid delusion, much akin to the repressive use of Soviet psychoanalysis, which condemned those unfortunates who did not worship Marxism dogma to mental institutions and drug induced incarceration. Fear of reality, and fear of discovery of the fundamental fraud of leftist thought is behind this insidious and corrupt abuse of psuedo-science, meant only to justify some future rationale of political thought control. The Soviets failed in their vain attempt to stifle rational thought and dissent against their failed ideology and were totally discredited due to their own excesses. Perhaps these self deluding "men of letters" will find a similar fate.
14 posted on 08/29/2003 10:01:23 PM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
bump
15 posted on 08/29/2003 10:02:23 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: going hot
No kidding? It's that easy? I'm gonna bookmark this page, in case I forget. Thanks!
16 posted on 08/29/2003 10:02:48 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
That's why I have dictionary on the top of my favorites site.I used to be a good speller but the passage of time and the fact I wasn't a typist had me humbled very fast!I don't trust myself.. but find it's not a capital crime on FR!I look it up sometimes just to appease the compulsive/obsessive streak in me! I also find typing makes it easy to use there for their,two for too,sight for site,etc.
17 posted on 08/29/2003 10:03:08 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Elisha
< smile >
18 posted on 08/29/2003 10:06:12 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
You appear to be a very sensible young woman.
19 posted on 08/29/2003 10:17:05 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: going hot
< smiling two >
20 posted on 08/29/2003 10:18:21 PM PDT by Elisha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


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