Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic

Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.

 

A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong.

 

The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.

 

“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.

 

“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”

 

In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.

 

The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones.

 

The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame.

 

“I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”

 

The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”

 

But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”

 

“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.

 

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly

You won't believe in man made climate change as reported in every scientific journal but you will believe THIS from the NY Post?  Okayyyyyyy

Trusted Social Butterfly

Oh, my!  Went from the NYPOST to Derek Hunter and downhill from there.  I'm sure I saw jim say a bit ago we needed to do something positive about the divisive happenings in our Nation.  This is not one, now is it?  Folks might even be tempted to say, "there he goes again".

 

By now you all should know how to use cortana or google or whatever.   A close look at the credits for the sources jim uses is adviseable before you waste your time.  Most seem to have 'objective credibility' problems, just like jim. 

 

Now jim may or may not recognize those problems within himself.  Happens a lot, so it does.  IF he does, I guess that says one thing about him.  IF he doesn't, I guess that says another thing about him.  Anything positive there?   Hmmmmm? 

Honored Social Butterfly

This whole article doesn't mean what you think it means.   Because the definition of the term "psychoticism" is not what you think it is.

 

"Psychoticism, the only one relevant for this discussion, is a cluster of concepts related to people’s level of individuality and penchant for falling in line — it’s measured using questions like “Do you prefer to go your own way rather than act by the rules?” Being high in psychoticism means you have less respect for rules and for order in general — it doesn’t mean you are psychotic or otherwise mentally ill. Researchers sometimes call psychoticism P, with italics, to prevent this misunderstanding."

 

https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/why-it-took-social-science-years-to-correct-a-simple-error-about-psyc...

 

"Given the common shortcomings of media coverage of social science, and given that we’re turning a corner into peak presidential-election season, it’s no surprise that conservatives had a field day with this news, ignoring the fact that psychoticism, in this case, doesn’t mean psychotic in the everyday sense of the word."

Honored Social Butterfly

JimC wrote, "Does that mean you have nothing to contribute to the topic but just needed to insult me?"

 

It wasn't meant as an insult, it was simply an accurate statement. What was the reason?

 

It illustrates that JimC often uploads articles he obviously agrees with, but almost never does any independent research on his own to confirm or deny what he posts. People reading his articles should be aware of that.

Honored Social Butterfly

I believe the author of this thread is the same person who uploaded numerous posts blaming Hillary for the Uranium One deal.

Honored Social Butterfly


@CriticalThinking wrote:

I believe the author of this thread is the same person who uploaded numerous posts blaming Hillary for the Uranium One deal.


Does that mean you have nothing to contribute to the topic but just needed to insult me?

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
781 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

@CriticalThinking wrote:

I believe the author of this thread is the same person who uploaded numerous posts blaming Hillary for the Uranium One deal.


Does that mean you have nothing to contribute to the topic but just needed to insult me?

 

 


But did you not include the word "psychotic" in the title of your topic to insult?  I ask this especially because the term used in the article you posted does not mean "psychotic" at all.  Do you have a truthful answer to my question?


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

 

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/

 


HERE ARE SOME OTHER NY POST HEADLINES FOR YOUR READING ENJOYMENT!!!!!!!!!

 

HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR

 

KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN

 

V-D DAY!

 

To use the tabloids as a legitimate media outlet brings back memories of the movie MEN IN BLACK. "K" always thought that the truest stories were in the TABLOIDS.

 

Of course, that was fiction...... as is your story above.

NO! IT'S CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE NUTTIER THAN SQUIRREL POOP!
Honored Social Butterfly

Liberalism Is A Social (Media) Disease

 

   |
Posted: Sep 16, 2018 12:01 AM

 

 

 

If you’re at all like me, when you are talking with liberal friends and it turns to politics the conversation gets heated. Not from my end, but theirs. They quickly turn emotional, taking everything personally. In the end, I’m left wondering why I engaged, but more importantly, I’m left wonder where they got their information from. It’s just as President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s that they know so much that ....”

 

 

 

 

In Reagan’s time, liberals got their crazier information from the “rumor mill.” As weird as it is for anyone who grew up in the Internet age, the “rumor mill” existed. It was quite efficient in a time when phones were tethered to walls and were only used for actually talking to people.

 

False information managed to circumnavigate the globe at a time when it had to travel from person to person verbally. Ask anyone over 35, no matter where they grew up, if they’d heard the story about Rod Stewart needing his stomach pumped or about Richard Gere’s trip to the emergency room. I won’t give you any more details than that, but if you grew up before the Internet was invented you’ve heard the stories.

 

From Maine to California, those and other lies managed to spread everywhere. They were malicious and inconsequential to anyone’s life, but we all heard them.

 

 

Now that the Internet exists, lies can spread faster than a cold on a plane. And each one of them stands a reasonable chance of becoming the truth, at least for those wanting them to be true.

In politics, we have a natural tendency to believe the worst of our opponents. Mostly because individuals aren’t really seen as people, they’re seen as representatives of ideals.

 

If you tell me something awful about Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow, I’ll likely give it some credibility. I’ll look into it for myself and figure it out, but if you tell me Maddow is abusive to her maid or Hayes treats his show staff like indentured servant then for a second I’d probably think, “That figures.”

 

If I looked into it and couldn’t find anything or found it was from some random website or an anonymous tweet, I’d realize how crazy it was and be thankful I’d kept this “information” to myself.

But the initial impulse to believe it would be there. And I know I’m not unique.

 

Sadly, too many so-called adults involved in politics don’t share my willingness to keep my powder dry until I’ve verified information or at least found it from a credible source. A large portion of those people happen to be on the left. Many have media credentials.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2018/09/16/liberalism-is-a-social-media-disease-n2519357

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly

jimc91:   In the end, I’m left wondering why I engaged, but more importantly, I’m left wonder where they got their information from.

 

 

 

I don't think you intended for this to be funny, but...........................

Honored Social Butterfly


@Panjandrum wrote:

jimc91:   In the end, I’m left wondering why I engaged, but more importantly, I’m left wonder where they got their information from.

 

 

 

I don't think you intended for this to be funny, but...........................


Hey - lots of what Sarah Palin said were things she sincerely believed...

Those things were repeated in comedy routines that resulted in giant belly laughs.

 

Ridiculous Rudy Giuliani is currently providing a considerable amount of droll comic relief for the nation.

 

Sometimes comedy is not intended - even though it happens...

44>dolt45
Honored Social Butterfly

Only one problem with Derek Hunter's frothing at the mouth pack of lies...

 

Psychology and psychiatry are not  and have never been science.

 

Like the guesswork regions/areas of "political science" and economics that deal with things that cannot be expressed in a mathematical equation - dealing with mental issues is not and never will be real science - and mental health professionals will never be scientists.

 

Most dimwitted yokels that are trump supporters will enthusiastically swallow the content of your post and Hunter's lies and exaggerations, hook, line, and sinker, wash it down with that "special" trump supporter koolaide - and repeat those lies as if they were the truth - just another way to recognise a trump supporter that cannot be believed and unquestionably cannot tell the difference between the real world and the "alternate reality"...

 

How many know that Hunter was awarded the degree of Doctorate of Disingenuity at the site where the Bowling Green Massacre took plasce?

44>dolt45
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png