- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
HERE ARE SOME OTHER NY POST HEADLINES FOR YOUR READING ENJOYMENT!!!!!!!!!
HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR
KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN
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.
Liberalism Is A Social (Media) Disease
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.
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.