WHERE is RDERP? BIG NEWS.

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps you missed the recent post where she called you an asshole?

Naw, that was a generic 'asshole' which I allow on a message board.

Well, she does that kind of thing all the time. So, she does not seem to deserve your defense. IF she attacks ALL of her political opponents with such commentary, then she DOES retaliate when she is personally attacked or when her views are challenged.

And she lies, too.

She makes really dopey baseless claims, for example, that conservatives "hate science."

Lying is impolite. Truth matters -- except to her.

I did not defend the content of her posts. (That would be really hard to do in most cases.) Just that she usually does not personally direct them at other members. For that reason I do not see her as intentionally insulting in a personally directed way as some.

Buyt then I've never believed she was a real person either.

 

[Warrior102]

Stop hating sceince you assholes

Stop being a racist, you asswiping bitch.

 

[Liability]

Naw, that was a generic 'asshole' which I allow on a message board.

Well, she does that kind of thing all the time. So, she does not seem to deserve your defense. IF she attacks ALL of her political opponents with such commentary, then she DOES retaliate when she is personally attacked or when her views are challenged.

And she lies, too.

She makes really dopey baseless claims, for example, that conservatives "hate science."

Lying is impolite. Truth matters -- except to her.

I did not defend the content of her posts. (That would be really hard to do in most cases.) Just that she usually does not personally direct them at other members. For that reason I do not see her as intentionally insulting in a personally directed way as some.

Buyt then I've never believed she was a real person either.

Well, when she universally labels her opponents as "assholes" and "liars," as she so often does, I have to disagree with your read on her. Although I will say that she usually does manage to avoid responding in a "tit for tat" fashion.

And it is possible that she's just a caricature. Some poseur on the interwebs pretending to be her just to amuse himself or herself. That IS possible. I mean, it aint rocket scEince.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Omg omg ROFLMAO..

 

[Peach]

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Scott Eidelman [email protected]
Christian S. Crandall
Jeffrey A. Goodman
John C. Blanchar

Abstract

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Of course, I only understand like maybe 6% of the abstract.



The full "scientific" article is here (for free): Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

These studies have been criticized as "rigged", I've read.

 

[California Girl]

Stop hating sceince you assholes

I got news for ya.... that 'study'.... it ain't fucking science, you moronic hack.

 

[California Girl]

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Scott Eidelman [email protected]
Christian S. Crandall
Jeffrey A. Goodman
John C. Blanchar

Abstract

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Of course, I only understand like maybe 6% of the abstract.



The full "scientific" article is here (for free): Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

These studies have been criticized as "rigged", I've read.

That is because they often are. But rarely are such rigged studies seen from any conservative organizations.... it appears to be a left wing trait. Which goes quite some way to explaining the 'conservatives hate science' thing.... we don't 'hate science'... but we do mock 'stupidity masquerading as science'.

 

[Peach]

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Of course, I only understand like maybe 6% of the abstract.



The full "scientific" article is here (for free): Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

These studies have been criticized as "rigged", I've read.

That is because they often are. But rarely are such rigged studies seen from any conservative organizations.... it appears to be a left wing trait. Which goes quite some way to explaining the 'conservatives hate science' thing.... we don't 'hate science'... but we do mock 'stupidity masquerading as science'.

Shawn smith on these "studies":

It happens like clockwork. Every few years, researchers contrive yet another study to prove that conservatives are mentally deficient....
Dr. Kanazawa seems like a decent man, and it is admirable that he is unconstrained by the hypersensitivity of others. Unfortunately, he appears to have recklessly exacerbated a serious problem in the field of psychology: our transparent and irrational animosity toward conservatives.

Psychology, which is unquestionably dominated by liberals, has developed an ugly habit of falsely maligning the political right. Through respectable-looking "research" we sling mud with flawed data and tendentious methodology (see here, for example).

These bogus studies build on each other to create an inbred, incoherent body of literature that will be cited with unquestioning faith by the next conservative-bashing researcher.

Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D | Psychology Today

 

[Foxfyre]

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

Of course, I only understand like maybe 6% of the abstract.



The full "scientific" article is here (for free): Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism

These studies have been criticized as "rigged", I've read.

That is because they often are. But rarely are such rigged studies seen from any conservative organizations.... it appears to be a left wing trait. Which goes quite some way to explaining the 'conservatives hate science' thing.... we don't 'hate science'... but we do mock 'stupidity masquerading as science'.

I have served as research assistant for a 'professional' doing research and maybe due to my journalism training to verify, verify, verify before arriving at any conclusion I felt some of it was in fact bogus science. I know at least two other people who report the same kind of deal. Peer review helps expose some of this but doesn't make it foolproof. Those doing bogus science will seek out like minded 'peers' or those they know won't look too closely at the data to be their 'peer review'.

This of course explains how there can be such wide differences in conclusions drawn by 'peer reviewed' scientific studies.

And the fact that the study that is the subject of the OP does not appear to be peer reviewed at all is especially damning when you can't even get the dishonest or disinterested 'scientists' to sign onto it.

 

[Peach]

These studies have been criticized as "rigged", I've read.

That is because they often are. But rarely are such rigged studies seen from any conservative organizations.... it appears to be a left wing trait. Which goes quite some way to explaining the 'conservatives hate science' thing.... we don't 'hate science'... but we do mock 'stupidity masquerading as science'.

I have served as research assistant for a 'professional' doing research and maybe due to my journalism training to verify, verify, verify before arriving at any conclusion I felt some of it was in fact bogus science. I know at least two other people who report the same kind of deal. Peer review helps expose some of this but doesn't make it foolproof. Those doing bogus science will seek out like minded 'peers' or those they know won't look too closely at the data to be their 'peer review'.

This of course explains how there can be such wide differences in conclusions drawn by 'peer reviewed' scientific studies.

And the fact that the study that is the subject of the OP does not appear to be peer reviewed at all is especially damning when you can't even get the dishonest or disinterested 'scientists' to sign onto it.

Thank you; these are isolated studies, not much produced on methodology, or control groups. More OPINION than SCIENCE.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The absolute certainty with which some people comment on subjects like this is notable.

Is the methodology followed in Study 1 flawed in some obvious way?

Has this study been subject to peer review?

More opinion than science.......that describes what we do here. As in, my opinion regarding the effort devoted to thinking things through for the average nutter is minimal. Thus, nutters can come out in support of low-information, intellectually incurious people like Palin, Cain and Perry.

Scotty! Prepare the ship for deflection!

 

[The T]

The absolute certainty with which some people comment on subjects like this is notable.

Is the methodology followed in Study 1 flawed in some obvious way?

Has this study been subject to peer review?

More opinion than science.......that describes what we do here. As in, my opinion regarding the effort devoted to thinking things through for the average nutter is minimal. Thus, nutters can come out in support of low-information, intellectually incurious people like Palin, Cain and Perry.

Scotty! Prepare the ship for deflection!

Apparently YOU didn't READ the OP...

 

[Foxfyre]

The absolute certainty with which some people comment on subjects like this is notable.

Is the methodology followed in Study 1 flawed in some obvious way?

Has this study been subject to peer review?

More opinion than science.......that describes what we do here. As in, my opinion regarding the effort devoted to thinking things through for the average nutter is minimal. Thus, nutters can come out in support of low-information, intellectually incurious people like Palin, Cain and Perry.

Scotty! Prepare the ship for deflection!

Apparently YOU didn't READ the OP...

Be careful. Some folks really object to a suggestion that they read something and therefore know what they're talking about.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm sorry. Why does the idiot with the screwy images on his page think that I did not read the OP?

I said that I read through Study 1. Have I made comments to the contrary?

And..Foxy...................please. You will know when I object to something. And you will rarely catch me speaking in absolutes............precisely because I am aware that the volume of things that i do not know is greater than that which I do.

When I say I know something..........you can bank on it.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh come on guys, Give a lady a break. The use of leeches and bleeding patients was once considered sound medical svcience. And those who challenged the scientific consensus that the Earth was flat or that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth were excommunicated and/or imprisoned and/or put to death.

We have to respect everything called science yanno.

As soon as she starts acting like a lady, I'll consider cutting her some slack.

While I will say that I feel a little wierd defending TM, I have observed many many statements that I consider to be really really wrong, even laughably ignorant. But she doesn't attack people personally and does not retaliate when she is personally attacked. And for that, I have to give her some credfit.

Stop hating sceince you assholes

Yes Many here call her names, attack her, neg rep her and generally laugh at her.
She is dangerous. She is the personification of Liberalism carried to the extreme.. Mocking her is my civic duty.
I have a lot of respect for you, Foxy. You can be perpetually kind to idiots. I have limits. When I joined USMB, I defended her. As a matter of fact, one day when I had a rep power of maybe 4, I negged Del and Divecon for attacking her. You can imagine how that worked out for me.
It wasn't but a month and a half later, that I too had become so frustrated that I couldn't let her crap go by unanswered.
I don't have the patience you do, it would seem.

 

[Conservative]

I can't think about it. It's too hard.... therefore I am a conservative.


*Steps back and waits for someone to take the above comment seriously.*

I can't think about it, I am too drunk. I am therefore a conservative (hiccup).

 

[Conservative]

denying science and history also promotes conservative veiws.

lair

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am still chuckling at the "study."

We argue that
low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism, not that
conservatives rely on low-effort thought.

, said the authors.

I wonder if that might mean that high effort thinking promotes liberalism?

I doubt it. My hypothesis would be that it's only high-effort for the libs because they aren't used to actually thinking.

I suggest that somebody engage in a "study" to validate that hypothesis.

I'm still waiting for a decent definition of "political conservatism". Everyone is interested in protecting the status quo when shit's running correctly for them.

Once we have fair and simple taxes, a budget that's balanced by law, transparency in all things politics, and our kids are off on a quest for the stars, I will adorn myself with a conservative attitude. Until then, call me Mr. Change It.

Sustaining the complicated bullshit we currently call a tax code is wrong and trickle down don't fucking work. (Insert your preferred Deity here) bless George W. Bush for finally proving that!

 

[Harry Dresden]

From the link:

Conservative political ideology in Western democracies may
be identified by several components, including an emphasis
on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a
preference for the status quo.


Does that sound about right? Not so sure about the "emphasis on personal responsibility" considering how they like to point fingers and take no responsibility for either the Bush years, the economy, Iraq or any other of their endless number of disasters.

when are you going to take responsibility for the shit you post?....and dont bother asking for an example....everyone in this Thread including you know exactly what i am talking about.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Stop hating sceince you assholes

sceince.

maybe she meant SEANCE...