Its just science . . . .

[Ice1]

You think the merits of scientific research should be based on the academia of a journalist reporting said research? Hmmmmm......

 

What I think is if you are going to call something science the individual should certainly have more education than you as an example, and before one calls it science it should not be opinion based.

 

If you are somehow suggesting this is science based in some fact then prove it if you think you possess the intelligence to do so, if not then continue to scratch your chin.

 

When one reads opinion articles look for words like "May" or "Might". I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. Most college educated individuals would instantly question articles like this and demand proof sources with back ups.

 

This particular article is opinion based and someone like you that knows all about the EIB network should be plenty smart enough to pick up on opinion based articles.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ice1

[wiegie]

What I think is if you are going to call something science the individual should certainly have more education than you as an example, and before one calls it science it should not be opinion based.

 

If you are somehow suggesting this is science based in some fact then prove it if you think you possess the intelligence to do so, if not then continue to scratch your chin.

 

When one reads opinion articles look for words like "May" or "Might". I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. Most college educated individuals would instantly question articles like this and demand proof sources with back ups.

 

This particular article is opinion based and some like you that knows all about the EIB network should be plenty smart to pick up on opinion based articles.

perhaps this will help you: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/....abstract?rss=1

[bushwacked]

When one reads opinion articles look for words like "May" or "Might".

 

Because the terms may or might certainly have no place in Science. Especially when a journalist is using them to summarize a scientific study research piece. Yer brilliant.

[Ice1]

Because the terms may or might certainly have no place in Science. Especially when a journalist is using them to summarize a scientific study research piece. Yer brilliant.

 

I totally get how the uneducated would draw conclusions from a 254 person study as really being relevant to anything more than an opinion piece. I assure no real scientist would give this any credence but it is obvious the far left really believe it true.

 

However, with your acumen this is obviously the word of god so carry on as I wouldn't want to crush your dreams.

[wiegie]

perhaps this will help you: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/....abstract?rss=1

I guess not:

I totally get how the uneducated would draw conclusions from a 254 person study as really being relevant to anything more than an opinion piece. I assure no real scientist would give this any credence but it is obvious the far left really believe it true.

For what it's worth, the main part of the research article had N = 15,874.

 

As for the actual research paper, the journal it was published in is one of the top ten psychology journals in the world--so I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss the science in it. Perhaps you should read the actual paper to see what the researchers did wrong in their study. (And I will note, there could definitely be stuff wrong with their research, but your criticisms are ill-informed at best.)

Edited January 29, 2012 by wiegie

[bushwacked]

I totally get how the uneducated would draw conclusions from a 254 person study

 

The study had N=15k+ there Einstein.

 

To be honest, I find the aforementioned study somewhat uninteresting. The only conclusion I'm drawing is from your admission; you put more weight on journalists than scientists.

[Ursa Majoris]

What I think is if you are going to call something science the individual should certainly have more education than you as an example, and before one calls it science it should not be opinion based.

 

If you are somehow suggesting this is science based in some fact then prove it if you think you possess the intelligence to do so, if not then continue to scratch your chin.

 

When one reads opinion articles look for words like "May" or "Might". I really shouldn't have to explain this to you. Most college educated individuals would instantly question articles like this and demand proof sources with back ups.

 

This particular article is opinion based and someone like you that knows all about the EIB network should be plenty smart enough to pick up on opinion based articles.

 

 

perhaps this will help you: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/....abstract?rss=1

Oh dear. Poor Ice1

[Ice1]

The study had N=15k+ there Einstein.

 

To be honest, I find the aforementioned study somewhat uninteresting. The only conclusion I'm drawing is from your admission; you put more weight on journalists than scientists.

Wow you have no grasp of sarcasm. You do not even know the details of the study. Mainly because you couldn't find the actual complete study if you tried.

 

While I am convinced you have no substantial education, if you really believe they tracked down all these people then spoke with all of them 20 or so years later you are sadly mistaken.

 

Come on Snooki, this is too easy! Believe as you will, it works for you!

 

Out.

[Ice1]

Oh dear. Poor Ice1

 

I actually thought you had more education than to really believe this study....Oh well!

 

Good Luck!

 

What I see is is someone who quoted a 2006 study in one thread as some proof with no concept of what the tax code will be on 12/31/2012 and now this?

 

Are you for real? say it isn't so!

 

When you find the actual study and analyze it get back to us. The abstract is so weak it is laughable.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ice1

[Ice1]

discuss . . .

 

 

Hahahahaha Science....You got your wish>

[bushwacked]

Wow you have no grasp of sarcasm.

 

 

You researched the academic credentials of a journalist in an effort to be sarcastic? Yea.. that's the ticket.

 

[wiegie]

When you find the actual study and analyze it get back to us.

Do you want me to send you a PDF copy of it?

[wiegie]

While I am convinced you have no substantial education, if you really believe they tracked down all these people then spoke with all of them 20 or so years later you are sadly mistaken.

I don't think you know how longitudinal studies work.

 

From the article:

We used two large-scale U.K. data sets to test our hypothesized

mediation model: the 1958 National Child Development

Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS). In

the NCDS, all participants (4,267 men and 4,537 women)

were born in the same week in March 1958; in the BCS, all

participants (3,412 men and 3,658 women) were born in the

same week in April 1970. Cognitive abilities were assessed

with standardized measures when NCDS participants were 11

years old and BCS participants were 10 years old, and socially

conservative ideology and racism were assessed at ages 33 and

30, respectively. In both studies, thousands of men and women

completed relevant measures; both data sets are regarded as

excellent sources of representative data (see Deary et al.,

2008).

[bushwacked]

Do you want me to send you a PDF copy of it?

I'll take a PDF of the study. Why not.

[wiegie]

I'll take a PDF of the study. Why not.

Actually, I just said that for effect, and I am not going to send anyone a copy since I am not going to go to jail for copyright violations.

 

But I do indeed have a copy of the paper open right now.

[bushwacked]

Actually, I just said that for effect, and I am not going to send anyone a copy since I am not going to go to jail for copyright violations.

 

 

You were being sarcastic.

[Ice1]

Do you want me to send you a PDF copy of it?

 

I don't need it. I would suggest you send it to Ursa and Snooki for review along with just one reputable IQ study.

 

BTW,

 

I know exactly how studies are both conducted and work. The problem are the very speculative conclusions drawn around a political structured belief system.

 

If you really have a grasp as to what I am talking about then you should understand the statement. If you buy this studies conclusions as fact based then you flunked.

 

Here is a simple alternative example when one looks at information. This small study was equally poorly conceived.

 

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ice1

[wiegie]

I know exactly how studies are both conducted and work.

Alas, it's quite obvious from your posts in this thread that you do not.

 

Have a good night.

[Ursa Majoris]

What I see is is someone who quoted a 2006 study in one thread as some proof with no concept of what the tax code will be on 12/31/2012 and now this?

What I see is someone so profoundly out of his depth he's in danger of being attacked by a giant squid.

 

That 2006 study used real data and blew a massive hole in your regurgitated "family farm and small business" mantra.

[Ice1]

I guess not:

 

For what it's worth, the main part of the research article had N = 15,874.

 

As for the actual research paper, the journal it was published in is one of the top ten psychology journals in the world--so I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss the science in it. Perhaps you should read the actual paper to see what the researchers did wrong in their study. (And I will note, there could definitely be stuff wrong with their research, but your criticisms are ill-informed at best.)

 

 

Alas, it's quite obvious from your posts in this thread that you do not.

 

Have a good night.

 

I will have a good night.

 

For what it's worth my wife is working on PHD psychology so unfortunately I get more information than I really want on the discipline. When one sees politics injected as a conclusion based response it should cause anyone with an understanding of psychology to first look at the creator and their political agenda to determine the nature of the response. Further, when looks and studies IQ then the next variant relates to the belief in IQ being stagnant or something that can be improved.

 

The author of this article injected far to much opinion merrily jumped on by the resident Liberals in this thread as some ultimate proof source that conservatives are somehow dumb.

 

That assumption is foolish and simply shows a lack of understanding. This study will be blasted going forward and if you actually have it you will understand why if you analyze it. The conclusions are way out there and the the authors of the actual study have not even adequately defined conservatism as a starting point.

 

If you really understand the study then equate it to Nazi Germany and you may start to understand the conclusions seem to be more ad hominem in nature in my view.

 

I am through discussing it as it is not relevant, and certainly not scientific based or proven in the conclusions drawn and outlined by the author of the posted article.

[Ursa Majoris]

Further, when looks and studies IQ then the next variant relates to the belief in IQ being stagnant or something that can be improved.

[bushwacked]

I am through discussing it as it is not relevant,

 

The closest you came to discussing relevance is taking a beef with a journalist and having no clue what the study consisted of.

 

How embarrassing

[wiegie]

The author of this article injected far to much opinion merrily jumped on by the resident Liberals in this thread as some ultimate proof source that conservatives are somehow dumb.

I suggest you go back and reread this thread and you will see that no one really jumped on the research as proof of anything.

 

The only thing that got jumped on was how you attacked the research when you knew nothing about. Let's list the errors you made:

--assumed the author of the news article was the author of the research study

--didn't realize (or else dishonestly ignored) the fact that the study examined more than 15,000 people rather than 250

--displayed a complete lack of knowledge about longitudinal studies

 

Each time you were called on any one of these mistakes, you just came up with new arguments. Given that your wife is working on her PhD, it should be very easy for you to get a copy of the paper for you to review and critique rather than just make up critiques out of thin air. As I wrote earlier

As for the actual research paper, the journal it was published in is one of the top ten psychology journals in the world--so I'm not sure you should be so quick to dismiss the science in it. Perhaps you should read the actual paper to see what the researchers did wrong in their study. (And I will note, there could definitely be stuff wrong with their research, but your criticisms are ill-informed at best.)

[Ice1]

I suggest you go back and reread this thread and you will see that no one really jumped on the research as proof of anything.

 

The only thing that got jumped on was how you attacked the research when you knew nothing about. Let's list the errors you made:

--assumed the author of the news article was the author of the research study

--didn't realize (or else dishonestly ignored) the fact that the study examined more than 15,000 people rather than 250

--displayed a complete lack of knowledge about longitudinal studies

 

Each time you were called on any one of these mistakes, you just came up with new arguments. Given that your wife is working on her PhD, it should be very easy for you to get a copy of the paper for you to review and critique rather than just make up critiques out of thin air. As I wrote earlier

 

Taylor Swift's ding dong, Are you really that dense or just want to argue? Any attempt for you or anyone to remotely justify this as science is ridiculous.

 

1)" Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

By Stephanie Pappas | LiveScience.com – 2 hrs 55 mins agoE"

 

The article quoted was written by her. Her opinions are strewn throughout this article. Where did I ever state she authored the study? You are just making that up.

2) From the article written by Pappas:

 

"In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. "

 

This simply demonstrates the author justifying a position linked to yet another study Hodson and Busseri in further attempt to sell a position by the author.

 

The assumptions made by you and others are simply framed by a science writer that has not provided the actual study but only snippets and quotes from two different works to drive a point.

 

While you may think this science, it is a simple opinion of writer with limited actual scientific knowledge. It is pure opinion when one makes a veiled attempt at linkage based on two works and that was the point.

 

I suggest you go back and read the article so you actually have a basic framework as to the conclusions of the author that only carries a Bachelors degree. Even the author of the actual studies listed by Pappas only surmises with words like " Might, May, and More Likely" so any attempt to pass this off as science is quite foolish and you should know that to be true.

 

As for claiming I was somehow dishonest, well if you actually read or retained the article written by Pappas you would not have made such a weak accusation. At any rate you can now see the qoute from Pappas.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ice1

[Ditkaless Wonders]

That the social "sciences" use some of the scientific method does not make them science, in spite of their constant protestations that it does.

 

I find it interesting that a poster with such ingrained beliefs that he has demonstrated an inability, yes inability not unwillingness, to process counterposing information and to evalauate it dispassionately should post this information in an obvious effort to butress his world view. That dynamic is the very heart of the mechanism through which prejudice survives and thrives.

 

Lots of true believers, dolts, and intellectually lazy no matter where on the political spectrum. If the spectrum can be reduced to a dicotomy I would note that each has its orthodoxy which the acolytes believe uncritically. From that does prejudice grow.

 

BTW, I like the OP.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders