"My profession has a shameful history of beating up on conservatives."
IronShrink debunks another biased study against conservatives:
Sorry IronShrink, but anyone with such a biased title for a paper is obviously gunning for conservatives. But I very much agree, the methodology is atrocious.
It happens like clockwork. Every few years, researchers contrive yet another study to prove that conservatives are mentally deficient. This time, the attack comes from evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa in his current paper, Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent. To be fair, gunning for conservatives does not appear to be his primary motive. Instead, he seems to have tied himself in knots trying affirm a pet theory. Either way, he has recklessly disparaged millions. The methodology is atrocious.
Sorry IronShrink, but anyone with such a biased title for a paper is obviously gunning for conservatives. But I very much agree, the methodology is atrocious.
posted by Helen at 2:03 PM
32 Comments:
Evoloutionary Psychology? What an impossible topic to understand, it is completely theoretical because there is no psychological data from further back thatn the 1800s.
Trey
Bias? how about this:
:In psychology’s latest assault on American conservatives: the entire field of how many thousands of psychologists are biased One guy writes an article (and comes from a questionable field) in a non-peer reviewed general magazine, hardly well regarded by those with background, and this means everybody in the field believes this?
Obviously? That's an understatement.
The verbal vs performance IQ is significant. Myself and my two sons (we all have IQs tested at above the "very liberal" category in the study mentioned) do much better on the performance IQ portions.
One of my questions in this area is "do people who do well in the verbal areas live in a world of words and don't see the conceptual/real world stuff as well?"
For myself, I'm a visual person, at least in learning. If I can picture something in my mind, I've learned it or mastered it. This comes quite in handy in sports and many other areas because I can literally see what I need to do before I do it.
Verbally, my sons and I are still above average but not as significantly so.
Psychology Today, which despite not being peer reviewed, is a leading publication in the field. That it would publish such trash in quite telling about the profession.
Another point, at age 28 I would have said I was liberal although my beliefs are quite the same now, 30 years later. Now I wouldn't dream of calling myself liberal. All along my beliefs have been libertarian, but was that even asked?
For fred (who refuses to see the truth at every turn):
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).
This entire current in political combat is deadly destructive and must be halted. It doesn't matter whether liberals do it to conservatives, or conservatives do it to liberals. There is no good to be had by psychologizing away the arguments of the opposition. It merely guarantees that the sides won't be able to converse objectively or constructively.
I'll grant that, given any sort of pro-freedom, pro-Constitution premise, most of what liberals advocate looks vile. But if we're ever to wean them out of their statist mindset, at the very least we have to grapple with their concerns, and show them that for improving the lives of men, the methods of freedom are superior to any exertion of State force.
For a long while, at Amy Alkon's blog, I had tried to explain the limitations of the inferential method used by evolutionary psychologists.
I was unsuccessful. The science of evolutionary psychology is sound. But, evolutionary psychologists go beyond science into speculative interpretations of the evidence. Rarely, are these interpretations properly qualified.
Jeff, I do not see how evo psych can be anything but theoretical due to the limited amount of historical data. Can you help me understand your position on how it is sound?
Thanks pal.
Trey
Had Kanazawa put his claims in a racial context, such as Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and American Enterprise Institute political scientist Charles Murray, could you imagine the uproar?
The need to feel superior seems strongly ingrained in liberalism.
Shouldn't he have just entitled his paper, "People Who Agree With Me Are Smarter Than People Who Disagree With Me" and been done with it?
TMink writes:
"Jeff, I do not see how evo psych can be anything but theoretical due to the limited amount of historical data. Can you help me understand your position on how it is sound?
Thanks pal."
-----
What's up with the "thanks pal" and the whole condescending tone of that post?
He may answer you, but I sure wouldn't.
Ego >> knowledge and ability
Feeling a little touchy there, MB?
This comment has been removed by the author.
How is what this psychologist is trying to do any different than what psychologists in the old Soviet Union did to dissidents? Those who opposed the Soviet Union were judged to be mentally incompetent and sometimes forced into mental institutions. Sure, they have not done that here yet but that's the next logical progression if they're successful in defining their political opponents as mentally deficient.
And to think, many people believe the appropriate ringtone for most psychologists would be a duck call.
Sure, they have not done that here yet but that's the next logical progression if they're successful in defining their political opponents as mentally deficient.
Excellent point. It's part of the process of dehumanization through which they can justify however poorly they treat us because we are sub-human.
We all know that we atheists are more intelligent than the rest of you.
Hey, what about us agnostics? How smart are we? Where do we fit in?
For the record, I prefer working with the center hinged, double pumper Holly four barrel carb than the writers reference set. I have to break into that stuff every day for work and I'd much rather relax under the hood of whatever would be using that Holley carb.
I prefer working with the center hinged, double pumper Holly four barrel carb than the writers reference set.
I wonder how many of the egghead liberals know what the "hemi" in Dodge Hemi stands for.
Thanks for the link to the Iron Shrink web site! What a fascinating place, it will go just after yours on my list of sites to read regularly.
Well, MB, you are a psycho putz, so you cannot expect others to react the way you do.
There was no condescension in my post, you just feel so inferior to me that you see condescension in everything I post. It is an internal problem for you.
We can all see that.
Trey - who is condescending in this post because it is appropriate
TMink is applying his top-secret psychological techniques to make other people feel bad.
A master manipulator of minds and Jedi Master, TMink usually uses his powers for the forces of Good.
personally i prefer my 100 watt ampeg tube amp pushed through my laney 4x12 all driven my my sunburst les paul.
liberals tend to use epiphones through solid state buzz boxes....and sound like it.
and trey stoops to conquer once again...and it really isn`t so top secret. just point out the obvious and amplify for the tv crowd.
"personally i prefer my 100 watt ampeg tube amp pushed through my laney 4x12 all driven my my sunburst les paul."
--------
I've got a 5000 Watt stereo system that dims the lights in the neighborhood when I crank it up. I'm pushing it through 20 W speakers at present in my parents basement because of a financial reversal, but it's still bitchin'. It blows them out.
But I bow before the Jedi Master of mind manipulation TMink (also known as Trey to his close friends).
tether, we have something in common....a basement!
Trey, all science is "theoretical" because facts explain nothing. Everything is explained by interpretations and theories about the facts.
The method of evolutionary psychology is empirical, produces falsifiable theories, and is repeatable. Hence, evolutionary psychology is scientific.
You are right to question the quality and quantity of facts accessible to evolutionary psychologists. It greatly qualifies any interpretation of those facts.
it is interesting that there are those who collect facts and consider themselves smart....and then criticise those who question the quality and quantity of facts presented as absolute reality.
it makes those who think of themselves this way much like tourquemada et al...
DADvocate
Don't judge somebody because of their lack of car knowledge. I don't know what hemi stands for and don't give a damn. I work on guns too, does that make me more of a conservative. People that trot out that bullshit need a steaming hot cup of STFU.
Jeff wrote: "Trey, all science is "theoretical" because facts explain nothing. Everything is explained by interpretations and theories about the facts."
Well, I would not state it quite so strongly, but I see your point.
"The method of evolutionary psychology is empirical, produces falsifiable theories, and is repeatable. Hence, evolutionary psychology is scientific."
How do they get the data? That is where I get stuck. The only thing I can come up with is using ancient physical data then jumping far from it. It is the landing I worry about.
"You are right to question the quality and quantity of facts accessible to evolutionary psychologists. It greatly qualifies any interpretation of those facts."
I am glad you understand my concerns and the tone of my questions. Thanks Jeff.
Trey
Don't judge somebody because of their lack of car knowledge.
Oh, I don't. My comment was derogatory, but I was trying to make the point that being good with words and/or having a great vocabulary doesn't make you smarter than someone whose intelligence lies in other areas.
In my perspective, I generally have more respect for the people that design machines, computers, or even some of the packaging we see than someone who simply conjures up fanciful phrases. (When I worked at a computer store years ago, I was often amazed at the complex, compact boxing some of the printers came in.)
My father had a Phd but I figured out how to tune-up our car before I was old enough to drive, something he never knew how to do. I taught myself from a book. He couldn't do much more than fill the car up with gas, put air in the tires and top off the oil. Sure, he knew some "high falutin" theories but if his car broke down he was out of luck.
I respect people who work with words and I respect people who work with their hands.
I recommend "Shop Class As Soulcraft" by Matt Crawford.
Patent nonsense. Leftards have time and again shown that they are unread, callous, shallow-thinkers who have relegated themselves to new-age group think and protest sign sloganeering. That's the depth of how far their thinking goes. It's not about beating up on conservatives, because to do so only outlines the inherent insecurities that leftards display against conservatives and the conservative ideology.
Surprise, surprise. An inherently authoritarian fascist pseudo-science produces yet another paper attacking conservatism. In other news, this just in - water is wet!
It's the nature of the field. The ultimate busybody elitist conceit is that of authoritatively judging the state of another's mind.
Every few years, researchers contrive yet another study to prove that conservatives are mentally deficient
Meh. It doesn't bother us.
See, we know you. You were virgin in high school always boasting about how many babes you bagged. It was amusing then, its amusing now.
More amusing still is your constant need to validate yourself by "proving" your superior intellect. But intelligence is demonstrable - if you need to prove it, then you must not have it.
Post a Comment
<< Home