Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's not as if this study was conducted over a weekend for fun, it was an intensive, multi-decade case study of 100 children. Yes, more replication of testing is needed before we can come up with a solid, generalizable answer, but that does not stop this study from laying the groundwork for a possible future working theory. I'm trying to get hold of the actual research paper so that I can answer some questions on how liberalism and conservatism were tallied. My guess is a Linkert or Guttman Scale.

At 3/23/06 02:01 PM, JMHX wrote: It's not as if this study was conducted over a weekend for fun, it was an intensive, multi-decade case study of 100 children.

I don't understand how people can contest these findings. JMHX is right, its not like scientists have nothing better to do that piss off Conservatives. From the article it seems as if the correlation is more than just a statistical insignificance.

Scientists need to knock off the stupid, inconsequential research about things that hold only entertainment value.

At 3/23/06 02:10 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Scientists need to knock off the stupid, inconsequential research about things that hold only entertainment value.

Be fair, -LazyDrunk-, penicillin was only discovered by mistake. The process of vaccination was discovered after someone messed up a study into how best to inject a chicken. The laws of relativity were found out by one guy pursuing an inconsequential line of thought.

At 3/23/06 02:10 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Scientists need to knock off the stupid, inconsequential research about things that hold only entertainment value.

THANK YOU. Statisitical and multi-decade research my ass, what does a study like this do benefit society in the long run?

At 3/23/06 02:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:10 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Scientists need to knock off the stupid, inconsequential research about things that hold only entertainment value.

THANK YOU. Statisitical and multi-decade research my ass, what does a study like this do benefit society in the long run?

So what, you want POLITICAL scientists to cure Aids? Wrong discipline of science. Next you'll be telling me you want anthropologists to find the reasons for genetic mutation in bird flu. This is one of the many different studies conducted in political science research. It's no different than trying to figure out why Americans vote against their interest in elections, or why so many voters stay home.

Then what's the point of this? To try and curve kids into liberals when they get older?

At 3/23/06 02:01 PM, JMHX wrote: It's not as if this study was conducted over a weekend for fun, it was an intensive, multi-decade case study of 100 children.

A convenience sample.

Yes, more replication of testing is needed before we can come up with a solid, generalizable answer, but that does not stop this study from laying the groundwork for a possible future working theory.

That's all well and good but you can't move into a house just after the excavation is finished. I don't see the point of giving the results any consideration. You don't even know if the trend is a based on some natural behavioral effect or just the dominant ideology of the geographic region.

At 3/23/06 02:39 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:01 PM, JMHX wrote: It's not as if this study was conducted over a weekend for fun, it was an intensive, multi-decade case study of 100 children.

A convenience sample.

You don't know that. The researcher could have taken 100 children that were a representative sample and studied their cases in depth. To say by wild assumption that there was no regard for bias or accuracy in selecting the subjects is just silly. Keep in mind that random samples are not convenience samples, there is a fine difference between the two.

Also, to say that a convenience sample can not provide you with useful information is similarly incorrect. While it may suffer in external validity, the internal validity of convenience samples is just as worthy of consideration as any other.

At 3/23/06 02:44 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:39 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:01 PM, JMHX wrote: It's not as if this study was conducted over a weekend for fun, it was an intensive, multi-decade case study of 100 children.

A convenience sample.

You don't know that. The researcher could have taken 100 children that were a representative sample and studied their cases in depth. To say by wild assumption that there was no regard for bias or accuracy in selecting the subjects is just silly. Keep in mind that random samples are not convenience samples, there is a fine difference between the two.

It's isolated to one geographic region while the intent is to represent the population of the entire country.

Also, to say that a convenience sample can not provide you with useful information is similarly incorrect. While it may suffer in external validity, the internal validity of convenience samples is just as worthy of consideration as any other.

Internal validity is all well and good but wouldn't it be nice to have good results that apply to an entire population rather than good results that apply only to the group that was tested.

Political science?

Two terms that should never be used together.

Why are these cocks researching anything? To better manipulate the voters?

This blows so much ass.

so I guess this study now proves that right-wingism is some sort of social disease, and now we know its cause we can 'cure' it.

Yeah, 100 people isn't anywhere near enough. And stop bullshitting everyone JMHX, you only posted this because you wanted to shoot you mouth off about how much you hate conservatives. Would you defend this if it said liberals where whingers?

At 3/23/06 02:57 PM, Bantooma wrote: This blows so much ass.

Yeah, 100 people isn't anywhere near enough. And stop bullshitting everyone JMHX, you only posted this because you wanted to shoot you mouth off about how much you hate conservatives. Would you defend this if it said liberals where whingers?

Who are you? So far as I can tell, the study makes no claim that conservatism or any ideology is wrong. Do I hate conservatives? Of course not. As for your question about defending it if liberals were in the crosshairs - yes, I would. I don't consider myself a liberal or conservative, and was looking at this study as a student of political and social science.

Now about your point that 100 people isn't nearly enough. The cost of a case study over decades, like this study, is astronomical. The sheer time and cost involved in taking a case study of the 1,500 people common to a representative survey would be beyond the means of any organization. The purpose of the case study isn't to amass huge amounts of survey results. That is any number of other research methods.

At 3/22/06 10:44 PM, JMHX wrote:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

Big surprise, no? I LOVE THIS THREAD!

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

Well, considering other research that's been published (Namely a book I've read: "Moral Politics," George Lakoff) this is understandable.

YA CONSERVATIVES ARE WINNIES
NOT ALL OF THEM BUT THEIR QUICK TO CALL THE COPS AND BOUT SOMETHING
OR QUICK TO SUE YOU ..........

At 3/23/06 02:38 PM, AccessCode wrote: Then what's the point of this? To try and curve kids into liberals when they get older?

No, (A.) it demonstrates the childishness of conservatism and (B.) demonstrates that liberals are self reliant, well ajusted and well-rounded. "The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity."

while...

"The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests."

So. I wouldn't doubt these results because..."Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003... The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism." and because this study (the Berkeley one) has been ongoing for 40+ years.

At 3/23/06 03:50 PM, Grammer wrote: Before people continue to bash conservatives, this is from the same article: "Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country."

This raises all sorts of new questions for repeat experimentations using the Berkeley method.

Although I'd find this pretty funny if it were true, I'm going to have to side with BeFell about the way in which this study was conducted.

It may hold true for the Berkley area, but the sample is too isolated to be applied to a general population in any sort of reliable way.

At 3/23/06 03:50 PM, Grammer wrote: Before people continue to bash conservatives, this is from the same article: "Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country."

Ah, but perhaps it is. Maybe someone should replicate this in multiple locales.

At 3/23/06 03:51 PM, JMHX wrote:

This raises all sorts of new questions for repeat experimentations using the Berkeley method.

Give me some time and grants, I think I could do it. Lol. Kidding. But seriously, yes, this experiment should be conducted again. Never underestimate the importance of having multiple trials.

Look at all the conservatives whining... Woh.

At 3/23/06 07:10 PM, red_skunk wrote: Look at all the conservatives whining... Woh.

OMB GEORGE BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!!!

=P

BeFell, you know he did :D

Seriously, I hope you do.

At 3/23/06 07:28 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: BeFell, you know he did :D

Seriously, I hope you do.

It's not his fault if you liberals are too dumb to figure out a butterfly ballot.

At 3/23/06 02:15 PM, JMHX wrote: So what, you want POLITICAL scientists to cure Aids?

No, I'd like government funded political scientists to find better ways of wasting the $20 they take out of my paycheck every week, thank you very much.

At 3/23/06 07:30 PM, BeFell wrote: It's not his fault if you liberals are too dumb to figure out a butterfly ballot.

OH SNAP.

Yes, that WAS a good insult. But it doesn't apply to ME. And butterfly ballots were inherently flawed anyway.

At 3/23/06 09:47 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: But it doesn't apply to ME.

Turnabout is fairplay, man.

And butterfly ballots were inherently flawed anyway.

......

Man, you've got to at least admit that the butterfly ballot wasn't really an intuitive design, what with the chad problems and the candidates with multiple holes beside their names.

Sure, people who take a few seconds to figure it out would be able to avoid mistakes, but democracy means that you need to accurately represent dumb people and people so old they think they're sandwiches.

This is a biased, poor case study.

I'm sorry, but when I think liberal, I don't think "self-reliant and resilient." I either think "welfare recipient" or "poverty enabler." It doesn't make a spot of sense that self-reliant, resilient children wouldn't eventually join the party of...well...self-reliance.

In any case, this reminds me of a study the Wall Street Journal published which stated a happy person is most likely to be a somewhat affluent married Republican churchgoer. I believe that: it's clear to see today that conservatives are happier than liberals for a variety of reasons. For one, they don't see society's problems as their own. But the reason I don't put stock in this goofy case study is because I don't think it means anything, especially from my own familial experience. It turned out the exact opposite for my sister and I: I was a chilled out kid with lots of friends who became a Republican, she was a high-strung whiner who became a Democrat (maybe just to spite me though). Oh sure, she'll come around and be a Republican again someday, because she's not going to be a "welfare recipient" or a "poverty enabler," but that just further invalidates the study. At least in my own experience.

At 3/23/06 11:11 PM, Elfer wrote: Man, you've got to at least admit that the butterfly ballot wasn't really an intuitive design, what with the chad problems and the candidates with multiple holes beside their names.

The Chad was hanging, begging the question, "Why?"

*laughs*

Sure, people who take a few seconds to figure it out would be able to avoid mistakes, but democracy means that you need to accurately represent dumb people and people so old they think they're sandwiches.

Unless you can outsmart them. They got 'em with the butterfly ballot, but those scurvy liberals alerted them that indeed, the butterfly was far too advanced for their simple minds.