Here are some unfiltered responses to my article, A Methodology Critique In Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans. Thank you for all the kind comments. I’ll just be here quietly waiting for the other shoe to drop.

-IS

-------------------------

So, basically, conservatives are left brain, and libs are right brain. So, conservatives should think more like us chicks. Our minds are so open we can be convinced of anything. Problem is, in a war or terror attack, I'll cast my lot with the left brainers, as would most people.

-------------------------

I even think the dichotmy between liberals and conservities that you present on equality (equality in outcomes vs. equality in opportunity can be challenged. Market economics holds that most equal outcome is going to occur if we allow individuals to look out for the own enlightened interest.

Empirically, just look at the American middle class vs. outcome based "equal societies." It's a vast middle class as opposed to other systems where there exist a very select few at the top and vast group in the bottom. There are few in between.

-------------------------

This comment won't make it to your home page, as it is not insightful. Nor is it brilliant. I am just a conservative reader who appreciates your logic in unraveling this "scientific" study. I also find the data collection methods appalling, and I'm surprised that something this blatantly flawed made it to print. Who funded this?

[Who funded this? You did. –IS]

-------------------------

No surprise

-------------------------

Thank you IS for addressing this faulty, biased "study". I am a Ph.D. licensed mental health provider in Alabama, tho originally from NY, who is amazed by the silent take-over of the psychiatric and psychologic communities by professionals who overwhelmingly profess their atheism, socialism, gayism, liberalism, etc., as well as their disdain for Libertarians such as yourself, and conservative Republicans like myself. I am proud to be Catholic, send my child to parochial school, believe in the Constitution being the law of the land, not judges making laws, and other Ronald Reaganesque ideas. We in the psychological community, clearly in the minority, need to speak out, as I see a growing mistrust and suspicion by the general public towards our profession due to "studies" such as this mess, getting so much attention and adoration in the MSM. Keep up the good work.

-------------------------

Awesome.

I haven't read the Psychology Today article or the study of which you write, but I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of it. Being a psychology ignoramus, I have to take a lot of what you say "on faith", but your logic seemed sound and your arguments cogent.

Your point about equality meaning different things to different people, especially given the dichotomy of equalities (outcomes versus opportunity) that is characteristic of the modern liberal versus conservative divide, is devastating to the credibility of these authors. How could they possibly have missed something so widely discussed, so often written about, and just plain obvious?

Thank you for your effort and excellent work. I learned a lot. It made sense to me. But then, I consider myself to be a free-thinking, very undogmatic conservative, so go figure.

Best wishes,

Outlier in Ohio

-------------------------

Excellent analysis and summary.

Here is a quick comment to throw another wrench in their works: My wife is the strict (family) disciplinarian but a bleeding-heart economic and social liberal while I am a stonch conservative white male that turns to mush (I'm the one that always gives in) regarding my family.

I guess that makes us both extremists and statistical outlayers?

-------------------------

It is ironic how leftists always try to compare conservatives with Hitler. Hitler was actually a prototypical leftist. After all, NAZI was an acronym for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - the National Socialist German Workers Party. His actions had all the hallmarks of socialist/communist/fascist governments -- suppression of dissent, systematic brainwashing of the public via propaganda, and ultimately, the extermination of anyone who doesn't fall in line. Anti-semitism is another popular pastime of leftists and Hitler was mother of all anti-semites, as we all know.

Speaking as someone with a psychology degree and a science background, this study is so bogus that I would call it laughable, if not for the fact that it will be taken as gospel by the liberal-dominated academic establishment.

-------------------------

Loved the article "In Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans." I posted some quotes from your refutation on the College Republican blog for the university I attend. (You may visit here: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/CollegeRepublicans/)

Thanks for pointing all of this out. Fascinating stuff. This is the first I'd heard of your site, but I'll be stopping back!

-------------------------

I'd be happy to comment, but as a woman with a job, I don't have time for such silliness as that proposed by this study. Apparently, those that can't, teach, and those that REALLY can't, conduct studies such as this.

-------------------------

Nice analysis that shreds the article. Thanks for your time and effort.

-------------------------

no question - I came here from Malkin's site. I must say I like to see your intellectual honesty. Keep up the great work

-------------------------

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007_01_14_dissectleft_archive.html#116912383244804347

-------------------------

As a conservative woman, I can't say that I'm surprised. This study was performed by NYU, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideals. This study seems to fly in the face of their finding that liberals are more tolerant. I've never seen a group more intolerant or quick to villify someone with opposing views than liberals. The reason this study is being so widely accepted is just as you said, people like to see their own views verified. We all agree, therefore, we are all brilliant!

-------------------------

Greetings IronShrink!

http://www.ironshrink.com/articles/070116_political_conservatism_study_methodology.php

mentions:

A Brief Outline
Political Conservatism...It weighs in at a hefty 37 pages...

but I think you left a zero off the end of the '37' from the pages referenced.

Thanks for the read!

[The study occupies pages 339-375 in a journal consisting of several volumes numbered consecutively throughout the year. –IS]

-------------------------

Your response is spot on. You are right -- society cannot have equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I choose opportunity. The left choose outcome. I guess that makes me conservative.

-------------------------

Please forgive the lack of polish in this commentary – I’m so $&% mad I could spit nails! The NERVE of the authors of this “study!” How DARE the denigrate me and mine so! Am I taking this personally? Damn right! It IS personal! As far as I’m concerned, this pitiful group of so-called “intellectuals” are a perfect example of what’s wrong with this country!

I am a conservative – for lack of a better definition. MY definition of “conservative” is fairly simple. I want the government – federal, state, and local – to keep their sticky fingers out of my wallet; out of my bedroom; out of my children’s schools; and out of my life! As far as the federal government goes, I want them protect our country from invaders, keep the infrastructure sound, and uphold the constitution! That goes for state and local as well.

– and I surely don’t want some ignorant college professor who has never been in the real world telling me what I should do or how I should live “for my own good.” I’m an adult, have been paying my own bills for several decades, and I can decide for myself what’s good for me.

Am I sympathetic to the poor? Hell, I AM poor! My annual income is marginally above the “poverty level.” My house desperately need foundation repair and a new roof – but I sure don’t want a government agency fixing it. Leave me alone, let me put a tarp on the roof, and put up with doors that won’t close. Your cost is too high.

Am I sympathetic to the hungry? Only if they are incapable of working to feed themselves. I don’t believe “hungry children” driven to school in $60,000 pick-ups need feeding at my expense. As for those who truly need help – there are a multitude of private organizations that are more than willing to come to their aid. My own church has a fantastic welfare program – and most of those we help are not of our faith.

The very idea of perfectly able-bodied people sitting back and living on welfare turns my stomach! My mother had a saying, “Root, hog, or die.” In other words, get off your duff, earn some $$$’s and take care of yourself!

My impression of socialist/liberal thinking is that they think everyone should be reduced to the common denominator
except them, of course! The authors of the “study” insult over 50% of the population when they put down women and the working man. THIS woman has an I.Q. of 140+, and I can see right through their silly “study.”

Communism/socialism/liberalism does not work. People are just too darn independent! In order for it to work, they must FORCE the multitudes to bend to their rule...instead of letting each individual achieve that to which they are capable. Personally, I think the so called intellectuals who adhere to this philosophy have god complexes! Let them get out in the real world, work for a living for a few years, then MAYBE they will be smart enough to give advice.

I am female, high school educated with some college; a mother of 4 (One girl, three boys. The boys all served in the Navy & Marine Corps, and the girls daughter is in the Navy; married to the same man (a former Marine) for 50 years.

Where does that put me in a “study” group?

[I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to learn that this study was funded with tax dollars. –IS]

-------------------------

Thank you for your well reasoned review.

-------------------------

Thanks for taking the time to write this (on "The Study"). Someone forwarded me that study. I'm no psychiatrist, but am relatively intelligent and just had to laugh at the thing and assumed others would too. It wasn't until 2 days later I realized people were taking it seriously.

-------------------------

"the same Stalin who murdered tens of thousands under the banner of Karl Marx"

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of Russians while he ruled, not tens of thousands.

-------------------------

Thank you for your sheer honesty in dealing with this report and subject.

-A conservative

-------------------------

Bravo!

-------------------------

Regarding the article "Conservatives are crazy", interested readers on may wish to review my work "Saharasia" which was the most in-depth global review of human behavior variables correlated with social violence and warfare. It used standard anthropological and cross-cultural data on 1170 different cultures world-wide, and maps were composed of the data variables, showing that "extreme patrist" cultures, with high levels of infant neglect, child abuse, sex-repression, subordination of females, class, castes, slavery and other indicators of violence, were not randomly distributed but instead collected in specific world regions. Which regions? The most extreme of such cultures were the Islamic ones: Sahara Desert, Middle-East deserts, and Central Asian deserts. Saharasia. This work has been repeatedly published, subjected to intensive peer review and even attacked in the most fantastic ways, but never rebutted, and never allowed into the mainstream. Censorship rules. I guarantee, you'll never read about it in Psychology Today, but your grandchildren will get it in their 101 classes. Summary articles, book links, etc., here:
http://www.saharasia.org

-------------------------

Well done!

I very much appreciate your efforts to dissect that “Political Conservatism” article on our behalf (those of us who toil in the social sciences). You have relieved us of the responsibility for actually wading through that particular cesspool, and you are hereby bestowed the added title “sin-eater” for your troubles.

When I first read their definition of conservatives three years ago, it did impress me in one way: as the ideal definition for the reality-based community but Stalin fits too, I suppose.

[Thanks for the new title, I think. But with all due respect, you’re not relieved of duty. As I tell all my clients, don’t take my word for it. Check it out yourself. –IS]

-------------------------

I am commenting about the article in 'Psychology Today' concerning republicans/conservatives. I cannot describe how offensive I found the article. It isn't enough any longer to disagree with conservatives, to debate us with well thought-out arguments (as adults do when they respect each other.),they must silence us and call us all manner of names;it is the desire to destroy our right to exist and call us mentally ill, stupid,fearful etc. instead of different and equal. It is a profound lack of respect. It is my definition of hate. I would never attempt to silence someone because they disagreed with me and I am not so arrogant that I think only stupid people disagree with me! I enjoy a good debate. Isn't variety the spice of life? Isn't this, IronShrink, exactly what authoritarians do when they want to marginalize a group in their society? When my mother came to this country in 1920 it was believed that southern Italians were so privative and incapable of improvement and with such low IQs that they had no chance of advancing in American society. Now her daughter is being called many of the same names because she dares to think differently than the common wisdom of her times.

PS I have nearly 2000 books in my private library, I have, alas, never completed college but my husband and I read constantly. I am a very creative woman - sewing, crocheting, knitting and tatting are some of my skills. I am a good cook. I also create jewelry. My study is a compete mess and may or may not have a floor, IronShrink. I can not comment about their methodolgy because I am not trained in your discipline.

-------------------------

As a conservative who grew up in a Democrat household I have found examples similar to myself on both sides. I therefore conclude that the thought patterns associated with being a Liberal or a Conservative are of genetic origin. Conservatives will look at the same information as Liberals and come to a completely opposite conclusion. This is more than logic vs. "feeling".

A Conservative will look at a government program that has failed and want to cut out the program while a Liberal will look at the same failure and come to the conclusion that the failure was just because not enough money was spent.

The recent studies on charitable giving really get to the basic thought pattern of a Liberal. The Liberal wants to spend your money while the Conservative freely give his/her own.

Great job on your analysis. No Liberal will agree with it though.

-------------------------

Regarding your piece on the Jost article: Nice breakdown of issues; I would also add that their aggregation of such dissimilar studies' measures is also problematic. In my own discipline (organizational behavior)we would be hard pressed to get a piece from such a diverse disciplinary list published, because of the inevitable non-comparability of the actual measures used.

Too bad that there's not a reasonable outlet to examine this phenomena objectively; it would be interesting to examine a national sample of adults, personality, and political orientations. The fact is though...even if well-executed...it would never appear in the top journals (or get much attention from Psychology Today).

Keep up the good work; bad science was bad when it denigrated the black man, when it denigrated women...and it's equally bad when it denigrates a population for their political views.

-------------------------

Nice critique ("A methodology critique in defense of those wascally wepublicans"). I wrote a thorough critique of the Jost et.al. "Motivated Cognition" paper a couple of years ago. Their study is actually very revealing about the left-wing mind, because their fundamental presumption is that ALL COGNITION is dominated by what they call "motivated cognition," where a person interprets events in they way that they find most supportive of their presumptions about what is right or in their interest. Thus they are admitting that this is how THEY think. Instead of following reason and evidence, they think backwards, starting with their presumptions, and making the best case for them. The paper actually turns out to be very revealing about both the left wing cognitive style and about the presumptions that the left thinks backwards in support of.

My critique here:
http://www.rawls.org/Leftists_on_conservatism.htm

[Thanks for the link. Their theories are nothing if not ironic. –IS]

-------------------------

What a waste of time by these pinheads have spent looking for ways to validate their ideas instead of examining the evidence. Typically self-indulgent leftist nonsense.

-------------------------

It appears as if the authors of the study began with a conclusion and tailored their choice of study to fit their own dogmatic adherence to liberalism.

-------------------------

I own a copy of "The Authoritarian Personality". It was an uncomfortable read.

My question; Is their a researcher you could recommend that attempts to honestly understand belief systems, rather than simply define them?

-------------------------

Pardon the non-conforming use of your query box... I do not have a question, just a comment. A note of congratulations for your January 16th column regarding the phsycologists view of conservatives. Speaking of peer review, I hope you submit it to the offending publications. Please also check out my website: libertarianletter.com Thanks. Ron

-------------------------

st a comment of your article about the 'study' of conservatives. The use of students taking Gen Psych is even more skewed than you point out. I think you will find the number of engineering, math, hard science or business majors taking any Psych course to be close to zero. I suppose Business majors might take a business psych course but that would probably be offered in the College of Business. As an Chemistry and Engineering major I would never have wasted my time and money on a 'soft' class like that.

So the population of students being used as the pool for these studies is already skewed left before any selection is made. And, no offense, the IQ's of the students who would not take a Psych class is almost certainly higher than those who do.

-------------------------

IronShrink: Enjoyed your critique of this 'study'.

ALthough you are not a climite specialist, I would be most interested in a critique of the Global Warming debate in general and this paper in particular: "The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. (see: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf#search=%27twomile%20long%20ice%20core%20from%20the%20Antarctic)

-------------------------

Just read your review of the study of conservatives. My radar went to high alert as soon as I read the phrase "meta-study". I have yet to see a meta study that was anything more than popycock. I too, can spend two days finding articles that agree with my biases. These gentlemen have truly Piled it Higher and Deeper.

-------------------------

Wow! What an interesting way to explain away those that disagree with you politically. I can’t wait to see how this is used by liberals. Instead of debate they can just mention the study, label the challenger and dismiss the argument. I have a close family member that will make a political statement in order to engage me. Once I respond with a fact based disagreement, I’m told that “ you can find facts to support anything” “ funny, I herd Rush Limbaugh say that” “you read to many of those right-wing websites” or he attacks me personally by questioning my IQ, level of maturity or calling me “just stupid”. Occasionally when I do actually get to debate and challenge his view of what the world should be, he just ends the conversation and storms off. After this I’m shunned for at least a month. He lived in Sweden in the 1950s and constantly points to Sweden as an example of how it should be. On one occasion I produced two articles written by European news papers. Both painted a less than perfect picture of life in modern Sweden. His response was they were right-wing fabrications and they were dismissed and never read. Interestingly we are very close and get along well if politics are not mentioned. My wife asks me not to discuss politics with him (her dad) so I avoid it most of the time. He has the same request from his wife but can’t resist, ever. This past Christmas I made it for three days without responding to his constant volleys across my bow, but finally succumbed to his challenge. Predictably it went poorly. What could make a successful, intelligent and otherwise reasonable man act like this? I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading your post and find you to be a very reasoned and clear thinker. Thank you for the insight
Mark

-------------------------

Your 'check-up from the neck-up' was most thorough. You get right to the point; to have valid conclusions, one must always, as Ann Rand might say, "check the premises".

I was especially struck by the percentage of liberal vs. conservative college profs. 79 vs 9! I knew it was bad, but whew! That imbalance borders on thought control, and I think it is telling that real life experience tends to expand the conservative ranks, and shrink the liberal.

Thanks for your clear headed analysis. Too bad you are a lonely voice of reason in the clamor for conservative blood.

-------------------------

This is one of the most intelligent pieces i have ever read online (or anywhere else) - and i thank you for it. I have never read your blog before, but you are to be commended for having the courage and integrity to communicate complex thoughts plainly and with undeniable reason.

[Wow. Thanks. –IS]

-------------------------

Bravo!

An excellent dissection of what is obviously a biased and flawed study. I also commend you for the clinical nature of your criticism. Using a priori assumptions and (supressed chuckle) dictionary definitions to supply a framework for a social/psychological logistics study could easily persuade a reviewer to be less than professional in their statements, but you took the high road. Well done!

-------------------------

i merely wish to thank you for providing me with an insightful, logical, and well-written deconstruction of "the study".

One of the lenses i use when trying to evaluate a system is to make some attempt to extrapolate out a scenario or idea to its end-game. Long ago i put it to a friend that Socialism ultimately requires subjugation to the point of slavery. His response was that Captialism in it's hunger for better input/output ratios will lead to a form of wage slavery as globalism kicks in and we can import lower priced workers (i'll avoid the tangent this could go into).
My response to such things is "Well, in both scenarios, what is the role of Government?" Under Capitalism, the government is necessary to prevent gross abuses and to foster civil competition which is why we have such things as monopoly laws, collusion laws, etc. While under the Socialism the government is a necessary enforcer of forced-altruism (ha!), redistribution, equal-outcome, etc.
So it is by this lens through which i also see people when i hear their ideas or ideologies.

Well, my writing is not nearly as well-constructed as yours, and i've already bored even myself. so i'll be closing.

As somewhat of an aside, it was heartening to see you bring up The FairTax as a supporting element for debunking the "Conservatives Resist Change" blather.

-------------------------

Stalin was a right-wing conservative?!?!

They actually published this and put their names on the paper?!?! As a moral, fiscal, and limited government conservative I find it astounding that one of the biggest socialist in all of mankind was grouped as a conservative. These people do know about the USSR, Karl "with a K" Marx, and all ?...right?....

I'm a well educated engineering professional and I find it hilarious when I run into these kinds of "intellectuals". The guys that flunked out of Calculus 1 and had to have tutors for their statistics courses.

Sounds like this report belongs in the Junk science bin.

-------------------------

I read your critique with jaw-dropping disbelief, and then sought out the original study as published in Psychology Bulletin. After reading it, I think that you have been too kind. There is not even the thinnest veneer of objectivity in this study. I had to stop at the Characteristics of Samples and Participants Used in Meta-Analysis. High school students and Protestant Ministers? It would be funny if they weren't actually serious.

The appropriate question to ask at this point might be why Psychology Today chose to lift this pap from obscurity?

-------------------------

Yours is avery even-handed analysis. Thank you for your efforts. You have kept me from checking myself into a treatment facility.
In all seriousness, I find the Orwellian attempt to define conservatism as a mental disorder to be transparent and anti-science. I have wondered for amny years why those who claim to be so enlightened are so comfortable using and adopting the most repressive forms of censorship and thought control Nothing can be more repressive than to take an ill-defined point of view assign it to those one disagrees with, and use it to declare that person irrelevant by way of mental illness or pathology. It almost makes me think the authors were engaging in a wordy version of projection.

-------------------------

Excellent commentary! So if a conserative and a liberal company were building a tunnel through a mountain and they both started the tunnel on opposite sides of the mountain, the conservatives would insist the two tunneling groups meet in the middle while the liberal group would be happy if the tunnel was just close!?

-------------------------

these guys are crazy like a fox! In order to "reclassify" the insane and societal rejects, the first step is to get the general "peer" group to accept it, then it becomes easier for the government to "do the voodoo that they do"...sounds to me like the funding for this bs research was an earmark by his senator. Just the thought that it could make the cut for the "Journal" indicates to me that the fix is in. The roundup of the "intellectually" challenged is right around the corner..

-------------------------

...and people think I'm paranoid because I don't trust most shrinks... :p

-------------------------

"Conservatism a mental condition?"

I'm not surprised by this 'report' in the least. It follows exactly the methodology propounded by the Left since its infancy. A good summary of these methods can be found under the heading of "Psycho-Politics," most likely a translation from an originally-Russian term: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html

But don't stop there. This defamation of political foes is par for the course and is used wherever the Left has enemies. 'Right Wing Whackos,' 'Gun Nuts,' etc.. Religion is also a major target for vilification by accusation of being crazy.

See: 'Degradation, Shock and Endurance'

"Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out, but this is the chief function of the Communist Party Members, in general, not the psychopolitician.

The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about,through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree."
...

"The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against the efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic and insane..."

"The psychopolitical operative, in his program of degradation, should at all times bring into question any family which is deeply religious, and, should any neurosis or insanity be occasioned in that family, to blame and hold responsible their religious connections for the neurotic or psychotic condition. Religion must be made synonymous with neurosis and psychosis. People who are deeply religious would be less and less held responsible for their own sanity, and should more and more be relegated to the ministrations of psychopolitical operatives."

-------------------------

I hope your post has been sent as a letter to the journal. Tripe masquerading as research needs to be expunged from serious scholarship.

-------------------------

Sorry, not a question, but a thank you. It is also my opinion that this article of which you wrote about is like our current educational system. Outcome based. Were it not to be accepted as fact by so many as time goes on, this article that conservative types are damaged goods is a riot. I suppose Psychology Today needed a short term circulation boost to pay the light bill.

-------------------------

I read your article "A methodology critique in defense of those wascally wepublicans" and found it interesting and informative. It made me remember a question I have had for some time, perhaps because I never had a psych course in college, and one related to my conservatism. Why are so many people seemingly addicted to the 'new'? I would be alot more comfortable with liberals if I wasn't so sure they were merely in the throes of a search for the different, or for an answer in search of a problem. If you have touched on this in one of your earlier articles, please send me a link. I did not find anything close in my search of your articles.
And no, my ex-wife was not possessed, my current one is. Isn't that depressing?

-------------------------

Re: "A Methodology Critique...."

Is Dr. Rossiter's book, "The Liberal Mind: They Psychological Causes of Political Madness" equally flawed?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness

-------------------------

Apparently the fomentors of "the Study" have no clue what Natural Law is and that the true definition of conservatism is not "resistant to change" but instead "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Ah, the musings of the Ivory Tower...

-------------------------

RE: Psychology Today

The predominance of psychiatric studies about conservatives coupled with the enthusiastic acceptance of this study seem to indicate that the liberals (in the Psychiatric field at least) have a high resistance to critical thinking! They also seem to demonstrate an underlying fear and denial that conservatives may have some actual thought or reason behind their opinions; pathologize the other side, and you don't have to take them seriously. This way of looking at things doesn't leave much room for the much-touted "nuance" that liberals claim as their birthright.

Anyway, I laughed out loud at the researcher's failure to locate leftist dictators. Ironic that a bunch of professionals in the psychiatric industry are living in a fantasy world, specially crafted to make themselves superior in every possible way...

-------------------------

Seeing methodology of that sort makes one wonder whether it isn't simply an unabashed "big lie." The alternative is incompetence. The authors would, I'm sure, plead competence.

-------------------------

B+. I'd have given you an A, But you cite your compliance with the USSC on their view of abortion. A cursory examintion of the U.S. Constitution will reveal no such right exists there, imagined, pnuembraed or otherwise. You also failed to disclose the penchant for leftists,commmunists,liberals etc., when holding conservatives up on their way to the gallows, to a public viewing, citing the empirical evidence of their fellow travelers Phd'd "evidence" in studies that show by their very nature, conservatives are deranged. Witness the many trials of dissidents in the USSR and Red China, with the subjects being deemed mentally imcompentent and flung into lunatic asylums for untold years.That's why this little tome is getting so much attention. The comrades over at the New York Times are probably swooning and ejaculating at the same time considering how useful this kind of slop will be when they can "take back America", from all those Red State Rubes. I want to say something that will be important later. This "controversy", "political debate", whatever you want to call it, is not going to end in a political solution. It is going to erupt into gunfire from one end of this country to the other, and G*d help the survivors. How do I know this? Leftists will never be satisfied until everyone except them is in chains or dead. Me and a lot of others will not accept the chains. By the way, anyone that will go along with the murder of an innocent child, will go along with anything.

[With all due respect, the Constitution was not intended to grant rights to individuals. It was intended to limit the power of government. Just because a particular right isn’t listed does not mean it doesn’t belong to us. –IS]

-------------------------

Good fer you!! You have certainly devoted more time than would most, to the examination of such a flawed study... I mean, You will never get that time back... it's gone fer good ya know!... But I appreciate your dilligence.

We are a long way from knowing humans, let alone if they are politically grouped left n right lol, mainly because we come individually wrapped in our own arrogance.... Brain studies first I am thinking... Once we have got a handle on what is happening, what, why, when and how. Then we can go back and study human behavour more critically within that chemical context... But we are still gonna make excuses tho.... and of course, I am a slightly better and Organized thinker than is th' next man...?!

-------------------------

Re: Your response to the totally unbiased, scietifically rigorous study which seeks to prove conservatives are mentally ill.

One more result from this scientific study with a margin of error +/- 100%.

Liberals are more likely to believe bogus "scientific evidence" than conservatives.

It's a right brain/no brain thing.

-------------------------

IN RE: A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans

Amazing article. I'm an "educated" man but not a "well educated" man. I had no idea that there are actual studies, research and theories attempting to describe conservatism.

Amazing they ways to earn a living.

-------------------------

Really appreciate your refutation of the Crazy Conservatives. As the lone conservative in an office of 12 shrinks, sometimes I feel like Crockett at the Alamo (and none of them have even seen that Psych Today article). Nevertheless, I continue to fight the good fight against the tide of socialism represented by the ACLU, the Hollywood elite, the Democrat Party, and the APA.

The Texas Psycho

-------------------------

Thank you for your methodology critique IronShrink. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

-------------------------

On: A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans, January 16, 2007

Did you try to get this critique published in Psychology Today? Putting it in a blog tends to be a self-licking ice cream cone situation. You tend to get readers that already agree with your world view and your impact will be scant. This needs to be in the journal of record where it can spark debate or miraculously open someones eyes to professional performance in their field. I don't know your age, but today's college grads tend to be indoctrinated in leftist thought and have never been exposed to balance.

[I have sent it to Psychology Today. We’ll see what happens. –IS]

-------------------------

On the Jost "study", thank's for reading it and going through it from a rational/scientific perspective. I'm capable of doing it, too, to some extent, but am getting really sick of even having to read "studies" which I strongly suspect will turn out to be no more than Religious Mantra.

For example, as you note:

"The beauty of theories like RWA is that, while they can’t be proved, they can never be disproved."

Yet someone has to rebut the Dogma by applying reason to it, so again, thank's. And you nailed 'em good, real good.

-------------------------

RE: A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans - January 16, 2007

Now you've done it... I thought I had the Psychological community nicely categorized in a few neat bins. The gang that eschews methodology in favor of "flavor of the month pop-psych". The entrepreneureal "keep on on the hook till their coverage runs out" career types. Finally (and in this case applicable) academic liberal extremists (they prefer to call themselves "intellectuals").

Then I get bounced to this site, and just like that... another comfortable set of stereotypes ruined! Sheesh!

Thanks for some interesting reading!

Dave K (a Radical Moderate)

-------------------------

It is sad but a lot of stuff going on in peer review journals would be a better fit for Mother Jones.

-------------------------

hammer down dude

-------------------------

This comment is regarding "A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans". While I'm not really in any meaningful way associated with the psychology profession, I'd have to say your critique is right on.

As a military member and history and political buff I can't help but be offended at being lumped in with unthinking right-wing automatons. While I don't consider myself a Republican (libertarian is more up my alley), I am a conservative. I am not motivated by fear, dogma, or intolerance. What motivates me is a desire to keep my family and friends safe, a deep love of my country and the freedoms it represents, and the hope that one day color will not determine eligibility for a position in any way, shape, or form.

I may be Christian, but if I have any objections to or suspicions about Islam, they are founded in research of that religion, not because I am, as some might say, a "right-wing religious nut". Given the fact that I absolutely will not blow myself up to further my religious goals, I find it somewhat odd that a fundamentalist Muslim is not considered to be at least as distasteful to those who consider me to be over-religious.

Having lived in the Middle East I can honestly say I have never lived in an environment with more social inequality and dysfunction. Quaint or not, there are reasons we do not subscribe to certain customs in the United States, and the Middle East is a wonderful illustration as to why. In order for a culture to continue to thrive peacefully (and I stress peacefully) within the world it is necessary to discontinue certain parts of that culture that do not lend themselves to integration with the laws of advancing civilizations. Unfortunately, the peoples in the majority of the Middle East have failed to grasp this concept and cling doggedly to cultural traditions that are not only barbaric, they are illegal in most of the free world.

I am not a cultural elitist, however, I do firmly believe that if peace is to be maintained, certain things must be sacrificed for the good of all. If an extremist feels that blowing himself up will somehow advance his cause, fine, I have no problems with that. What I have a problem with is when he/she decides to do it around other people that don't want anything to do with it. And if exporting my cultural and political system eradicates the more violent and barbaric cultural peculiarities of a region, religion, or culture, I have no problem pushing my own culture on others.

If all this makes me crazy, I guess I should be shacking up in the wacko-basket.

-------------------------

Now that it's been determined that conservatism is a syndrome, will the left stop criticizing and start being sympathetic? Can we skip elections and get half the political positions based on the American's with Dissabilities Act? What about university professorships?

In my one and only psych class in college (early 1980s), I remember taking a test designed to identify potential alcoholics. The professor's theory was that the test was not particularly useful for college students as nearly everyone would show the characteristics of an alcoholic. No big surprise he was right. He was also right in that most people outgrow that behavior as they move on from college.

The other concept that jumps out at me is projection. How can anyone think that Stalin or Hitler or Fascism in general are in anyway associated with conservatism or the conservative mindset. In my simplistic view they were the product of left wing ideology (the government will take care of you) meets "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Great analysis.

-------------------------

Dear Iron shrink,
I do not have a question, but I do have some heart-felt "atta boy" congratulations for your most recent article!!! I am a late 40's female psychiatrist who is beginning to feel increasingly culturally dysphoric. Therefore, many of my emails to my friends apparently parallel some of your themes. It was fun to surf upon your site today. How brave you must be to stand up to your APA and declare that you are conservative leaning, independent, worse yet, a capitalist...hahaha. Those words are not frequently heard within our respective professions in decline.
Please, keep up the good fight.

-------------------------

Iron Shrink - nice article. It is a good demonstration of how bad science is done, and done in every field.

I am an MD/PhD in Epidemiology, and though we have fewer of these problems since we are often constrained by measurable biological outcomes, we are still often guilty of playing fast and loose with the meta-analysis to get the result we want. Luckily, we have a randomized controlled trial come out every once in awhile that knocks our socks off and demonstrates how often we get it wrong. Hopefully it keeps us humble.

-------------------------

The task you take on in analyzing this study appears greater than your abilities. For instance, your analysis of the definition of conservative thinking is no more nuanced than the one provided by the study's authors. Even more, you provide a one-dimensional definition of liberalism in return. While I don't have the space here to give a deeper explanation, simply know this: the political ideology of conservativsm is based in a metaphysical view that (1) holds there is moral realism, (2) contests that certain classical, long held traditions conform to this moral realism, and (3) fears the destruction of this metaphysical view by liberals.

[I’m wrong but you don’t have time to explain why? And do I detect a hint of name-calling? I’m always willing to admit when I’m wrong, but you’ll have to do better than that, sport. –IS]

-------------------------

well done... but did you ever consider the factor of projection in it all?

[When the layers of irony run so deep, it’s impossible not to consider all kinds of things. However, I wanted to keep the focus on methodology. –IS]

-------------------------

I thought all shrinks were liberals you just destroyed all the barriers of one of my most sacred stereotypes. Now I’ll have take time to re-evaluate my entire existence.

-------------------------

Thank you so much for your comments on this junk study. I was startimg to think all of academia was on the same band-wagon. Guess I should not give up hope so quickly.

In addition to the important substance of your article, I beleive you have written this very well. So your message will be that much harder for the authors and thier supporters to reject. Sadly, I am sure they'll find a way -- at least among themselves. Fortunately, those who gather information more honestly and reason more clearly, like you, will not feel a sting from the article.

I wonder if, at the root of their article, is a wound in the side of the authors from nationally syndicated, drive-time radio talk-show host Michael Savage, who espouses that liberalism is a mental disorder. There seems to be an effort here to mirror his barb and deflect the claim.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time and caring enough to put your thoughts out there for others to read and enjoy.

Jeff

-------------------------

The biggest problem is they haven't made an effort to examine a broadly representative sample of conservatives. They psychoanalysed a virtual gedanken conservative straw man and then declared him insane. By and large such people have never met everyday liberals or conservatives. Furthermore, it is frightful, how, insulated by their grants, todays academics are devoid of any contact with the real world or real people, who they hold in disdain. Personally I have been involved in politics for a quarter century, and I don't see any difference between right or left, but I do (virtual, gedanken) see that most politicians, regardless of party, tend to be paranoid
schizophrenics, along with most academics and hobos. Hobos are just failed academics and politicians. They all seem to know what other people should be doing but can never get their own lives in order. Taken with Lindzen's discussion of radicalised science, this should raise alarms as to how dangerous the Henry Meadows, Vannevar Busch, Cold War research funding scheme (which sought to out-soviet the soviets instead of rely on what made us better) is to our liberties.

-------------------------

Obviously the writers of the study were Liberals. Liberals are creative and you'd have to be darn creative to turn Stalin into a conservative.

Nice discussion.

-------------------------

This subject put Dr Helen in my 'favorites' in 2005, and your treatment of the 'study' methodology answered a lot of questions I had asked back then.
Thanks!

-------------------------

[You agree with the authors. That's fine. Can you defend the research methodology? –IS]

-------------------------

Are many Democrats conservatives in disuse? After all, they are resistant to their own flavor of change as you define resistance to change as a major focus of conservatism. The real difference between these groups is a liberal will trust government and distrust business. Conservatives trust capitalism over socialism. And then we Liberians don't trust either. Maybe you should have kept with your instinct of not getting into a political discussion.

-------------------------

Thanks, I thought I was alone in such odd beliefs.. I am not a libertarian just an independant, but your disclamer copied below could be almost an exact copy of my thoughts..

"I am a libertarian and a capitalist. I trust the free market more than I will ever trust government policy makers or university professors..."

-------------------------

-------------------------

This study sends a chill down my spine. I'm reminded of the political prisoners of the Soviet Union, who were deemed "insane" and institutionalized for espousing "reactionary" ideas. Orwell's "1984" wasn't about intrusive technology, as many today believe, but the fact that thoughts could be deemed crimes. Orwell was a former leftist, who had seen the future in the Soviet Union, and was afraid.

Well, 1984 was 22 years ago, and "political correctness", "hate crimes" and a new congressional proposal for a "fairness doctrine" to combat the popular rise of right wing media, dominate the all-too pervasive and intrusive technology of the 21st century! Be afraid.

-------------------------

I consider myself a neo-conservative. According to the authors, does that mean I'll sort of become an Adolf Hitler or more so? How in the world could any one with an ounce of sense believe Stalin was a conservative? If my conservatism is a syndrome, will symptoms manifest themselves in frenetic episodes of concentration camps and mass murder? Are these sanctified morons actually psychologists?

[Let's watch the name-calling shall we? –IS]

-------------------------

Pat yourself on the back for this.
I'm going to find a "heirarchical system" I like to refer to as a "bar" and have a "beer" because I'm repressing the hostile feelings born of overharsh parents who worked really hard for their money, unlike the professors who like to study why they hate conservatives - professors who probably never held a job in their lifetime and now drive "Volvos."

-------------------------

An interesting historical observation - In Soviet Russia one of the favorite way of dealing with dissidents during 60s and 70s (Breznev's era) was to declare them mentally insane and forcefully commit them. They would receive "treatment" which would "cure" them of their delusions and leave them in a more or less vegetative state. This is how liberal socialist society would deal with dissenting view. More accepting? Spare me.

-------------------------

I learned yesterday from Thomas Sowell that I was a liberal. (See classical-liberal in wikipedia).

Would the authors of this study be able to recognize the difference?

-------------------------

I'm reminded that in the Soviet Union psychology investigation was used on opponents of the regime to justify incarceration. It was asserted that to be against the prevailing system was a sign of mental illness. This study has much in common with it's Soviet predecessors, it seems.

-------------------------

Okay, first of all, thank you, thank you, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. My best friend who happens to be a grad student at Berkeley and myself often discuss liberal/conservative views and the stereotyping/misunderstanding that goes on between sides. As a conservative I have been very hesitant to speak out in my own field (social work/therapy)and my friend has been encouraging me to speak out for years since she enjoys our conversations and feels that my perspectives could help stimulate much needed discussion. I finally agreed to respond to a comment one of her peers had made and I wrote a detailed message expressing my frustration with academia and the unfair stereotyping of conservatives, etc. I used your critique as an example of thoughtful commentary on these "studies." (Yes, I was not entirely flattering of these "studies" by any means and certainly very dismissive, though in a polite sort of way). She then forwarded it to her department to stimulate discussion. Well, wouldn't you know it, neither of us put it together until after the fact, Jack Glaser is a prof in her department and so he, too, received the email, as well as all of his current students. Oops! So much for laying low I guess. I just had to share...

-------------------------

Wonderful article! Thank you so much.........

From a vilified Conservative.....

-------------------------

I laughed when I got to the part in the article that stated that republicans are anal retentive......and less intelligent than everyone else. Thanks for the chuckle! I happen to be what I refer to an enlightened republican, who like you vote for the least of two evils. I do, however hold onto certain views that are more liberal in political viewpoint, such as pro-choice rights, and the rights of people who happen to be gay. I tend to vote for anything that makes it harder for politicians to make decisions for us and against anything that takes anyones right to choose away, no matter who they are.

I think I found a new favorite website to visit by accidentally googling professors who do research or some such nonsense in the hopes of finding the right grad school and program for me.

Thanks again for the chuckle and I'll be back

CJA
Psychology, B.S. undergrad

-------------------------

I'm currently listening to your discussion with Mike Rosen on 850 KOA, and reading your deconstruction on the Jost fauxresearch study on conservatism as a mental condition, or some such dysintellectual hooha.

I don't know who I should be thanking: Jost, for pointing out what a simple-minded fool I am, or you, for pointing out what a disingenuously ideological gymnastic and academic fraud Jost is.

The mere fact (am I avoiding gray area with a black and white statement hyar? Ooooops..) that Jost displayed his intellectual cowardice by dismissing a debate with you and Rosen since 'neither of you are qualified to pass judgement on his study', speaks volumes as to the fraud and hyperbole crap that he and his study constitutes.

-------------------------

As a Liberatarian and Capitalist, do you feel that the ideological foundations of such political and economic beliefs capable to better global relations and understanding in order to provide a more equal standard of living for all(e.g. AIDS in Africa, malnutrition in Africa, low level of health care in the US for the poor) or will it allow the focus of existence to revolve around maintaining a heirarchal system supporting only the tip of the iceberg while keeping the remainder under water? This all stems from your appearance on KOA 2/1/2007.

[Um, yes? No? Is this a question or a collection of veiled assertions? -IS]

-------------------------

Just heard you on the Mike Rosen show, and on my lunch break I read this article. NOW I know what's wrong with me!

Great job, both here and on the show this morning. I would have loved to hear Professor Jost try and field the artillery of reason from you and Mike.

I only hope that people will use their cognitive abilities to form their view of the world rather than rely upon the arrogant, elitist intelligentsia to tell them what to think. Unfortunately, young people are being "hobbled" by academia before they even get started.

[I am not trying to attack Jost et al. I am concerned about a growing body of literature that paints those of a certain ideological persuasion as emotionally and cognitively disordered. Such a conclusion can only be reached through horrid research methods. Look for more from me on this. -IS]

-------------------------

You make a good point about the definition of conservative, right now the republican party is generrally thought of as the party of the consefvatives, but the Republican party is made up of several very distinct groups that just happen to vote republican. Right now the biggest or at least the most vocal of those groups is the religous right. The study "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition' seems to be a pretty accurate depiction of the religous right. While I realize that modern conservatism has more than just the religous right in its ranks, I think most people when they hear the word "Republican" they think of Dobbson, or Falwell and without the religous right Republicans would not win to many elections. Right now, for most people, the word conservatism equal religios right, and in most cases that is a group that prides itself on not seeing shades of gray and is proud of their dogmatism.

I agree that it is unfair to paint all conservatives with the same brush, but if you look at the majority of people who identify themselves as conservatives "the study" seems pretty accurate.

[It isn't just unfair, it leads to a series of fundamental methdological flaws -IS]

-------------------------

End.