you are all.....

[canndo]

How can there be any objective science in what amounts to "poli sci", the most infelicitous oxymoron of the 20th century? Scientific method cannot be applied to data whose primary gatherers are journalists, standard-bearers of one of the most antiscientific disciplines currently active. I see nowt but lies, damned lies, and statistics. cn

Sociological science has made great strides in such things. Scenarios and questionares are primary methods. First one determines the ideology of the subject and then one fashions scenarios where the subject's behavior and opinions can be measured. This has nothing to do with journalists. If I can remember the names pioneers of these studies I will post, the guy published results of his work in a series of books, one or two of which are online and free. - Ah - it came to me - Bob Altmeyer.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

The mainstream idea of left versus right is what I meant by partisan.

Oh for real? The main stream media is partisan? Wow?!?! Thanks for enlightening us.

 

[cannabineer]

Sociological science has made great strides in such things. Scenarios and questionares are primary methods. First one determines the ideology of the subject and then one fashions scenarios where the subject's behavior and opinions can be measured. This has nothing to do with journalists. If I can remember the names pioneers of these studies I will post, the guy published results of his work in a series of books, one or two of which are online and free. - Ah - it came to me - Bob Altmeyer.

I'd appreciate an online link to real science and not statistics. When I see "questionnaire" I am immediately put off by the spectre of numerical data reduction and the attempt to ascribe meaning to the thus-divined trends, which are in real danger of being artifacts of systematic error in the data reduction protocol. It's a stack of interlocking assumptions whose product is statistics. cn

 

[NoDrama]

as marilyn manson sang

....You cant smell your own shit on your knees

Everyone else can.

 

[canndo]

Oh for real? The main stream media is partisan? Wow?!?! Thanks for enlightening us.

Here is another understanding that is a given for so many regardless of the facts. The so called "main stream media" (the definition of which has been left to the imagination) is biased. How do we know this? Because of a few very well reported incidences - reported I might add, by that self same mainstream media. Never mind that those sources are owned and operated by very established very large corporations. Never mind that as it pans out, the right always seems to believe they know the truth of every issue in spite of this horrible bias.


The truth is more simple, the bias is in the eyes and ears of those who would rather certain stories get more attention than others.


A simple look backward at the media's treatment of Obama, even though the reporting agencies were supposedly all "in the tank" for Obama, shows that Obama is the first president to ever be denied his honeymoon, his freeby first 100 days. Let alone the number of negative stories presented to us by that main stream media.

This concept of a biased media is a construct by the right in order to steer all conversations and control all perceptions of truth in the direction the right intends.



For example, the main stream media is hardly covering the voter surpresson attempts in PA, OH and FL, FOX is likewise ignoring it, the only true coverage of this monumental event is about 3 hours a night by MSNBC - a news/opinion source that is clearly stated to be leftist.

 

[PeyoteReligion]

You guys are clownin over here in politics.

 

[canndo]

I'd appreciate an online link to real science and not statistics. When I see "questionnaire" I am immediately put off by the spectre of numerical data reduction and the attempt to ascribe meaning to the thus-divined trends, which are in real danger of being artifacts of systematic error in the data reduction protocol. It's a stack of interlocking assumptions whose product is statistics. cn

You don't think that artifacts or systemic errors can be adjusted for? The purpose of the questionares are to determine, beyond simply asking "are you a conservative", if they do indeed have conservative tendancies? Now I know that many rebel at the thought that human mental and psychological traits can be measured and in fact individual by indidual it is difficult, but such tools as the Minnesota Muliphasic Personality Inventory go a long way toward baselining human personalities. It is impossible for me to simply show you a graph of a group of people and argue that there is a direct relationship between a single personality characteristic and an action, behavior or belief but the entirety of the study and the others like it lend credence to the statements I make about left wing authoritarians.

 

[cannabineer]

You don't think that artifacts or systemic errors can be adjusted for? The purpose of the questionnaires are to determine, beyond simply asking "are you a conservative", if they do indeed have conservative tendencies? Now I know that many rebel at the thought that human mental and psychological traits can be measured and in fact individual by individual it is difficult, but such tools as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory go a long way toward baselining human personalities. It is impossible for me to simply show you a graph of a group of people and argue that there is a direct relationship between a single personality characteristic and an action, behavior or belief but the entirety of the study and the others like it lend credence to the statements I make about left wing authoritarians.

I do believe they can be adjusted to compensate for error, but I'm not confident that they are correctly so adjusted. Of course my criterion for what is science is heavily informed by my natural-sciences background. Even in the hard sciences, the propensity for statistics to contain, conceal and propagate systematic bias is considerable. So once we exit the "hard" sciences, my willingness to rely on statistical treatment of data takes a dive. There are too many opportunities to conceal a selection/evaluation bias, be it intentional or not, in statistical data collection and reduction.

Am I being a curmudgeon? Perhaps.
Do I come by it honestly? Probably.
cn

 

[canndo]

I do believe they can be adjusted to compensate for error, but I'm not confident that they are correctly so adjusted. Of course my criterion for what is science is heavily informed by my natural-sciences background. Even in the hard sciences, the propensity for statistics to contain, conceal and propagate systematic bias is considerable. So once we exit the "hard" sciences, my willingness to rely on statistical treatment of data takes a dive. There are too many opportunities to conceal a selection/evaluation bias, be it intentional or not, in statistical data collection and reduction.

Am I being a curmudgeon? Perhaps.
Do I come by it honestly? Probably.
cn

Certainly the sciences regarding human behavior are not as firm and cozy as the hard sciences but they can still be called "science" and not politics. I urge you to read some of his work, it may not be as scary as dominionism.... but it is pretty damn close. I use what Altmeyer and his associates claim here, very very often what he predicts is exactly what occurs, it is almost frightening how his studies relate.

the point is that there are at last review about 88 studies on the conservative brain, on conservative actions and on their thought processes. These are curiously underreported in the left biased press. I have seen two rebuttal books - the main one relating to John Dean's book Conservatives without concience which relies heavily on Altmeyers earlier studies on the interplay between authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders. The rebuttal does not use any studies but rather is a long critique - as so often is the case when conservatives encounter science it doesn't like, rather than present studies of their own, it simply attempts to poke holes. Poorly in this case.

 

[cannabineer]

I found a book called The Authoritarians by a Bob Altemeyer. If that's it, I'll ask about it at my library. cn

 

[beardo]

What is Ron Pauls stance on felons and guns BTW?

Ron Paul supports the constitution

Do you believe a felon should be denied his right to own guns?..... If so why? And how?

 

[canndo]

I found a book called The Authoritarians by a Bob Altemeyer. If that's it, I'll ask about it at my library. cn

That would be the one.