Acme

That's not the thread topic, or my topic. My topic is the nature of crazy that has labeled itself "conservative" in the US these days. And discussing your posts is right in the wheelhouse of that topic. ... Actually, it is the thread topic, or at least what I intended. Well, the first part woohoo says is more-or-less right, i.e. what does psychological research reveal about political conservatives. His second part is less right, i.e. the question is 'what can be done', not 'what should be done'. Of course woohoo keeps citing the topic while posting not on the topic, or at best making sarcastic suggestions ostensibly as 'what-should-be-done' answers so he's no more on topic than you Undertone. But hey, I have been told in no uncertain terms not to cite the rules and to stop reporting off-topic posts so I'm not even on the boat let alone in the wheelhouse. On the chance -admittedly that of a snowball in hell- that the thread might drift on topic, here once again is the opening salvo from the meta-study. [Bolding mine.] Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition PS Seems to me y'all would be on-topic with your...erhm... whatever, over here. >> Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?

For one thing, piggybacking obviously ridiculous ideas onto my words is of no merit, and for a second thing it has been made clear here that what I intended is of no merit whatsoever anyway. Then there is the absence of merit in my stupid idea that scholarly investigation and critical thinking belong on a science forum. I am positively gleeful at the turn of things and how so many folks such as yourself have shown me the error of my ways.

An answer based on psychological studies per the OP.

I see little point in giving example after example of the 'insanity' of political conservatives. The issue I introduced in the OP is why they behave the way they do and what can be done about it.

Thank you John; I appreciate that. To be fair to Phi, he actually suggested my first post was a good topic and he split that post from the thread where I made it. He well makes the point that people label themselves and it is this self-labeling that comes out in the psychological studies. It is not as has been argued that the researchers label people conservative (or liberal, or progressive, etc. .) Back to the topic. The Authoritarians Perhaps when Altemeyer's work is exhausted here we will do well looking at the Social Dominance Orientation research.

Since the subject of this thread is the study -actually more than 80 studies summarized in a meta-study- then you have no legitimate grounds to comment on that which you have no knowledge of. While the mods put this in politics, it is about psychology. Altemeyer's The Authoritarians 'targets' everyone and categorizes the results. I remind you again, it is just one of 80+ studies and I started with it because I found it free online in its entirety. You can look forward to not intending to read any other of the studies if-and-when I get to them. You can take up your issues outside of the topic of this thread in the appropriate places.

The studies that I have referenced and that this thread is prefaced on forestall your and the other posters' needs to presume. Of the 80+ such studies cited in the meta-study introduced in the OP I have to date only looked in depth at Altemeyer's RWA work and it evidences that by-and-large the dysfunctional behavior is not voluntary, however as I most recently referenced from the last chapter of The Authoritarians, Altemeyer agrees with you that the behavior is alterable. He also points out that one road to such alteration is for high Right Wing Authoritarians to read his study, but as we know of course you can lead equines to water but you can't make them drink. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein

Science Forum Rules

Pathetic argument John. You really can't figure out the difference between scientific studies and commentary? I urge the staff to mark the thread [Answered: Yes] and close the thread inasmuch as so few are willing or able to distinguish the topic any better than John.

One would never guess you or any of the others who fail to discuss the studies know this is a serious discussion. Pathetic.

Citing some jackass with a blog is no more helpful than any of the other posts that ignore the studies we are undertaking to look at.

And as you refuse to read the study I keep citing, you are -by definition- ignorant of the facts of it. Me thinks thou [emotionally] complaineth too much. . The Authoritarians

Phi mentioned the start of this thread, so I thought I'd go to the beginning of the last chapter of the first study from the meta-study that I undertook to study first from the first post. The Authoritarians Bolding mine: Of course, it's not hard to miss what you don't want to see.

Jaunt away. The thread is a split from the git-go and "mine" only by proxy.

Baching the den.

No, the title of the book I wanted you to read is The Authoritarians. If you would not succumb to knee-jerk reactions and actually read what is writ you might come to the facts. The term insane in the thread title came from a blog in the opening post which led to an article at a university which led to the meta-study which led to the psychological study book titled The Authoritarians which lay in the house that Jack built. I'll be back in the new year, but I'm taking a hiatus from the insanity for the holiday.

I'll have a look when I get time. I'll roll my eyes as I please. I also asked you to declare if you read the book and it was like pulling teeth to get an answer. I ask you once to repeat defamatory statements and you're on it lickety split. Frankly I have no confidence in your point making. You pretty much clinched that for me when you claimed ignorance as to why reading Altemeyer's book was relevant to the discussion of Altemeyer's book.

So you decry my examples as shocking and fallacious but then go on to take the same course. I looked into the original but it was too expensive for me. I went with Altemeyer out of all the meta-study group because it was the first I found free online. My interest here is trying to get some understanding for the whacky behavior that comes to my attention by conservative politicians and their followers. Clearly the behavior has drawn the attention of more than the casual observer. As the authors in the meta-study say, "For more than half a century, psychologists have been tracking the hypothesis that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and the right." I find it odd that you on the one hand declared you didn't buy into the division yet on the other hand argue with such gusto over the difference.

Please point out where in the paper or conclusions that voting records or other measures are used to avoid making any specific statements about the results. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

The paper is behind a pay-wall. Leftists are classic weak characters. They dish out abuse by the bucketload but cannot take it when they get it back. Witness the Loughner hysteria.source

No. That paper started the discussion. What we are now discussing -and reading- is Altemeyer's book which is referenced in the meta-study. Whether or not you -or anyone else- has read Altemeyer's book is relevant because that is what we are currently discussing. So far you have not referenced the book directly other than to list a single questionnaire, rather you have been referencing what others say about it. Altemeyer says as much in the book, so why not quote him since it is his book we are currently discussing? No it doesn't. Political conservatism is relevant to specific venues and again Altemeyer makes that clear in his book. Altemeyer -in his book- acknowledges different scales and qualifies them in relation to his own. You read the book so you know that already. Just because there are alternate measures does not mean a particular measure is invalid. Again, Altemeyer discusses different measures in the book and delineates differences and likenesses to his measures. Taking different measures is a hallmark of science isn't it? Getting different perspectives to better understand the situation under study and all that. Again, Altemeyer discusses the language used and its evolution in the book. You've read it so you know that and so I don't understand why you don't refer to it from the book. So what. Don't alternate studies take a narrow/specific focus, albeit different from others? The quote I gave about SDO was from Altemeyer's book and since you read the book you might have recognized it. Again, he was juxtaposing different results from different approaches in order to broaden the perspective. Isn't giving the scales acknowledging non-equivalence? They report the scales so the reader can take into account differences. So what? No one is claiming conservatives are stark raving mad (ike your Ray fella does about liberals), rather as the title says they are mildly insane. Small effect, but an effect. So? I have been saying all along that Altemeyer is straight up about deficiencies. Of course again we are currently discussing his book The Authoritarians. Every time you bring up Ray I will favor the board with one of the quotes from his page. I challenge you to find anything of similar flavor in The Authoritarians. Bias is as bias does. Leftists think that utopia can be coerced into existence -- so no dishonesty or brutality is beyond them in pursuit of that "noble" goal. source

Why exactly have you avoided answering such a simple question?

Have you read or do you intend to read Altemeyer's book?