Second, the legality of same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue and not one that should be decided on the basis of social science research.Based on the comments, I guess I did not make clear my disagreement with Amato.
Amato is trying to argue that the courts should declare a constitutional right to ssme-sex marriage, while ignoring the social science research about the harm that may result.
There is no constitutional right to ssme-sex marriage, according to the California Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, and the constitutions of most other states.
It would be nice if psychologists understood that they ought to stay out of political issues before the court, but they are the opposite. The APA has filed dozens of amicus briefs in court cases, including those on same-sex marriage and related subjects. As Amato concedes, these briefs misrepresent the social science research.
If psychologists want to be taken seriously as experts, then they ought to be able to state the facts without the political editorializing. Obviously this journal was very embarrassed to be publishing research that is contrary to APA-LGBT propaganda. So it had to include a lame essay affirming the editors' commitment to leftist LGBT politics, and to ignore the evidence.
My interest in this is that academic psychologists are overwhelmingly anti-family leftists who use their influence to push for law, policies, and court decisions that separate fathers from their kids. And they do it by being completely dishonest, as they often tell the court tha the research is the opposite that it really is.
Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.
As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress "structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated world.
And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-effort" thinking.
"People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement released by the university.
Does the finding suggest that conservatives are lazy thinkers?
"Not quite," Dr. Eidelman told The Huffington Post in an email. "Our research shows that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, not that political conservatives use low-effort thinking."
For the study, a team of psychologists led by Dr. Eidelman asked people about their political viewpoints in a bar and in a laboratory setting.
Bar patrons were asked about social issues before blowing into a Breathalyzer. As it turned out, the political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low.
But it wasn't just the alcohol talking, according to the statement. When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly or while distracted were more likely to express conservative viewpoints.
"Keeping people from thinking too much...or just asking them to deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes political conservatism," Dr. Eidelman said in the email.
The study was published online in the journal "Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin."
That would be another example of social scientists trying to deny the obvious. Republicans and better educated and more intelligent than Democrats, on average.
asking them to deliberate or consider information in a cursory manner can impact people's political attitudes, and in a way that consistently promotes political conservatism,"
No one said that the study should be ignored, but you. No one said that Ozzie and Harriet were openly mocked but you.
You printed what was said by others and then reworded what they had said. If someone compares what WAS said vs. what YOU say that they said it's quite clear.
"Republicans and better educated and more intelligent than Democrats, on average."
and your statement is supported by what data?
I will elaborate. I accidentally posted a draft, and deleted it. Some other things have higher priority. I will post it next week.
your higher priority should be trying to get your kids back instead of pointing your ignorant and bigoted finger at other people for your problems. Easy way out, isn't it? Much simpler than organizing protests or trying to get legislature through that'll change things.
"political viewpoints of patrons with high blood alcohol levels were more likely to be conservative than were those of patrons whose blood alcohol levels were low"
so political correctness is curable by alcohol.
"When the researchers conducted similar interviews in the lab, they found that people who were asked to evaluate political ideas quickly or while distracted were more likely to express conservative viewpoints."
and that's how people's real opinions can be coaxed out of them. Subtle racism/sexism/homophobia isn't subtle for some other reason!
"Keeping people from thinking too much"
prevents them from conjuring up the "right" answers.
A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
That's a good line -- "so political correctness is curable by alcohol." People are afraid to tell the truth out of fear that it may offend someone. After a couple of drinks, they are less inhibited. I am not going to stop criticizing the evil people who are busting up families.
Maybe conservatives just drink more heavily ?
"That's a good line -- "so political correctness is curable by alcohol.""
To be fair, I haven't looked up that paper. I did look up the paper referenced in "showed that children who score low on intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political views in adulthood".
Amusing that the first citation in the paper is the The Authoritarian Personality. (1950).
They go on to make the assertion that "We propose that right-wing ideologies, which are socially conservative and authoritarian (see Jost et al., 2003; Van Hiel et al., 2010)"
which in turn is channeling the same 1950 book, as said in a criticism of Van Hiel's work here.
VAN HIEL'S PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSERVATISM
Here's what Kevin MacDonald has to say about Authoritarian Pesonality:
"Psychoanalysis was not so much fraud as simply the rejection of science completely. The fact that psychoanalysis was prominently used in The Authoritarian Personality is part of the indictment of this work and the entire politically and ethnically charged agenda of the Frankfurt School. The fact that The Authoritarian Personality has never really lost its respectability within social psychology is itself yet another serious charge against the entire field."
His review of the book is in a chapter of his work The Culture of Critique.
What's funnier besides the validity of Authoritarian Personality is that these people(the psychologists doing these studies) don't seem to get that the book was written before people like themselves became the authority.
Like Kevin MacDonald is some kind of respected authority.
Post a Comment