DC Tom Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Fair enough, but I was actually referring to a study I read about a while ago in Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....itical-leanings It's just one study, but since reading that article I've been thinking about how it applies to some of my right-leaning colleagues and friends. Probably just mostly confirmation bias on my part, but still interesting. I have a really hard time accepting that article at face value, if only because by every measure quoted there, I'm more of liberal than Pasta Joe. Really, that article reads like there's major holes in their explanation of the study - not surprising, given their trying to condense a study into a column and a half, but not exactly kosher either. It's a good example of why I stopped subscribing to SciAm. Their editorial quality has dropped precipitiously over the past five years.
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Why are you afraid of vaccines? Because they tell you it's a vaccine...but not until it's too late do you find out that the lizard people have injected you with mind-control nanobots, and you're standing in line waiting to get the number of the beast tattooed on your arm. Just like it says in Revelations.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 I have a really hard time accepting that article at face value, if only because by every measure quoted there, I'm more of liberal than Pasta Joe. Really, that article reads like there's major holes in their explanation of the study - not surprising, given their trying to condense a study into a column and a half, but not exactly kosher either. It's a good example of why I stopped subscribing to SciAm. Their editorial quality has dropped precipitiously over the past five years. There conclusions are pretty funny and I definitely read it with a grain of salt.
Simon Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Really, that article reads like there's major holes in their explanation of the study What?! How can you say that? Positive personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and negative ones attributed to conservatism (easily victimized or offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid) appear as young as nursery school–age kids Now that's just rock solid science right there.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Like I figured...you missed the "if necessary" in the article. That's what they want you to believe.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 What?! How can you say that? Positive personality traits associated with liberalism (self-reliant, resilient, dominating and energetic) and negative ones attributed to conservatism (easily victimized or offended, indecisive, fearful and rigid) appear as young as nursery school–age kids Now that's just rock solid science right there. I'm not defending it as a whole, but what is your contention here? Do you think these traits are impossible to quantify?
Dwight Drane Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Like I figured...you missed the "if necessary" in the article. Why don't we have a public military contingency plan for if I let the tigers out of the Buffalo Zoo in the middle of Special Olympics visitation day? This is how you try to marginalize anything I say. In the first few pages of the Swine Flu thread, you laugh that mass vaccinations would be needed and that the military would oversee the process. Well....here's your plan. I guess it was idiotic to speculate and project what would probably happen. Enjoy your economy when they start locking crap down.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Why don't we have a public military contingency plan for if I let the tigers out of the Buffalo Zoo in the middle of Special Olympics visitation day? This is how you try to marginalize anything I say. In the first few pages of the Swine Flu thread, you laugh that mass vaccinations would be needed and that the military would oversee the process. Well....here's your plan. I guess it was idiotic to speculate and project what would probably happen. Enjoy your economy when they start locking crap down. Because the likelihood of those two things happening are remotely similar? Prepare for the New World Order!
Simon Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 I'm not defending it as a whole, but what is your contention here? Do you think these traits are impossible to quantify? Could dominating also mean obnoxious or pushy? Could easily victimized also mean trusting? Could indecisive also mean thoughtful? Could resilient mean continually having to recover from bad situations you've put yourself into? Could rigid also mean reliable? Exactly who does the quantifying and are their collection methods and/or observations affected by their own preconceived notions? The whole thing strikes me as ridiculous conjecture, not science.
outsidethebox Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 I have a really hard time accepting that article at face value, if only because by every measure quoted there, I'm more of liberal than Pasta Joe. Really, that article reads like there's major holes in their explanation of the study - not surprising, given their trying to condense a study into a column and a half, but not exactly kosher either. It's a good example of why I stopped subscribing to SciAm. Their editorial quality has dropped precipitiously over the past five years. I have to agree with that statement.
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Because the likelihood of those two things happening are remotely similar? Prepare for the New World Order! But they've thought about it! So it's inevitable!! Funny thing is...not too long ago, vaccine distribution and administration would have been a state function, with the National Guard called out for additional manpower in cases of extreme need. Now, it appears it's much more federalized, and states' right are once more further diminished. What's more...last time I can think of that the country had a mass vaccination (1976), it was strictly an NIH and CDC show. Now we've got our wonderful Department of Homeland Security responsible for WMD mitigation, which means public health falls in part under their authority, in addition to NIH/HHS. And who knows where the hell those lines of authority overlap, conflict, are redundant, or are simply useless and stupid. But Dwight can't possibly understand either of those very real and serious issues...he's too busy predicting the End of Days. And I'm the one with my head in the sand, apparently. Go figure.
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Could dominating also mean obnoxious or pushy?Could easily victimized also mean trusting? Could indecisive also mean thoughtful? Could resilient mean continually having to recover from bad situations you've put yourself into? Could rigid also mean reliable? Exactly who does the quantifying and are their collection methods and/or observations affected by their own preconceived notions? The whole thing strikes me as ridiculous conjecture, not science. Or at best bad science - it's the kind of study that lends itself to a very fuzzy sort of analysis based on preconceived notions and subjective data (in that there's barely a single objective measure mentioned in the article). I'd reserve my final judgement on reading the actual study, because it's well within the realm of possibility that Scientific American completely butchered the study in their write-up...the regularity of such happening being the reason I cancelled it.
Dwight Drane Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 But they've thought about it! So it's inevitable!! Funny thing is...not too long ago, vaccine distribution and administration would have been a state function, with the National Guard called out for additional manpower in cases of extreme need. Now, it appears it's much more federalized, and states' right are once more further diminished. What's more...last time I can think of that the country had a mass vaccination (1976), it was strictly an NIH and CDC show. Now we've got our wonderful Department of Homeland Security responsible for WMD mitigation, which means public health falls in part under their authority, in addition to NIH/HHS. And who knows where the hell those lines of authority overlap, conflict, are redundant, or are simply useless and stupid. But Dwight can't possibly understand either of those very real and serious issues...he's too busy predicting the End of Days. And I'm the one with my head in the sand, apparently. Go figure. You going to let your kid get a shot?
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 You going to let your kid get a shot? Had I kids, I wouldn't...but only because I see absolutely no real evidence that this flu is any worse than any other flu. It certainly wouldn't be because I'm afraid of martial law or the Antichrist.
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Military/Swine Flu Now of course you will say there is nothing dangerous about the swine flu itself......then you will probably say there is nothing dangerous about getting hurried vaccines injected into you even though the flu itself isn't a danger and shouldn't warrant a vaccine....and even when we are all getting stabbed in the arm....you will say there is nothing dangerous about EVERY branch of the military being on hand to "assist" you in your vaccination. Not only is the military getting involved, but the government is mobilizing the forces of Wal-Mart!!!!!!!.
Gene Frenkle Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Not only is the military getting involved, but the government is mobilizing the forces of Wal-Mart!!!!!!!. Time to Choose to run for the bunkers!
Gene Frenkle Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I'd reserve my final judgement on reading the actual study, because it's well within the realm of possibility that Scientific American completely butchered the study in their write-up...the regularity of such happening being the reason I cancelled it. Ok, I found it. I haven't read it yet, but I intend to do so. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...81238/HTMLSTART
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Why are you afraid of vaccines? With the flu vaccine... If say 70-80% of the people get the vaccine and you don't... Does that lessen your odds of getting the flu. If that is the case, I will just let everybdoy else get the vaccine.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Whats this got to do with the black panthers?
finknottle Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 I'm not defending it as a whole, but what is your contention here? Do you think these traits are impossible to quantify? I think they are arbitrarily assigning traits, and have it backwards. Self-reliance, resilience, dominating and energetic are associated with conservativism, while victimization, indecisiveness, feafullness and (arguably) rigidness are associated with liberalism. So if anything, they are guilty of missing the boat. If, as they claim, these traits correlate they way they say from childhood into adult political leanings, the scholarly question they should have asked is why conservative children (self-reliant etc) switch to become political liberals (vicitimized, fearfull etc), and while liberal children (victimized) switch to become conservative adults.
Recommended Posts