What the Heck was I Thinking!?

 The Iron Shrink posts an article, “A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans,” That looks at a recent Psychology Today article. In this article , the author praises a paper by “John T. Jost, who currently holds position as an Associate Professor of Psychology at New York University, has been studying the reasons for which people adopt conservative political ideology. His most publicized achievement is a 2003 article titled ‘Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition’” (quoted from Iron Shrink).

The Iron Shrink only has three main objections to the study:

The authors outline theories that have been developed by others to explain conservatism, and they describe some of the measures that have been developed to test those theories. After analyzing 48 pieces of literature containing 88 samples, the authors boast that “almost all of our specific hypotheses were corroborated” (p. 366). Unfortunately, proving themselves right involved at least three very serious methodological flaws.

The first methodological flaw is basing the entirety of their work on a definition of conservatism that is both maligning and simplistic. The second is a biased and unrepresentative description of the population of conservatives, including a selective use, disregard, and reassignment of statistical outliers. The third is a degree of confirmation bias that is baffling in its depth.

By the time the Iron Shrink finishes with these three objections, Mr. Jost and his co-authors have barely a fig leaf of data or process left to cover their blatant biases. The post by Iron Shrink is a masterful dissection of flawed analysis.

One very interesting point I think needs more work by Legacy Press reporters is Iron Shrink’s “Buyer Beware” section of his post. In it, he places himself on the political map (important since the article is political in it’s topic and conclusions). He states:

I am a libertarian and a capitalist. I trust the free market more than I will ever trust government policy makers or university professors. I have noticed that social programs work only up to a point, after which they create resentment and entitlement in recipients. I find it unconstitutional that gays are not allowed to marry and I am reluctantly pro-choice. Ayn Rand was a sexy goddess and Ronald Reagan was correct when he said that government is the problem, not the solution. And yes, I voted for George W. Bush because his policies were, and sadly still are, better than the alternative.

Now you know where I stand and you’re free to dismiss me as a ranting extremist. Jost and his colleagues offer no such courtesy. They give the appearance of harmless, objective observers rather than armed combatants in the war of ideas.

This is one of the areas where I really enjoy the give and take of political talk radio - Hugh Hewitt to be specific. Mr. Hewitt is constantly asking his interlocutors where they come down on the political spectrum. It’s fascinating to watch many of the liberal main stream/legacy press reporters squirm to avoid revealing what most readers already know about them - their political bent. Hewitt’s motive isn’t to ridicule a specific leaning, it’s to enable himself and the listeners to locate the reporter on the political landscape. Iron Shrink takes this on at the beginning of his post. I like that!

Another point I noticed in the posting was the comment by Iron Shrink that:

The authors’ juvenile definition of conservatism captures none of this nuance, which is vitally important to understanding the differences between conservative and liberal ideology. Americans on both sides of the aisle take equality very seriously. By framing the issue in such simplistic terms, the authors play on emotions and paint conservatives as aristocratic and oppressive. (emphasis mine)

This is one of the most common tricks pulled by liberal writers - shifting the discussion, even if ever so slightly, into emotional terms. Dealing with facts with a minimum of emotional buzz words is a much more honest and unbiased way to deal with an issue. It also is much harder to win or prove a particular point. It is also one of the first signs that an author fears they may have lost their argument on the facts.

Another quote from Iron Shrink shows this tendency of the study authors to resort to emotionally charged terminology:

According to the authors, “we now know” (p.369) that variables significantly associated with conservatism include fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, personal need for structure, terror management, group-based dominance, and system justification. Conservative ideology is a “syndrome” (p. 347 & 369) and those who are caught in its dogmatic clutches are “ideal candidates to follow the next Hitler or Mussolini” (p. 346).

Whew, I’m sure glad to learn that it’s a syndrome. I have hope now that I can be cured of this diseased thinking. Or maybe I could just blame my parents for the twists they gave me that sent me into the arms of this syndrome.

Source: A Methodology Critique in Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans