I found this kind of interesting in in-line-with-my-own-observations-but-in-a-different-way kind of sense. I wonder, can not the term "political ideology" here be easily replaced with the word "religion"..? If so, is politics really where the correlation lies?
Quote
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. – Conservatives are less interested than liberals in viewing novel scientific data, according to a psychology researcher at The University of Alabama.
Dr. Alexa Tullett, assistant professor of psychology at UA, recently conducted the project, titled "Is ideology the enemy of inquiry? Examining the link between political orientation and lack of interest in novel data." The article will be published in the Journal of Research and Personality in August.
In three separate studies, Tullett and colleagues offered participants in both the Deep South and West Coast a chance to view data on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media. Participants were given no advanced knowledge of what the data would tell them. Tullett found that conservatives were less interested in viewing empirical data than liberals in all three studies. Moreover, conservatives were more skeptical about the value of science compared with liberals. These differences suggest that conservatives and liberals may differ with respect to the kinds of information they find persuasive in the context of political debate, Tullett said.
Continued at UA News (http://uanews.ua.edu/2016/07/ua-study-shows-stark-differences-in-how-conservatives-liberals-see-data/)
I remember seeing something like this a year or so ago.
Is the "liberal" mind more open than one that is well tied to any kind of ideology?
In my days in tech. college (1973) the "Liberal studies" session was open to whatever the tutor fancied. Since we had six tutors in three years this ran from morals and ethics, more general philosophy, the effects of technology on society (basically "Future Shock) and psychology to a marathon game of "Civilisation" (which I won!). It was my favourite period.
The "socialists" in the class thought it was a waste of time. Don't think we had any conservatives.
Yup, reckon ideology is the enemy of free thought and creativity!
Yes, but is it? Is ideology a cause or a symptom, that's my question.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 17, 2016, 07:43:29 PM
Yes, but is it? Is ideology a cause or a symptom, that's my question.
Both?
On a spectrum?
Depending on circumstances of the individual?
Is it a genetic propsensity?
Nature and/or nurture?
On second thoughts this could be a circumstance where nature - that genetic propensity - may be stronger than the nurture - imposed thought patterns. The result could be anything between neurosis (repression of "true nature") and rebellion (escape to independence).
Hm... Yes, the answer probably does involve some massive cluster fuck scenario where the symptoms of one condition are the causes of another in a nastily interconnected manner. Psychology, while interesting, is often too multidimernsional for easy comprehension.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 17, 2016, 08:12:32 PM
Hm... Yes, the answer probably does involve some massive cluster fuck scenario where the symptoms of one condition are the causes of another in a nastily interconnected manner. Psychology, while interesting, is often too multidimernsional for easy comprehension.
Yeah! As applied it is often a "best guess" scenario. It can be almost a (statistical) science - like medicine. Experimentally it can be fairly precise, predictive. Out in the wild world it's often a real mess! But still useful in large terms, crowd behaviour psychology seems to work within useful limits.
Individuals are somewhere on that spectrum. Everywhere on that spectrum. Grab the biggest percentile and call that "normal"!
Brits, Norsemen, and Europeans may see the southern states of the US as bastions of stupidity. In some areas, I agree. I am pleased to proclaim that Universities such as University of Alabama do indeed have admirable credentials and teaching habits that refute the general vision of southern mediocrity. The same goes for U of Texas, U of Arkansas, U of West Virginia, U of Tennessee, or colleges of other southern states. We do have some phony private colleges that are bastions of ignorance and intolerance. They are private colleges such as Bob Jones University, Liberty U, Oral Roberts, and a few others who are champions of the irrefutable word of god as narrowly interpreted in the KJV, Book of Morman, and similarly questionable sources..
Quote from: Icarus on July 18, 2016, 03:13:45 AM
Brits, Norsemen, and Europeans may see the southern states of the US as bastions of stupidity. In some areas, I agree. I am pleased to proclaim that Universities such as University of Alabama do indeed have admirable credentials and teaching habits that refute the general vision of southern mediocrity. The same goes for U of Texas, U of Arkansas, U of West Virginia, U of Tennessee, or colleges of other southern states. We do have some phony private colleges that are bastions of ignorance and intolerance. They are private colleges such as Bob Jones University, Liberty U, Oral Roberts, and a few others who are champions of the irrefutable word of god as narrowly interpreted in the KJV, Book of Morman, and similarly questionable sources..
I would be more bothered by what the schools teach in some ways. Not sure what proportion of kids get to uni but "public" behaviour is usually determined by the larger groups.
Hmm, thst needs qualification - the larger
active group. Those who just let the world go by do not affect it actively though their inaction allows others to affect change - or prevent it from changing.
Apathy allows others to rule. Do schools teach apathy or action? Actively or by default?
Interesting article, Asmodean. Of course I'm interested in seeing the actual data that serves as the basis for these studies. ;)
I posted about this at a small political site. Of the two conservatives have responded so far, one has more or less rationalized his distrust of data by saying that he's seen data skewed by people with an agenda. Of course these studies weren't about how data has been manipulated, but whether particular demographics are interested in examining the data at all. The other, who states that he's an engineer, agrees with the first, but then goes on to say that he's willing to trust data from studies "where sources, sample sizes, and test methods used in obtaining the data are adequate and fully disclosed, and the method of analysis is both objective and logical." He then goes right back to talking about how data can be distorted, apparently referring to writers of popular articles. Essentially he's attempting to explain the results of the studies in a way that makes conservatives' lack of interest in data seem sensible.
Quote from: Recusant on July 18, 2016, 06:45:10 AM
Interesting article, Asmodean. Of course I'm interested in seeing the actual data that serves as the basis for these studies. ;)
Lemmesee if I can help you with that...
The paper can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656616300666
If you have some creative credentials, you won't even have to pay for it.
Have re-read your OP, Asmo, I note that the "sciences" involved are all "social" subjects. I wonder if the ideologically conservative mind might see such as intrusive, as potential challenges to their "faith".
Most "social sciences" involve analysis of personal and peer group motivation and reaction/action. This is something the ideologue might be more concerned about than a more liberal thinker.
Later: I should also have noticed the emphasis on "novel". If the ideology is at all conservative, as religion and "conservative" political movements often are (and political movements of both the left and right can be "conservative" in this context) then the new, especially an unknown or mis-understood new, could also seem potentially challenging.
Head in sand philosophy, "hiding" in the familiar, the comfortable.
I do consider "novel" among the key words here, yes. Therefore my question of whether political ideology correlates to accepting new ideas, evidence, etc as cause correlates to an effect, or as two effects to their common cause or cluster of causes, or as two common causes to something else entirely... Or any combination thereof.
Intuitively, I would say that being religious, conservative (politically), racist, bigot, etc, all share a common cluster of causes with being close-minded, such as poor quality education, for instance.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 18, 2016, 11:19:26 AM
I do consider "novel" among the key words here, yes. Therefore my question of whether political ideology correlates to accepting new ideas, evidence, etc as cause correlates to an effect, or as two effects to their common cause or cluster of causes, or as two common causes to something else entirely... Or any combination thereof.
Intuitively, I would say that being religious, conservative (politically), racist, bigot, etc, all share a common cluster of causes with being close-minded, such as poor quality education, for instance.
I would question any correlation between education and religion in the context you seem to use, Asmo. I have met some very well educated and read devout religious people. I still cannot get my head around the dichotomy this creates in my mind!
I am sure there are also devoutly religious scientists who welcome the bew in, at least, their gield. Can't help but think the subject of the original article is self limiting to "novel social data" and possibly has little application in other fields.
The usual questions of things like the parameters used in the selection of interview
victims subjects also raise their ugly heads. I admit that I have not read the paper as yet.
Quote from: Gloucester on July 18, 2016, 11:31:31 AM
I would question any correlation between education and religion in the context you seem to use, Asmo. I have met some very well educated and read devout religious people. I still cannot get my head around the dichotomy this creates in my mind!
Crappy education does not have to be
the factor, but rather a red flag in a cluster of factors.
That said, yes, there are highly educated people who believe in gods of various names and descriptions, however, there is a difference between "small" gods living in the gaps of our understanding and in the shadow of scientific evidence and... Well, the Jesus-daddy, for instance. One would assume that most of those well-educated religious people believe in the former rather than the latter. If they are devout Christians or Muslims or some such nonsense, well... Then maybe they are not as well-educated as they want to appear. To put it this way, you can have a Ph.D and be able to sign your name in fourteen languages, yet still be an intellectually bankrupt waste of blood and organs.
Ok, that may be going a little too far, but if you are one of those very narrow-profile specialists with excellent education and understanding of one particular area of study/vocation/subject, can you claim to be overall-well-educated? Do you not have to be at least half-decent a generalist for that?
QuoteIn three separate studies, Tullett and colleagues offered participants in both the Deep South and West Coast a chance to view data on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media.
Geez, those seem like three subjects designed to appeal to liberals
QuoteMoreover, conservatives were more skeptical about the value of science compared with liberals.
A conservative by definition would be less interested in new ideas.
Quote"One reason for increases in political polarization may be that people aren't always speaking the same language," Tullett said. "There seem to be epistemological differences between liberals and conservatives. They disagree about the value of scientific evidence, and if you're relying on different types of evidence, you're less likely to come to an agreement.
Seems to be does there? Maybe that's shown for social science but concluding it applies to "science," is a bit of leap.
QuoteTullett said the findings are consistent with previously published studies that conservatives are less trusting of the scientific community.
Well science is a problem isn't it, nice chemicals are poisoning people, nice cars are poisoning the atmosphere, there's no genetic rational for racism, they want us to ban good old coal for windmills, the greeny weirdoes. Science was much better when I was a boy, making better bombs and moon landings. Since the leftists got control its become suspect.
Good pints, BP II.
Looks like it could be one of those studies that was not sure just what it was looking for, so they sort of bent it a bit to fit something! Not well designed.
Having said that I can well believe that the ratio of ideology to openmindedness is less than 10 : 1so there could be a good premise there, just poor choices of subject.
But, then, consider:
Quote
Most approaches to ideology in the social sciences negatively de-
fine it in terms of misguided beliefs, false consciousness or similar
notions that in my view are too vague for comfort (for historical sur-
veys, see, e.g., Billig 1982, Eagleton 1991, Larraín 1979). In political
science or much of social psychology, ideologies are simply taken to
be belief systems, but not systematically distinguished from other
forms of socially shared mental representations (see, e.g., Freeden
1996). That is, despite thousands of studies, the notion of ideology
remains theoretically vague, and it is even less clear how exactly ide-
ologies should be related to discourse.
Teun A van Dijk (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teun_A._van_Dijk)
It is a pdf and don't know how to link to those, hitting on Google opens it and can't find it on the author's web page.
But, hmm, am I, as an aspiring humanist with a belief system, an ideologue according to the above?
Slam! Bugger, me mind has just closed! Now, where's the bloody torch (of knowledge of course), it's dark in here.
;)
That appears to be a quote from "Discourse, Knowledge and Ideology: Reformulating Old Questions and Proposing Some New Solutions" (http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse,%20Knowledge%20and%20Ideology.pdf).
Quote from: Recusant on July 18, 2016, 04:55:19 PM
That appears to be a quote from "Discourse, Knowledge and Ideology: Reformulating Old Questions and Proposing Some New Solutions" (http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse,%20Knowledge%20and%20Ideology.pdf).
That's the one. Not sure now that it applies directly to the question Asmo posed but it would seem that "ideology" can mean what the user wishes, not sufficiently defined or described for safe general use as jargon in a academic papers.
That gets a bit like a philosophy book I once bought after hearing the author on the radio. Seemed like every twentieth word needed to be defined, in footnotes, in the context in which it was used. More footnote than text on some pages.
Put me off philosophy, jargon and footnotes for life!
Quote from: Icarus on July 18, 2016, 03:13:45 AM
Brits, Norsemen, and Europeans may see the southern states of the US as bastions of stupidity.
Well, yes and no. Personally, I do see them as bastions of stupidity in the sense that that's where most of the civilized world's loud-mouthed-while-stupid resides. That is, however, not at all the same as saying that everyone there is stupid, or even that most Southern state residents are.
Quote
I am pleased to proclaim that Universities such as University of Alabama do indeed have admirable credentials and teaching habits that refute the general vision of southern mediocrity. The same goes for U of Texas, U of Arkansas, U of West Virginia, U of Tennessee, or colleges of other southern states.
Huntsville, AL also has that space museum thing I've always meant to visit. Indeed, there are enclaves of reasonable, nice and even knowledgable across the Southern US.
Quote
We do have some phony private colleges that are bastions of ignorance and intolerance. They are private colleges such as Bob Jones University, Liberty U, Oral Roberts, and a few others who are champions of the irrefutable word of god as narrowly interpreted in the KJV, Book of Morman, and similarly questionable sources..
Trump U. Is that Southern-based..? Because it ought to be. If nothing else, to live up to the stereotype, you know...
As much as I hate to admit it, the southern states are decidedly more heavily populated with narrow minded, ignorant, people than some of our other states. Not to say that there are not some shamefully, willfully, ignorant citizens well farther north. All the way to the Canadian border in fact.
Meanwhile, some of the Universities in the southern states are high caliber institutions that are doing world class research and development projects.
xSilverPhinx's video in tbe link above (yet to learn how to embed posts from other threads) seems to support the correlation between con versus lib in tbe acceptance of new/novel data.
But I always remember the neurologist who found an apparent corrolation between psychopathy and brain structure. He then took a scan of his own brain, as a "control", and found that he had the same type of structure. Further investigation found that nurture had as much to do with the personal outcome as nature. The genes that determined the structure determined the propensity, not the actuality.
Quote from: Gloucester on July 31, 2016, 05:28:53 PM
xSilverPhinx's video in tbe link above (yet to learn how to embed posts from other threads) seems to support the correlation between con versus lib in tbe acceptance of new/novel data.
But I always remember the neurologist who found an apparent corrolation between psychopathy and brain structure. He then took a scan of his own brain, as a "control", and found that he had the same type of structure. Further investigation found that nurture had as much to do with the personal outcome as nature. The genes that determined the structure determined the propensity, not the actuality.
Brain structure volume associated with behavior stuff is a bit all over the map if I remember correctly - I had one professor when I was in a neuroscience program in Dallas call it "modern phrenology bullshit" I think was the phrase he used.
Here's the paper (https://www.mediafire.com/?of4548qtnndsp50) if anyone wishes to read it.
Problems I see with this study:
1. Convenience sample - undergrad psych students at the University of Alabama and University of California at Berkeley; mean age of 19 years old and 21 respectively.
2. A priori power analysis yielded an effect size of rho = 0.16, indicating a correlational design yet no mention of analysis assumptions for the calculation. Although that's just nit picky really.
3. Mean response for political orientation was between "moderate" and "slightly conservative" in several parts of the study - deriving a mean from an categorical variable...frequency with rank would be more appropriate.
4. Made affirmative conclusions based upon a regression yielding a t-value of only 1.92 and technically non-significant at p = 0.056.
5. Used a scatter plot for a categorical variable...weird
6. Part two showed a statistically significant correlation yet an r = 0.16 with a sample size of over 200 participants is questionable. Subsequent regression did not support the correlation., beta = 0.18, t = 0.16, p = 0.541 - nothing there.
7. Another scatter plot for a categorical variable...weird.
8. Repeated similar procedures on a sample of 311 female mTurk workers (crowd sourcing marketplace). Correlations for this group were not compelling either, r = 0.11 and r = 0.08 - doesn't matter if the p-value was less than 0.05, with 311 data points it doesn't mean much. The association doesn't hold in a regression model.
9. More scatterplots for categorical variables...
10. Their conclusions don't fit their reported data analysis - "Overall, our results suggest that there is something about a conservative political outlook –rather than any extreme political outlook, or any minority political view – that is associated with relative avoidance of new empirical data".
11. I'm surprised this study was published...especially with those horrendous scatter plots.
Just to note, I'm not defending any political view, I just dislike shoddy methodology. According to the little political compass thingy online I'd be considered a libertarian-leaning centrist.
But hell, what do I know, I don't have a Ph.D.