OK, let's see: people drinking in bars are more conservative, and so drunks are conservative? No, that can't be it. People working on hard problems are conservative? Dang it - that's not right. People who are busy are conservatives? Come on, come on. OK, how about this proves that people who don't think are conservatives? Bingo!The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.
Source: "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism" from Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
I mean, you'll jeopardize your tenure chances if you come back with any of this:
- People who are successful enough that they have sufficient discretionary income to go clubbing are more conservative.
- People who are successfully able to concentrate on difficult work tend to be conservative.
- People who are able to multi-task and handle heavy work loads are conservative.
Via Fosetti, who captures the essence of the matter:
Instead of "studying" this with data, they should have just gotten drunk with people. People get more conservative when they’re drunk because they stop pretending to believe bullshit (e.g. that everyone is equal).
Man, I sure am glad that I'm paying higher taxes to support this institution of "higher learning"! After all, it's a "public good" and everything!
How laughable. Fact of the matter is when I was in college and drank a lot I was more.....liberal. (I almost vomited in my mouth having to admit and type that). I am 28 now and the older I get, the more I learn and the more I become conservative.
ReplyDeleteI liked the last remark. You sound conservative when you are drunk because you stop caring about "fitting in" and trying to agree with everyone. You speak the words that you truly feel.
That spinning sound you're hearing? That's every early philospher of science spinning in their graves. You can't prove cause and effect from an observational study. Period.
ReplyDeleteThese guys' whole field should have their Ph.D.s pulled. They're as bad as epidemiologists. Maybe if someone had pulled a few of their Ph.D.s the world would be a better place.
Excellent video link in the comments to my Saturday post on Junk Science. Mostly related to different topics, but still bad statistics, and bad science.
SiGraybeard @ Work
"Test the hypothesis"? They're mostly testing their precocious vocabulary. Why not study Romeo and Juliet, kids?
ReplyDeleteAside from the Occupy crowd and our POTUS, where do the cocaine snorters and pot smokers fit in?
ReplyDeleteJames A Zachary - the coke snorters and pot smokers are the authors of the study.
ReplyDeleteConservative are simple minded. They consider the facts, they formulate a position, or course of action. Then they implement it.
ReplyDeleteLiberals are much more comples. They consider the facts, they rationalize why they should ignore the facts. They then have to consider why you won't ignore the facts also, and what names they can call you. They formulate a position, course of action they they will not have to actually implement. They then think of someone else who will have to do the work, or pay for the work they have to come up with. They then have to think up excuses for why they don't get the result they were so sure they would get.
You guys crack me up. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThey have arrogated the title "scientist" when they are no more scientist than I am. Less in fact.
ReplyDeleteTheir "science" is ever malleable to fit new sets of "facts" or evidence that they were wrong.
Science my hairy butt.
Buttinskis and nannies.