chadn737

No I did not.

I said that, if you want a medical diagnosis then you need a doctor.

However, to judge if someone is sane or not, you just need to consider their behaviour.

You mean behavior like that which relies on subjective political opinion to judge the mental state of others rather than actual science of the mind, i.e psychiatric and psychological research....

What matters here is a medical diagnosis, not people's subjective view of those who disagree with them. So yes, we need a doctor, or at least we need to rely on actual psychiatric and psychological research to objectively makes such decisions. Its pointless debating this further with you as it is clear that you have let your political biases trump scientific objectivity.

The writer had some fun. And the title of this thread has a question mark at the end not an exclamation point. So I think you are missing some of the context here.

As for picking out a few key issues; how parties vote matters. If you look at the record number of filibusters against Obama and Congress doing nothing at a historic rate itis clear that the whole party in towing the line. They don't just cherry pick. They are united and push a specific agenda and the public that donates money and votes for them supports that specific agenda. Perhap some more out of ignorance than insanity.

I don't think I'm missing any context. A writer made a 10 point argument labeling half the nation as "insane" based on an absurd list of examples. That the list is perhaps meant as an inside joke with readers who have already drank the same koolaid as the writer is about the only relevant context....what other context am I missing?

You mean how the Democratic party has toed the line in previous administrations? This is nothing new and people forget that both parties have done this. Its also irrelevant to the mental state of conservatives.

The OP and subsequent studies are the point of conversation in this thread. So if one does not wish to continue discussing them why read and or post in this thread?

Here is an article from "Psychology Today" looking at 10 sign of mental illness within the Republican party.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness

This is not scientific evidence, its a continuation of the same sort of subjective and obvious biased argumentation used by John Cuthber and Overtone. In other words...pick out a few key issues held by somebody on the political right, call it insane, and then make a hasty generalization of the entire political right.

For instance....one of the "10 signs"...."General Oddness". The only thing in that category is "Ron Paul". They took a single politician our of the millions of conservatives, call him "Odd" and then call then use this to make a hasty generalization of the entire political right. That is so absurd in terms of fallacious reasoning and subjectivity as to be laughed out of these forums.

Or take #1 "Denial"....listed there is "denial that humans evolved". Only problem is that ~40% of liberals don't believe this and at least a 1/3rd of conservatives do. Its another hasty generalization. Based on this same issue I can say that the political left is also in denial since a huge chunk of them reject evolution as well.

Number #5 "anger"....Newt Gingrich's scowl is only example given. Do you honestly think this is blog post (it is nothing more than a blog post) constitutes serious scientific evidence after reading that? How about the fact that its directly contradicted by studies showing conservatives are consistently more happy than liberals? http://mic.com/articles/98480/psychologists-say-conservatives-are-happier-than-liberals

This entire list is subjective and meant more as entertainment than anything else. Posting it here as "scientific evidence" is an insult to reason.

And, once again (in the hope that you might listen this time).

No. I have labelled people who disagree with evidence insane.

That's not controversial and I have cited my reasons for asserting it.

You seem not to understand that I already presented the evidence.

The definition of delusional disorder falls within the field of psychiatry.

The relevant bit is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

 

However, the diagnosis might not fall in that field.

 

Imagine I claim that there's gold in my garden.

The only way to tell if I'm delusional in thinking that is to check to see if it's actually true.

You need an analytical chemist or a geologist or some such to do that.

A psychologist or psychiatrist simply isn't qualified to establish whether my belief is delusional or not.

 

So, will you please stop banging on about psychiatry and psychology as if they are some God-given answer to anything?

 

 

Anyway, here's the evidence again.

http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm

You are not in any way attempting to show that it's wrong.

And, in spite of that clear documented evidence, you seem to insist that the Right wing are correct in their beliefs.

Do you, by any chance also think that you are Napoleon?

Of course I'm not trying to show that its wrong, because its a red herring. Its so irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the political right have a mental illness that its not even worth discussing. You cannot objectively or scientifically classify half of a nation as "mildly insane" based on agreement or disagreement with highly contentious political issues. You are in essence making an absurd litmus test in which political disagreement with John Cuthber = "insanity". Thats all this is, subjective name-calling. Disagree with John Cuthber and he can classify you on insane based on nothing else than politics.

Consider the fact that your argument and evidence are a strawman. The OECD data is premised on legal immigration, hence why the biggest benefits are seen in the immigration of educated and skilled workers....but the political right isn't against legal immigration, its against illegal immigration...which makes an argument for legal immigration a strawman argument. And its not simply a matter of economics. Illegal immigration comes at enormous human cost in the form of human trafficking across the borders. http://abcnews.go.com/US/tracing-human-cost-immigration-altar-arizona/story?id=21406135Your argument ignores that important aspect. Now the point here is not whether one should be for or against immigration....its to demonstrate that your argument ignores the subtleties and complexities of a very contentious political issue and based on such simplistic assumptions, labels have a nation as mentally insanse. That line of argumentation and fallacious reasoning is "insane".

As you yourself said, we need a psychiatrist. In order to logically, objectively, and scientifically claim the the political right is "insane" you need to provide scientific evidence from psychiatry and psychology...the disciplines that actually study mental illnesses. Anything else is simply a red herring.

So I ask you yet again, do you have any scientific evidence from the fields of psychiatry or psychology to support your argument?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/study-predicts-political-beliefs-with-83-percent-accuracy-17536124/

 

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/

 

Read this and get back to me.

Simply posting a bunch of links while failing to provide any context yourself is an internet tactic called "link warz" or "gish gallop".

I would kindly ask that you provide the main arguments, since this is your argument. Otherwise, you will just have to wait until I have time to read all of them.

To get an idea of what an American "conservative" regards as a "politically unbiased manner", take a look at John Ray's musings on the topic of authoritarianism and politics here: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com

 

I was especially impressed with his praise of the liberating and freedom-providing Pinochet regime (which unfortunately had to use some Leftist tactics), and the description of the German Nazi Party in WWII as "Leftist". So we look forward to analysis in which the governments of Pinochet and Hitler are at opposite ends of Jay's political spectrum. This will be evidence of the sanity of US political "conservatism".

 

One wonders, naturally, how someone who declares the entire Left to be "inherently authoritarian", with no libertarian membership, can hope to design a questionnaire capable of separating the authoritarian from the non-authoritarian Right - but we are assured by our local righties of the true "scientific" nature of his approach, so his operating from a private semantical world might not be the deal breaker it would normally be: all we would need to do is relabel his findings to allow communication with the outside world of dictionaries, etc.

This is nothing but one giant ad hominem.

I am referring to John Ray's peer-reviewed and published work on the subject. I have linked to his papers in previous posts. What the man's personal opinions are, are irrelevant....what matters is whether or not his published scientific work is valid. Attempting to discredit John Ray personally rather than addressing the actual arguments is a fallacy.

chadn737, on 17 Dec 2014 - 6:26 PM, said:

Yes, as I have pointed out several times.

 

I ask you again....do you have any actual psychiatric/scientific evidence that conservatives are insane?

The Right wing are in the same position as a man who thinks he's Napoleon.

They believe stuff that's plainly not true.

For example, trickle-down economics.

There are, of course, plenty of other daft ideas they subscribe to.

Nothing that you have presented represents "psychiatric" research. None of it represents "psychological" research....none of it is qualifies as an actual scientific study. All you have done is focus on highly contentious issues, assume that you are right on those issues, and label anyone who disagrees with you "insane".

When politics trumps the need for science....demise of science indeed.

Not based on - correlated with. What the correlation is based on remains to be discussed.

 

And we remind ourselves that our political vocabulary is corrupted, here: we have no usable definition of "liberal", only a self-identification criterion for "conservative", and ongoing confusion about right/left labeling that often gets mixed up with authoritarian/libertarian labeling. So we need to take things easy, scientifically speaking.

 

In post 185 you were handed a list of reality disconnections, simple and obvious delusions or hallucinations or bizarrely unreal perceptions common in the US - including, here, failures of very simple, basic reasoning in people clearly and demonstrably far more capable of intellectual rigor than such failures indicate.

 

That is physical evidence, the basis of the beginning of a scientific inquiry or discussion, of mental disorder of some kind (I don't feel comfortable with "insanity" - something more on the lines of what one would call a phobia or other inexplicable irrationality that specifically cripples a persons ability to reason and act in certain narrowly defined contexts). It appears to be peculiarly focused or severe among the authoritarian rightwing - so much so as to almost identify membership in that faction, in agreement with the self-identification as "conservative" that normally accompanies such ideology. ( It also seems to cover the bulk of the self-described libertarian rightwing as well, but the accuracy of that self-identification seems questionable, and the self-label "conservative" can be taken reasonably to mean authoritarian rightwing in the US, in practice. Not, of course, "conservative" in any intellectual sense).

 

So we have had a basis for a reasonably scientific discussion, if any such thing were sincerely desired. In the sense of reasoning from evidence, like.

 

We could also use the OP study, which despite its flaws seems to carry useful information.

In post 185 I was given a list of political issues with the assumption that any opinion differing from the political view points of yourself means a disconnect with reality....rather than simply a logical difference of opinion, which it is. Hell, you actually list "denial of risks of GMOs" as if that had any scientific basis. If you really want to talk about disconnect with reality based on such issues, lets discuss the fact that ~40% of liberals don't believe in evolution. Suddenly the lines of which "side" is out of touch becomes blurred as vast numbers on both side clearly do not believe in evolution. As I keep pointing out, judging half a population's mental state based on your own personal opinion of contentious issues is subjective, unscientific, false, and absurd. Not to mention the fact that its incredibly arrogant to think that you are right on every political issue and that anyone disagreeing with you is "insane". Based on that list, I myself am mildly insane because I actually believe the science on GMOs that they are safe.

To pretend that these arguments are scientific rather than merely an expression of your political opinion is an insult to logic and science.

Ok, so lets deal with the issues of RWA...maybe by returning to actual research we can finally start to discuss science:

1) The questions used in the questionaire to measure RWA are inherently biased. The nature of the questions focuses exclusively on a very narrow set of issues, namely certain moral/social values such as homosexuality or atheism. It ignores a broad range of other issues such as economics, foreign affairs, social policy that is inherently not about sex/religion, property rights, etc. With an inherent and untested assumption that any "right wing" answer will be "authoritarian" and that any "left wing" answer is inherently "anti-authoritarian". The effect is that the questionaire is designed to ignore any form of conservatism that would not correlate with the preconception of conservatives as authoritarians. As I pointed out in previous posts, modifying the language or changing the issues can easily bias the questionaire to produce "left wing authoritarians" or make the test agnostic to an individuals actual politics.

2) As John Ray in his published work pointed out, the RWA does not correlate at all with independent measures of authoritarianism, but does correlate to a degree with certain types of conservatism. The implication is that the RWA does not measure "authoritarianism" but merely measures religious conservatism.

3) Given such inherent biases in the nature of the questions, of course you will find correlations as the test itself is designed in such a way as to produce the correlations it wants. The experiment is designed to produce the desired outcome....hence why its biased.

After we discuss the RWA, we can then discuss other results and conclusions....such as:

1) Significance and most importantly Effect Size of RWA correlations with various measures....such as those used in the Jost meta-study. If the effect size is small...is the finding even meaningful?

2) How does any of this correlate or associated with "mild insanity"?

Insane is not the correct term. Are they scizophrenic, bipolar? No. They have a belief system that is not connected with reality, but as with religion, a shared group delusion is a faith, not an illness under current standards. If it is learned, then it is belief. Outside of this caveat, conservatives, when asserting the world is 6000 years old, or that evolution is untrue, or that climate change is not happening, are clearly and unequivocally out of touch with reality. It's simply delusional, but taught just like the various magic man beliefs of the Abrahamis religions. One read of the bible should confirm the nonsensical nature of the assertion, but we are told repeatedly that this is truth, and questioning is not acceptible.

Except that the issue is not whether or not some conservatives believe things that are "out of touch". ~40 some percent of liberals do not believe in evolution, ~1/3rd of conservatives do, and there are many Creationists who believe that the Earth is billions of years old. If simply having a belief outside of what is fully supported by science is enough to make one insane...then ~40% of liberals are "insane".

The issue of this thread, from the start, has been whether or not conservatives are "mildly insane" because...well because psychology says so....somewhere along the line....mainly after I pointed out the inherent flaws in the experiments/measures used to come to some of these conclusions, the debate became about labeling half of a nation "insane" because they disagree with John Cuthber and associates on immigration or topic X.

If you want to label that many people as having a mild mental disorder based on political affiliation, then I expect scientific evidence to support it. It is hypocritical and unscientific to make such absurd assertions and refusing to support it with scientific evidence while pretending to be the defender of science. It is illogical to go around making classical fallacies like hasty generalizations: if ~1/3rd of conservatives believe in evolution and ~40% of liberals do not, then calling "conservatives" "out of touch" or "insane" and that liberals are somehow not on this one issue is a hasty generalization when such large sections of each group believe the opposite.

It really is saddening to see scientists and those who claim to be dedicated to science suddenly ignore all science and need for evidence and resort to such obvious fallacies when suddenly its comes down to politics. That is no different intellectually than what a creationist does. Rational people should reject such obvious fallacious name-calling.

Next time, before you quote stuff back at me, you may wish to read it

John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.""

 

Also, it might look better if you spell my name correctly- I know it's a pseudonym, but surely it's not too much trouble to get it right.

 

And, once again I will draw your attention to the fact that three were de facto diagnoses of insanity before there were psychiatrists.

The doctors came about because there was an illness- not the other way round.

Are you actually going to address that?

Anything other than a medical diagnosis is non-scientific and simply name-calling. We call things/people "insane" or "crazy" in common usage not because people are actually insane or crazy, but because we simply find the idea or person ridiculous, outrageous, disagreeable, etc. This sort of usage is subjective, unscientific, non-medical, and simply reflects the user's own biases and opinions....nothing more. They may be perfectly sane....more sane than the person calling them "insane" and we recognize that such verbiage is simply opinion and not a reflection of the accused's actual mental state.

I will draw your attention to the fact that before there were psychologists we treated homosexuality, transexuals, and a host of other non "insane" people as if they were literally insane. Even after there were psychiatrists, we treated such people as if they had a mental disease. We treated people of different races as if they were sub-human and lacking in mental capacity. Forgive me then if I take issue with your "de facto" diagnosis that is not backed by scientific evidence. Such diagnoses have a very high rate of false-positives and tend to be colored by a person's biases. Calling those you personally disagree with "insane" without any actual psychiatric evidence to back it up falls under this same sort of biased diagnosis that you call "de facto" that was used to justify locking homosexuals up. The only person that it is "de facto" too is yourself and those who share your personal biases.

At this point, your refusal to actually provide psychiatric evidence that conservatism is a form of insanity is nothing but dodging. Your responses are dodging and an attempt to justify "folk psychiatry" as legitimate science.

I ask you again....do you have any actual psychiatric/scientific evidence that conservatives are insane? If not, then we can conclude that calling them such is simply your opinion and can be dismissed as such.

If you look back a bit, you will find out what I think is required to make a diagnosis

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84790-is-political-conservatism-a-mild-form-of-insanity/?p=841378

 

And, since I have clarified why I think it's essentially a societal decision, ordinary people are perfectly able to decide if someone has lost the plot or not.

As I said, people diagnosed others as being insane long before psychology existed.

It's possible that psychology and psychiatry can tell you more about these unfortunates- perhaps give you the why's and wherefores or even offer treatment.

But, in terms of just answering the question "are these people normal?" there's no need for any qualification; there never was.

Um no. You are not qualified to make the diagnosis, neither are common people. You yourself just said that only psychiatry is:

John Cuthbar: "If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist."

So if you want to actually claim that conservatives are crazy, then you need to provide ACTUAL psychiatric data on the mental state of conservatives. Anything less than that is non-scientific, speculation, and shear biased opinion.

I'll ask you again to please support your claims with hard psychiatric research.

One particularly spectacular red herring is the reference to psychology.

If you want a medical diagnosis of insanity you need a psychiatrist.

If, on the other hand, you are using the term colloquially then any of us is "qualified" to give an opinion.

it's especially clear that it's a red herring as I pointed the issue out before.

Since the thread was started based on psychology studies....all the debate on contentious issues that in no way assess an individual or group of individuals actual mental state (i.e. your entire argument) is a red herring.

If you want to say that only psychiatry is qualified to say whether or not "conservatism" is a form of insanity...then I'll gladly go along with that and ask that you show actual scientific evidence from psychiatric research that supports any such assertion. At least the psychological research discussed earlier has standards regarding measurement and statistical analysis. The current debate that relies on peoples opinions on contentious subjects (again your arguments) is so far from the any psychological or psychiatric measure of insanity as to be laughable. So by all means, lets discuss the psychiatric research on conservatives. Please show me any published research from any reputable psychiatric journal that has conducted such work.

The red herrings and straw men introduced to divert this thread from actual discussion of psychology is telling. I guess if the actual science fails to confirm your opinion of those who disagree with you...then use fallacies....

"I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions."

I'm not

I'm calling them insane because they ignore evidence (and that is science, and I did cite it).

Incidentally, you keep ignoring this fact and saying it's just my belief.

Pointing out that the one thing it can not possibly be is "dehumanising" isn't dehumanising.

1) They ignore evidence and you misrepresent their positions and create strawmen.....which is the same as "ignoring evidence".

2) A discussion of immigration is off-topic in a thread about psychological studies of the political right. You are introducing a red herring. If 'ignoring evidence" is a form of insanity, so is the use of fallacies.

3) Saying that somebody "ignores evidence" is not the same as being insane. Some of them do ignore evidence. Many base their position on different types of evidence or possess positions more subtle than the strawman you have made. Many people on the left ignore evidence, like in the case of GMOs...by that logic, much of the left is insane as well. Disagreement over complex issues is NORMAL....calling anyone you disagree with "insane" is dehuminization. Such views of the "other side" is characteristic of people who struggle with ambiquity, differences, changing information, etc....

 

So, if, for example a group of people are documented as saying that they oppose teaching thinking and if the population in general believe that teaching kids to think is a good thing then, by the general rough definition of "insane" that group are insane.

That's still true even if they are correct in their belief- unless thy can show overwhelming evidence for it.

Is this ACTUALLY what you think the Right believes and says? Because its so far off-base as to be delusional.

Insanity is a decision made, in effect, by society.

 

You are redefining "insanity".....

Do you understand that insanity was a perfectly well recognised concept before anyone invented psychology?

For what it is worth, the correct field of expertise for deciding if someone is actually insane or not is psychiatry, rather than psychology.

It hardly matters.

We are not looking at some subtle trait here.

What we are looking at is a wilful ignorance of the data.

 

 

Are you seriously saying that you need to be a psychologist to tell if someone who believes in dragons has "bats in the belfry"?

 

Incidentally, only humans can be sane or insane, so it's hardly "dehumanising" to call someone insane.

I'm saying that if you want to label half a nation insane, then you need to back it up with HARD scientific data and not based on the facts that you disagree with their positions. As I pointed out, a lot of your arguments misrepresent theirs and amount to making strawmen of them....upon which you call them "insane"? Pointing to complex social/economic/political issues and claiming that half the nation is in "willful ignorance" that you disagree with is far from actual scientific evidence of such a claim. That is neither logical nor scientific and I expect more of a scientific claim coming from a scientist.

This is nothing more than an attempt to "dehumanize" people of who differing views....its classic propaganda of the worst kind.

I think you are quibbling over semantics here. Illegal Immigrants by definition are already in the U.S..What do you think it would cost in terms of law enforcement, courts, labor production loss, and etc to local and detain tens of millions of "illegal immigrants" and deport them? It is completely impractical. Yet anything sort of that by default is supporting the status qou which currently has tens of millions of illegal immigrants living in the States but not pay full taxes, unable to start businesses, purchase various types of insurance, and etc.

 

Of course we control who is and isn't "illegal". Simply choosing pass a bill allowing for their continued presence in this country to be legal would eliminate the whole "illegal" thing. Allowing the millions here to be legal would immediately allow for millions of more payroll taxes. It would also allow communities with high portions of "illegal immigrants" in their communities to see more productive participation from those residents. People who are "illegal" have a much harder time securing loans, starting businesses, purchasing property, and etc.

Great....but that is irrelevant to discussions of pyschology....making it a continuation of a red herring as I have pointed out previously.

I don't care if you disagree with the political right. The issue of immigration is complex and not subject to simple generalizations. Rational people can disagree over the same evidence, in particular subtle evidence without being "insane". This is not only fallacious reasoning, but its also, as pointed out many times, classic propganda techniques. The references to "insanity" are classic means of dehumanizing your opposition.

Ironically, the assumption that those who disagree with you possess some sort of mental deficiency is the sort of behavior characteristic of those who are uncomfortable with ambiquity, differenes of opinion, rigidity of beliefs, etc...the very traits being used to label people as "insane".

Well, actually, I am , in some small way, qualified to make that "diagnosis".

It's a while ago, but I studied pharmacology.

That field includes psychopharmacology.

To do that you need to be able to distinguish those who need treatment from those who do not.

There's a fairly broad set of conditions that "tick the box".

In essence there are a collection of conditions all referred to as psychoses.

Their distinguishing feature is that the subject believes something which normal people wouldn't. believe.

So, for example if you believe that you are the queen, then most people would accept that you were not rational because all the evidence says that you are not.

.

If you think that another beer won't do any harm, even when it's plan that it will, then that's a psychosis too.

 

It's not a subtle test, but it often doesn't need to be.

If someone continues to proclaim that immigration is bad, even when the evidence makes it clear that it isn't, then they are in the same position as someone who thinks that they are the queen.

They are insane.

 

It's not a matter of a position I disagree with, it's a matter of a position which the evidence (stuff like that report and the fact that (in the other thread I cited, nobody was able to find Left wing Looneys") disagrees with.

 

Who is sane or not is largely defined by the opinion of society.

Society has already cast its vote on people who believe in dragons; they are nuts.

And the right seems to have rather more than its fair share (or prove me wrong).

1) Your last two posts both made arguments that were not at all based upon actual psychology, but were rather based on policy and are which are also not based upon any actual psychological measure or definition of "insanity". Its just you calling them insane.

2) Thats quite the stretch to call one self qualified to diagnose somebody as "insane". Regardless, the reasoning here is based on a host of fallacious arguments. Consider the fact that the OECD report on immigration and its economic benefits is primarily premised on the benefits of educated, high earning immigrants and also points out that immigrants who earn less than the average native born citizen do contribute less than native born citizens. However, last time I checked, the political right opposed illegal immigration, not legal immigration, which would entail most high skill and high earning labor, with the later entailing the low-skill and low-wage labor. That's a classic strawman. To attack an argument not representative of your opponents argument is a straw man fallacy. Based on what you have told me about psychosis, wouldn't attacking non-existent demons (i.e. straw man arguments) also be a form of psychosis? If after all, you believe that data a position against a singular form of immigration...illegal immigration....is equivalent to ALL immigration contrary to the evidence and the specific arguments of those you disagree with...then how is that any different than believe that one is a "Queen" contrary to all other evidence?

3) You are taking VERY complex data with lots of caveats. For instance, the data you provide also points out that its results refer to aggregate GDP and not net GDP of the nation. Rational and sane people can look at the same data, its strengths and weaknesses and rationally arrive at different conclusions based on that data. Calling people who rationally disagree with you over the interpretation of the evidence "insane" is...insane! In fact, its the sort of behavior tha smack of the intolerance of difference, ambiquity, and uncertainty that the previously discussed psychological studies portray of "right-wing authoritarianism."

You seem to have your own strict definition for what is or is not insane:

 

"in·san·i·ty noun \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\

: severe mental illness : the condition of being insane

: something that is very foolish or unreasonable

 

plural in·san·i·ties

 

1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)

2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity

 

I think posters have done a good job in this thread illustrating why political conservatism is "something that is very foolish or unreasonable".

You are equivocating between two different meanings. There is "insanity" as an actual mental/medical disorder....the first definition....and then there is insanity as it is often used in common language as a pseudonym for "foolish or unreasonable". Given that this entire thread is based upon psychological studies, the obvious presumption is that one is referring to the former, i.e. insanity as a medical condition and not as a pseudonym for something a person thinks is foolish. The first is a serious accusation and also ammendable to scientific investigation. The second is completely subjective to a person's own prejudices and non-scientific. I hear a lot of people on the political right call those on the Left insanse. That doesn't prove anything. If people want to go around bitching about the other sides politics, then have at it. The moment however you start trying to abuse science by labeling those you disagree with as "insanse" and trying to prove as much using psychology....the nature of the debate has changed. 1) Now you actually have to contend with real data, real science, and not your own prejudices. 2) You've just crossed into the territory of propganda used throughout human history to dehumanize the opposition. Its the same sort of thing that was done in the World Wars to dehumanize the Germans and Japanese, same sort of dehuminization that led to even worse atrocities. I find that profoundly disturbing and something to be fought tooth and nail. I am profoundly distrubed that on a science forum of all places.

I have seen this exchange repeated a few times here

"REPUBLICAN: "I think it would be wise for the US to control the flow of immigrants into our country, so that our welfare services can cope, and our industries can make the best use of their talents"

LIBERAL: "Why do you hate immigrants?""

The right answer for a well informed liberal is

"Why do you think there's a need to control it? It is known to be good for the economy, and it's not clear that the problems with welfare services spring from immigration rather than from cutbacks in spending- here's a report on it.

http://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf

Since the facts show that immigration is a net benefit to the economy, are you sure that you are not just using economic impact as an excuse for xenophobia?"

But even that isn't the real problem.

The real problem is that, even though they know of those reports, and they know that immigration is a net benefit to the country, the Right wing still oppose it.

That's insanity.

Again an argument that amounts to a red herring as it ignores any actual basis in psychology or scientific data (which is pretty much the entire basis of this thread).

Do you have anything to say that is based on psychological studies or are further comments merely going to consiste of you calling positions you disagree with "insane"?

And that's a feature of political extremism, not a specific ideology. Consider this oft-heard refrain:

 

LIBERAL: We should spend less on the military.

REPUBLICAN: Why do you hate our men and women in uniform?

 

In general while political conservatism (or liberalism) is _not_ a form of insanity, right wing extremism is often associated with non-reality-based approaches to issues. (Same is true of left-wing extremism.)

Calling them "non-reality based" regardless of the position is to ignore the actual arguments and reasons behind the positions. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying that labeling positions in such ways tends to close off discussion and actual understanding.

I'll have a look when I get time.

 

 

I'll roll my eyes as I please. I also asked you to declare if you read the book and it was like pulling teeth to get an answer. I ask you once to repeat defamatory statements and you're on it lickety split.

 

Frankly I have no confidence in your point making. You pretty much clinched that for me when you claimed ignorance as to why reading Altemeyer's book was relevant to the discussion of Altemeyer's book.

Please address my actual arguments and stop with the side show:

1) RWA fails to correlate with alternative measures of authoritarianism, but does correlate with alternative measures of conservatism. Logically, one must conclude that RWA does not measure authoritarianism and is simply another measure of conservatism.

2) The language used in the RWA (the actual questions used being referenced) inherently presume an association of right-wing beliefs with authoritarianism. This is reflected in the absence of non-authoritarian right wing beliefs in the questionairre or corresponding authoritarian left-wing beliefs.

3) The questions in the RWA are exclusively focused on a very narrow set of right wing beliefs of a particular moral/social nature.

4) The RWA does not correlate with other tests that you have proposed, such as the SDO.

5) The meta-analysis conlfates multiple measures that are not all equivalent (F-scale, C-scale, RWA, voting records).

6) Many of the reported associations (particularly in the meta-analysis) have small effect sizes.

7) Altemeyer himself admits that "right-wing authoritarians" as described by his RWA scale do not show any particular preference for a particular political party. He states as much in his book "Enemies of Freedom". John Ray has argued many times that the RWA scale does seem to measure "conservatism"....but only a certain type of conservatism, namely one that is associated with a narrow set of traditional moral values. This is unsurprising if you actually read the nature of the questions in Altemeyer's RWA scale. This also reemphasizes the earlier point I have made regarding the meta-analysis and how it equivocates different measures...including voting records, with various psychological tests.

8) There are also contradictions of the Jost meta-analysis with other findings, including direct contradictions with findings from NORC General Social Survey. For instance, the Jost meta-analysis claims that conservatives tend to fearful, angry, unhappy. Years of data from the GSS actually show the exact opposite, with higher reports of happiness from extreme conservatives, less reports of feeling angry from conservatives, etc. http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm

In another study, absolutely no correlation was found between those with high-obedience and right wing conservatism. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1980.tb01246.x/abstract

So you decry my examples as shocking and fallacious but then go on to take the same course.

You specifically asked me too.....and I quote you:

I challenge you to find anything of similar flavor in The Authoritarians.

 

Spare me the rolling of eyes when I give you what you ask for. The difference here is that none of my arguments are premised in decrying Altemeyer's character, rather all are based on examination of methods and data. Your ONLY argument against John Ray's work has been an ad hominem.

I looked into the original but it was too expensive for me. I went with Altemeyer out of all the meta-study group because it was the first I found free online. My interest here is trying to get some understanding for the whacky behavior that comes to my attention by conservative politicians and their followers. Clearly the behavior has drawn the attention of more than the casual observer.

 

Ok, but your personal reasons for being curious does not make an argument against any of the points I have made.

Please point out where in the paper or conclusions that voting records or other measures are used to avoid making any specific statements about the results.

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

You should probably look at the actual data used before challenging me on this.....ALL the data used in making conclusions regarding "integrative complexity" are derived from voting records.

See table 3, http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.pdf

The Right is running out of excuses

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm

How is this not a red herring?

Leftists are classic weak characters. They dish out abuse by the bucketload but cannot take it when they get it back. Witness the Loughner hysteria.source

Ad hominem. Please address the actual data showing that RWA does not correlate with other scales of authoritarianism.

No. That paper started the discussion. What we are now discussing -and reading- is Altemeyer's book which is referenced in the meta-study. Whether or not you -or anyone else- has read Altemeyer's book is relevant because that is what we are currently discussing. So far you have not referenced the book directly other than to list a single questionnaire, rather you have been referencing what others say about it

1) No, we are discussing both the meta-study and Altemeyers book. The meta-study is in fact what started the discussion and you still have never fully addressed the arguments I made against it.

2) No its not relevant. I do not need to quote Altemeyer's book to address the RWA scale or its validity. In particular, the validity of the RWA is something that requires independent testing apart from the views of its own creator. That is what the studies I present from John Ray, the South African study, and others do. They show that the RWA scale is not predictive of authoritarianism. Insisting that I quote from the book is a red herring fallacy.

chadn737, on 12 Dec 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

"There are also cases of left-wing ideologues who, once they are in power, steadfastly resist change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism, such as Stalin or Khrushchev or Castro (see J. Martin, Scully, & Levitt, 1990). It is reasonable to suggest that some of these historical figures may be considered politically conservative"

Altemeyer says as much in the book, so why not quote him since it is his book we are currently discussing?

 

Because here I am addressing the meta-study and not Altemeyer....which makes your argument a straw man. Do you acknowledge that the Jost meta-study defies historical and political common sense by calling Castro and Stalin "politically conservative"?

 

The idea that clearly authoritarian politicians like Stalin or Castro who ideologically were far to the left and also oversaw some of the most radical changes in the history of their nations were "politically conservative" is to defy all common sense.

No it doesn't. Political conservatism is relevant to specific venues and again Altemeyer makes that clear in his book.

 

 

Again....I am discussing the Jost meta-study. So this is your second strawman.

 

It calls into question the validity of the claims being made. In particular, when they use scales like the RWA or political voting records which measure traits very different politically and also which fail to actually measure authoritarianism. It is further evidence of how the authors of this study equivocate between very different measures in a manner which can only be described as fallacious.

Altemeyer -in his book- acknowledges different scales and qualifies them in relation to his own. You read the book so you know that already.

 

 

I'm still talking about the Jost meta-study here.....which makes this your third strawman.

 

Let me reiterate yet again the arguments to be addressed:

 

1) RWA fails to correlate with alternative measures of authoritarianism, but does correlate with alternative measures of conservatism. Logically, one must conclude that RWA does not measure authoritarianism and is simply another measure of conservatism.

Just because there are alternate measures does not mean a particular measure is invalid. Again, Altemeyer discusses different measures in the book and delineates differences and likenesses to his measures. Taking different measures is a hallmark of science isn't it? Getting different perspectives to better understand the situation under study and all that.

 

Indeed, but when Altemeyer's RWA correlates highly with scales designed to measure BOTH non-authoritarian and authoritarian attitudes of conservatism but fails to correlate with altermative measures of "authoritarianism" that are not biased by politics, that tells you what the RWA measures and what it does not. Namely, it tells you that the RWA is a measure of certain "conservative" views, but not a measure of authoritarianism. If RWA did indeed measure authoritarianism, then it should correlate at least to some degree with alternative measures of such.

At this point I have cited actual results, showing that the RWA had absolutely no correlation with an alternative authoritarian measure (r=-0.049), but did correlate with two seperate measures of conservatism. You now have a burden of proof of presenting evidence to the contrary. Saying that Altemeyer discusses different measures does not address the specific arguments or evidence I have presented.

 

2) The language used in the RWA (the actual questions used being referenced) inherently presume an association of right-wing beliefs with authoritarianism. This is reflected in the absence of non-authoritarian right wing beliefs in the questionairre or corresponding authoritarian left-wing beliefs.

Again, Altemeyer discusses the language used and its evolution in the book. You've read it so you know that and so I don't understand why you don't refer to it from the book.

 

You are dodging and shifting the burden of proof. I reference directly the questions used in the RWA. I have previously pointed out how the specific wording used assumes a VERY narrow and particular segment of conservatism and how one can alter the language to present conservatism as "anti-authoritarian". You have at no point addressed these arguments. In fact, while Altemeyer admits that two different scholars have questioned what his RWA actually measures, he does not actually address them directly in his book.

 

3) The questions in the RWA are exclusively focused on a very narrow set of right wing beliefs of a particular moral/social nature.

So what. Don't alternate studies take a narrow/specific focus, albeit different from others?

 

I explained previously why this a problem and how it can bias results. Its because the narrow focus of the questions asked inherently assume that any right-wing answer to be authoritarian and any left-wing answer to be anti-authoritarian. It does this by focusing almost exclusively on the "traditional family values" and ignoring anti-authoritarian right-wing positions like free markets, small government, gun ownership, etc.

It is of course appropriate to use such a narrow focus if the conclusions one tries to draw are themselves restricted. It is inappropriate to attempt to extrapolate to the much larger whole based on such a narrowized focus. This is exactly what Altemeyer does in his book. He draws large conclusions regarding conservatives, in particular how this relates to American politics based on a scale that is focused exclusively on questions of traditional family morals.

 

4) The RWA does not correlate with other tests that you have proposed, such as the SDO.

The quote I gave about SDO was from Altemeyer's book and since you read the book you might have recognized it. Again, he was juxtaposing different results from different approaches in order to broaden the perspective.

 

 

That is not the argument you originally made, making this response a red herring. Originally you brought up the SDO proposing it as an politically unbiased measure of authoritarianism similar to the modified questions I had proposed. As I pointed out then, there is no correlation or actual interaction of scores on the SDO or RWA and that the SDO does not actually measure authoritarianism.

 

5) The meta-analysis conlfates multiple measures that are not all equivalent (F-scale, C-scale, RWA, voting records).

Isn't giving the scales acknowledging non-equivalence? They report the scales so the reader can take into account differences.

 

 

No, its not an acknowledgement of non-equivalence. Read the actual paper including the conclusions. They use these very different measures....voting records being a horrible predictor....to equivocate between the results.

 

6) Many of the reported associations (particularly in the meta-analysis) have small effect sizes.

So what? No one is claiming conservatives are stark raving mad (Like your Ray fella), rather as the title says they are mildly insane. Small effect, but an effect.

 

1) Yet again an ad hominem against Ray....you do realize that attacking the person and not the argument is blatant fallacy right?

2) "Mildly insane"? Based on what? You are calling these traits a form of "insanity" based on what? It does not appear to be based on any actual psychological understanding or definition of insanity. Calling them "insane" in any context is simply an insult rather than a scientifically based assertion. This is particularly true when you consider small effect sizes. This is particularly true when you are generalizing to a huge group of people. There is a reason why the effect sizes can be small....because most people are not actually that way.

References to "insanity" appear nowhere in the Jost metastudy (where the correlations I have talked about are mentioned) and in fact, the authors have this to say:

"An important conclusion that follows from our analysis is that

political attitudes and beliefs possess a strong motivational basis

(e.g., Duckitt, 2001; Dunning, 1999; Fiske & Taylor, 1991;

Kruglanski, 1996; Kunda, 1990). Conservative ideologies, like

virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they

satisfy various psychological needs. To say that ideological belief

systems have a strong motivational basis is not to say that they are

unprincipled, unwarranted, or unresponsive to reason or evidence.

Although the (partial) causes of ideological beliefs may be motivational,

the reasons (and rationalizations) whereby individuals

justify those beliefs to themselves and others are assessed according

to informational criteria (Kruglanski, 1989, 1999)."

In other words, they argue that conservatism possesses a motivational basis like any belief. The references to them being a form of "insanity" are completely unfounded and only serve to reveal your own biases in this rather than an actual objective approach towards the data.

So? I have been saying all along that Altemeyer is straight up about deficiencies. Of course again we are currently discussing his book The Authoritarians.

 

1) No, we are discussing it all. At no point did I ever switch to discussing only Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians.

2) Saying that "Altemeyer is straight up about deficiencies" does not address the arguments I have made. Its an empty statement that does not present any actual argument against the inherent problems I have raised about the RWA.

Every time you bring up Ray I will favor the board with one of the quotes from his page. I challenge you to find anything of similar flavor in The Authoritarians. Bias is as bias does.

Leftists think that utopia can be coerced into existence -- so no dishonesty or brutality is beyond them in pursuit of that "noble" goal. source

This is still nothing more than a blatant ad hominem. To be quite honest, I'm a bit shocked that one would so proudly proclaim to use such a gross fallacy on a science forum.

John Ray is a known researcher in the field of consevatism and authoritarianism and was publishing on the subject at the same time Altemeyer was as well. Earlier I reference a published peer-review paper showing that the RWA is in reality just another measure of certain types of conservatism and not of authoritarianism. Attacking John Ray's character does not address these arguments in any way.

I challenge you to find anything of similar flavor in The Authoritarians.

 

Are you kidding me? The entire book is filled with politically motivated language and outright agendas. Take for example his preface...before the book has even technically started:

But authoritarianism itself has not disappeared, and I=m going

to present the case in this book that the greatest threat to American democracy

today arises from a militant authoritarianism that has become a cancer upon the

nation.

Or take for example this small section from the end of the book which is an outright call to activism painting RWAs as evil and on a "crusade":

If the people who are not social dominators and right-wing authoritarians want

to have those same rights in the future, they, you, had better do those same things too,

now. You do have the right to remain silent, but you’ll do so at everyone’s peril. You

can’t sit these elections out and say “Politics is dirty; I’ll not be part of it,” or

“Nothing can change the way things are done now.”The social dominators want you

to be disgusted with politics, they want you to feel hopeless, they want you out of their

way. They want democracy to fail, they want your freedoms stricken, they want

equality destroyed as a value, they want to control everything and everybody, they

want it all. And they have an army of authoritarian followers marching with the

militancy of “that old-time religion” on a crusade that will make it happen, if you let

them.

I would recommend that you try reading Altemeyer's original work that introduced the RWA concept (Right-wing authoritarianism 1981)...as an academic work, its not plagued by the same sort of politicization.

Ultimately, the agenda of Altemeyer is irrelevant because what matters is the validity of the Research, not the personal views of the Altemeyer. Attacking the argument, methods, results as I have done is how one conducts a logical argument. Continually attacking the person while ignoring the arguments made, i.e. your response to John Ray, is nothing more than an ad hominem and should be rejected.

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Wizard of OZ and Scarecrow (say Strawman)?

source

 

Moving on to the second article that I linked to in the OP, we can investigate some of the facts of the matters at hand.

 

Full article: Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

 

 

 

So now it is incumbent on we dear tender readers to pursue and read [in its entirety] the study Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. As this paper runs 37 pages I think any comments on it must not appear before such time as is reasonable to accommodate its reading.

 

Here it is: >> Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

The paper in reference here...the meta study makes some pretty outrageous and outright false claims from a historic and political perspective. Consider the following:

"There are also cases of left-wing ideologues who, once they are in power, steadfastly resist change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism, such as Stalin or Khrushchev or Castro (see J. Martin, Scully, & Levitt, 1990). It is reasonable to suggest that some of these historical figures may be considered politically conservative"

The idea that clearly authoritarian politicians like Stalin or Castro who ideologically were far to the left and also oversaw some of the most radical changes in the history of their nations were "politically conservative" is to defy all common sense. It calls into question the validity of the claims being made. In particular, when they use scales like the RWA or political voting records which measure traits very different politically and also which fail to actually measure authoritarianism. It is further evidence of how the authors of this study equivocate between very different measures in a manner which can only be described as fallacious.

Why exactly have you avoided answering such a simple question?

Because its a red herring and I am not one to let people get away with such obvious logical fallacies.

Let me reiterate yet again the arguments to be addressed:

1) RWA fails to correlate with alternative measures of authoritarianism, but does correlate with alternative measures of conservatism. Logically, one must conclude that RWA does not measure authoritarianism and is simply another measure of conservatism.

2) The language used in the RWA (the actual questions used being referenced) inherently presume an association of right-wing beliefs with authoritarianism. This is reflected in the absence of non-authoritarian right wing beliefs in the questionairre or corresponding authoritarian left-wing beliefs.

3) The questions in the RWA are exclusively focused on a very narrow set of right wing beliefs of a particular moral/social nature.

4) The RWA does not correlate with other tests that you have proposed, such as the SDO.

5) The meta-analysis conlfates multiple measures that are not all equivalent (F-scale, C-scale, RWA, voting records).

6) Many of the reported associations (particularly in the meta-analysis) have small effect sizes.

Please address the actual arguments without further use of logical fallacies.

Let me add a 7th argument to the list.

7) Altemeyer himself admits that "right-wing authoritarians" as described by his RWA scale do not show any particular preference for a particular political party. He states as much in his book "Enemies of Freedom". John Ray has argued many times that the RWA scale does seem to measure "conservatism"....but only a certain type of conservatism, namely one that is associated with a narrow set of traditional moral values. This is unsurprising if you actually read the nature of the questions in Altemeyer's RWA scale. This also reemphasizes the earlier point I have made regarding the meta-analysis and how it equivocates different measures...including voting records, with various psychological tests.

And an 8th:

8) There are also contradictions of the Jost meta-analysis with other findings, including direct contradictions with findings from NORC General Social Survey. For instance, the Jost meta-analysis claims that conservatives tend to fearful, angry, unhappy. Years of data from the GSS actually show the exact opposite, with higher reports of happiness from extreme conservatives, less reports of feeling angry from conservatives, etc. http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm

Have you read or do you intend to read Altemeyer's book?

I have read it. So do you mind actually addressing the arguments made? Or are you going to launch into another fallacious argument?

As a reminder, the relevant arguments are:

1) RWA fails to correlate with alternative measures of authoritarianism, but does correlate with alternative measures of conservatism. Logically, one must conclude that RWA does not measure authoritarianism and is simply another measure of conservatism.

2) The language used in the RWA (the actual questions used being referenced) inherently presume an association of right-wing beliefs with authoritarianism. This is reflected in the absence of non-authoritarian right wing beliefs in the questionairre or corresponding authoritarian left-wing beliefs.

3) The questions in the RWA are exclusively focused on a very narrow set of right wing beliefs of a particular moral/social nature.

4) The RWA does not correlate with other tests that you have proposed, such as the SDO.

5) The meta-analysis conlfates multiple measures that are not all equivalent (F-scale, C-scale, RWA, voting records).

6) Many of the reported associations (particularly in the meta-analysis) have small effect sizes.

Yes what? You have read it, or you intend to read it?

Explain the relevance. You are obsessed with a red herring and ignoring the arguments and evidence presented.

When the RWA has been applied in other contexts, there have been questions as to its validity...in particular in regards to its ability to measure "authoritarianism." This study looked at its validity in South Africa finding no correlation with authoritarian behaviors and only some correlation with conservatism. As previously mentioned, John Ray found the similar results....with RWA failing to correlate with an independent measure of authoritarianism, but correlating with conservatism. This further shows that the RWA is really just a test of certain types of conservatism and not an actual test of authoritarianism.

http://www.academia.edu/3982325/An_Investigation_of_the_Validity_and_Reliability_of_Measures_of_Right-Wing_Authoritarianism_in_South_Africa

Have you read or do you intend to read Altemeyer's book?

You really are married to this red herring. Yes.

Have you read or do you intend to read Altemeyer's book?

Red Herring

Explain the relevance of this question to addressing the arguments I have made.