chadn737

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".

Are you saying that these views do not make it to the highest levels of politics? You should catch up on current events: http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-labeling-debate-headed-congressional-committee-1734922 There has been legislature on GMOs passes or put up to vote in Hawaii, Vermont, California, Colorado, Oregon, and more. In Europe, political pressure from these very groups led to the EU kicking out their top science advisor and obolishing the position altogether: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11229774/Jean-Claude-Juncker-sacks-EU-scientific-adviser-over-her-pro-GM-views.html That's the equivalent of someone forcing out a director of the NIH or NSF over stem cells or climate change.... If you think this is just a bunch of small-timers with no political influence, then you haven't been paying attention. Both of those linked stories have been only from the last couple of months! I've been observing this debate for ~20 years now and that is only a fraction of how political it has been.

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 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 am not saying that everyone on the political left agrees to these views. Some prominant politicians on the Left (Hillary Clinton for example) have sided with GMOs. Given that most of my colleagues are academic scientists firmly on the political left and also firmly in support of GMOs, I am not so simplistic or stupid as to make such generalizations to the Left as a whole. Also....technically the correct fallacy that you are trying to pin on me here would be a "hasty generalization" not "cherry picking". I actually have tried in previous posts to specify that I am talking about certain parts of the political Left: However, there is no denying what the primary political persuasion of these groups are. Occupy Wall Street, Greenpeace, March Against Monsanto, others....these groups fall on the political Left. Its like saying that it is the Right who opposes stem cell research or evolution, although this is more properly limited specifically to those who oppose these views on religious grounds which is not at all true of the entire Right. Do you not agree that these groups are primarily of the political Left? Why are you also not calling those posters in this very thread who have made clear hasty generalizations of the political "Right"? After all ~40% of those on the political Left reject Evolution while ~30% of those on the political Right accept it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx Certainly there is a political divide here, but the numbers are significant enough that it would be wrong to make hasty generalizations regarding whether or not a conservative or liberal "believes in evolution". You stand a very high chance of being wrong in either case. Yet for some reason the hasty generalizations regarding conservatives and liberals regarding evolution are accepted without question by other posters in this thread while my pointing out the political opposition of the environmental left towards GMOs or nuclear power has generate much contention. The unwillingness to apply equal skepticism to the "other side" in this thread is disappointing...especially so of a "science forum".

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"?

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.

Given your last post, it was not clear whether you were arguing against the claim that it is the Left opposing these technologies or if you were attacking the claim of cherry picking. These sources were meant to demonstrate the former, not the latter. As far as cherry picking, there is inherent evidence of such in the anti-GMO arguments made. For instance Occupy Wallstreet cites health effects, which the overwhelming evidence suggest that there is none, as well as statements from scientific bodies both in the US and Europe. Claiming unsubstantiated health effects on largely discredited studies (I.e. Seralini) while ignoring numerous studies to the contrary is by definition cherry picking.

Given your last post, it was not clear whether you were arguing against the claim that it is the Left opposing these technologies or if you were attacking the claim of cherry picking. These sources were meant to demonstrate the former, not the latter. As far as cherry picking, there is inherent evidence of such in the anti-GMO arguments made. For instance Occupy Wallstreet cites health effects, which the overwhelming evidence suggest that there is none, as well as statements from scientific bodies both in the US and Europe. They cite colony collapse disorder, of which there is absolutely no evidence. Claiming unsubstantiated health ir environmental effect on largely discredited studies while ignoring numerous studies to the contrary is by definition cherry picking.

The primary source of political opposition to GMOs and nuclear power comes from the environmental left/green movements and/or anti-corporatist movements like the Occupy Movement. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-liberals-war-on-science/ http://occupywallstreet.net/event/march-against-monsanto-may-25th http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/greenpeace/00b8c260409147c89ebaffc706de0f0a

Plants are actually the ultimate example. Polyploidy, both auto (genome doubling) and allo (hybridization between species) is extremely widespread and has occurred numerous times, even in the course of modern man. Many of our most prominant crops species (wheat, barley, brassicas, etc) have undergone polyploidization...especially allopolyploidization....during the course of domestication. Bread wheat is a hexaploid resulting from two seperate hybridization events during the course of domestication by humans leading to a species that now contains three genomes.

In theory yes such risks are "quantifiable" or "demonstrateable"....the problem comes in when there is no data indicating such risk and one party advocates against it regardless. We can again draw direct comparisons to the right-wing and climate change. One can find experts (as one can always find experts) who do not believe climate change is a factor of human activity. There are also non-anthropomorphic forces also affecting climate change (I agree whole heartedly that there is anthropomorhic ones as well, this is an illustrative point) and enough conflicting factors in climate change that it is undeniable that some of climate prediction models perform badly. So if you want to argue that opposition to nuclear power or GMOs has a scientific basis...even if it is a weak basis....then one must admit, if one is to be intellectually honest, that the same is true of climate change denial....even if the evidence is weak. It is clear that there is a direct parrallel in the way the Left has cherry picked its scientific data regarding subjects like nuclear power or GMOs and the way the Right cherry picks its data regarding climate change. Both are contemporary issues...ironically related given the benefits nuclear power and GMOs offer in addressing climate change....and both illustrate two political polar opposites ignoring scientific evidence over political agenda/ideology.

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 You specifically asked me too.....and I quote you: 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. Ok, but your personal reasons for being curious does not make an argument against any of the points I have made.

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

How is this not a red herring? Ad hominem. Please address the actual data showing that RWA does not correlate with other scales of authoritarianism.

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. 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"? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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

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.

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 You really are married to this red herring. Yes.

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

Red Herring. You are digging yourself in a hole Acme by insisting on this logical fallacy. It very illogical. Once again...actual arguments to address: 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.

How is it relevant to the arguments I have made? If its not, then its a red herring. You do understand the concept of a red herring fallacy....correct? Once again...actual arguments to address: 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.

How is it relevant to the arguments made? Do you intend to actually address the arguments or persist in a red herring fallacy. Once again...the actual arguments made: 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.

Pardon me; Ray. As I said I'm typing hastily due to a storm. 'Ray's' bias is no more a red herring than your continuing whine about Altemeyer's bias. I won't address anything until you say whether you have read -or intend to read- Altemeyer's book. Red herring. This is completely irrelevant to the arguments made. Do you understand the concept of a red herring? It is an attempt to introduce an irrelevant issue to distract from arguments made. Let me reiterate the arguments made against the RWA scale, the meta-analysis, and other claims so that you can address the actual argument: 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.