Acme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I read all you wrote. Blah blah blah repeating a thing over & over does not make it so. I again call on you to say whether or not you have actually read Altemeyer's book or intend to, as well as call on you to justify the hateful language I found on Jay's page. You keep citing him as an authority but his rhetoric if used by a member here would tag him as a luny crackpot in short order. PS To all dear tender readers please forgive any recent typos, delayed response, & brevity for a few hours as we're having a major wind storm and I keep losing power & web connections. If need be I'll clean things up when things get back to normal.

Stop right there. Given what I just posted from Jay's page I have to consider him by your own measures an extremely biased source. The quotes of his I gave if used here in a post by a member would bring fast & sure censure and accorded no credibility. Honestly, it is just this kind of foaming-at-the mouth rhetoric from conservatives that leads people to ask if conservatives are mildly insane. I'd like you to declare whether you have actually read Altemeyer's book that I am sourcing or if not whether you intend to. I have not accepted what others said of it & I expect no less from respondents here.

I don't quite understand the question, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. IOW I urge you as I do all to read the book yourself. It's free online and also freely downloadable as a pdf. Here's his main page where you can get or read the book as well as other of his writings. None of his stuff contains the hateful sort of language I found at Mr. Jays page I note. What's up with that vitriol I wonder. The Authoritarians @ University of Manitoba

Not Canadian; I am the son of Daughters of the American Revolution on both my father's and mother's side and my ancestors were English and Swedish. Old as dirt; yes. I'll have to consult the oracle on that title to jog my memory... accessing...whiring...clicking...so yes, I remember that. Back on point, while I couldn't access Ray's particular article that chadn referenced, I did look into his bias. A few quotes from one of his pages sums it nicely. Conservatism as Heresy Ouch!

I graduated high school early and went to work and I didn't go to college until I was in my 30's. I found it easier to focus on studies rather than the social tomfoolery of the younger students. (I got the tomfoolery out of my system when I was at their age nonetheless.) I sat in the front of classes so I could see & hear the instructor better as well as put the distractions of the youth behind me. I paid for it through grants, tutoring, scholarships, and working.

A conditional thank you. All notions are preconceived in the sense that conceiving is predicated on some form or fashion of history. Everyone then has 'preconceived' notions, including yourself and chadn. As I recall you left this discussion saying something to the effect that you would not read Altemeyer's book and [to paraphrase] implying that this was so because you already knew what was in it. I get the sense chadn has no intention of reading the book either and will content himself with citing what others have said about it. (Both chadn and Moontan have expressed here that they don't even accept as legitimate a delineation of right/left or conservative/liberal.) Whatever my preconceived notions I have at least undertaken to get the story from the horse's mouth rather than take things second hand from the mules. Whether or not I manage it, I have in mind to do the same for the other 80 or so studies referenced in the meta-study that opened this can of worms. (I did try and read the paper by Ray that chadn linked to, but it's behind a pay-wall.) I also re-read the section -as I said I would- in The Authoritarians on pgs. 15-29 that related to the validity of Altemeyer's RWA scale and found that quoting bits of it don't make the argument and quoting all of it goes beyond what is reasonable to quote here. If folks argue against the validity without reading that section and then making specific criticisms to points in it...well...that's just more broad-brush unsubstantiated expression of preconceived notions of what it says.

Seems like a form of cognitive dissonance to me. Damn aggravating whatever the reason. Here's something that may bear on the brush. The Good Old Days Were Awful

OK. Is that mercury in the form of mercury nitrate? [it's not clear in the quote and I'm no chemist.] Then too, did those mice exhibit any of the neurological symptoms that I just bolded from the Wiki page? IOW, did they go mad?

The questionnaire you linked to is just one of many that Altemeyer uses. Who is picking the cherries here? So statements along the line of these from Altemeyer's book. Since I have shown that 'the questions' you keep bringing up are actually just the questions that you cherry picked, I have met my part. You decry bias as if it invalidates any investigation. It is only as sensible in a survey on authoritarianism to mention authority as it is to mention painting in a survey about art. By reading Altemeyer's work and posting on it I am submitting it to questioning. Which of your biases & prejudices are you conforming to? Duly noted. . [i missed your editing this in.] ...I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, but ... But you're going to go on about it as if you did.

Colloquial yes, but the term is in technical literature as in 'mad hatter's disease'. But you are right insomuch as the term does not describe the symptoms characteristic to mad hatters. The psychological/neurological symptoms are not listed in your link on skin exposure to mercury nor exhibited by Carroll's hatter. Again from the Wiki page: Mad hatter disease/mad hatter syndrome Carroll's hatter exhibits none of these symptoms, rather he is just eccentric. Moreover, his arguments are actually based in logic and only appear to be nonsense in the context of the story as one for children. Besides being an author, Dodgson cum Carroll was a mathematician and logician (as well as one of the earliest photographers). Alice's Adventures in Wionderland

Thnx again. Notably the effects of skin contact on that sheet do not include 'madness'.

Yes, I have read the questions in the book, as well as the discussion concerning their validity. From your link: Give me a few minutes to access that section as I have to complete some updates. Blah blah blah. If you don't agree with the studies' methods or conclusions that is fine. If you want to keep harping here, fine too. But you can't simply say the questions are biased and then fail to produce non-biased questions and so declare any such questions are invalid. People take political stances, other people find the why's and wherefore's of those stances of interest because political stances and actions affect lives and so studying the situation is valid. Moreover, people give themselves political labels such as conservative, liberal, libertarian, etcetera so implying that these assignments are imposed by academics is fallacious. Be back in a bit with information from the book section referenced above. If you haven't read the book, I suggest you do. The Authoritarians

And what remarks prefaced that? Thnx. However, that bit challenges the studies on workers and says nothing about how the mercury gets in the body. You claimed wearers of felt hats absorbed mercury into their heads [and went mad] and that is what I would like to see evidence for. Also from your article, a bit supporting my contention that the Hatter in Wonderland was not meant to be one who made hats, but just one who was mad.

Yes. They are in the book I have been reading and referencing. If what you say is true -and from what I have read it is not- then you should be able to start a thread on liberals being slightly insane and cite multiple studies to support the idea. Have at it.

thnx

I wouldn't argue that we haven't made progress, but again that is just a human concept and human concepts are just the results of evolution of our brains. Moreover it's not a concept shared by many folk who are always wishing and demanding we return to the 'good old days' as well as preaching about how science and medicine are the work of the devil. So again, we suffer dangers animals don't just as they suffer dangers that we don't. We & they continue to evolve but knowing what has gone to pass is no reliable predictor of what will come to pass. And even though you & I can relax in our homes and carry on such discussions as this, we will be long dead and [possibly] be the subject of later discussion of evolution in hindsight. Eat drink & be merry, for tomorrow we evolve.

But we aren't more likely to survive other dangers that 'wild' creatures don't suffer. Heart disease, diabetes, or such matters. Determining a 'degree' for the effects of evolution is a hindsight activity and one that is -so far as we can determine- a uniquely human endeavor. But we evolved from creatures that survived a meteor strike in the wild. And the evidence indicates they weren't 'super' creatures but small mammals hiding in holes. While we may like to think we're better equipped to survive than 'animals that live in the wild', that is just an artifact of our evolved abilities of self-awareness and self-reflection. Duck & cover!!