New Guards: Old Infrastructure, New Game

The amount of research that is being conducted to conflate genetics, neurology and biology with social science is fascinating.  The scientific papers on the subject tend to be subscription-only, and as Alpha points out, the bias of the authors is so inclined to be liberal that I hesitate to throw away good money for bad research.  Perhaps my favorite example of bad research is as follows (h/t Seattle Times):

Frank Sulloway of the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study, [my emphasis] said results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts and were 2.2 times more likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Based on the results, Sulloway said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Amodio said it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better than another. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said. Positions on specific issues are influenced by many factors, he noted.

My favorite analysis of this type of research was done by the estimable Dr. Helen, a forensic psychologist and blogger from Knoxville, TN.  Dr. Helen's analysis is so stunning in its accuracy that I felt obliged to share it with you in its entirety:

Liberal Says Liberals Are More Open-Minded and People who Disagree are Idiots

So I went out to get the mail and in it was my monthly issue of the American Psychologist, which is the Journal of the American Psychological Association. I generally skim over the studies to see if there is anything relevant that I can use as a practitioner, but generally, the journal ends up with the rest of my junk mail (which is rarely as politically correct as the APA journal) in the garbage heap. However, today, one of the articles entitled, The End of the End of Ideology caught my eye.

I noticed that it was yet another social psychologist arguing that liberals had so many more "positive" qualities than conservatives. The tone of the article looked familiar and I noticed it was written by the same NYU professor, John Jost, who was one of the researchers in an earlier article I had written about before, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. A more fitting title for the previous article would have been, "If we could just understand the social motivation of those stupid, rigid, close-minded conservatives, surely, we could change their wicked ways." But of course, a professor of Dr. Jost's stature would want to appear as unbiased as possible in order to make that point, so it is best to write in a manner that the APA journal has come to love: a vague, overly-wordy and cumbersome style that leaves most readers asleep before the third paragraph.

Getting back to the current regurgitation article on the same topic, Jost finds in his research that liberals scored higher on openness than conservatives, what a surprise! "Results revealed that all six of the openness facets were associated with liberalism rather than conservatism: openness values (r=-.48), aesthetics (r=-.32), actions (r=-.27), ideas (r=-.24), feelings (r=-.24) and fantasy (r=-.19)" (American Psychologist, October 2006, pg. 663). So liberals are more open to ideas, feelings, and actions than conservatives. Dr.Jost, why not try this hypothesis out in the real world beyond the ivory tower? If you want to find out if liberals are open to new ideas, actions, and feelings, I challenge you to do the following:

1) Post comments around on various lefty blogs such as FireDogLake, The Daily Kos or Alicublog. These comments should disagree with the view of the host or view of the blog or diary; for example, state that you support Israel at the Daily Kos, wonder if feminists who are against sexual harrassment should support Bill Clinton at FireDogLake, and/or politely stand up for colleagues at Alicublog who you feel have been treated unfairly just because they disagree with the views of the host. Now, check back to evaluate scores for these paragons of openness for their ideas, actions and feelings. If your comments have been troll-scored by the Kossacks, deleted by Jane Hamsher, or ridiculed by whoever runs the Alicublog, give an openness score of zero. Negative bonus points if you are called a douche, told to stay in your place so as not to "assail your betters," or have a racial slur thrown your way.

2) Next, talk to the speakers' committee at NYU where you work and see if they will sponsor a Minutemen Forum for the students and faculty. Give a positive score if they agree, negative if they refuse and instead sponsor Noam Chomsky. Bonus negative points if they agree to sponsor the Minutemen but the students attack the speakers and sling racial epithets at them like the tolerant and openminded liberal students at Columbia University.

3) Finally, last but not least, suggest to the American Psychological Association that they publish at least one study by a non-liberal in each issue of the American Psychologist. Positive score if they say yes and actually follow up, negative if they write you back a form letter talking about how they will take your concerns to a higher level, and negative bonus points if they tell you there is no such thing as a non-liberal psychologist. Oh, those open-minded liberals!

Dr. Jost, I would love to see the results of your findings written up in the next issue of my American Psychologist; it will re-affirm my faith that the journal does fair and objective research. Somehow, though, I think I will be waiting a very long time.....

Update: Dr. John Ray has more thoughts on Jost's "study." My favorite line of Dr. Ray's is the following: "Jost and his colleagues don't even know what a conservative is so there is NO chance of their findings having any real-world significance." I have to agree.

At the least we can say that the data is skewed, the studies are not double-blind, nor are subjects selected with no partisanship (where are the Independents or the Apathetic, for example?).  At the worst we can say that this data can and will be used against out-groups by in-groups.  So are conservatives "wired differently" from liberals?  I tend to lean toward the Winston Churchill theory:  

Any liberal who gets married, buys property, makes investments in the future, raises a family, is attached to a community, has a career - in other words, has a major stake in a secure and prosperous future for themselves and their offspring - is eligible to become a conservative.  And while conservatives may (perhaps rightfully) be reluctant to adopt knee-jerk change, if it can be proven that there is a market for new methods and technologies, they will adapt because it is profitable, effective and ultimately wise to do so. 

we're of exactly the same mindset!  Young activists must have great candidates who inspire them and provide real leadership by example.  I'm so excited that we're starting to acquire more knowledge about these types of candidates here at The Next Right.