Bush bots explained at last.
Posted on 01/30/2006 9:23:01 AM PST by Deek1969
Put a group of people together at a party and observe how they behave. Differently than when they are alone? Differently than when they are with family? What if they're in a stadium instead of at a party? What if they're all men?
The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social environments affect the way people behave. But social psychologists are people, too, and as the United States has become increasingly politically polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what drives these sharp divides: red states vs. blue states; pro-Iraq war vs. anti-Iraq war; pro-same-sex marriage vs. anti-same-sex marriage. And they have begun to study political behavior using such specialized tools as sophisticated psychological tests and brain scans
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Studies have shown that the MSM has a bias against Bush backers.
"When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior."
Bush bots explained at last.
In other words: It's an election year. And if you elect Republicans, black churches will burn.
This is a recording.
A syllogism:
social psychologists are people.
people in the US have become increasingly politically polarized.
Therefore,
social psychologists have become increasingly politically polarized.
So much so, that they now produce studies that say people who vote Republican are racists.
Yes, they did, but it's the WP who is on crack, as are the so-called scientists who did this so-called "study." This is just another attempt to paint conservatives as a bunch of Archie Bunker biggots. I wonder how they would reconcile that fact that, if Condi were to run for President, she would likely get a huge majority of votes from us racist biggots!
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry at these people.
Jag!
This from the guy who assessed the study. Sounds like he already knew the answer going in.
I read this differently. I see it as conservatives are more honest about biases that they know they have. Since dems are the one who practice racial bias more, I have to assume that they aren't even aware that they possess them. Who's more dangerous?
"supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did."
There's the key sentence. The data doesn't say that Republicans are racists, it says that they are more likely to be so than Democrats. All it takes is 11% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats being racist to make the above statement true. I suppose if you surveyed voting patterns of those who commit adultery you would probably find Democrats are more likely by adulterers. You could add murder, cheating, and stealing and I think the Dems would win on those also.
As you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you eh?
You have to read the previous paragraph to get an idea of the methodology:
Another study...explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes -- subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.
In other words, if you don't vote like a Democrat, you have a "bias" against blacks.
In other words, even though every respondent to the survey in that particular district may have been a Democrat, they're still going to pin this on Republicans because they were the majority in that particular district in the last election! This study is soooo flawed! How do they get away with calling this research? It's more like a game of pin the tail on the elephant.
Bush bots explained at last.
I had a Lib say to me that I would be so Pro-Life (actually she said anti-choice) if my daughter was raped by a Black guy.
I asked her why she made the rapist Black. Humina humina humina.
You read this wrong. The article talks about studying unconscious biases. They basically say when you see a good word or a white face click the left button.... when you see a bad word or a black face click the right button. Then they swap it. When you see a good word or a black face click the left button... when you see a bad word or a white face click the right button.
The theory is if it takes you longer to perform the good+black v bad+white part of the test then you're unconsciously a racist.
I'd point you to all the places that argue against the validity of the "Implicit Association Test", but then I'd just be a partisan patting myself on the back or "in denial".
I guess that that would explain this juicy little piece from the Harvard Crimson (yes,*that* Harvard) from a few years back describing the antics of some of the richest and most "progressive" folks in the land,the residents of Brattle Street which is very close to Harvard Yard and is populated by Harvard faculty and administrators.
One of the folks mentioned is non other than Laurence Tribe,a presumed candidate for the Supreme Court next time a democRAT occupies Motel 1600.
Enjoy! http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=241470
How do the Dixiecrats figure in this "scientific" study?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.