So, Conservatives not the psychotic ones, after all..

[SunsetBengal]

Interesting academic correction.

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/?fbclid=IwAR19UIvZIDHt-KmHsG_ic67HL5CBDOf3n8mTLo-JfKtDlp_9DxUKHX2Ela4

Quote:Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.

A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong.

The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.

“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.

“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”

In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.

The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones.

The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame.

“I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”

The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”

But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”

“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.

[*michaelsean*]

In unrelated news, Trump bought a new magazine.

[CJD]

The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”

[*bfine32*]

In other news water is wet;

[*bfine32*]

(06-06-2019, 08:45 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”

But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”


“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.

[BmorePat87]

I remember this from a few years back. If I recall correctly (aka I just googled it to make sure I was right lol), the focus of the paper was to dismiss claims that personality traits make us more likely to be politically conservative or liberal and this specific correlation being looked at was for religious conservatism and sexual conservatism, not political conservatism.

The author had been making corrections for a while before this article came out.

Also psychoticism is not the same as psychotic.

[BmorePat87]

So if you're more liberal in the sack, you're more likely to be impulsive, sensation seeking, and domineering? Makes sense.

[Benton]

From what has been so far, mass shooters and serial killers of the last few decades tend to lean conservative. But not by a lot.

Which leads me to one logical conclusion: Democrats and republicans constitute the vast majority of psychotics

[*bfine32*]

(06-06-2019, 08:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So if you're more liberal in the sack, you're more likely to be impulsive, sensation seeking, and domineering? Makes sense.

You're also more likely to be in the sack with a young goat.

OK, enough fun. Political party does not determine mental stability, but I have 0 problem with this guy pointing out a correction in an article that tried to paint it that way.

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 08:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting academic correction.

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/?fbclid=IwAR19UIvZIDHt-KmHsG_ic67HL5CBDOf3n8mTLo-JfKtDlp_9DxUKHX2Ela4

In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.

LOL Trump is liberal then??

Seriously, people ought to check definitions and read the paper, discussion of errors, and retraction before drawing any conclusions about what this means.  Learn a bit about the causation/correlation debate of personality/politics before deciding what this "error" means.

First step is to go beyond the New York Posts framing of what "science" says. Second is to take a close look at the definition of "psychoticism" used here.

This is turning out like the shrimp treadmill.

[*michaelsean*]

Looking forward to the “It doesn’t mean what we said it meant when we thought it was conservatives.”

[SunsetBengal]

(06-06-2019, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Trump is liberal then??

Seriously, people ought to check definitions and read the paper, discussion of errors, and retraction before drawing any conclusions about what this means.  Learn a bit about the causation/correlation debate of personality/politics before deciding what this "error" means.

First step is to go beyond the New York Posts framing of what "science" says. Second is to take a close look at the definition of "psychoticism" used here.

This is turning out like the shrimp treadmill.

Leave it to guys like you and Pat to suck all the fun out of Liberals suffering from psychoticism, demonstrated through their psychotic episodes, cause by the psychosis they developed from their belief in Liberal policies.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2019, 08:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're also more likely to be in the sack with a young goat.

OK, enough fun. Political party does not determine mental stability, but I have 0 problem with this guy pointing out a correction in an article that tried to paint it that way.

Just to be clear, though, the original paper didn't suggest that political party determined mental stability. 

It identified a perceived correlation between religious and sexual conservative attitudes with psychoticism (which is a broad grouping of traits, not psychotic tendency) and then suggested that it in no\ way proved that our behavior traits alone determine our political affiliation.

No doubt third party people (likely entirely liberal) ran with this study and suggested that incorrectly. 

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 08:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Looking forward to the “It doesn’t mean what we said it meant when we thought it was conservatives.”

OK, Here's what one author's retraction looks like, if you are interested.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12216

And here's what it looks like on Fox News.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/4936024725001/#sp=show-clips

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 09:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Leave it to guys like you and Pat to suck all the fun out of Liberals suffering from psychoticism, demonstrated through their psychotic episodes, cause by the psychosis they developed from their belief in Liberal policies.  

"Psychoticism," different from "psychosis," is more fun than you think.

And "social desirability" is not a trait you want to score high in. 

Fun stuff here.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-06-2019, 09:56 PM)Dill Wrote: OK, Here's what one author's retraction looks like, if you are interested.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12216

And here's what it looks like on Fox News.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/4936024725001/#sp=show-clips

No I know. It means something different than what it used to mean. Now it means what it really meant all along. All it took to realize this is to switch who it pointed to.

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 09:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just to be clear, though, the original paper didn't suggest that political party determined mental stability. 

It identified a perceived correlation between religious and sexual conservative attitudes with psychoticism (which is a broad grouping of traits, not psychotic tendency) and then suggested that it in no\ way proved that our behavior traits alone determine our political affiliation.

No doubt third party people (likely entirely liberal) ran with this study and suggested that incorrectly. 

LOL it all means one thing in social science research, another in the right wing blogosphere.

[*bfine32*]

psychoticism
NOUN
The condition or state of being psychotic or of being predisposed to develop psychosis; a scale in personality tests purporting to measure this.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/psychoticism

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 10:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No I know. It means something different than what it used to mean. Now it means what it really meant all along. All it took to realize this is to switch who it pointed to.

???  Still guessing?

As Bpat pointed out, there is really a range of definitions here that do not have quite the same meaning in the abovementioned  research that they do on Fox or in this forum--including terms like "liberal" and "conservative."

One reason Verhulst and Hatemi's article was flagged is because it went against decades or research on personality traits by suddenly "demonstrating" that people with conservative political attitudes were more likely to be risk takers who preferred to break the rules, thought saving money for the future was a waste of time, and were more ready to experiment with drugs having "strange or dangerous effects."  I'm guessing that would stand out to you too.  

So one paper in a wide research field, or actually two from the same authors using the same data and coding, suddenly veered from what everyone else was finding--and a graduate student caught it. They had flipped their coding.  All along it is really the liberals who were more likely to spend this week's paycheck on one of those new designer drugs before arriving at the party to have unprotected sex with a total stranger.  As Bfine put it, "Water is wet."

This is not a case of social scientists behaving like political operatives, trying to write papers that "prove" Republicans are psychotic, or some such, whose research then backfired and proved that liberals are. So now they need to change the definition of "psychotic."

By the time this gets to Fox, though, it's the shrimp treadmill and 600 dollar toilet seat and shows us what liberals are really like.

"Science says." LOL

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 10:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: psychoticism
NOUN
The condition or state of being psychotic or of being predisposed to develop psychosis; a scale in personality tests purporting to measure this.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/psychoticism

Inadequate.  Two posters now have warned about doing what you are doing.

The relevant research term is "Eysenck's theory of psychoticism." Try this.
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

Or this https://study.com/academy/lesson/hans-jurgen-eysenck-personality-theory-lesson-quiz.html

"Psychoticism" in this case a "trait"--a part of everyone's personality, but more dominant in some that others (like artists) and balanced by "socialization" in Eysenck's theory. If you are interested, here is an overview of how Eysenck's theory fits into personality research since WWII.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916302604