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

[NATI BENGALS]

Have you ever seen judge jeanine pirro? That is her pic next to the word psychotic in the dictionary. And for some reason she is paid to be on tv by the leading conservative "news" outlet and our reality tv show host conman president is probably her #1 fan.

[*bfine32*]

(06-06-2019, 10:44 PM)Dill Wrote: 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

From your link:

Dill\s link Wrote:His description of psychoticism states that a person will exhibit some qualities commonly found among psychotics, and that they may be more susceptible, given certain environments, to becoming psychotic.

Sounds a whole lot like the definition I posted.


BTW, what have I been warned about? 

[BmorePat87]

(06-06-2019, 10:44 PM)Dill Wrote: 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

https://reason.com/2016/06/10/liberals-not-conservatives-express-more/

Reason summarized it quite well a few years back with the accurate use of all terms. 

They quote the study itself

Quote:Having a high Psychoticism score is not a diagnosis of being clinically psychotic or psychopathic. Rather, P is positively correlated with tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and authoritarianism (Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1996; Eysenck and Eysenck 1985, McCourt et al. 1999). In social situations, those who score high on P are more uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, and socially withdrawn, but lack feelings of inferiority and have an absence of anxiety. At the extremes, those scoring high on P are manipulative, tough-minded, and practical

[Benton]

(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.  

Policies like trickle down economics?



I have $100 and you have $20. If you give me your $20, my $100 is bound to end up in your pocket.

I guess that's what I never understood about modern conservatives. Trickle down economics is essentially socialism with little to no populace input.

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 11:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From your link:

Sounds a whole lot like the definition I posted.

BTW, what have I been warned about? 

The last half of your definition could fit. The first part encourages distortion.  Hence inadequate.

You were warned to "check definitions and read the paper." When you are discussing how terms are used in social science papers, that does not mean run to  dictionary. It means look at how the term in question is deployed in whatever theory is being used.

Don't read in sound bites--i.e. without examples and directions for application, or recognition of how the same terms can have different or shaded meanings in different disciplines and research projects. 

The main topic covered [in this paper] is Eysenck's view of psychoticism as a dimension of personality and temperament. Eysenck's theory of psychoticism is based on mostly physiological factors. It states that normal subjects who are not diagnosable psychotics can, under certain circumstances, exhibit some qualities commonly found among psychotics. It is also shown how he ascribes this theory to creativity and how the genetic and psychological traits of psychoticism and creativity are found to be greatly overlapping.

As I said above, this "psychoticism" is also balanced by something called "socialization." It is a diagnostic tool applied to a trait it is presumed everyone has in some degree.

Psychoticism and socialization are deployed with two other dimensions: extroversion and introversion, and neuroticism and stability. Taken together, these are all deployed in a multifactoral analysis testing for correlations between personality traits and political attitudes. 

I add that Colin DeYoung, one of the researchers who exposed the error, thinks that "psyochticism" is itself a poor term for what is measured here, which is really "impulsivity, nonconformity, and antisociality." (bottom of the first email in this chain http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2016/07/emails1.pdf.)

At this point, you should read the paper, at least the concluding discussion and "conclusion." The authors are not claiming that political party determines mental stability, nor does the correction correct that.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00568.x


Researchers in personality and politics have assumed

a causal link between personality traits and political

ideology. The results presented here do not support this

assumption. Rather, the primary connection between

personality traits and political ideology rests on common

genetic precursors of each. At this stage of research,

we find no support for the reigning assumption that

personality traits cause people to develop political

attitudes. Our results imply that humans are, at heart,

political animals. Political attitudes are not simply an

afterthought and while largely measured in adulthood,

the foundation elements exist as part of our core

disposition and appear to be just as important to shaping

our behavior as our personalities.

[*bfine32*]

(06-07-2019, 12:03 AM)Dill Wrote: The last half of your definition could fit. The first part encourages distortion.  Hence inadequate.

You were warned to "check definitions and read the paper." When you are discussing how terms are used in social science papers, that does not mean run to  dictionary. It means look at how the term in question is deployed in whatever theory is being used.

Don't read in sound bites--i.e. without examples and directions for application, or recognition of how the same terms can have different or shaded meanings in different disciplines and research projects. 

The main topic covered [in this paper] is Eysenck's view of psychoticism as a dimension of personality and temperament. Eysenck's theory of psychoticism is based on mostly physiological factors. It states that normal subjects who are not diagnosable psychotics can, under certain circumstances, exhibit some qualities commonly found among psychotics. It is also shown how he ascribes this theory to creativity and how the genetic and psychological traits of psychoticism and creativity are found to be greatly overlapping.

As I said above, this "psychoticism" is also balanced by something called "socialization." It is a diagnostic tool applied to a trait it is presumed everyone has in some degree.

Psychoticism and socialization are deployed with two other dimensions: extroversion and introversion, and neuroticism and stability. Taken together, these are all deployed in a multifactoral analysis testing for correlations between personality traits and political attitudes. 

I add that Colin DeYoung, one of the researchers who exposed the error, thinks that "psyochticism" is itself a poor term for what is measured here, which is really "impulsivity, nonconformity, and antisociality." (bottom of the first email in this chain http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2016/07/emails1.pdf.)

At this point, you should read the paper, at least the concluding discussion and "conclusion." The authors are not claiming that political party determines mental stability, nor does the correction correct that.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00568.x


Researchers in personality and politics have assumed

a causal link between personality traits and political

ideology. The results presented here do not support this

assumption. Rather, the primary connection between

personality traits and political ideology rests on common

genetic precursors of each. At this stage of research,

we find no support for the reigning assumption that

personality traits cause people to develop political

attitudes. Our results imply that humans are, at heart,

political animals. Political attitudes are not simply an

afterthought and while largely measured in adulthood,

the foundation elements exist as part of our core

disposition and appear to be just as important to shaping

our behavior as our personalities.

I read the definition I posted and the one you thought I should use and they were exactly the same.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Oh, jesus christ . . .  Talk about your fake news.

As has already been pointed out, psychotic is an adjective referring to psychosis or a psychotic disorder.  Psychosis is a symptom which usually involves delusions like seeing or hearing things which aren't there.  Psychotic disorders are medical conditions such as schizophrenia which feature psychosis as a prominent symptom.

Psychoticism is a personality trait in a personality model developed by Hans Eysenck.  Eysenck is famous for claiming 80% of adult intelligence is based upon race, there isn't a link between smoking and lung cancer, and there is a scientific basis between astrology and personality.

Yet, somehow we missed where the same New York Post author also quoted the research article claiming conservatives scored higher in neuroticism which allegedly makes them moody, fearful, angry, anxious and believe their life is being threatened in normal situations and are more prone to alcohol and drug abuse and addiction, anxiety disorders, conversion disorder, and phobias?  

And predictably, bfine is arguing psychotic and psychoticism mean the same thing just two days after posting this about definitions . . .

(06-04-2019, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree with this. Folks get too caught up in the treees (pun intended) around here and often totally disregard the forest. We must try to use definitions provided and it's why I usually they to cite them when questioned. The issue is many will go off half-cocked on your use of a certain word instead of seeking clarification and by following Rule #1 of PnR Forum they will double-down rather than admit to their Premature Exclamation.

As to the OP: Given Webster's definition: "favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions" I suppose it would depend on your view of the current state.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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. 

As stated in the NY Post article, they ran with it a whopping 45 times since 2012.

[Dill]

(06-07-2019, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I read the definition I posted and the one you thought I should use and they were exactly the same.

Well they do use some of the same WORDS. But then yours uses some other words too.

Here's your definition again: The condition or state of being psychotic or of being predisposed to develop psychosis; a scale in personality tests purporting to measure this.

Only the last part of that definition correlates to the term as used in the article. Notice the bolded. It speaks of a psychotic STATE, which would entail an inability to distinguish between reality and delusion. Not everyone is psychotic.  A STATE, not a TRAIT.

How is that "exactly the same" as psychoticism as a dimension of personality and temperament? A measurable trait everyone has? Was Eyneck's definition used to measure A STATE OF PSYCHOSIS in hundreds of subjects or a TRAIT? The extension of your dictionary definition is too wide for application to this matter. And I fixed that for you. But you still want to argue your definition is "exactly the same."

Crucially, do you understand how the term "psychoticism," by your or Eyneck's or anyone's defintion, is actually deployed in the article under discussion? Let's introduce your earlier statement about it.

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.

No article "painted it that way." I quoted for you the conclusion of the article. So I am guessing you do not understand how the term is used, and you have not even read the article. But that doesn't not stop you from making claims about it and contesting my correction with a dictionary definition. Which has the "same" words. 

This is not really very different from you commenting on the Mueller Report without having read it--because Barr told you what it says. Only in this case you let the New York Post read for you. 

What stays the same across these debates is your fixation on the first meaning thrown your way from a source you find authoritative, followed by your refusal to consider how context alters the meaning of words and actions by doing your own reading.  Once a word is spelled the same, it means the same--even in other definitions. The same, metaphorically speaking, for actions.  Throw up dust until someone goes down a side track of explanation. Only thing that remains now is posing that one question you'll claim no one answered. Then you're "done here."

[fredtoast]

Liberals are more tough minded than conservatives?

Liberals are defined by being progressive and welcoming change. Conservatives are weak minded and afraid of change.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-07-2019, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Only thing that remains now is posing that one question you'll claim no one answered. Then you're "done here."

A $715 billion defense budget doesn't buy the same quality trolling from civilian employee during business it once did back when America was great.

[*bfine32*]

(06-07-2019, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Well they do use some of the same WORDS. But then yours uses some other words too.

Here's your definition again: The condition or state of being psychotic or of being predisposed to develop psychosis; a scale in personality tests purporting to measure this.

Only the last part of that definition correlates to the term as used in the article. Notice the bolded. It speaks of a psychotic STATE, which would entail an inability to distinguish between reality and delusion. Not everyone is psychotic.  A STATE, not a TRAIT.

How is that "exactly the same" as psychoticism as a dimension of personality and temperament? A measurable trait everyone has? Was Eyneck's definition used to measure A STATE OF PSYCHOSIS in hundreds of subjects or a TRAIT? The extension of your dictionary definition is too wide for application to this matter. And I fixed that for you. But you still want to argue your definition is "exactly the same."

Crucially, do you understand how the term "psychoticism," by your or Eyneck's or anyone's defintion, is actually deployed in the article under discussion? Let's introduce your earlier statement about it.

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.

No article "painted it that way." I quoted for you the conclusion of the article. So I am guessing you do not understand how the term is used, and you have not even read the article. But that doesn't not stop you from making claims about it and contesting my correction with a dictionary definition. Which has the "same" words. 

This is not really very different from you commenting on the Mueller Report without having read it--because Barr told you what it says. Only in this case you let the New York Post read for you. 

What stays the same across these debates is your fixation on the first meaning thrown your way from a source you find authoritative, followed by your refusal to consider how context alters the meaning of words and actions by doing your own reading.  Once a word is spelled the same, it means the same--even in other definitions. The same, metaphorically speaking, for actions.  Throw up dust until someone goes down a side track of explanation. Only thing that remains now is posing that one question you'll claim no one answered. Then you're "done here."

Both the definition I provided and the definition you provided have been published. We'll just let folks determine if they are more similar or more different. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2019, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A $715 billion defense budget doesn't buy the same quality trolling from civilian employee during business it once did back when America was great.

Dude, you really need to get over me. I can only assume the mods are proud of themselves. 

[*bfine32*]

I must say: This thread proves the point more than any study. You guys are great

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-08-2019, 01:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I must say: This thread proves the point more than any study. You guys are great

No post indicates you still don't understand the definition of psychotic better.

[hollodero]

(06-08-2019, 01:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I must say: This thread proves the point more than any study. You guys are great

It is ridiculous to use a self-correcting study for anything to begin with, after the oops the only place it belongs is the trash bin anyway. If using the definitions of a guy who believes intelligence is correlated to race or the stars wasn't enough of an indicator. 
You're the one trying to use insistance and semantic games to indeed connect politics with mental insufficiencies and try to imply who is more crazy. And might it have been playful at first, now you do so quite directly in a pretty offensive way, reminding me of the time when you called Trump critics deranged. 
Whoever does that is just part of the bickering game and does not come out on top. Perceived superiority denied.

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2019, 06:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: It is ridiculous to use a self-correcting study for anything to begin with, after the oops the only place it belongs is the trash bin anyway. If using the definitions of a guy who believes intelligence is correlated to race or the stars wasn't enough of an indicator. 
You're the one trying to use insistance and semantic games to indeed connect politics with mental insufficiencies and try to imply who is more crazy. And might it have been playful at first, now you do so quite directly in a pretty offensive way, reminding me of the time when you called Trump critics deranged. 
Whoever does that is just part of the bickering game and does not come out on top. Perceived superiority denied.

Fair enough. I should not have pointed to posts in this thread to point to anyone's mental status. However, it does appear "thou doth protest too much".

The article in the OP was to show flaws in a published finding, but we got caught up in "psychotic versus psychoticism"

The definition I was told to use is " psychoticism states that a person will exhibit some qualities commonly found among psychotics, and that they may be more susceptible, given certain environments, to becoming psychotic." So can we just all agree that Liberal have a greater propensity to become psychotic?

[BmorePat87]

(06-08-2019, 06:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: It is ridiculous to use a self-correcting study for anything to begin with, after the oops the only place it belongs is the trash bin anyway. If using the definitions of a guy who believes intelligence is correlated to race or the stars wasn't enough of an indicator. 
You're the one trying to use insistance and semantic games to indeed connect politics with mental insufficiencies and try to imply who is more crazy. And might it have been playful at first, now you do so quite directly in a pretty offensive way, reminding me of the time when you called Trump critics deranged. 
Whoever does that is just part of the bickering game and does not come out on top. Perceived superiority denied.

The authors still argues that the study holds up in showing that personality traits alone do not determine our political views. You think the entire thing is junk?

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2019, 12:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The authors still argues that the study holds up in showing that personality traits alone do not determine our political views. You think the entire thing is junk?

Sure personality traits "alone" do not determine our political views. If that is what the study asserts than it's junk.

Does the study show Liberals are more propensed to be psychotic?

[BmorePat87]

(06-10-2019, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure personality traits "alone" do not determine our political views. If that is what the study asserts than it's junk.

It doesn't... that was stated way early in this thread.