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

[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