06-10-2019, 07:08 PM
(06-10-2019, 04:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do folks keep bringing up:
Yet omit the very next line
So the dude that found the errors says they matter, but the folks that made the error says they do not.
I get nobody wants to be a member of a population that may be more propensed to being psychotic, but after the errors were pointed out, that's exactly what the paper points to:
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.
To be honest you guys were doing better arguing the semantics
No one was arguing semantics except you. Rather, everyone is correcting your mistaken and misguided semantics argument. This quote is from the authors:
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.
The traits in bold aren't related to being psychotic. Neither is authoritarianism.
Plus the original study looked at whether there is a causal relationship between personality and political ideology. Their conclusion is that there isn't a causal relationship; meaning psychotocism (not to be confused with psychotic) doesn't cause an individual to be liberal or conservative. What the authors got wrong were the descriptions for the traits such as reversing the description of psychoticism with neuroticism and vice versa. That error does not indicate liberals are more prone to be psychotic as suggested by the NY Post. Or that conservatives are more prone to be neurotic. If anything the errors indicate this isn't a study you want to hang your hat on as you are doing. I'm actually shocked I need to explain this more than once even though I know exactly with whom I'm dealing with.
