Topic: Low IQ & Liberal Beliefs Linked To Poor Research
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #79,187
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #923,215
Nice blog post, pahaha. Did you read beyond the abstract yet?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #923,219
Watch out Sam Harris, Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University are giving you competition for the worst use of statistics in an original paper.
Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics.
Hodson and Busseri on are track to beat out Harris’s magnificent effort, and they might also triumph over the paper which “proved” brief exposure to the American flag turns one into a Republican and the peer-reviewed work “proving” exposure to 4th of July parade turns one into a Republican.
Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics.
Hodson and Busseri on are track to beat out Harris’s magnificent effort, and they might also triumph over the paper which “proved” brief exposure to the American flag turns one into a Republican and the peer-reviewed work “proving” exposure to 4th of July parade turns one into a Republican.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #923,222
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #923,224
Anonymous B replied with this 7 years ago, 34 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #923,225
@923,222 (C)
Yes. It's a blog post OP adorably found via Google, because he didn't want to respond to the study (beyond skimming the abstract) and form any thoughts himself.
Yes. It's a blog post OP adorably found via Google, because he didn't want to respond to the study (beyond skimming the abstract) and form any thoughts himself.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #923,249
@previous (B)
What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. Utterly trivial; close enough to no effect to be no effect, their results statistically “significant” only because of the massive sample size.
The effect size for “conservative ideology” directly predicting “racism” is higher (0.69 and 0.51). But all that means is that the questions the authors picked for these two attitudes are roughly correlated with one another. In other words, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me” is crudely correlated with “I
wouldn’t mind working with people from other races” and so forth.
Yet the authors have the temerity to conclude, “These results from large, nationally representative data sets
provide converging evidence that lower g in childhood predicts greater prejudice in adulthood and, furthermore, that socially conservative ideology mediates much of this effect.”
Truly, statistics can “prove” anything.
The effect size for “conservative ideology” directly predicting “racism” is higher (0.69 and 0.51). But all that means is that the questions the authors picked for these two attitudes are roughly correlated with one another. In other words, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me” is crudely correlated with “I
wouldn’t mind working with people from other races” and so forth.
Yet the authors have the temerity to conclude, “These results from large, nationally representative data sets
provide converging evidence that lower g in childhood predicts greater prejudice in adulthood and, furthermore, that socially conservative ideology mediates much of this effect.”
Truly, statistics can “prove” anything.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #923,253
@previous (A)
> What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women
this, sentence, is, hell,,,,,
> What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women
this, sentence, is, hell,,,,,
(Edited 38 seconds later.)