Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic NYP

The #walkaway thing didn’t work out so well for you, huh?

Please link to the peer reviewed journal article in which this was published. I am interested in seeing their research design and data. I’d also like to see how an actual scientist applied a medical diagnosis to a political affiliation. Thanks!

Statics say conservatives, not liberals, commit the vast majority of mass shootings.

Oh, Lordy, that article!

Where, oh where, oh where to start....

Even just pondering all the dozens of starting possibilities might launch me into a full on psychotic “psychoticism” break.


(Apologies to anybody here who actually suffers from psychosis, but my guess is everybody is going to see the humor in this doozy.) 


~AmeliaBloomer
Psychoticistic 

So you didn’t read the article I take it.  So how do you know if the story is factual or the Post is spinning it?  I mean usually in the story there  is a link to the article they are writing the story about.  Well at least reputable news organizations do.

Like I said once before, Russian Bots and right wing conspiracy theorist must have you on speed dial.

Leave it to Rainbow not to investigate first before posting. All she cares about is that there’s a lurid anti-Liberal title that doesn’t even correctly represent the paper being mentioned in a rag that’s pro-Trump.

Pete Hatemi, a political scientist at Penn State University and co-author on three of the papers, explained why the swapped political beliefs and personality traits do not affect the conclusions: We only cared about the magnitude of the relationship and the source of it … None of our papers actually give a damn about whether it’s plus or minus.

When we asked Hatemi to elaborate on what that magnitude was — how much more likely were people who held conservative or liberal views to exhibit certain traits? — he said: [T]he correlations are spurious, so the direction or even magnitude is not suitable to elaborate on at all- that’s the point of all our papers and the general findings.

We (RetractionWatch) turned to Andrew Gelman, a statistician at Columbia not involved with the work, to explain the AJPS paper to us. He said: I don’t find this paper at all convincing, indeed I’m surprised it was accepted for publication by a leading political science journal. The causal analysis doesn’t make any sense to me, and some of the things they do are just bizarre, like declaring that correlations are “large enough for further consideration” if they are more than 0.2 for both sexes. Where does that come from? The whole thing is a mess.

(Source: RetractionWatch)

Well, in all fairness to bunny, trump did tell her/them that he “had a natural instinct for science” so I’m sure she’s lapping it up like a good sheeple would.

Well, I think the look on this jello’s face says it all.

She just never quits 🙄