insurgent outlier

[roberte]

Originally Posted by fugacity

You have no data analysis. You have opinions of other people.

The original article discusses the methodology of the data collection and analysis.

IF you want to argue the validity of their work, post it.

But it seems rather you want to attempt a swiping effort at a personal attack.

[roberte]

Originally Posted by FAADAN

Just a quick example off the top of my head, look at #5 and your UN human rights post.

from your source "You're actually owed "life, liberty,...."

So, your source agrees with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And the '56 Republican Party Platform

[fugacity]

Originally Posted by roberte

The original article discusses the methodology of the data collection and analysis.

IF you want to argue the validity of their work, post it.

But it seems rather you want to attempt a swiping effort at a personal attack.

I read it did you? It's a New Yorker article. The only mention to any of those people you mention is what you already copy/pasted here. Refers to "forthcoming book."

What are you referring to?

[roberte]

Originally Posted by fugacity

Same goes for you. All opinions.

There is no possiblilty of "proof" on this subject. So give up this high horse you think you're on.

But feel free to go on talking through your hat, and quoting people that are talking through theirs. We can discuss this without you trying to silence disagreement. But you have to accept your opinion is no more valid than somebody else's just because you can find a website or book where somebody else shares your oponion.

The data is discussed in the NYer article. You can go read the other articles if you feel the NYer article is misusing, being selective, or fraudulently citing that work.

Doing the research and developing an analysis is vastly different than forming an opinion then claiming that there is no need to review any literature on the subject.

[roberte]

Originally Posted by fugacity

I read it did you? It's a New Yorker article. The only mention to any of those people you mention is what you already copy/pasted here. Refers to "forthcoming book."

What are you referring to?

Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...#ixzz1nnqeaNyS

[fugacity]

Okay. Regardless of what they're claiming it's all subjective to the "center" and when if ever it was agreed on.

And if polarizaiton occurs, why is it assumed to be bad. Can a shift not be away from a status quo of bad ideas?

None of this could be considered hard data and shouldn't be treated as such.

[roberte]

Originally Posted by fugacity

Okay. Regardless of what they're claiming it's all subjective to the "center" and when if ever it was agreed on.

And if polarizaiton occurs, why is it assumed to be bad. Can a shift not be away from a status quo of bad ideas?

None of this could be considered hard data and shouldn't be treated as such.

Social Science research is, by its very nature, somewhat 'softer' than daily temps, etc. And, of course, is often more qualitative. But, you'll note, this work is pretty quantitative.

Of course, one can just make a 'shouldn't be treated' judgement and not bother to see if the trend holds true in other research:

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...politics.shtml



"To be able to read and write, therefore, is to learn to profit by and take part in the greatest of human achievements -- that which makes all other achievements possible --namely, the pooling of our experiences in great cooperative stores of knowledge, available [...] to all. From the warning cry of primitive man to the latest newsflash or scientific monograph, language is social. Cultural and intellectual cooperation is the great principle of human life." S.I. Hayakawa

[fugacity]

Originally Posted by roberte

Social Science research is, by its very nature, somewhat 'softer' than daily temps, etc. And, of course, is often more qualitative. But, you'll note, this work is pretty quantitative.

Of course, one can just make a 'shouldn't be treated' judgement and not bother to see if the trend holds true in other research:

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...politics.shtml



"To be able to read and write, therefore, is to learn to profit by and take part in the greatest of human achievements -- that which makes all other achievements possible --namely, the pooling of our experiences in great cooperative stores of knowledge, available [...] to all. From the warning cry of primitive man to the latest newsflash or scientific monograph, language is social. Cultural and intellectual cooperation is the great principle of human life." S.I. Hayakawa

So what? If you can take that kind of "study" seriously then go ahead and eat it up. It's so soft that you could put your favorite spin on it.

It wouldn't be hard to do a study to show that since WWI America has been heavily influenced by progressives in both existing parties, that by the time 1975 came around there was no conservative party. So what sense does center make.

Bottom line for me is that this is cheerleading for your side. It doesn't do anything meaningful besides increase polarization and make you feel good if you are more on the left to start with. If that's your thing great. But it's ultimately just 'my party's better than your party."

[roberte]

Originally Posted by fugacity

So what? If you can take that kind of "study" seriously then go ahead and eat it up. It's so soft that you could put your favorite spin on it.

Of course, if, IF, you have something to show that shows them to be inaccurate, we'd love to see it.

Not liking the findings and thus 'poo-pooing' the concept of "that kind of "study" " is far different from actually showing the study to be invalid.


Basically, the argument you are presenting holds little weight beyond the opinion it is based on.

[fugacity]

Originally Posted by roberte

Of course, if, IF, you have something to show that shows them to be inaccurate, we'd love to see it.

Not liking the findings and thus 'poo-pooing' the concept of "that kind of "study" " is far different from actually showing the study to be invalid.


Basically, the argument you are presenting holds little weight beyond the opinion it is based on.

Keep patting yourself on the back. Nobody here has had any appreciation for this nonsense. That should tell you something.

If somebody came up with a garbage study that contradicted your garbage study, it wouldn't be worth posting. It's just a cheerleading contest.

I could post glen beck stuff for you all day long. It would be well studied and cited. It wouldn't mean anything to you. It would boil down to who thinks the center is where. It's fruitless.