Monday, September 17, 2007

Shocker !! NYU Study Finds Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives....


I'm just going to post this article that I read today on Slate.com, and you let me know what you think - or even if this makes sense.....
Liberal InterpretationRigging a study to make conservatives look stupid.
By William Saletan Posted Friday, Sept. 14, 2007, at 9:28 AM ET

Are liberals smarter than conservatives?
It looks that way, according to a study published this week in Nature Neuroscience. In a rapid response test—you press a button if you're given one signal, but not if you're given a different signal—the authors found that conservatives were "more likely to make errors of commission," whereas "stronger liberalism was correlated with greater accuracy." They concluded that "a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change."

Does this mean liberal brains are fitter? Apparently. "Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty," the authors wrote. New York University, which helped fund the study, concluded, "Liberals are more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses." The study's lead author, NYU professor David Amodio, told London's Daily Telegraph that "liberals tended to be more sensitive and responsive to information that might conflict with their habitual way of thinking."


Habitual way of thinking. Informational complexity. Need to change. Those are sweeping terms. They imply that conservatives, on average, are adaptively weaker at thinking, not just button-pushing. And that implication has permeated the press. The Los Angeles Times told readers that the study "suggests that liberals are more adaptable than conservatives" and "might be better judges of the facts." Agence France Presse reported that conservatives in the study "were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits 'despite signals that this ... should be changed.' " The Guardian asserted, "Scientists have found that the brains of people calling themselves liberals are more able to handle conflicting and unexpected information."
These reports convey four interwoven claims. First, conservatives cling more inflexibly to old ways of thinking. Second, they're less responsive to information. Third, they're more obtuse to complexity and ambiguity. Fourth, they're less likely to change when the evidence says they should.
Let's take the claims one by one.

1. Habitual ways of thinking. Here's what the experiment actually entailed, according to the authors' supplementary document:
[E]ither the letter "M" or "W" was presented in the center of a computer monitor screen. … Half of the participants were instructed to make a "Go" response when they saw "M" but to make no response when they saw "W"; the remaining participants completed a version in which "W" was the Go stimulus and "M" was the No–Go stimulus. … Responses were registered on a computer keyboard placed in the participants' laps. … Participants received a two-minute break halfway through the task, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Fifteen minutes is a habit? Tapping a keyboard is a way of thinking? Come on. You can make a case for conservative inflexibility, but not with this study.

2. Responsiveness to information. Again, let's consult the supplementary document:
Each trial began with a fixation point, presented for 500 ms. The target then appeared for 100 ms, followed by a blank screen. Participants were instructed to respond within 500 ms of target onset. A "Too slow!" warning message appeared after responses that exceeded this deadline, and "Incorrect" feedback was given after erroneous responses.
An "ms"—millisecond—is one-thousandth of a second. That means participants had one-tenth of a second to look at the letter and another four-tenths of a second to hit the button. One letter, one-tenth of a second. This is "information"?
3. Complexity and ambiguity. Go back and look at the first word of the excerpt from the supplementary document. The word is either. Participants were shown an M or a W. No complexity, no ambiguity. You could argue that showing them a series of M's and then surprising them with a W injects some complexity and ambiguity. But that complexity is crushed by the simplicity of the letter choice and the split-second deadline.
Time to interject here folks......... Is making sense to anyone?? Personally, I think anyone who submitted to this test should be disqualified for being an idiot...... Let's just take a bunch of Liberals and Conservatives and make them hit a feeder bar while watching Hannity & Colmes. Just another example of colleges wasting your tuition money.
.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let me see, reading between the lines of academic excrementivorous balderdash, a test that measures ones reactions to their feelings, and expects immediate, Pavlovian responses, subjectively offers that these folks must be smarter because the researchers feel that should be the conclusion...

No wonder that so much of the "scientific" research being produced in the US is hogwash and smells like the feed lots of Eastern NC. Someone that "feels your pain", yet quantitatively (from research by East North Carolina Mensa, if I recall correctly) was not in the top 2% of the nations IQs (from publically available info, WJC's SAT and GRE scores being the reference) is painted as smarter than J Danforth Quayle (actually qualifying, based on ASVAB or the officer qualifying equivalent, for several higher IQ groups top 1% or better).

Mike these are the same folks that snicker at the Hollywood depiction of high IQs in Weird Science, Revenge of the Nerds, Real Genius, et al. as nerds not the McGyvers or Schwartzkopfs of the world.

Remember that the next time the Main Stream Media gushes over "The Smartest Woman in the World", though she couldn't keep Slick's zipped.

I doubt that it is colleges wasting tuition money, rather pools of funding being wasted on imbicles running bogus research.

Thoroughbred 401k said...

I agree on Hollywood's opinion. After all, Lazslo Holyfeld was able to manipulate the Frito-Lay Sweepstakes, and he got the motorhome and 68% of all the prizes. Cool... yes, Real Genius was played almost daily on Campus TV in college.

earlcapps said...

I loved that movie!

Val Kilmer's character in that movie is one of my role models.

Anonymous said...

bobby, the zombies are the ones that aren't aware of election day beyond the can't buy beer. The mind numbed robots are still looking for the straight party lever, though that bespeaks the state literacy test (might actually have been a county literacy test in Richland county) that if you recognized the "Big D" on the lever that made your vote count and the other lever that opened the curtain, you were adequately literate to cast a ballot, even if one is only able to make "their mark" on the voter's roll (and the provision for a witnessed mark remains in the poll manager's handbook).