2011
2012

Social ScienceConservatives are less interested than liberals in viewing novel scientific data and are more skeptical about the value of science (uanews.ua.edu)

shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Rizzo41999 1216ポイント1217ポイント x2 (288子コメント)

I can't stand how people can only be either a conservative or a liberal. You say something remotely "progressive," oh you must be a liberal. You say something remotely "regressive" oh you must be a conservative. It's not good. A very limited way to look at humanity

[–]PhreakOfTime 398ポイント399ポイント  (97子コメント)

Even worse, people will self-identify as one or the other.

It's not that people can only be one of the other, it's that some people WANT to be only one or the other.

[–]Law_Student [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Group identification is a powerful aspect of human psychology, and the necessary precursor to the terrible problem of in group/out group bias.

[–]sorceryofthetesticle [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

No, it's because humans operate on heuristics. How many people do you know who are intelligent, insightful, articulate and willing enough to take the time to flesh out nuanced opinions regarding anything? People generally restrict themselves to broad linguistic categories because they have to/are designed to.

[–]Googlesnarks [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

how are what you're saying and what he's saying mutually exclusive?

you started your comment off with "no" when it seems more like it should start with "and also", to me.

[–]tdreager [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Starting off with 'no' is a trait of people its very hard to flesh out an argument with cause they frame eveything in opposition to your viewpoint which clogs up your thought process. I wish ppl wouldn't do that.

[–]wearywarrior [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This sort of repression irritates me. I have an opinion on everything I've ever interacted with. When new evidence is presented that shows my opinion is inaccurate, I revise it to reflect the new data. I don't get mad. I simply change my mind and carry on.

How can you ever expect to be actually educated if you constantly reject new evidence? How can you NOT have an opinion? That actually just blows me away. That people are happier without forming opinions on things sometimes. That they "don't want to know". Weird.

コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

    [–]MarsupialMadness [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    It's unfortunate for sure. It leaves little room for those of us on the outliers.

    I'm more left-leaning but have some more right-wing beliefs that make most of my more liberal-minded friends so mad they could shit.

    [–]Falsecaster [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

    Tribal mentality. Pick a group, belong to a team. Football operates on the same line.

    コメントをもっと表示する (27 返事)

      [–]poochyenarulez 65ポイント66ポイント  (10子コメント)

      What annoys me the most about that is, if you hold both left and right wing values, on a scale, it makes you more of a "centerist", and most people view people in the middle as people who just don't care much about politics or have no real strong opinions.

      [–]DarthCluck [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

      In my experience, people view centrists and the "enemy party." People tend to see liberal as "left of me" as opposed to "left of center" and conservative as "right of me." Centrists tend to be left of everyone, and right of everyone else.

      [–]headdownworking [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

      This is my life. I went to one of the most conservative public uni's in the states. All my friends considered me a raging lib. My family is very left, they all refer to me as the family's young republican. :(

      [–]DrWalsohv [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      The sad life of a centrist. And God forbid you point out that perhaps, just maybe, both sides have good ideas and bad ideas or you won't hear the end of it from either party

      [–]hawkeyeonthejob [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Well, part of that issue with the left/right notation is that the center changes based on where you are. The US is right of the global center and Scandinavia is left of the global center. Someone left of center in the US might be right of center in Norway.

      コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

        [–]wildism [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        That's not really how it works, though. I know you're probably exaggerating for effect, but I'm gonna have to say a lot more than one "remotely progressive" thing for my friends to call me a progressive.

        It's more like how height works. There are short people and there are tall people, and it's okay to use that dichotomy --- but in reality we know it's a spectrum and there is some gray area.

        That doesn't seem that limiting to me.

        [–]Miravus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        Thank you for posting this. I felt the same way, but didn't know quite how to express it. I think the height analogy is pretty spot on, here!

        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

          [–]Sacamato 31ポイント32ポイント  (55子コメント)

          It's kind of funny that you used "aggressive", so maybe you did it on purpose, but the opposite of progressive is regressive. Although "regressive" is often used to describe conservatives pejoratively, so they might not like being called that.

          [–]doubtfulmagician 45ポイント46ポイント  (36子コメント)

          The terms "liberal", "progressive", "conservative" aren't necessarily consistent with their classical definition when used as political labels.

          [–]emporras [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          And neither represent their respective classical values. Liberalism and classical liberalism are very different movements.

          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (18 返事)

              [–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics[S] 35ポイント36ポイント  (31子コメント)

              The study participants were ranked on a political orientation scale that ranged from 0-6 based on their responses to a survey (lower = conservative, higher = liberal).

              [–]I_Tichy [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

              Unfortunately, in the real world, we only have access to two parties. Understanding the psychology of the members of those political paradigms is valuable whether or not you or I personally associate with them.

              コメントをもっと表示する (77 返事)

                [–]engrgradstudent 673ポイント674ポイント  (44子コメント)

                From the paper's discussion:

                Currently, conclusive statements about whether conservatives are less interested in data on non-political issues would be premature. The present data seem to provide tentative evidence for a small association between liberalism and greater interest in non-political data.

                i.e. The headline of this post is sensationalistic.

                Here are the methodologies for participant selection in each of the 3 studies. (Drawing generalizations from populations that may not be representative is a pet peeve of mine.)

                Study1

                A total of 227 undergraduate psychology students at the University of Alabama (140 females, Mage = 19.60 years, SDage = 2.52) participated for course credit.

                Study2

                A total of 198 undergraduate psychology students at the University of California Berkeley (157 females, Mage = 21.34 years, SDage = 3.20) completed the study for course credit.

                Study3

                A total of 605 mTurk workers (311 females, Mage = 37.88 years, SDage = 13.21) completed the study for monetary compensation ($0.40).

                [–]superhelicalGrad Student | Biochemistry | Structural Biology 159ポイント160ポイント  (13子コメント)

                Your first quote is presented somewhat out of context:

                The consistency of the association between liberalism and increased data selection across all three studies lends credence to the possibility that this finding may apply to a range of political issues. Currently, conclusive statements about whether conservatives are less interested in data on non-political issues would be premature. The present data seem to provide tentative evidence for a small association between liberalism and greater interest in non-political data.

                That is, the data supports the influence of political ideology on political issues, but is not so clear for non-political issues. That certainly would make sense. One would expect larger effect sizes for the effect of ideology on political issues.

                [–]therealdrg 18ポイント19ポイント  (8子コメント)

                Since the majority of respondents to this study were female, I think you could just as easily say that female conservatives are less interested. I dont think its fair to make any conclusion from the data they have, but you could easily say it.

                [–]superhelicalGrad Student | Biochemistry | Structural Biology 19ポイント20ポイント  (6子コメント)

                Yes, it would be interesting to see if there is a gendered difference in the effect. As far as I can tell, this wasn't carried out, presumably because of lack of statistical power.

                I don't think it's justified to reject the findings just from the demographics alone, unless you can provide priors to indicate that you expect a gendered difference.

                Lastly, I hope you would apply the same rigour toward any study that contains primarily male respondents, as well.

                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                  [–]PM_ME_YOUR_FAV_PIZZA [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                  Look at the topic selection for the data sets... it's a slanted study.

                  [–]woodchuck64 62ポイント63ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  Despite the upvotes, I think the subsequent discussion shows clearly that your critique is mistaken. I hope you correct/update it.

                  i.e. The headline of this post is sensationalistic.

                  Here, you used discussion of non-political results to wrongly apply to political results. The headline is reasonably accurate as a glance at the article's conclusion shows:

                  Overall, our results suggest that there is something about a conservative political outlook – rather than any extreme political outlook, or any minority political view – that is associated with relative avoidance of new empirical data. These findings may speak more broadly to how liberals and conservatives differ with respect to the decision-making strategies or information gathering they deem most relevant when making a judgment. It seems to be the case that conservatives and liberals are divided as to the evidentiary value of science, and as a consequence conservatives are simply less interested in viewing scientific data than are their liberal counterparts.

                  In your critique of participant selection, it is not clear that you identify any issues or address anything the study's authors haven't already. From the paper:

                  We hoped to increase the generalizability of our findings in another way as well: by assessing these effects in a variety of samples. We conducted Studies 1 and 2 in two politically distinct regions of the United States, the South and the West Coast. Our observation that liberalism is associated with greater data selection in both traditionally conservative and traditionally liberal regions of the country suggest that interest in novel data is not simply a correlate of being a political minority. In other words, there appears to be something about being liberal, rather than being a political outlier, that is associated with greater interest in novel data. In addition, we conducted Study 3 in a non-student sample, in order to ensure that our findings were not unique to that demographic category. We observed the same association between political orientation and data selection in this sample, suggesting that our findings may generalize to a broader population.

                  [–]HOLDINtheACES 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  I would imagine that pulling from only Psychology majors adds it's own issues to the samples from study 1 and study 2.

                  For instance, every psychology major that I met in college was a devout liberal.

                  [–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics[S] 21ポイント22ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  If you looked at the actual paper, you'd see that the average political orientation was fairly moderate:

                  Pilot (University of Alabama) : The mean response for political orientation was M = 2.68, SD = 0.96, corresponding to a response that falls between 2 = "slightly conservative" and 3 = "moderate."

                  Study 1 (University of Alabama): The mean response for political orientation was M = 2.68, SD = 1.02, corresponding to a response that falls between 2 = "slightly conservative" and 3 = "moderate."

                  Study 2 (UC Berkeley): The mean response for political orientation was M = 3.53, SD = 0.80, corresponding to a response that falls between 3 = "moderate" and 4 = "slightly liberal."

                  Study 3 (mTurk): The mean response for political orientation was M = 3.19, SD = 1.14, corresponding to a response that falls between 3 = "moderate" and 4 = "slightly liberal."

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    コメントをもっと表示する (21 返事)

                      [–]moore-doubleo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      "...on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media."

                      Seems to me that the topics might have biased the results. Meaning maybe the issue isn't that conservatives are less interested in scientific data in general (as suggested) but for these particular topics.

                      [–]BdaMann 119ポイント120ポイント  (110子コメント)

                      Why is skepticism always considered to be such a negative trait? Isn't the whole point of science to be skeptical?

                      [–]YoungKeezey 255ポイント256ポイント  (68子コメント)

                      There's being skeptical of scientific findings and then there's "skeptical about the value of science". The first is often praised because it helps us look at findings with a critical eye. The second is less desirable because it can lead someone to dismiss or disregard something because it comes from a scientific study.

                      [–]LyricalCleric 123ポイント124ポイント  (65子コメント)

                      Considering that most psychological studies are under severe criticism for lack of replicability:

                      https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggests-most-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results

                      ...and that universities have an overwhelmingly liberal political base:

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

                      ...it's not surprising that conservatives would be skeptical of institutions who unabashedly practice ideological homogenization and promote every kind of diversity except diversity of political opinion. There are universities where you will lose your JOB if you post the "wrong" kind of opinion on social media, or where you will find yourself ostracized from the academic community if you don't agree to politicized shibboleths of the liberal elite. Now I'm assuming you're liberal, just for sake of argument; would you not be "skeptical" of any results that come from purely conservative institutions, where only conservative political opinions are taken seriously, and for which only conservative opinions about race, gender, sexuality, abortion, sexual identity, marriage, and family life are accepted? Of course you would.

                      [–]InternetKingTheKing 31ポイント32ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      What you've described isn't the science you should be listening to. If it isn''t replicated and peer reviewed, then it isn't a good study and it sure as shit isn't science. Anyone can make a study and anyone can label anything as science. If your "study" is done on 13 people over the course of 1 month, it's definitely not reliable. And if you're basing your skepticism of science of psychology alone (one of the most ridiculous and ignorant fields of science), then you're an idiot.

                      Oh and here's some quotes from your own article: "The study, however, describes this finding as "preliminary."" "It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

                      Not to mention a whole other host of variables that go into reasons why liberals are more present in schools than conservatives. You know, like basic facts like liberal vs. conservative study majors. More conservatives do degrees in business and the like while more liberals pursue an academic/teaching/liberal arts route. Of course there are going to be more of them at colleges because there are way more applying.

                      [–]stealthd 58ポイント59ポイント  (22子コメント)

                      Being skeptical of modern psychology or left-leaning institutions is not the same things as being skeptical of science itself. The scientist may have a bias, but the scientific method is completely apolitical.

                      [–]Gopher_Broke [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                      This is a very shaky assertion. You're acting like there's some Platonic form of science out there, but "science itself" cannot be separated from science as an institution/series of institutions in the real world.

                      [–]LyricalCleric 13ポイント14ポイント  (12子コメント)

                      I would not disagree with that, but where is the science without the grant money? If data can be discounted by a conservative think-tank because conservative money is involved somehow, why can't data by overwhelmingly liberal universities with liberal corporate donors be discounted? When do we selectively choose which bias to discount?

                      [–]UncleMeatGrad Student|Security|Programming Languages [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                      with liberal corporate donors

                      Where do you think grant money comes from? Its almost exclusively government money.

                      [–]lolbbqstain [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                      You don't discount research as biased unless the scientific method used was flawed/biased in some way

                      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                        コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

                          [–]Narian 38ポイント39ポイント  (13子コメント)

                          You just proved his point - you're not skeptical of the results but of the process itself.

                          conservative opinions about race, gender, sexuality, abortion, sexual identity, marriage, and family life are accepted?

                          Are these conservative opinions formed based on perceived factual study or analysis or gut-level thinking (ie. feels)?

                          [–]YoungKeezey 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

                          I have no idea what you are trying to get at.

                          Any person who is practicing proper skepticism for the results of a scientific finding would be able to find any biases that would make it into a paper (these biases may be well hidden, and it may take effort, but I believe that those practiced in critiques of papers can achieve this). Skepticism of an entire methodology of investigation (which is what the article is talking about) because of who is practicing those methods will not help anyone in parsing through what is and isn't biased.

                          And yes, I would be skeptical of results that came from purely conservative institutions because I'm skeptical of results from all institutions. My skepticism comes from the understanding that all scientists are capable of introducing biases, intentionally or not, and not from some ad hominem fear of who is publishing the paper.

                          [–]grinr 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          I didn't read in that article that the participants were asked about their confidence in the value of scientific method. What I did read was that different groups hold different confidence levels for the value of scientific data. As they appear to be drawing conclusions about the former from the responses about the latter, I don't see a great deal of value in this study.

                          Given their assertion, perhaps this makes me a conservative?

                          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                            [–]Falsus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                            Considering that most psychological studies are under severe criticism for lack of replicability:

                            But that goes for a lot of fields. In a study that was released half a year ago or something like that Psychology good at replicabillity compared to a few others more reputed and respected fields.

                            コメントをもっと表示する (19 返事)

                              コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                [–]Krazikarl2 52ポイント53ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                Skepticism in the sense that you want to examine all the evidence is generally good.

                                Skepticism in the sense that you dismiss all the evidence out of hand is generally bad.

                                Given that conservatives were often unwilling to even read the studies, that falls into the "bad skepticism" category.

                                [–]Rhinovirus 18ポイント19ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                I think cynicism may be a more fitting word than skepticism.

                                [–]paul_33 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                It's a little more than cynicism when you outright dismiss facts put right in front of your face. Muzzling scientists for one thing is utterly baffling.

                                [–]OrbitRock [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

                                I have an anecdote here, and if this is against the rules you can remove it.

                                My father is very conservative. He cooks chicken a lot for us. Recently I showed him the research that you should not wash chicken before cooking it, because it just spreads germs all over the whole area. He gets angry at this, and forcibly says "no, this is how we have always done it". So I proceed to Google the matter and show him headline after headline, article after article, all proclaiming that you should NOT wash your raw chicken. He refuses to accept this. He gets angry and expresses his skepticism of "the internet" telling him what to do. I tell him that it is in fact, microbiologists who have studied this. I explain in detail how the germs become airborne as the water hits the chicken. This just makes him angrier. "I used to be a meatcutter, I don't care what these scientists have to say, I know what I'm doing". Ultimately, there is no convincing him. I tell him every single time that he cooks chicken now that he's potentially exposing us all to salmonella. He doesn't care.

                                This, the refusal to accept global warming, and things of that nature, it does lead me to believe there's something to this headline, that maybe something in the conservative sort of psychology just has a fundamental mistrust of new and nontraditional information.

                                [–]blippyz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                From his perspective, he probably thinks "well, I've done this 5,000 times in my life, and it worked fine every time, so I might as well just stick with the way I do it," which in a way does make sense.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                  [–]AndAnAlbatross [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                  So glad to see someone beat me to this. I couldn't contain myself though. --

                                  https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4snsp6/conservatives_are_less_interested_than_liberals/d5b3372

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                    [–]cmumford 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                    I agree with you, but wouldn't make your last assertion an absolute one. For example, if you didn't read a "scientific" paper claiming that smoking isn't really that bad for you, which was funded by Philip Morris (a tobacco company), that may not qualify as "bad skepticism". I think it's reasonable to associate some credibility to scientific studies with the credibility of their authors/institutions.

                                    [–]CrushHazard 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I think it's reasonable to associate some credibility to scientific studies with the credibility of the authors/institutions.

                                    Only if that credibility is based on past performance and not just perceived credibility.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                      [–]samwisesmokedadro 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                      Skepticism is a good thing when you're educated on the subject matter and understand where the technical faults may be. It's also good to be skeptical of how journalists, whom lack a scientific background, may be misinterpreting or sensationalizing research in their work. However being outright skeptical of scientist's work is not a good trait.

                                      This is a huge issue when it comes to climate science and how the mainstream American conservative position is to deny the climate scientist's research with off hand skepticism. At its worst, it's a downright conspiracy theory that climate scientists are making up anthropomorphic caused climate change so that governments can exhibit more control over their populations.

                                      [–]Phallasaurus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                      Eh, telling me that research doesn't have funding by donors with an agenda would have me questioning your own motives and unwilling to trust you with a dog I didn't particularly like.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                        [–]xkforce 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        It depends on why the skepticism exists. Being skeptical of homoeopathy because there is no evidence that supports its efficasy is good. Being skeptical of global warming not because of the evidence but because of the political implications of it being true is bad.

                                        [–]Mech9k 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                        Isn't the whole point of science to be skeptical?

                                        Now tell me how that is relatable to be skeptical of science itself?

                                        That is pretty damn dense to be skeptical of science. Given it's proven results.

                                        [–]emoshortz 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                        A lot of modern science really just leads us to ask the next appropriate questions to investigate in the topic being studied. Research is never complete in any field because we keep finding "new problems to solve" and "new methods to approach old problems". Science is the best!

                                        Edit: removed a space.

                                        [–]Sine_Habitus 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                        It depends on how the questions were phrased.

                                        A lot of "science" doesn't have proven results, but is a lot of speculation

                                        [–]TomSwirly [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                        Science and technology come as a package - you can't have one without the other - and technology has given us a lot, but has also given us pollution and climate change.

                                        Everyone should be skeptical about almost everything. But "skepticism" is not the right word for what what we're seeing from the Republican party at least - rather, it is a complete and near-psychopathic disregard for hard facts.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                          [–]Dr_Herbert_Wangus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                          You're confusing skepticism with willful ignorance. Or perhaps you're exhibiting willful ignorance.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

                                            [–]AndAnAlbatross [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                            Obligatory: wish they didn't use the word skeptical.

                                            The current skeptical movement is firmly aligned with science. Calling deniers "skeptics" is a weird and annoying obstacle that doesn't really have a solid philosophical or historical grounding.

                                            The people who have a low appraisal of science are not skeptical in a literal sense. They don't have a reasoned or thoughtful doubt about what it can do. They don't even have legitimate criticisms. They simply have a low appraisal. That's a value question and it's more correct to say they're cynical towards science.

                                            [–]Skepticism4all [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                            I love how r/science has turned into a conservative hate group.

                                            [–]maxxmurrax 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            I would like to see the same study in regards to empathy in general.

                                            [–]shirukenGrad Student | Biomedical Engineering | Neurophotonics[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            Tullett, A. M., Hart, W. P., Feinberg, M., Fetterman, Z. J. & Gottlieb, S. Is ideology the enemy of inquiry? Examining the link between political orientation and lack of interest in novel data. Journal of Research in Personality 63, 123–132 (2016).

                                            Highlights

                                            • The relationship between political orientation and data selection is examined.
                                            • More conservative participants chose to view less novel, empirical data.
                                            • This relationship is partly accounted for by conservatives’ skepticism about science.

                                            Abstract: Four studies examined the relationship between political orientation and data selection. In each study participants were given the opportunity to select data from a large data set addressing a specific issue: the justness of the world (Pilot Study), the efficacy of social safety nets (Studies 1–3), and the benefits of social media (Study 3). Participants were given no knowledge of what the data would tell them in advance. More conservative participants selected less data, and in Study 3 this relationship was partly accounted for by an increased tendency to question the value of science as a way of learning about the world. These findings may reveal one factor contributing to political polarization: an asymmetrical interest in scientific data.

                                            [–]grinr 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                            In three separate studies, Tullett and colleagues offered participants in both the Deep South and West Coast a chance to view data on three topics: the justness of the world, the efficacy of social safety nets and the benefits of social media. Participants were given no advanced knowledge of what the data would tell them. Tullett found that conservatives were less interested in viewing empirical data than liberals in all three studies. Moreover, conservatives were more skeptical about the value of science compared with liberals. These differences suggest that conservatives and liberals may differ with respect to the kinds of information they find persuasive in the context of political debate, Tullett said.

                                            I didn't read in that article that the participants were asked about their confidence in the value of scientific method. What I did read was that different groups hold different confidence levels for the value of scientific data. As they appear to be drawing conclusions about the former from the responses about the latter, I don't see a great deal of value in this study.

                                            Given their assertion, perhaps this makes me a conservative?

                                            [–]cheertina 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                            You've written off the study based on an article about that study that doesn't give enough details on the method? I don't know about "conservative" but you sound pretty lazy.

                                            Abstract

                                            Four studies examined the relationship between political orientation and data selection. In each study participants were given the opportunity to select data from a large data set addressing a specific issue: the justness of the world (Pilot Study), the efficacy of social safety nets (Studies 1-3), and the benefits of social media (Study 3). Participants were given no knowledge of what the data would tell them in advance. More conservative participants selected less data, and in Study 3 this relationship was partly accounted for by an increased tendency to question the value of science as a way of learning about the world. These findings may reveal one factor contributing to political polarization: an asymmetrical interest in scientific data.

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (205 返事)