logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-06 04:23:21 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the IRC chat feature.

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Philosophy & Religion

  On Fascism
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: On Fascism  (Read 1163 times)
Kharin
Archon
***

Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.46
Rate Kharin



In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
On Fascism
« on: 2003-08-13 17:30:38 »
Reply with quote


Leaving aside the controversial aspects, this seems quite interesting to me, particularly if you take my comments at http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/OnFascism into account. Also  note the reference to dogmatism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1017546,00.html

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."
Report to moderator   Logged
Joe Dees
Heretic
*****

Posts: 5428
Reputation: 1.95
Rate Joe Dees



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile WWW
Re:On Fascism
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-13 20:05:47 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.95) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2003-08-13 20:10:04 by Joe Dees » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:On Fascism
« Reply #2 on: 2003-08-14 06:36:59 »
Reply with quote

The trouble with this response to "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition by John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway, published in the respected, peer reviewed journal produced by the APA, Psychological Bulletin, May 2003, Volume 129, Number 3, and available at http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/Jost/_private/Political_Conservatism_as_Motivated_Social_Cognition.pdf is that it attempts to use vicious "humor" to reject and deflect the conclusions of a 31 page meta-study (with 6 pages of references), covering a period of some 50 years and 31 countries because the group being studied finds the conclusions unpalatable.

While shooting the messenger has a long history, it remains invalid.

When the results of such a rigourous cross analysis triggers massive cognitive dissonance and revulsion in the subject body, perhaps it is a "clue" that if the subjects don't appreciate the conclusions that they would be better employed finding a new set of motivations. Unfortunately, in this instance, the documented subject motivations of "fear and aggression", "dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity", "uncertainty avoidance", "need for cognitive closure", "personal need for structure", "terror management", "group based dominance", and "system justification" documented in the study as the primary motivations underlying the ideological belief system of conservatives appears to preclude constructive reaction on the parts of those infected by this pernicious memeplex.

Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Joe Dees
Heretic
*****

Posts: 5428
Reputation: 1.95
Rate Joe Dees



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile WWW
Re:On Fascism
« Reply #3 on: 2003-08-14 14:49:40 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.95) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2003-08-14 23:29:12 by Joe Dees » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:On Fascism
« Reply #4 on: 2003-08-15 04:16:55 »
Reply with quote

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with meta studies? A meta study takes all of the accessible material which has been published on a subject and procedes to perform both vertical and transversal regression analysis of the results establishing correlations, goodness of asserted fitness over larger populations and establishing a priority tree to determine significant factors and false correlations which may not have been exposed in more specific studies. Where a good transversal fit is established, as seemed to be the case in this instance, the meta-report provides additional support to the components over which it is applied. The full report of this research is available to you at the previously cited URL http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/Jost/_private/Political_Conservatism_as_Motivated_Social_Cognition.pdf.

Having seen the extreme lengths that you were prepared to go to establish the meaning of your assertion that the authors of the above report were "Idiotarians" I'm sure that you won't mind taking the time to explain how you reached the conclusion that this epithet was appropriate. You would need to substantiate your assertions by showing where in the report "It attempts to pseudovalidate the crudest slanders with which each political wing routinely smears the other." and also expand on exactly where in the regression analysis "the self-serving politics of its authors" allegedly modified the mathematical results from which the conclusions were derived.

As an example of how such a study is normally performed, you might examine an investigation into the machinations of the Bush administration at Investigating the Bush Administration's Promotion of Ideology over Science by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee. Hopefully, this will show you how such criticism is properly performed:
  • First identify what was said and done, and by whom, providing appropriate references.
  • Then show what is correct, and how what was said or done was incorrect, again providing appropriate examples, citations and references.
  • Then draw a conclusion without engaging in epithet.
The full report is available in PDF format at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf. As an  example (from the associated website,  Stem Cells supra)

[b]Stem Cells

According to the National Institutes of Health, research on human embryonic stem cells offers great promise for those suffering from Parkinson’s Disease, heart disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, spinal cord injury, and diabetes.[1] Many social conservatives, however, see stem cell research as related to abortion.[2] In August 2001, President Bush banned federal funding for research on new stem cell lines. In pursuing this policy, the President provided misleading information to the public.

In a nationwide address on August 9, 2001, President Bush argued that his decision to ban research on new stem cell lines would not adversely affect patients. He claimed that “more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines” already existed and that research on these lines “could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures.”[3]

After the President’s announcement, stem cell researchers immediately expressed skepticism about the number and quality of available cell lines.[4] Soon thereafter, in a September 5, 2001, appearance before a Senate panel, HHS Secretary Thompson acknowledged that only about 24 to 25 cell lines actually had reached the state of maturity required for most research.[5] Some of the institutions that had stem cell lines did not have the resources to ship them safely to other labs; others had not developed the lines to the stage necessary for research.[6] Still other lines may have genetic problems.[7] The President of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine noted, “The president seems to have information far different from that of the bulk of the medical community.”[8]

In May 2003, NIH Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni told Congress that only 11 stem cell lines are widely available to researchers.[9] All of these lines are potentially contaminated by viruses as a result of being developed with mouse feeder cells. Therefore, they may not be appropriate for human use because of the potential for infection.[10] Addressing this problem, scientists at Johns Hopkins recently announced the discovery of a method for developing uninfected stem cell lines on feeder cells from adult humans.[11] Scientists cannot work with new cell lines developed with this method, however, because President Bush’s policy prohibits the use of lines developed after April 2001.
[1] NIH, Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions (June 2001).

[2] See, e.g., Stem-cell Research and the Catholic Church (online at http://www.americancatholic.org/News/StemCell/).

[3] White House, Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research (Aug. 9, 2001) (online at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html).

[4] Cell Lines Are Listed; Not All Can Be Used, Boston Globe (Aug. 28, 2001).

[5] Stem Cell Distribution Deal Told Science: The Federal Plan Would Speed Valued Tissue to Researchers, but Critics Cite a Ban on Their Use to Treat Patients, Los Angeles Times (Sept. 6, 2001).

[6] Stem Cell Research Runs into Roadblocks, Boston Globe (May 12, 2002).

[7] Scientists Worry How Policy Affects Them, San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 10, 2001).

[8] Id.

[9] Elias Zerhouni, Testimony before the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research, 108th Cong. (May 22, 2003).

[10] American Association for the Advancement of Science, Center for Science, Technology and Congress, GOP Moderates Question Bush Stem Cell Policy (June 30, 2003) (online at www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/news/articles2003/030630_stemcells.shtml).

[11] Human Adult Marrow Cells Support Prolonged Expansion of Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Culture, Stem Cells, 21 (Oct. 4, 2003).

Once you have done with the above, and seeing that you appear to be offended by people whom you allege are promoting ideology over science, you might like to condemn the Bush administration in terms as scathing as those you previously dredged up for the highly respected, peer reviewed journal, submitting authors and review scientists you chose to fulminate against (without providing grounds for your criticism). It is perhaps worth noting that the symptoms described in the report which began this thread appear to me to be more than adequately supported by the completely independent research, Investigating the Bush Administration's Promotion of Ideology over Science, and that the administration repeatedly appears to be motivated by the factors suggested in "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" (e.g. at Substance Abuse supra). If you feel that this is an invalid request, the onus is, I think, on you to motivate why you believe that the "Ideology over Science" report should not be seen as supporting the conclusions of the "Political Motivations" report, given that the former appears to show exactly the behaviors and motivations predicted by the latter.
« Last Edit: 2003-08-15 08:04:19 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Joe Dees
Heretic
*****

Posts: 5428
Reputation: 1.95
Rate Joe Dees



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile WWW
Re:On Fascism
« Reply #5 on: 2003-08-15 15:36:35 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.95) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

« Last Edit: 2003-08-15 15:59:08 by Joe Dees » Report to moderator   Logged
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:On Fascism
« Reply #6 on: 2003-08-17 07:10:00 »
Reply with quote

[Hermit] I notice that your reply was not responsive. A number of challenges and requests for clarification and support were ignored, rendering further discussion uneccessary. Despite that, the sheer number of errors in Dees' reply invites identification of the weaknesses inherent in adopting a Deesian argumentive style.

[Joe Dees] The appeal to authority fallacy is hereby noted and rejected.

[Hermit] Dees asserts the presence of a fallacy, but as usual utterly fails to identify or substantiate his assertions.

[Joe Dees] As I stated before, peer-reviewed journals are not above being influenced by the politics of those peers, as in the Sokal case, and articles published in them are based upon evidence which has been selected for inclusion and exclusion by their authors, a process that is necessarily subjective and open to bias, unconscious or otherwise.

[Hermit] The fact that "peer-reviewed journals are not above being influenced by the politics of those peers" does not prove that this is the case in this instance, but rather a smear tactic, insinuating what Dees cannot prove. Dees failed to support his already challenged assertions on these issues, thus his claims and innuendo must be rejected. His repetition of previous assertions is hardly persuasive.

[Joe Dees] I submit that all sides in this , both the Bush administration and their critics, have tended to favor ideology over its alternatives.  I further submit that there is no link between the Bush foreign policy vis-a-vis the war on terror and conservatism per se, as there are many paleoconservatives who oppose it (Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Charley Reese, etc. ), and many social liberals who support it (Charles Krauthammer, Christopher Hitchens, Michael J. Totten, etc.).

[Hermit] While suggesting an even handed position (unsupported by available evidence), Dees misses the point that this entire paragraph is entirely irrelevent, as the article was about "conservatives", not about the Bush Administration, the NeoCons or their delusional supporters, despite all three groups, as shown in the referenced material reflected above, demonstrating many of the symptoms identified in the study.

[Joe Dees] If there is any validity to the study whatsoever, I submit that its characterizations would most likely apply to social conservatives, of which Christian fundamentalists and Wahhabist Muslims are both prime examples.

[Hermit] Yet that was not the stated target of the study, and therefore, while this assertion may apply to conservative religious groups, the onus would be on Dees to prove, for any particular group, that the group displays these characteristics. In the case of the Republican administration, their own assertions of being a "conservative" group, and their external actions, e.g. abuse of the process of science and of scientific evidence, as previously examined, supports the applicability of the study to their behaviors.

[Joe Dees] Anyone who believes that all conservatives are simpleminded has not only obviously not read people such as Edmund Burke, Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan, David Frum, Donald Kagan, Andrew Sullivan, and many more, but is in fact engaging in the same black-and-white absolutism which they claim distinguishes their targets.

[Hermit] While it may be true that, "all conservatives are simpleminded", and Dees' list of conservatives may substantiate this claim, I don't intend to argue the point as it was not my claim or, as I understood it, a claim by the study under discussion. Certainly, I don't recall seeing this assertion anywhere in the study in question. Kindly provide a reference in support of your assertion that the study claims that "all conservatives are simpleminded". Or is it merely another strawman to be discarded as unprovable as soon as it is challenged?
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed