I don't get no respect.

Liberals are the create souls and free spirits of the world while most of the conservatives are the ones who hold the guns and fight the wars (good or bad) to help keep us free. Both are important fabrics of the free world and we should learn to see the good that each is trying to do and set aside all the petty differences. The rift or divide only encourages the enemy and those who wish to take our freedoms away. I wish the whole world was free and able to express themselves, practice their whatever and roam where they want to without physically hurting or killing someone else or having to worry or fear of being physically hurt or even killed but that would be too much to ask or would it?

I'm as socially liberal as they come (hell, I want to legalize all drugs and allow polygamous and group marriages). With that said, I have no qualms about raining death and destruction upon those who would threaten my freedoms and/or my life and the lives of those I care about, be they common criminals who may break into my apartment or agents of the government, if the government ever turns into a Christofascist (see what I did there?) theocracy or something, or Daleks flying over our heads, trying to kill us all.

Maybe that's because of my more fiscally conservative attitudes... I feel that social entitlement programmes (welfare and Social Security being excellent examples) should be phased out, and the government should instead be investing in programmes that help people become self-reliant. Programmes like Pell grants and such. Hell, I'd like to see the government pick up the tab for every single person who pursues postsecondary education of some sort. When it comes to health care, I am totally against the single-payer system, simply because it doesn't fucking work. Switzerland has a good idea: Health insurance is mandatory, and if you cannot afford it, the government will provide it. Maybe that explains my willingness to get violent if I need to in order to protect myself, people I care about, and/or my freedoms...

Exactly. I totally disagree with jjscholar.

LERN2SIENX

While the psychologists need to be aware of bias in their analysis, the data are still data and (if the methodology is good) they'll tell you something. Just because Zarth is a mutant doesn't mean the study is bunk. It means there's some variability in humans (thank fucking god). And we use statistics to test these things... there's always a 1/20 chance that a scientific finding was random coincidence. But do multiple studies, and it gets hard to refute the data.

The idea that humans cannot be understood by science is arrogant and humano-centric. You were built by evolution just like every other organism that we study with the scientific method. Humans are animals. Deal.

This post, though it lacks theory, method or data, has destroyed *decades* of work by creative, intelilgent, and dedicated psychologists.

BAM! Take that scientifc method!

Actually, I think the notion that people are sooooo different is probably not as true as we like to think. We operate with a lot of similar cognitive shortcuts and systems - whether those are natural or cultural I guess is another debate. Also, psychology just doesn't use small data sets - they often make use of small sets (which allows them direct experimentation), but they also regularly use large data sets and advanced statistical methods to get at these questions - with findings replicated and theories given nuance across time.

Well, regardless of whether I'm a "mutant,"

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

or simply the next stage of human evolution,

this study's findings weren't presented very rigorously in the article. There was a lot of subjective-sounding "we found this," and "we found that," without describing either their methodology or their criteria. Until I see that, I won't take this very seriously.

Zarth said:
Well, regardless of whether I'm a "mutant,"

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

or simply the next stage of human evolution,

this study's findings weren't presented very rigorously in the article. There was a lot of subjective-sounding "we found this," and "we found that," without describing either their methodology or their criteria. Until I see that, I won't take this very seriously.

As mentioned earlier by magpieboy (and then sheepishly by me), Psychology Today is not that kind of periodical. It's more like Popular Science than Scientific American. Which unfortunately opens the conclusions reached to all sorts of criticism. It would have been much better if they had at least told where to find the original study results.

In case you're interested, here's one of them. It was published in The Journal of Research in Personality, which is that kind of periodical.

It's important to note that the Block Longitudinal Study is a long-term and still-ongoing study. So the data are more accessible for review than might otherwise be the case.

Incidentally, this is not the only area the study follows. Here's another one originally published in 1990 in the journal American Psychologist on personality and drug use.

And another from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology on the negative impact of people who think too highly of themselves.

I knew it!

Wait, does this mean the liberal kids picked on the conservative kids, and made them that way? Shit, talk about a monster of your own creation.

I've heard they made a search feature. Is this true of?
Oh and just because the article now has more street credit does not make it a new article. It is still a repeat.

You really just said "someone should do a cultural study as to why people who pay for my sets are such fucking babies."

With that comment it would be easy to turn it around and say "Someone should do a cultural study as to why some SGs are such whiners."

bulllllllshit

I don't think she was being entirely humorless...

And if not, you just played right into her hands.

Baby.

ran with scissors?

It's all horribly, horribly true.