不合群

理性, 客观, 求真, 独立
个人资料
不合群 (热门博主)
  • 博客访问:
正文

左派和右派,哪一派更容易得精神病?

(2017-09-09 04:34:25) 下一个

你相信科学吗?你的回答如果不是100%肯定的话,马上有人会给你贴上反智、红脖子、顽固分子等标签。其实,除了在可控环境或很少变量环境里经反复实验的科学结果可信度可以接近100%外,在开放和很多变量环境里的科学研究其实只是使用了科学的方法,其结论的可信度经常远低于前者,这本来也没什么,实事求是就好,但因为有个“科学”的头衔,因为有的人除了探求真理外还有别的目的,你不接受其结论经常会导致你被嘲笑。Global Warming就是这样一个课题,我上一篇刚讨论过。

这里再举一个例子,课题远没有Global Warming那么庞大:2012年美国政治科学杂志发表了一篇文章,论证说右派更容易有精神方面的问题。严肃的学术期刊发表的文章当然是有根据的啦,课题也没那么复杂,无非是采样人的政治偏向性、再采样他们有精神问题的比例,一比较结果就出来了,再经过专家审稿,结论不可能错吧?

哈哈,它的结论刚好搞反了,杂志社2016年承认错误:是左派而不是右派更容易有精神方面的问题。“科学家”犯这么低级的错误不可思议吧? 好了,是人都可能犯错的,没必要大惊小怪,只要不过分迷信科学就好了,这就是本文的中心思想。

这里还有一篇好像是自媒体上发表的文章,其结论和上面更正后的结论是一样的。Gallup Poll的结论也是类似的。所以我假设以上结论有很高可信度。

我好奇为什么是这样的结论,有文章论证了左派比右派聪明,而聪明人更容易得精神病。也有右派不服气,发网文论证说是因为左派洗脑把人的脑子洗坏了。你想知道哪一边的更可信请点击链接后自己看吧。

说到人的智商,这里有个比较各国人平均智商的链接, 也许对我们思考上述问题有帮助?

最后我偏心右派,在此放个讽刺搞笑左派的网文链接,但它引用的数据没有出处,有谁找到的请告诉我。

 

Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic

 

Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.

A political-science journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more likely to show traits associated with “psychoticism” now says it got it wrong. Very wrong.

The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.

“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.

“The descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”

In the paper, psychoticism is associated with traits such as tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity and authoritarianism.

The social-desirability scale measures people’s tendency to answer questions in ways they believe would please researchers, even if it means overestimating their positive characteristics and underestimating negative ones.

The erroneous report has been cited 45 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

Brad Verhulst, a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher and a co-author of the paper, said he was not sure who was to blame.

“I don’t know where it happened. All I know is it happened,” he told Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks corrections in academic papers. “It’s our fault for not figuring it out before.”

The journal said the error doesn’t change the main conclusions of the paper, which found that “personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes.”

But professor Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who pointed out the errors, told Retraction Watch that they “matter quite a lot.”

“The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction,” he said.

[ 打印 ]
阅读 ()评论 (3)
评论
不合群 回复 悄悄话 回复 '龙湾故事会' 的评论 : Science本来和政治是没有直接关系的,有的都是pseudo science.
被你看穿了你加引号,没看穿的不会加,原作者更不会加,所以现在专业性这么强的science也需要外行人自己来判断真伪了,确实有点悲哀。
龙湾故事会 回复 悄悄话 "'Science', 谁的'science'".忘了打引号了
龙湾故事会 回复 悄悄话 肯定有人心里在想Science, 谁的science. Politicized country, politicized news.悲哀啊!
登录后才可评论.