Whiny Kids Study - Debunked!

Yep, by now you've all likely heard about the study that "proved" that conservatives spring from the whiny kids in school ... it's been "proved" that the independent kids were actually the children on liberals.

Uh huh ... um ... yeah ...

Michelle Malkin has posted information given by an anonymous tipster who has details about the location of the "study" and those conducting the study. And it ain't pretty for the so-called "credibility" of the researchers. Seems the preschool children all attended a preschool at the Harold E. Jones Study Center (formerly called the Atherton Child Study Center), which is open only to the children of U.C. Berkeley faculty and staff. And the center is so popular with said staff because it is free/cheap in exchange for the parents allowing their children to be studied by psychologists all day every day ...

... Maybe this is where they get people who are so comfortable participating in "reality" TV. It's every bit as "real".

~ HMIL   %^}

Comments

[Dean]

Um, did you happen to actually read that study? Or are you just following the leader?

You put proved in quotes, as if you were actually repeating something the researchers said. They never made that claim. For one, you'll hardly ever see a good researcher say that a study proved anything. Science doesn't work that way. You also criticize the methods, but offer no substance or indication that you understand them.

The information regarding the sample used is given in the text of the manuscript itself, and relevant citations are given. The "anonymous tipster" isn't on to anything scandalous or unknown, and it hardly "debunks" anything. These results must be looked at in the context of similar research with other samples, and should serve to generate additional hypotheses for evaluation.

As the domains of religion and politics are subjected to rational analysis it's bound to produce some uncomfotable results and kick up some dissonance. Deal with it.

[HMIL]

Let's see ... you're offended that I put "proved" in quotation marks ... I'll admit it ... I'm not a scientist; therefore, I can't say whether the study is accurate or not; nor have I said that the "tipster" is accurate (if you read Michelle Malkin's post, you'd noticed that she indicated that the information from the anonymous tipster is "intriguing" ... neither she nor I indicate that it's necessarily true either ... just that it's interesting to consider).

But you'll notice that I've in no way indicated that I can prove that the study is true ... My goal was simply to direct others interested in this study to something I found interesting.

I am, however, interested in the people running studies being intellectually honest and cluing in the general populace into the biases in and funders of their reports.

Perhaps it's you who is uncomfortable with being intellectually honest about biases inherent in a study in which there is likely a limited field studied.

You don't know me, but I can assure you that I'm not uncomfortable with the domains of religion and politics being subjected to rational analysis, when the analysis actually is rational, when the group studied is from a broad range of individuals / conditions, and there is an actual control group. (More often than not, though, the areas of religion and conservative politics are addressed irrationally and with invective by those who disagree, so I'm used to my positions being ridiculed ... I guess I've developed something of a thick skin about it.)

When studies are done in such a way as to prove a desired point, rather than to find out what range of things might be true, that's totally misleading and the general population of "sheeple" don't bother to question the findings.

I bother to at least entertain the possibility that a study might be inherently biased or flawed, and I don't appreciate anyone from *either* side of the aisle foisting biased results on the public as "the truth" ... I expect anyone conducting studies (especially those at public universities) to be up front with who their sponsors are and the actuall conditions studied so we can tell right away if we should take the results with a 10-lb. bag of salt.

I don't ascribe to groupthink and detest those who think I should. If I find something interesting, I'll point others to it and let them make up their minds for themselves. That's how the conservatives I know operate, contrary to popular (your?) opinion.

Deal with it yourself.