LOL. I voiced an objection… but you want me to go spend tons of my time to find out whether or not it is valid. It’s your stupid thesis… well, actually it isn’t, since you never actually present any of your own ideas.
Actually, I did just manage to get a good chunk of work done this evening, so I’m perusing the original source document now.
I do have to ask you why you chose the title you did, as opposed to one that reflects the actual intention of the study…
Testing Social Dominance: Is Support for Capitalism and Opposition to Income Redistribution Driven by Racism and Intolerance?
I like this part…
I then preliminarily explore alternative hypothesis, showing that, compared to anti-redistributionists, strong redistributionists have about two to three times higher odds of reporting that in the prior seven days they were angry, mad at someone, outraged, sad, lonely and had trouble shaking the blues.
Now that right there is hard science I tell you! This is an academia paper, suitable for a sociology course, based on premises that are suspect. In fact, the premise being “repudiated” is not even one that I would support in the first case…
Have you read deep enough into the source document to determine how “racism” is even being measured in traditional studies that the author is referring to? Basically, people pick responses out of a list, and some are deemed to be representative of a more racist oriented attitude.
The answer you get is dependent on the scores you apply to the questions which respect to various factors. I think both the original studies that this guy is refuting and this guys study are full of crap.
So, in essence, I do agree with the author that it seems silly to equate racism with a preference for capitalism or a desire to avoid “income redistribution”. However, it is just as silly to try to tip the scales the other way based on the type of data being analyzed.
There are good reasons for being for capitalism just as there are good reasons to be for or against various types of “income redistribution” programs. Hell, I’d even question the term “income redistribution”, because I’m not sure that is what people are for, but instead are for equity and opportunity.
Big surprise Volokh would take a study which is really designed to repudiate conclusions from prior studies to push the right wing agenda. The previous studies are shit. This guy’s study is shit… though maybe his objections will force people to rethink the subjective nature of the previous works.
I knew it would be a waste of my time to read it. It’s suitable for academia and has no place in the greater political discourse… just as the previous studies should have been left out of the greater political discourse.
I’m so tired of cherry picked “science” being used to support political agendas.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Actually, I did just manage to get a good chunk of work done this evening, so I’m perusing the original source document now.
I do have to ask you why you chose the title you did, as opposed to one that reflects the actual intention of the study…[/quote]
To try to fit it into the subject line…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I like this part…
I then preliminarily explore alternative hypothesis, showing that, compared to anti-redistributionists, strong redistributionists have about two to three times higher odds of reporting that in the prior seven days they were angry, mad at someone, outraged, sad, lonely and had trouble shaking the blues.
Now that right there is hard science I tell you! This is an academia paper, suitable for a sociology course, based on premises that are suspect. In fact, the premise being “repudiated” is not even one that I would support in the first case… [/quote]
It is completely sociology – how could it not be sociology, given it is doing regression analysis of self-reported items from the GSS? BTW, Professor Lindgren has a ph.D. in sociology as well…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Have you read deep enough into the source document to determine how “racism” is even being measured in traditional studies that the author is referring to? Basically, people pick responses out of a list, and some are deemed to be representative of a more racist oriented attitude.[/quote]
Yes, that’s correct – if someone reports being against interracial marriage, or that they believe people of a certain race are inheritantly more or less intelligent, that’s coded as “traditional racist.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
The answer you get is dependent on the scores you apply to the questions which respect to various factors. I think both the original studies that this guy is refuting and this guys study are full of crap.[/quote]
So, given the GSS is the considered the gold standard of sociological databases, I guess you just think sociology is full of crap. Fair enough.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Big surprise Volokh would take a study which is really designed to repudiate conclusions from prior studies to push the right wing agenda. The previous studies are shit. This guy’s study is shit… though maybe his objections will force people to rethink the subjective nature of the previous works.[/quote]
Eugene Volokh didn’t write the study – and he’s a libertarian anyway. The author of the study is a self-described liberal. FYI – don’t let your ignornance stop you though…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I knew it would be a waste of my time to read it. It’s suitable for academia and has no place in the greater political discourse… just as the previous studies should have been left out of the greater political discourse.
I’m so tired of cherry picked “science” being used to support political agendas.[/quote]
It’s an academic study – I posted the abstract, as well as the author’s summary of the abstract. You don’t like sociology. Big frickin’ deal.
Boston,
‘Owning’ Vroom with facts is not allowed! He doesn’t recognize same, even when they kick him in the aft quarters.
Just kidding, Vroomie! We luv ya bro!!
So, some professor figured out that poor white trash hates black folks but wants the government to give them a job.
How is this interesting?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
To try to fit it into the subject line…[/quote]
Hmm, okay, but it sounds suspiciously like you want to label those that favor what are seen as liberal policies as racist.
Perhaps you just wanted an “attention grabber”.
[quote]
It is completely sociology – how could it not be sociology, given it is doing regression analysis of self-reported items from the GSS? BTW, Professor Lindgren has a ph.D. in sociology as well…[/quote]
Sociology is not a hard science. I’ve taken some sociology myself. Indeed, my first statements hold true, the design and interpretation of the data have a very large impact on the outcome of a sociological study.
Why don’t you dig out some of the less clear examples… ?
The fact it is the best database available doesn’t mean that it is a good way to get answers for all questions that anyone may devise now and in the future.
Somebody is feeding you a sales pitch with the phrase “gold standard”. It’s simply the best, or largest or most complete or perhaps even simply most representative.
It’s what people use. That is all.
Funny how Volokh has a lot of opinions you quote that don’t seem very libertarian. Perhaps he has tons of opinions you never show us, but I don’t follow him as closely as you do.
In any case, whatever the professed political leanings the way this will be used, or will attempt to be used, is quite clear – at least if it leaves the academic arena where it belongs and enters the political fray.
It’s sociology. Sociology is not generally able to offer cut and dried answers. It supports all kinds of wild academic theories of social systems, practices or whatnot based on the same general data set when analyzed with different definitions. So, one data set, many opposing results, one preferred set of results based on prevailing academic opinion. It’s horseshit.
It’s not that I don’t like sociology, it’s that I always feel dirty after reading sociology abstracts because of how far and how badly information gets stretched and manipulated to find and support some wacky conclusion. In academia people are “rewarded” for finding new ways to twist the data and create new avenues for exploration.
Finally, if you look at my reply, you’ll see that I don’t support the prevailing notions that this study is apparently countering either. I think the studies that claim “racists favor capitalism” are just as fucked up, so don’t take it personally.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Boston,
‘Owning’ Vroom with facts is not allowed! He doesn’t recognize same, even when they kick him in the aft quarters.
Just kidding, Vroomie! We luv ya bro!![/quote]
As wacky as they are at least you are trying to present your own thoughts… I’ll give you that much.
Has anyone here read Freakonomics?
This piece posted by BB reminds me of some of the wild proclaimations made in that book: For example, “Drug Dealers more likely to live with mom” or “Executive level management more likely to steal.” This was a pretty good read and shows how statistics can be used to “prove” anything if the right questions are asked.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
To try to fit it into the subject line…
vroom wrote:
Hmm, okay, but it sounds suspiciously like you want to label those that favor what are seen as liberal policies as racist.
Perhaps you just wanted an “attention grabber”.[/quote]
I had to phrase it in such a way as to grab attention and to not get the title cut off by the space restriction – I tried it three different ways and it kept getting cut off. You know us verbose lawyers…
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It is completely sociology – how could it not be sociology, given it is doing regression analysis of self-reported items from the GSS? BTW, Professor Lindgren has a ph.D. in sociology as well…
vroom wrote:
Sociology is not a hard science. I’ve taken some sociology myself. Indeed, my first statements hold true, the design and interpretation of the data have a very large impact on the outcome of a sociological study.[/quote]
I know that, and so do you – newsflash everyone, it’s not physics! (Though if you follow physics you’ll note some interesting developments related to supernovas and how that affects all of what we “know”, including whether the universe is expanding – I’m just a dilettante though…). So now, if you have a specific critique, please do share it. Your critiques are so general as to be meaningless in the case of the paper.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, that’s correct – if someone reports being against interracial marriage, or that they believe people of a certain race are inheritantly more or less intelligent, that’s coded as “traditional racist.”
vroom wrote:
Why don’t you dig out some of the less clear examples… ?[/quote]
It’s your critique – please do.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So, given the GSS is the considered the gold standard of sociological databases, I guess you just think sociology is full of crap. Fair enough.
vroom wrote:
The fact it is the best database available doesn’t mean that it is a good way to get answers for all questions that anyone may devise now and in the future.
Somebody is feeding you a sales pitch with the phrase “gold standard”. It’s simply the best, or largest or most complete or perhaps even simply most representative.
It’s what people use. That is all.[/quote]
Yes, it’s not perfect – it’s what people use because it’s the best and most comprehensive data set on the U.S. population.
So, anything specific to the way this study used the GSS data, or the specific questions from the survey? We were getting close above, I think, to an actual criticism of the questions used to calibrate traditional racism.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Eugene Volokh didn’t write the study – and he’s a libertarian anyway. The author of the study is a self-described liberal. FYI – don’t let your ignornance stop you though…
vroom wrote:
Funny how Volokh has a lot of opinions you quote that don’t seem very libertarian. Perhaps he has tons of opinions you never show us, but I don’t follow him as closely as you do.[/quote]
FYI, Volokh.com is a group blog, though most of the posters are libertarians, there are a couple conservatives – they’re pretty much all law professors.
But if you’re getting the stuff filtered through me, you’re getting what I think is interesting, or you’re getting me using it to back up a point I want to make. I’m a libertarian-leaning conservative – or vice versa…
[quote]vroom wrote:
In any case, whatever the professed political leanings the way this will be used, or will attempt to be used, is quite clear – at least if it leaves the academic arena where it belongs and enters the political fray.[/quote]
People use (and misuse) information all the time - academic or otherwise. Particularly in the media… But that just means you need to dig a little to make certain you’re getting the whole of the story.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s an academic study – I posted the abstract, as well as the author’s summary of the abstract. You don’t like sociology. Big frickin’ deal.
vroom wrote:
It’s sociology. Sociology is not generally able to offer cut and dried answers. It supports all kinds of wild academic theories of social systems, practices or whatnot based on the same general data set when analyzed with different definitions. So, one data set, many opposing results, one preferred set of results based on prevailing academic opinion. It’s horseshit.
It’s not that I don’t like sociology, it’s that I always feel dirty after reading sociology abstracts because of how far and how badly information gets stretched and manipulated to find and support some wacky conclusion. In academia people are “rewarded” for finding new ways to twist the data and create new avenues for exploration.
Finally, if you look at my reply, you’ll see that I don’t support the prevailing notions that this study is apparently countering either. I think the studies that claim “racists favor capitalism” are just as fucked up, so don’t take it personally.[/quote]
Yes, that’s sociology all right. And psychology. And pretty much every “soft science.”
The important things are 1) the accuracy of the data set; 2) the proper use of the statistics; and 3) not confusing causation with correlation. I think the paper does a fine job, from my skimming of it.
[quote]
Headhunter wrote:
Boston,
‘Owning’ Vroom with facts is not allowed! He doesn’t recognize same, even when they kick him in the aft quarters.
Just kidding, Vroomie! We luv ya bro!!
vroom wrote:
As wacky as they are at least you are trying to present your own thoughts… I’ll give you that much.[/quote]
vroom, you always get my opinions, unless I just want to open something up for discussion because I find it interesting – you just don’t like them. I’ll grant you that I am the first one to shortcut something with a link or a quote if someone else has already summarized the good arguments, but I also need to bill 2100 hours a year…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Did you mean to say racial diversity?
No. I meant economic empowerment and racial diversity. Affirmative action is not supposed to be racial quota filling. [/quote]
It is and I get to benifit from it…Whether I want to or not.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Did you mean to say racial diversity?
No. I meant economic empowerment and racial diversity. Affirmative action is not supposed to be racial quota filling.
It is and I get to benifit from it…Whether I want to or not.
[/quote]
How do you benefit from it?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The important things are 1) the accuracy of the data set; 2) the proper use of the statistics; and 3) not confusing causation with correlation. I think the paper does a fine job, from my skimming of it.[/quote]
It’s just another cut at the same old data. There are cuts that swing one way, there are cuts that swing another. Most importantly, all we have are some correlations based on the definitions or “buckets” used to filter the data.
The important point, from my point of view, is that I support neither the view presented by this paper nor those that it seeks to refute.
They are purely academic in that they are not refined enough to be brought out of academia. They do however highlight areas that need further study to be understood. It’s way to early to go drawing any realistic conclusions based on anything like this.
As said by wreckless, deciding that ignorant people are racist and favor income redistribution is no big surprise.
If you look around, you can find academic studies to back up pretty much any point of view…
Here’s a study I like… The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush:
Bush Nuts
Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable?
November 23, 2006
by Andy Bromage
A collective “I told you so” will ripple through the world of Bush-bashers once news of Christopher Lohse’s study gets out.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.
Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.
The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.
Rakfeldt says the study was legitimate, though not intended to show what it did.
“Yes it was a legitimate study but these data were mined after the fact,” Rakfeldt says. “You can ask new questions of the data. I haven’t looked at” Lohse’s conclusions regarding Bush, Rakfeldt says.
“That doesn’t make it illegitimate, it just wasn’t part of the original project.”
For his part, Lohse is a self-described “Reagan revolution fanatic” but said that W. is just “beyond the pale.”