Saletan's critique is silly.

Conservatives performed objectively less well than liberals at this particular task. Full stop. It is reasonable to conclude that there might be some real life problems at which conservatives also perform less well. The question is how relevant this particular task is to real life problems. My guess is probably not very, but who knows?

However, it is not reasonable to presume that based on conservatives performing less well at this task, there must be other tasks at which conservatives would perform better, which seems to be Saletan's major point. It's a completely unfounded leap that doing a lousier job at one task implies that you would do a better job at another.

When Saletan loses at tennis, does he announce that he must be a good bowler?

Reread his column. The bulk of it debunks the conclusion of the researchers. And in the universe of all possible things to do, there is probably SOMETHING that conservatives (or Saletan) do better than liberals (or you).

It probably would be "full stop" if the only thing the authors claimed was that liberals can detect changes in a series of briefly flashed letters better than conservatives, yes. You're correct that if the press release had literally read "we have detected a correlation between political ideas and the ability to detect changes in a rapid stream of flashed binary data," there would be less to complain about. But we also wouldn't be talking about it, because who cares whether you're an effective Von Neumann Algorithm?

The whole *point* of the study was that the task correlated with real life in some way. But proof of that was never offered, and in fact it seems that it can't be. (Note also that the sample sizes in this study make even the primary conclusion suspect, but that's not really worth getting into.)

As I said in my original post, I suspect the task probably does not translate to the real world very well. But you have to admit that it's an interesting finding that there exists a problem (however trivial) at which liberals objectively outperform conservatives in arriving at the correct answer.

Saletan's conservative "defense" (his concluding few paragraphs) assumes that there are problems at which the different-thinking conservatives would outperform liberals and the two ways of thinking necessarily complement each other. That is pure conjecture. It may or may not be true, but it is not something implied by this study. The fact that liberals are better at this particular task does not imply that conservatives would necessarily be better at something else.

have to admit that it's an interesting finding that there exists a problem (however trivial) at which liberals objectively outperform conservatives in arriving at the correct answer.

Yes and but a slightly different reading when you take into account the short decision time is that cons are more likely to consider and think about the data they are receiving that libs will make a snap judgment. Therefore cons are better suited to making decisions than libs because they are less likely to make snap judgments.

The problem is that, as pointed out in the article, even where this a valid study with sufficiant safegaurds to identify and remove confounding influences it would be meaningless except to prove that libs respond to the difference between an M and a W faster. Hell they didn't even replicate with other letters like F and P or S and Z to assure that it was't just a letter or type of change difference. This was a piss poor study with even worse interpretation. Idiots like it's perps. give scientists a bad name.

No. Interesting in what sense? When I can explain 100% of the result by claiming, and it's certainy reasonable, that liberals just play more video games, it's not interesting.

And the whole point of Saletan's article, which you continue to hide from because you cannot face up to it (interesting that liberals are extremely good at that), is that the authors CLAIMED they had found something interesting. Hand-eye coordination is not interesting. That's an objective fact - face it, mnemon, you coward. (What's the name supposed to mean? Do you "remember" anything you learned in school about science, for example?)

morganb:

...a slightly different reading when you take into account the short decision time is that cons are more likely to consider and think about the data they are receiving that libs will make a snap judgment. Therefore cons are better suited to making decisions than libs because they are less likely to make snap judgments. ...

Too bad the 'considered' decisions made by the CONs turn out to be wrong, and the 'snap judgements' made by the LIBs turn out to be correct in this case.

Also- this study has not shown in any way shape or form that conservatives are better at making decisions when given ample time. Just because liberals are better at making quick decisions does NOT then imply that conservatives are better at making slow decisions. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

the scientists didn't write the press release. if saletan wants to talk about media manipulation of science, i look forward to reading that, though it's been covered, and critical thinkers would know it without being told.

but saying that scientists manipulated this is wrong. these scientists, perhaps, looked at iraq and asked a logical question: can republicans change their minds when they get new information?

then they designed a test of that, and here are our results.

they cannot.

the scientists didn't say anything about "stupid" or "smarter". that was all saletan. the media, as usual.

Again, please re-read the article. The main point is that the test was flawed and presented as definitive -- which it is not.

Saletan worded the article to inflame liberal sensitivities, kinda like the articles announcing the results were written to inflame the conservative sensitivities.

Both groups have some good ideas. Both groups have some seriously crappy ideas. Both groups have incredibly intelligent, caring, dedicated people, and conversely they each have some jerks.

It is conjecture, pure and simple, to say that any one group is more intelligent or adaptable than another based on one simple test with such a small sample.

"Conservatives performed objectively less well than liberals at this particular task. Full stop."

Pure rubbish.

The methodology of this study is basically that of a video game. For starters, I'd like to know how good the study's self-identified "conservatives" and "liberals" are at video games, respectively.

Second, I'd like to know what you (and the framers of the test) mean by "conservative" and "liberal". The problem with self-identification is that Participant A and Participant B may both call themselves "liberal" but mean quite different things by this word. Subjective self-identification thus fails to provide adequate grounds for objective comparison. It is quite a leap from "self-identified 'conservatives' scored x" to your "conservatives performed objectively less well". "Conservative" and "liberal" fail to carry much meaning unless they tell us "conservative with regard to what?" or "liberal with regard to what?".

Are we really supposed to believe that a politically and economically conservative investment banker will be less inclined to adapt to sudden market changes than a culturally/politically/economi­cally liberal English teacher? Please.

This study seems to demonstrate that the people who are lacking in the analysis-of-complexity/ambigui­ty department are precisely the ones who framed the test.

Regards,

As a conservative, I'm certainly going to be biased towards finding flaws with a study that dictate I am not as adaptive a thinker as a liberal. But if I was a liberal...would I be dumb enough to believe that the conservatives' (speaking of, there is no indication of what kind of "conservatives" the study included in the article) failure to adapt to a different key press event had any specific tie to their ideological principles and problem-solving ability? I hope not because something like that speaks to individual intelligence -- Saletan made a similar statement near the end of his article.

I think the only reasonable assumption here is that half-baked experiments can be interpreted any way you want and, based on the conclusions, that these researchers swing to the left.

Conservatives performed "LESS WELL". Lovely use of banter and sentence structure. WAIT PAUSE , FULL STOP.

Let's not make up random sports and compare that to the study ? eh? I know your Liberal Brain is indeed trying to focus on a point here??? If you want to call out the writer of this article why don't you critique the article instead of making inane arguments? tennis and bowling??? Come on there big boy bust out some logic and not emotion!!!!

The only reason a liberal may very well perform better than a conservative is because liberals can never make up their mind?

Spatial disorientation and visual recognition of symbols may very well help determine aptitude for say fighter pilots but how does that prove an Ideology (conservative or liberal) is the lone constant in determining who is smarter?

If that is the case what about Libertarians or Socialists?

Next up Castro versus Hillary to see who is the smartest Communist Leader !!!!

Hahah......

Also, If any conservatives or liberals want to participate in my study....

I'm going to get a bunch of magic eye posters and bias my study and stats to show that the conservative brain has a bunch more of those electrical thingies or synaptic responses when they uncover the "Hidden Flower" in the Poster!!!

This will obviously show the superior brain capacity and overall better leadership potential of a conservative. I will take in no facts about background, overall IQ, schools went too none of that.

Then when someone believes my study as the truth I will laugh at them and make fun of them forever!

Thank you goodnight!!!

What is the point of debating here? The world probably won't function without the conservatives and won't be much fun without the liberals. It is the world we coexist. Let's give credit to each other, be who you are, do what you are entitled to and live on.

The writer's "take" on the experiment's claims shows that he's clearly biassed against it and it's results. Worst than that, the points he makes dont even make any sense, they sound more as someone who felt clearly aluded and offended by the studies results.

Saletan complains, for example that 15 minutes is not a habit, well what did you expect? A scientific experiment has to be a simplified reality in a controlled enviroment. Its not viable to lock up people, liberal or conservative, in a lab for a couple of years let me tell you. Im not expresing any opinions on the results themselves but if the writer's gonna write an article on how this study is trying to make conservatives look as "stupids", he could at least come up with some decent arguments.