Stop The ACLU » Psychology

Stanford Study purports to demonstrate that racism is a reason why Obama policies are failing

JonJayRay — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:16:13 +0000

The journal article is: “Racial Prejudice Predicts Opposition to Obama and His Health Care Reform Plan” by Eric D. Knowles, Brian S. Lowery, and Rebecca L. Schaumberg, in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, November 2009.

This is another “negative associations” test. Such tests are very problematical for a number of reasons — one of which is that some actively anti-racist people score highly on them — so claims that they measure racism are extravagant. What they most usually “measure”, if anything, could well be past bad experiences with blacks.

Further notes: 1). It could be quite rational to trust in a plan authored by Clinton rather than Obama — as Clinton was the centrist that Obama only claims to be; 2). The fact that Prof. Lowery is black may have influenced the results; 3). There seems to be no claim that the people quizzed were a random sample of any known group so the generalizability of the results is unknown. One word summary: Crap

Does racism affect voters’ responses to President Barack Obama’s policies? In September, former president Jimmy Carter argued yes in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC. A Democracy Corps focus-group study published on Oct. 16 disagreed, concluding that racial issues do not affect voters’ beliefs, and that it was time for those who think otherwise to “get over it.”

Recent research from the Stanford Graduate School of Business finds that Carter is correct –– race does matter. People’s implicit racial prejudices corresponded with a reluctance to vote for Obama and with opposition to his health care reform plan, the study finds. In fact, when a description of a health care reform proposal was attributed to former President Bill Clinton rather than Obama, reactions suggested that individuals high in non-conscious anti-black prejudice tended to oppose Obama, at least in part because they dislike him as a black person.

“Many people are influenced by race, and either will not admit it or don’t know it,” says Brian Lowery, an associate professor of organizational behavior. To find evidence for “implicit,” or non-conscious prejudice, he and two other investigators ran a computer-based test on more than 200 subjects prior to the 2008 presidential election. Individuals were asked to quickly pair “black” names (Aisha, Jamal, and so forth) and “white” names (Brett, Jane) with good words such as “beauty” and “friendly,” or bad words such as “evil” and “hate.”

Non-conscious prejudice was measured according to how quickly and easily people could identify the “bad” words after seeing African-American names (Aisha, Jamal, and so forth) as opposed to Anglo names (Brett, Jane). Lowery and his coauthors found [asserted?] that fewer errors, when African-American names (as opposed to Anglo names) were paired with a negative word, indicated that individuals had internalized negative associations with black people –– and served as a measure of non-conscious prejudice.

In the month after the election, participants were asked how they had voted. Those who made few errors on the black/bad pairings were nearly 43% less likely to have voted for Obama than those with average scores. “As implicit prejudice increased, the likelihood of voting for Obama decreased,” explains Lowery.

Nearly a year later, in October 2009, some of the same participants rated their attitudes about Obama’s approach to health care reform. Others were randomly assigned to read a description of health care reform framed either as being President Obama’s plan or Bill Clinton’s plan.

Once again, increasing implicit prejudice was associated with negative attitudes toward Obama and decreasing support for his health care policy. Prejudice scores did not correlate with favorability toward the plan when it was described as coming from Clinton, but they did result in a more negative assessment when it was described as coming from Obama.

“This study represents a powerful demonstration of the fact that racial attitudes still operate in the political arena,” says Lowery, who conducted the research with Stanford doctoral student Rebecca Schaumberg and Eric Knowles, assistant professor at the University of California at Irvine. “It also suggests that Obama is likely to encounter some degree of prejudice-fueled opposition to his policies across the board.”

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Obama’s psychopathic detachment

JonJayRay — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:02:36 +0000

I never thought I would find myself wistfully remembering President Clinton and wishing he were still around to inject some heart into the Oval Office (I know, I know, he may have injected some other things as well). However, after listening to President Obama’s passionless words in poignant moments over the past ten months, I now yearn to hear the oratory of President Clinton. After Obama’s reactions and comments to the Islamic massacre at Ft. Hood, I could only remember the good old days when our president inspired us and spoke passionately after a tragedy like the Oklahoma City bombing. At least when President Clinton spoke, you knew he cared about the people he addressed.

Obama’s poor crisis leadership skills revealed themselves in June when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad murdered Private William Long outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock. Two full days passed without even a word from the president. Finally, President Obama issued a terse statement of “sadness” and never mentioned the incident again. Quite a contrast to his swift, strongly worded response and his statement of “shock” and “outrage” at the “heinous” murder of abortion doctor, George Tiller, just days before in Wichita, Kansas.

In August, at the funeral for Sen. Ted Kennedy, again President Obama’s coldness and aloofness raised red flags. Others, like Peggy Noonan, have also noted Obama’s cold distance as he arrived, nodded, shook hands and spoke to the family and friends of the Kennedys. In watching the funeral, I was struck by how the president could simultaneously be so completely appropriate and so emotionally vacant. He was polite to be sure, but exhibited a total absence of warmth.

Last week, in his remarks via telecast, at the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, President Obama recognized no other presidents before himself and also failed to mention either Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul II . Worse still, he failed even to utter the words “communism,” or the “Soviet Union,” or “Russia.” A major moment arrives, the president speaks, and he whiffs entirely. He exhibits no knowledge of history, no sense of poignancy or America’s contribution to the world, and no passion for the freedoms that arrived with the fall of the wall. An utterly cold and vacuous moment.

Finally, the Islamic massacre at Ft. Hood occurs, and President Obama’s initial instincts are to warn us all “not to jump to conclusions.” He urges us to react in direct contrast to his own hasty reaction in Gates-gate at Cambridge, and his comments there that the police “acted stupidly.” More strikingly, Obama is unable to state the simple, obvious truth: we have had another incidence of Islamic terror on our own soil. Islamic terror does not occur in a vacuum; jumping to conclusions is very different from reading the pattern of having 63 other Muslim men charged, convicted, or sentenced on terror in our own country just in 2009. Obama again totally misses the point. His trademark coolness belies a glaring ignorance of the matter at hand and his total lack of passion for the American people.

Worse still, his remarks at the memorial service at Ft. Hood fell flat. Does anyone remember a word he said? Years later, I can still remember the warmth and grace exhibited by President Clinton in the aftermath of Oklahoma City. In contrast, Obama’s presence and comments at Ft. Hood were utterly forgettable. He failed to show up emotionally in any way. Were one to listen to the president’s comments regarding the terror deaths of 13 Americans on an American military base at the hands of an Islamic jihadist, one would notice no difference whatsoever in modulation, tone, or posture from any other speech he has ever given. They have all begun to sound the same. He is everywhere, speaking on everything, and thereby speaking on nothing. No one listens anymore. He speaks as if he is just passing through, a mere observer on the events of life. The hollowness is unsettling.

All in all, Obama’s impassioned speeches are reserved for fund-raisers and for healthcare addresses, for which he has no shortage of energy. Line up a pile of dead Americans, and he can barely muster an inflection or an exclamation point. Fill the room with wealthy donors, and the man comes alive. For a mercenary, that may be an admirable thing, but for a president, the vacancy is disturbing.

SOURCE

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The DailyKos reaction to the Fort Hood shooting

Cassy Fiano — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:17:00 +0000

The DailyKos reaction to the Fort Hood shooting is typical. Rather than sympathizing with the families of the killed or the soldiers who were wounded, or waiting to find out all the facts, they’re showing an awful lot of sympathy to the shooter, and they’re making up their own facts and motives. And of course, what Daily Kos diary would be complete without the resident Free Republic outrage? A few commenters tried to examine the facts and offer condolences. Most simply blamed the Army, George Bush, or conservatives, and plenty expressed sympathy for the murderer. One person even said that violence is caused by… Texas? Classy. Check out the comments:

Molotov: idiots. you teach people to kill without remorse, then act surprised when they do.

primarydoc: and we have to consider the selective disclosure/spin from the military if it turns out that the reason for the shooting might undermine our “noble” wars, as in the case of Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch

Alien Abductee: Maybe he’s just seen too much destruction of the mental health of his fellow soldiers and finally snapped himself.

olo: Maybe they just put the gun in his hand because be looks like a brown terror monger, is named Hasan (sounds & looks similar to Hussein) — and was the most convenient of the dozen bodies to blame this [expletive deleted] on.)

ferralike: It appears through the latest reporting on MSNBC that the shooter who was killed, Army Maj Malik Nadal Hasan, was possibly enraged about being shipped over to Iraq per Chris Matthews (at ~ 5:55 est). So it sounds as if the second possibility I raised was more correct. However, this guy could have already served multiple tours and this could still be a PTSD related incident. Who knows?

I actually feel for this guy if he was pushed to go this far that he flipped out and killed 12 and injured 31 (the number at this moment.) I hate that he did this and there are so many grieving and worried families but I doubt this was driven because he simply did not want to go over there on his first tour.

If this is true, this is indicative of a much larger disaster imminently waiting to happen for many, many other soldiers about to be deployed. We can’t keep this up sending these soldiers over time after time and expecting them to come back without being mentally and emotionally affected. This is very very tragic.

Julia Grey: I personally hope very much that he isn’t black. He’d be made out as an Obama confederate, part of the underground preparations for the coup, a guy who was so excited about destroying America that he started too early, yadda yadda. It’s already bad enough that he has an Arabic name.

Lying eyes: Good thing Bush is no longer in charge…. continued… True. But I was thinking if this guy has an Arabic name and is a muslim, Bush would use the tragedy to attack Iran. Or some convenient country.

MillieNeon: I just hope this doesn’t come with a huge Muslim backlash, or kick Muslims out of the military, etc.

How very say for the people who lost their lives, their families, for the moderate Muslim who already have so much difficulty in this country right now.

And my heart really goes out to all the soldiers with PTSD. They need much more support and treatment. It’s immoral to bring people back from war and leave them in psychological torture chambers.

Also, I think we should re-examine soldier training. They are taught to de-humanize the enemy so they can kill easier. How do you “undo” that? What are we doing to these poor soldiers?

SantaFeMarie: Why is it “surely just coincidence” that people in Texas commit violent homicides?

The Navigator: Let’s all hope it’s not wingers or the radical right that did this, but rather just a few disturbed soldiers.

o the umanity: I still can’t figure out what happened. When I was a little girl, it was an honor to serve. My father and all my brothers did. So did my uncles and one of my grandfathers.

And then came ‘Nam, and it’s been all downhill since

And on and on.

What does it tell you about the liberal psyche if their reaction to a shooting leaving a dozen soldiers killed and scores more wounded is to feel sympathy for the murderer who did this? They have more sympathy for Hasan than they do for the actual victims of this massacre. And on top of that, they’re blaming everyone but him. They blame the right wing, they blame Bush, they blame the military… everyone except the man who actually committed the crime.

These are some seriously deranged people.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Excitable Chucky Now Has A Problem With “America Is Good”

William Teach — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:02:43 +0000

During the years, I have been involved in conversations about what, exactly, Derangement Syndrome is, as I am sure you have. Remember, this is what Charles Krauthammer had to say

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.

We’ve seen this time and time again applied to other conservatives. But, no one does Glenn Beck Derangement Syndrome quite like Charles Johnson, who names Doug Hoffman the “Glenn Beck candidate”

What exactly does Doug Hoffman stand for? And who is he standing with? Would you believe … Glenn Beck?

At the endorsements page of Doug Hoffman For Congress, we find a link to the “Gold List” at 912candidates.org, consisting of politicians who have “pledged their sacred honor” to uphold the Glenn Beck 9/12 Project’s “9 Principles and 12 Values.”

What are the 9 Principles?

America Is Good.
I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

Head on over to the 9/12 Project for the 12 values.

Only someone so completely infused with Derangement Syndrome could possibly have an issue with that list. In fact, Chuckles is so beyond moonbat that he cannot even LINK to the page, instead, he uses a Google cache link, as well as to 3 of the 4 links.

Unsurprisingly, the Lizaroids have an issue with the list, and even start having a problem with the Boy Scout pledge.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The latest “Conservatives are stupid” accusation

JonJayRay — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:27:54 +0000

This is of course an old chestnut and I have myself previously reported research on it. I found that LEFTISTS were dumber. So what are we to make of the latest research report below? Not much. Following a pattern that is all too common among psychologists, the author seems never to have heard of the concept of sampling. A group of college students or even college applicants is NOT representative of the population as a whole. And young people are notoriously Left-leaning. They have so little experience that they know no better. So if Left-leaning people among a Left-leaning group are smarter, it probably just means that smarter people are better able to pick up what is required for acceptance in that group. It has no wider implications than that.

Even if the results were generalizable, however, there would still be problems with the inferences to be drawn from them. There is in fact some generalizable evidence on the topic drawn from general population sampling. I discuss it here

Conservatism and cognitive ability

Lazar Stankov

Abstract

Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or “mirror” sites here or here — for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is “down” or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Interaction between genes and culture

JonJayRay — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:56:13 +0000

The explanation offered in the article excerpted below for the correlation between genes and culture is highly speculative (to put it kindly) and need not detain us. What is interesting is the demonstration that there is a genetic influence on behavioural traits that have clear political importance. There is plenty of existing research to show that genetic inheritance has a large influence on political orientation but the research below goes one step further by identifying specific genes that appear to be involved.

The findings fit well with what we already know: People with genes that promote negative emotions tend to live in authoritarian societies such as China and it is Leftists who build such societies. Leftists everywhere promote big government. And Leftists are also full of the premier negative emotion: Hate. They hate a great range of what is in the world about them. And people with the opposite genetic pattern are happier and therefore more likely to be spontaneous individualists — as in the USA. Many surveys have shown conservatives to be much happier than Leftists overall

Culture, not just genes, can drive evolutionary outcomes, according to a study released Wednesday that compares individualist and group-oriented societies across the globe. Bridging a rarely-crossed border between natural and social sciences, the study looks at the interplay across 29 countries of two sets of data, one genetic and the other cultural.

The researchers found that most people in countries widely described as collectivist have a specific mutation within a gene regulating the transport of serotonin, a neurochemical known to profoundly affect mood. In China and other east Asian nations, for example, up to 80 percent of the population carry this so-called “short” allele, or variant, of a stretch of DNA known as 5-HTTLPR.

Earlier research has shown the S allele to be strongly linked with a range of negative emotions, including anxiety and depression. Critically, it is also associated with the impulse to stay out of harm’s way.

By contrast, in countries of European origin that prize self-expression and the pursuit of individual over group goals, the long or “L” allele dominates, with only 40 percent of people carrying the “S” variant.

The study, published in Britain’s Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, offers a novel explanation as to how this divergence might have come about.

More here

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Goracle Consults His Crystal Ball, Sees 220 Foot Sea Rise In 5-10 Years

William Teach — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:00:39 +0000

At this point, I am starting to believe Gore would have been better than Bush in fighting the War on Terrorism. Why? The dude is so stone cold wackadoodle that he probably would have just dropped some nukes on Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, and Iran, among others. Besides, the nukes would certainly have mitigated the supposed global warming through nuclear winter. Witness the latest incarnation of insanity

Al Gore was beating the climate change drum again on Tuesday, this time in Dubai, as the former U.S. vice president warned global warming will create “hundreds of millions of climate refugees”.

“Each one metre of sea level rise is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world,” the Nobel laureate told a business forum in Dubai, which could see its famous man-made islands disappear under the waves if his predictions prove true.

“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.

If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres, Gore said, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment.

67 meters is almost 220 feet. Perhaps Al could have saved a few tons of CO2 and not flown to Dubai?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Guardian Moonbat Calls for “Cull” of Western Children

Van Helsing — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:11:46 +0000

It has been hard for progressives to claim the moral high ground while shrieking that children’s lives should be snuffed out for the sake of convenience — excuse me, “choice.” But environmentalism once again provides the smokescreen of sanctimony that prevents the gullible from recognizing that the liberal agenda represents unadulterated evil. From Airstrip One’s The Guardian:

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government’s target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

All children are bad, but Western children are particularly bad, because according to the Gaiaist religion,

the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis. …one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.

As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.

If communism and Nazism could leave tens of millions dead, what will be the death toll if the evil freaks driving the environmentalism movement get the leverage to inflict their anti-Western and anti-human fantasies?

In the US, we already have a Science Czar who has advocated putting sterilants in the water supply. Why not use poison instead? After all, it may only be a matter of years before global warming inconveniences the polar bears unless the human race is reduced to a few barefoot peasants cowering before their socialist overlords.

Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Larry David Urinates on Portrait of Jesus on TV

Van Helsing — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:44:31 +0000

Larry David, husband of High Priestess of the Goracle Laurie David, gave us some insight into the sincerity of liberal “tolerance” on the latest episode of his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm”:

During Sunday’s episode, David, who created, wrote and produced “Seinfeld,” visits a bathroom in his assistant’s home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David’s assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer.

If a crucifix submerged in urine can be high art, why can’t urinating on portraits of Jesus be high comedy?

In lieu of an apology, HBO sneered:

Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire. Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.

Now who would think this was malicious? Vicious, blasphemous, wicked, obviously — but malicious?

Contrast this with the obsequious treatment our liberal rulers have demanded we give Islam ever since 9/11. Despite the claim that David “makes fun of everyone,” you won’t see him peeing on a Koran.

On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

AGW Today: All Dogs Must Be Eaten!

William Teach — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:11:24 +0000

Will Lassie be the next thing on the Climate Alarmists hit list?

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.

I can’t wait till someone does the same type of study on babies. Maybe liberals would stop breeding, thereby creating a future situation where we will all be left in peace from these wackos. Even cats are not immune

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

I bet bison, pandas, and other animals the eco’s have tried to reintroduce and increase in population are not AGW friendly. Maybe we should let species die off? Or, hey, maybe we should just wipe out the big animals around the world. Elephants are probably the equivalent of Al Gore’s yacht. A herd of wildebeest certainly put out as much CO2 as Barry does as he jets around the country and world campaigning.

Oh, hey, we could all go cannibal! That would reduce Man’s eco-footprint.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post