http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

 

first paragraph of the story reads...

 

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

 

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

 

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=970599119419

 

first paragraph of the story reads...

 

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

 

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

 

 

So the study came from UC Berkeley and its negative about conservatives. What a f***ing shock. I hear they did a study where they were against the war also.

 

 

Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

 

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

Edited March 22, 200620 yr by southsideirish71

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country.  But within his sample, he says, the results hold.

 

Which means that this study is complete crap. It's amazing that this "scientist" (1) doesn't bother to take a random sample and (2) can get his biased "study" published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Random samples can be harder to find when you're doing a several year study - but this is a crap, pop science, worthless study.

Wait, so there are people who grow up in Berkeley and become Conservatives?

There are people in Berkeley who aren't whiny?

i see the conservatives are finding their inner child to whine about this one.

i see the conservatives are finding their inner child to whine about this one.

 

 

i was about to say the same thing. these responses seem to fit the study well.

So if everyone poking holes in a flawed report is whining, what do you call all of the liberals who do the samething to GWB?

So if everyone poking holes in a flawed report is whining, what do you call all of the liberals who do the samething to GWB?

 

"Helping the terrorists?"

 

every conservative who calls this poll what it ought to be called is titled a whiner and verifies the results. you should ask me next if i still beat my wife.

And right here was something much more interesting than the main point of the article:

 

Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

 

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

 

What is buried in that statement (I think) is that the insecure, defensive folks are most likely to find some cause, ANY cause, and stick to it like glue. In other words, maybe its those who rigidly follow any one party (GOP, Dem or otherwise) at all that are the insecure ones.

 

There are people in Berkeley who aren't whiny?

 

 

every conservative who calls this poll what it ought to be called is titled a whiner and verifies the results. you should ask me next if i still beat my wife.

 

do you still beat your wife?

do you still beat your wife?

 

i think what is likely here that this was a very large write up of a very long term spanning study and i wouldn't be suprised if this finding was a very small part of it but when read people found it the most interesting. I'm sure there were more accurately reported results in this study which were far less interesting, but were more controlled and closer to a true experiment. But for this small sample size, in this small study, he found this to be true, there's nothing to get so wound up about, jeeze, so you were a whiny baby...who cares? Are you whiny now? Nothing in psychology can ever be declared fact, but through years upon years of verification can something as close to true as possible be declared. Just read this as a funny anecdote and move on. Ridiculous over response to this thread.

i think what is likely here that this was a very large write up of a very long term spanning study and i wouldn't be suprised if this finding was a very small part of it but when read people found it the most interesting. I'm sure there were more accurately reported results in this study which were far less interesting, but were more controlled and closer to a true experiment. But for this small sample size, in this small study, he found this to be true, there's nothing to get so wound up about, jeeze, so you were a whiny baby...who cares? Are you whiny now? Nothing in psychology can ever be declared fact, but through years upon years of verification can something as close to true as possible be declared. Just read this as a funny anecdote and move on. Ridiculous over response to this thread.

 

The fact that someone saw fit to post this crap is what happens to be ridiculous. The responses to it are justified. It's garbage.

I don't think the whiny insecure ilk stick to one cause. If they stuck with something that would make them secure and less whiny. Unless I'm mixing up my definitoins of secure and insecure?? I think the insecure folk are the ones that jump from cause to cause.

 

(taken from PCU)

The CAUSE-HEADS

They find a cause and stick with it -- for about a week. They are the Cause-Heads, a mob of liberal environmentalists concerned about everything, but doing little about it. Their leader is Moonbeam, a retro-flower-child of the 60's who loves trees and cows more than people. She keeps the group fired up in protest after protest, changing the cause to reflect changing concerns.

 

 

My study.....which is based on postings from liberals on this board, finds most left leaning adults tend to b****, moan and whine more than a spoiled child with buck teeth and no friends. What you all were as children I don't know, but according to my study it doesn't really matter. As a liberal, you still cry like children now.

 

This study should have about as much merit as the Block(head) study. Don't get defensive now and prove my point.

 

 

 

 

 

Can you blow me where the pampers is?

Edited March 23, 200620 yr by Controlled Chaos

The fact that someone saw fit to post this crap is what happens to be ridiculous.  The responses to it are justified.  It's garbage.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

:puke

 

oh please, grow a pair will ya.

:puke

 

oh please, grow a pair will ya.

 

You had a reason for posting this garbage. It portrayed conservatives in a less than favorable light, and that was all the reason you needed. When you can post something that is meaningful and substantial, we will give it the proper respect. When you post crap, you get no respect. So, grow a brain will ya?

You had a reason for posting this garbage.  It portrayed conservatives in a less than favorable light, and that was all the reason you needed.  When you can post something that is meaningful and substantial, we will give it the proper respect.  When you post crap, you get no respect.  So, grow a brain will ya?

Yas is correct here. It's at least worth checking on a study like this for a dissenting view, to see if maybe the person doing the study had done something wrong.

give me a break. My posting of this study wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. Just given the right a hard time and serving as a conversation piece.

 

So quick to attack the messenger.

 

Don't take things so seriously.

give me a break. My posting of this study wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. Just given the right a hard time and serving as a conversation piece.

 

So quick to attack the messenger.

 

Don't take things so seriously.

No one did take it seriously, and no one reacted strongly... until you egged them on.

i was about to say the same thing. these responses seem to fit the study well. 

 

 

if this is egging people on, then some people aren't able to handle a joke.

 

what, the big smiley face didn't give it away? The funny lookin dude with the bring it sign, didn't tip you off? Christ....