Psychology, Pseudo science and left wing politics
Conservatives are Racist, Prejudice and have low IQ's?
Left wing social psychologists are dropping like flies, but the left wing media is still buzzing over the massive piles of dung that this disgraceful branch of “science” continues to publish. Recent news headlines have spoon fed this excrement to left wing blogs which in turn are propagating the claims of the pseudo scientists to their unwashed masses. The latest whopper out of the pseudo science community states that conservative ideas breed prejudice and racism. This story was printed in “Live Science” and by Yahoo News. These anti conservative Christian stories are widely covered, while less popular stories exposing the lies of the pseudo science community receive hardly any mainstream media coverage. Stories such as Marc D. Hauser, the Harvard psychologist found responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct by the university are unknown. There is another little known article out there that goes a little something like this: Massive Fraud Uncovered in Work by Social Psychologist.
There are some very interesting and relevant quotes from the latter article. For them to be relevant, first you need to know a little background about the pseudo science aka social psychology community. If you are going through some of these psychology papers like I did, you will see that they cite numerous previous studies to back their findings. While trying to research the study about conservative ideas leading to racism, I ended up looking through two or three other papers. They are extremely boring, and not very clear on the subject matter. The style of these papers go something like this. They tell you their procedure and constantly cite older studies as their methods. Then they will say something like racism was found to be related to candy canes (Gwynn and Boggs 1983) and economic conditions were shown to relate to lollipops in (O’Neal and Bryant 2001). These cited studies come out of peer reviewed science journals, and they are taken as gospel truth for all future studies.
Massive Fraud in the Pseudo Science World
The problem occurs when some of these early studies are found to be fraudulent. We have just such a case in the social psychology world. This case is almost as damning as the climate gate case is for the global carbon tax movement. But, social psychologists are circling the wagons and pretending that nothing of significance is affected. Even as one of the superstars in European psychology is found out to be a fraud.
In the article about D.A. Stapel, who was called a rising star in social psychology by Oxford professors, that was published by the Scientific America we find this little tidbit:
"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work at the university.
Only 30? I did a Google search and there are 26 pages of Google “articles and patents” by D.A. Stapel. Another interesting statement in the article is how Stapel would magically hand over data groups to other researchers so that they could write their papers. Was Stapel’s name always on those papers that were written using make believe data groups? I don’t know how anyone will ever find out how deep the fraud by one influential “scientist” can go into this “scientific” community.
The defense by the pseudo science community will be that they had a bad apple but the real scientists forced him out. They will pat themselves on the back and show how trustworthy they are as they stick their pompous noses into the air. The problem is that it took them about 15 years for the “real scientists” to find the admitted fraud! How much research was based off of this guys work? Why is this “science” so full of holes that some guy can run fake data through the scientific journals for 15 years before students finally ratted him out? He wasn’t caught by the scientific community; he was caught by his own students that turned him into the dean.
How does Bad Science get Published in Science Journals
I always thought that science was observable and repeatable, but not in this “pseudo science” community. Their science is writable and everyone else is supposed to be gullible enough to believe what they tell you to believe. As a student of hard factual sciences, I do not appreciate these scientific imposters ruining the good name of my discipline. The main goal of this group is to give the legitimacy of science to their left wing ideology.
The reason why a "scientist" was allowed to publish fake papers for fifteen years is twofold. Number one, he was preaching to the choir. If this guy was coming out with studies that said that conservative values promote a better society, he would be under extreme scrutiny. Since he was promoting the ideology of the left wing, he was allowed to slide his garbage through the system for fifteen years. If you don’t believe that the social psychology community is left wing, here is my proof. Their own studies will tell you “about 70% of the 1st-year psychology students have a preference for the political program of parties that represent the leftwing side of the political spectrum in Flanders (i.e., the Green Party and the Social Democrats)”. If you want to get published in this field, then these are the people that you will have to convince. Do you think that they are going to peer review a paper that overturns previous published left wing studies?
Number two, this is not true science. None of these studies are easy to follow. If these pseudo scientists really had a discovery, then they would make it very easy to see their work. Why would anyone want to hide their findings? The data sets that they claim to use in their studies are not published with the journals. The graphs and tables in the reports are not clear. There is no statistical analysis shown in the reports. An arrow to a box that says RACIST, really, that is science? Maybe that is how they do it in cartoons and social psychology, but in real science we use bar graphs, charts, line graphs etc.
How a scientific graph should look
Just listen to what your Pseudo Scientist tells you
The meaning behind the data in social psychology is basically hearsay. You hear the social psychologist tell you his opinion, then after you hear the opinion, you are to accept his opinion as scientific fact. Here is the scientific process for pseudo science:the social psychologist will tell you what he found from a mysterious data set; that information will match his hypothesis (preconceived notion); then his findings are published in a Science Journal as gospel. As an engineer, I think that I know how to read a graph and compute a few equations. When I am looking at these pseudo science reports, I have to struggle to even figure out what they are talking about. Some of the charts are so poorly done that I have no idea what they are trying to say. They look like pointless graphics that are placed in the paper because someone told the pseudo scientist that his paper needs more than words to be published.
A replicated graphic from the pseudo science paper that claims that there is a link between racism and conservative beliefs
You can't believe your Bible
Putting the whole corrupt pseudo science industry aside let’s take a look at their “findings”. The first red flag for me was when I read some of the parroted articles on Live Science and Yahoo. They used this phrase: “Family life suffers if mum is working fulltime”. That immediately tells me that these are not Americans. The word mum is a deal breaker for me. But the pseudo scientists cite some study that says that everyone in the world is the same. I didn’t bother looking that one up. Americans think differently from Europeans, if we didn’t we would be playing soccer over here instead of real Football.
After getting into the actual paper I found this line: “A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice “ So if you believe this Bible verse to be true you are prejudice according to the pseudo scientists: Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination." Does that make you prejudice or does that simply mean that your view of homosexuality is different from the writer? Let's put this into context. California is one of the most liberal states in the union, and it couldn’t even pass gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2008. In America more than half of the country has antihomosexual prejudice according to these definitions.
3/4=1 in pseudo science
Now that we have determined that many of you are homophobes, let’s see how you can become a racist. Here is how you become a racist; well actually we only have examples because we aren’t given the actual questions to see how skewed they are. One example that is given is “I wouldn’t mind if a family of a different race moved next door”. Detroit is 90% black here in liberal Michigan, why aren’t white liberals moving back into the city? I guess that question will go unanswered.
Another fact from the pseudo science paper is that only 3 out of 4 of the groups gave the pseudo scientist the results that he wanted. He took that 75% success rate and called his “science” proven as fact! So if we have 75% of something we can now call that absolute fact according to pseudo science. Tell your kids that a C in school is really the same as an A. If we take water samples and 3 out of 4 of them are safe to drink, then we are good to go. If 3 out of 4 cars pass crash tests, then we are ready to start production. Does anyone else see a problem here?
Do you think that social psychologists are believable
We need to oppose the family unit at all costs!
One last thing that I found with these people is their attack on Conservatives, Christians, and the family unit. This video will show you the “problems” with the family unit. He claims that the hierarchical structure of the family is a negative influence on children. Anything with the man leading the way is negative to these people. I thought that it was interesting that the woman and man above the child is not hierarchical to them. It seems to me that an authority figure is an authority figure regardless of gender. I think that what they really would love to see is something out of Orwell with the children over the parents. At the very least we should have the children as co-equals to the parents with full involvement in all household decisions.