What's laughable is all the conservatives that deny being antisocial all while pushing antisocial agendas as political policy.
You don't understand the criteria for diagnosing someone with Antisocial PD. You also completely prove the purpose of garbage studies like these: mindshare. The idea behind a study like this is to make a suggestion to link certain types of beliefs with negative traits, in the hope that people will start running with the suggestion, and have it grow from there.
Again, one would never try to test the general public with a study that would correlate responses with a personality disorder b/c the answers would not mean anything at all. You could not come to any conclusion from the answers AT ALL. The study is worthless in other words. It is impossible to design questions to test the general public for personality disorders (unless you could somehow ensure that people were not lying and then ask a question like "Do you enjoy torturing small animals?")- the population tested has to be pre-defined; i.e. you could give the test to a person who has a personality disorder and to a person who does not have a personality disorder and they could answer in the same exact way.
It's a little late for a study to get people to run with the suggestion that conservatives are antisocial.
Again, you prove that you don't understand what Antisocial Personality Disorder is.
You can have observable antisocial beliefs and traits while being short of a full blown clinical disorder. I think modern conservatism is pretty fair evidence of that. And that's no more or less than what this study supports.
Edit: I'm a little distracted today, so you'll have to forgive my late LOL at you using "mindshare" in trying to defend conservatism.
Last edited:
The study dovetails rather neatly with some other stuff-
http://mydd.com/users/paul-rosenber...ervative-identity-politics-pt-3-in-the-series
http://mydd.com/users/paul-rosenber...servative-identity-politics-pt4-in-the-series
Righties never really examine their core beliefs at any depth at all, making them easy targets for manipulation by their leadership.
http://mydd.com/users/paul-rosenber...ervative-identity-politics-pt-3-in-the-series
http://mydd.com/users/paul-rosenber...servative-identity-politics-pt4-in-the-series
Righties never really examine their core beliefs at any depth at all, making them easy targets for manipulation by their leadership.
Actually, everything you have said here is totally false. You haven't the first clue about "personality disorders" or pscyhometric testing. What they call "personality disorders" is nothing more than elevated scores for normal personality traits. Narcisism, for example, is a trait that exists in every human being to varying degrees. The "general population" can and is tested in hosts of psychological studies, with the use of various personality inventories - such as the MMPI - that measure everything under the sun. If they didn't test the general population, there would be no baseline to determine what degree is considered pathological.
Also, "personality disorders" are not something you either have or do not have. They aren't like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, for example. A personality axis is expressed quanitatively. You can be elevated above the mean on a personality trait but not high enough to be considered pathological. Or you might be in a borderline range. The precise boundary is actually somewhat arbitrary, which is why competent pscyhologists are cautious in applying the diagnostic label.
This study actually isn't correlating "personality disorders," per se, with views on political issues. It is correlating the views with quantitative scores on a personality inventory. The results suggest a correlation between views on certain issues with higher scores on certain trait scales, not with personality disorders per se.
To illustrate the point, consider narcissism on a 1 to 10 scale, with 1 being the lowest and 10 the highest. A "5" would be considered average, whereas a 1-2 or 9-10 are considered pathological extremes (yes, too low on narcissism is considered a problem). You then have questions on various political topics, where the anwers are on say a 1-5 scale (agree, somewhat agree, etc.), with 1 being the most liberal view and 5 being the most conservative. The study might show that on a given topic, those who were a 5 averaged say, 7.2 on narcissism, whereas those who were at a 4 averaged 6.6 and those who answers 1,2,3 averaged a 5 on narcissism. Note that the average is still below the pathological threshold. And it's on a bell curve. The vast majority of people tested, like the vast majority of the general population, undoubtedly were not in the pathological category.
Your assertion that people must have an observable pathology before being tested is made up nonsense. People are either tested because they have come to see a mental health professional for one reason or another, because their job/employer requires it, or because they are participating in psychometric research, like the study under discussion here. Even in the first category, there need not be any suspicion of a personality disorder. Personality inventories create an overall psychological profile of the person in question and can be useful for a variety of reasons, whether "personality disorders" are indicated or not.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of this study. It's been published in a peer reviewed journal, and its authors have been extremely responsible in pointing out possible imprecision in the results, and other pitfalls of the methodology. What exactly are your qualifications in this area that you feel you know more than those who practice and research psychometrics? I'm guessing your sole qualification is that you don't like the results.
- wolf
Last edited:
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
This study really fits in with some of what i've seen at work with conservatives. They have a very over exaggerated heroic view of themselves and their own success (without ever crediting any outside influences) and have zero to no empathy for people who are struggling.
Of course, that quickly turns into a victim complex when it's their turn to get laid off and get fucked up by the system, and they never remembered how they viewed the unemployed and down on their luck with disdain before.
It's really disgusting.
edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U <-- conservatives in a nutshell.
Edit: lets not forget conservatives are the ones who cheer torture and amoral wars, as well.
Of course, that quickly turns into a victim complex when it's their turn to get laid off and get fucked up by the system, and they never remembered how they viewed the unemployed and down on their luck with disdain before.
It's really disgusting.
edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U <-- conservatives in a nutshell.
Edit: lets not forget conservatives are the ones who cheer torture and amoral wars, as well.
Last edited:
Your assertion that personality disorders are merely the extreme on a continuum of personality traits is a gross and overly simplistic representation of what a personality disorder is. When one says that someone is "anti-social", the mean that the individual is not a social person and prefers to be solitary . However, if someone has Antisocial Personality Disorder, that person needs to meet a wide range of criteria that the general definition of antisocial does not represent in the slightest. In fact, not even one of the criteria touch what the general definition of antisocial is:
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
These are not extreme expressions of a personality trait at all.
Oh Please, you are just playing semantics. You yourself said that these personality traits are on a continuum (which is what the public is supposed to believe to try to give any legitimacy to this quack report) and now you are saying that the higher scores don't mean anything in regard to personality disorders.
I never said that there must be observable pathology to be tested. I said that for someone to be tested specifically for a personality disorder, there must first be observable pathology b/c one test alone, or any set of tests is not adequate to provide for a diagnosis due to the limitations of psychological testing. You disagree with this??? This is exactly what you are purporting, as is the person who put forth this study- that from the results of some questionnaires, individuals with certain viewpoints can be associated with a personality disorder.
The authors never even use the term "personality disorder", recognizing that it is applied only to individuals at the extreme end of whatever spectrum they're trying to measure. For example, a person who has no remorse has a personality disorder, while one who has little remorse does not. Both are likely lying, cheating back-stabbing sons of bitches, but there are issues of degree.
If, of course, you'd care to cite a study that puts Conservatives on the fuzzy puppy side of the psychological spectrum, I'll read it.
Good luck.
Hm, I guess it doesn't. When I read the definition of the Dark Triad, I saw "Narcissistic Personality (in the clinical sense)" and my mind jumped to NPD. Thanks for pointing that out.
Still, the idea behind this research is to associate certain beliefs with unsavory personality characteristics.. which is in itself morally questionable. Sure, alot of conservatives are lacking in empathy seemingly and may be cold-hearted, but to attempt to ascribe these types of traits to all people who believe a certain way is kind of absurd. This goes by a case-by-case basis. Any time you deal with morality, the motive of the heart comes into play, so you do not know what is prompting an individual to believe in a certain way.
No one is attempting to ascribe traits to "all people who believe a certain way." The study shows a statistical correlation. It should go without saying that it is assessing quantitative averages.
There is nothing morally questionable about the study. Anything that people are curious about can be the subject of research. If there's something wrong with the methodology, that would be a problem. I don't see anything wrong with the methodology here other than the fact that there is inherently a certain amount of imprecision in any social scientific research (as compared to hard sciences.)
You seem to have finally figured out that the study is assessing traits, not identying personality disorders, per se.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
We all know they are assholes, big deal like we all did not know this. but them becoming cultish lock-step "dittoheads" is the part of the reactionary personality that is annoying and troubling throughout history.
How do you find common ground for liberty with folks whose basic political ideology depends on the fantasy-world they set up for themselves? These folks find reality to be a THREAT to their "way of life" meme that never even existed.
It's a little victim-cult they set up where everyone is against them.
Conservatism is intellectual cowardice really, and a logistics problem with the placement of large sticks up the rectum.
Extraction of said wood item is the holy water that kills conservatism. ;P
How do you find common ground for liberty with folks whose basic political ideology depends on the fantasy-world they set up for themselves? These folks find reality to be a THREAT to their "way of life" meme that never even existed.
It's a little victim-cult they set up where everyone is against them.
Conservatism is intellectual cowardice really, and a logistics problem with the placement of large sticks up the rectum.
Extraction of said wood item is the holy water that kills conservatism. ;P
Last edited:
You'll never find any common ground with a conservative because you're convinced they're stupid. The basic belief of superiority is the fundamental flaw in liberal thinking, and the most frightening aspect of it.
If conservatives were so damn evil and stupid, what does it say about non-conservatives since there are so many conservatives and apparently they have so much power? Not much, I'd say. Hmmm, then you get into a whole schizophrenic cottage industry on the Left that attempts to explain just how stupid/psychologically defective/corrupt/manipulating/sheeple/power-hungry/blah/blah/blah conservatives are with about every contradiction, historical revision, inconsistency, and colossal duplicity imaginable.
I agree with your comment. Many far-Libs have as much, if not more, sanctimonious certainty and air of superiority than the most rabid religo-nuts on the Right.
And yet those people have as much say in how the country is run as you do. That must be galling.
I don't think conservatives are stupid, at all. Not any more than the rest of us, really. OTOH, I do think conservatives in general are more reliant on what they already believe, and don't often question that at all. It's convenient, it's emotionally satisfying, and it lets them get on with the rest of their lives. Even when that belief structure fails them or others, they cling to it, and will engage in elaborate rationalizations to maintain denial.
That really doesn't affect the rest of us much when, say, they believe in their spouse's fidelity when it's obviously not true to the people around them, particularly the party fooling around with their spouse.
But it matters in other realms, like politics. Just as an unfaithful spouse would exploit their faith, their political leaders are obviously doing the same thing. If a close friend tries to tell them about their marital situation, they'll tell their friend to STFU, because they don't want to hear it. It's the same wrt politics. They don't want to hear it.
Their identity is rooted in what they believe. They're often afraid to look at themselves, at what they believe, because that's always dangerous. Sans beliefs, they'd be set adrift, cut from the herd, left to fend for themselves in a world full of dangerous ideas.
When they ultimately get a restraining order at the office, one htat says they can't go home because they allegedly beat their spouse, they're thunderstruck. When their spouse then sells off everything they own, empties the bank accounts, runs up the credit cards & disappears, they start to get the picture.
It'll be much the same wrt politics in this country. Only after they're blued, screwed, tattooed & sold into virtual slavery will they figure it out. That's what happened in the early 1930's, and what nearly happened in 2008, too. The fact that it's not total catastrophe just gives them room to maintain denial. Their leaders are luring them towards the cliff, again, and they act as if they didn't barely escape a fatal fall the last time around...
Yes, guys, your leaders are doing threesomes with Wall St hotties & svelte Chinese concubines, laughing at you the whole while.
Don't want to hear it? I didn't think so.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I don't even call what these guys believe today conservatism. I'm conservative but of the variety that existed during America's epoch. The Eisenhower's, and to a lessor degree Nixon's and Reagan's who would be flaming liberals by today's standards.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter