Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Liberals Are Simple-Minded

...and often more dogmatic than conservatives, according to a new study.

PoliticalBrainspublichealthwatchIt is almost a truism among psychological researchers that conservatives are simple-minded and dogmatic. Liberals, meanwhile, are supposed to be more complex and open-minded thinkers. But a new paper is calling those conclusions into question.

Writing in the journal Political Psychology, a team of researchers led by the University of Montana psychologist Lucian Gideon Conway III reports the results of four studies that together call "into question the typical interpretation that conservatives are less complex than liberals." It turns out that liberals and conservatives are both simple-minded, depending on the topic under discussion.

Using the dogmatism scale devised in 1960 by the psychologist Milton Rokeach, who defined dogmatism in terms of "closed belief systems," researchers have generally found a positive relationship between dogmatism and political conservatism. But while the Rokeach scale is supposed to be politically neutral, Conway and his colleagues argue that it actually includes a number of topics for which conservatives generally have a greater concern, such as religion and national defense. Conservatives who fill out the scale would more tend to come off as more dogmatic largely because they are endorsing conservative views.

So for their first study, Conway and his colleagues modified the Rokeach dogmatism scale by including items reflecting alternatively environmentalist and religious views. For example, item 7 reads alternatively: "When it comes to differences of opinion in protecting the environment/religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do."

Several hundred undergraduates (the traditional psych lab rats) filled out questionnaires that sorted them using a 7-point scale along the usual American bipolar liberal-conservative political continuum. They then administered the standard Rokeach scale along with their modified versions. Sure enough, the standard dogmatism test found conservatives to be more dogmatic than liberals. Once again, conservatives are simpleminded ideologues. Or are they?

Comparing the religion-dogmatism scale with the regular Rokeach scale, the researchers found essentially no differences in conservative dogmatism on either scale. This strongly bolsters the claim that Rokeach dogmatism scale is biased toward finding conservatives dogmatic.

The more interesting and telling results were found when comparing the liberal and conservative results derived from the environmentalism and religion dogmatism scales. The researchers report, "Conservatives are indeed more dogmatic on the religious domain; but liberals are more dogmatic on the environmental domain." In fact, they note that "the highest score for simplicity was for liberals" (emphasis theirs).

They note that liberals scored high for dogmatism in response to these three items:

9. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth that the planet is warming and those who are against that obvious truth.

3. When it comes to stopping global warming, it is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.

10. A person who thinks primarily of his/her own happiness, and in so doing disregards the health of the environment (for example, trees and other animals), is beneath contempt.

The researchers point out, "Those are not just statements about having an environmental position: They are explicitly and overwhelmingly dogmatic statements. And liberals are more likely to agree with such sentiments—for an environmental domain." The liberal respondents are not just asserting "'I am an environmentalist' but rather 'all people who disagree with me are fools.'"

Conway and his colleagues also discuss the results of three other studies that try to compare the integrative complexity of liberal and conservative thought processes. Integrative complexity is the degree to which individuals consider divergent perspectives and take into account the connections between them. Again, most psychological research finds that conservatives are less able and less willing to think about issues from different points of view.

In one study, the researchers analyzed the responses of nearly 1,500 undergraduates sorted along the usual liberal-conservative continuum to a questionnaire asking them to think about various social and political issues. Their answers were then coded for integrative complexity and compared. It turns out that conservatives showed more complexity when dealing with topics like the death penalty, socialism, and refugees. Liberal responses were more complex when considering pre-marital sex, biblical truth, and alcohol. Overall, they report that liberals showed no greater complexity in thinking than conservatives did.

A similar study analyzed liberal and conservative responses to a 30-item questionnaire. Again, conservatives exhibited more complex thinking on some topics, including open-door immigration, smoking, castration, and easy access to birth control. Liberals were complex when discussing organized religion, abortion on demand, making racial discrimination illegal, and being assertive.

The researchers also found that both liberals and conservatives hold stronger attitudes for the topics on which they are more simple-minded.

Their final study analyzed the integrative complexity of arguments on 15 different topics made by President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival, John Kerry, during 2004's presidential debates. They randomly selected five paragraphs on each topic from the candidates. The results are that Bush expressed more complex thinking than Kerry on religion, terrorism, stem cells, health care, and affirmative action. Kerry, on the other hand, was complex than Bush on Iraq, general foreign policy, economic issues, abortion, and education.

Ultimately, the researchers report that both liberals and conservatives are almost equally simple-minded when it comes to topics about which they feel strongly. On the basis of their studies, Conway and his colleagues conclude, "It may be that liberals are, as many have claimed...pulled towards complexity more than conservatives: But we think such a judgment is premature."

Disclosure: As an open-to-experience libertarian with a high need-for-cognition, I have no dogmatic views, only well-informed ones.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • hpearce||

    The simple fact is that so-called left-wing political liberals are not liberals at all .... The sooner they are called on this the better rather than reinforcing the current concept as Reason has done.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Agreed. Leftists and Progressives are not liberals. Just because a distinctly illiberal political movement absconded with the term to create a falsely positive association does not mean the word's lost its meaning.

  • ||

    Empirically, it has. Compare to "feminism".

  • Lorenzo Zoil||

    Most of the founders of this nation were liberals and were also among the great thinkers of their time. What is classed as liberal today (progressive) is absolutely dogmatic to principles that demand obedience. Which is, quite naturally the opposite of a genuinely liberal thinker who chooses individual liberty and responsibility.

  • The Other Libertarian||

    Sargon of Akkad, a self-professed (and I believe him) liberal, has been banging that gong for more than a year. Most of the term's pollution, he claims, seems to be coming from the U.S. - Sargon, a Brit, finds himself repeatedly having to explain that American claims to Liberalism are usually quite the opposite, and that the pollution of the term had begun to spread into European political conceptions. I would tend to agree with him.

  • Rational Exhuberance||

    Actually, "the pollution" came from Europe, with its "social democracy" and "social liberalism". Germany is a particularly clearcut example, with their "ordoliberalism", which stands for social liberalism combined with government intervention in the market to make it "more optimal". Germany's liberal party also illustrates how that goes wrong: they became the target of increasingly narrow special interest lobbies, people saw them for what they were, which was little more than crony capitalists, and they are out of parliament entirely now.

    Just like European socialists/communists/progressives/fascists have their "Frankfurt school", European liberals have their "Freiburg school". Rule of thumb: if there is a "(German city) school" for your ideology, forget about it.

  • ThomasD||

    Consider Adam Smith, the quintessential liberal, is practically despised by the modern left.

  • JohnD||

    To clarify:
    Dem = Liberal = Progressive = Socialist = Marxist = Communist.

  • Suicidy||

    A few years ago, my communist aunt was talking about how Obama wasn't a liberal, and that he's really a centrist with conservative leanings. I laughed and explained to her that he was in no way a conservative, and not even centrist. And then differentiated the difference between conservatism and authoritarian statism. She was not pleased, and ended that discussion quickly.

  • LynchPin1477||

    You're fighting a a battle that is at least 70 years old. The term liberal is lost. Oh well.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    It's not lost outside the US.

  • Solipsist||

    Libertarian is lost in the US. It's funny to watch Chomsky and other anarcho socialists stomp their feet that we stole "their" word. Of course we do the same thing with liberal. It's pointless. Language is alive and liberal too far gone to be reclaimed.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    We would all do well not to get attached to any labels. Those that do are guilty of a sort of word collectivism. Words mean different things to different people, and it has always been this way. Rather than being hung up on labels, discuss issues and ideas, and not tribe membership.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Exactly. Labels allow and encourage stereotyping, which is the other side of the dogmatism coin. One does well to avoid carrying banners as much as they should recognize their own dogmatism. Accepting and using labels is illiberal.

  • Diaxus||

    Your use of "illiberal" is itself a label, as is calling a tree a tree, a dog a dog, etc. In fact, the concept of stereotyping is itself a stereotype. Thus one cannot get away from labels and stereotypes without utterly abandoning language altogether. Thus, the only rational course of action is to attempt to determine whether a given stereotype is accurate, or rather to what extent it is so.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Yes, I agree with you. It's a problem. Stereotyping is necessary yet demeaning toward others. Where's the balance? There is none. Nobody will we be happy.

  • Libertarius||

    You guys are all wrong here. It's not stereotyping or "word collectivism" (whatever that is), what you are grasping for is "concept formation". Concepts are objective and unifying; if we have a sound concept of collectivism, we know it when we hear it and are justified in identifying someone as a collectivist.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Concepts are objective? Are you on crack? The only way concepts could be objective is if you had an explicit set element list for each concept and if this explicit list was the same for everyone. That is not how language works.

  • Suicidy||

    It can be reclaimed. Over a mountain of prog bodies, and a river of their blood............

    Actually that sounds pretty good. Is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives. Hint: veterinarians can be of great use in this undertaking.

  • The Other Libertarian||

    but loosing ground quickly. See my comment above about Sargon of Akkad (youtube guy).

  • Mickey Rat||

    How do you loose ground? How was it tight in the first place?

  • JohnD||

    LOL... That seems to be a common spelling error. Even well educated people make it.

  • mswen||

    Whatever they call themselves, few people put much actual thought into their politics. Most people grow up with parents and friends who support Team Red or Team Blue, and they grow up, and either do the same, or they jump to the other side, because they think it's cooler, or they think it shows that they can think for themselves (which is apparently popular right now). Then they accept whatever ideas come with their team affiliation as being fundamentally Red Team ideas or Blue Team ideas, without ever thinking about whether they make much sense, or whether they align with actual principles, or not. Sadly, for most Americans, choosing who to put in charge of our country is more like supporting a football team than making an important decision.

  • ajkelly451@gmail.com||

    I like how you comment with a dogmatically charged statement on an article implicating Dems and Reps as simple minded, aka dogmatic, on different issues.

    I would argue that a ton of you regular commenters of Reason would fall into this simple-minded category with your immediate cynicism towards anyone who doesn't align with libertarianism in EVERY way.

    And it's funny, because this clearly isn't a good way to convince someone that libertarianism is the way to go. It is, in fact, a terrible way. It will reaffirm people in the shackles that we ourselves broke free of. I would like to say that on ISSUES, libertarianism is an attempt to break the shackles of simple-mindedness. But clearly on judgments of PEOPLE, I'm not seeing very libertarian-driven reasoning, at least in this community.

  • JohnD||

    I can't help saying this: . You sound like you are saying anyone that doesn't share your beliefs is just wrong headed. Isn't that an example of simple mindlessness?

  • Suicidy||

    I would be satisfied with a bunch of people that would agree to cut government costs and regulations by even 30%. And the prog population by a similar amount.

  • UnmutualOne||

    We need to start calling them leftists. That's what they are.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Roger that.

  • Suicidy||

    It needs to be publicly excepted that 'progressives' are communists. And that communism, and communists, must be eradicated.

  • Suicidy||

    "accepted" .....fucking autocorrect gremlins at work again.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I dislike studies that purport to show that political sensibilities are hard-wired. While there is probably some truth to certain personality types being drawn to certain ideologies, I fear it will be used to oppress people at some point.

    Once it becomes "he can't help himself, he just isn't wired to serve the greater good", it's a short leap to "we need some sort of way to peel these folks away from society. No, no, not a prison, more like a camp...."

  • Thisisalongname||

    That isn't what the studies are about at all. They didn't see if certain brain functions or genes made one a liberal or conservative. They simply showed that people tend to be hard headed and dogmatic on subjects that they believe strongly in.

  • Paloma||

    More like hard headed and dogmatic about subjects they FEEL strongly about, but otherwise yeah.

  • ThomasD||

    How do you remotely claim any knowledge about something as subjective as another's feelings?

    Face it, you use that term strictly as a pejorative intended to denigrate rather than inform.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    So libertarians are hard headed about freedom and leaving people alone? :-D

  • Animal||

    I'm hard-headed about other people leaving me the hell alone. There's a subtle difference, I think.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Like superstition?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Like superstition?

  • Ron||

    the studies are harmless but others are using the studies to justify discounting the opinions of other just as a person discounts the rantings of a naive child.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    I dislike studies that purport to show that political sensibilities are hard-wired. While there is probably some truth to certain personality types being drawn to certain ideologies, I fear it will be used to oppress people at some point.

    It's already been done.

  • Gabnash59||

    Couldn't agree more. My own personal and political beliefs have evolved over the span of several years to the point I would consider myself to be a Christen libertarian.

  • ThomasD||

    Would you then see libertarianism as the political extension of free will?

  • ||

    "...I fear it will be used to oppress people at some point."

    No. Shit.

    I just hopped over from Ron Bailey's climate article and saw this title. Sheesh...another branch of science that is even more politicized than climate.

    I find anecdotally that the more rational a person is, i.e. less emotive in their thinking, the more they lean libertarian or conservative. By conservative I mean sticking to what works, not knee jerk opposition to non-traditional social positions. The knee-jerk opposition crowd are acting on emotion.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    I actually read the study and its really not that politicized... it's pretty objective all around.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Leaving aside the most basic premises and wrong definitions... the remaining 2% would be no big loss either.

  • ThomasD||

    It's all reduced to emotion eventually. The only real question is which emotion is animating the belief.

  • LLizard||

    "... No, no, not a prison, more like a camp...."
    Or, better yet, they can be sent to the Soylent Corporation, and end up serving the greater good, after all.

  • BillEverman||

    Like a camp where they could concentrate on how to be more concerned about helping other people? We could call it a...thinking hard camp! Yeah, that's it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Or Auschwitz: Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz means the common good before the individual good

  • bshep19||

    Think of it more as a re-education Spa.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    They could be confusing cause and effect.

    How about, the more someone knows about a topic, the more deeply held their convictions are, and therefor the less willing they are to entertain contrasting views?

  • dan'o en barrel||

    Let's bear in mind that the odds of any of these studies being reproduced is a tick above 30%

  • But Enough About Me||

    Disclosure: As an open-to-experience libertarian with a high need-for-cognition, I have no dogmatic views, only well-informed ones.

    Indeed, don't we all, don't we all ... ;-)

  • Hank Phillips||

    Add to that some basic unfamiliarity with definitions and a large dose of social metaphysics

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    They could have determined this by merely observing the herd mentality present on many a college campus.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Considering that environmentalism is the leftist religion, can we just distill the results down to the conclusion that everyone is dogmatic about their religion?

  • Eman||

    im not sure it's environmentalism exactly, it's more like the govt is the cure for all our problems and if it doesnt have enough problems to deal with theyll just lower the bar on what they consider a problem, or their standards of evidence. thinking about liberalism as a religion of sorts, some of what happens makes a little more sense

  • Hank Phillips||

    I was surprised to be told communism was a religion, but when government is Jesus, it is...

  • Suicidy||

    I think that is the most logical, coherent thing you've ever said.

  • SteveBB||

    Why would anyone find it surprising, or even illuminating, that undergrads are simple minded? It's a truism.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Time to take these surveys out into the wild!

  • cbpelto||

    FLAG THE SPAMMER!!!!

    Or click on the link at your own risk of getting malware installed on your machine.

  • cbpelto||

    FLAG THE SPAMMER!l!

    Or click on the ink at your own risk of getting malware installed on your machine.

  • snaff||

    But why are "simple-minded" and "dogmatic" thought of as synonymous?

  • ||

    Moreover, why is either a "bad thing". I would think religion should be dogmatic. Factionalism and divergence from religious dogma isn't some magical recipe for achieving good results or optimal outcome. Not even close.

    I would think dogmatism in a field traditionally recognized as a science is a non-sequitur, but apparently I'm not as imaginative as some climate advocates.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I guess dogmatism can be good for intragroup cohesion. Maybe not always so good for intergroup relations, or individuals that diverge from some of their group's beliefs.

  • ace_m82||

    I would think religion should be dogmatic. Factionalism and divergence from religious dogma isn't some magical recipe for achieving good results or optimal outcome.

    "Come now, let us reason together..."

    In fact, Christ was the one who diverged from the religious leaders "dogma". Being logically inconsistent doesn't help one be right, after all.

    If "religion" is rule-following, then yes, "dogma" would be very important. If "religion" is a personal relationship instead, then knowing what the person said (what it is) is important, but "dogma", not so much.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Google: "Michael Crichton" religion
    He, an M.D. and writer, explains what religion is and how econaziism is that.

  • Eman||

    isnt diversity our strength or something?

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    Eff that.

  • ||

    "Disclosure: As an open-to-experience libertarian with a high need-for-cognition, I have no dogmatic views, only well-informed ones."

    Simple as that.

  • Scottzilla||

    Well all these studies seem to prove is how and what undergrads think.

  • Scottzilla||

    Well all these studies seem to prove is how and what undergrads think.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    I got moose. Did you get squirrelz?

  • Ccomfo1||

    I find it funny that they compare religious dogmatism to environmentalism. One is based around proof and evidence, now you can argue that that evidence is in dispute or incomplete but it is still based in facts, the other is based entirely on faith. With literally no provable evidence to back it up. I personally would expect people to be more staunch about things that can be backed up by facts than things that can't. It's like saying people are dogmatic because they believe in gravity rather than the odinforce. One can actually be proved the other can't.

  • Paloma||

    So which one is backed up by facts?

  • LynchPin1477||

    But if you look at the questions, there weren't "Do you believe the science that supports AGW?", they were "Do you think people who disagree with AGW are bad people?"

  • Paloma||

    Exactly! Look at the reactions of doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore when their predictions are totally off the mark. Do they backtrack or revise their assertions? Nope. They double down on the stupid like a religious cult that thinks the end of the world is coming in 1845 or 2012, and when it doesn't, they assert that Jesus is either hiding someplace or they read the Mayan documents wrong, so they may be just a little off by a few years. Exact same mentality.

  • Libertarius||

    With the climate mystics it's not Jesus that is hiding, but an undetectable body of heat on the bottom of the ocean.

  • Suicidy||

    Lavamen!

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Millerites knew the world would end on a specific date. Google "The Great Disappointment"

  • deepspeed||

    Environmental science in general is supported by facts, but many of the claims made by alarmists are not. To use your example, it's like a person claiming that the earth is going to be crushed into a black hole by gravity, rather than by the odinforce.

  • Eman||

    thats a really good analogy

  • Glide||

    I see it as a pretty good analogy. Religion is generally based in facts as well to one extent or another (e.g., there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was born in Bethlehem and crucified under Pontius Pilate's government), and the facts are made a part of the worldview by those close to the situation, but the degree to which the narrative constitutes absolute truth and a standard to live by, as well as what it means for our futures, is a matter of faith.

  • Hank Phillips||

    There is not an iota of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus even as a village idiot. The records of the time are blank on that score and teeming with data on others. The first mention came nearly two centuries too late. Search: Nailed

  • Suicidy||

    Yes, there is.

  • mr simple||

    I know this is too late and you'll probably never see this, but if anyone comes across this they should know that Nailed is about as worthless an argument as has ever been made. It's pablum made to be eaten up by overeager atheists. The scholarship is terrible, with completely biased arguments made, sources misquoted or used second hand, competing evidence and arguments from historians sourced in other chapters completely ignored, etc. Just google Nailed book review and you will find many complete takedowns of this joke. And to be clear, I am agnostic and don't believe in a messiah, just like many scholars the author ignores.

  • Gabnash59||

    I think you misunderstand faith. Some faith is credulity and some faith is based in reasonable evidence. The theist and atheist both labor under suspensions of faith in regards to those things that cannot be absolutely proven, like the beginning of the universe, the question is dose the evidence merit your faith.

  • deepspeed||

    It is possible to believe that something is most plausible, based on available evidence, without holding it as some sort of absolute truth, and that is the exact opposite of faith as far as I'm concerned. Besides, the only common thread among atheists is our lack of belief in a deity. Any belief beyond that exists purely on an individual basis.

  • Sevo||

    "The [...] atheist [...] labor under suspensions of faith in regards to those things that cannot be absolutely proven, like the beginning of the universe,"

    Cite missing.

  • Hank Phillips||

    OK, I am not superstitious but the math required for the Schrodinger equation is over my head. However, experiments repeatedly confirm its predictions just as every conceivable test disproves all predictions of mystical superstition, so I warily accept much of quantum mechanics as a useful working hypothesis. Visit "Real Science"

  • Eman||

    this survey seems to be more about how you see people who disagree with you, which is entirely separate from where your opinions come from, and more important (in some ways).

  • Hank Phillips||

    A lie. Faith is the insistent belief in something for which there is not a whit of supporting evidence.

  • Suicidy||

    We get it. You're one of those bitter atheists that has to be a constant asshole about it.

  • ||

    Which one is based around proof and evidence?

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    So it is in fact worse when people are dogmatic about climate, since it is falsifiable - who gives a shit if people are dogmatic about religion, they CANT be convinced otherwise, climate dogmatists REFUSE to be convinced otherwise.

  • TBlakely||

    That's because their goal is to crush capitalism and reduce personal freedoms. They worship the all powerful government versus robust private enterprise. The question is why? As far as I can make out is that in the main they are small-minded and mean-spirited. They are pissed that our current society doesn't value them enough to suit their egos so they want to remake our society into one that properly appreciate their genius. It just happens that their preferred society is totalitarian and repressive.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Millerites continued to believe in the End of the World even after the prophesy failed twice. That's faith, independent of reality.

  • Kandralla||

    "I personally would expect people to be more staunch about things that can be backed up by facts than things that can't"

    1. I think when you say "fact" you mean "evidence". The word "Fact" is a tricky thing that's usage becomes extremely problematic when it is applied to anything but the simplest and most straightforward situations.

    2. the fact that an idea is well supported by evidence becomes irrelevant in the mind of someone who thinks that their analysis of a situation is so above reproach that the ideas of those who disagree with them are not worthy of consideration based simply on the idea that they disagree. Dogmatism (in practical use) is not limited to those who in the end are proven wrong, it's a symptom of a mindset and not a symptom of the validity of the idea. In other words if someone says "There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth that the planet is warming and those who are against that obvious truth" their idea, evidence based as it may be, is effectively a dogma.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    No, environmentalism (global warming) is based on someone telling you that there's fact and science, and you just believing it without ever trying to verify it. There's consensus, after all.

  • Eric||

    The term liberal and conservative have evolved to the point that they really don't mean anything anymore. You have authoritarians and libertarians. This is the most relevant axis for me.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    I prefer statists and individualists, or collectivists and individualists

  • uunderstand||

    Good choice. I prefer statists myself.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I prefer "Slavers".

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    To fuck? Don't you know not to stick it in the crazy?

  • Animal||

    The problem with that is that crazy sex is addictively wild, and wildly addictive.

  • Suicidy||

    I prefer communists and humans.

  • ||

    Well, the liberals are really progressives, which makes sense, and the conservatives are generally somewhat more conservative than the progressives. They just may not seem conservative because they chiefly strive to conserve any mistakes that have been made rather than the restoration of an earlier, less corrupted tradition. However fucked up things have got, conservatives will fight to keep any of it from being reversed. They only resist the progressives in fuckups that the progressives have not solidly established, but so soon as they are well enough set in place, the conservatives will then champion them and fight to defend them. So will progressism stays about the same, conservatism is a relative approach that varies in particulars according to its direction by progressives.

  • ||

    Progressives want regression to socialism/feudalism. Not really liberal...

  • Hank Phillips||

    That's true. Conservatives, mohammedan, christian, whatevah, are superstitious bigots driven by fear of devils. The other looters are driven by fear of their own incompetence. The breakthrough was adding a second dimension. The irony is that WE are accused of oversimplification for using a coordinate plane instead of a line to reflect reality. My guess is looters are terrified of reflections as a general proposition.

  • ||

    All I'm gonna say is I prefer having conversations with old school/world liberals (at least to the extent I've come to personally define liberalism/conservatism etc.) than I do with those moronic progressives. The former you can find common ground with; the latter not so much.

  • toolkien||

    People, it's about FORCE. It doesn't matter if it unleashed against peaceful and productive people after five seconds of thought or ten years of thought. You can use Force to defend yourself, but you can't to mandate obedience - to compel or coerce. Both sides of the equation have their reactionaries with 94 IQ's and both sides have their pointy-heads with 150 IQ's. And I don't care if either side has people who legitimately have had an open mind, gathered facts, debated those facts, worried about this or that, when they've decided Force against peaceful and productive people is warranted; it is wrong.

  • ||

    Dogmatic.

  • american socialist||

    Dear Ron:

    Do you think if you phrased a question like this...

    "There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth that the free market distributes goods and services better than any other economic system and those who are against that obvious truth."

    ... that libertarians would score high for dogmatism? Are these scientists receiving government money? I might be coming around to your point of view-- and thereby demonstrating intellectual flexibility-- if so.

  • Vampire||

    Well, when you look at free individuals in the market, and the subsequent performance, freedom from force, theft and coercion are more effective and efficient than "Top men" engaging in force, extortion and what have you.

    Computers, watches, clothing, jewelry, the internet, ride sharing, airbnb, the private production of security (and historically defense) and so many other things free from political involvement don't suffer the same "crisis" that heavily regulated and politicized area's of the economy face.

  • american socialist||

    Sounds like a cult. Do free-market fetishists have any kind of evidence on their side that laissez-faire or miniarchist political and economic systems provide better standards of living for their people compared to, say, Danish-style social democracies?

    Want me to provide you with a peer-reviewed article on how exposure to lead can cause neurological problems? How many do you want?

  • sarcasmic||

    Do free-market fetishists have any kind of evidence on their side that laissez-faire or miniarchist political and economic systems provide better standards of living for their people compared to, say, Danish-style social democracies?

    There is plenty of evidence. Taiwan comes immediately to mind. Such systems result in a richer society, though they necessarily create more inequality. Thing is, I'd rather live someplace where everyone is unequally rich compared to someplace where everyone is equally poor.

    Now if you did any research into this Danish-style social democracy model that leftists like to hold up, you'd find that Denmark is more laissez-faire than the US. You'd find that the country was getting richer before they implemented all these socialist policies. You'd find that they've rolled back many of these policies because they were making the country poorer.

    Or you can keep talking out your ass like an emotional leftists moron. Yeah. Keep doing that. It's the only thing you're good at.

  • Brian||

    There are two kinds of people in his world, Sarc: those people who understand that free markets suck because lead is poisonous, and those who are against that obvious truth.

    Sadly, you're just in the last group. Pity, really.

  • Harun||

    Seriously, these guys look at a horse and a cart and claim the cart is pushing the horse.

  • sarcasmic||

    Seriously, these guys look at a horse and a cart and claim the cart is pushing the horse.

    I'm stealing that.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    Free-market vs. social democracy? Those aren't even in the same domain. One is an economic system, the other is a political system. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    In addition, since you're suggesting that Denmark isn't free-market, but it is. In fact, its more free than the United States'. Denmark has open markets, lower levels of regulation and sound money.

    According to the Fraiser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World 2015 release.

    http://www.freetheworld.com/20.....d-2015.pdf

  • Vampire||

    You just ignored the evidence provided. What is cult like, is believing that you are somehow compassionate, as you hide behind the state and advocate it use force against individuals, through extortion, and other means of theft.

    You are so deluded, because you don't face consequences for what you advocate. You would never rob your neighbor, or extort them, but you get to live out your fantasy that is government, at the expense of others and future generations.

    When was the last shoe crisis? How long did it last? When was the last computer crisis? How long did that last? Anything market oriented outperforms your slavers every time.

    The private UL does a great job promoting electrical safety to products sold on the market. Threat management center offers for profit policing services that are nowhere near as violent as the police of the state. They also offer free training and services to individuals who cannot afford policing. The best part is, it's voluntary and they don't go around extorting individuals, and actually fire bad security agents. Not force their customers to provide a violent agent with a desk job and benefits after they murdered someone's family member.

  • Harun||

    Yes, I think that would be scored as dogmatic, and I think you are onto something.

    I suspect they judged "complex" as being a lot caveats or explanation whereas "simple-minded" was "strong belief.

    I understand why they might do this, but it has a problem in that it could make "complex" thought look better than it is.

    Example: Astrology.

    Simple-minded: its fake.
    "Complex": Well, it does affect humans, but not all the time.

    I may be off base as to how they actually scored/judged this stuff, though.

  • american socialist||

    So, what you're saying is that measuring one's level of dogmatism on a belief that Leviticus prohibits sex between two men might be different than measuring one's level of dogmatism on a belief that the coal-fired power plant run by Union Carbide might be poisoning your neighborhood? Did I phrase it correctly?

  • Mr. Flanders||

    Actually, complexity and dogmatism are measured separately... so you're both kind of conflating the two. You can be dogmatic on a particular subject while still thinking about it in complex (elaborative complexity) ways. Similarly, you can be non-dogmatic and still lacking in your ability to elaborate on the subject.

  • Harun||

    I get that, but in the context of the surveys its sounds like they scored them based on "simplistic = dogmatic" and "complicated = open minded."

    I find it humorous that I agreed with american socialist that this survey set up could be problematic, and he decides to talk about Union Carbide.

    I purposely chose Astrology because its not political, and you could imagine someone saying "dogmatically" "its fake." and be labeled "simple minded." while the believer offers up a complicated argument for it and thus would be called "open minded / complex."

    I mean, that's how they appear to be "grading" the responses.

  • Dallas H.||

    Oops! Looks like you've dropped your straw man.

  • ||

    Also, while there are people firmly on the side of free association, I don't think there's anybody who is firmly against free association in all areas. That is, everyone favours free association, at least for some people, at least in some concerns. I think this is obvious to any libertarian, and so one would rarely agree with your statement.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That about the distinction between them that divide the world into two kinds of people, and those that don't?

  • sarcasmic||

    Conservatives are dogmatic about their Christian religion, and liberals are dogmatic about the Environmentalism religion.

    In other news, water is wet.

  • ||

    The difference is that the Christian's convictions are based on facts, as he sees them, whilst environmentalism is based on accepting one's convictions fully formed from an authority to which one has affiliated oneself, without examination or question. Of course, it's not universally thus, but in many if not most cases. Find a Christian who adheres to his faith because there's been a consensus among top men that Christianity is the way to go. The difference is also obscured because the facts upon which a religion conviction is based are often unobservable by anyone other than the religious man himself. Unless one wishes to so elevate the supremacy of intersubjectivity as to invalidate much of human experience, raising it, really, to the level of a religion, a person can not discount all observations that weren't made by a crowd, dismissing any characters they all didn't agree to have observed in it. The cult of intersubjectivity and machine-measurement is particularly absurd in face of the fact that the vast majority of human experience is observable by only one person.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So it is a fact that virgins have babies, that the dead rise up in front of witnesses, that altruism is good and life is evil... as they selectively see these. Who was it saying that the drooling Colorado abortion clinic shooter does NOT represent major-league ChrisTianiTy to a T? Search: "Hitler's religious beliefs" at nobeliefs.com

  • Long Woodchippers||

    if those things happened all the time they wouldn't be miracles

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Would I be correct in saying that it took social "scientists" half a century to modify their dogmatism test to include questions measuring left-wing dogmatism?

  • sarcasmic||

    What's to test? Left-wingers are tolerant and inclusive! They show their tolerance and inclusiveness by excluding intolerant people who doesn't follow their strict belief system! That makes them the opposite of dogmatic!

  • Libertarius||

    No. The fact that you can even conceive of left-wing dogmatism makes you a right-wing dogmatist. Psychology said so.

    /leftoid psychology charlatans

    The entire "science" of psychology (as it stands today) is in the same state as physics were before Isaac Newton came along. In the absence of a rational inductive basis, it is dominated by epistemic rationalism; they make up stuff that sounds good, and even better when it is presented as a scientific means of allegedly validating their political premises. It's a very old, tired act of the collectivists.

  • JWatts||

    "Would I be correct in saying that it took social "scientists" half a century to modify their dogmatism test to include questions measuring left-wing dogmatism?"

    You might be able to make that claim if this study becomes the focal point in a shift of opinion. But my guess is that this study will be ignored and the social scientists will stick with the traditional Rokeach dogmatism scale.

  • Harun||

    "Lucian Gideon Conway III"

    Sounds fake.

  • Harun||

    "9. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth that the planet is warming and those who are against that obvious truth.

    3. When it comes to stopping global warming, it is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.

    10. A person who thinks primarily of his/her own happiness, and in so doing disregards the health of the environment (for example, trees and other animals), is beneath contempt."

    I'm a bit frightened that these weird questions were the most dogmatic.

    WTH does #3 even mean?

  • ||

    #3 is a measure of one's position on Fromm's biophilous/necrophilous axis. The necrophilous orientation hates life and condemns anyone who enjoys anything. In his philosophy, it's a necessary precondition of authoritarianism. He highlighted dozens of quotations from the Nazi leadership condemning anyone prioritising personal pleasure. The only happiness that was approved of was that of transcending the self by sacrificing one's happiness for the collective or its personal representatives. Individual life, in itself, contained nothing good or desirable. The middle part of the question is irrelevant. The necrophilous character will approve of any statement starting with "A person who thinks primarily of his/her own happiness" and ending with "is beneath contempt".

  • Harun||

    Thank you! Excellent explanation. Still frightening that many agreed with that.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That rings a bell. Ayn Rand argues that altruism values death as its standard, and every National Socialist ideologue--even the NSDAP platform--declares this in the final sentence, after defending altruism and christian dogma. I have been searching for a single counterexample for 30 years and found none. Nor has anyone produced a cogent argument that she was wrong on that score.

  • Libertarius||

    Death is the standard of the altruist morality, but you don't need to take a "scientific survey" to understand that. You need only understand that concepts are objective, they are not whimsical subjective playthings of the imagination (using concepts in this manner makes thought and communication impossible, as well as reducing yourself to neurosis).

  • MJBinAL||

    This entire study is actually simple minded. It generally says that on any topic that you have reached a moral decision, you are simple minded, on any topic you have not reached a decision on, you are a more complex thinker. So, if for you every topic is open and everything is a shade of gray, then congratulations, you are a great thinker!

    BS.

    So, if you believe that the second amendment means that there can be no infringement of individual rights to own firearms, and everyone who does not understand this is wrong, you are simple-minded. There! See how this works!

    BS

  • sarcasmic||

    If you believe in any principles at all, like right and wrong for example, then you're simple minded.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    In the study they do suggest that they looked at results for both dialectical complexity and elaborative complexity, but they chose dialectical complexity as their data set (as you are suggesting).

    However, it should be noted that they mention that they performed the same tests using both types of complexities and the "overall pattern of results in most cases is similar" for what its worth.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Principles like right and wrong are themselves the dependent variables that require a standard of value to have meaning. To objectivists, biological thriving (happiness) is the standard. But to conservatives, pro-life means sending men with guns--men like Dear in Colorado--to force women to reproduce against their will, because if they're not virgins, they're Church property brood mares. R.W. Darré the nationalsocialist makes this "obligation to breed" argument. Being a Nazi, his faith was also that "liberals" (meaning libertarians) are doodooheads.

  • Jackand Ace||

    That settles it!

  • Sevo||

    Tell us about fracking, Jack, how it causes earthquakes! (that no one can feel)

  • american socialist||

    This study is awesome. It proves when you ask two completely different questions you get different results. Awesome job, Lucian Gideon Conway. You've probably got about 8 ph.Ds

  • Hank Phillips||

    All you need are definitions and assumptions that fake reality at the outset. GIGO. Socialism assumes wealth is static and can only be looted, and that the initiation of force is good. It therefore follows, ipso facto, that looting is good.

  • russnelson@gmail.com||

    My sole dogmatic view is that I have no dogmas.

  • ||

    In these matters, they generally define dogmatickness as the degree to which one believes he's right about something, which is absurd, because, provided one knows what the dickens he's talking about, he is morally obliged to consider his convictions as valid and as superior to those of others, by default. Even if one decides he was wrong about something and adopts the opposing view, he's still relying on the supremacy of his own judgment to do it. There's no alternative, except surrendering freedom of thought to some alien authority. Even the refusal to affirm or deny a belief due to insufficient datums is a moral conviction based on the supremacy of the first person's judgment. So, one is either dogmatic or authoritarian, and an authoritarian will appear to be dogmatic if his master has provided him with a list of convictions on the topics tested.

  • ammyth786||

    my friend's half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information...

    ➧➧➧➧ http://www.Wage90.Com

  • cbpelto||

    FLAG THE SPAMMER!!!!!

    Or click on the link at your own risk of getting malware installed on your machine.

  • ranrod||

    please..........a libertarian, psychological study!! nuff said..............

  • ||

    I don't remember the fucking scale, but it strikes me that measuring "dogmatism" on the matters of religion and defense isn't really valid, since most rational folks will be "dogmatic" in those two areas, since they deal with black and white facts. If one has is not dogmatic with religion, then he either has never seriously considered it or he's some kind of moron. The same is more or less true regarding most questions of defense. It's probably less obvious with religion, since a dozen dogmatic religionists might have totally conflicting views of the truth; yet if each one does not believe his view to be the right one, what the fuck is he doing? And with defense, we've got thousands of years of study and experience demonstrating various basic principles beyond any doubt. One is either dogmatic or an ignorantster with no business taking any stand in the matter (and, really, no business participating in a free society).

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Wow, you must be kathrynnash572's *other* sister!

  • cbpelto||

    FLAG THE SPAMMER!!!!!!

    Or click on the link at your own risk of getting malware installed on your machine.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Why does Ronald Bailey refer to communists, fascists, socialists and totalitarians with a word that everywhere--including in American dictionaries--means neo-libertarian? Petr Beckmann wrote of the stupidity of letting others shape your vocabulare "on your enemy's terms." Antichoice birth-forcers co-opted "pro-life" to Ayn Rand's horror, and madmen who carpet-bomb other countries call it "nation-building." It follows, as night follows day, that Nationalsocialist conservatives, whose prohibition amendment made These States into a prison Hooverville, call anyone they hate "liberals." Until our Liberal Party in 1931 came out for its "immediate overthrow" (and opposed communism, high tariffs, Blue Laws, unemployment/welfare dole, religious dictatorship), conservative bigotry ruled. Since November of 1932, conservatives and their useful idiots have helped looters to pass as fake "liberals" while the literate world goggles in disbelief at "our" contempt for freedom.

  • Rational Exhuberance||

    Could people in social science research please stop calling progressives "liberals"? There is little that is "liberal" in the standard meaning of the term about them.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: Liberals? These People?

    They're not 'liberals'. They're 'Progressives'.

    Progressive is a one-word oxymoron.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Yes, and progressivism is oxymoronic, too. It also suffers from what I call the Socialist/Progressivism Dichotomy.

    Because of this dichotomy many socialist policies produce the opposite of their original or stated intentions. Also many of the terms they use have meanings opposite of the way they use them. Thus get minimum wage laws that hurt the people they were intended to help. And rent control acts that create ghettos I. some neighborhoods and extremely high rents in others. Then there are terms like "liberal" that point to illiberal people and policies and "progressive" that describes policies that would actually cause or standard off living to digress several centuries back to before the industrial revolution.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That may be, but as a euphemism for looter, progressive beats the hell out of liberal. TR put Karl Marx' income tax into the progressive party platform. Liberal has meant not-quite-laissez-faire libertarian for a couple of centuries now. At worst a liberal is a low-tariff mercantilist, like Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson, basically a good guy gelded of sound principles. We have the same thing in our neck of the woods. Anarchists believe that legalizing rape and murder is good, and European communists shriek to the heavens (just not before 1971) that anarchists, who do not understand the fallacy of affirming the consequent, are logical libertarians. Then again, one does not expect the truth from looter infiltrators.

  • dannythomas4556||

    my neighbor's half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

    +++++++++++++++++ www.Wage90.Com

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    Spammers getting out of control!!!

  • TBlakely||

    In the past few decades many 'scientists' have perverted science to promote their ideology. This is especially true in the 'soft' sciences were it is much easier to manipulate results. There is something about the leftist ideology that compels so many of their adherents to ignore facts and reality in order to promote their agenda.

    As far as why leftists 'scientists' try to 'prove' that conservatives are simple-minded and fearful is pretty simple. First it's to deny them legitimacy. If you can 'prove' that your political opponents are subhuman, then it's easier to ignore and oppress them. Second, the left has thrown away morals, ethics and good character as proper leadership qualities. The left hinges everything on 'intelligence'. Sadly what they consider as 'intelligence' isn't really intelligence. It's being 'credentialed' (an Ivy league degree is the ultimate leftist credential) and a herd mentality echoing the same beliefs as other leftists. True independent thought is an anathema to the left, especially if it deviates from their core beliefs.

  • CleverAcronym||

    Bigotry and class warfare dressed up as science. How new.

  • Diggs||

    You'd have to be an idiot to not know that the same people that have been pushing a failed economic system (socialism) for nigh on 100 years now, are the more dogmatic. No matter how many times socialism ends in economic disaster and piles of dead political opponents (for those that don't know, is EVERY time), Leftists bring back socialism as the answer to all economic problems.
    100 year track record of complete failure?
    Yep.
    Tens of millions dead in socialist countries?
    Yep.
    Economic disaster despite high levels of education, infrastructure and resources?
    Yep.
    Still the ONLY answer for economic growth as far as Leftists are concerned?
    Yep.
    Dogmatic?
    Yep.

  • Galane||

    Socialist style methods of organizing a society go back considerably farther than 100 years. Several of the early colonist groups in North America tried such and all of them ended up with a lot of dead people because of too many slackers.

    They either realized they had to change to a system allowing people to keep and do as they pleased with the fruits of their labor, or they gave up and the survivors went back to Europe. Would have to do a bunch of research to see if any stuck it out until they all died.

    Communal living had a resurgence in the 1800's and due to having better medical care and other aspects of civilization much closer to hand when it all went bad, there were much fewer deaths. Some, like the Oneida Community, established factories making stuff to sell to support themselves.

    But all those eventually all fell apart and disbanded.

    1960's lather, rinse, repeat, but add drugs.

    The only way a communal society has ever worked is in a small group where everyone truly likes one another and they're all 100% willing to live by the rules they establish so everyone is not only happy to share with everyone, they're all 100% willing to pitch in and work at every job. It only takes one or two slacking off or taking more than their share from the common pool of stuff to ruin it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Bear in mind that libertarians do not seek to ban uncoercive socialism. But observe that mixed economy statists absolutely prohibit libertarians from organizing a municipality. Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and other looter kleptocracies absolutely ban libertarian parties from ballot access.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Faith and Reason are not opposites. Faith is trust in one's conclusions, while Reason is a process of getting there. Reason is also an important process for reexamining Faith. As a mechanical engineer, I use Newton's laws of motion because I have faith in them. I have faith in them because I was brought to that Faith by way of Reason-- both theoretical and practical. As a Christian I have faith in the Golden Rule because it makes sense to me and because I have seen it work. But this is the good kind of Faith.

    Faith can also mean credulity and believing the unbelievable. This kind of Faith is never good. Unexamined Faith is bad for engineering as well as religion. Credulous Faith leads to atrocities, both intended and unintended. Too many Christians have this kind of Faith, as do too many socialists/progressives. Creationist accept a myth as science that was never meant to be interpreted as such while missing the greater truth hidden in plain sight. Socialists believe in a philosophy that has proved, time and again, to produce the opposite of what they hope for. This kind of Faith should be rooted out. Reason is a good way to accomplish that, but it is not a replacement for Faith-- that would make Reason into an idol.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Faith is trust in Revelation, not facts. If you believe in something provable by reproducible experiment, that thing is a scientific fact. Superstition and fact are no more synonymous than liberal and looter. That's the bottom line here.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Do you have a dictionary, Hank? If so, you should use it. If not, you should get one--or look this word up online.


    faith
    fāTH/Submit
    noun
    1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    "this restores one's faith in politicians"
    synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
    2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
    synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
    "she gave her life for her faith"

    Notice that the most used definition corresponds to what I claimed. The second most common usage corresponds to what I wrote in my second paragraph.

    You lost again, Hank. Perhaps you should read more. Educate yourself before attacking other with your weak arguments.

  • The Knuckle||

    Hey guys,
    Should we flag the spammer? I am worried that clicking the link will install malware on my computer.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    I think most commentators recognize the spammer. But do what you think necessary.

  • The Knuckle||

    I was referring to the spammer saying we need to flag the other spammer. This is ridiculous.

  • SIV||

    Like we need a study to know liberal-progressives are simple minded and dogmatic.

  • MarkAnderson||

    I like beating Libertarians, it's a simple thing really.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Every time our spoiler votes repeal a looter law, we win.

  • GILMORE™||

    Every time money-losing Salon needs a new infusion of capital from billionaire IT philanthropists, we win.

  • Galane||

    "Using the dogmatism scale devised in 1960"

    And there's the problem. The left wing is firmly stuck in the 1960's on most of their core beliefs, and nothing that's been discovered or developed since then that disproves those ancient beliefs will sway them. That includes many very badly conducted studies that were done to "prove" preconceived ideas such as how 'bad' DDT is and that salt is so bad for the human body they still recommend a daily intake below what people need for proper functioning.

    That long term study on dietary salt done by the CDC, which followed proper scientific method? Well, that's just *wrong* because some badly done, short term study over 40 years ago is *right* - because it agrees with their recommendations.

    http://junkscience.com/1999/07.....about-ddt/

  • block30||

    I'll say this again, its ironic that liberals have the "minds are like parachutes, they only work when they're open" bumper stickers. Fascists!!

  • renascameron1123||

    my friend's half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information...

    ➧➧➧➧ http://www.Wage90.Com

  • renascameron1123||

    my friend's half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information...

    ➧➧➧➧ http://www.Wage90.Com

  • Who needs a reason?||

    It is almost a truism? Trees and other animals?
    Maybe Reason Online doesn't have an editor?

  • Tony||

    So it's open-minded libertarian enlightenment to report on climate change by referring only and singly to long-discredited researchers with an ideological agenda Spencer and Christy?

  • Sevo||

    It's proggy practice to post with lies in all cases, right, slimeball?

  • aliciakelley786||

    my friend's half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information...

    ➧➧➧➧ http://www.Wage90.Com

  • aliciakelley786||

    my friend's half-sister makes $77 /hour on the computer . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her income was $12280 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this web-site

    Open This Link for more Information...

    ➧➧➧➧ http://www.Wage90.Com

  • Mickey Rat||

    The soft sciences lack rigor, but we knew that.

  • brownmaria696||


    I've made $76,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student.I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money.It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.

    http://www.workpost30.com

  • Odyss||

    Last August an article came out that reported that 75% of ALL behavioral psychological experiments could not be replicated, and the final 25% had their results exaggerated. In essence liberal professors are able to confirm the biases of liberal professors. I would guess this experiment is another one.

  • ||

    Back up your claim

  • JohnD||

    How can anyone disagree with this premise?

  • Quintus Cicero||

    It's about time that liberals were exposed as being as dogmatic and thoroughly conviced of their beliefs to the exclusion of others.

  • ||

    Obviously you didn't read the article. Time to pay attention to the "study" results and understand that trolling undergrads at University of Montana is not scientific. The professor should be released immediately from employment. You conservatives are a dying breed of humans, which explains your ridiculous rhetoric. Scared, sad little mongrels.

  • ||

    Did you read one out of every three words of the article, ignore the conclusions, and make up your own? Epitome of the inconsequential brains of modern libertarians. Sad, not forgotten, but also not unexpected.

  • Kenza||

  • Shiekyerbooty||

    Political Correctness is a brainwashing technique based on Marxist Critical Theory
    It is a system of cyclical logic that once adopted by the user never allows for another approach, and the end-game is that the assigned antagonist always embodies hatred, racism, or oppression.
    They become intellectually trapped, because in order to see and realize when they err, they would have to empathize and entertain their assigned antagonists point of view...this causes great cognitive dissonance due to contradicting their previously assigned value of the antagonist and so is rejected or avoided.
    The remaining cognitive dissonance is alleviated by the religious cult-like belief that they are on the " right " or " good " side of every issue, always battling racists, bigots, and oppressors. Like religious zealots they assume moral authority and claim to have " more knowledge " than the average folk.
    Religions have made up transgressions against their gods, and PC has made up transgressions against their ideal society.
    It is the same type of system used by cults, utilizing the cyclical intellectual trap described by Kafka in " The Trial ".

  • ||

    Unfortunately you don't know what "dissonance" is...try again! Use words based upon their objective meaning as opposed to just blurting out rhetoric...your parents should be ashamed. You bring the death of conservatism.

  • ||

    It is so apparent from the posts written by members of Reason.com why conservatives are considered anti-intellectual.

  • hp||

    "Liberals have many tails, and chase them all"
    (Mencken)

  • MATH||

    This is such a shit thing to attempt to measure. And then to present it to these libertarian sheep. I cannot resist laughing my ass off.

  • davidvolta||

    How we can anyone disagree with this premise?

    worthquotes

  • rwadaltamiuz||

    its very important post . I take advantage of this article a lot from the first time I know of information
    Cleaning company in Riyadh

  • عيون||

    i do not think so

  • jual marmer hitam||

    nice sharing this info, I think this article very useful
    marmer hitam dinding

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online