1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Re: OT: Liberals, Conservatives, Guns

Re: OT: Liberals, Conservatives, Guns

Ignoramus12951 wrote:

>> >>>> Most people who "go postal" and murder their colleagues, are not >>>> previously described as obviosly deranged. Psychological screening, >>>> constrained by a multitude of complicated legal issues, would never =

be

>>> able to identify such people. It is a legal and practical >>>> impossibility promoted by gun haters. >>>> >>>> i >>> Psychological screening has identified a class of people who =

shouldn't

>> be trusted with guns. You won't like what was found. >>=20 >> Why easily startled people should not be trusted with guns? > >"Balloon Pops at Birthday Party, Guests Shot!" > >> You seem to be making giant leaps of logic, probably trying to pull my >> leg. >>=20 >> The referenced "study" involved 46 people, hardly enough to come to >> any conclusions. > >Your opinion, vs. researcher John Hibbing, political scientist at the=20 >University of Nebraska-Lincoln, study author John Alford of Rice=20 >University, and the peer-reviewed journal Science. > >> i >>=20 >>> Easily Startled People May Be More Politically Conservative >>> >>> >>> Right-wingers more startled by sudden noises and spiders than =

liberals,

>> study finds >>> = >>> >>> The physiology of personal politics >>> =

Two bits says if i could get to the actual raw data and methods, i debunk= that study.

Reply to
JosephKK
Loading thread data ...

study.

Why don't you determine what the confidence level is with a sample size of 46 people?

Reply to
Beryl

that study.

...so narrowly selected.

Reply to
krw

that study.

Yes, ones with strong political views, out of a random larger bunch.

They were only able to get 23 conservatives into the test group. The rest were too fearful to participate.

Reply to
Beryl

screening,

never be

shouldn't

my

=20

liberals,

debunk that study.

Because that is not where the problems involved occur. =20

Reply to
JosephKK

screening,

never be

shouldn't

pull my

to

the=20

liberals,

debunk that study.

size=20

Naw, there only that many so darned c*ck-sure of themselves out of over =

1000.
Reply to
JosephKK

that study.

No, that's not it. The answer is... Because we don't know how.

I found this page

and put 46 in the right side and then put 15 in the left side and it came back with Sample size needed: 43

If that startles you, then you figure something out.

Reply to
Beryl

screening,

never be

shouldn't

pull my

to

the=20

liberals,

debunk that study.

size=20

It does not startle me at all. Though the sample size for the stated=20 conditions does seem large.

The fundamental error was in the selection of the subsets in the first=20 place. That guarantees invalid results. Face it selecting for 40 to 50=20 extremist position to represent the consensus of over 1000 is exactly=20 what the politicians do. It ain't science anymore, it is politics.

Reply to
JosephKK

But that was the whole point of the test.

Valid for members of the subsets. Less so for those who were excluded.

See it like a bell curve, with 1000 moderates lumped toward the middle, tapering down to 23 extremists at either end. How is testing the middle 1000 for the differences that set them apart going to reveal anything? They're hardly apart.

Reply to
Beryl

that study.

Here's a visual that helps

formatting link
If the left fjord is liberal, and the right fjord is conservative, then you'd expect there to be some obvious differences between them. There are slight differences. When you cross your eyes and combine the two images into one, they become less apparent.

Reply to
Beryl

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.