What he neglects to consider is any kind of basic rational viewpoint about the study.
We hate to do the work for people paid far more than they're worth, but we'll do it anyway.
The study made no claim that adult conservatives were whiny and insecure. No matter how much that would seem to bear out in reality.
You know what? Let's run this through the Dumb-It-Down-Er:
Boop! Beep! Whiny children seek strong authority and are resistant to change. They desire clearly-defined limits and do not accept new information easily. These conclusions are consistent with observations of conservative politics, unless you've been living in a hole for the last ten years.
Thanks, Dumb-It-Down-Er!
Is there a special word for the irony sink generated by conservatives whining about a study claiming that whiny children grow into conservatives? Megalo-Ironical?
---
We would also like to point out the terrible job The Star did at finding someone to provide unneeded "balance" to their shocking expose' of Science Being Practiced (gasp!).
"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," [Jeff Greenberg] said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.
Excellent. Now we know that (1) Jeff Greenberg doesn't approve and (2) he likes to make claims about things he "suspects" in an attempt to counter an actual study. That's just how things are done outside that Ivory Tower full of eggheads with their "data" and "calculations" and "conclusions that do not match a GOP-crafted narrative."
---
Here's Ben:
"So the idea that perhaps a small number of kids from the Berkeley area may not be a truly representative slice of the American population is just silly. Professor Jack Block, the author of the study, defends his work by explaining to the Star that 'within his sample . . . the results hold.' Surely, his statistics professor is very proud."
That last sentence was chockful of dry, acerbic wit; Truly a bon mot. Ben has put that lousy stuffed-shirt in his rightful place.
Of course, a responsible professional would answer exactly the same as Block.
Only an idiot, or a conservative (but I repeat myself), would try to defend their work by saying, "Well, I'm positive that outside of my sample the results hold one-hundred percent because I have special mind powers. That's what sampling is all about -- doing very little work and then drawing the broadest conclusions possible. It would be irresponsible of me to not use my work to oversimplify the entire world into an easily-manageable and comforting reality-tunnel."
---
Ben winds down his post by rejecting child psychology. No, seriously. Check this out:
"It's always better to just let kids be kids and keep the psychologists out of the way[.]"
Especially if they might have an actual cognitive disorder. But look on the bright side.
They might grow up to write a blog for washingtonpost.com.
-THE MANAGEMENT
Recommended Reading: The John T. Jost study that made the error of linking conservatism with authoritarianism. Who would make that mistake? Conservatives are always criticizing their leaders. Especially the President!
