@digitalimpression, no. You are absolutely incorrect. Your point, in your words was:
If you can’t decipher something from that curious arrangement, you probably think this study was a completely unbiased and legitimate project.
Where are the stats on the actual study? Are we supposed to just assume that right-wingers are stupid (as many have already done in this thread..going so far as to claim it provides leverage for collecting votes; obviously right-wingers are sheep)? Or are we talking about an overall difference of a few IQ points?
Where is the actual data to support this study? Well, that’s what I wanted to find out. What I found was the actual study entitled “Bright minds and dark attitudes” (Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri) in pdf format. After reading it through I discovered that the above linked article is just as dubious as the information in the study itself. Makes sense.
This is the reason I hate it when people bring up “studies”.. For a large majority of the population (both left and right and everything in between) things that are written in bold print on the internet must be true. No further investigation is needed.
Are you confused about what point I’m referencing? So am I. Nowhere did you make some point that my statement supported. Let me clarify: my point (which I state here in bold), was that journalists can exaggerate the results of scientific studies, even when the studies themselves were completely sound.
If that was the point that you also were making, then that’s wonderful, we are in perfect agreement and you can stop reading here.
But it sounds to me like what you’re trying to suggest is that the study was flawed somehow and you’re asserting that it’s flawed based on the overstated language used by journalists. Let me ask you, how do you think the study was flawed? Can you point to a specific problem with the methodology, statistics, or interpretation as stated in the published scientific article? You asked to see the statistics—they are available in the published scientific article, which @Seiryuu freely linked to and I offered to provide to anyone who could not access it.
I have had enough of these conversations with people here on fluther and the rest of the world that I will save you the trouble of having to answer me. I have little doubt that your answer will be some version of:
Science is biased, scientists find what they set out to find, this study is so stupid, people who believe it are stupid.
If you have any evidence whatsoever to support your position regarding this article, by all means, let’s hear it. If you really think that you have some special insight into this finding that was overlooked by its authors, who are experts on the topic, and the anonymous reviewers who recommended it for publication, who are experts on the topic, and the editor of the journal who published it, who is an expert on analyzing scientific articles and their interpretation, by all means, let’s hear it.
But I will hazard a guess that you do not understand basic statistical techniques, let alone path analysis, the form of structural equation modeling that this article employed. As someone with basic familiarity with these statistical techniques, I find their interpretation of the authors entirely appropriate.
If you have an actual concrete criticism of the article, based on facts or math then let’s hear it. But if your repeated complaint is just another version of “I don’t like this!!!!!!” then please forgive me if I elect not to respond.