Who has more psychotics, Democrats or Republicans?
A: It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the person you're talking about/to is a psychotic.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-07-22 |
Q: Who has more Psychotics (Democrats or Republicans)? A: It doesn't matter. The Democrat controlled media loves to run stories showing how the conservatives and right are all nut-jobs and ad-hominem the other side as a form of virtue signaling. ("We're better than they are"). But it's stupid. Even when it backlashes and the truth is more the opposite.
One of their most famous papers from 2012 The American Journal of Political Science had to be corrected: ooops, they misattributed sides. It turned out that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism. And do you know what? It didn't make the story any less stupid (just slightly more believable). Here's why:
- (1) I’m not sure these are helpful in any way. It’s not like either side will believe it, even if it was conclusive.
- (2) Right now, progressives are more likely to have young, fringe, and radical members. (With the exception of the troll fringe / alt-right on the right). But change who is in power, and that can shift. So when you measure changes the result, and most of these aren't timely (they're lagged by many years).
- (3) Europe and America don’t have similar maps or motivations on who is left or right. Pretending they do, makes us all dumber. And often the U.S. is citing European studies and vise-versa, so even if it was true for that demographic/time, it's only likely valid for that local political environment -- so stupid to cross compare.
- (4) Most of all, the point is that the diversity in these sets far exceeds the similarities. So who cares?
Look, do I think that extreme vegans, environmentalist, or SJW activists are more likely to skim more psychotics out of society to their causes? Or that immigrants driven out of their countries are more likely to have a few extremists (but more than the general population) and are attracted to the left? Sure. Maybe enough to bend the trends a little. But then there’s sub-movements on the right that might do the same. But think it through.
- (5) The individuals don't represent the sub-group
- One sub-group (political faction) in that party, doesn't represent the other sub-groups in the party
- The party isn't constant, and sub-groups jump parties. (Like Blue-Collar working class shifted from Obama to Trump in the 2016 election).
So even if it mattered for one small faction, for a picosecond, it certainly isn't good for generalizing (broad brushing) all conservatives or all progressives.
- (6) Understand scale - we’re talking small differences when weighed against the whole.
Does it really matter if 0.5% of the right are asshat psychotics and sociopaths, and 1% of the left is? “Oh that’s twice as much!”... but it’s still statistically irrelevant — and just a lot of noise/churn that does not matter.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
So this broad-brush is bullshit when the left and media do it to the right... but that doesn’t make it any better when the right does it back. (Even if a cup of comeuppance can be a delicious just deserts).
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
