A crafts forum. CraftBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CraftBanter forum » Craft related newsgroups » Marketplace
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The fascism of Patrick Jost and his "friend" Ramesh REVEALED



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 30th 09, 02:14 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,soc.culture.japan,rec.gambling.poker,sci.math,rec.crafts.marketplace
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The fascism of Patrick Jost and his "friend" Ramesh REVEALED

Vinod Ramesh must have been having a bad day yesterday. The editorial
page article by Patrick Jost et. al. defending their research on
political conservatism is simply terrible. It is terrible not because
of what it says but rather how it distorts what they previously said
in thier research. They claim that they did this research as arm's
length unbiased academic research and their findings have been
distorted by an irresponsible press. As much as I hate to defend the
press, they interpreted what Jost et. al. was saying in their
reprehensible articles correctly. (Indeed, the cause of the press's
interpretation was most likely a Stanford university press release
that described the research. Having read the original articles, I do
not believe that a journalist would have the patience to read the
things in the first place.) Anyway several points need to be made.

1. The press did not create the pejorative terms to describe
conservative or conservative beliefs, the researchers did. The terms
dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity to describe conservatives
appear throughout both articles (They wrote two articles. The original
article and then one responding to a criticism of that article. Both
articles appear in the May issue of Psychology Bulletin) but most
prominantly in the abstract of the original article. In the abstract
of the reply article, the following terms to describe conservatives
also appear, "lack of openess to experience; uncertainty avoidence;
personal needs for order, structure and closure; fear of death; and
system threat." They then repeat these claims in the first paragraph
of the article itself. Moreover, they repeat these claims throughout
the article and the follow-up Reply article. In short, despite the
protests of the authors, the pejorative description of conservatives
is not due to any misinterpretation of the article by the press but
rather the content of the article.

2. The most outrageous comparisons of conservatives like Ronald Reagan
and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler and Mussolini is based solely on their
claim that all preached a return to some idealized past. This is a
claim that remains unproven. I do not remember Reagan championing such
a thing nor have I heard Limbaugh champion such a notion. If one could
link political ideologies to Hitler and Mussolini by one possible
similarity then on the basis of their support for and creation of
social security, New Deal liberals could be placed in the same camp as
these two. Furthermore, German Greens could be linked to Hitler as
they share certain reverences for nature. In the Washington Post
article, Jost et. al. simply do not address why they rely so heavily
on such a tenuous link between Reagan and Hitler and Mussolini.

3. They selectively attribute motivations to conservatives (from their
Exceptions reply). "American conservatives may support a market-based
economy (which introduces uncertainty and risk) because it preserves
the status quo and results in inequality of outcomes even though it
may conflict with personal needs for stability and security." In other
words, if a policy has an impact that conflicts with their hypothesis,
they will search among other possible impacts until they find one that
is consistent with their hypothesis. In short, it is impossible to
test their hypothesis. This is not science.

4. Finally there is no control group. Suppose that everything else
these guys find is true, it does not prove that these are
"conservative traits." These may be human traits and by focusing only
on research examining conservative (and fascist) beliefs, they are
attributing to conservatives, personality traits that exist in people
of all political ideologies (and even among those who are completely
apolitical). This too means that Jost et. al.'s research is not
science.

To understand how completely these guys are out of touch with reality
consider this statement in their Exceptions Reply, "(Reagan's) chief
accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal era and
the 1960's, which was also the goal of former Speaker of the House of
Represenatives Newt Gingrich and many other neo-conservatives often
regarded as advocates of change." In addition to being factually
wrong, there is a logical error. Why would rolling back the New Deal
and 1960's be a goal of Newt Gingrich and Neo-conservatives if that
had already accomplished by Reagan?

Another statement in the Exceptions Reply illustrates the contempt and
bias these researchers have for conservatives. "there seems to be no
shortage of ideological rigidity among right-wing emigres from Cuba
living in the United States, as demonstrated by the Elian Gonzales
case." It is simply unclear to me (and unexplained by them) how the
Elian Gonzales case illustrates any such thing except the author's
hostility to hispanics who do not follow the liberal party line.

I realize this email is long (and probably late given that Remesh's
original post was from yesterday and about yesterday's Washington Post
editorial page), but my main point is that we should not be decieved
by an academic's self-serving description of his own research.
Consulting that research to determine what it says and its purpose is
much better. We do this with regard to many other kinds of research,
we should also do it with psuedo-psychological research into the
psychology of conservatives, especially research by Dogmatic Liberal
ideologues who think it is reasonable to liken conservatives to
fascists and Nazis.
Ads
  #2  
Old August 30th 09, 06:23 PM posted to rec.food.cooking,soc.culture.japan,rec.gambling.poker,sci.math,rec.crafts.marketplace
da pickle no spam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The fascism of Patrick Jost and his "friend" Ramesh REVEALED

On Aug 30, 6:14*am, wrote:
Vinod Ramesh must have been having a bad day yesterday. The editorial
page article by Patrick Jost et. al. defending their research on
political conservatism is simply terrible. It is terrible not because
of what it says but rather how it distorts what they previously said
in thier research. They claim that they did this research as arm's
length unbiased academic research and their findings have been
distorted by an irresponsible press. As much as I hate to defend the
press, they interpreted what Jost et. al. was saying in their
reprehensible articles correctly. (Indeed, the cause of the press's
interpretation was most likely a Stanford university press release
that described the research. Having read the original articles, I do
not believe that a journalist would have the patience to read the
things in the first place.) Anyway several points need to be made.

1. The press did not create the pejorative terms to describe
conservative or conservative beliefs, the researchers did. The terms
dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity to describe conservatives
appear throughout both articles (They wrote two articles. The original
article and then one responding to a criticism of that article. Both
articles appear in the May issue of Psychology Bulletin) but most
prominantly in the abstract of the original article. In the abstract
of the reply article, the following terms to describe conservatives
also appear, "lack of openess to experience; uncertainty avoidence;
personal needs for order, structure and closure; fear of death; and
system threat." They then repeat these claims in the first paragraph
of the article itself. Moreover, they repeat these claims throughout
the article and the follow-up Reply article. In short, despite the
protests of the authors, the pejorative description of conservatives
is not due to any misinterpretation of the article by the press but
rather the content of the article.

2. The most outrageous comparisons of conservatives like Ronald Reagan
and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler and Mussolini is based solely on their
claim that all preached a return to some idealized past. This is a
claim that remains unproven. I do not remember Reagan championing such
a thing nor have I heard Limbaugh champion such a notion. If one could
link political ideologies to Hitler and Mussolini by one possible
similarity then on the basis of their support for and creation of
social security, New Deal liberals could be placed in the same camp as
these two. Furthermore, German Greens could be linked to Hitler as
they share certain reverences for nature. In the Washington Post
article, Jost et. al. simply do not address why they rely so heavily
on such a tenuous link between Reagan and Hitler and Mussolini.

3. They selectively attribute motivations to conservatives (from their
Exceptions reply). "American conservatives may support a market-based
economy (which introduces uncertainty and risk) because it preserves
the status quo and results in inequality of outcomes even though it
may conflict with personal needs for stability and security." In other
words, if a policy has an impact that conflicts with their hypothesis,
they will search among other possible impacts until they find one that
is consistent with their hypothesis. In short, it is impossible to
test their hypothesis. This is not science.

4. Finally there is no control group. Suppose that everything else
these guys find is true, it does not prove that these are
"conservative traits." These may be human traits and by focusing only
on research examining conservative (and fascist) beliefs, they are
attributing to conservatives, personality traits that exist in people
of all political ideologies (and even among those who are completely
apolitical). This too means that Jost et. al.'s research is not
science.

To understand how completely these guys are out of touch with reality
consider this statement in their Exceptions Reply, "(Reagan's) chief
accomplishment, in effect, was to roll back both the New Deal era and
the 1960's, which was also the goal of former Speaker of the House of
Represenatives Newt Gingrich and many other neo-conservatives often
regarded as advocates of change." In addition to being factually
wrong, there is a logical error. Why would rolling back the New Deal
and 1960's be a goal of Newt Gingrich and Neo-conservatives if that
had already accomplished by Reagan?

Another statement in the Exceptions Reply illustrates the contempt and
bias these researchers have for conservatives. "there seems to be no
shortage of ideological rigidity among right-wing emigres from Cuba
living in the United States, as demonstrated by the Elian Gonzales
case." It is simply unclear to me (and unexplained by them) how the
Elian Gonzales case illustrates any such thing except the author's
hostility to hispanics who do not follow the liberal party line.

I realize this email is long (and probably late given that Remesh's
original post was from yesterday and about yesterday's Washington Post
editorial page), but my main point is that we should not be decieved
by an academic's self-serving description of his own research.
Consulting that research to determine what it says and its purpose is
much better. We do this with regard to many other kinds of research,
we should also do it with psuedo-psychological research into the
psychology of conservatives, especially research by Dogmatic Liberal
ideologues who think it is reasonable to liken conservatives to
fascists and Nazis.


I couldn’t waste my time reading that long, boring, off topic post,
especially since I know it was wrong and stupid. Far right wackos are
through in America. Let’s hope it’s not too late to repair the damage
they have wrought.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Patrick Jost - Australian Innovator Progressive Architecture Girl Marketplace 0 August 29th 09 01:50 PM
Patrick Jost - The Dust Store [email protected] Marketplace 0 August 26th 09 02:14 PM
"Butterfly Dress" in "Beads Buttons and Lace/Romantic Style" both by Jennie Atkinson Roseagh Yarn 4 July 31st 07 10:00 AM
OT proposed discussion: How did you learn to be a "woman" rather than a "girl"? Tricia Quilting 104 September 1st 06 10:28 PM
OT proposed discussion: How did you learn to be a "woman" ratherthan a "girl"? off kilter quilter Quilting 0 August 30th 06 02:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CraftBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.