Genetics and Race

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

I've alreasy posted on it twice, and you on the other hand have about a half dozen posts and have yet to address the issue.

Racist!

[Brisketexan 103148]

It's the Copernicus position in Copernicus v. Catholic Church.  (pro science, anti- political correctness)

Bullshit. It’s the lazy Samuel Morton position. You aren’t worthy to sniff Copernicus’ skidmarked shorts.

[bad_teammate 13018]

lol why are Shaggy right-wingers so pathetic? Can't argue shit so they release their cannonade of bitch-negs. #sad

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I've alreasy posted on it twice, and you on the other hand have about a half dozen posts and have yet to address the issue.

There is one article linked in the OP, and it is absolutely NOT "a 10,000ish-word complaint against genetic population studies" as you said. Andrew Sullivan is a huge fan of race science and has been for years. He loves it.

I can only speculate that you're talking about the Ezra Klein article that Sullivan is responding to (which is, itself, a response to Sam Harris speculating about what Ezra Klein must think of Reich's op-ed). Klein's article is not linked in the OP, probably because Tahoe didn't read it, but also perhaps because Klein has no objection to Reich's work.

Klein (rightfully) objects to idiots like Andrew Sullivan, Sam Harris, and Charles Murray taking legitimate science like Reich's work and using it to pursue socio-political agendas.

You're full of shit and wrong. I hope you re-charge your neg cannons and make yourself feel better with them tomorrow.

Edited April 3, 2018 by bad_teammate

[JBJ 3591]

I only negged the posts where you were trolling.  You did make two actual posts that I didn't neg.

If you or anyone thinks one of those was a legit post, let me know and I'll reconsider.  The good thing about the new board is that negs are public and reversible.

 

And how I read it Klein does object to Reich's work. I posted this above: that he thinks race-based studies have racist effects whether intended or not.  I even quoted what I feel is the summary conclusion of his article to put it in his own words.

Black children grow up in a country that, over and over again, signals that it expects less of them, believes less in them, and fears more from them. This is, in part, the result of deep-seated racism in American life — a racism that often manifests less through hatred than through underestimation and dismissal; a racism that draws on centuries of belief in black inferiority.

Edited April 3, 2018 by JBJ

[bad_teammate 13018]

Dude neg all you want, I think it's fun to point out how the right-wing troll babies here work.

47 minutes ago, JBJ said:

And how I read it Klein does object to Reich's work. I posted this above: that he thinks race-based studies have racist effects whether intended or not.  I even quoted what I feel is the summary conclusion of his article to put it in his own words.

What you quoted has NOTHING to do with Reich's work. He's talking about Harris and Murray (not geneticists), as he mentions in the next paragraph that you do not quote for some not-at-all-mysterious reason.

Quote

Black children grow up in a country that, over and over again, signals that it expects less of them, believes less in them, and fears more from them. This is, in part, the result of deep-seated racism in American life — a racism that often manifests less through hatred than through underestimation and dismissal; a racism that draws on centuries of belief in black inferiority.

Harris and Murray are clear that for all their discussion of group differences, people should be judged on their singular merits. “To have political equality, you have to treat people as individuals,” says Harris. “It’s ethically and politically prudent to do this, and here’s the crucial point, it’s actually rational to do this because the differences between groups are not so large that there isn’t a substantial overlap between them for every trait we care about.”

By the way, here is Robert Reich himself expressing concern with how actual science (i.e. - the shit he does and that Murray, Harris, and Sullivan DO NOT do) can be used for racist ends...

Quote

I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

That sounds precisely like Klein's point and that's from the Reich op-ed that Sullivan is partially talking about and that I'm guessing neither you nor Tahoe actually read.

So to repeat:
Klein has no beef with the actual scientist (Reich).
Klein has a beef with the demagogue non-scientists (Murray, Sullivan, and to an extent, Harris)

Keep negging because your arguments are shit.

edit

Here are all paragraphs in which Klein mentions Reich.

Quote

Harris is touting a New York Times op-ed by David Reich arguing that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races.’” Reich is careful in his claims about what is known as of yet. He says that “if scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong” — a level of humility often absent in this discussion. He goes on to slam researchers who, discussing race and intelligence, claim “they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes.” I do not find this column as troubling as Harris seems to think I will.

& 

This is also, notably, Reich’s conclusion in the op-ed Harris enthusiastically promotes and uses for his jab at me. “Whatever discoveries are made,” Reich says, “we truly have no idea yet what they will be.” If that had been the tenor of Harris’s conversation with Murray — if they had simply observed the existence of a racial IQ gap (that has already closed substantially over time), hypothesized that advances in genetics might one day reveal group differences, and then cautioned that no one knows anything yet — there would be no controversy.

That's it. That's literally the two paragraphs out of the dozens in Klein's op-ed in which he discusses Reich at all, and none of it could be reasonably construed as anything but neutral or positive.

Edited April 3, 2018 by bad_teammate

[JohnRedHorn 29]

From reading this guy's threads on shaggy and his threads now I have one question: 

 

What did the black man do to you? Traumatized your bumpkin ass. 

[RayDog 682]

Living in the Philippines the past few months has taught me that the differences in measured intelligence are very real. In one world IQ chart the US is listed as 98 and the Philippines 86, which is similar to Mexico. The differences do appear that great, but are magnified by the extreme poverty and terrible education system here.  I suspect that 86 is not even a representative sample.

A racist acquaintance of mine likes to ask Filipinos how many weeks are in a year. Not once in over 20 times I have seem him ask this did anyone know the answer, although one woman guessed 48 after multiplying 4 x 12. That in itself is amazing as most Filipinos struggle with doing simple multiplication like that in their head. Most businesses insist on sales staff using calculators when they do not have a cash register that handles it.

On the other hand, kids can pick up a smart phone and figure out how to use it very quickly, no different from the states from what I can tell. And, bar girls are every bit as good as manipulating customers to make money as strippers in the states. 

At this point I am not even sure that IQ tests are a valid way of measuring intelligence. The effects of poverty, terrible education, and the general lack of interest and incentive to exercise the mind are so profound here,  it would be extremely difficult to figure out all the causes for differences in IQ. and assign reasonable numbers to them.

I still stare at the world IQ map from time-to-time and wonder, how can that be?

[JBJ 3591]

His entire article is an apologetic against researching racial differences.  He may only name Reich twice, but his entire article is a response.  I don't know how you can read it any other way.

[bad_teammate 13018]

58 minutes ago, JBJ said:

His entire article is an apologetic against researching racial differences.  He may only name Reich twice, but his entire article is a response.  I don't know how you can read it any other way.

I can read it that way because Klein directly addresses the different people he is talking about and mentions them by name constantly.

Here's the title of Klein's op-ed: Sam Harris, Charles Murray, and the allure of race science

His article is about Sam Harris and Charles Murray, and was written because Sam Harris tried to start a Twitter fight with him about it all.

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, scroll through and look.

Harris mentions: 49
Murray mentions: 63
Reich mentions: 4

And I've already posted the 4 Reich mentions, which are all neutral or positive. And Klein isn't shy about attacking; he is extremely negative throughout his 112 mentions of Harris and Murray.

Klein: "To put this simply: You cannot discuss this topic without discussing its toxic past and the way that shapes our present."

Reich: "I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims."

Your takeaway from all this is that Klein disagrees with Reich? lol fuck off 

[Sawbonz 26736]

I haven’t had time to read all this. All I know is that if the Nigerians can ever get all their money into US banks they’ve are going to rule the world

[bolverk 28886]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I haven’t had time to read all this. All I know is that if the Nigerians can ever get all their money into US banks they’ve are going to rule the world

The original Reich piece is definitely worth a read: measured, thoughtful, and considerate with sensitivities regarding potential abuse. It's a fascinating area of research with truly unknown potential for genetic treatments for specific population groups. It's the only one that I'd recommend. The others are non-scientific journalists, who have a history with each other, where they're just shouting over one another:

Original Reich article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Q&A between Reich and NYTimes readers: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/opinion/race-genetics.html

(Friendly reminder to open both in incognito mode.)

 

[DDD Dad 14060]

I haven't been keeping up closely with this thread.  Have we identified a "smart" gene that white Europeans have that black and brown people don't?

[bolverk 28886]

13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I haven't been keeping up closely with this thread.  Have we identified a "smart" gene that white Europeans have that black and brown people don't?

No34

[DDD Dad 14060]

Just now, bolverk said:

No34

kthanksbye

[Grandioso 2592]

Let's assume that there is a statistically significant difference between white people and black people in terms of cognitive ability. Some scientist comes along and proves that this difference is purely genetic and upbringing, nutrition, or any external factors are irrelevant. It's undeniable.

Racists would immediately seize it to argue that white supremacy, racism in public institutions, poverty, and such aren't keeping black folks down; it's a result of blacks not having those magic extra 10 IQ points that white people have on average. That's a lot less nefarious than using it to justify slavery or genocide, but the intent is still malicious. 

Continuing with the assumption though, wouldn't the ethical response be the total opposite? Wouldn't decent Christian folks at least subscribe to some kind of well-intended-but-still-racist "white man's burden" type of view? 

As long as you concede that blacks are fellow humans, wouldn't there be a moral obligation to empower blacks and give them extra advantages and special accommodations? I mean, we want disabled people to be able to have the fullest lives possible and achieve self-actualization. We have laws in place to protect these genetically shortchanged people. We try to remove barriers but also give direct assistance and aid to them. 

I find it telling that 0.00% of people cite these studies to advance even an attempt at an ethical (albeit patronizing and misguided) position like the one above. When in the context of politics and policy, they are used to either absolve past crimes by the "superior" race or justify future ones. Whether the science is reliable or not, cheapening life and dehumanizing  "other" is, historically, the prelude to every genocide that has ever occurred. 

[David Dennison 17660]

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I haven't been keeping up closely with this thread.  Have we identified a "smart" gene that white Europeans have that black and brown people don't?

No, but we have identified an intelligence test invented by white Europeans that provides cover for claiming they are smarter than non-white people, mainly Africans.

[Bat Guano 359]

13 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

It's the Copernicus position in Copernicus v. Catholic Church.  (pro science, anti- political correctness)

Bullshit. If you were pro-science you wouldn't keep starting these stupid threads with anti-scientific premises. You've been told over and over again, in many different ways and in great detail, that the concept of race is scientifically invalid, and yet you cling to it like an infant sucking its mother's tit. Look at the title of this one: when the source materials you are purporting to discuss are talking about genetically distinct populations, you reduce this to the simplistic, outmoded concept of race. This is antiscientific superstition. Take a look at the actual research with an open mind if you really want to be pro-science (yeah, I know you don't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend you're doing something other than trolling).

Edited April 3, 2018 by Bat Guano
typo

[Brisketexan 103148]

8 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

Let's assume that there is a statistically significant difference between white people and black people in terms of cognitive ability. Some scientist comes along and proves that this difference is purely genetic and upbringing, nutrition, or any external factors are irrelevant. It's undeniable.

Racists would immediately seize it to argue that white supremacy, racism in public institutions, poverty, and such aren't keeping black folks down; it's a result of blacks not having those magic extra 10 IQ points that white people have on average. That's a lot less nefarious than using it to justify slavery or genocide, but the intent is still malicious. 

Continuing with the assumption though, wouldn't the ethical response be the total opposite? Wouldn't decent Christian folks at least subscribe to some kind of well-intended-but-still-racist "white man's burden" type of view? 

As long as you concede that blacks are fellow humans, wouldn't there be a moral obligation to empower blacks and give them extra advantages and special accommodations? I mean, we want disabled people to be able to have the fullest lives possible and achieve self-actualization. We have laws in place to protect these genetically shortchanged people. We try to remove barriers but also give direct assistance and aid to them. 

I find it telling that 0.00% of people cite these studies to advance even an attempt at an ethical (albeit patronizing and misguided) position like the one above. When in the context of politics and policy, they are used to either absolve past crimes by the "superior" race or justify future ones. Whether the science is reliable or not, cheapening life and dehumanizing  "other" is, historically, the prelude to every genocide that has ever occurred. 

 

2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Bullshit. If you were pro-science you wouldn't keep starting these stupid threads with anti-scientific premises. You've been told over and over again, in many different ways and in great detail, that the concept of race is scientifically invalid, and yet you cling to it like an infant sucking its mother's tit. Look at the title of this one: when the source materials you are purporting to discuss are talking about genetically distinct populations, you reduce this to the simplistic, outmoded concept of race. This is antiscientific superstition. Take a look at the actual research with an open mind if you really want to be pro-science (yeah, I know you don't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend you're doing something other than trolling).

The whole premise is garbage, from "the evil left is against subpopulation studies" to "let's see how it correlates to race."

There are stacks of studies -- seriously, I suspect that one could go on a mission to read them all this year, and not make a dent -- that examine genetic features and variations of distinct subpopulations.  Yep, including Africans.  Who, by the way, are genetically diverse as hell -- again, rendering the concept of "race" complete garbage.  Which African subpopulation is the "African/black race?"  Shit, which European subpopulation is the "white race?"  Because there's an ass-ton of genetic diversity INTERNALLY in each of those "races."

Here's just one study I found in literally seconds of google searching:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067985/

Quote

Because modern humans originated in Africa and have adapted to diverse environments, African populations have high levels of genetic and phenotypic diversity. Thus, genomic studies of diverse African ethnic groups are essential for understanding human evolutionary history and how this leads to differential disease risk in all humans. Comparative studies of genetic diversity within and between African ethnic groups creates an opportunity to reconstruct some of the earliest events in human population history and are useful for identifying patterns of genetic variation that have been influenced by recent natural selection. Here we describe what is currently known about genetic variation and evolutionary history of diverse African ethnic groups. We also describe examples of recent natural selection in African genomes and how these data are informative for understanding the frequency of many genetic traits, including those that cause disease susceptibility in African populations and populations of recent African descent.

There are hundreds of genetically distinct subpopulations in Africa alone.  The SECOND that someone uses the word "race" in discussing genetic subpopulation research, they discredit themselves beyond possible rehabilitation.

Just like Tahoe did.  When he foolishly picked this "fight," on the back of a non-existent problem (weren't we told that the evil left wouldn't allow genetic research into subpopulations?), and used the word "race" (a scientifically irrelevant and meaningless word) in his three word thread title.

The only thing we're gaining from this is a data point that may be relevant to a determination that the genetically distinct subpopulation of angry white guys in Alabama is a bunch of morons.  We should do more research into why that is.

[Sbbruin 21567]

3 hours ago, JBJ said:

He may only name Reich twice, but his entire article is a response.

We all know that the Third Reich's the charm.

[Grandioso 2592]

Somewhere out in the universe there are aliens that can bend spacetime with their minds and have IQs that can't even be measured by human metrics.

And man are we going to look especially pathetic when they come visit and see a bunch of talking apes fighting about infinitesimal differences between them and which arbitrary group is the "best."

[washparkhorn 9894]

In the “no shit” category - lower IQ related to conservative beliefs:

Predicting political beliefs with polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment

Tobias Edwards, Alexandros Giannelis , Emily A. Willoughby , James J. Lee

A B S T R A C T

Intelligence has been found to be associated with a range of political beliefs including liberalism (Carl, 2014), anti-racism (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008), support for the EU and NATO (Oskarsson et al., 2014), free speech (De Keersmaecker, Bostyn, Van Hiel, & Roets, 2021), tolerance (Lasker & McNaughton, 2022) and anti-authoritarianism (Choma & Hanoch, 2017).

Intelligence is correlated with a range of left-wing and liberal political beliefs. 

This may suggest intelligence directly alters our political views. Alternatively, the association may be confounded or mediated by socioeconomic and environmental factors. 

We studied the effect of intelligence within a sample of over 300 biological and adoptive families, using both measured IQ and polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment. We found both IQ and polygenic scores significantly predicted all six of our political scales. 

Polygenic scores predicted social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within-families. Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within families, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. 

Our findings may provide the strongest causal inference to date of intelligence directly affecting political beliefs.

Our results imply that being genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs.

 

[Anastasis 23191]

55 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

In the “no shit” category - lower IQ related to conservative beliefs:

Predicting political beliefs with polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment

Tobias Edwards, Alexandros Giannelis , Emily A. Willoughby , James J. Lee

A B S T R A C T

Intelligence has been found to be associated with a range of political beliefs including liberalism (Carl, 2014), anti-racism (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008), support for the EU and NATO (Oskarsson et al., 2014), free speech (De Keersmaecker, Bostyn, Van Hiel, & Roets, 2021), tolerance (Lasker & McNaughton, 2022) and anti-authoritarianism (Choma & Hanoch, 2017).

Intelligence is correlated with a range of left-wing and liberal political beliefs. 

This may suggest intelligence directly alters our political views. Alternatively, the association may be confounded or mediated by socioeconomic and environmental factors. 

We studied the effect of intelligence within a sample of over 300 biological and adoptive families, using both measured IQ and polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment. We found both IQ and polygenic scores significantly predicted all six of our political scales. 

Polygenic scores predicted social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within-families. Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within families, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. 

Our findings may provide the strongest causal inference to date of intelligence directly affecting political beliefs.

Our results imply that being genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs.

 

More details on the political orientation scales used please. 

[SydneyCarton 47092]

On 4/2/2018 at 7:32 PM, TahoeHorn said:

There is a strong correlation between low IQ and all sorts of bad behavior.  Conservatism, in general, is good behavior.  But there are clearly components of conservative behavior which are bad behavior and correlated with low IQ.

As a point of interest, I'm "somewhat conservative". 

I'm also not sensitive to being part of any demo or group which generally performs more poorly than average.  It doesn't mean I do.  Similarly I am well aware that being part of a demo that performs very well doesn't mean I do.  We're talking about a logical fallacy I sneer at.

lol at this post. This guy had to have died of Covid, right?

[The Royal We 3041]

Donut overdose IMO.

[safe sex 11545]

Lmao at Tahoe describing himself as "somewhat conservative"

Edited April 9 by safe sex

[Js1 82365]

13 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Donut overdose IMO.

[RDCanecutter 25767]

@washparkhorn! I thought you was dead. Good to see you again.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

Tahoe was the one who got scared of a black man standing outside of Wal-Mart, right?

[SydneyCarton 47092]

21 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Tahoe was the one who got scared of a black man standing outside of Wal-Mart, right?

Boy, that seems like an odd place to be surprised by a black person. 

 

[Helobious 9393]

Clickbait if I ever saw it. You can switch up political beliefs daily, how could it be associated so strongly with something less dynamic like your intelligence? 

[washparkhorn 9894]

14 hours ago, Anastasis said:

More details on the political orientation scales used please. 

Let’s test your intelligence with this thought experiment. 

It is well understood that “intelligence IS cognitive flexibility,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397005/

Demonstrate your cognitive flexibility by arguing why right wing conservative beliefs indicate less cognitive flexibility and lower intelligence. 

Take all the time you need. “I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over.”

[YChang 3365]

No idea if the scale is included in the article, but here's the whole thing. 1-s2.0-S0160289624000254-main.pdf

Edited April 9 by YChang

[Willfully Horn 7820]

Nvm 

Edited April 9 by Willfully Horn

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

16 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

In the “no shit” category - lower IQ related to conservative beliefs:

Predicting political beliefs with polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment

Tobias Edwards, Alexandros Giannelis , Emily A. Willoughby , James J. Lee

A B S T R A C T

Intelligence has been found to be associated with a range of political beliefs including liberalism (Carl, 2014), anti-racism (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008), support for the EU and NATO (Oskarsson et al., 2014), free speech (De Keersmaecker, Bostyn, Van Hiel, & Roets, 2021), tolerance (Lasker & McNaughton, 2022) and anti-authoritarianism (Choma & Hanoch, 2017).

Intelligence is correlated with a range of left-wing and liberal political beliefs. 

This may suggest intelligence directly alters our political views. Alternatively, the association may be confounded or mediated by socioeconomic and environmental factors. 

We studied the effect of intelligence within a sample of over 300 biological and adoptive families, using both measured IQ and polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment. We found both IQ and polygenic scores significantly predicted all six of our political scales. 

Polygenic scores predicted social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within-families. Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within families, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. 

Our findings may provide the strongest causal inference to date of intelligence directly affecting political beliefs.

Our results imply that being genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs.

I wonder if there’s a correlation between intelligence and the responsible practice of citing one’s sources when posting on the internet. 

[Anastasis 23191]

30 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Let’s test your intelligence with this thought experiment. 

It is well understood that “intelligence IS cognitive flexibility,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9397005/

Demonstrate your cognitive flexibility by arguing why right wing conservative beliefs indicate less cognitive flexibility and lower intelligence. 

Take all the time you need. “I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over.”

That response has nothing to do with the request for more details on exactly what scales they used to assess political orientation. It's not a gotcha, it's a reasonable request if you want to the discuss the abstract you posted. 

[Anastasis 23191]

57 minutes ago, YChang said:

No idea if the scale is included in the article, but here's the whole thing. 1-s2.0-S0160289624000254-main.pdf

Thanks, quoted what I think is the relevant methods section below. Various scales, some of which were combined, and then further composited with other scales.

 

Political orientation was assessed with the single item “What is your political orientation?” on a 1–5 scale ranging from “extremely conservative” to “extremely liberal.” Authoritarianism was measured using 12 items capturing three facets of authoritarianism (subordination, aggression, and conventionalism) from Duckitt, Bizumic, Krauss, and Heled (2010)’s tripartite authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Egalitarianism was measured with eight items from Feldman and Steenbergen (2001) and Feldman (1988). Religiousness was assessed with the 9-item religiousness scale created by Koenig, McGue, Krueger, and Bouchard (2005). The scale asks about participation in and frequency of religious activities. 11 items were used to measure socialism liberalism and six measuring fiscal conservatism. These items were adapted from similar questions in the General Social Survey items (Smith, Davern, Freese, & Morgan, 2018). A list of all items for each scale can be found in the supplementary materials of Willoughby, Giannelis, Ludeke, Klemmensen, et al. (2021).

Correlations among our political scales are presented in Table 3. Due to the high correlations among the variables, we create a composite measure to summarise the relationship between intelligence and political opinion. Authoritarianism, egalitarianism, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism scales are combined to create a sum score called the political composite. Before summing, we change the signs of our scales so higher scores indicate left-wing views, ensuring that high composite scores indicate left-wing views too. A scale was coded as being left-wing or right-wing by its correlation with authoritarianism, which is assumed to be right-wing. Example items are shown in Table 2.  

[washparkhorn 9894]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That response has nothing to do with the request for more details on exactly what scales they used to assess political orientation. It's not a gotcha, it's a reasonable request if you want to the discuss the abstract you posted. 

Indulge me with an answer. The Socratic Method can be illuminating for all (and may promote healthy cognitive plasticity)  

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Boy, that seems like an odd place to be surprised by a black person. 

 

Maybe it was Target.

[SydneyCarton 47092]

1 minute ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Maybe it was Target.

Same Answer as before. 

Maybe it was a Klan meeting in Alabama.