Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dems and Reps at age 3?
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 6 of 61 (396752)
04-21-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
04-21-2007 8:43 PM


Study Hypothesis writes:
The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
Interesting, but I would like to see the tradition and authority that these kids were raised with.
Wouldn't an insecure child from a liberal household tradition take more comfort in what he/she knows best? Would the leaders they recognize as 'authorities' be such based on what they have grown up with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 04-21-2007 8:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 04-21-2007 10:25 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 27 of 61 (396946)
04-23-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
04-21-2007 10:25 PM


nator writes:
The thing is, though, three year olds don't really get the whole idea of tradition, I don't think.
That's not the point.
The research findings indicate that at some stage in their developement, insecure children turned toward an authoritarian source/view.
What the research did not do is rule out any other factors in the choices made. It is not difficult to make the leap from insecurity to a comfort zone, but I don't know why the comfort zone would always be the same 'conservative' politics.
Once before you mentioned that people tend to prefer landscapes that depict scenes close to food and water supplies. I never asked you the particulars of that study, but it struck me at the time as very fishy too. How is it possible to say the 'food and water' aspect was more important than maybe the art or photography of the scenes, the color schemes (warm or cool, comforting colors, etc.) or the area where the study participants called home?
We recently saw a study where a link was made between young children and a preference for attractive faces. I am not sure how much worse we could get in terms of bias, or how much more such a study could depend on the time or decade in which it was done. What is or is not attractive changes very often!
I do understand that these types of studies are starting points. It is the way they are marketed that gets to me. If for example the 'attractiveness' study would have been presented as 'What Type of Faces Are Children Attracted To?' and the results analyzed, I would have no issue compared to a news line which reads 'Children Prefer Attractive Faces'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 04-21-2007 10:25 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 3:18 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 11:12 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 54 by fallacycop, posted 04-24-2007 11:20 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 29 of 61 (396949)
04-23-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
04-23-2007 10:21 AM


Re: Fishy
nator writes:
Er, anecdotal evidence is meaningless, you know.
Irrelevent to that study, yes, but not meaningless.
We could find hypothetically as many people who rebelled against the insecurity of childhood while they entered adulthood, as those who stuck to tradition.
What this study is saying (sort of) is that none of these children changed or moved past their insecurities. You know as well as I that this does not reflect reality. You likely also know that insecure folks will tend to jump into whatever party line is peresented to them. Wasn't that your argument recently about how so many people become Christian? Looking for a quick fix in college years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 10:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 3:24 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 41 of 61 (396979)
04-23-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
04-23-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Fishy
Study writes:
The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.
I said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this study is saying (sort of) is that none of these children changed or moved past their insecurities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you said;
No that's not at all what I get from the study
So, we have insecure kids finding security in conservative politics. Since we can't get a voter's reg until 18 years old, and the study was on 23 year olds, then it does seem to say that the samples were still seeking security at age 18-23.
nator writes:
Well, no, I actually don't know that this finding doesn't reflect reality, even leaving aside your rather strawman versiopn of the findings.
If a few people can tell you in anecdote that their insecurities are past history and they are now liberal free-thinkers, it would be obvious that the study doesn't reflect ALL of reality.
That's what the scientific method does; it lets us look at reality free from the biased, anecdotal thinking of "you and I know that X is/isn't true".
Conversely 'reality' tells you that attempting to put people into little neat packages is only interesting and not realistic. So, again, yes, yes, yes ask more questions.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 3:24 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 8:19 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 45 of 61 (397013)
04-23-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
04-23-2007 8:19 PM


Re: Fishy
nator writes:
What is it about Psychology research that makes laypeople so easily brush it's findings aside, or assume the scientists researching an issue are complete morons who haven't already figured out the issues they believe are so damning to the study?
Sheesh, don't you have a thread on that somewhere?
Nothing makes any of us doubt the scientists or their methods or their integrity or their genius. I am questioning their findings.
Opening a topic about the study does, however, make us believe you would like to discuss the results, rather than just post them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 8:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-24-2007 8:24 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 51 of 61 (397088)
04-24-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
04-24-2007 8:24 AM


Re: Fishy
nator writes:
"Maybe they got these results (that sound fishy to me) because they didn't they take this and/or that variable into account."?
Actually that was not my argument. I have no doubt that they (scientists) got the results they did regardless of the variables they took into account.
My observation was that in a study where there are so many possible variables I would not be over-eager to draw a parallel. I don't know that anyone is. As you keep repeating, its only one step of many.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 04-24-2007 8:24 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 11:29 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 58 of 61 (397109)
04-24-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Larni
04-24-2007 11:12 AM


Larni writes:
If you think of attractiveness as symetry and smiling you can't go far wrong.
I understand that there has been seperate research regarding symmetry, and that the 'perfectly symmetrical face' was often an object of the artist's quest.
What I did not have from the news report was any determination of the criteria they used in this test. I will see if I can find anything online.
The debate over the definition of beauty has been waged by both scientists and philosophers for centuries. We tested the idea that a facial configuration close to the population mean is fundamental to attractiveness (see: Why Are Attractive Faces Preferred).
First, we digitized images of faces of male and female college students (i.e., transformed the facial images into little dots of lightness and darkness called "pixels"). Each face is represented by a matrix of pixel values that can be mathematically averaged with the matrices of other faces. Once digitized and averaged together, we can turn the averaged pixel values back into images and have the composite faces rated for attractiveness (see Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Langlois et al., 1994). To see some faces averaged together, please visit our Image Morphing pages.
College students rated the male and female composite faces as significantly higher in attractiveness than the individual faces used to create them, if the composites had at least 16 different faces in them. Thus, averaged faces are attractive. Note that when we use the word, "average," we mean the arithmetical mean, and not an average-looking person. If, for example, you take a female composite (averaged) face made of 32 different faces and overlay it on the face of an extremely attractive female model, the two images line up almost perfectly indicating that the model's facial configuration is very similar to the composites' facial configuration.
Other researchers have suggested that the symmetry or youthfulness of a face make faces attractive. Although we agree that symmetry, youthfulness, or a smile can contribute to the attractiveness of a face, it does not necessarily make a face attractive. We have shown that faces can be highly symmetrical or youthful, but are not necessarily attractive. Thus, we view averageness as fundamental and necessary to facial attractiveness. Averageness is not the only component of attractiveness, but without it, no face will be attractive.
Here is a sample of something online.
You can see they are denouncing symmetry or smiles alone. What they did do is start with the idea that models are attractive, and then have college students rate their composites for attractiveness. Then they compared these composites with the faces of female models. They matched, which to me only proves that right now a certain type is 'in'. Necessarily only the infants and children could be non-biased observers.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 11:12 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 04-24-2007 1:07 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024