Charlie Martin:
“considering how thoroughly Amodia’s methodology was demolished” -CM
From your link:
“On balance, I don’t have a beef with the methodology.”
There is nothing wrong with Amodio’s study.
“Sulloway’s name may not appear on this study, but he is intimately connected to it…Shame on Sulloway for allowing the media to believe that he is impartial. He should have disclosed his bias.” -From your link
Sulloway is referenced by Amodio. Being referenced by an author does not make you “intimately connected” with the study. Amodio also referenced Theodor Adorno:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
Adorno died 40 years ago. Is Adorno also “intimately connected” with Amodio’s study, since Amodio referenced him? Grow up. There is nothing wrong with Amodio’s study. Amodio is not responsible for the statements of an author referenced in his study.
“Had the results been reversed, you can be sure that ‘isinterested’ experts would have found another way to tie this study to their predetermined conclusion.” From your link
A completely baseless accusation of fraud. Standard.
“Were it a group study, it would have been unacceptably unbalanced and sloppy – something like 29 loosely defined, self-described liberals to 8 similarly defined conservatives. 3 It would be irrational to draw conclusions about group differences from such a design, and even more ridiculous to imply that those differences could be generalized to the larger population.” -From your link
This guy is an imbecile. Using a self-report for classification purposes is perfectly normal, and is done all the time. This specific self-report has been verified in many other studies:
“This single-item measure has been found to account for approximately 85% of the statistical variance in presidential voting intentions in American National Election studies
between 1972 and 2004. Among participants in the present study who reported voting in the 2004 presidential election, a more liberal (versus conservative) ideological orientation strongly predicted voting for John Kerry versus George Bush (r(21) = 0.79, P less than 0.001.)”
It is perfectly justified to draw conclusions concerning these groups based on this data. Of course it can be generalized to the larger population. It’s justified based on it’s significant (p less than 0.001) results.
Your link is a joke.
