> Thus, we hypothesized a relation between forms of social rigidity, including Socio-cognitive polarization (i.e., a factor capturing conservative political ideology, absolutism/intolerance of ambiguity, and xenophobia)
Did they seriously classify "conservative political ideology" in general as an aspect of socio-cognitive polarization, and casually toss it into the same bin as xenophobia?
This reeks of bias from a mile away.
In both the US and Italy, conservative ideas are strongly associated with the religious right (Evangelical in the US, and Catholic in Italy). This at minimum means that the results of this study do not necessarily transfer to other societies, but more likely suggests that those two nationalities were deliberately chosen to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
What is your opinion on the section of the paper where they discuss the link between conservative ideology (and political extremism in general, including liberal) and perceptual rigidity, referencing 28 other studies?
But try queering a political binary and all of a sudden everybody's staring at you.
They really do try to slip political bias into this "paper" wherever possible. Bizarre and untrustworthy authorship.
Of course now we have TDS.
And people love to vote up those papers because they assume that it scientifically proves their belief system is the correct one and the other guys are just dumb.
I'm an atheist and my twin brother is very religious. Worldviews come from the information streams you are subject to and also from the groups you are in.
Just because it was published doesn't mean it's not absolute nonsense.
Your comment reads as the same, just in the opposite direction.
== And people love to vote up those papers because they assume that it scientifically proves their belief system is the correct one and the other guys are just dumb.==
Or maybe they find the results useful/insightful. I don’t think being cynical about other people’s motives really helps us understand human behavior.
Strong words. Would you be so kind and you point out what in the article is "absolute nonsense" and invalidates the conclusions?
