Thread: Partisanship versus reason

Originally Posted by phidan

The study simplified these topics completely to make this argument moot. They made it as simple as, "is this number bigger than this one," and many people got it wrong.

Regardless of personal or political beliefs, if some one took the question to mean "full time jobs" then i believe no would be an appropriate answer. Again, that's regardless of my political believes, and as vague as the question is written, it shouldn't be and unexpected result. If the question were "all jobs" then yes is the answer. As you say its as simple as "is this number bigger than that number" I looked at it as apples to apples, not apples to apples and oranges. Am i making sense?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Admittedly i didnt read the whole thing

The experiment data he's referring to begins to be discussed on pg9 as he stated. However, it is pg9 of the paper itself (in the footer on the pagse) and not the page number reported by the PDF viewer (which reports the page you want to read as pg12 in the pdf navigation).

Here's the start of the part you're interested in - images not pasted:

Based on previous studies using the design reflected in this experiment, it is known that most people use one of two heuristic alternatives to this approach. The first involves comparing the number of outcomes in the upper left cell to the number in the upper right one (“A vs. B”). The other (“A vs. C”) involves comparing the numbers in the upper left and lower left cells (Wasserman, Dorner & Kao 1990).
- 10-
Each of these heuristic strategies generates a recognizable species of invalid causal inference. “A vs. B” amounts to assessing a treatment without considering information from a control. “A vs. C” compares outcomes in the treatment and control but in a manner that neglects to consult information necessary to disentangle the impact of the treatment from other influences at work in both conditions.

In the real world, of course, use of either of these defective strategies—both of which amount to failing to use all the information necessary to make a valid causal inference—might still generate the correct answer. But for our study stimulus, the numbers for the cells of the contingency table were deliberately selected so that use of either heuristic strategy would generate an incorrect interpretation of the results of the fictional skin-treatment experiment.

The second two versions of the experiment involved a gun-control measure (Figure 3).

The hypotheses of the experiment are detailed on pages (footer) 11 and 13.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Just like there isn't FACT that it is legit yet we have a topic about a study that says if you refuse to believe it is indeed FACT then you have mental problems. Seems to me the only thing this "study" proves is that both sides are just as full of shit. But maybe I read it wrong.

That isn't what the study says at all though. It's what the douchenozzle author of the HuffPo article said and what Laz jumped on and ran with (even though there was no "there" there - again).

The article is clearly (though with a lot of words and many pages) stating:

• No matter what condition subjects were assigned to, they were highly likely to select the wrong response to the covariance-detection problem. Overall, 59% of the subjects supplied the incorrect answer—identifying as the most supported result the one that was in fact least supported by the information in the 2x2 contingency table.
• Visual inspection demonstrates no meaningful variation among “Liberal Democrats” (subjects scoring below the mean on Conserv_Repub) and “Conservative Republicans” (ones scoring above the mean) in the skin-rash conditions.
• Liberal Democrats become increasingly likely to correctly identify the result supported by the data as they become more numerate in the “crime decreases” condition; but increasing Numeracy had minimal impact for Liberal Democrats in the “crime increases” condition.
• Among Conservative Republicans, the pattern was inverted: the impact of higher Numeracy on subjects’ ability to supply the correct answer was substantially larger in the “crime increases “condition than in the “crime decreases” one.
• In other words, higher Numeracy improved subjects’ performance in detecting covariance only in the “gun control” condition in which the correct response was congenial to the subjects’ political out-looks.
  
• ..ideologically motivated reasoning would inhibit effortful processing of information in conditions in which heuristic strategies for assessing the data affirmed subjects’ political outlooks.
• A low-Numeracy Liberal Democrat is more likely to correctly identify the outcome supported by the data than is a low-Numeracy Conservative Republican when the data, in fact, supports the conclusion that a gun ban decreases crime, but is less likely to correctly identify the outcome when the data supports the conclusion that a gun ban increases crime.
• where an individual has an identity-protective stake in a particular outcome, he or she will resort to effortful, System 2 processing—of the sort needed to draw valid inferences from complex data—only when less effortful heuristic reasoning generates a conclusion that threatens his or her identity. Here, high-numeracy subjects in the gun-ban conditions were likely to terminate their engagement with the evidence when heuristic assessment of it gratified their political predispositions—even though the resulting inference that they drew about the result of the experiment was incorrect.

In other words - confirmation bias at play based on partisanship (any flavor pick a flavor).

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Holy shit, this study was ridiculous.

For example:



Notice this one. They didn't take into account WHY these people felt this way (some people see replacing a full time job with benefits with a part time job with no benefits and welfare as not the same thing), or if the people answering trusted the source for the information provided. It appears that if anyone argued a point the researcher simply inferred people must not be using reason since the numbers are "right there".

But even more dangerous is this thought:



The only problem there is that there is a shit ton of evidence that Global Warming is bullshit and it's also an absolute fact that global warming scientists lied to cover it up.

Wow man, psychological disorder? What a perfect example of liberal thinking. Get ready for the reeducation camps.

All I can say to the above is:

As bad as the OP linked article is (and make no mistake the article is undeniably shit - and furthermore the author, un-ironically, fails in the very same manner as the study predicts most people will fail) you seemingly did not actually read the actual study which was actually pretty well written and non-partisan.


Thread recap time:
As far as I was able to determine, especially seeing as the study identified that basically ALL people, regardless of their particular ideology, have the same basic default failing when trying to determine cause and effect relationships or causation and that it is extremely difficult to avoid falling into the "heuristic trap" they are talking about.....again REGARDLESS of ideologies....because of well known/documented self-confirmation bias.

So phidan posted a badly written article from HuffPo (say what you will - I'll say "Not surprised" given HuffPo's typical quality)
The thread has a very vague title about "Partisanship" and reason.
The thread starts off on the wrong foot from the very start because of the idiocy of the article's author (who does have a partisan bent/agenda/whatever).
Proceeds to go downhill from there (pg 1 no less) after kneejerk reaction claims that partisanship in an article published on a partisan news site must accurately reflect the very partisan nature of the study itself (ironically a pretty good example of confirmation bias and relatable to the study itself in an amusingly :fp way since the study was not about partisanship lib/con, per se, but rather about how either affects cognitive ability and analysis).


IMO, the payoff and really thought-provoking portion of this begins "at the end" in the discussion/conclusion section (footer pg 28).

Phidan - even if the study remains largely ignored here - thank you. It was a very interesting read.

Originally Posted by Alundil

All I can say to the above is:

As bad as the OP linked article is (and make no mistake the article is undeniably shit - and furthermore the author, un-ironically, fails in the very same manner as the study predicts most people will fail) you seemingly did not actually read the actual study which was actually pretty well written and non-partisan.


Thread recap time:
As far as I was able to determine, especially seeing as the study identified that basically ALL people, regardless of their particular ideology, have the same basic default failing when trying to determine cause and effect relationships or causation and that it is extremely difficult to avoid falling into the "heuristic trap" they are talking about.....again REGARDLESS of ideologies....because of well known/documented self-confirmation bias.

So phidan posted a badly written article from HuffPo (say what you will - I'll say "Not surprised" given HuffPo's typical quality)
The thread has a very vague title about "Partisanship" and reason.
The thread starts off on the wrong foot from the very start because of the idiocy of the article's author (who does have a partisan bent/agenda/whatever).
Proceeds to go downhill from there (pg 1 no less) after kneejerk reaction claims that partisanship in an article published on a partisan news site must accurately reflect the very partisan nature of the study itself (ironically a pretty good example of confirmation bias and relatable to the study itself in an amusingly :fp way since the study was not about partisanship lib/con, per se, but rather about how either affects cognitive ability and analysis).


IMO, the payoff and really thought-provoking portion of this begins "at the end" in the discussion/conclusion section (footer pg 28).

Phidan - even if the study remains largely ignored here - thank you. It was a very interesting read.

Yeah not a kneejerk reaction. It was a perfectly reasonable one given the article quoted and what it said. I responded to the OP.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

So how is he Obama administration responsible for a company's hiring decisions? Be specific.

If a company can't afford to pay for their portion of employees' healthcare benefits anymore, they are likely to fire staff and ask remaining employees to work two peoples' jobs. Or they may change a portion of their jobs to part time or seasonal jobs in order to avoid the healthcare expense while still receiving the benefit of the work effort of the part time employees. That way they can at least continue to provide benefits for the remaining full time employees and their families.

Just recently my own company (Verizon) announced triumphantly that they figured out a way to keep out of pocket healthcare costs for current employees the same as last year. I have knowledge but cannot comment on details on how they accomplished this, suffice to say the process was similar to what I just described.

Many companies are doing this to prepare for their expected additional healthcare insurance rate increases (and rates are increasing) under Obamacare. The Obama administration is responsible for bringing forward Obamacare and pushing the agenda. There is a direct correlation. Specific enough for you?

Additionally the economy is in the shitter, in case you hadn't noticed. People can't spend money because they are barely making ends meet, working at part time jobs they got because they can't find full time employment. Businesses can't afford to pay full time employees with benefits. And all of it relates to this administration's management of the economy.