If you live in one of the 3 big cities, then yes it seems nice. At least if you enjoy more stupid laws, capped bandwidth, double the prices on videogames, and lots of things that want to kill you.
Every step of the GOP since the election has been like clockwork. I've been waiting for the tea party to force this schism for years, and Obama's victory was the only thing that needed to happen to seal the deal.
Study demonstrates that Republicans are impulsive, angry, fearful, and childish.
Their brain activity when making decisions mostly resembles that of teenagers, who are known for their firm grasp of consequences, rational thinking, and empathy:
"The study analyzed the brain scans of 83 people as they played a gambling game in which participants could either score the easy low points or hold out for possible higher rewards. "
Yeah, with such a miniscule sample size, I'm not fucking buying it. At all. Even if we assume that it's an even-as-possible split between Democrats and Republicans, we still end up with groups of 41 and 42. Of course, it doesn't TELL us it's an even split, the only time we're told about how many people are involved, it sums up everyone in the sample group.
Basically, this is mildly interesting, but ultimately meaningless and proving pretty much nothing at all. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Democrats who like to feel better than other people because of their political affiliation.
Well, we can go to a macro level and debate as always why Republican policies are demonstrably stupid and self destructive on their face, but this is more fun.
Also, as medical studies are concerned, a sample size of 85 is medium to large.
Churbs is right. It's statistically insignificant. You might try to class it as a medical study, but when dealing with sociological soft science, it certainly blurs the line. Also, what is a Republican and what is a Democrat?
Also, as medical studies are concerned, a sample size of 85 is medium to large.
Sure, in some studies. It actually varies depending on what you're wishing to prove, that's kinda how sample sizes work.
For example, if you're making observation about neurological function of people by political affiliation who naturally cross a broad range of social strata in both tested parties, you're going to need a sample size larger than eighty fucking five, especially when you have no standard deviation available to determine acceptable small sample sizes.
The reason that medical studies often have small sample sizes is because we've got vast amounts of data backing the things we already know and don't have to discover with that study. For example, if we're trying to estimate the average amount a drug will lower a patient's blood pressure, we already know the standard deviation for blood pressure within the population, so we can get away with that small sample size to figure out the mean drop in blood pressure, because we have enough backing data gathered from thousands upon thousands of previous patients, studies and cases to make accurate extrapolations.
This is absolutely not the case here. Our overall sample size is 83 people, again, presumably split evenly as possible between democrats and republicans, meaning we have either 41 or 42 Republicans as our actual sample - Which is far too small on average by the very same standard you're attempting to use to excuse this bullshit.
I think this is it - there were in fact 60 Democrats and 22 Republicans.
Seems to be - similar sample size, same method, similar results - though they do differ from what the Slate/Alternet article makes them out to be, since the paper itself specifically notes no success in distinguishing between either group by behavior alone - a proposition that shoots the Slate/Alternet article in the foot before it even manages to draw from the holster.
Smells to me like a foot-in-the-door paper, something with a hook and some interesting data that might help get them some funding to study something similar, but not the same - for example, different neurological activity during identical behaviors and why this might occur.
Well, there have been many similar studies recently, and they all point to certain fear-based behaviors that correlate strongly with conservative political views.
What part of the brain does somebody use when they vote?
Not everyone thinks about every nuance of who they are voting for. I feel like most people have 1 or 2 issue(s) they feel very strongly about, and they will always vote for the candidate that agrees with them on that (those) issue(s) alone. I know people who will never vote Republican because of "X", others who always vote Republican because of "Y". They don't care about the candidate as a person or any other issue(s).
Not everyone thinks about every nuance of who they are voting for. I feel like most people have 1 or 2 issue(s) they feel very strongly about, and they will always vote for the candidate that agrees with them on that (those) issue(s) alone. I know people who will never vote Republican because of "X", others who always vote Republican because of "Y". They don't care about the candidate as a person or any other issue(s).
Sad, but true. It's also difficult to find relevant information on the candidates. For the big offices, you can find if you dig enough on the 'net, but there's a lot of noise you have to filter as well. For the small/local offices, good luck finding anything.
Sad, but true. It's also difficult to find relevant information on the candidates. For the big offices, you can find if you dig enough on the 'net, but there's a lot of noise you have to filter as well. For the small/local offices, good luck finding anything.
That is true too. Though I am not sure if it is the case where you live, here it is rare to see 2 candidates for small office. Whoever runs typically gets it by default.
Well, there have been many similar studies recently, and they all point to certain fear-based behaviors that correlate strongly with conservative political views.
I'm more than willing to believe the results of the study, but still. Science.
Sad, but true. It's also difficult to find relevant information on the candidates. For the big offices, you can find if you dig enough on the 'net, but there's a lot of noise you have to filter as well. For the small/local offices, good luck finding anything.
That is true too. Though I am not sure if it is the case where you live, here it is rare to see 2 candidates for small office. Whoever runs typically gets it by default.
9 times out of 10 it's the same here too. It's that 10th time out of 10 where I wish I could get info on the candidate.
What part of the brain does somebody use when they vote?
Not everyone thinks about every nuance of who they are voting for. I feel like most people have 1 or 2 issue(s) they feel very strongly about, and they will always vote for the candidate that agrees with them on that (those) issue(s) alone. I know people who will never vote Republican because of "X", others who always vote Republican because of "Y". They don't care about the candidate as a person or any other issue(s).
41 or 42 Republicans as our actual sample - Which is far too small on average by the very same standard you're attempting to use to excuse this bullshit.
41 or 42 Republicans as our actual sample - Which is far too small on average by the very same standard you're attempting to use to excuse this bullshit.
Let's see the math, yo.
Well, if there's 82 people in the study, and you devide that by two, since there are two groups, you end up with 41.
Okay, taking the piss aside, since we don't have a standard deviation, I got lazy and used This tool, inputting 1.96 for confidence interval (to go with the 95% confidence level). The population size is 89,536,206 - Since Gallup polls in 2010 suggested that 29% of the US population in 2010 identified as republican, and that's 29% of the 2010 US population of 308,745,538.
From there, it gave a result of 2500 for an acceptable representative sample size, based on This formula. It's super quick and super dirty, but it'll do for this level of formality. I would have used my usual tool for calculating sample sizes in medical studies, Which is here, but it's either moved, or the site is down at this time, so I had to do it the dodgy way.
Churba, I don't think you've got a handle on this. Sample size isn't really a problem in this study. It isn't saying "every single Republican think this way" but "of the people we studied, the self-identified Republicsns thought his way".
Then, in a blinded study where the testers don't know the political leanings of the individuals, this number is fine. If the researchers group the people who made the decision one way, and group the people who thought the other way, and then tested hat against their political leanings, they would be left with a number.
If that number is 100% correct, then the experiment is super solid. If it is 98%, it's still very solid, about as solid as grouping people by if they have a penis or not and then matching that to how they self identify as make or female.
If the number is 50% it's not a good experiment. That would be like trying correlate hair colour with gender.
In other words this test isn't trying to say "all republicans think this way" but "people who think thus way are x% likely to self identify as Republicans". A sample size of 82 is perfectly fine to make such a statement.
Comments
You can get uncapped Internet access for a reasonable price, though unfortunately we don't yet have very much fibre optic cabling rolled out.
Video game prices can be pretty bad, but Steam prices are typically pretty good; most of the exceptions are games I wouldn't buy anyway.
Most things don't really want to kill you; often it's an accident, or a defensive strike. On the plus side, most such things aren't human.
Their brain activity when making decisions mostly resembles that of teenagers, who are known for their firm grasp of consequences, rational thinking, and empathy:
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/are_republican_brains_different_partner/
(fixed link)
Thanks
"The study analyzed the brain scans of 83 people as they played a gambling game in which participants could either score the easy low points or hold out for possible higher rewards. "
Yeah, with such a miniscule sample size, I'm not fucking buying it. At all. Even if we assume that it's an even-as-possible split between Democrats and Republicans, we still end up with groups of 41 and 42. Of course, it doesn't TELL us it's an even split, the only time we're told about how many people are involved, it sums up everyone in the sample group.
Basically, this is mildly interesting, but ultimately meaningless and proving pretty much nothing at all. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Democrats who like to feel better than other people because of their political affiliation.
Also, as medical studies are concerned, a sample size of 85 is medium to large.
For example, if you're making observation about neurological function of people by political affiliation who naturally cross a broad range of social strata in both tested parties, you're going to need a sample size larger than eighty fucking five, especially when you have no standard deviation available to determine acceptable small sample sizes.
The reason that medical studies often have small sample sizes is because we've got vast amounts of data backing the things we already know and don't have to discover with that study. For example, if we're trying to estimate the average amount a drug will lower a patient's blood pressure, we already know the standard deviation for blood pressure within the population, so we can get away with that small sample size to figure out the mean drop in blood pressure, because we have enough backing data gathered from thousands upon thousands of previous patients, studies and cases to make accurate extrapolations.
This is absolutely not the case here. Our overall sample size is 83 people, again, presumably split evenly as possible between democrats and republicans, meaning we have either 41 or 42 Republicans as our actual sample - Which is far too small on average by the very same standard you're attempting to use to excuse this bullshit. Seems to be - similar sample size, same method, similar results - though they do differ from what the Slate/Alternet article makes them out to be, since the paper itself specifically notes no success in distinguishing between either group by behavior alone - a proposition that shoots the Slate/Alternet article in the foot before it even manages to draw from the holster.
Smells to me like a foot-in-the-door paper, something with a hook and some interesting data that might help get them some funding to study something similar, but not the same - for example, different neurological activity during identical behaviors and why this might occur.
Edit: We get people like this guy
Okay, taking the piss aside, since we don't have a standard deviation, I got lazy and used This tool, inputting 1.96 for confidence interval (to go with the 95% confidence level). The population size is 89,536,206 - Since Gallup polls in 2010 suggested that 29% of the US population in 2010 identified as republican, and that's 29% of the 2010 US population of 308,745,538.
From there, it gave a result of 2500 for an acceptable representative sample size, based on This formula. It's super quick and super dirty, but it'll do for this level of formality. I would have used my usual tool for calculating sample sizes in medical studies, Which is here, but it's either moved, or the site is down at this time, so I had to do it the dodgy way.
Then, in a blinded study where the testers don't know the political leanings of the individuals, this number is fine. If the researchers group the people who made the decision one way, and group the people who thought the other way, and then tested hat against their political leanings, they would be left with a number.
If that number is 100% correct, then the experiment is super solid. If it is 98%, it's still very solid, about as solid as grouping people by if they have a penis or not and then matching that to how they self identify as make or female.
If the number is 50% it's not a good experiment. That would be like trying correlate hair colour with gender.
In other words this test isn't trying to say "all republicans think this way" but "people who think thus way are x% likely to self identify as Republicans". A sample size of 82 is perfectly fine to make such a statement.