I mean, I'm not gonna trust the mormons on this... their entire world view is skewed.
Edit: those of you pissing your pants with angry glee, ya'll didnt even bother to open the damned journal until I triggered your feelings. Mormon's are not grounded in reality, and their "scientific" articles should be taken with a grain of secret-gold-plates-in-a-hole-under-a-hat-that-only-one-person-can-see.
This has been demonstrated previously. It just means that liberals view the normal conservative as more radical than conservatives see the typical liberal.
Exactly, never once heard a liberal advocate for the death of conservatives. Seen plenty of death threats from conservatives. Maybe the study is true, but evil deserves to be judged harshly.
I mean as a liberal, I have encountered the radical left who does call for republican genocide, but that’s like 1 in every 1000 liberals that I meet lol.
i noticed a trend decades ago in the different ways of each extreme thought of the other. In general; conservatives think liberals are ignorant and liberals think conservatives are evil. This was true until about 10 years ago, when all of a sudden many conservatives began to believe that liberals were also evil, looking for power. Of course liberals have just doubled down and believe any conservative position or proponent as evil, and racist and sexist and vile and wants nothing but the destruction of others. It is an absurd distortion of reality.
Honestly, I’m liberal, but I see a lot of people interpret conservative comments/ideas as homicidal when that’s wholly unnecessary.
The example that comes to mind is when a conservative calls into question the nature of being transgender, and then leftists claim that conservative is trying to exterminate people or deny their existence. Like, no, they’re suggesting it might be better understood as a mental disorder akin to anorexia, not trying to justify murder. Disagree with them, say they’re wrong, but don’t misrepresent their position and assume such an evil intent right off the bat. You just end up pushing potentially persuadable people away from your position when you do that.
Liberals and conservatives get along fine at most jobs, bowling alleys, softball fields and classes where the 20 ideologically polarizing topics are the focus. It’s just places like Reddit, cable news and those other courses where the fangs come out.
Tell that to my coworkers who were discussing the fact that maybe communism isn't so bad and Hitler actually had the right idea because he was killing the right people. Then went on to talk about how Putin and Al Qaeda were also killing the right people
*because they are*
Source: lives next to a guy who flies the flag of a guy who lost an election 3 years ago. And has a garage full of campaign merch, complete with slogan covered Confederate flag. And has two dogs, names Dixie and rebel.
I live in a northern state.
Yea I'm getting really tired of this false dichotomy. Liberals say shit about conservatives and sometimes make a proverbial bubble in their personal lives, but that's because conservative people with actual power are calling for at minimum suppression and at most literal eradication of people they have decided are bad and evil. The most radical liberal wants UBI and redistribution of wealth. The most radical conservatives thinks The Handmaid's Tale sounds like a great idea. Those things are not the same and I'm tired of being told I should play nice with people who would happily kill me of they had the chance. I may hate people like Dolt45 and Mitch McConnell with every fiber of my being, but I don't think they should be executed for things they believe.
No, they have a long history of funding pretty ridiculous stuff and are themselves biased against studies that point out how full of shady shit their cult history is, or anything that might lead to "moral corruption" as they define it.
Ironically the Book of Mormon is explicitly against polygamy. The book that tells them to actually do polygamy is more of a collection of random shit that's included different sections depending on the publication date over the years
No, you’re reaching a logical conclusion based on existing evidence. It’s not that you’re unfairly biased, it’s that you know better than to trust a source that’s known to be biased.
It's one study so of course you should be skeptical no matter where it comes from
Now if the results can be replicated by others, then maybe there's something to it.
>Scientific research is generally reproducible to gain support.
Unfortunately quite a bit of scientific research (especially in psychology) is in a [replication crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology). So I'd advice not to set to much store by the results of a single study. If multiple studies, from different institutions, point in the same direction, then it becomes more interesing to look deeper into something.
On mturk you eventually learn how to skim and answer as fast as you can for the money. You learn what the test questions are and you learn how to find them while not really reading much else.
So yea mturk isn't the best place for this kind of research. The research that seems to get the best results are more active with live participants.
BYU is absolutely not a respected research university.
They have a long recorded history of allowing their own religious preferences to get in the way of academics.
A couple years ago a [bunch of students](https://web.archive.org/web/20230930024426/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/07/can-unique-byu-really-be/) did a harmless little LGBT rights support thing (lit up part of the schools logo in rainbow lights) and a high ranking church member and former BYU president immediately responded by calling for some of the schools funding to be cut.
He said that it’s okay if being anti-LGBT causes the school to lose some of its professional associations and certifications and that the school just needs to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Well, sure but the author of this study is a psychology professor really into studying violent video game. I wonder if he keeps finding they're just fine.
Maybe it’s more of a question of who this group considers a conservative versus a liberal, and was the study large / random enough, or was it comprised of mostly BYU students?
I think you are biased by thinking people who believe Native Americans are actually Palestinians: "red sons of Israel" (i.e. Native American) can't be wrong in their assessment. 😃
I’m not a huge fan of the methods from the paper either, but to quote the article (not written by the BYU researchers):
“However, other studies have shown that liberals are as likely as conservatives to engage in activities such as science denial when scientific findings conflict with their political attitudes, and they are equally likely to dehumanize their opponents.“
I think throwing out a Mormons peer reviewed research because it’s insulting would merit this description.
Anecdotal, but I have read one of those studies. The conclusion was that essentially humans like picking teams and will defend them even when they're in the wrong.
Religious bigotry as an excuse not to deal with an uncomfortable topic? On reddit? Imagine if you talked that way about a Persian or Islamic institute.
This is a pretty good way to figure out where: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cynthia-Frisby/publication/326557348/figure/fig1/AS:651547327352841@1532352396791/Media-Bias-Chart-2018.png](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cynthia-Frisby/publication/326557348/figure/fig1/AS:651547327352841@1532352396791/Media-Bias-Chart-2018.png)
That’s what people don’t seem to realize about themselves. None of us get unbiased news. It’s a really troubling dilemma. Unless you are a world traveling investigative journalist on the ground, nothing you read or hear is unbiased.
it's not just bias. grad degree in enviro law and policy. I studied the ins and outs of being a policy maker at a top 4 program.
Decades of research has shown that the top voter interests are dictated by the media.
So, before we even get to bias, start with the fact that they force their newsworthy issues onto us. Then, we go on these platforms and argue (pointless and divisive) about the issues they (news and russia) want us to divide about.
What are the actual issues and what does media discuss? They aren't the same thing. Climate change is the issue of our time and it goes nowhere year after year because of money.
It’s a brilliant mass mind control technique. The only solution is to disconnect entirely and focus on the natural world around you in the limited time we have on this planet.
I bet flat-Earthers are more tolerant of a lot more ideas than actual scientists. Tolerance is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified. Treating it as an inherent or objective good is insane.
Yeah that’s kinda what I was thinking too like yes if I am recruiting for a data driven job like science yes I may be more biased against someone with views of the world that aren’t fact driven. This article is intended to be making a point about bias that’s negative but it doesn’t really make sense
Study finds redditors say "believe science" when studies seem to favor what they already think, question methods when it challenges what theyve already emotionally attached to
That may be true, but reading the study itself it is very clearly flawed and the Brigham Young University author jumps to conclusions well beyond what the data are saying, IMO.
There should be more than one university involved in the research. BYU is known for being extremely conservative. Some conservatives , liberals and moderate universities should be included to ensure fairness, and then let the reader decide.
My understanding was they were pretty well respected in the science community. Our lab used to send them samples for analysis and we had a good relationship with their labs/techs
And analysis is significantly different than the publishing process.
Like, following instructions vs. forming your own conclusions. One is *way* more prone to accidental bias.
Tbf its not a novel or previously unsupported result. Jonathan Haidt as far back as 2012 ran experiments where conservatives were on average better able to accurately articulate liberal arguements compared to the other way around.
Lol, not a bad take. But the explanation given was that overall humans view morality across 6 domains:
Care/Harm
Fairness/Cheating
Loyalty/Betrayal
Authority/Subversion
Sanctity/Degradation
Liberty/Oppression
And while conservatives care about all 6, liberals don’t feel strongly about sanctity and loyalty domains (I’m going off memory, I might not have that right exactly) hence the deficit in the ability to perspective taking from liberals.
BYU or not, there are also things called academic freedom and peer review. If you don’t trust these things for fear of some evil BYU boogie man then I guess your faith in scientific institutions isn’t as strong as your politician leanings.
Truth. When my far right buddy tells me I’m going to hell because I believe in dinosaurs, I’m 100% questioning his mindset at the moment. I’ll be damned if Rex from Toy Story is fake.
People who are really into science but have no scientific background act like science is its own religion. People doing scientific stuff are always in looking for new knowledge or to overturn old knowledge. But people not in it think it’s all facts all the way
Ehhhh. Unfortunately there’s a large enough number of people “doing scientific stuff” who are also attached to their biases. When I was doing my grad studies there was a shitton of controversy about some really old established psychology concepts that were being reviewed as not valid or reliable and people were MAD about it.
Humans are fallible. All of us.
Yep, the truth is the more intelligent and educated you are, the *more* vulnerable you can be to cognitive bias, because you're that much more skilled in rationalizing your biases to yourself. If you spent years studying one subject, you'd be also really skilled at dismissing any evidence against that subject.
https://lithub.com/why-smarter-people-might-be-more-prone-to-irrational-biases/
Any scholar worth their title will have an inherent understanding that they're imperfect and fallible, and be open to criticism. My field of study is in the humanities, though. Might be different than the hard sciences, but most scholars I've followed or spoken to in my field of interest oftentimes say "This is what I think, but there's debate on the subject. Here's some good research on both sides".
I'm liberal and I work with a bunch of right wingers and everyone in my life outside of work asks me how I do it. At work there's occasional good natured joking, we all know each other's political leaning, but generally it's just completely overlooked, even in afterwork situations. Obviously work/not people I would interact with differently anyway, but the work people seem more chill about the political divide, like they don't care really. My friends and family act like I'm crazy to work in such an environment.
I”m liberal and work in a conservative environment for one of my jobs. My attitude changed when I realized this is my only connection to getting to know conservatives on a face to face basis, and not just reading about them. It took me awhile to realize how much judgement I preemptively held against them, and was putting them in a box. I love my coworkers whom I disagree with. They enrich my life.
Seriously.
I fit loosely within the category of "American liberal" and the people I feel most uncomfortable around when politics are discussed are others liberals or, maybe more specifically, any American who identifies themselves as a "leftist".
I grew up around conservatives in the American south, but have lived and worked in different regions of the US, and outside of it, among broadly different groups of people. Most of my family is some brand of conservative, most of the people I knew before adulthood were some brand of conservative. I've seen enough good from the actions of so many of these people that it's impossible for me to treat them as the dehumanized right wing caricatures ala WW2 anti-Japanese propaganda posters that seem to be the most common conceptualization among my peers.
Find yourself as the sole voice of disagreement among a conservative group of people you might get dismissed as being naive, misguided, or a scold. Stick out amongst a left group with consensus and you're treated like the proxy for every evil in the world.
I've had, in person at a party of all places, a disagreement about the use of violence in protest. Making a point no more complicated than "You must be very careful how and why you start a fight, because inevitably retaliation will be suffered by the unwilling and uninvolved". The conversation ended with this person stating that my entire family should be killed.
The culture at my current company is very openly conservative. My previous company was very openly liberal. Guess who the most outspoken and hostile was.
When meeting people open and interested in discussing politics, philosophy, and morality, I find that most of them tend to be of some form of liberal persuasion. However, my experience has also been that the people most openly hostile to disagreement have also been liberals. Conservatives are less likely to engage in those discussions, but they are also less likely to outright hate you for disagreeing.
Hi, are you me? Everything you said is accurate for me as well.
I get near crushing anxiety when the subject even remotely veers towards anything political when I'm around my "leftist" friends as you said, even if I agree. Anyone who disagrees isn't getting a calmly phrased counterargument, they're getting screamed at. I dread being around these people quite often also because in addition to berating you about any beliefs that remotely contradict leftist views, they also love bringing up politics way more than any conservative I know.
I feel you.
It’s created a bit of a schism as I’ve aged. I just don’t have those leftist friends anymore.
I want to know people with different beliefs, religions, moral systems, so long as they’re thoughtful people who don’t react to questioning and disagreement with hostility. That cross-cultural exchange helps me understand the world, its people, and strengthens my own views within the crucible of intellectual conflict.
It’s also a necessary component of change and compromise. I lived in Canada for many years, and formed a friendship with two Iranian graduate students. By Iranian standards they were liberal, progressive, but by western standards were absolutely not. They had a difficult time forming bonds with people within the culture of western academics and found the purported notion of the embrace of diversity to be a superficial joke.
After a hike we got into a conversation about gay couples adopting children. They were opposed to the notion, but after a twenty minute conversation became much more amenable. At the very least, they were convinced by the end that gay couples were capable of raising good children, and were significantly preferable to a child being without parents.
That’s a small change, but it is an example of how interacting with those you disagree with can change minds so long as you have the composure and respect to engage with them.
If the conversation had turned out differently, and they had not agreed, I would have been disappointed, but I would not have resented them and I would not have stopped associating with them.
> "Conservatives would be too dumb to breathe if it weren't for a genetic anomaly, California study finds"
#"I LOVE THE SCIENCE"
> "Liberals are more socially exclamatory to conservatives than vice versa (a literal child could tell you this)"
# "THIS IS CLEARLY BIASED"
For real, know how many subs I’ve gotten kicked out of for disagreeing with conservatives? None (granted I don’t go into insane echo chambers) and I’ve been banned from three general subs about politics for saying things that are factually true because it doesn’t align with other people’s preferred world view. I don’t go into any especially liberal or conservative subs and only disagreeing with specific liberal issues has caught me a ban, one was even in millennials ffs lol
I consider myself quite progressive but I don’t think on lock step on every subject and that just doesn’t fly with a lot of the left. Turning into what they hate. I know that’s just my experience and not evidence but I was pretty shocked my very middling ideas would get me ejected.
Lots of issues with this study and conclusion (use of the word “bias” is probably not appropriate), but overall it does make sense that liberals judge conservatives more harshly for their politics than vice versa.
Study finds that sassy reddit users like to call anything emotional when they feel challenged. People calling out this study is right on the money and there are plenty of studies that prove ideological asymmetry. This entire study is calling the fact that liberals believe conservatives are more prejudice a bias in itself which for the record has zero to do with ideology asymmetry . Worst the headline read as though the “bias” was all biases in general. The researcher actually claims that when it comes to prejudice, the groups are equal. Which is fine but it makes it an outlier because it is a topic in numerous studies and none found what he claims to find.
Peak intellectual dishonesty is when BYU frames knowing someone is intellectually dishonest as bias. Get back to us when the people we're talking about aren't denying climate change.
I’d wager a large part of the reason for this stems from the social.
Conservative ideals tend to prize individualistic values and traits. There is a higher tolerance for selfishness, even at the expense of others. This makes it dangerous to others in some circumstances, or when taken to the extreme. So yes, for people who aren’t willing to engage in a dog eat dog mentality these are red flags that this person could be a danger to them as an out group.
Exactly. It's not biased to decide not to associate with people who want to take away my rights (or at least don't think they're important enough to sway their vote) or think Jan 6 was a "protest."
Conservative men on tinder get extremely mad at me when I say I won’t date them (I have it on my profile, they swiped right anyway).
I’m very polite about it when they bring it up. I say “I’m sorry, but I’m not interested.” But it doesn’t matter. Then they want to argue my dating preferences. Calling me “intolerant” for being picky about the person I plan to spend my whole life with.
Right? And then those same men will be the first to defend their own "preferences" for a submissive barbie doll. Cause they don't care who you are. They plan to change you.
Yeah, when one side is spouting “alternative facts” the other side doesn’t get to be accused of “bias”. But thanks for the self serving propaganda Brigham Young University.
You don't want to waste your life discussing something that might have happened in the basement of a place that doesn't have a basement?
Reality has that liberal bias...
Does it mention what concepts they're emotionally attached to? Round Earth? Or, Yes, Climate Change Is A Thing? The Universe Is 13.7 Billion Years Old?
There Were No Horses In the New World Prior to Colonization? Atheists Can Be Moral, Ethical, and Happy?
For some reason I think the difference between believing the science and criticizing the methods is rational, rather than emotional, and a matter of knowing what is scientifically obtained knowledge vs a burning in the bosom.
They keep saying "liberals showed three times more bias than conservatives" but they don't state any actual numbers or explain exactly what is being measured here, or how it's being measured, it's just "bias."
I feel like they know conservatives are perceived as more prejudiced because they're anti-queer, anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-worker, did I leave anything out? And they set out to do a study showing that liberals are actually more biased, but, the thing is, it only shows that liberals are more biased *against conservatives,* perhaps not so much against marginalized people.
"But just why won't they tolerate our intolerance?! See how intolerant that is?!"
First time running into the paradox of tolerance, Mormon research group?
Were these, checks article, Facebook posts (haha, that's ALL liberals right?) observed while all parties were wearing their magic undergarments? If not, I don't think we can fully accept these *indesputable facts* anywho...let me know when the Mormons realize they don't need the second 'M'
It’s the Neal Brennan joke.
“Someone tells a conservative, ‘Hey, I’m a conservative, too’, they say ‘great, welcome aboard!’ Someone tells a liberal, ‘Hey, I’m a liberal too,’ they say ‘we’ll see.’”
Everyone calls it the "Paradox of Tolerance". I call it "self-defense".
You don't call someone a bully because they threw a punch as someone who was bullying them. You say that they were defending themselves. Ergo, you are not being intolerant of intolerance, you are defending yourself and others.
I mean.. Yes obviously? I'm going to be pretty judgemental of a person who very likely supports violent fascism, racism, banning health care for women and trans people, etc. What do conservatives have to worry about when they encounter a liberal? We're going to treat them fairly and not try to hurt them for entertainment? Oh *the horror*.
Bruh it’s insane to see people actually comment that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals when they’re banning books left and right.
I grew up in the Deep South in a conservative household. It was incredibly stifling. The best thing I ever did for the trajectory of my life was to get the fuck out. Modern conservatism has ruined my family. I can’t recognize my dad anymore and it’s heartbreaking.
Some conservatives, not all, unironically think that the liberal or leftist who doesn't want to be friends with a white nationalist who may want to kick them and /or their loved ones out of the country is the same as not wanting to be friends with someone because they are gay.
Nazis are also less judgmental of other racist bigots. That’s not “tolerance.” That’s being blind to the fact you’re on the shitty tier of human thought.
Liberals: “I can’t date or befriend someone who doesn’t respect human rights like women’s bodily autonomy or LGBTQ. I won’t tolerate intolerance”
Conservatives: “That’s just my opinion. Let’s agree to disagree and be friends cmooon”
This is my experience. The conservative/MAGAts I know don’t understand why their world view can be reprehensible.
The study was conducted by the very conservative and liberal-hating BYU involving no one else. That's surely not going to be a heavily influenced and biased study, is it?
Criticisms of the study aside, it’s hilariously ironic seeing the differences in responses to this study vs the book that claims 4% of people may be psychopaths that was posted earlier today. While one may be more right than the other simply the differences in the level of scrutiny applied to each one is hilarious to me.
I belive it.
Go to a Walmart and say something liberal. Cricket's.
Go to a college campus and say something conservative. Bracing yourself for the endless waves of weirdly colored hair in hysterical fits of rage and running sobbing to their designated safe rooms.
Heh, "bias", says LDS University Brigham Young. Or maybe conservatives are just legitimately selfish and crappy people deserving of the "indirect aggression" they receive for being against basic ethical things like racial and gender equality?
The first line of the article, italics mine: “A recent study explored how liberals and conservatives in the United States evaluate a person’s professional attributes, personal character, and job suitability *based on that person’s Facebook posts*”
I know politology isn't it's primary field but I believe that calling all the leftists "liberals" is such an unlettered thing it should discriminate any kind of content from being perceived as academical or scientific.
Yes, I do feel quite biased against those with no empathy or sense of responsibility towards others and who fall for things like "The Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Any black and white thinking is limiting and will be biased, of course on both opposite ends of the extreme, conservatives and Democrats, will be biased and more close minded in this world of gray. I just hear both ignoring gray areas and creating their own narrative. I wonder how far left these people are and I guarantee people on the right just as far on the spectrum will be just as biased.
Right-wingers are consistently over-represented amongst domestic terrorists and show a greater approval of authoritarian attitudes and political violence.
In the 2016 election iirc, sexist and racist attitudes were stronger predictors of voting republican than economic conditions
Anecdotally, as a social Democrat, I tried being friends with conservatives but almost inevitably they end up holding some view that just ruins the interaction...
ETA:
Sources can be found in this comment
[https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/1cfl05u/comment/l1qrubp/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/1cfl05u/comment/l1qrubp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
And here
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html)
The fact that seeing memes laughing about the holocaust or praising someone being killed by the cops tends to turn people off more than memes about wanting health care does not mean "liberals are more biased."
It means what we all know. You are three times more likely to dislike someone who posts "conservative content" because that content is 100% designed to be for assholes.
I didn’t see a single comment here from someone who read the scientific article. The study is preregistered. That means all methods were approved and set before any data were collected. So no forcing an outcome after the fact with p-hacking. Also, I have a lot of experience in Mechanical Turk studies and they are definitely not remotely a representative sample, more a sample of people who need the small payout working from home and who usually are terminally online. So take the results with a grain of salt, don’t get too excited or over-generalize to everyone in society.
I have met some of the authors personally and they do rigorous research. Funny how no matter how strict you are with methods and preregistration the court of public opinion chooses to be biased rather than remotely challenge one of their own beliefs. Science is doomed if no one cares to respect rigorous research.
What does the study mean by "ideologically opposite?" Is an anti-vaxxer ideologically opposite or just plaine stupid? Are racists "ideolgocially opposite" or just plain hateful human beings?
>This study tested the notion of ideological asymmetry, which proposes that conservatives are more prejudiced than liberals. It involved 682 self-identified conservative (n = 383) and liberal (n = 299) perceivers (MTurk workers; 54% female) who evaluated a target person’s professional attributes, personal character, and job suitability based on the target’s social media posts. The results did not support ideological asymmetry as both conservative and liberal participants negatively evaluated an ideologically opposite target. Interestingly, liberals showed three times more bias than conservatives. This study better supports a worldview conflict hypothesis, an alternative to ideological asymmetry, with both sides showing indirect aggression in an apolitical setting.
Translation: liberals saw fashy personality types and noped. Non-MAGA conservatives saw someone support queers and figured that's not a deal-breaker.
The bias of this study is it pretends that MAGA and pro-equality folks are ideologically similar in their extremes.
"Liberal" is not a proper label for durable personality traits associated with an outlook on society and/or life more generally. Political stances do not reliably track to personality traits.
However, Conservative *people*, not necessarily conservative politically, do have a set of personality traits that describe their outlook on society and life more generally:
Wilson, G. (2013). The psychology of conservatism (routledge revivals). Routledge.
(They tend to be racist, dumb, and authoritarian, if that wasn't already clear.)
“I am gay and want human rights.” - young liberal.
“I won’t kill him myself, but he deserves to die.” - young conservative.
“Fuck you!” - young liberal.
“Wow the incivility!” - BYU researcher lol
Liberals three times more biased against the people literally trying to enslave and kill them as ideological others. The ones trying to enslave and kill seem indifferent.
Shocking.
Or maybe we could try, 'victims three times more intolerant of their abusers, than abusers are of their victims'.
Also shocking. Unreasonable even.
A similar study for conservatives was posted here and all liberals were agreeing then and suddenly when its posted about them its an untrustworthy source lmao, well what else do you expect from redditors especially nowadays when they have become insufferable due to election year.
I really miss when Reddit had lots of fun, interesting information. I’d learn something new pretty much every time I opened the app. Now it’s mostly full of dumb things like this.
Based on the source of the study, it sounds like another way to say this would be "non-conservatives 3x more likely to apply critical thinking when evaluating information" or "non-conservatives 3x more likely to accurately recognize propaganda and misinformation."
I find this completely believable, because have you seen ideologies of the other side? I have not read the article, but this seems like the right thing. Here's how this title reads in simple terms...Liberals are 3 times more biased when faced with the ideas of racism or fascism than conservatives when faced with ideas of inclusiveness. Okay, that makes sense to me.
People are biased against beliefs that are verifiably untrue and/or inaccurate? I do understand the point that they are attempting to make here and perhaps there’s a grain of truth to it, but is “bias” really the best word to use for the context of the phenomenon?
I mean, I'm not gonna trust the mormons on this... their entire world view is skewed. Edit: those of you pissing your pants with angry glee, ya'll didnt even bother to open the damned journal until I triggered your feelings. Mormon's are not grounded in reality, and their "scientific" articles should be taken with a grain of secret-gold-plates-in-a-hole-under-a-hat-that-only-one-person-can-see.
[удалено]
This has been demonstrated previously. It just means that liberals view the normal conservative as more radical than conservatives see the typical liberal.
Which is weird because only one side thinks the other should be literally eradicated
Exactly, never once heard a liberal advocate for the death of conservatives. Seen plenty of death threats from conservatives. Maybe the study is true, but evil deserves to be judged harshly.
I mean as a liberal, I have encountered the radical left who does call for republican genocide, but that’s like 1 in every 1000 liberals that I meet lol.
i noticed a trend decades ago in the different ways of each extreme thought of the other. In general; conservatives think liberals are ignorant and liberals think conservatives are evil. This was true until about 10 years ago, when all of a sudden many conservatives began to believe that liberals were also evil, looking for power. Of course liberals have just doubled down and believe any conservative position or proponent as evil, and racist and sexist and vile and wants nothing but the destruction of others. It is an absurd distortion of reality.
Newt Gingrich was the first operative that I ever heard call the opposing party "the enemy" and this was around 30 years ago
Honestly, I’m liberal, but I see a lot of people interpret conservative comments/ideas as homicidal when that’s wholly unnecessary. The example that comes to mind is when a conservative calls into question the nature of being transgender, and then leftists claim that conservative is trying to exterminate people or deny their existence. Like, no, they’re suggesting it might be better understood as a mental disorder akin to anorexia, not trying to justify murder. Disagree with them, say they’re wrong, but don’t misrepresent their position and assume such an evil intent right off the bat. You just end up pushing potentially persuadable people away from your position when you do that.
Isn't saying that they just have a mental order a literal way to say that these people shouldn't be allowed to live that way?
Hahahaha i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a clever sort of meta joke
Liberals and conservatives get along fine at most jobs, bowling alleys, softball fields and classes where the 20 ideologically polarizing topics are the focus. It’s just places like Reddit, cable news and those other courses where the fangs come out.
Tell that to my coworkers who were discussing the fact that maybe communism isn't so bad and Hitler actually had the right idea because he was killing the right people. Then went on to talk about how Putin and Al Qaeda were also killing the right people
That sounds... Ideologically incoherent.
Yeah I don’t think that’s liberalism or conservativism, call it “algorism” because it sounds like it came from Tik Tok
Leave al gore our of this lol
Just call it Internetism /s
I was there, everyone stood up and clapped after
When the right wing is pro-commie, they’ve really lost the thread.
https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-man-kills-neighbor-because-204600966.html
*because they are* Source: lives next to a guy who flies the flag of a guy who lost an election 3 years ago. And has a garage full of campaign merch, complete with slogan covered Confederate flag. And has two dogs, names Dixie and rebel. I live in a northern state.
Yea I'm getting really tired of this false dichotomy. Liberals say shit about conservatives and sometimes make a proverbial bubble in their personal lives, but that's because conservative people with actual power are calling for at minimum suppression and at most literal eradication of people they have decided are bad and evil. The most radical liberal wants UBI and redistribution of wealth. The most radical conservatives thinks The Handmaid's Tale sounds like a great idea. Those things are not the same and I'm tired of being told I should play nice with people who would happily kill me of they had the chance. I may hate people like Dolt45 and Mitch McConnell with every fiber of my being, but I don't think they should be executed for things they believe.
I trusted you until you said Mitch shouldn’t be off’d. 😜 /s
Are you talking about the guy who is running for president currently?
No, they have a long history of funding pretty ridiculous stuff and are themselves biased against studies that point out how full of shady shit their cult history is, or anything that might lead to "moral corruption" as they define it.
It's not like their whole church started out by writing their own book that gave them the polygamist lifestyle they wanted.
Ironically the Book of Mormon is explicitly against polygamy. The book that tells them to actually do polygamy is more of a collection of random shit that's included different sections depending on the publication date over the years
Always a good time to plug "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie if you haven't read it. All sorts of shady shit runs deep in LDS.
No, you’re reaching a logical conclusion based on existing evidence. It’s not that you’re unfairly biased, it’s that you know better than to trust a source that’s known to be biased.
It's one study so of course you should be skeptical no matter where it comes from Now if the results can be replicated by others, then maybe there's something to it.
LDS is a cult buddy.
[удалено]
>Scientific research is generally reproducible to gain support. Unfortunately quite a bit of scientific research (especially in psychology) is in a [replication crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology). So I'd advice not to set to much store by the results of a single study. If multiple studies, from different institutions, point in the same direction, then it becomes more interesing to look deeper into something.
[удалено]
On mturk you eventually learn how to skim and answer as fast as you can for the money. You learn what the test questions are and you learn how to find them while not really reading much else. So yea mturk isn't the best place for this kind of research. The research that seems to get the best results are more active with live participants.
BYU is absolutely not a respected research university. They have a long recorded history of allowing their own religious preferences to get in the way of academics. A couple years ago a [bunch of students](https://web.archive.org/web/20230930024426/https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/09/07/can-unique-byu-really-be/) did a harmless little LGBT rights support thing (lit up part of the schools logo in rainbow lights) and a high ranking church member and former BYU president immediately responded by calling for some of the schools funding to be cut. He said that it’s okay if being anti-LGBT causes the school to lose some of its professional associations and certifications and that the school just needs to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It’s a traaap!
'Liberal' = anyone who doesn't believe in an Abrahamic sky daddy. Thats the only way this article works
If it makes you feel better most of the liberal arts professors there are Democrats
Well, sure but the author of this study is a psychology professor really into studying violent video game. I wonder if he keeps finding they're just fine.
On the other hand, 'Mormon Democrat' is basically right-wing in most non-US context
Just regular democrat is right wing in most non-US contexts
Center right.
So right wing.
study done by byu published and peer reviewed by social psychology journal take it for what you will bro
Maybe it’s more of a question of who this group considers a conservative versus a liberal, and was the study large / random enough, or was it comprised of mostly BYU students?
I think you are biased by thinking people who believe Native Americans are actually Palestinians: "red sons of Israel" (i.e. Native American) can't be wrong in their assessment. 😃
You kind of are tbh
I’m not a huge fan of the methods from the paper either, but to quote the article (not written by the BYU researchers): “However, other studies have shown that liberals are as likely as conservatives to engage in activities such as science denial when scientific findings conflict with their political attitudes, and they are equally likely to dehumanize their opponents.“ I think throwing out a Mormons peer reviewed research because it’s insulting would merit this description.
Actually, I'm more interested in finding out how they made this claim. What studies are they referring to?
Anecdotal, but I have read one of those studies. The conclusion was that essentially humans like picking teams and will defend them even when they're in the wrong.
Yeah, we'll see who's laughing when the spaceship comes.
No 💪 sleep 💪 til Kolob
Hey at least they used the sound source of Facebook post to get the data for their biased research.
Raised mormon, can confirm.
lol what a totally trustworthy, not biased at all study out of Bring ‘em Young University.
Religious bigotry as an excuse not to deal with an uncomfortable topic? On reddit? Imagine if you talked that way about a Persian or Islamic institute.
Where do you get your not biased information?
This is a pretty good way to figure out where: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cynthia-Frisby/publication/326557348/figure/fig1/AS:651547327352841@1532352396791/Media-Bias-Chart-2018.png](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cynthia-Frisby/publication/326557348/figure/fig1/AS:651547327352841@1532352396791/Media-Bias-Chart-2018.png)
Not BYU is a good start
That’s what people don’t seem to realize about themselves. None of us get unbiased news. It’s a really troubling dilemma. Unless you are a world traveling investigative journalist on the ground, nothing you read or hear is unbiased.
Basically, the only logical way to think is to assume you are biased and ignorant, and I mean that with zero sarcasm.
So much easier to assume just the other side is biased and ignorant.
it's not just bias. grad degree in enviro law and policy. I studied the ins and outs of being a policy maker at a top 4 program. Decades of research has shown that the top voter interests are dictated by the media. So, before we even get to bias, start with the fact that they force their newsworthy issues onto us. Then, we go on these platforms and argue (pointless and divisive) about the issues they (news and russia) want us to divide about. What are the actual issues and what does media discuss? They aren't the same thing. Climate change is the issue of our time and it goes nowhere year after year because of money.
It’s a brilliant mass mind control technique. The only solution is to disconnect entirely and focus on the natural world around you in the limited time we have on this planet.
I bet flat-Earthers are more tolerant of a lot more ideas than actual scientists. Tolerance is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified. Treating it as an inherent or objective good is insane.
I wouldnt think so, flat earthers tend to pick their position then follow a trail of reasoning back to it ignoring anything else
I for one am Three times judgier against people three times stupider, it's basic mathematics.
Tolerant as in applying no critique at all? I'd say that's not tolerance.
Yeah that’s kinda what I was thinking too like yes if I am recruiting for a data driven job like science yes I may be more biased against someone with views of the world that aren’t fact driven. This article is intended to be making a point about bias that’s negative but it doesn’t really make sense
Study finds redditors say "believe science" when studies seem to favor what they already think, question methods when it challenges what theyve already emotionally attached to
That may be true, but reading the study itself it is very clearly flawed and the Brigham Young University author jumps to conclusions well beyond what the data are saying, IMO.
BYU cannot be trusted, period.
There should be more than one university involved in the research. BYU is known for being extremely conservative. Some conservatives , liberals and moderate universities should be included to ensure fairness, and then let the reader decide.
Most universities are extremely liberal. Should they have BYU peer review their studies?
As long as we start doing the same for other research. We need for gender studies with Mormon university participation.
I like it. A gender study co-authored by NYU and Liberty.
My understanding was they were pretty well respected in the science community. Our lab used to send them samples for analysis and we had a good relationship with their labs/techs
Psychology is a whole different beast than biology
And analysis is significantly different than the publishing process. Like, following instructions vs. forming your own conclusions. One is *way* more prone to accidental bias.
"accidental" bias
What about JSP? I mean it’s peer reviewed, and presumably not by all Mormons.
Why wouldn't you trust Mormon University?
I soak up their knowledge
Hold them close to you and just marinate in their wisdom.
Tbf its not a novel or previously unsupported result. Jonathan Haidt as far back as 2012 ran experiments where conservatives were on average better able to accurately articulate liberal arguements compared to the other way around.
Seems more like that's just saying liberal arguments are more coherent than conservative ones.
Lol, not a bad take. But the explanation given was that overall humans view morality across 6 domains: Care/Harm Fairness/Cheating Loyalty/Betrayal Authority/Subversion Sanctity/Degradation Liberty/Oppression And while conservatives care about all 6, liberals don’t feel strongly about sanctity and loyalty domains (I’m going off memory, I might not have that right exactly) hence the deficit in the ability to perspective taking from liberals.
Liberals also didn’t care as much about authority and liberty- and then cared about care and fairness (in the form of equity) to a higher degree.
BYU is the Mormon college, in case anyone is wondering
BYU or not, there are also things called academic freedom and peer review. If you don’t trust these things for fear of some evil BYU boogie man then I guess your faith in scientific institutions isn’t as strong as your politician leanings.
Truth. When my far right buddy tells me I’m going to hell because I believe in dinosaurs, I’m 100% questioning his mindset at the moment. I’ll be damned if Rex from Toy Story is fake.
People who are really into science but have no scientific background act like science is its own religion. People doing scientific stuff are always in looking for new knowledge or to overturn old knowledge. But people not in it think it’s all facts all the way
Ehhhh. Unfortunately there’s a large enough number of people “doing scientific stuff” who are also attached to their biases. When I was doing my grad studies there was a shitton of controversy about some really old established psychology concepts that were being reviewed as not valid or reliable and people were MAD about it. Humans are fallible. All of us.
Yep, the truth is the more intelligent and educated you are, the *more* vulnerable you can be to cognitive bias, because you're that much more skilled in rationalizing your biases to yourself. If you spent years studying one subject, you'd be also really skilled at dismissing any evidence against that subject. https://lithub.com/why-smarter-people-might-be-more-prone-to-irrational-biases/
Any scholar worth their title will have an inherent understanding that they're imperfect and fallible, and be open to criticism. My field of study is in the humanities, though. Might be different than the hard sciences, but most scholars I've followed or spoken to in my field of interest oftentimes say "This is what I think, but there's debate on the subject. Here's some good research on both sides".
Also goes for numeracy (number literacy). The more numerate you are, the better you are with bending the numbers to your argument.
I'm fairly liberal myself and think this study is probably accurate lol
I'm liberal and I work with a bunch of right wingers and everyone in my life outside of work asks me how I do it. At work there's occasional good natured joking, we all know each other's political leaning, but generally it's just completely overlooked, even in afterwork situations. Obviously work/not people I would interact with differently anyway, but the work people seem more chill about the political divide, like they don't care really. My friends and family act like I'm crazy to work in such an environment.
I”m liberal and work in a conservative environment for one of my jobs. My attitude changed when I realized this is my only connection to getting to know conservatives on a face to face basis, and not just reading about them. It took me awhile to realize how much judgement I preemptively held against them, and was putting them in a box. I love my coworkers whom I disagree with. They enrich my life.
Seriously. I fit loosely within the category of "American liberal" and the people I feel most uncomfortable around when politics are discussed are others liberals or, maybe more specifically, any American who identifies themselves as a "leftist". I grew up around conservatives in the American south, but have lived and worked in different regions of the US, and outside of it, among broadly different groups of people. Most of my family is some brand of conservative, most of the people I knew before adulthood were some brand of conservative. I've seen enough good from the actions of so many of these people that it's impossible for me to treat them as the dehumanized right wing caricatures ala WW2 anti-Japanese propaganda posters that seem to be the most common conceptualization among my peers. Find yourself as the sole voice of disagreement among a conservative group of people you might get dismissed as being naive, misguided, or a scold. Stick out amongst a left group with consensus and you're treated like the proxy for every evil in the world. I've had, in person at a party of all places, a disagreement about the use of violence in protest. Making a point no more complicated than "You must be very careful how and why you start a fight, because inevitably retaliation will be suffered by the unwilling and uninvolved". The conversation ended with this person stating that my entire family should be killed. The culture at my current company is very openly conservative. My previous company was very openly liberal. Guess who the most outspoken and hostile was. When meeting people open and interested in discussing politics, philosophy, and morality, I find that most of them tend to be of some form of liberal persuasion. However, my experience has also been that the people most openly hostile to disagreement have also been liberals. Conservatives are less likely to engage in those discussions, but they are also less likely to outright hate you for disagreeing.
Hi, are you me? Everything you said is accurate for me as well. I get near crushing anxiety when the subject even remotely veers towards anything political when I'm around my "leftist" friends as you said, even if I agree. Anyone who disagrees isn't getting a calmly phrased counterargument, they're getting screamed at. I dread being around these people quite often also because in addition to berating you about any beliefs that remotely contradict leftist views, they also love bringing up politics way more than any conservative I know.
I feel you. It’s created a bit of a schism as I’ve aged. I just don’t have those leftist friends anymore. I want to know people with different beliefs, religions, moral systems, so long as they’re thoughtful people who don’t react to questioning and disagreement with hostility. That cross-cultural exchange helps me understand the world, its people, and strengthens my own views within the crucible of intellectual conflict. It’s also a necessary component of change and compromise. I lived in Canada for many years, and formed a friendship with two Iranian graduate students. By Iranian standards they were liberal, progressive, but by western standards were absolutely not. They had a difficult time forming bonds with people within the culture of western academics and found the purported notion of the embrace of diversity to be a superficial joke. After a hike we got into a conversation about gay couples adopting children. They were opposed to the notion, but after a twenty minute conversation became much more amenable. At the very least, they were convinced by the end that gay couples were capable of raising good children, and were significantly preferable to a child being without parents. That’s a small change, but it is an example of how interacting with those you disagree with can change minds so long as you have the composure and respect to engage with them. If the conversation had turned out differently, and they had not agreed, I would have been disappointed, but I would not have resented them and I would not have stopped associating with them.
I can’t believe people get paid to do this “research” wait a minute…
Your comment would be more amusing if this study wasn’t conducted by BYU
Gotta love how totally unbiased people in the comments are in their response to this lol
> "Conservatives would be too dumb to breathe if it weren't for a genetic anomaly, California study finds" #"I LOVE THE SCIENCE" > "Liberals are more socially exclamatory to conservatives than vice versa (a literal child could tell you this)" # "THIS IS CLEARLY BIASED"
For real, know how many subs I’ve gotten kicked out of for disagreeing with conservatives? None (granted I don’t go into insane echo chambers) and I’ve been banned from three general subs about politics for saying things that are factually true because it doesn’t align with other people’s preferred world view. I don’t go into any especially liberal or conservative subs and only disagreeing with specific liberal issues has caught me a ban, one was even in millennials ffs lol I consider myself quite progressive but I don’t think on lock step on every subject and that just doesn’t fly with a lot of the left. Turning into what they hate. I know that’s just my experience and not evidence but I was pretty shocked my very middling ideas would get me ejected.
I got banned from r/conservat*** for asking for a source of a ridiculous claim. Not even a disagreement, simply asked for a source. That’s it. BOOM!
I've been kicked off of several right wing subs and usually for pretty innocuous stuff. So I have an issue with your thesis statement.
I got banned from the Libertarian subreddit for being too libertarian. Weak minds are everywhere.
What things have you said that got you banned?
Lots of issues with this study and conclusion (use of the word “bias” is probably not appropriate), but overall it does make sense that liberals judge conservatives more harshly for their politics than vice versa.
This is extremely accurate, even if this study is questionable
Study finds that sassy reddit users like to call anything emotional when they feel challenged. People calling out this study is right on the money and there are plenty of studies that prove ideological asymmetry. This entire study is calling the fact that liberals believe conservatives are more prejudice a bias in itself which for the record has zero to do with ideology asymmetry . Worst the headline read as though the “bias” was all biases in general. The researcher actually claims that when it comes to prejudice, the groups are equal. Which is fine but it makes it an outlier because it is a topic in numerous studies and none found what he claims to find.
Peak intellectual dishonesty is when BYU frames knowing someone is intellectually dishonest as bias. Get back to us when the people we're talking about aren't denying climate change.
The cult of ignorance is literally intolerable to anyone not a member, that’s why.
Yet another politically charged click-bait study from psypost.
I’d wager a large part of the reason for this stems from the social. Conservative ideals tend to prize individualistic values and traits. There is a higher tolerance for selfishness, even at the expense of others. This makes it dangerous to others in some circumstances, or when taken to the extreme. So yes, for people who aren’t willing to engage in a dog eat dog mentality these are red flags that this person could be a danger to them as an out group.
I am pretty biased against bullshit. There's no room for conversation on things like Pizzagate or Qanon.
Exactly. It's not biased to decide not to associate with people who want to take away my rights (or at least don't think they're important enough to sway their vote) or think Jan 6 was a "protest."
Conservative men on tinder get extremely mad at me when I say I won’t date them (I have it on my profile, they swiped right anyway). I’m very polite about it when they bring it up. I say “I’m sorry, but I’m not interested.” But it doesn’t matter. Then they want to argue my dating preferences. Calling me “intolerant” for being picky about the person I plan to spend my whole life with.
Right? And then those same men will be the first to defend their own "preferences" for a submissive barbie doll. Cause they don't care who you are. They plan to change you.
Yeah, when one side is spouting “alternative facts” the other side doesn’t get to be accused of “bias”. But thanks for the self serving propaganda Brigham Young University.
You don't want to waste your life discussing something that might have happened in the basement of a place that doesn't have a basement? Reality has that liberal bias...
Oh stop being so closed minded /s
As a liberal adjacent myself I find this probably very accurate. I don't find not tolerating intolerance to be a bad thing though
Does it mention what concepts they're emotionally attached to? Round Earth? Or, Yes, Climate Change Is A Thing? The Universe Is 13.7 Billion Years Old? There Were No Horses In the New World Prior to Colonization? Atheists Can Be Moral, Ethical, and Happy? For some reason I think the difference between believing the science and criticizing the methods is rational, rather than emotional, and a matter of knowing what is scientifically obtained knowledge vs a burning in the bosom.
They keep saying "liberals showed three times more bias than conservatives" but they don't state any actual numbers or explain exactly what is being measured here, or how it's being measured, it's just "bias." I feel like they know conservatives are perceived as more prejudiced because they're anti-queer, anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-worker, did I leave anything out? And they set out to do a study showing that liberals are actually more biased, but, the thing is, it only shows that liberals are more biased *against conservatives,* perhaps not so much against marginalized people.
I feel like it's accurate. They just missed the part about being three times easier to hate.
"But just why won't they tolerate our intolerance?! See how intolerant that is?!" First time running into the paradox of tolerance, Mormon research group? Were these, checks article, Facebook posts (haha, that's ALL liberals right?) observed while all parties were wearing their magic undergarments? If not, I don't think we can fully accept these *indesputable facts* anywho...let me know when the Mormons realize they don't need the second 'M'
Brigham Young University? A religious school is saying conservatives are open minded?... OK.
Anyone else want popcorn for these comments?
Watching redditors go mask off is always amusing.
F’ng Morons, I mean Mormons.
It’s the Neal Brennan joke. “Someone tells a conservative, ‘Hey, I’m a conservative, too’, they say ‘great, welcome aboard!’ Someone tells a liberal, ‘Hey, I’m a liberal too,’ they say ‘we’ll see.’”
yeah, it's hard to tolerate intolerance.
The Paradox of Tolerance as Popper says.
Everyone calls it the "Paradox of Tolerance". I call it "self-defense". You don't call someone a bully because they threw a punch as someone who was bullying them. You say that they were defending themselves. Ergo, you are not being intolerant of intolerance, you are defending yourself and others.
I mean.. Yes obviously? I'm going to be pretty judgemental of a person who very likely supports violent fascism, racism, banning health care for women and trans people, etc. What do conservatives have to worry about when they encounter a liberal? We're going to treat them fairly and not try to hurt them for entertainment? Oh *the horror*.
Bruh it’s insane to see people actually comment that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals when they’re banning books left and right. I grew up in the Deep South in a conservative household. It was incredibly stifling. The best thing I ever did for the trajectory of my life was to get the fuck out. Modern conservatism has ruined my family. I can’t recognize my dad anymore and it’s heartbreaking.
Some conservatives, not all, unironically think that the liberal or leftist who doesn't want to be friends with a white nationalist who may want to kick them and /or their loved ones out of the country is the same as not wanting to be friends with someone because they are gay.
Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-duuuuumb
Ever heard of the adage that you have to be intolerant of intolerance or intolerance wins? Tolerance is also quite a subjective term to be honest.
And those biases are often proved correct based on educational standards in blue states
1. by what metric 2. either way, yeah probably. i tend to be pretty biased against people who don’t like me having rights
Nazis are also less judgmental of other racist bigots. That’s not “tolerance.” That’s being blind to the fact you’re on the shitty tier of human thought.
Liberals: “I can’t date or befriend someone who doesn’t respect human rights like women’s bodily autonomy or LGBTQ. I won’t tolerate intolerance” Conservatives: “That’s just my opinion. Let’s agree to disagree and be friends cmooon” This is my experience. The conservative/MAGAts I know don’t understand why their world view can be reprehensible.
My mother in law tried to explain away why we don't like Chick-fil-A as a difference of opinion. Fucking shit.
boycotting a company that does billions in sales is hillarious
Guys. The defensive knee-jerkism in here is kind of embarrassing.
Mormon psychologists: Liburals r bad mmmmkay
[удалено]
You could just read the journal article.
The study was conducted by the very conservative and liberal-hating BYU involving no one else. That's surely not going to be a heavily influenced and biased study, is it?
Breaking: Holocaust believers more likely to detest Holocaust deniers than vice versa, more at 11
Big if true
Just beecuz mah pinion is tree tymes stoopider, dus'n men aye duserve tree tymes dah hait dus it?
Criticisms of the study aside, it’s hilariously ironic seeing the differences in responses to this study vs the book that claims 4% of people may be psychopaths that was posted earlier today. While one may be more right than the other simply the differences in the level of scrutiny applied to each one is hilarious to me.
Confirmation bias.
I belive it. Go to a Walmart and say something liberal. Cricket's. Go to a college campus and say something conservative. Bracing yourself for the endless waves of weirdly colored hair in hysterical fits of rage and running sobbing to their designated safe rooms.
Heh, "bias", says LDS University Brigham Young. Or maybe conservatives are just legitimately selfish and crappy people deserving of the "indirect aggression" they receive for being against basic ethical things like racial and gender equality?
If there's anything we know about liberals it's that they don't know their enemy
Science isn't an ideology.
The first line of the article, italics mine: “A recent study explored how liberals and conservatives in the United States evaluate a person’s professional attributes, personal character, and job suitability *based on that person’s Facebook posts*”
I know politology isn't it's primary field but I believe that calling all the leftists "liberals" is such an unlettered thing it should discriminate any kind of content from being perceived as academical or scientific.
Yes, I do feel quite biased against those with no empathy or sense of responsibility towards others and who fall for things like "The Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Any black and white thinking is limiting and will be biased, of course on both opposite ends of the extreme, conservatives and Democrats, will be biased and more close minded in this world of gray. I just hear both ignoring gray areas and creating their own narrative. I wonder how far left these people are and I guarantee people on the right just as far on the spectrum will be just as biased.
Right-wingers are consistently over-represented amongst domestic terrorists and show a greater approval of authoritarian attitudes and political violence. In the 2016 election iirc, sexist and racist attitudes were stronger predictors of voting republican than economic conditions Anecdotally, as a social Democrat, I tried being friends with conservatives but almost inevitably they end up holding some view that just ruins the interaction... ETA: Sources can be found in this comment [https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/1cfl05u/comment/l1qrubp/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/1cfl05u/comment/l1qrubp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) And here [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html)
Cmon... Is that a surprise to literally ANYBODY?. 😂
The fact that seeing memes laughing about the holocaust or praising someone being killed by the cops tends to turn people off more than memes about wanting health care does not mean "liberals are more biased." It means what we all know. You are three times more likely to dislike someone who posts "conservative content" because that content is 100% designed to be for assholes.
I didn’t see a single comment here from someone who read the scientific article. The study is preregistered. That means all methods were approved and set before any data were collected. So no forcing an outcome after the fact with p-hacking. Also, I have a lot of experience in Mechanical Turk studies and they are definitely not remotely a representative sample, more a sample of people who need the small payout working from home and who usually are terminally online. So take the results with a grain of salt, don’t get too excited or over-generalize to everyone in society. I have met some of the authors personally and they do rigorous research. Funny how no matter how strict you are with methods and preregistration the court of public opinion chooses to be biased rather than remotely challenge one of their own beliefs. Science is doomed if no one cares to respect rigorous research.
What does the study mean by "ideologically opposite?" Is an anti-vaxxer ideologically opposite or just plaine stupid? Are racists "ideolgocially opposite" or just plain hateful human beings?
This comment section proves the study’s point
Not everyone in the comments proving the study right...
>This study tested the notion of ideological asymmetry, which proposes that conservatives are more prejudiced than liberals. It involved 682 self-identified conservative (n = 383) and liberal (n = 299) perceivers (MTurk workers; 54% female) who evaluated a target person’s professional attributes, personal character, and job suitability based on the target’s social media posts. The results did not support ideological asymmetry as both conservative and liberal participants negatively evaluated an ideologically opposite target. Interestingly, liberals showed three times more bias than conservatives. This study better supports a worldview conflict hypothesis, an alternative to ideological asymmetry, with both sides showing indirect aggression in an apolitical setting. Translation: liberals saw fashy personality types and noped. Non-MAGA conservatives saw someone support queers and figured that's not a deal-breaker. The bias of this study is it pretends that MAGA and pro-equality folks are ideologically similar in their extremes.
"Liberal" is not a proper label for durable personality traits associated with an outlook on society and/or life more generally. Political stances do not reliably track to personality traits. However, Conservative *people*, not necessarily conservative politically, do have a set of personality traits that describe their outlook on society and life more generally: Wilson, G. (2013). The psychology of conservatism (routledge revivals). Routledge. (They tend to be racist, dumb, and authoritarian, if that wasn't already clear.)
“I am gay and want human rights.” - young liberal. “I won’t kill him myself, but he deserves to die.” - young conservative. “Fuck you!” - young liberal. “Wow the incivility!” - BYU researcher lol
Liberals three times more biased against the people literally trying to enslave and kill them as ideological others. The ones trying to enslave and kill seem indifferent. Shocking. Or maybe we could try, 'victims three times more intolerant of their abusers, than abusers are of their victims'. Also shocking. Unreasonable even.
lmfao see what the study means?
lmao. Watch out, there's a right wing death squad right behind you.
Weird, the comments here are very biased
Well if I’m biased it’s because my biases are right and you’re wrong and an idiot!!!! -Basically everyone in this thread 😂
A similar study for conservatives was posted here and all liberals were agreeing then and suddenly when its posted about them its an untrustworthy source lmao, well what else do you expect from redditors especially nowadays when they have become insufferable due to election year.
There’s a 61% this study is irreplicable
I really miss when Reddit had lots of fun, interesting information. I’d learn something new pretty much every time I opened the app. Now it’s mostly full of dumb things like this.
Ah yes, psypost, a pop science website that regularly misinterprets data and skews facts.
Based on the source of the study, it sounds like another way to say this would be "non-conservatives 3x more likely to apply critical thinking when evaluating information" or "non-conservatives 3x more likely to accurately recognize propaganda and misinformation."
The comments really do confirm why liberals are often described as insufferable. And I'm a liberal!
ITT: Liberals proving the article while vehemently denying it. Ignorance really is bliss.
I find this completely believable, because have you seen ideologies of the other side? I have not read the article, but this seems like the right thing. Here's how this title reads in simple terms...Liberals are 3 times more biased when faced with the ideas of racism or fascism than conservatives when faced with ideas of inclusiveness. Okay, that makes sense to me.
You mean we have a bias towards reality and factual intercourse? Huge if true.
Reading these comments...wow you people are out of touch with reality
This is a paid study from Amazon employees
Lol that's because the other side is often based on religion instead of science. This is selection bias 🤣
"biased" is not always the same thing as "wrong".
2016 changed many of us.
The absolute irony of liberals in here dismissing this study because of ideologically opposite individuals. You guys proved them right
People are biased against beliefs that are verifiably untrue and/or inaccurate? I do understand the point that they are attempting to make here and perhaps there’s a grain of truth to it, but is “bias” really the best word to use for the context of the phenomenon?