So what, it was presented at a conference. There is peer review before presentations are accepted. Given that the group sponsoring the study has one of the lowest accpetance rates for its journal, and for the annual conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, you're just blowing gas out of your butt.
As for the rest of your screed its meaningless and valueless. What are the methodolgical flaws? What about internal or external validity? You still have not answered those. Try thinking instead of having a temper tantrum. But lets have a look at one of the study the article mentioned. "Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes -- subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups. That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did." While this is a little sparce, I've already put in a request from the authors for more details. But that said, I think I know how the study was conducted. They asked quite a few (>1000) people to identify their political affiliations and who they voted for in the last election. They also gave them a large battery of questionnaires, included in them was one where the person endorsed or rejected various stereotypes of balcks and whites. They then did a simple correlation based on the number of black stereotypes and voting preference. Thats one study only. Its results are echoed by the second study: "Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts. The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush." 130,000 is not too shabby a number. Its large enough to provide a very good estimate of the population in general. Moreover, by using a very widely used scale of racial bias, one cannot argue that the study has instrumental flaws. I've also emailed the first author and asked for a copy of the presentation. The most significant possible flaw I can see here is a possible self selection bias. But given the sheer number of participants I kind of doubt that it applies here. With a sample size this large that more or less negates most bias possibilities. On 1/31/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The study hasn't been published yet. Duh. > But common sense should tell you that a study claiming Conservatives > are racist is biased and bogus. Especially knowing the only KKK > members in government are Dems :) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:195247 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
