Paul wrote� (SNIP) You are correct that I have problems with meta-analyses in general. In the medical field, there have been a number of cases where meta analyses based on large numbers of small studies have reached different conclusions from later rigorous large studies. Much is dependent on the choices made by the authors in setting selection criteria and categorizing the individual studies. (SNIP)
BTW-- a literature review is not the same as a meta analysis. Aubyn writes� It seems fair to say that there are good and bad meta-analyses. We like the good ones, and the bad ones, not so much. We sometimes disagree about which are good and bad, which is one reason most of us have jobs. A literature review is not the same as a meta-analysis, but many meta-analyses are literature reviews. Psych Bull publishes reviews of the psychological literature, and many of these use meta-analysis. I don�t find that particularly disappointing, unless they publish bad meta-analyses. You mentioned that you were disappointed that Psych Bull published the meta-analytic review of the literature on the psychology of political ideology, but I am still not clear what disappoints you about it. Do you think that it is a particularly bad meta-analysis, or do you think that all meta-analyses are bad, or do you think that political ideology is not an appropriate subject for psychological study? Sulloway has published some interesting and controversial meta-analyses in the past of course, and perhaps you note something in his approach that is not up to snuff? I am about as far from a statistical guru as there is likely to be on this list, so I may well have missed the weaknesses in this particular attempt at meta-analysis. Rick wrote� I am not a political scientist but I have friends who are political scientists and I just wonder if anyone else has had the not-so-brilliant thought that the whole left-wing/right-wing dichotomy in political science is way too oversimplified (SNIP). There are many problems with a simple left/right dichotomy and I can't believe political scientists haven't figured this out yet. If they have, they are keeping it a secret from the rest of us (including the psychologists who study political motivations). Aubyn writes� I think most political scientists are well aware that the left/right dichotomy is an oversimplification. Several earlier posters on this thread have noted that this has been well understood by political psychologists at least as far back as Eysenck (and I think even Adorno and Allport and friends would have recognized the same insight). The Psych Bull article that Will commented on in his Sunday column, and that sparked this thread, spent substantial time operationalizing their definition of conservative, and the response in the same edition pushed the definitional issues further. I did not read anything in the article that implied that all conservatives believe, and are motivated, by one set of things, and all liberals believe, and are motivated, by a different set. In fact the authors several times explicitly note the plurality of motivations for all beliefs. They do argue that at the heart of conservativism is a resistance to change and an acceptance of inequality � this may or may not be true (which is part of why the exchange in Psych Bull was of interest) but seems worthy of discussion and empirical and theoretical review. It would be an oversimplification to say that there are only two kinds of humans � male and female, and that men are from Mars and women from Venus. But it would not be true to say that the dizzying complexity of human nature precludes any useful study of possible differences between men and women. Likewise, it seems that it would be a gross oversimplification to say that there are only two kinds of political thought � liberal or conservative. But it seems equally unhelpful to deny a priori that there are any valid distinctions that can be made between liberals and conservatives **************************************************** Aubyn Fulton, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Chair, Behavioral Science Department Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 94508 Office: 707-965-6536 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
