There's no telling a liberal ideologue that he or she is on the wrong side of reality. Fantasies, half-truths, pleasant fictions... the diehard liberal or progressive anything—liturgist, politician, social worker—believes that feelings trump fact and that if only everyone buys into their utopian world (which they attempt to force on people of goodwill by immoral means because their arguments have about as much substance as cotton candy) the world would be such a so much nicer place.
Well, the truth is out. Truth, defined for those possessed by liberal sensibilities, is that uncomfortable synonym for reality. You know, reality—that which is real. Reality, that inconvenient friend. That colleague who invites himself to your social gatherings. That annoying pest you thought you had kept out of your invite loop. The coworker who spills the beans about the time(s) you had too much to drink at an office party and got yourself into a compromising situation with another coworker who then left his wife and bought a red Corvette. That buffoon who shatters your neatly constructed faux-façade and thereby forces your lies into the light and whose faux-pas smash down those paper thin walls of conceit and compels you to admit that reality is not what your liberal disposition has fashioned it to be. Yeah, that guy! Reality.
LifeSiteNews introduces the reader to a truly monster-truck-sized gaff on the part of the authors of a study which claimed to confirm that conservatives are what liberals know them to be. Surprise, surprise—the authors got the results backwards.
Study authors retract: It turns out conservatives are not psychotic (liberals are)
RICHMOND, VA, June 14, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The National Review calls it, "one of the most humiliating academic mistakes ever." Powerline calls it, "the mother of all corrections." The Media Research Center calls it, "maybe the most embarrassing correction in history."
Over three years after publishing a study which both presumed and then "found" that political and social conservatism comes from "psychoticism," "dogmatism," "intolerance of ambiguity," the "fear of threat or loss," and, "serves as a coping mechanism that allows people to manage these threats," the study's authors are admitting they accidentally reversed the results.
Could it be that liberal researchers are predisposed to altering the outcomes of their research because they simply can't help themselves? Given that the mainstream media is teeming with liberal minded pundits, is it any wonder that the news is routinely shaped to fit their tidy little world of white lies and sins of omission?
Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.
As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism. That paper also swapped ideologies when reporting on people higher in neuroticism and social desirability (falsely claiming that you have socially desirable qualities); the original paper said those traits are linked with liberal beliefs, but they are more common among people with conservative values.
“Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies,” published by the American Journal of Political Science:The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed. Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.
The erratum (which is long, so we won’t quote in full) explains:
The potential for an error in our article initially was pointed out by Steven G. Ludeke and Stig H. R. Rasmussen in their manuscript, “(Mis)understanding the relationship between personality and sociopolitical attitudes.” We found the source of the error only after an investigation going back to the original copies of the data. The data for the current paper and an earlier paper (Verhulst, Hatemi and Martin (2010) “The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes.” Personality and Individual Differences 49:306–316) were collected through two independent studies by Lindon Eaves in the U.S. and Nichols Martin in Australia. Data collection began in the 1980’s and finished in the 1990’s. The questionnaires were designed in collaboration with one of the goals being to be compare and combine the data for specific analyses. The data were combined into a single data set in the 2000’s to achieve this goal. Data are extracted on a project-by-project basis, and we found that during the extraction for the personality and attitudes project, the specific codebook used for the project was developed in error.