Just reading what I wrote above tells me we (or at least I) have reached a limit where anything constructive comes out of continuing this…I made a nit-picky point about how you presented the study’s conclusions and now we’re starting to discuss how we’ve been discussing it.

Your opinion is that the researchers were politically motivated and/or biased, my opinion is that you misled your readers with the conclusions list — yes these aspects are connected to the paper, yet also distinct points. We could go on forever trying to explain what we’re actually discussing to each other. We have both made our points. Diminished returns.

I’m not in it for the thrill of debating or ‘winning’…I don’t gather you are either…but, just in case you are, I have no problem ‘conceding’ as this is getting rather silly. In other words, I don’t really care that much.

They are in the paper. They just aren’t in the conclusion section. However, they are claimed to be directly linked to the conclusions drawn. As such, the paper claims their results lead directly to those conclusions, which they don’t.

Why is the word researchers in quotes? I may be interpreting it wrong, but the usage of quotes in this way is typically negative commentary and that the term shouldn’t be applied. I really don’t care…i’m not defending them, but this is why I interpreted it this way.

Because the work in the paper doesn’t actually prove what they claim it does. I’m questioning their motives in writing it and suggestion that for the purposes of this paper, they are playing another role.

As for NYU and UCLA, both are perfectly respectable institutions, and the authors may be perfectly fine researchers when wearing that hat. I wear a research hat often myself. My writing style is very different then, and I don’t include opinion or personal politics. They confused their roles.

You accused me of being nit-picky about the wording in Amodio et al.’s paper

Not about wording, but about sections. Everything is in that paper that I claim, the section it appears in doesn’t not automagically make it not a conclusion.

Nevertheless, I apologize and retract those statements.

I apologize for any statements I may have made which you found insulting, and admit to my statement on your reaction to op-ed’s as being to far, and retract it as well.

But, I do think this conversation has reached a limit of ‘diminishing returns’ so to speak. I really don’t see what else can come of it.

Maybe, up to you.

Regarding my comment about you not liking the researchers, I got that impression from the first sentence of your post: “Today’s article is brought to you by “researchers” at NYU and UCLA.”

Why is the word researchers in quotes? I may be interpreting it wrong, but the usage of quotes in this way is typically negative commentary and that the term shouldn’t be applied. I really don’t care…i’m not defending them, but this is why I interpreted it this way.

You accused me of being nit-picky about the wording in Amodio et al.’s paper…I think you may be a little nit-picky about accusing me of ad hom. Ad hominem statements are typically much more personal than what I said.

Nevertheless, I apologize and retract those statements.

But, I do think this conversation has reached a limit of ‘diminishing returns’ so to speak. I really don’t see what else can come of it.

You don’t like the researchers, you don’t like the institutions involved

You’re drawing conclusions about my opinions with no facts to back up your assertions, you’ve decided to just characterize what I say as you would prefer it to be. If you’re going to straw man me in such a way, I don’t know how we can have a discussion.

Your previous comment (at 12:06am) pointed that out clear enough. I’m sorry you perceived the suggestion that you wanted the last word as ‘resorting to ad hominem’ (bloggers just love that term)…since your 12:06 comment did not address my main point, I figured you were done.

Nope, just commenting on your resorting to ad hominem. I thought we were having a pretty good discussion and you decided to take it elsewhere. I could care less if you deleted my “last words”. Just trying to point out why I’m no longer going to bother with this entry, unless you’d like to try and start over

Seeing your last comment, I guess you just want the last word in a downward-spiraling discussion…have at it. Cheers.

Ah, yet another person drawing specious conclusions.

One of your bullet points (which you said they stated was one of their conclusions) was: ‘conservatives tend to ignore information’

Another one, also labeled in your post as a conclusion by Amodio et al. was: ‘liberals can be expected to accept new scientific and social ideals faster’

How are these summaries? Where do they come from? Sounds like your interpretation to me. And the last bullet point is some other researcher’s (not even connected to the study) comment on the study.

“Do you find opinion articles in papers misleading too?”
I don’t understand the relevance of that in this conversation.

“Their study proves nothing about the way liberals and conservatives think.”
Again…Amodio et al. conclude: ‘Taken together, our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation.’

I don’t read that as proving the way someone thinks.

Like I said…dead horse, beaten. Got it…you think this study is junk. You don’t like the researchers, you don’t like the institutions involved, you don’t like the methods, you don’t like the results. In fact, based on your comments, it seems you don’t trust the entire field of study. It all fits. Again, my point is not to say that their study proves or disproves of anything…my point was that you misrepresented what they actually state in their paper. That’s all.