Ain’t this great?

From AJPS, the flagship political science journal:

The American Journal of Political Science published a correction this year saying that the 2012 paper has “an error” — and that liberal political beliefs, not conservative ones, are actually linked to psychoticism.

“The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed,” the journal said in the startling correction.

“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.”

11 thoughts on “Ain’t this great?”

  1. So they going to go through insisting on correction of every article published that referenced the 2012 paper?

    This could be fun.

  2. I wonder what they meant by “conservative”? Being American, they perhaps meant religious zealots who like guns and are altogether deplorable.

    By “liberals” they probably meant that coalition of socialists and racketeers who constitute the Dem party.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Gamecock – “The author didn’t note it was wrong for 5 years?”

    No, it is worse than that. The authors were *told* repeatedly that they had made a mistake. Over a number of years. They only published a retraction in order to undermine their critics’ efforts at going to press.

    Their other responses were the now traditional refusal to show their data because it might have proved them wrong and an on-going effort to destroy the careers of those foolish enough to point out their mistake:

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/why-it-took-social-science-years-to-correct-a-simple-error-about-psychoticism.html

    I guess that means they voted for Clinton.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    DevonChap – “So they going to go through insisting on correction of every article published that referenced the 2012 paper? This could be fun.”

    The Replication Crisis has not yet hit the Social Sciences. Mainly because they are ignoring it. Proof is not important outside the Hard Sciences. But so far at least one Political Scientist has pointed out that there are really only two hard finding in the Social Sciences:

    1. IQ matters and it differs between the races
    2. Pretty much every stereotype you can think of is true.

  5. The author didn’t note it was wrong for 5 years?

    What’s wrong with it? The author had the conclusion and searched for data that fitted it, and found it. Only reactionary neo-liberal so-called ‘scientists’ go in the other direction.

  6. Presumably this paper achieved the ‘gold standard’ of modern research: peer review (by suitably friendly and totally ‘objective’ mates who happen to share the same preconceptions)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *