Friday, September 19, 2008

Wouldn't say boo to a Tory

A study in the US suggests that conservative voters are more likely to be startled by loud bangs or threatening images than liberal voters according to the Washington Post. Or, at least, that is how the WashPo frames it .....

People who startle easily in response to threatening images or loud sounds seem to have a biological predisposition to adopt conservative political positions on many hot-button issues, according to unusual new research published yesterday.

Yeah, right - which is why so many conservatives hate guns so much. All those loud bangs are likely to send them running for the Kool Aid - except, hang on, isn't that liberals?

It should also be a major concern for the US Army too. As an overwhelmingly conservative bunch it must be a bit of a worry that their soldiers are likely to run and hide like startled rabbits at the first sound of gun fire.

Except, of course, that it is all bollocks.

What the study did find is that, across groups of people, there seems to be an association between sensitivity to physical threats and sensitivity to threats affecting social groups and social order.

So what the study actually determined is that conservatives are more sensitive to real threats while liberals are more sensitive to perceived threats.

Yep- that sounds more likely. The study is, of course, a prime example of quack science in operation and only goes to prove that the best thing to do would be to round up all the social scientists and dump them on a remote island completely cut off from the rest of the world. They are, after all, half way there already.

No comments: