Bozell Column: Some Very Political Science
The news is stuffed with “studies” in which “experts” tell us how we should behave. One recently found that conservatives have lost their trust in science over the last 40 years. That’s probably because the very political academics of “Science” are routinely summoned to prove the right-wingers are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, andnot just dangerously wrong, but evil, too.
These “studies” are laughable. First, there was the study purporting to prove that conservatism appeals to low-intelligence racists “who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.” Then there was the “scientific” study that parents should be allowed to kill their newborn babies because they were “morally irrelevant."
The latest doozy tries to spread “science” on the notion that “homophobia” is just the conservative’s resistance to his own repressed latent homosexuality. The gay site Lez Get Real announced “Sometimes it takes a study to prove exactly what everyone already knows.” This came under the headline “Self-Loathing Closet Cases Often Virulent Homophobes.”
A team at the University of Rochester, the University of California-Santa Barbara and the University of Essex in England announced their results. USA Today reported with delight that “Acceptance of gays and lesbians has never been higher, but anti-gay bias still exists. A new study suggests intense hostility toward homosexuals may be linked to a repressed same-sex attraction, combined with an authoritarian upbringing.”
This isn’t “science.” It’s psycho-babble mumbo-jumbo, where somehow our potty-training or our breast-feeding or our spankings have shaped our most deeply-held adult beliefs. The same liberals who complained it was utterly unscientific for Sen. Bill Frist to diagnose Terri Schiavo’s medical condition from the Senate floor think it’s scientific to guess about the “unconscious” things that conservatives have hidden from themselves inside their own brains.
In a video issued by his college, Richard Ryan of the University of Rochester explained that “authoritarian” parents are creating hatred of the “other” and destroying the natural harmony of the world. “If you're a parent who really strongly believes your child should be a heterosexual, and then you use whatever means you can to convince them that they're only good and worthy if they are, this would be very controlling. This creates a lot of conflict in the child, and what we see in this study is one way that gets resolved is by them being discriminating or hateful towards gay and lesbian others.”
What if you’re a religious parent who feels that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful, at odds with what God intended for humanity? These academics don’t like to discuss religion, except by implying that religious parents are “controlling” and “authoritarian” and promoting “hateful” attitudes.
Secular leftists hate it when conservatives bring religion into politics, arguing it’s unfair to say God favors the Republican agenda. But then they turn around and bring “science” into politics, insisting that “science” favors the liberal agenda, that “reality has a liberal bias.”
Those who actually think this study is “science” should really check out some of the methods these “scientists” applied to uncover the unconscious homosexuality of conservatives. Science Daily explained some tactics:
1. In one experiment, college students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in “gay” or “straight” categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word “me” or “others” flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds. They were then shown the words “gay,” “straight,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual” as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. “A faster association of ‘me’ with ‘gay’ and a slower association of ‘me’ with ‘straight’ indicated an implicit gay orientation.” What?
2. “A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction.” Uh-huh.
3. Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, “democratic” or “authoritarian.” For gauging the level of homophobia in a household, subjects responded to sentences like “It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian” or “My dad avoids gay men whenever possible.”
What a wheelbarrow full of nonsense this is! What’s dressed up here as “science” is really just intellectual intimidation and political bullying. Tell the “homophobe” he’s secretly gay! That will drive 'em crazy! This study proves nothing except the agenda of the alleged “scientists” and journalists pushing it.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Conservatives distrust science for two main reasons
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 10:54pm.
1. Many of the studies you report are in the social sciences, and the underlying hypotheses are themselves open to dispute and doubt, as are the results. Experimental and empirical results from the hard sciences are more reliable on their face, so that the hypotheses and conclusions can be more convincing. (Unless, of course, you cook the data and rig the jury, as happened with the Hadley CRU information, the IPCC report, the Hockey Stick Graph, and the whole edifice of politicized global warming advocacy.)
2. A lot of people distrust the reporting on science, not the science itself. Remember, reporters didn't get their college degrees in science, they got their degrees in composition, "ledes," "grafs," and spell-checking. Read any report about "increasing risk" of anything and see if you are persuaded that the reporter understands the nature of risk and "increased risk."
➚The padded consensus
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 10:58pm.
We know where the money comes from and where it goes.
When the null hypothesis is not an option, there can be no science.
Another excuse
Submitted by deadeyedan on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 11:02pm.
No matter what, you're wrong.
Should you harbor no fantasies for your own sex and are against the homo agenda they will not distinguish that from someone they think is repressing some sort of same-sex attraction. That's exactly the bin they'll put you in, since to just be against their cockeyed ideology demonstrates your intolerance and phobia.
LIBERALISM - government of the people by the theories and for the ideologists
Disney had the liberals pegged during the Nazi years
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 11:17pm.
This old Disney anti-Hitler propaganda cartoon may be silly, but it's an illustration of how the liberal leftists are now using 'science' instead of cartoons to try and indocrinate people from birth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQqCeEG5hs0&skipcontrinter=1
Looking at this old video reminds me starkly of what happened in the 08 campaign, when a teacher was caught on tape grilling her students and demanding that they 'report' who their parents were planning to vote for. The students who said 'Obama' were lavished with fawning praise and congratulations. The student who said 'McCain' was jeered at, mocked and insulted by no less than the teacher herself.
And who can forget the teacher who was caught on tape forcing her students to sing hymns to Obama? 'Barak Hussein Obama - Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!'
Disney showed the Nazis smashing church windows, replacing the cross of Jesus with the swastika, and replacing the bible with 'Mein Kampf'. Today the liberals are the ones smashing those church windows, tearing down crosses from graves, and replacing the bible with 'The Audacity of Hope'.
Eugenics was an accepted "science" of the early . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 9:12am.
. . . 20th Century. It rested on theories based on alleged scientific evidence that those classified as Caucassians were biologically and intellectually superior to other races, who tended to produce large families and thus posed a threat to the natural progress of mankind at large. Eugenicists like Margaret Sanger advocated the use of birth control and abortion to reduce the size of those inferior races for the sake of mankinds' future. They were not driven to this by religion or by nationalism, but by "science."
It was true "social Darwinism" (Obama's misused term).
The Nazis took "social Darwinism" to the next step: the systematic eradication of inferior peoples, including Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, and the mentally and physically handicapped. It was survival of the fittest to their deranged minds, but it was science-based.
Distrust any "science" thrown at you by the following:
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 04/10/2012 - 11:42pm.
1) Sociologists, therapists, counselors and most academic psychologists because their conclusions are pre-drawn and the methodology to derive, analyze and provide results on data is so horribly bad that it wouldn't meet even the most lenient standards of clinical research - they believe the plural of "anecdote" is "evidence" - something no real scientist would ever do.
2) Conclusions drawn entirely by mathematical models, e.g. global warming. No matter how accurate the model, it is far too easy to manipulate the terms of the model statistically to meet an agenda. Nearly all of climate science is built on mathematical models, which are really no more accurate than a simple coin toss. For lurking climate scientists, the first rule of probability is that EVENT-driven probability is NEVER more than 50/50 - either it will happen or it will not.
3) Medical ethicists who are not trained and licensed in health care professions. Their work is NOT research, but rather opinion. They have no more credibility than Baghdad Bob, and most are philosophy faculty whose work could not get them tenure, promotion or hired elsewhere, so they are parasites on the medical community and assume an air of authority that they have not earned. They hold no ethical standards except earn money by publishing bullcrap or charging fees for "ethics" consultations, which is a polite way of saying they make a recommendation as to whether the plug should be pulled or not, and they usually have zero concept of patient treatment. They glom on to the medical profession because they are too dishonest to make a living doing something productive like washing dishes or selling shoes.
4) Reporters, media hacks, movie stars, celebrities and any politician who is an attorney. If you think your front doorknob has more intelligence, you would be correct.
Actually,
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:02am.
the honest truth of the matter is that everyone is inherently heterosexual, and the gay community's vitriolic protestations merely demonstrate their deep-seated insecurity with their own lifestyle choices.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
A simple understanding...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:54am.
...of human biology (and how things work -- usually) should clearly demonstrate that this is indeed (or should be) undeniable truth..
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
However, as Paul McCartney
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:16am.
However, as Paul McCartney sang in "Live and Let Die"....But in this ever-changing world in which we live in.....
there is no "normal." Only "different." There is no right and wrong. There is only "legal" and "illegal." And once something is "legal" you have no right to oppose it.
Beat me, beat me
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:38am.
I never could figure out why, in modern mid-20th-century America where homosexuality was not approved (i.e., not ancient Greece, where it was, and between adult men and boys), adolescent boys would choose a way of living that they had to hide or that, if they were openly homosexual, they were scorned and beaten up. Who would choose that? So you get near the girls, but they ultimately don't want you anyway. What was the upside of choosing to be queer (as it was called in the 60s)?
Good everloving grief!
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:47am.
“A faster association of ‘me’ with ‘gay’ and a slower association of ‘me’ with ‘straight’ indicated an implicit gay orientation.”
WHAT THE??????
Just because they SAY it "indicates" that, we are supposed to accept it?
I can't wait for someone to do a study and claim that if a black guy associates more quickly with a white man in a suit than to a black gang-banger, that "indicates" that he harbors an innate self-hatred of his blackness.
But wait...
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:43am.
The science and proven fact of evolution tells us that homosexuals are genetically mutant deviants that would be de-selected for in a true natural selection environment. Their mutated gene that makes them attracted to the same sex is not only not helpful to the species, it is detrimental to it because it reduces the size of the gene pool.
It is only because we as humans have a moral and spiritual nature that we suffer these broken and malformed individuals to survive. If it weren't for the "backward" religious "nuts" who are taught to love all people and that each individual is precious and deserving of tolerence and compassion, these flawed and non-reproductive members of our society would be irradicated on sight.
So in reality, homosexuals have religion to thank for their very existence.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Just one problem with this comment...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:58am.
They never found the gene!
And thank God they didn't, otherwise we would have had to accept the notion that these people were indeed "born that way".
Remember that sexual attraction is merely an inclination. Only the act itself is considered "sinful".
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
If they did find the "gene"
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:47am.
If they did find the "gene" what would homosexuals say about aborting a fetus that had that gene, the same way it's done for Down Syndrome?
Why are there no...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 7:56am.
studies which explain the "cause" of my attraction to women? Could it be because it's "normal"? No, because if heterosexuality is "normal" that would make homosexuality "abnormal", wouldn't it.
Indeed!
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:02am.
.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
WTF?
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 8:15am.
Stacking an experiment" to produce an expected result is in no way science. And these smacked-a$$es totally neglect a basic point - NATURE! Forget GOD and chemical balances in the brain. Homosexuality is inherently un-natural. Animals aren't homosexual by nature, and neither are humans. The basic purpose of sex is to reproduce the species. Humans are specifically designed to copulate. Hence the size, shape, and location of male and female sexual organs. When same-sex couples can reproduce without the benefit of the opposite sex, THEN I'll give credence to these so-called "scientists".
This is complete B as in B, S as in S!
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 9:01am.
.
Mr. and Mrs. X give birth to a baby boy.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 9:23am.
Now Mr. and Mrs. X need to decide whether he/she/it will be raised as a heterosexual (Gak!), homosexual or something else.
Uh huh.
Biologically Correct
Submitted by m1xram on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 7:11am.
They know that species with male and female members mate in opposite pairs and that anything else is not biologically correct. The idea is to destroy the family unit. It allows them to inflict more damage on society.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
Men of Science - Pah!
Submitted by Savonarola on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 10:08am.
Whenever I hear a man of science speak I remind myself that men of science once practiced bloodletting to heal a patient.
How about this scientific approach:
Submitted by needle on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 10:56am.
(which is not terribly far off from a boiled down version of what is provided in some of our more Progressive schools in MA and CA):
Homosexuals are good (psst, and so is sodomy; try it, you'll like it)
Heterosexuals are bad, or at least not quite so good.
BTW, which are you, good or bad?
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
Truely Believe it or Not!
Submitted by ThisnThat on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 1:28pm.
Your scientific approach was practiced a couple days ago in a Rhode Island school. A girl, Elizabeth Bierenday, a junior at at Pilgrim High School in Warwick, Rhode Island, found out her mural, showing a boy growing up into an adult with a wife and family, was so offensive it had to be painted over. Why? "Because it didn't depict some of the individuals at the school". http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/apr/7/picket-hs-students-traditional-family-mural-censor/
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Code words?
Submitted by needle on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 11:11am.
Is “authoritarian” a code word for “morality aware”? (as in – shudder – absolute morality)?
Boy, we wouldn’t want that, would we?
Seriously, this whole schtick is a riff on "theopobia" (nb: theophobia is a new word. Write it down, and use it ... liberally)
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
The meaning of words
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 04/11/2012 - 1:06pm.
3. Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, “democratic” or “authoritarian.”
And what, specifically, is "democratic" parenting?
Does that mean the children have equal say in their own raising and education? Could 3 children out-vote their parents and refuse to do what they are told? Would they get to select the vacation venue, or the automobile purchase?
Words without definition skew polling.
Also note, that small-"d" democratic is compared to "authoritarian" -- it's not a giant leap to see this as Democratic (liberal) parenting vice Republican (conservative) parenting.