The Science of Libertarian Morality

[rambone]

I'm a peer and I just reviewed it. Looks like an article you guys should check out.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The meat of the draft, and their conclusions based on the gathered data are highly unlikely to change in the slightest.

A lifelong, non-scientific study of every person I encounter in any sort of elevated interaction is hardly anecdotal (i.e. I didn't offer a story of one particular account). I just said "I'm glad to have read it"...not "I'm going to base my doctoral thesis upon this study". Would you seriously discount the entire paper because the teacher hasn't put a gold star on it yet? It would be unwise to discuss nuances & start throwing around numbers from the study...but giving a nod to the mostly obvious general ideas & findings is fine IMO.

Global Warming much?

 

[steveh_131]

I bet you geniuses don't even know what "Peer Review" means. Oh, sure, you'll google it and come back and tell me that you knew all along. But we all know you didn't.

Thanks for the article. It was a good read and I think had some really interesting points.

 

[DragonGunner]

Just some good natured ribbing there Paco.

Good thing you explained that before negative rep had ripped you apart....I was almost ready to do it !

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Maybe your definition of "liberal" is too loose. Or maybe it's archaic. Or maybe it just doesn't match what other people are using the word to describe.



On the other hand, there could be more in play here than just a simple statement about a study's state of publishing.

Nothing more in play. Just that when you say "hey, check out this nifty cool study that supports my position" and I do and it says is a non-published, un-reviewed draft that may or may not be changed and accepted, I think there's a little red flag that starts flying. Like maybe you didn't bother to read the study before you told me about it, especially if you responded something like "The meat of the draft, and their conclusions based on the gathered data are highly unlikely to change in the slightest." which shows little knowledge of the research and review process. Having actually submitted work for peer review and publication, I take it kind of seriously.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm a peer and I just reviewed it. Looks like an article you guys should check out.

good point. Many people here have well qualified opinions on this board through expereince but wouldn't be sought after to qualify an opinon for a gun rag.

form your own opinions, and be critical people

 

[Fletch]

Nothing more in play. Just that when you say "hey, check out this nifty cool study that supports my position"

Except that nobody said this, or anything close to it. It's an analysis of the psychology of libertarians, nothing more. There's nothing remotely controversial or argumentative about it, unless your position is that libertarians are psychological aberrations, ie insane.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Except that nobody said this, or anything close to it. It's an analysis of the psychology of libertarians, nothing more. There's nothing remotely controversial or argumentative about it, unless your position is that libertarians are psychological aberrations, ie insane.

I wasn't being argumentative. Just pointing out its a work in progress draft, unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and un-accepted research document. Not a peer reviewed and published study. Don't know how you get from draft report to insane. That's quite the leap. I would have provided a disclaimer. not presented it as published. That's all.

 

[Fletch]

I wasn't being argumentative. Just pointing out its a work in progress draft, unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and un-accepted research document. Not a peer reviewed and published study. Don't know how you get from draft report to insane. That's quite the leap.

And I don't know why you'd want to stir up controversy in a thread that's essentially a conversation piece. I realize that anything which gives libertarians an excuse for existing drives you to fits of apoplexy, but don't you feel the need to rest every once in a while?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And I don't know why you'd want to stir up controversy in a thread that's essentially a conversation piece. I realize that anything which gives libertarians an excuse for existing drives you to fits of apoplexy, but don't you feel the need to rest every once in a while?

You seem to be getting your panties all twisted for no reason. All I said was:

Did you actually read the study? Not jut the article? I did. The very first thing it says was:

Draft Version - Please note that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed and has not yet been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. It represents our best effort to describe our research findings, but its conclusions may undergo revision during the review process. It is currently undergoing such review.

Let me know when it's published, peer reviewed and accepted.​

That's not negative. It's pointing out a fact because I did take the time to read the research, which was interesting.

Certainly you aren't suggesting facts no longer matter or that people aren't entitled to them?

 

[Fletch]

You seem to be getting your panties all twisted for no reason.

I have a reason. I'm pissed that none of you ignorant philistines got the reference in my first post.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I have a reason. I'm pissed that none of you ignorant philistines got the reference in my first post.

Ahh... I thought we were talking about libertarian elistism, not movie references

That being the case, American Beauty.

 

[dross]

The article rings true to me. I point out also that it wasn't an altogether flattering view of libertarians.

It would be interesting to see how the Myers-Briggs personality test correlated with the three basic political philosophies. I'm an INTJ. I suspect you'd find very few of us anywhere but on the libertarian side of the fence.

 

[CarmelHP]

....the apparently erroneous data points that libertarians leave on the standard measures of political behavior and morality.

That sounds like an abstruse way of saying, "they're nuts."

 

[Fletch]

That sounds like an abstruse way of saying, "they're nuts."

That is indeed one possibility. The other possibility is missing variables or yardsticks, which is the direction the study's authors apparently chose to pursue. It's the old theory that there is nothing truly random, only that which is unexplained by present measurements. They seem to have been able to find some new measurements, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[Jeremiah]

The article rings true to me. I point out also that it wasn't an altogether flattering view of libertarians.

It would be interesting to see how the Myers-Briggs personality test correlated with the three basic political philosophies. I'm an INTJ. I suspect you'd find very few of us anywhere but on the libertarian side of the fence.

That would be an intersting point to investigate, ENTJ myself.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The article rings true to me. I point out also that it wasn't an altogether flattering view of libertarians.

It would be interesting to see how the Myers-Briggs personality test correlated with the three basic political philosophies. I'm an INTJ. I suspect you'd find very few of us anywhere but on the libertarian side of the fence.

Hello fellow INTJer. I agree with your libertarian (small l) observation. Despite poking my (big L) Libertarian friends here for the past couple days, I lean strongly libertarian, with an unfortunate dose of reality sprinkled in.

 

[dross]

That would be an intersting point to investigate, ENTJ myself.

The one letter of the MB that is close to fifty fifty for me is the E vs. the I. Back in my Army NCO days, I tested "E". Now that I've reverted to my true personality and calling, I'm more solidly an "I". I had to force myself to the extroverted side, now I've comfortably settled into a grumpy introvert, though I'm not shy, by any measure.

Hello fellow INTJer. I agree with your libertarian (small l) observation. Despite poking my (big L) Libertarian friends here for the past couple days, I lean strongly libertarian, with an unfortunate dose of reality sprinkled in.

You coy little devil's advocate minx. I suspected as much, all along, which is why my fangs have been uncharacteristically retracted on some of your more annoying posts.

 

[ATM]

INGO personality type thread here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/17650-personality_types.html

 

[Jeremiah]

The one letter of the MB that is close to fifty fifty for me is the E vs. the I. Back in my Army NCO days, I tested "E". Now that I've reverted to my true personality and calling, I'm more solidly an "I". I had to force myself to the extroverted side, now I've comfortably settled into a grumpy introvert, though I'm not shy, by any measure.



You coy little devil's advocate minx. I suspected as much, all along, which is why my fangs have been uncharacteristically retracted on some of your more annoying posts.

I was very clearly E, J and T, the N was very fifty fifty for me.

I am growing more I as I get older, I just seem to care less about others opinions, but still find myself arguing on the internet too often.