Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles on single studies do not meet WP policies and guidelines AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you come up with something conclusive and actionable, let us know. Anarchangel (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles about liberalism and conservatism in various countries, and this jumps down not just to biological differences or brain differences, but structural brain differences. I think that this is too far to narrow it. I propose that the article be saved by including all measurable general differences in brain structure, function, and genetics, regardless of the modality of measurement used. This I think can be accomplished to some degree without even a change of title. I'll show you what I have in mind. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that someone trying to get the article deleted should be taking pains to keep out what he doesn't think is relevant to it - especially when that happens to undermine the reason given for the deletion attempt. Also, I think that claiming that an IQ test isn't about intelligence when the sources say "intelligence" a form of original research. Wnt (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is as much about article improvement as deletion. Your text still makes no link between "intelligence" and the "brain", which you acknowledged elsewhere to be Original Research on your part. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that IQ tests don't measure intelligence when the sources treat the two as interchangeable is original research. Saying that intelligence is a function of the brain seems like a pretty basic deduction, not requiring specialist knowledge. Though I might support an article renaming to make it clearer that such brain functions are included in it. I don't see how you can have an article about the brain and behavior without talking about such function. Wnt (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources say that IQ tests and "general intelligence" are identical and the result of the brain, the physiological apparatus contained in the skull, then you can say that. Otherwise your "basic deduction" is original research. Given that the concept of "general intelligence" and the emergence of the mind and consciousness are debated in the scholarly sources, you must rely upon what the scholarly sources you read use as their position in this debate. And the article needs to express this. At the moment the section you restored hangs on an unexpressed piece of original research which is contested in the scholarly literature. Where does the scholarly literature you read position itself on the brain. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well what part of the body would you say you use to do your thinking? Sorry, but intelligence coming from the brain is not specialist knowledge. And your "general intelligence" debate is not taken up by the sources that cover the story. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. Collect (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a short description of a study that was much in the news in 2007. I wasn't able to find the original article though, hoping that someone else can find it. I'm guessing it's this article published in Nature, but I can't get the full-text and the abstract doesn't give enough description. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this text ... However, a 1946 study of 6000 persons found that those more informed on current political issues had more years of formal education and were "more liberal in issues regarding Russia and atom-bomb control, but more conservative in their views regarding power for the workers and government guarantees."<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/39/2/65/|title=Liberalism and level of information|author=George Horsley Smith|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=39|issue=2|date=1948-02|pages=65-81|doi=doi: 10.1037/h0054514}}</ref> ... because it isn't related to brain differences - only educational differences. 71.185.49.174 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't altogether sure of the relevance of that myself (I think I left a comment about that), but my feeling is that this article might benefit from a somewhat broader scope, so there's a chance it could become relevant with a retitling. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come up with anything on the first search, but has anyone looking at this seen any data on simple reading rate (not M and W, but finding a bit of information in a mass of text) vs. political orientation? It seems like data there might tie all the other data in this article together. (though I'm not necessarily saying it would turn out to be relevant to the current title) Wnt (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing if the article is stable or if the ref will only get challenged anyway, I don't feel like trying to pull something out of the following; yet they may be relevant. Search Google Scholar with conservative liberal fMRI political for the following and more:

[1]

[2] (specifically, references therein about DRD4) and [3] (amygdala)

[4] (need full text)

[5]

[6] (need full text - reviews fMRI studies on political beliefs as of 2006)

[7] (need full text - Google abstract describes fMRI data)

[8]

[9]

[10] (free review mostly covering existing studies, I think)

This is from the first 30 results out of 418. Wnt (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: Both the Amydala size differences and Anterior cingulate cortex size differences sections appear to be collections of indiscriminate information and their purpose is unclear. They should be either merged with the preceding section or removed. "Conservatives have larger amygdalas" is relevant to the article, but "According to some studies, the amydala is larger in males than in females." Really? Cool! Seriously, though, things like that aren't don't even make sense in the context of the article. The Political genome studies section regards genetics and not the brain. Perhaps the article should be renamed to 'Biological differences' if it's going to cover genetics as well, otherwise it should simply be removed. Regards, Swarm ^X 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. All are distinctly related either to the sections of the pbrain specified in the article, or to attributes which the article appears to give to brain sections. The DNA study is especially noteworthy as it encompasses more than 13,000 people, rather than 90. Collect (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that message completely failed to address any of the points I made, right? Swarm ^X 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses 1. the material meets WP:MEDRS. 2. The material relates to the broad topic precisely (and rather more than most of the article does). 3. The basis of the article is one study implying that two areas of the brain relate to political position. Clearly, more substantial studies (that is, greater than 90 volunteers) are proper to discuss in that context. And a study of 13,000 people is a teensy bit more likly to have a statistical value than one of 90. Once the article refers to size of a brain section, then that topic should be fully explored, lest we mislead outr readers into thinking that a study of 90 people is meaningful, and one of 13,000 is not meaningful. Ask any statsistician which study he would use. Collect (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All your points are legitimate but simply don't correspond with my concerns. For example, what does WP:MEDRS have to do with anything? I didn't even mention it. For example, "the amydala is larger in males than in females". That simply doesn't make sense in the context of the article! In amydala it does, but not in this article. It's just a matter of fact- it doesn't mean it should be removed, but it should be expanded on so that a reader knows what the hell that has to do with anything. Regarding the study of 13,000 people, I wasn't suggesting it isn't important. I was merely stating that the article's title doesn't cover it. This article should cover differences between conservatives' and liberals' brains. If it's going to cover genome studies the title should be changed to reflect that. Swarm ^X 19:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to Biology and political orientation as already contains §§ outside of (pure) brain research. In this case, the first three sections would become subsections of "Brain Studies". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also noting there already seems to be a testing of the line of "Scientific basis of political orientation". I don't think we want to go there because that makes for huge work in social sciences. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new title would be better than the existing one, which makes no sense outside of a U.S. context. I'm not sure it would be ideal though - the title shouldn't imply that differences (if they actually exist - the article apparently relies entirely on primary sources, which makes assessments of validity difficult) are due to 'biology', i.e. that they are genetically determined - something the sources don't necessarily support. As for anything relating to a "Scientific basis of political orientation", there is nothing whatsoever in the article to support such generalisations - and until someone comes up with a scientific definition of 'conservatism' say, there cannot be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, I'll wait a week for other comment and make the move (as Lycurgus). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new title is a bit more encyclopedic. OIFA (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lycurgus (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on structural differences in the brain explicitly describes a reverse inference conclusion, namely that liberals may be better at processing ambiguity and conservatives at processing threat. This claim is directly referenced from some news sources and not an actual paper. It is not fully clear to me whether this presents primarily an NPOV problem or just an "i used shoddy news sources that don't understand science" POV problem. The section should be rewritten to emphasize that the structural findings represent science, and that the conclusion represents shoddy reverse inference not supported by a parsimonious interpretation of the scientific evidence. The sections on reasons for generic size differences have nothing to do with biology and political orientation, so I am removing them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the new study by Hodson, and sure enough, Collect was minutes behind. [11] I strongly suggest that the actual quote of the study's conclusion is the clearest way to convey what they authors have to say - things like revising "anti-homosexual prejudice" to "anti-homosexual attitudes", or leaving out the role of conservatism in mediating racist attitudes, clearly damages what the authors have to say. I also dispute that there is one word in WP:MEDRS saying that a competent popular news article about a story, written by someone careful enough to e-mail the authors for more information, should be taken out because it is "pop science". Readers have various levels of scientific literacy and sometimes may appreciate an easier to read reference. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - talk about AGF will ya! Copying verbatim an article abstract is known in the vernacular as a "copyright violation." Tha is, infringing on some silly concept known as "copyright." Amazingly enough, that is one of the things which has been greatly in the news laely, and I suggest genially that violating copyright is a "bad thing." Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and the "Livescience" cite does not support the claims you asserted it supported - that is the entire section about a 2012 study etc. And the LS cite specifically states In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general. which would then also have to be in the claim - one can not take bits and pieces and expect it to go unnoticed from an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I should put in the link to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#FYI:_eyes_on_conservatism_articles, where this was discussed. In brief, a 70-word quote is not a copyvio) I should add that as the text I added is "A 2012 study concluded that...", plus the quote, I certainly did not misrepresent the study, which the LiveScience article definitely discusses. Wnt (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - one person there even thought that an abstract with a clear copyright notice is not copyright <g>. I think you better think that one out again. Collect (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Copyright where you took it next. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take it to AN - so I am bemused by your comment here. But you certainly did make multiple posts at AN. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The section has six references for Kanazawa's study but still does include his explanation for the relationship. Should be expanded.
• WP:MEDRS does not apply to this article.
• Has a scattering of primary studies with only some of them being mentioned in some other source. I propose we also include this study [12] which looks at the relationship in a developing country, controls for several important confounders, and has an interesting discussion of possible causes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Another home for Kanazawa's psuedoscience and some "heredity" coat racking. Defiantly doesn't fall under MEDRS now. Another one for the list. Awesome. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we're not in a position at this stage to say for certain that " biology IS linked with political orientation".

How about "A number of studies have found that biology may be linked with political orientation"?

HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section Biology_and_political_orientation#Heritability is based on a political science journal. This isn't reliable for claims outside their expertise, and I suggest it be removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Political Science Review is one of the most influential peer-reviewed journals in political science. Obviously it is a reliable source. Political science, which is an inter-disciplinary field, is not prohibited from studying the influence of biology in their research. Do you have any evidence for scientific misconduct? Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does not have to be scientific misconduct, just a lack of expertise to make it unreliable for the purpose on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that there was a lack of expertise in the peer-review? The article has hundreds of citations so the scientific community has seen it as very important. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A section based on a single article is of course WP:UNDUE weight whether or not it is reliable, which it probably is since none of the authors are geneticist and the journal doesn't specialize in this topic. If it has so many citations then it becomes relevant to see how it has been received and by whom. And it would of course have to be appropriately weighted. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented there being any errors done regarding this very influential article. Today political scientists often do research using biological methods. Many similar articles could be cited. The article is notable just from the attention it has received in newspapers such as the cited NYT article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly contentious field with large amounts of skeptical literature - this does not come across at all in the article making it fundamentally biased.