Don't Challenge Me!

That apparently settles it: I'm mentally defective.

Okay, I heard that chorus of *duh*s out there.

Seriously. I'm mentally defective.

Not because I was hit in the head with a bird house when I was eight; not because I've had three concussions (so far). Not because I chase tornadoes; and not because I have been authentically certified so by a registered psychoanalyst (which, as yet, I haven't). Not because I wasn't born to aristocracy or elistist wealth.

I'm mentally defective because I'm conservative.

So says a 'research' study by a quartet of liberal professoriats, according to the February issue of Psychology Today (Dixit 2007), entitled Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Produced back in 2003 by four leading institutionalized thinkers of the liberal persuasion, the leading light of this study and quartet seems to be one Professor John Jost, PhD, an associate professor at New York University.

To wit, Jost and his peers have unchallengingly* concluded that after a meta analysis of a number of previously-done studies, the statistically-culled analysis concludes that conservative ideology is motivated by "dogma, fear and aggression"; and that conservatives are "afraid of change" and are "cognitively inferior".

Jost even 'proves' that Josef Stalin was a conservative, just like his secretly admired adversary, Adolph Hitler.

That last convinces me that Jost is living proof that revisionist history is alive and well in the well-padded walls of Academia among other things, but I digress.

Though I am not capable of having anything substantive to offer in this argument -- because I'm conservative -- I will hazard to lowlight some of the main points Comrade Jost & Co. make in their creation of dubious educedence:

-- the study 'shows' that conservatives have a "clear tendency to score highly on dogmatism (assertion of opinion; arrogance; and we all know that no liberal is arrogantly assertive with their opinions...)

-- that conservatives also score highly on such wonderful traits as intolerance: of ambiguity, of things out of place, of a lack of structure, and for a lack of closure (aka, we expect people to be accountable for their own actions; we allegedly can't see gray areas between black and white; as for not being able to stand things being out of place, the pompous putz hasn't ventured a look at my writing work station; ditto on the 'need for structure' argument; as for closure, I rather like problem-solving; I thought most rational, normal people did. According to Comrade Jost & Co., that's apparently a conservative flaw).

-- that conservatives score very low on being open to new experiences (he's absolutely right here; I am not willing to snort coke) and such things as "integrative complexity".

In other words, we're simple-minded.

Of no less interest than these "unchallenged" findings of Comrade Jost & Co., is the fact that they actually commented about a similar psychological study of liberals; mainly, the 'fact' that there are no comparable statistics for liberals to make such a comparable study useful.

In other words, liberals are superior, and have no such need of study. John Kerry must be one of their cases to undermin..er..underline their point.

Strangely enough -- though some of the alleged "leading lights" in American psychology are lauding this study, there are other members of the fraternity of shrinks that consider it political psychobabble meadow muffins, and a demeaning smear to the psychological profession.

One such is Dr. Shawn T. Smith, a clinical psychologist and DU (Denver University) professor (and self-professed libertarian, politically). He deconstructs (and systematically demolishes) Comrade Jost & Co. in his response, A Methodology Critique In Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans (you can read the full text of his response at Ironshrink.com). I can't, in all fairness, provide you with a link to the full text of Professor Jost's study ('cuz I didn't find one); but a Google or Yahoo search of Professor John Jost will get you some excerpts of his 88 page study from sources more ideologically disposed to his conclusions.

What I found particularly revealing about these competing papers and psychology academicians is the fact that Dr. Smith was more than willing to come on The Mike Rosen Show on 850 KOA Radio (Denver, CO), and hold himself and his critique up for analysis and rebuttal; none of the four leading lights of the liberal point of view were willing to come on and stand behind their work. In fact, as Mr. Rosen reported on the air, he tried hard to convince Professor Jost to come on; Jost's response was, "neither you (the host, Mike Rosen) nor Smith (the clinical psychologist) were qualified to pass judgement on my study".

So there.

Now I know that some of my readers fancy themselves as liberals; and I know that some of those same readers would probably not buy into the inane compost that comprises the great bulk of this so-called study. Perhaps some others of you do.

Makes no matter to me; we're all free to have our own opinions on this and a cornucopia of other matters in this, our constitutional republic.

But, in the interests of intellectual honesty, integrity and ethics, I thought all of you who adhere to the liberal persuasion and the "unchallenged" Jost argument, should be left with no doubt: I am a conservative, and according to Jost, beneath you.

I won't take it amiss if you don't wish to lower yourself to visit this mentally defective site further. I won't even take it amiss if you're not ashamed of having such an embarrassingly arrogant-without-substance spokesperson on your side of the ideological divide. You should be, but that's subjective on my defective part.

Besides...my side is stuck with the likes of Pat Robertson. Let's face it: politically, it can suck to be both of us, eh?

But I'm supposed to be too stupid to realize it.

* unchallenged, 'cuz they duck debate on the issue, where they actually have to substantively support and defend their snake-oil conclusions, as noted above