Become a member.Become a Ricochet member.
Looking for better conservative conversation? Join Ricochet for just $5/month. Think of it as your neighborhood bar: familiar faces, lively debate, and room for a different point of view. Plus: listen to most of our podcasts ad-free.











































Discussion (1)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
That’s Jane Austen with an “e”.
Also, that social psychology paper that had to reverse itself didn’t accuse conservatives of being psychotic, but of showing “psychoticism“. Here’s part of the erratum, quoted by Ronald Bailey in his Reason blog, 6/10/16:
“Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck's psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.”
Bailey continues:
”Whoops! In their errata, the chagrined researchers deploy a cloud of social-science-speak to obscure the fact that the dataset they use actually shows that it is liberals who tend to have a deep and wide mean streak. That is what uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, socially withdrawn, manipulative, and lack of feelings of inferiority means.”