Bias

"We have broad interests in prejudice generally, whether toward immigrants, foreigners, homosexuals, the obese, Americans, Muslims, women. We are even interested in fictitious groups and attitudes toward non-human animals."

This is a quote from Gordon Hodson's research site. Gordon Hodson is the lead researcher in the recent study claiming that conservatives, especially social conservatives, have lower IQs and greater prejudice against others than liberals. Look carefully at the list I quoted from his website. Does anyone else notice the glaring omission? Prejudice against religious groups is noticeably absent from his list. I presume his list is not all inclusive, but to list "fictitious group and attitudes toward non-human animals" and not include Christians, or other religious groups except Muslims on the list strikes me as telling.

I was unable to find any details on the research, but I find the remarks that are swirling about the internet elucidating in and of themselves. The dominant one is "we needed research to tell us social conservatives are dumb? Gimme a break." Does the irony of Hodson's supporters' statements about the findings of his research on prejudicial attitudes escape anyone else? Oh and another favorite comment of mine... "these are only averages, so why are you upset?" In other words, I might well be one of those lone smart social conservatives. In fact, I might even be a genius, but most of my fellow right wingers are morons. I wonder what then induces that smart one to hang with the dummies and share their views? That defies logic. Hodson tries to soften the blow telling us there "may" be compassionate conservatives...this is just a finding regarding the average. Thanks. Whew.

And does anyone else remember the outcry against the book from 1994, The Bell Curve, which infuriated many people? The researchers explored IQ differences among various races. The raging arguments with the book's release included attacks (largely by liberals, btw) that there was sparse if any peer review of the research, that the tests of IQ themselves were biased in favor of certain groups, and that the whole research direction was an attempt to perpetuate racism and prejudice. Interesting that with Hodson's research, the liberal response, at least the only one I have found on the internet is: well of course...who needed research to tell us that the religious right are stupid and bigoted? IQ research is reprehensible and suspect EXCEPT when it rips apart those dastardly religious right conservatives.

I cannot find much about how Hodson conducted his research. i presume details will come out soon. Did he undergo rigorous peer review before publishing this work? Where did he draw his sample? Was it random/blind sampling and representative of the groups he was claiming to sample? What kind of statistical analysis did he use? How does he explain the research that indicates conservatives, especially social conservatives are overwhelmingly more charitable than liberals? (see article below, but also recent article in Wall Street Journal which fully concurred with this older article.) How does he define and delineate social conservative? Are committed religious folks separated from casual religious folk, since recent research indicates there IS a difference in these groups. Research also indicates that social conservatives' charity extends overwhelmingly to groups of other races. Has Hodson explored the reason for that incongruity in this so called stupid/prejudiced group?

The research on homeschool groups, huge studies largely conducted my Dr. Ray,http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/default.asp, has been criticized because the subjects agreed to submit test scores, thus perhaps those with low scores wouldn't have joined the study. Yet the tests had not yet been administered prior to the research. Some concerns raised were that the tests were administered by parents, thus suspect. Yet even on standardized tests administered by impartial observers (ACT college entrance tests), homeschoolers outperform every other group. Again the research is not exhaustive on this, but most findings agree that homeschoolers are overwhelmingly social conservatives. Did Hodson explore that strange seeming contradiction to his work?

Some people, when I expressed my outrage at Hodson's work, suggested I must be narrow minded, not open to change or new ideas. I wonder if those same people will read the studies I cited above, or is exploring new ideas only narrow minded when it relates to issues such as insisting a baby is a baby from conception, or an intact family with mother and father is best for a child, or that government should be small, or that Christian ideals should not be ridiculed?

As I searched the internet for specifics on Hodson's study, a moth flitted from the chair. We seem to be inundated with moths lately. I have no idea where they are coming from, but I am finding tiny holes in my cherished wool coats. They are such a tiny thing, and yet seem bent on destruction.

"To you, O people, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind. You who are simple, gain prudence;
you who are foolish, set your hearts on it. (Proverbs 8:4, 5 NIV)



Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.


If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."


-Everything is possible with God