Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:47AM (4 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:47AM (#606663) Journal

    I posted this story in the forlorn hope that people might actually read TFA and its sources. I even gave an appropriate hint in the 'dept' field.

    But no, nobody is discussing the actually source material and everybody is simply concentrating on the recent tax bill that has now passed into law, with the predictable outcome we see here.

    Here was a chance to look at a scientific'ish paper (well, I must admit that it is a psychological paper) and dissect it, and subsequently to subject it to some scientific analysis. That didn't happen, but don't blame the messenger.

    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:58AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:58AM (#606666)

    It was the usual nonsense. A person in a disreputable field of study concocts something to fit preconceived notions. This satisfies a need for the writer.

    That need could be the satisfaction of feeling superior over one's foes. The enemy is mentally ill!. That need could be virtue signalling. That need could be just pumping out another low-value publication to satisfy a requirement for tenure, matriculation, etc.

    Had they not started with such a bias, they might have paid attention to the fact that liberals tend to suffer from depression. Flipping that around, Trump voters are less often depressed.

    They could have also described the Trump voter attributes using positive terminology. All of the terminology was disparaging. They could have described the attributes of non-Trump voters with disparaging terms.

    The bias is severe. I wonder if they even know.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @08:38AM (#606715)

      They could have also described the Trump voter attributes using positive terminology. All of the terminology was disparaging.

      Wot? Seriously? You want scientists to LIE? What kind of, oh, a Trump voter.... Nice Trump voter. Good Trump voter. {reaches around behind self while backing away, feeling for a large stick or 2x4} You are the Greatest Trump voter, ever!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:06PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:06PM (#606787) Journal

      I read the paper. It's a weak modern attempt to reprise The Mind of Adolf Hitler. As a work in the social sciences, it distinctly lacks rigor and was composed to stigmatize voters who supported Trump. There's no deeper quantitative analysis of causality producing similar trends across very different countries. Even a moderately intelligent person with no background in quantitative methods or data analysis could have crafted a better hypothesis than these authors did.

      For example, a serious researcher could have explored a number of different explanatory variables like the velocity of demographic change, of monetary policy, of trade agreements, of shifts in the composition of economies, of indices of corruption and democracy. All they limply threw out was maybe automation has something to do with it. And, oh yeah yeah maybe some of the people are pissed they lost their well-paying jobs in manufacturing because CEOs and Wall Street banks wanted to earn a quick windfall for themselves with outsourcing.

      But they didn't do any of that blindingly obvious analysis because their purpose is not to understand, but to undermine the intellectual legitimacy of a political phenomenon they don't personally like. Poor show, professor, poor show.

      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:50PM (#607453)

    That's not correct either.
    Here's how these things work:

    A simple majority of the House and the Senate both vote Yes on the SAME bill.
    The president signs that bill within 10 days and it then becomes law.

    Alternately, the president does -not- sign the bill and a supermajority of each chamber votes Yes again and it then becomes law.

    Now, if the bill that is passed in each chamber is NOT THE SAME, a committee is appointed to resolve the differences and come up with a compromise bill so that THAT can be voted on.
    THAT is where things stand now on this #GOPTaxScam.

    -- OriginalOwner_ []