dancedancekj said
Did you know Republicans have a larger amygdala and therefore a larger fear response from the lizard part of their brains? http://dmschreiber.ucsd.edu/Publications/RedBrainBlueBrain.pdf
This is not meant as a response directly to the original poster, but as to everyone in general.
I do not consider myself a Republican in any way; but I also don't condone highly misleading and misinformed studies. I also don't think citing studies that are poorly written, as truth, is a fair way to support your argument. Not all papers written in academia and being hosted on a genuine ".edu" site necessarily have stunning, significant, or correct results.
I read this study through, twice. Although it's tempting to claim it as significant, the fact is that studying 54 subjects really holds no significance, considering that "Democrat" and "Republican" are two labels that are way too easily cast to misrepresent ideas that are much too complex to label and that transcend the bipartisan spectrum.
As with any study, you really have to question the motivation of it, and the significance of the results. Who funded this study, and why? Why doesn't the paper mention a motivation for the study. Any good academic paper should exhibit why the study is being conducted (for a non-trivial reason, other than "to understand") and what broader implications it has. Also, what has failed to be mentioned here, is the fact that this study has not really been replicated (as far as I know, I can't find any really similar articles using the same method and hypothesis as this one).
The graphs and the data "shurr are purdy", but the methods they used to gather and process data are far more interesting and significant than the actual results the paper reports. Clearly, this is a poorly written paper. I may be 22, but I have written more than one research article for an undergraduate academic journal, and clearly this one wouldn't even make the cut for any such journal.
If you look at table S2, there are only
two independent variables. Clearly, with such a bold claim as the paper makes, you would think that if the authors were actually serious about the study, that they would factor in more independent variables, such as education (a big one, with regards to 'fear' response), income status, location, so on so forth. To simplify it down to mother-father partisanship is, frankly, pathetic.
Did anyone happen to look at the references as well? You will be shocked. I am surprised that any sort of professor or group of doctorate degree holders would not be embarrassed to publish such a scientifically dishonest and poor paper.
P.S. The accuracy of the prediction method means nothing, considering that these authors did the taboo thing of using data from their original subjects to predict the political affiliation of the same subjects. Dumb, dumb, and dumb. Clearly they should have enlisted the help of a statistician or mathematician.
Of course, there is the possibility that I am reading it entirely wrong (although I have read the paper more than once). If I am, then I am not objecting to the fact I may be wrong. I just thought it was curious what I mentioned above.
- as for the OWS folks here in Toronto - they are "basically" white - as are most of the videos on Youtube elsewhere. 
