Update on the ‘whiny conservatives survey’

This is just getting better and better by the minute! Michelle Malkin has the scoop – thanks to an anonymous poster – of just where those 95 kids in the survey monitored over 20 years came from. My question is: how many of ’em will eventually end up blogging at Daily Kos?

15 Responses to "Update on the ‘whiny conservatives survey’"

Stingray says:

March 23, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Michelle kindly posted the actual report on whiny kids grow up to be conservatives to her site last night. I read through every bit of it (it’s social science garbage) and the bit that stuck out the most was that it described conservative boys are “visibly deviant.”

Visibly deviant? What the hell does that mean, especially in a place like Berkeley?

Here’s my post on the subject.

Stingray: a blog for salty Christians
Red Tory says:

March 23, 2006 at 8:53 pm

What “scoop”? This was right in the news article that I read the other week about this highly questionable study.
Lorica says:

March 23, 2006 at 9:12 pm

Survey Says???? Yes who knew all this time that Richard Dawson and the Family Feud was doing studies that equaled what is going on at UC Berkley. I know Richard would be proud. – Lorica
camojack says:

March 23, 2006 at 9:37 pm

Isn’t “whiny conservatives” an oxymoron, anyway?
Jim M says:

March 24, 2006 at 6:18 am

Once again a study by Liberals is found to be a fallacy and all funded by our tax dollars and after all that wasted time and money we find out that liberals are still whinny.
Severian says:

March 24, 2006 at 9:16 am

This is one of the prime reasons I have little to no respect for the “soft” sciences like psychology and sociology. Fuzzy thinking presented as if it were rigorous research. Subjective standards presented like they were hard and fast, provable quantification of facts.

When I was in college, I was dating a sociology major, who was minoring in psych. I remember one evening in her dorm room, she was working on some homework, and just couldn’t make progress. She was burned out, too many classes, too little relaxation, she was way overloaded. I obviously wanted to get her finished so we could go out. She had to read 6 different articles and write up the sociological significance of each one. She’d completed reading and writing a one or two paragraph article summary. I asked her if she wanted help. After her insulting me by saying physics majors only know how to stick numbers in equations (no dear, that’s the engineers, the physicists use mathematics as the language of natural philosophy, we’re taught how to think), she finally said why not, she was not going to be able to do it. So, I sat there, read her summaries, and dictated to her what to write. She turned them in, and got 4 excellents and 2 very goods on her papers, the highest she’d ever gotten. She wouldn’t speak to me for days.

I was able to divine all these deep sociological insights by basically just bullshitting. There was no right or wrong, but it had to sound pretentious and serious. Lost what little respect I had for sociology completely that day.
NC Cop says:

March 24, 2006 at 11:33 am

“I was able to divine all these deep sociological insights by basically just bullshitting. There was no right or wrong, but it had to sound pretentious and serious.”

Sounds like my four years in college!!! I was a political science major, ya know!
sanity says:

March 24, 2006 at 1:00 pm

I don’t know, the left seems a bit whiny in themselves.

I followed a link back from someone who visited my blog on the saddam paper release and found they had used a link back to my post on the ABC story, and instead of actually discussing information of the release, they instead wnat to attack bloggers who comment on it. Talk about head in the sand.

If you want check it out Here

Looks to be mainly a Left leaning area, like I posted on there, like hitting a ball up against a brickwall. I think the analogy was lost on some lol.
Jim M says:

March 24, 2006 at 1:21 pm

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with Barbra Streisand.
sanity says:

March 24, 2006 at 4:26 pm

Remember Jim, they Always have your back, just look here:

We got your back troops!
steve says:

March 24, 2006 at 6:51 pm

sanity, and here is another: The Defense Budget should be cut by $225 billion in 2007. Peace
sanity says:

March 24, 2006 at 10:42 pm

and so should all the give outs that teh Democrats support.

It is not up to the Government to take care of you, it is for hte Government ot Protect you, but not to take care of you.

So you better cut all these programs first before you cut the budget for protecting americans.
Jim M says:

March 25, 2006 at 12:17 am

My God Sanity if they cut those give away programs Steve(FN) would be put out of the nut house and on the street again could you imagine? Walking around with not one logical thought, OOHHhh wait he is doing that now sorry things would not change. Just think how the economy in this country would grow if we could reduce the Imperial Federal Governments budget by 55% which is what we give away every year to leaches. I still challenge any liberal to show me in the United States Constitution where our government has the right to take money that I have earned (At the point of a gun) and give it to someone that will not work. Besides eminent domain the welfare programs are one of my pet peeves both are a travesty and the American public just sits and takes it except for a few of us. Liberals like Steve think this country is great because of the Government I believe this country is great because of individuals contributions the people of this country. Even thought JFK had his faults I will always remember: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”.
steve says:

March 25, 2006 at 10:18 am

It’s referred to as the “general welfare” in the Constitution. It’s in the Preamble. You know all of you Rightwingers should actually read the Constitution and not just pretend you know what’s in it. Peace
Lorica says:

March 25, 2006 at 2:38 pm

Steve You are the one who needs to read the Constitution. Here is the Preamble:

WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It says promote the general welfare, not create a granny state that will take care of you from cradle to grave. You should know that the Founding Fathers did not have a welfare state in mind, if they did then why didn’t they create it 200 years earlier?? – Lorica

Comments are closed.