The Young Conservative: A profile

[TJHairball]

Well first, you completely denied any research process. The normal Ideal process is:

Problem -> Method -> Data collection and analysis -> Support or reject Hypothesis

It seems your main type of study is an Internal state-behavioral study. Meaning the interaction between their beliefs and reported or observed behaviors. You could do well in continuing research on it, as long as it's done scientifically and ethically.

What you fail to do is take a random sampling for your study. You have boths sides of an extreme with no middle ground. Some of your sampled people are a bit unbelievable.

I tried to include a few of my more moderate examples in the ones I detailed for you. Here's how this worked. I took a small batch of ready-at-hand data (on hand for other purposes), and looked it over, spotted what seem to be some nice funny correlations that match up well with the anecdotal evidence I've been hearing about - for example - young Republicans, Southern Baptist youth, etc etc etc. Then I came to you guys with my conclusions and a dozen or so examples out of the hundreds available. I'm not looking to run a rigorous study, just provide the character behind the curtain; if you want studies, I can cite study after study that's already been done that supports all of the individual symptoms that, taken in combination, fit my thesis here: There is a culture of irresponsibility among "conservative" youth.

Frankly, if you find them unbelievable... welcome to the real world. If I included a list of all of them, it would take too long. And probably run over the post length limit here.

You also fail to continue with explaining why you have these people in a research design. You describe them, then completely forget about them.

That's because I'm using these particular people as examples. Since I was particularly looking at conservatives, I mostly included people who had identified themselves as conservative.

Remember, I selected those particular examples out of a few hundred to try and give a representation of the sort of character I discussed. I could write up and post literally hundreds more (which would be the "representative" sampling). What you have here is an illustration.

No, BMJ article: "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials."

Tanking from the Absract because I dont feel like dealing with SAA endnoting.

"Objective: To review the effectiveness of primary prevention strategies aimed at delaying sexual intercourse, improving use of birth control, and reducing incidence of unintended pregnancy in adolescents."

"Conclusions: Primary prevention strategies evaluated to date do not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, improve use of birth control among young men and women, or reduce the number of pregnancies in young women. "

All this article was ment to explain was how our current method isn't working.

BUT, if you look at the data, it shows that the Abstinant only program had the same successes as many of the school/agency based education, negating your claim. That and your automatically assuming that all areas that have abstinance only programs are conservative, when many are in fact not, but following a state mandated curriculum.

That's funny... because when I look at the details, I have no trouble finding what everybody found notable about the study (which is an incidental finding, yes, but those are usually the most interesting bits):

"Four abstinence programmes and one school based sex education programme were associated with an increase in number of pregnancies among partners of young male participants."

Whoops. Guess you didn't read past the abstract.

This, with four abstinence program studies listed in the list of studies. Looking at the details, I find these studies to have been conducted in California, which does not mandate abstinence-only education. The logic therefore holds.

And your other example was a school newspaper... Do I need to inform you about how stupid that is? Columbia University or not, You'd be laughed out of any place, like you are here. When giving sources to back up claims use Scholarly Jounals, not newspaper articles. If you want to get articles use engines like PubMed, Medline, ERIC, NTIS, OCLC, and others. The articles you'll find there are like your BMJ article done by doctors in different fields.

Oh, sorry... try one of the studies inspiring that newspaper article. Which shows, incidentally, that the vast majority of "promise pledges" are broken, and overall STD rates don't differ in the slightest... which means that, given those keeping the pledge being a statistically significant minority, the vast majority (88%) of pledgers breaking the pledge experience an increase in STD risk.

And while you're chewing on that, nibble around on the CAS material I linked to. While the "promise pledge" and abstinence education data show the behavior of "religious conservative" youth, the "secular conservative youth" - the prosperous ones - are indicted incidentally in a number of those studies through their noticable membership in social fraternal organizations... etc etc etc.

The most virtuous of all the "young conservative" groups seem to be a peculiar minority. (TQ would like to call these the "real" conservatives, probably.)

 

[Peter Octavian]

Boy, you've got comprehension problems, don't you sparky?

The point that DL was making(the one which you missed) was that, despite your obvious desire to have your work regarded as not only reputable but scholarly, you've neglected to conduct or document your work by scholarly standards.

....Problem -> Method -> Data collection and analysis -> Support or reject Hypothesis

Your anecdotal responses do not meet even the minimum requirements of scholarship and wouldn't be taken seriously anywhere, not even an internet bulletin board.

Perhaps it's just your purpose to annoy and provoke with your persistent, "I've said it so it must be true. I am a force to be reckoned with," presentation.

In either case, you've passed annoying, and have proceeded well on your way to boring. So, why don't you and your patchouli soaked bretheren go roll yourselves a fatty, pop "Roger and Me" into the dvd player, and trade stories about the (insert scary music here) vast right-wing conspiracy while you wait for the Domino's Delivery guy. Who knows, you might get another "study" out of it.

 

[TJHairball]

Boy, you've got comprehension problems, don't you sparky?

The point that DL was making(the one which you missed) was that, despite your obvious desire to have your work regarded as not only reputable but scholarly, you've neglected to conduct or document your work by scholarly standards.

My "obvious desire?"

You really have trouble reading. I have repeatedly expressed my intentions that my personal evidence on the matter not be considered a "scholarly study."

It's an "inside look." Since you guys want to debate "hard data," I've introduced an assortment of studies which support the qualitative snapshot I've collected.

Unfortunately, since I was too rigorous aod gave too many of the hundreds of examples I could've given, you've chosen to pretend it's a scientific study instead of a good hard personal look at the topic.

Your anecdotal responses do not meet even the minimum requirements of scholarship and wouldn't be taken seriously anywhere, not even an internet bulletin board.

I recommend you take them just as seriously as you take a letter to the editor in which someone complains about driving habits, unsafe drinking practices, or having to pick toilet paper off the trees in their front letter... and believe it just as well.

Perhaps it's just your purpose to annoy and provoke with your persistent, "I've said it so it must be true. I am a force to be reckoned with," presentation.

And I see you've missed where I've been perfectly willing to back up my anecdotal evidence with peer reviewed studies.

Me, I'm honest. You want to ignore the truths I have to tell because you harbor dislike for me? Feel free to shut up and ignore it.

n either case, you've passed annoying, and have proceeded well on your way to boring. So, why don't you and your patchouli soaked bretheren go roll yourselves a fatty, pop "Roger and Me" into the dvd player, and trade stories about the (insert scary music here) vast right-wing conspiracy while you wait for the Domino's Delivery guy. Who knows, you might get another "study" out of it.

Pete, why don't you take your ad hominems to someone who gets a rise out of them? Or roll yourself a joint and chill? Or try to find anything resembling the wealth of studies on various related topics I can cite on a moment's notice to support my thesis?

Me, I won't be smoking any pot tonight... after all, tonight I'm not hanging out with example JB off my list. Ask again in a couple weeks and ye might just receive.

 

[The Question]

Remember, I selected those particular examples out of a few hundred to try and give a representation of the sort of character I discussed.

Precisely the problem we're all trying to get through to you -- the bias in your conclusion couldn't possibly be more obvious than it is when you admit to selective sampling which is based on the conclusion you intend it to support.

The most virtuous of all the "young conservative" groups seem to be a peculiar minority. (TQ would like to call these the "real" conservatives, probably.)

Yes, I would -- just as I refer to auto mechanics who actually perform the function associated with the job title as "real" auto mechanics. You seem to think that everyone who describes themselves as a thing is that thing. You put all the weight on preaching, I put it on the practice.

 

[TJHairball]

Precisely the problem we're all trying to get through to you -- the bias in your conclusion couldn't possibly be more obvious than it is when you admit to selective sampling which is based on the conclusion you intend it to support.

Nice, but my conclusions are based in the first place on the much larger sample I have on hand, which was (although prone to all sorts of biases) not at all selective.

I've simply only appended a handful.

Yes, I would -- just as I refer to auto mechanics who actually perform the function associated with the job title as "real" auto mechanics. You seem to think that everyone who describes themselves as a thing is that thing. You put all the weight on preaching, I put it on the practice.

Because my entire point is about how the preaching is failing to match the practice, TQ.

 

[TJHairball]

(...or more specifically, how the practice of "the preaching" is in effect to construct a failure of the of the practice of those who follow it in certain elements of the stated ideology being preached, given consideration of "the preaching" as construed to the entire culture being sold whole to these young people over television, radio, magazine, film, etc. But you get the point.)

 

[Dark Link]

I tried to include a few of my more moderate examples in the ones I detailed for you. Here's how this worked. I took a small batch of ready-at-hand data (on hand for other purposes), and looked it over, spotted what seem to be some nice funny correlations that match up well with the anecdotal evidence I've been hearing about - for example - young Republicans, Southern Baptist youth, etc etc etc. Then I came to you guys with my conclusions and a dozen or so examples out of the hundreds available. I'm not looking to run a rigorous study, just provide the character behind the curtain; if you want studies, I can cite study after study that's already been done that supports all of the individual symptoms that, taken in combination, fit my thesis here: There is a culture of irresponsibility among "conservative" youth.

Frankly, if you find them unbelievable... welcome to the real world. If I included a list of all of them, it would take too long. And probably run over the post length limit here. That's because I'm using these particular people as examples. Since I was particularly looking at conservatives, I mostly included people who had identified themselves as conservative.

Remember, I selected those particular examples out of a few hundred to try and give a representation of the sort of character I discussed. I could write up and post literally hundreds more (which would be the "representative" sampling).

And in those few statements you go and prove that you were in fact, not trying to create a study or a profile, but a stereotype. You did not take a representative sample, nor random sample for analysis. What you did was, like TQ said, take a selective sample of people who would support your conclusion and use them. There is a name for things like that: Pseudoscience. Your "Scientific profile" is the same as the "Theory of Intelligent Design", which sets a conclusion and gives evidence to support it.

Sorry to tell you, the scientific method doesn't work like that. That is why you have been laughed at and denied any credability.

What you have here is an illustration.That's funny... because when I look at the details, I have no trouble finding what everybody found notable about the study (which is an incidental finding, yes, but those are usually the most interesting bits):

"Four abstinence programmes and one school based sex education programme were associated with an increase in number of pregnancies among partners of young male participants."

Whoops. Guess you didn't read past the abstract.

This, with four abstinence program studies listed in the list of studies. Looking at the details, I find these studies to have been conducted in California, which does not mandate abstinence-only education. The logic therefore holds.

Please dont make me laugh, I'm sore from a swim test.

Did you actully take time and read the article, or did you just look at all the notations in the corners. If you had look at the charts, read some of the data and compared, you would have noticed that the success of Abstinence only programs rivaled some of the School programs.

And by the way, If you're going to quote something, dont pick and choose.

"The results of our systematic review show that primary
prevention strategies do not delay the initiation of
sexual intercourse or improve use of birth control
among young men and women. Metaanalyses showed
no reduction in pregnancies among young women, but
data from five studies, four of which evaluated
abstinence programmes and one of which evaluated a
school based sex education programme, show that
interventions may increase pregnancies in partners of
male participants.


Most of the participants in over half of the studies
in our systematic review were African American or
Hispanic, thus overrepresenting lower socioeconomic
groups. The interventions may be more successful in
other populations. In all but five studies, participants in
the control group received a conventional intervention
rather than no intervention. It is possible that the control
interventions had some effect on the outcomes
and the tested interventions were not potent enough to
exceed this effect. Finally, only eight of the 22 studies
scored over 2 points out of the possible 4 points in the
quality assessment. However, as poor methodological
quality is more often associated with overestimates
than underestimates of treatment effects it is unlikely
that methodological weaknesses can explain the failure
of the interventions to influence the outcomes
measured." (DiCenso, Alba - Guyatt, Gordon - Willan, A - Griffith, L. BMJ v.324, 15 June 2002)


If you're going to engage in an Anthropological battle of wits, make sure the opponent doesn't study it for a living.

 

[Laker_Girl]

All are completely real. I've known these people, and many more like them. I have no need to identify them individually.

People are interchangable, that's what you're saying then? Because I know a lot of tree hugging Democrats with white children named Nelson that more closely resemble how you describe the Republicans in your opinion piece.

I'm a typical Republican. I grew up with money but my parents did not. My parents stressed the importance of religion and attending church but after my parents discovered Sunday golf I was on my own and went all by myself for years. I don't drink, don't smoke and I pay my taxes. I donate money to charity and time when I can. I've never lied under oath, I have smoked marajuana and I did inhale and in my reckless youth I drove drunk more than once. I work hard, play hard and love my family and God and judging by our president, I'd say there are a lot more Republicans out there like me than you'd like to believe.

Just normal, every day people tired of the people that don't personal responsibility for their lives.

 

[TJHairball]

And in those few statements you go and prove that you were in fact, not trying to create a study or a profile, but a stereotype. You did not take a representative sample, nor random sample for analysis. What you did was, like TQ said, take a selective sample of people who would support your conclusion and use them. There is a name for things like that: Pseudoscience. Your "Scientific profile" is the same as the "Theory of Intelligent Design", which sets a conclusion and gives evidence to support it.

Correction: I've used stereotypes to discuss how certain bits of this profile are "commonly accepted" as fact.

I see you did not read at all where I mentioned that my entire non-selective sample supports my conclusion.

Did you actully take time and read the article, or did you just look at all the notations in the corners. If you had look at the charts, read some of the data and compared, you would have noticed that the success of Abstinence only programs rivaled some of the School programs.

"Rivaling some" = "inferior to most."

And by the way, If you're going to quote something, dont pick and choose.

"The results of our systematic review show that primary
prevention strategies do not delay the initiation of
sexual intercourse or improve use of birth control
among young men and women. Metaanalyses showed
no reduction in pregnancies among young women, but
data from five studies, four of which evaluated
abstinence programmes and one of which evaluated a
school based sex education programme, show that
interventions may increase pregnancies in partners of
male participants.


Most of the participants in over half of the studies
in our systematic review were African American or
Hispanic, thus overrepresenting lower socioeconomic
groups. The interventions may be more successful in
other populations. In all but five studies, participants in
the control group received a conventional intervention
rather than no intervention. It is possible that the control
interventions had some effect on the outcomes
and the tested interventions were not potent enough to
exceed this effect. Finally, only eight of the 22 studies
scored over 2 points out of the possible 4 points in the
quality assessment. However, as poor methodological
quality is more often associated with overestimates
than underestimates of treatment effects it is unlikely
that methodological weaknesses can explain the failure
of the interventions to influence the outcomes
measured." (DiCenso, Alba - Guyatt, Gordon - Willan, A - Griffith, L. BMJ v.324, 15 June 2002)

If you're going to engage in an Anthropological battle of wits, make sure the opponent doesn't study it for a living.

So?

There is plenty of room for doubt in social studies. Each little piece of evidence, though, is suggesting (a) no particular decrease and (b) a possible increase in irresponsible behavior in the generalized group. "May cause an increase in teenage pregnancies" is certainly something worth taking seriously and running further studies on.

Which is to say nothing about how the stereotypes about, for example, "Greek" college students is borne out by the statistics.

 

[TJHairball]

People are interchangable, that's what you're saying then? Because I know a lot of tree hugging Democrats with white children named Nelson that more closely resemble how you describe the Republicans in your opinion piece.

And what I meant was... you have no need to know their name or any identifying information beyond the anonymous digits I placed for their name. Otherwise, I would do many of them grave injustice. Particularly if I posted up the hundreds more that I could show you.

So what if you think you know some Nelsons who act that way? I've said there's not too much difference in behavior by political affiliation among the young.

I'm a typical Republican. I grew up with money but my parents did not. My parents stressed the importance of religion and attending church but after my parents discovered Sunday golf I was on my own and went all by myself for years. I don't drink, don't smoke and I pay my taxes. I donate money to charity and time when I can. I've never lied under oath, I have smoked marajuana and I did inhale and in my reckless youth I drove drunk more than once. I work hard, play hard and love my family and God and judging by our president, I'd say there are a lot more Republicans out there like me than you'd like to believe.

I'm not saying that there aren't... particularly in your generation. Your peers' children, however, grew up with money, and so did (for the most part) their parents; it is now their grandparents (sometimes great-grandparents) who experienced the Depression; their parents never knew want, growing up after the war that realigned the global economy...

...and, as a matter of fact, many of the young Republican men I've talked to promise (loudly and apparently sincerely) to be upstanding citizens once they've settled down. In the mean time, they feel obliged to be wild. You may note the young couples I used as examples.

Take LG. Although he does not get along well with LH's parents and reacts strongly against their beliefs at times, he - when asked - considers himself substantially reformed since he began his relationship with LH. When I talked to him, he said he's about a 60% better man now. He used to go out and party and get drunk off his ass... now he usually just has a couple beers. He used to be interested in having sex all the time with whoever crossed his path... but now he regrets not staying a virgin. At least, that's what he claimed, I didn't exactly have all of these people under observation for years on end.

Etc etc etc. The notion of promised reformation after the wild days of youth is critical to this culture.

Just normal, every day people tired of the people that don't personal responsibility for their lives.

And as far as I'm concerned, so-called "conservatives" have been exercising irresponsibility on a grand scale, however much they may talk about personal responsibility. But that's more between us and the party leadership than anything else.

 

[Dark Link]

Correction: I've used stereotypes to discuss how certain bits of this profile are "commonly accepted" as fact.

I see you did not read at all where I mentioned that my entire non-selective sample supports my conclusion.
"Rivaling some" = "inferior to most."

So?

There is plenty of room for doubt in social studies. Each little piece of evidence, though, is suggesting (a) no particular decrease and (b) a possible increase in irresponsible behavior in the generalized group. "May cause an increase in teenage pregnancies" is certainly something worth taking seriously and running further studies on.

Which is to say nothing about how the stereotypes about, for example, "Greek" college students is borne out by the statistics.

So you basically just admitted that your entire "profile" is a gigantic stereotype of emense proportions and that you are using that stereotype to push a non-valid argument. Then, you flip flop on everything you said previously, trying to save any credibility you might have once had.

It's not a profile, it's a bunch of bullshit stacked high.

 

[TJHairball]

So you basically just admitted that your entire "profile" is a gigantic stereotype of emense proportions and that you are using that stereotype to push a non-valid argument. Then, you flip flop on everything you said previously, trying to save any credibility you might have once had.

No, and I'll take that as an admission that you can't read, since I already addressed that very claim in the very post you quoted:

Correction: I've used stereotypes to discuss how certain bits of this profile are "commonly accepted" as fact.

And what's a stereotype? Something commonly accepted in public perception about a group.

Which, in this particular case (I noted the stereotype of "greeks" as party animals) happens to be borne out in a number of respectable studies as a very real statistical tendency of the group.

It's not a profile, it's a bunch of bullshit stacked high.

The only bullshit stacked high here is yours. Your only remaining objection to my conclusions is one I've already addressed in spades.

For that matter, it's an objection based on what is, effectively speaking, a small side-note in the original post.

(And PS... it's not spelled "emense," but "immense." FYI. While you're piling your BS higher with extraneous adjectives, please spell them correctly for the readers' sake.)