Yeah, because the possibility that the entire range of post-modern social science might actually be invalid from top to bottom is just un-possible. I mean, it’s not like entire communities of well-respected social scientists have ever promoted pseudo-science for political gain.

It’s all dressed up in scientific jargon & in the past(not so much now) has been mentioned in some scientific venues & that’s good enough for Anon.

to this:

I’m having to amend my first impressions of SDO. After reading some criticisms my first feeling was that the concept of using SDO to flog conservatives was “petering out.” I should have held off with that opinion because now that I’ve had 2 more days of research I have discovered that SDO studies that attempt to link SDO to negative social traits are entrenched & numerous.

After that the argument gets silly.

Lacking omniscience of the subject, I couldn’t say. I was merely noting something that didn’t seem to add up: you indicating that he has something that warranted a rebuttal, and then never actually offering a rebuttal. That wouldn’t add up, would it?

So where does the argument go from there? They attack the source of the SDO studies, those corrupt folks in higher education and their witless conspiracy. That, as the saying goes, is “moving the goalposts.” I was (am) interested in talking about personality theory, and possibly the effects of echo chambers and media balkanization on the health of debate and civil society. But I didn’t (and don’t) want to entertain the silly direction that argument was headed.

Wait, were you the same anon that said “Good rebuttal. I’ll reply Wednesday afternoon/evening.” then completely disappeared from the debate?

I’m sure that you’ve concluded by now that all right-wingers are blood thirsty fascists and you’ve surely read plenty of “literature” filled with “facts” that bolsters your view.

and this …

In short, you can be an ideological baby, continually flinging verbal feces at people who are actually struggling to deal with the “adult” world. *That* is why we ignore you and not out of any misguided moral failings.

… were addressed in a post and accompanying thread earlier in the spring.

The only informed rebuttal to the SDO findings I brought forward came from Brad, who eventually retreated to an irrational position of dismissing social science — the field — of bias. You can’t make the sweeping “psychological” assessment of the left consisting of children rebelling against their parents, while dismissing the body of SDO research (and, by extension, the entire peer review structure behind it) that’s drawing far more rigorous arguments about the personality attributes on the right.