Some times you can even pick up interesting bits from Michelle Malkin. For instance, here she points to another one of those liberals-are-from-the-neocortex-conservatives-are-from-the-limbic-system sociology studies:
The liberals and conservatives in this study are not radically different species, at least when it comes to sleep and dreaming. People of both political persuasions share a common substrate of basic human sleep and dream experience.
* Conservatives sleep more soundly, with fewer dreams. Liberals have more restless sleep and a more active dream life. Conservatives sleep somewhat longer, with better sleep quality; they recall fewer dreams, but report more lucid dreams (especially conservative men). Liberals (particularly liberal women) have worse sleep quality, recall a greater number and variety of dreams, and have more dreams of homosexuality.
* Liberals and conservatives report a roughly equal proportion of bad dreams and nightmares. This is different from my earlier study (using dreams gathered from 1996-2000), when the conservatives had many more nightmarish dreams than the liberals. In the present study (using dreams gathered post-September 11, 2001 to the end of 2004), the conservative frequency of negative dreams is somewhat less, while the liberal frequency is much higher. It appears liberals have become more upset and troubled in their dreams, while conservatives have become less so in theirs.
* The dreams of liberals are more bizarre than the dreams of conservatives. This is consistent with my earlier findings. Liberals have more dreams with unusual, distorted, fantastic elements than conservatives, whose dreams are more likely to portray normal characters, settings, and activities.
This ties in very well with another study that we brought up some time back:
The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.
The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.
Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.
Well, let’s put that idea to the test. Our current president has exactly the sort of unshakable, immune to nuance self-certainty that Dr. Block describes as an insecure defense mechanism. And god knows the president shows plenty of of indicators that he may not be the most emotionally secure person in the world:
After a few speeches, he asked her – coming up the driveway on the way home from one – how his delivery was going over. Terrible, said the forthright wife. George W. drove his Pontiac Bonneville right into the garage wall.
And yep, wouldn’t you know it, he sleeps like a baby.
Maybe this seems a bit unfair. In fact it probably is. Both studies have enough limitations that you should probably take them for entertainment value only. But if Michelle wants to wade into the field of political psychology then I say great, the more the merrier.
BlogReeder
Interesting tidbit about GWB. Why did you have to reach back so far? You know if you go back further, you probably can get dirt on his potty-training.
Zifnab
Ah, Malkin, subtly implying through documented socialogical research that many liberals are fear-drenched crazy people and probably gay. If there’s one thing this study shows, its that – as Mark Twain said it best – “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
ThymeZone
What are the controls which separate the factors that govern the reporting of dreams versus the ones that govern the actual nature of dreams? Since all dreams are self-reported, that would seem to be pretty relevant.
Thus, saying that one group has “normal” dreams really means that the group reports normal dreams, doesn’t it? Unless we have a dream-intercepting machine that can produce objective data about dreams that I’m not aware of yet ……
If the answer is in the links, fine, but I hoped that somebody would just know the answer.
I dreamed that Michelle Malkin had bunny ears.
Okay. What was his blood alcohol level?
capelza
Hmmm..does Michelle know that the limbic part of the brain is the paleo or proto-mammalian part of the brain…sort of reptilian. :P
If I was her I might not be pushing that too hard.
AWJ
Well, don’t the “community” over at LGF proudly call themselves “lizard minions”?
ramb
Dreaming is a disease. Liberal, being evil, are, of course, going to dream more than Conservatives who have not chosen to serve Lucifer. Women are evil from the beginning, so they will tend to service Lucifer more and, yes, most women are homosecuals-they look at each other’s fashions alot more than men.
Dreams are from Lucifer who is a psychopath about what is left of humans; so dreaming was compressed into REM so we would’nt have to put up with it(although one has to wonder who made the deal beyond our natural ability to avoid abuse). Concerns about what is in the dream are not important, unless lucifer’s servants are working on a similar theme, like 9/11. The more they see, the more they choose to believe, and I’ll be damned if it happens: So, seeing with your eyes closed can be called alot of things, but some things can’t be dreams and nightmares. So, no, we don’t need Lucifer.
The common substrate is a disease. Lucifer created this disease and gave it to humans. At that time we began to become less human; like Lucifer who is not. Basic human sleep and dream experince is a study of a disease. It was not a basic experience for human before Lucifer damned humans. Yes, we are starting to become less human and, yes, one might say this is how Lucifer works the planet earth, not that he could have gone somewhere else, but, yes, he’s a psycho either way.
RSA
Okay, that’s enough to call the summary into question right there. I can’t imagine anything more bizarre.
Par R
That study from earlier this year out of California was interesting. However, the results from the Fall 2004 Journal of Developmental and Aberrant Behavior were even more interesting, and somewhat contradictory of the Berkeley study results. This study covered the childrens’ lives from the mid-1950s into the early 2000’s, and found, for example, that children that grow up to become “liberals” are almost always bedwetters below the age of ten; they also tended to treat animals very badly, often leading to premature deaths of many puppies and kittens. However, one finding that wasn’t surprising, at least not to me, was the rather remarkable correlation that was found between these “young liberals” and adult liberals…namely, their tendency to become, or very actively support, unusual people and causes, such as Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, and Joseph Stalin. Go figure.
Tsulagi
BlogReeder is correct, you don’t have to go back that far.
Remember his SOTU lie about Saddam acquiring uranium from Niger, then later the Republican spin it was okay because it was only sixteen words. While in Africa, a Nazi appeasing foreign press asked a few times about the lie. He got frustrated, stamped his little feet, and in now presidential fashion whined “Well, the CIA said I could say it.”
The Other Steve
Talk about the fruitcake calling the cake fruity.
Par R
Tsulagi says:
That was no lie. The actual remarks made reference to a British report, and this has been confirmed many times, including by the 9/11 Commission.
Tsulagi, you need to do a little research before sitting down at the keyboard and punching out your latest brain farts.
Sojourner
I so enjoy watching the righties make up their own science. It’s far more convenient than the real thing.
ThymeZone
Michelle Malkin is actually rather appealing with bunny ears.
And … where is the uranium that represented the big mushroom cloud threat, again?
Where, exactly, is the actual uranium? Can somebody give me an actual timeline of the uranium’s path to Iraq and track it to the present day?
Thanks.
BlogReeder
I’m still confused about why that story about the crash has anything to do with someone not being emotionally secure. Here’s the paragraph right before:
I think he lost that bid for congress.
Par R
Sojourner says:
I must admit that I largely agree with one aspect of this comment, namely, that the results of both studies are probably little more than one big crock, not altogether different than what one finds in most so-called “psychological studies.”
bud
Par R. hit it. The original Berkeley “study” that Tim finds so reassuring was thoroughly debunked, and I have no doubt that the opposing “study” will be as well.
To quote someone: “Any disipline with the word “Science” in it, isn’t.”
Tim F.
The Uranium was in Tuwaitha, among other places. Saddam hardly needed to purchase Uranium when he had plenty of his own, both in the ground and above it. Bush’s assertion was doubly inane in that is was both false and ridiculous considering what we already knew.
RSA
Who needs science when one already knows The Truth?
Tsulagi
Par, you really need to get some oxygen to the brain. I suggest spending less time deep throating Bushy and his boys. Clear the passageways.
Basically, the way it went down was Cheney’s butt boy Stephen Hadley in the NSC, knowing full well the Niger claim was bogus, pressured his CIA counterpart to get the lie in. They wanted CIA to sign off on the SOTU address. The CIA guy said no, it’s bullshit.
In true Cheney fashion, Hadley kept coming back and coming back trying to parse what could be said. Finally, using the admin’s 1% truth standard, Hadley came up with the version of “the British said…” CIA guy caved.
Here’s a little bit of the story at a warm and fuzzy source for you. Notice how Hadley in this Fox News tidbit steps up to the plate: “”I should have recalled (the issue) at the time of the State of the Union address. … If I had done so, it would have avoided the entire current controversy.”
Gee, he forgot CIA and State thought it was bogus. What to do with someone like that? The course is clear. Promote him to full National Security Advisor! Just hope his memory improves while in that role.
Here’s a time line of the bullshit the president took responsibility for by saying “Well, the CIA said I could say it.” Ahhh…the wonder of 1% solutions.
Par R
The following from the respected Financial Times is for the benefit of the knows-absolutely-nothing-about-absolutely-anything, Tsulagi:
“Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.
“These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
“The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales – apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein’s regime – were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.
“But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.”
There are numerous other authoritative sources that support those 16 words included in the President’s SOTU address, including the work of the 9/11 Commission.
ThymeZone
I am looking for the sources that show that there was an actual threat represented by any actual nuclear capability, which would have justified a war begun before the completion of inspections and apparently without regard to the early findings of ongoing inspections.
You are making a lawyer’s argument (and doing it as a craphead spoof who is apparently talking from a Kool Aid hot tub while you are doing it). The country didn’t support war based on a lawyerly argument, it supported war out of real fear of a real threat which DID NOT EXIST.
Tsulagi
While funny in a weird sort of way, Par, you need to stop the flirting. Doesn’t work for me. Ken Mehlman is more your type. Maybe you can convince him to end that ban on gay marriage nonsense.
So even if The-Buck-Will-Never-Stop-Here Bushtard knows it is false, if his dog Barney barks telling him there is a scary terrorist in Cleveland, it’s okay to preemptively nuke that city, right? Sure. Then later if anyone says WTF, he can be the president he is and simply say “Well, Barney said I could say it.”
Richard 23
The same study showed that conservatives start wetting the bed around age 20.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
“That study from earlier this year out of California was interesting. However, the results from the Fall 2004 Journal of Developmental and Aberrant Behavior were even more interesting, and somewhat contradictory of the Berkeley study results.”
I so enjoy watching the righties make up their own science.
Indeed – the OCLC doesn’t have a record of a “Journal of Developmental and Aberrant Behavior” Further, that title doesn’t show up on Google.
I suppose it is possible that we’re talking about an important peer-reviewed journal that no-one on the Internet and no-one in the largest global cooperative library system has ever heard about – but I doubt it.
Wingnuts make shit up.