1. How do know the sample was "dramatically different racially from the general population"?
2. What is your evidence that they "actively concealed" this information?
3. They get the same results for a general community sample.
4. Your consistently invalid critiques reveal an emotional grasping at straws to find an excuse to blind yourself to the studies implications, thus its your credibility in question.
There is a valid critique of the interpretation of the statistical results, but I'll wait to see if your bias to harp on any flaw can lead you to a valid point.
Did you not read my immediately previous post on the composition of the student body at UCI?
55.7% Asian, 20.4% Hispanic, 17.5% White is not a normal racial distribution. Unless the Freshman taking the general Psychology course are by some miracle more in line with the racial composition of the general population than the UCI student population as a whole, that's enough of a wrench in the works to keep you from extrapolating that the liberal and conservative populations of the nation as a whole exhibit the behavior of the student body for 1a.
The student body also comes mostly from Southern California with the Bay Area coming in second. We know less about the composition of the non-student sample, taken from "a public area in Southern California", but it's a fair guess that the single place was somewhere in Orange County.
OC has a White population of 44%, 33.7% Hispanic, 17.9% Asian.
It's my understanding that Orange County communities are somewhat self-segregated racially, so the location of that single public place makes a pretty big difference when it comes to what sort of a sample of respondents they got. 80 people who show up at a public place in
Huntingdon Valley are going to be pretty different La Palma. It's a pretty big variance from the country as a whole anyway to the US as a whole even IF the sample conformed to the population of Orange County as a whole. Note also that Orange County
Whites are very conservative by California standards.
Great, but in no way did the "actively conceal" that their sample was different from the population. They merely did not report the ethnic demographics, but they also went out of their way to get a non-college sample that would be much older, less Asian.
I actually have no problem with the conclusion that Liberal students at UCI and inhabitants of Orange County are more likely to see Whites as disposable than Blacks, but this would be because they are poor and Asian and Hispanic, and therefore have a constant experience of Whites dicking them over.
First, the % Hispanics at UCI is pretty close to the their national % among those identifying as "liberal" . Its really only Asians who are over-represented and whites under-represented. IT is likely that Asians are on average stronger in anti-black racism than white "liberals". Thus, the effects in the study are more likely to be stronger among samples of mostly white liberals.
Second, Asian-Americans in general and UCI students in particular are not "poor" compared to the US population overall. Students at 4-year state Universities are generally from higher than average national income levels. And UCI is a highly competitive school that rejects 60% of applicants and most people are admitted with a high school gpa above 4.0 (they take honors courses to get it that high), 4 years of math, and SAT scores above the 75th percentile. All of these variables are positively correlated with parental education, income, and other SES factors. IOW, the "liberal" minorities in the UCI samples come from backgrounds closer to that of liberal whites more generally and their own minority group.
In addition, and once again, the ethnic make-up of the region in general is very different an much more white than that of UCI, and yet there was no difference in the results between student and non-student samples. Thus, the political ideology results are not significantly tied which race the liberals are representing. As always, more replication with more samples is important, but claiming the study has "zero credibility" is as irrational and unscientific as saying its infallible and definitive proof.
The conclusion that Conservatives as a whole are race blind based on the comparatively affluent Whites in the Conservative sample for the UCI student body and Orange County is ridiculous.
This is a critique I agree with. The "Kill whitey" results are likely to hold for white liberals in general, but the "even handed" judgment of the conservatives is not likely to hold among conservatives more generally. But this is not because of race of the sample, but rather because the sample does not include many actual conservatives even by it own method of measuring. In all samples, the mean political ideology score was to the "liberal" side of the true midpoint of the scale. Only people significantly to the right of the midpoint of the scale are actual ideological conservatives. In study 1b, the mean on a 7 point scale where 4 was the midpoint was 3.5. Their analyses of "conservatives was for people only 1 standard deviation above that mean, which is probably about a score of 4.5, which is as barely conservative as one could be without being liberal. In contrast, the "liberals" were at 1 deviation below that mean, which is about 2.5, which is pretty liberal. Note in their Figure 1 (right hand side), their are only 20 people out of 176 (11%) with an ideology of above a 5 out of 7. Thus very few actual conservatives. Also, look at the results for people with an ideology score of 5, which is at least moderately conservative. The regression line shows the statistically estimated avg scores for those people. The "Tyrone" line is way above the "Chip" line at that point and the difference is larger then the reverse difference for even the most extreme liberals. That difference means that those actual conservatives are more likely to throw Tyrone under the trolley than chip. They are showing anti-black bias. Most researchers of this topic are out to show how racist white people are and this is actually better than 90% of studies posted here claiming to show racism. Their stat methods are not wrong, but their interpretation is. They didn't take into account the actual meaning of their own measurement scale and that "above the sample mean" can still be slightly liberal or just independent and not actually conservative.
The only people being "even handed in their samples were those near the midpoint of the scale. Strong libs and conservs were biased in opposite directions.
If you were to repeat the experiment in an area with a relatively high White population that is comparatively Liberal, like Vermont, I doubt you'd see the same enthusiasm for "killing Whitey".
You'd likely see as or more enthusiasm for killing whitey among white liberals than among Orange County Asian liberals.
What their methods miss is what is true among most white conservatives, which their own data graphs suggests is anti-black bias in killing Tyrone.
Sure you could enhance or reduce the effect with select samples, but it isn't at all surprising that many liberals, including whites, would go out of their way not to sacrifice Tyrone. This is just one of many studies (other specifically on white participants) showing "liberal guilt" and willingness to be biased in favor of a minority over a white hypothetical person. I
