Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To a lib, it's acceptable to lie, distort the truth and make stuff up, as long as it helps further their agenda, it's worked well for the man-made global warming scam all these years.
I am sure that a lot of people are going to take pause with this because it is coming from Rush Limbaugh. But taking the story on it's face, this doesn't surprise me (if it is true). For some people, the truth is the same as a lie if it accomplishes thier purpose. Reality is self-made.
This is no surprise, but I don't see what meat really has to do with liberals. The reason this doesn't surprise me is there is a lack of actual science being done in the field of Psychology. Too often it is mixed with humanistic or, true, political aims. Many people get into the field for those very reasons. I say this as a student studying Psychology at an Ivy League university. Many who enter the field of Psychology are not that interested in science or maintaining its rigorous standards. I've met many people who sign up for Psychology in Freshman year only to be shocked that *gasp* they have to do actual science. It is the idea of popular Psychology, with its vast array of misinformation, distortion, and anti-science methods that lead to people embracing this idea. Also, the very real pseudo-scientific past of Psychology, which begets the image of Psychology as a discipline handed down from Freudian Psycho-analysis, coupled with the exploitation of it by post-modernists, New Age people, the spiritualists, the self-help people, and many others with anti-science views that sully the field.
I despise Psychology, and again this is coming from a student majoring in Psychology. The very reason I am going into Psychology is so I can hope to set an example AGAINST the likes of Diederik Stapel. Psychology is a relatively new field--especially Social Psychology, which has only been around since the 50s--which is ripe for development and influence. Too bad we get so many of the likes of Diederik Stapel within the field that it tends to spoil it. A lot of research is entirely questionable regarding both proper experiment conduct and Ad Hoc conclusions.
I am not disappointed, for I never would have thought otherwise. People happened to embrace Jacques Lacan as well. That should tell you everything you need to know about the state of Psychology.
I would also like to say that I'm entirely disappointed that many who surrounded Mr. Stapel were completely blind to the fact that he was doing this, despite it being entirely blatant. Any scientist worth his or her salt would have quickly caught onto what this man was doing. I will state this right here and now: the majority of those who go into any field very much follow a status quo and fall directly into line. It is not a liberal thing, nor is it a conservative thing. The majority on both sides of the imaginary line that so many people continue to draw are very alike despite what may seem like opposing viewpoints. Yes, the viewpoints are different, but they emerge from the same condition. My viewpoints would commonly have me labeled a "liberal", but I do not put any faith in the average liberal to properly arrive at a sound conclusion, nor should anybody else for any peer they happen to be grouped with. Critical thinking is above bipartisanship and loyalty. Political parties, and therefore their ideas, are merely transient, while critical thinking transcends time. I will forever side with critical thinking.
This situation involving Mr. Stapel is very much a lesson to be learned for students, faculty, and the non-academics alike.
For the record, I remember the vegetarian/meat eater study and I remember it being quite dodgy. I can say that about more than one prominent study out there. I really wouldn't doubt it for many of them. A lot of Psychology is dodgy and inconclusive i.e. a waste of time and resources.
I'm curious... what makes you label this guy a liberal? Looking at his publications list there is no indication one way or the other. And for what its worth... he never pu8blished a paper on selfish meat eaters at all.
I'm curious... what makes you label this guy a liberal? Looking at his publications list there is no indication one way or the other. And for what its worth... he never pu8blished a paper on selfish meat eaters at all.
You would be correct in that he didn't publish it; however, this didn't stop them from releasing this sentiment into the wild where places like Animal Liberation Front picked up on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
