Scientific studies show conservatives are shallow thinkers

[Atheon]

This studdy is bullsheeit. I is a conservitive but I is SMRT! I is a deep thinkur! Cus I bleive in JUSUS! Bibble sez it, I bleive it, that settlse it. Guns! Amurrika!

[PopeyesPappy]

Then no peer-reviewed study is meaningful, is it?

False.

I have not seen any publication include the reviewer's comments when publishing research findings.

Then you haven't looked very hard. For example the advanced search function at PubMed includes a review filter. Another example is Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union.

The meaning comes from reading the published study and determining the quality of the research and findings.

This is true but unfortunately most people including scientists aren't equipped to make that kind of a determination in areas outside their field of expertise on a reliable basis. Most journals have a pre-publication process of some type, but that process is usually very limited in scope. Because of those limitations flawed research gets published on a regular basis. Much of the time flaws aren't discovered until after publication. It took twelve years for the Wakefield paper linking vaccines to autism to be withdrawn by the publisher. This despite serious criticisms that began almost immediately after publication. The damn thing is still being cited today by people that don't know the paper was debunked.

In any case my point was not that peer reviewed publications are useless. Rather that any time a publication reaches a controversial conclusion it is best to see what other experts have to say about it before accepting the findings as fact.

[Light Craftsman]

You make some good points, but skipped this at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics:

The process of peer review and publication in the interactive scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) differs from traditional scientific journals. It is a two-stage process involving the scientific discussion forum Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD), and it has been designed to utilize the full potential of the Internet to foster scientific discussion and enable rapid publication of scientific papers.

Initial access peer review assures the basic scientific and technical quality of papers published in ACPD. Subsequent interactive discussion and public commenting by the referees, authors, and other members of the scientific community is expected to enhance quality control for papers published in ACP beyond the limits of the traditional closed peer review.

Emphasis added.

I agree about most people not being able to vet subjects outside their area of expertise, and that why follow-up studies are important.No one study or experiment proves anything. If these are the only studies showing conservatives are, on average, less educate and less inclined to think dee-ly about complex subjects they would be mildly interesting at best, but as others have noted the studies linked in the article agree with other studies. I have also seen many real-world examples of the shallow thinking pervasive in conservative circles.

We all have biases. Many of us work to overcome our biases and try to remain open-minded about our beliefs. Looking back on it I should not have used the flawed article as the basis for my post; I should have gone straight to the studies and posted my own reflections. I have to admit to laziness on that. I apologize and will strive to do better in the future.

[Solitary]

  They actually had to do a study to find this out? What's that say about the people that did the study? Look at Sarah Palin, for example, excellent memory and probably got straight A's in school, and to talk without a script that is even close to being coherent. I take that back, she doesn't even have a good memory either. Solitary

[GSOgymrat]

We all have biases. Many of us work to overcome our biases and try to remain open-minded about our beliefs. Looking back on it I should not have used the flawed article as the basis for my post; I should have gone straight to the studies and posted my own reflections. I have to admit to laziness on that. I apologize and will strive to do better in the future.

I admit to laziness in not initially viewing the links in the article but the author of the article was so self-satisfied that I couldn't take him seriously. The topic itself is interesting and I think the following is a pretty good article discussing the research: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/