A retraction to end all retractions.

When I think about my career, scientific investigation was a large part of it. Therefore, analyzing where researchers go wrong in their analyses has been a significant part of that process. The following “mistake” is almost laughable. No, I take that back. It is hysterically laughable. If you ever had the pleasure of seeing a Gilda Radner skit as Emily Littela, this was a classic, “Oh, that’s very different. Never mind.” (Emily was an elderly woman commentator for a news program. But she was hard of hearing.)

[Source: Epic correction of the decade, by Steven Hayward]

Researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University published a paper in the American Journal of Political Science entitled  “Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies.” They concluded that:

  • conservatives are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism
  • the “authoritarian” personality of conservatives had a genetic basis

They implied that “conservatism” might be a “treatable” mental aberration. So what’s your point, Dr. Filly? My point is that the researchers made a slight error. Get ready to enjoy one of the most epic academic face plants of all time.

Here are some quotes from the manuscript:

Here we test the causal relationship between personality traits and political attitudes using a direction of causation structural model on a genetically informative sample. The results suggest that personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes; rather, the correlation between the two is a function of an innate common underlying genetic factor

In line with our expectations… “Psychoticism” is associated with social conservatism and conservative military attitudes… (Psychoticism’s) link with social conservatism is stronger for females while its link with military attitudes is stronger for males. (While) those higher in Social Desirability are… more likely to express socially liberal attitudes.

OK, say you. So what was the “mistake?” The mistake, answer I, is that the researchers inadvertently transposed the data sets for “liberals” and “conservatives.” Here is a portion of the retraction:

The authors regret that there is an error in the published version of “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies” ... The interpretation of the coding of the political attitudes… in the manuscript was exactly reversed… Thus, where we indicated that higher scores… reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically… we… reported that those higher in psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in… social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.

OMG! Liberals loved to report the “original” findings of this research. I wonder how they will deal with the retraction?

Roy Filly



About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A retraction to end all retractions.

  1. Anne Malcolm says:

    To answer your question, they won’t deal with it. They will ignore it as the drive-bys they are. The damage was done, now onto the next (conservative) target, which it seems it that guns are causing Muslims to attack. I wish, just once someone would ask Hillary/Obama if we made civilian ownership of guns illegal, in other words just overturned the 2A, would Muslim attacks cease? How about bombs? Shouldn’t we make bombs illegal? Oh, wait.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s