This is really interesting, but I am not sold on the strength of the methodology. Even if drug attitudes are better-predicted by sex attitudes than by self-reported political conservatism, there's a lot of potential confounders we don't know about.
For example, sex attitudes may just be standing in as a more accurate proxy for underlying social conservatism. Direct political self-identification is less than reliable because it is frequently rehearsed, and its connections to underlying attitudes are contingent and subject to change. The public power of labels like "liberal" and "conservative" actually makes them less scientifically useful. I haven't read the paper, so I can't say quite how important these objections are.
You guys are overreacting to some of the language in the post. You've become obsessed with what you see as evo-psych overreaching and are having trouble seeing what's interesting about these findings. I'm not sure you even read the abstract.
« Older Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) are registe... | Joe Janes is a writer, directo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt