It’s been pointed out that there were fewer speeches from Republican candidates to black audiences. But the study suggests to me a possible explanation. Republicans simply speak to audiences without regard to race. They don’t have a habit of targeting black or white audiences.
How does this change the responses in the experiments meant to broaden applicability?
Can you show which part of the study led you to that explanation?
To me, and the other 2 statisticians I showed this to today at work, it spoke to the credibility and integrity of the person running the study.
The cynical me says they removed Clinton’s second run and HRCs run because it didn’t jive with their preconceived notion, wherein they were already predicting a liberal downshift.
You’re trying to argue that now testing prelim date against a more inclusive group, somehow invalidates the responses of the experiments?
Read that sentence again. I said to me. Liberals were found to address black differently then whites.
As were conservatives. Again, you did actually open it right? Here, I gotchu fam.
Ironically, 3 of the following 4 studies (if we’re to believe the methodology), demonstrate that conservatives downshift language to other white people.
I will have to forgo the authority of your anon statisticians and give the benefit of the doubt to a researcher whose study made it into the APA’s journal.
Um, Why do I see a large negative shift for Democrats?
Edit: Is not the only negative downshift for competency among the Democrats?
You do, in the pre prepared speeches of 3 old white guys.
As do you with the conservatives, in the pre prepared speeches of 4 more old white guys, despite how hard it was to even find the speeches (since they couldn’t find a single one for Trump or GW)
Yup, whereas conservatives saw a negative downshift for competency AND warmth.
Wait, hold up. The only negative in competency is on the Democrats. And a large one at that. I don’t see what you’re proving for your argument. It seems to make mine and the author’s.
As in, the Republicans still spoke with more competency to black than Democrats. The democrats actually came out negative, by a solid bit.
You don’t see the drop from ~.75 to ~.20 in the first graph? Wot? A decrease of .55
Libs ~.05 to ~-.60? A decrease of .65?
They’re still coming up positive! The Democrats are actually scoring negative…By a hefty bit.
Bowing out again. When you don’t even understand what the metrics mean it’s real rough on my end.
Don’t do that.
Eh it’s for my sanity. I’ll leave this one with this though. If this study is accurate, and its conclusion about liberals is to be believed, not only did we see almost as large of a downward shift in GOP pols towards minorities, but the following studies go on to demonstrate that conservatives negatively downshift towards whites just as much (and in some cases more).
There’s just a laundry list of reasons this is bunk, despite how much you seem to want to praise the author after being in a recent thread talking about how easy and horrible journal publications can be
Yeah, but that served my purpose at the time.
No, but seriously. I don’t think I impugned academic journals in general. That’s not my position. I feel confident that I pretty much kept it to whatever journals had been duped by the admittedly fabricated papers.
Could this also be fabricated? Or, a “garbage fire?” Seems like this particular journal would be a serious scalp on their belt… I don’t think it’s so easy to question this particular journal. But, maybe I need to go back to the other thread to see if this specific journal fell for a queer-something-or-other-in-urban-dog-park-study…
I’m out for that night.
Also, I don’t think I’m praising the author. Seems like a liberal who ended up disappointed with the outcome.
This was the predicted outcome. The study states it explicitly.