The scientific method is for suckers

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin:

[A] study, which was presented at a conference held by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal or anywhere else for that matter. But that didn't stop the Post from trumpeting: "Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases"...

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats...

This information should be included in any MSM article about the study. Why didn't the Washington Post report the details of the scientists' political contributions? Biases, anyone?

I wonder if what Malkin left out of the blog post would be illuminating in any way.

From the WaPo article:

[T]he study could not tell whether racial bias was a better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences on gun control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in subsequent studies -- [independent reviewer Jon] Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to take the psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences -- he said the basic correlation was not in doubt.

"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

Malkin? Ignoring research? Pshaw.