PDA

View Full Version : Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable?



Back
11-29-2006, 09:12 AM
Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable? (http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story)

November 23, 2006
By Andy Bromage

Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

//He needed to do a study? I’ve known this since 2000.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

//Of course this guy is from Connecticut.

But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

//You hear that psychos? The rest of the country has told you how it’s going to be, so relax for a while.

The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

//Wow, just wow.

CrystalTears
11-29-2006, 09:16 AM
:lol: A study based on 69 crazy people. Yeah okay. Now you've really gone off the deep end. I bet that research also had some of these people voting for Abraham Lincoln in the 2004 election too, so who knows.


//Of course this guy is from Connecticut.:fu:

Back
11-29-2006, 09:20 AM
:lol: A study based on 69 crazy people. Yeah okay. Now you've really gone off the deep end. I bet that research also had some of these people voting for Abraham Lincoln in the 2004 election too, so who knows.

:fu:

Yeah, it doesn't really explain my psychosis, unless I’m not crazy after all! What a relief.

I have no problem with the guy being from CT, but you can be sure as hell some :nutty: people will.

zhelas
11-29-2006, 09:23 AM
I bet that research also had some of these people voting for Abraham Lincoln in the 2004 election too, so who knows.

You mean he wasn't? I am sure I saw him on the ticket here in TX.

Gan
11-29-2006, 09:53 AM
I want my 30 seconds back that I wasted reading this thread. :(

Sean of the Thread
11-29-2006, 09:57 AM
I want my 30 seconds back that I wasted reading this thread. :(

^^^

Parkbandit
11-29-2006, 10:57 AM
lol. Only Backlash would post some 'news' story like this. And he wonders why we make fun of him.

What a waste of a whole thread.

sst
11-29-2006, 11:17 AM
Love the avatar PB

Parkbandit
11-29-2006, 12:06 PM
Love the avatar PB

I'm here to entertertain and enlighten.

Stanley Burrell
11-29-2006, 01:09 PM
Anyone who does post-graduate research at SoCo has enough reasons in which to have their data be called into question most thoroughly.

That being said, this article is very scientifically, religiously and absolutamente verdad in that Connecticut Rebublicans are more likely to be schizophrenic, schizoid, schizotypal and maybe even the leptosporangiate Schizaeaceae, as well.

What it fails to recognize is that aside from Bush voters; democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians, reform/consitutions/socialist/new union/veterans/veterinarians/Christian falangist/Green/yellow/purple/blue/orange/indigo parties and the non-registered, albeit whether they have or haven't voted, or even maintain the capacity to do so are still much more susceptible to neurosis, psychosis, and halitosis...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...Wait for it...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.












IN THE CONNECTICUT THANK YOU LORD JESUS JOSEPH MARY HALLELUJAH FALLING OFF MY KEYBOARD AND SHOUTING AMEN BROTHER!

Latrinsorm
11-29-2006, 01:21 PM
No actual numbers = no actual care.

CrystalTears
11-29-2006, 01:26 PM
Your bashing on CT, Stanley, is getting as old as Backlash's threads.

Keller
11-29-2006, 02:07 PM
I want my 30 seconds back that I wasted reading this thread. :(


Ya this.

xtc
11-29-2006, 02:12 PM
I think this study was a waste of money. We didn't need the fine folks at SCSU to tell us what we already know.

ElanthianSiren
11-29-2006, 03:55 PM
:lol: Holy statistical nightmare, batman.

Backlash, it's generally agreed that studies need at least 1,000 random samples for a result to be considered statistically significant. Sometimes, statisticians bend these rules a little (like if the results are overwhelmingly for or against and you can only get 950 samples), but when they bend the rules, their studies are open to more intense scrutiny because it's generally accepted that the smaller your sample is, the fewer decisive conclusions you can draw about the population (all voters with mental illness) from it.

I further doubt that the study was random at all, given the small size of the sample and the fact that they had to be individuals with mental problems at a particular hospital.

To do a study like this, they'd have to blind panel everyone that voted in many hospitals, take a sample of 1k or even 2k, as your results would grow more representative with sampling, and see if there was really a strong correlation between mental illness and Bush voting.

-M

Skirmisher
11-29-2006, 04:11 PM
This is just silly.