[ern_ave]

I'm interested to see any studies you can find on this topic. Here are some studies that I have:

Equalitarianism: A Source of Liberal Bias [1] - in study 6, liberals were shown to be ...pretty racist.

You claimed the Right believes fake news. I wont dispute that. I'll just reply that there's a lot of that going around. Here are some examples that debunk fake news you yourself might fervently believe:

Girls Who Code: A Randomized Field Experiment on Gender-Based Hiring Discrimination [2] - leftists tend to believe that women are discriminated against in STEM.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force [3] - debunks the common belief, on the Left, that police are more likely to shoot people of color. Quote: "we find, after controlling for suspect demographics, ocer demographics, encounter characteristics, suspect weapon and year fixed effects, that blacks are 27.4 percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to non-black, non-Hispanics"

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325033477_Equalitar...

[2] https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/marley_finley...

[3] https://fryer.scholars.harvard.edu/publications/empirical-an...

[FrustratedMonky]

Sure. Everyone is biased some. Going all the way back to the "1951 Princeton–Dartmouth football game"

The Right, just happens to be in a bit in a slump right now with its anti-science religious activism. "Doing worse"

Garrett & Bond (2021), Conservatives’ susceptibility to political misperceptions, Science Advances. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234?utm_sourc...

Sultan et al. (2024), Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2409329121?utm_source=...

Rathje et al. (2023), Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information, Nature Human Behaviour. This one emphasizes that misinformation judgments are shaped by both accuracy motives and social/identity motives, which helps explain why partisan gaps are not simply about intelligence or total inability to separate truth from fiction. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01540-w?utm_sourc...

Lyons et al. (2021), Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2019527118?utm_source=...

Pennycook et al. (2022), Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing online misinformation, Nature Communications. This paper discusses baseline sharing discernment and notes worse baseline discernment among conservatives in the samples they studied, while also showing that simple accuracy prompts can help. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30073-5?utm_sourc...

summary is: there are studies showing conservatives, on average, perform worse on certain misinformation/truth-discernment tasks, but the strongest scholarly version of the claim is narrower and more conditional than the popular retelling https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234?utm_sourc...

[ern_ave]

Great! So, let's start with your first study. Note this quote:

> it is possible that conservatives’ relatively low accuracy about political information is a by-product of the fact that issues used in forming this assessment were selected with an eye toward detecting misperceptions among the political group

That's definitely a way to bias a study against conservatives. It's good that this study claims it avoided that bias. But did it? They don't list the questions that participants were asked. I checked the list of supporting documents, and couldn't find it.

Without that list, I can't accept this source. Sorry.

If I went out and asked a bunch of Liberals, "did Trump say that Neo-Nazis are 'very fine people?'" I suspect that upwards of 90% of Liberals would answer "yes" ...and they would swear they heard him do it! You may (falsely) believe this yourself!

I could ask, "did Trump advise people to drink bleach?" and many Liberals would swear he did.

He didn't do either of those things. But many Liberals emphatically believe he did. I could very easily design a study that included only these sorts of questions - questions that Liberals will get wrong.

The only way to spot this bias would be if I included the questions in the study, so that you could vet them yourself. Without such a list, it is completely reasonable for me to reject your source.

Should I continue to the next one, or are they all like this?

[fzeroracer]

So you don't have an argument, you just reject sources that you either can't understand or don't like. Which is just proving the parents point.

[ern_ave]

> you just reject sources that you either can't understand or don't like

That's a lie. I rejected the source for a valid reason. You could try addressing my rebuttal.

[FrustratedMonky]

If you don't want to accept sources you disagree with.

Then isn't that part of the problem?

The onus is on you, to tell me what would be acceptable sources for you.

You didn't really debunk any of these sources, just supplied some random sampling of your own creation. Interestingly, I have gone back and watched the full video of both of those quotes. He did say all of those things, but 'in-joking'. That is a common tactic. Everything he says can be re-cast as 'he was only joking'. The trick is, the right can always shift what was a 'joke' or 'not-joke', depending on the argument. Was it serious, or not serious? It really depends on shifting views, and the interpretation can change day to day.

I tend to agree liberals really piled on those examples too much, there were really so many better examples.