Originally Posted by handle
I'm still having a problem with the idea that having less of everything is somehow prefferable to having higher concentrations of some things in some areas, (at least that's how I read the argument), as it leads to some sorts of moral blind spots.
Well, the methods are not at all unusual for social science. But then Sheldon Cooper likes to say "social science is mainly hokum" so YMMV.
As to the above, I have trouble getting either. When you look at the actual graphs, if they demonstrate a deficiency on the part of liberals, it's along the lines of, if liberals are lower than conservatives in this area, this means they're deficient, but if they're higher in this other area, it's a draw.