>>65969
Once again, without the methodology of these studies, it's hard to say if and where they went wrong. For example, it could be that the studies don't really measure the personality traits in question. Or, like the political compass test, they could ask the participants loaded questions. Or, or, or. The possibilities are endless.
In no particular order, here's what I have to say on some specific articles:
>Quora, second from left, above
The question is based on anecdotes of a guy about his "autistic" friends. From his description, it could very well be that he's a hypersocial extrovert and his libertarian friends are withdrawn intellectuals. It could also be that they really are autistic, but we don't know. But generally, I wouldn't trust a normie to reliably assess whether someone is withdrawn, autistic or awkward. Recently, I've been to vacation with some of my colleagues. After they searched for a bar for two hours, they finally found one. The music was too loud to talk properly, one of them started talking shit about the people on the table next to us, then my colleagues started talking about sex. A girl said she would swallow cum but wouldn't do anal, and a guy about how he would like to be pegged. That's being "socially competent" in the 21st century.
The answer is based on the fact that libertarians tend to be white males. You can take from this that males don't get "interdependence" because they're privileged, but I call bullshit on that because, well, libertarians do get interdependence, otherwise we wouldn't shill voluntary association, non-aggression and the division of labor so hard.
>The Guardian, bottom left corner
That doesn't prove anything. It's the opinion of some asshole who, at least in this paragraph, is barely coherent and has nothing substantial to offer, only insults. He doesn't even get libertarianism. Libertarianism is not about "doing whatever you want", it's about doing whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others, you're capable of doing it, and you can live with the consequences. Big difference. We don't want people driving on the opposite lane, we don't want them to play the drums at 3 AM in the morning, and we most certainly don't want them to spy on you without a warrant and lock your kids up because they took marihuana once.
>Ludwig von Mises Institute, bottom, second from right
This is just disingenuous. This is a defense against the accusation that we're all psychopaths, and it runs along the lines that a) this kind of argumentation doesn't disprove a damn thing we're saying, b) it's fucking hypocritical to call yourself compassionate if you want to throw people in jail for not behaving to your liking. As you can see, point a) is undeniably correct and point b) is not just correct, it's compassionate. Oh, and the name of that article? It's obviously sarcastic. Talk about the irony of an "info"graph calling others autistic not getting sarcasm.