"…[W]e consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that black people are significantly associated with natural rhythm, a tendency toward lower intelligence, a natural propensity for physical sports, and a predisposition toward promiscuity."

Actually, I have no fear of objectively examining those old stereotypes; I'd prefer to know the truth, regardless of where it takes me. It's rather hilarious that the phrase "consider evidence for and against" bothers you so. Don't you consider yourself rational and possessed of a scientific mind? Why in the world are you taking the politically-correct position that some questions shouldn't be asked for fear of offending someone?

It's clear that you went ballistic upon reading the question, and so failed to make it to the answer. The list of stereotypical traits of conservatives was the input to the study; here's the output (footnote references removed for clarity), page 31:

Variables significantly associated with conservatism, we now know, include fear and agression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, personal need for structure, terror management, group-based dominance, and system justification.

That's a subset of the possible traits, and I assume an ordered list. To be perfectly honest with you, Tom, the list rings true to me, based on decades of close association with conservatives. I've observed that the personality traits described remain constant while the particulars of the ideological hot buttons have changed over time (some of them, anyway; anger over taxation remains an eternal).

The ascendency of the Right after 9/11 and our aggressive response certaintly validates "fear and agression" and "terror management"; Bush has had great success pushing the fear button among conservatives.

Every conservative I've ever known has taken pride in seeing things in black and white, with no shades of grey; "intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, personal need for structure" all hold up to scrutiny.

"Group-based dominance" is a fancy way of describing the conservative belief that inequality is the natural order of things, and that people with money and power have a divine right to dominate their "inferiors"; with a large dash of respect for Authority thrown in. Everyone in their place.

"System justification"? Read the Current Events board.

It's worth noting what the authors say early in the paper about their agenda:

Whether specific beliefs may be considered objectively true or false has little (or nothing) to do with the subjective reasons for believing. Arriving at desired conclusions may be considered epistemologically valid only if the evidence supports those conclusions. Motives to maintain security or resolve uncertainty or to avoid threat or prevent negative outcomes might lead one to adopt beliefs that are,for example, socially or economically conservative, but the degree to which those beliefs are rational or correct must be assessed independingly of the motivations that drive them. Thus, it does not follow from our motivated social-cognitive analysis that politically conservative beliefs (or any other beliefs) are false simply because they are motivated by epistemic, existential, or idelogicaly concerns.

In plain English, this was a study on the nature of belief, not the validity of one particular belief system. I find the question of why we believe what we believe to be both interesting and vital. I suspect that you would too, if they hadn't chosen to use your belief system as the case study. Too bad you can't be more objective about it.