Who Knew? Tea Partiers Know Science
Yale professor Dan Kahan made an interesting discovery while conducting some statistical comparisons of science comprehension across education, religion, and ideology. What he found might surprise you.
Using a scale intended to measure ones' substantive scientific knowledge and critical reasoning skills, he found liberals/Democrats scored significantly higher than conservatives/Republicans on the science comprehensive scale. However, tea party supporters (19% of his sample) were statistically more likely than non-tea partiers to also score higher on the science comprehension scale. While the statistically significant difference is not likely substantive, it demonstrates that tea partiers on average are different than conservative Republicans.
Kahan also found that those who graduated from college scored statistically higher on the index of science comprehension. Less religious people were also slightly more likely to score higher on the index, although perhaps not substantively so.
Reflecting on this surprising tea party finding, Kahan writes:
"I've got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I'd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.
But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv -- & I don't watch Fox News very often -- and reading the "paper" (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico)."
Here are the charts:
Source: Dan Kahan, The Cultural Cognition Project, Yale Law School
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
All this means if they actually "know science" (what the hell does that mean?) is that the teabaggers are full of liars and brigands who rae deliberately trying to destroy Pres. Obama and the United States.
It means to have biblical relations with an Erlenmeyer flask.
who rae deliberately trying to destroy Pres. Obama and the United States.
You leave Rae Dawn Chong alone!
When I was a lad, I saw Quest for Fire with my mom. She was kept busy covering up my eyes.
No, I think he's talking about the Raelians.
Never go full retard.
Or full potato.
And what was the title of this survey: People Who Disagree with Me Politically are Stupid and/or Insane: A Hyper-Heuristic Survey?
I continue to see citations in the media of how Tea Partiers come from, "the poor white areas of the country and they are uneducated and racist and blah blah blah"
I've seen this claim made by NYT readers in comments. I keep having to refer them to the NYT poll =
Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04......html?_r=0
Not that *I* give a shit. I find when I defend any of the nominal policies of 'tea partiers' people will assume I've participated in the Elitist Cabal of Right-Winger Kochism and Corporate Overthrow of America... and I'm just like, "uh, no, these are things I've believed since, well, *Clinton*... and I seem to recall him believing in a balanced budget as well..?"
The sea of retard has spread deep and far, and we must swim as hard as we can for shore.
Kind of depends on how the researcher defined "knowing science". If the questions were along the lines of "is global warming caused by humans", with a "yes" answer defined as the only correct statement, then the study is flawed.
OTOH, if the questions were about stuff like the law of gravity and the melting point of ice and the age of the earth and other arguably objectively true stuff, then the study might not be too flawed.
prolefeed|10.18.13 @ 11:03AM|#
Kind of depends on how the researcher defined "knowing science".
'Oh, SCIENCE! Sure. I knew him. Used to live around here in aught-five. Nice fella. Kept to hisself. Never caused no trouble. What now? He went and made a Higgs-bosun? Now I don't know nothing about that, you'd have to ask my daughter, tho I'm not sure she'd be interested...'
"Tea baggers" are deliberately trying to destroy Obama, who is deliberately trying to destroy the United States.
FIFY.
The results don't surprise me. People who understand math are worried about the government spending and borrowing itself into oblivion.
Or more generally, activists are thinkers.
*Up-twinkles*..
How good a professor can he be if he doesn't know enough to tweak the thing to produce the desired results before putting it out there? I wouldn't be surprised to find out we have a Tea Party plant in academia here.
Another one for the FEMA camps.
So that whole "Diversity" thing doesn't really apply outside the realm of race then? Who knew?
There was a NYT story recently about a survey showing how Tea Party people compared to the population as a whole were better educated and earned more money.
Soooo, Yeah.
Hah! It's the one percenters!
Yeah, I cannot quite figure out, via the popular progressive narrative, whether 'Tea Party' means ignorant, racist, neo-confederate, food-stamp consuming, evolution denying red-neck or monocle and top hat wearing orphan eating Wall Street whore.
Both, or whatever's convenient?
whichever allows the liberal making the claim to avoid having to defend his/her position. It's an article of faith among the left that any position other than theirs is illegitimate anyway, much like the religious zealot's belief in his dogma requires him to dismiss any other faith's dogma.
Wait, how did the orphan get the top had and monocle, and why did he eat the whore?
The orphan got the top hat and monocle by way of hard work, and ate the whore because she asked him to and he is very kind.
+1
It's whichever is convenient at the time. Really it's just anyone who disagrees with them. The "TEABAGERZ" slur is about as meaningful when coming from progtard as the "RACIST" slur at this point.
Whichever fits the argument being made. And if they have to apply both characterizations in the space of a few sentences, by gum they'll do it.
Both, AND whatever's convenient. The logic I've seen on lefty sites usually goes something like this:
The thinking of Republicans, and Tea Party types in particular, is so clearly wrong that you would have to be an idiot to think that way. But if they were all just idiots, how could they be so organized and effective? Clearly there must be some evil puppet masters pulling the strings, so it's "a whole bunch of idiots led by a few cynically evil guys".
Sounds about right. There's an awful lot of projection going on there.
Similar to the left wing view that George W. Bush is the stupidest human being ever born who was somehow able to outsmart virtually every Democrat in Congress and the entire American population into supporting the Iraq War by misleading us all into believing that Saddam Hussein caused the 9.11 attacks.
The real point is that the left can no longer argue its positions on their merits and must therefore resort to name-calling and invective. It also demonstrates their infantile rage over the fact that what they thought would be the second coming of the New Deal under Obama was thoroughly stymied by the emergence of the Tea Party, which none of them foresaw ( their allegedly superior knowledge of science notwithstanding).
so it's "a whole bunch of idiots led by a few cynically evil guys".
ARE WE THE CYNICAL EVIL GUYS... OR THE IDIOTS??? I IS CONFUSED@??
I vote cynical idiots. which is why no one can get us to do anything productive.
YES
It is not at all unlikely that the small government types who populate the tea party include both highly educated, intelligent folks and under-educated, modestly intelligent folks.
It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand and accept a narrative that conflicts with all the evidence that is before one's own eyes. The under-educated have not been sufficiently indoctrinated in the progressive narrative and the modestly intelligent do not grasp it. Instead, they tend to favor an interpretation of reality that comports with their own situation. Those who still have a modicum of work ethic tend to go with the small government movement; the decision is obvious for the free-shit brigade.
Well, they initially claimed that the whole Tea Party movement was just an AstroTurf campaign of a few thousand simple-minded rednecks funded by the monocle-wearing Koch brothers, so both.
And... Big tobacco?
Today on Patricia McCann's (or whoever's on WOR, I forgot) program, that guy from New York, you know, that guy, pointed out that while most people think Tea Partiers are rural rubes, they're actually the plaything of David Koch, who also controls all the cultural niceties in NYC with money, and those cultural thingies manipulate the people.
"'Tea Party' means ignorant, racist, neo-confederate, food-stamp consuming, evolution denying red-neck or monocle and top hat wearing orphan eating Wall Street whore."
Overlord ?---------------? Minion..
As light is both particle and wave, It's just that simple... problem solved.
'By better educated and earned more money.' They, of course, meant Kulaks.
Gotta destroy those Kulaks.
Not to mention the hoarders and wreckers.
Don't forget the spies, counter-revolutionaries, speculators, and landlords.
Well, those are the people making all the money and receiving all the tax demands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04......html?_r=0
As the professor noted, all these differences, while some are statistically significant, have very small effect sizes. The effect sizes are about the same.
But it does refute the meme of tea partiers are all dumb-ass rednecks who don't know anything This shows they are basically the same as the population as a whole and slightly higher than generic conservative.
That's as expected. People are mostly all the same by any measure.
I find myself strangely unsurprised.
No one who's been paying attention is surprised.
I know some Tea Partiers, and they tend to be pretty smart except for subjects where religious dogma short circuits their thought processes. I know some Mormons who are quite knowledgeable about science in general and yet believe the earth is about 6,000 years old and that Native Americans are descended from Jews who sailed to America in a boat guided by a mysterious navigational device handed to them by God -- because that is what the Bible and Book of Mormon say, and those are inerrant.
Just to point out, the Bible says none of what you mentioned.
Maybe not your bible...
By the way we count most things, 6,000 is practically the same as 6 billion: more than anyone can deal with or has experience with. For most purposes, the Earth's being more than a thousand yrs. old is enough, i.e. really, really, old, way before the Beatles, before anybody can remember, and it wouldn't make much practical difference if it were many orders of magnitude greater, because it's practically infinity anyway. Same with gov't budgets, the important thing is they're really, really big. Would it really matter much if they were a million times as big, or even one hundredth as big? They'd still be beyond comprehension.
What kinds of questions did he use to create his index of science comprehension? I'm inherently suspicious of such studies, and I'm guessing there was a good bit in there that would lead conservatives to do poorly (i.e. evolution) and leaving out of things that would make liberals do poorly (i.e. GMO).
Yeah, this is the inherent problem with these types of things. It's not so much picking up ones awareness rather then how slanted are the questions such that the right answers just happen to conform with your own previously held beliefs.
"Adam330|10.18.13 @ 9:23AM|#
What kinds of questions did he use to create his index of
science comprehension?""
Jack is walking along, and Jack trips and falls. What made Jack fall?
a) Mankind is born in a state of sin having fallen from grace and it is his lot in life to suffer until he repents and gives his life to Jesus.
b) A failure of the City Ordinances to properly make all municipal walkways fall-proof, thusly requiring a committee of Top Men in Sidewalk Management to convene for a preset period and come up with a new UnFallable Sidewalk system which will be funded by a series of new Walking Taxes imposed at birth by predicting the likely miles walked in the course of the average human lifespan. Which will result in the best life for everyone!
c) Gravity
d) Jack was a victim of his own hubris, he wasn't walking on a road, because there are no roadz... because he (and ~1% of the population) refused to pony up his Fair Share...
A National Science Foundation quiz on which, judging by the questions discussed from another linked article, you'll get a lot "wrong" if your knowledge of science is too sophisticated or you think too much about the questions. Like, "True or false?: The universe began with a huge explosion." or "Electrons are smaller than atoms."
Does this professor realize he's just produced a weapon of mass butthurt?
lol
"2 + 2 = 4" is a pretty esoteric concept. Why would a member of the Enlightened Class expect a bunch of knuckle-draggers to be familiar with it?
Apparently, subtraction is the liberals' weak suit. As in 3.8 trillion in spending minus 3.0 trillion in revenue = another 800 billion in national debt racked up by Obama.
There is an inverse relationship between one's knowledge of economics and the likelihood that they are a liberal.
Yes, but how do conservatives score on vital subjects like the philosophy of Judith Butler.
Keep your eye on the prize, man.
"The eye cannot really see the prize, it is merely performing the act of looking because of the pressures of normative-sighted culture."
pressures of normative-sighted culture.
...i.e., TEH GAZEOMG!!!
See my/Adam's statements above. This test picked economics questions that are heavily skewed towards what a conservative would already believes.
yep.
I appreciated the hot air link because it actually questioned the binary nature of some questions and the internal biases in the material chosen.
This one and the original article are hard to take at face value, and realistically there are always going to be problems trying to run any kind of test where you are measuring aptitude & knowledge against political philosophy.
The most worthwhile piece of information is the fact a Yale professor admitted to being a closed minded intolerant fool.
This test picked economics questions that are heavily skewed towards what a conservative would already believes.
If a math test picks questions such as 2+2=?, its going to skew towards those who "believe" the answer is 4.
Not with Common Core, it won't.
2+2=4 is a cultural construct. And don't you forget it.
Alan Sokal, Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity , Social Text #46/47
(emphasis added)
Well, I didn't think I'd get to see my turkey sandwich again, but there it is, all over my keyboard.
Yeah, but those people are fakers. They'd be the first to catch you if you tried to short-change them. They just like to spout bullshit insincerely.
True, but I think the effect is real, although I'm not sure if it's as much "ignorant of economics" as it is "possessing ideological blinders that prevent you from applying economics".
For example, AFAIK economists across the ideological spectrum now largely agree that price controls are a bad idea because they have bad side effects. And you can sometimes even get leftists to agree with this in a general sense...until you start talking about specific real-world examples like wages or rents, at which point they fly into a rage and insist that those are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND YOU JUST WANT RICH CORPORATIONS TO RULE THE WORLD SO POOR PEOPLE WILL STARVE.
I like how the author of that piece tries to downplay it. "Well, conservatives only understand basic economics -marginally- better(by a factor of 5)."
I like how the author of that piece tries to downplay it. "Well, conservatives only understand basic economics -marginally- better(by a factor of 5)."
Fuck you, squirrels!
Has the Red Hour been moved to 10AM Eastern Time?
Is Emily the hot one?
I heard she avoids Catholic churches because the statues sport woodies when she walks by.
Alright troll. Your antics have become tiresome. Kindly go off and kill yourself to make room for someone who's willing to put some effort and creativity into their idiocy.
You're reinforcing it by responding to it, Hugh.
Grow up.
-jcr
Aw, come on, JCR, Hugh isn't that bad. 😉
What? Now we can't be aware that Emily is the hot one? Or we're not supposed to say it? Or we just reflexively hate Our Mordor-marching troll and hence everything he says?
and along the way, the professor didn't just let the mask slip, he took it off and tossed it out the window. This allegedly educated man seemingly taking pride in his narrow view of the world where his confirmation bias faces no challenge, where he is not required to consider alternative viewpoints, and where he is conditioned to belief any other point of view as heresy. In other words, what could he be but a college professor -
Easy there, America's Most Versatile Boat Company guy. Something about glass houses and all that.
what in the world are you talking about?
I dont think any of us only know libertarians.
You'd have to be a shut-in who knows about 3 carefully selected people to only know libertarians, since about 80% of the populace isn't even libertarian-ish.
Hopefully the results of this "study" will lead him to re-examine some of his preconcieved biases about people who he disagrees with. If so, and if he stops assuming his political opponents are a bunch of ignorant rubes, then so much the better.
Although the more likely result will be that he redoes the study asking different questions until he gets the results he expected.
He wrote that the results have led him to re-examine those preconceived biases.
Well, Teal Media might have coded the algorithms in his models, sooo...
This.
He actively notes it when he wrote,
He fully admits that his world is a bubble where other ideologies are contemplated based on what he hears and reads in the media.
But he acknowledges that as a defect, and says that other who do similarly should try not to let it skew their conclusions even when their a priori assumptions run the other way.
he found liberals/Democrats scored significantly higher than conservatives/Republicans on the science comprehensive scale.
Only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican (Pew Research). Conservatism is ignorance.
I will compliment the Peanut Gallery - this place is easily more scientifically literate than average and would tend to support the TP over the GOP.
What percentage of scientists depend on taxpayer funding for their employment?
-jcr
Post-modern scientist = welfare recipient = liberal.
They know where their bread is buttered.
This is the Scientist vs engineer divide. Engineers in private industry tend to be more conservative - they want to make stuff and earn money.
University scientists are only interested in theory and depend on government for their survival.
I've noticed this with economists as well. University ones are pretty typically liberal (though not literally socialists like other faculty) while industry economists tend to be more conservative/libertarian.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
So many in the supposed scientific fields have whored themselves to the people with money, and these days it is oppressive governments looking for validation that will let them be even more oppressive. Case in point: AGW. It's evil that brown energy entities pay for counter studies. That's because they are special interests. But these idiots see no problem with the most powerful and oft biggest special interest, the nanny state, putting up orders of magnitude more cash to have scientists shit all over the scientific principle/method in their rush to sell their souls.
When you can live in ivory towers and getting it wrong has no consequence on your ability to make a living, or even more insanely, it improves your ability to rake in the cash, you are going to end up being a liberal. These are the only people that can be constantly wrong, produce things that cause more harm than any good, and in general think their farts smell like roses, while those of others stink, and score points for their idiocy.
How could you spout such blasphemy about our Heroes in Blue lab coats?!?...
Since the scientific establishment is so liberal, and liberals cannot possibly be racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted, I guess I'll never hear "Because women scientists face rampant sexism!!!!" as an excuse whenever women fail to account for 50% of the top scientists in a given field?
Conservative =/= Republican.
I know lots and lots of libertarian scientists. Looking around my research group, I have 5 libertarians (plus me) and one Democrat. I was unaware of any of their political beliefs when I hired them, I was just looking for smart people who actually understood science.
I had a Republican here, but he died. I tell everyone that this was a coincidence.
So this guy admits to forming conclusive opinions about people based on Fox News and the fucking Puffington Host? And Yale employs this man?
As Carmine Sabbatini says in The Freshman....."So this is college? I didn't miss nothin'."
So this guy admits to forming conclusive opinions about people based on Fox News and the fucking Puffington Host? And Yale employs this man?
And this surprises you ... why?
what do you mean "Yale emloys this man?"
The things listed are pre-conditions to his hiring and certainly to any hope of tenure.
You think Yale would sully its reputation by hiring someone who admitted listening to/reading conservative, or horrors! libertarian, news source?
You think Yale would sully its reputation by hiring someone who admitted listening to/reading conservative, or horrors! libertarian, news source?
Maybe if they only do it for the lulz or to have something to trash while talking to their fellow enlightened betters in the faculty launge. I.e., "You wouldn't believe what that fat moron Rush Limbaugh said today..."
Good points, but I suppose that what truly shocked was that he admitted forming sweeping judgments about large numbers of people on such paltry grounds. You'd think a Yale professor would be smart enough to keep that one to himself.
That part really isn't so bad. At least he admits it, and seems to be dealing with the surprise. Let's see if he goes anywhere with it.
I won't fault a man for weakness if he is trying to grow out of it.
He wrote that he likes having his political views, but that they can't help but cause some prejudices as an unfortunate byproduct.
FTFY.
How can anyone claim scientific literacy without a knee-jerk deference to scientific authority and consensus?
I know! But there's all sorts of ignorant people in the world. Why, some would even deny the scientific consensus on Ptolemaic astronomy!
Only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republican
Really? How many of the other 94% just don't want to be left off the invitation list for the faculty wife-swapping parties?
But what percent of engineers?
I went to an engineering school, it leaned hard right.
Agreed. Engineers, I would think tend to be conservative (in the traditional sense of cautious of making changes) across the board. "I have this great idea that I know will work even though its never been tested! Let's implement it everywhere immediately!" gets beat out of you in E school.
All engineers are Aspies.
All Aspies are mentally ill.
Therefore, all engineers are mentally ill.
See the logic? hee, hee.
All politicians are lawyers
All politicians are scum
Therefore all lawyers are scum
😉
A lot of engineers are at least a bit aspy -- it goes with being good at math, and preferring to work with things rather than with people.
Its not that I don't understand your feelings, even empathize. I just don't see any connection between how you feel and what I should do many times. But to be clear, I don't see any connection between how I feel and what I should do many times, either.
Yes! I completely understand why people feel a certain way, but I struggle to see why I should let emotion dictate decisions.
My wife and I butted heads as we shopped for a house. She spent all her time envisioning "turning it into a home" while I compared the tangibles (sq. footage, state of repair, layout, amenities, etc.).
I just struggle to understand people who so value their emotions that they let them be a guiding factor. Emotions are such an undeveloped, childish influence. "I feel bad because you said something that offends me" "I feel oppressed because I eat like a cow and then get fat" "I feel bad because I don't fit into one airline seat and people stare" "I feel like my children are special and unique and should be spoiled"
I tested as more thing-oriented than people-oriented on a psychologic test over 40 yrs. ago. The interesting thing, though, is that a preference to work with things probably comes about as a result of realizing that things are easier to bend to your will than people.
Ditto. Even the philosophy professor we had was a big time anti-communist/anti-socialist.
Which I guess is why he was working for an engineering school and not some liberal arts college...
That and they would like to keep their jobs. It is almost like one side being fascists and basing everything on politics has some kind of effect or something.
That's unpossible.
A lot of scientists may see themselves as above political parties entirely.
Republicans are associated with things like climate-change skepticism and creationism, so I suspect Republicans are seen negatively by scientists who study things affected climate-change, etc. Then there are those that want to do stem cell research, etc., etc.
If more animal rights issues were in the news at the time the poll was taken, and those animal rights people were more closely associated with the Democrats in people's minds, I'm sure scientists who need to do animal testing would poll differently.
Too bad the professor's mind has been taken over by evil kochtopus mind control rays. That's why the results came out this way. Also probably why he forgot to measure other qualities that liberals have like lots of friends, fashion sense, wit, and great hair. He must have eaten too much meat. That's how they get you /prog
Certainly, it takes more in the way of critical thinking skills to be part of the Tea Party, these days, than it does to join the choir singing the president's praises.
I'd be interested to see someone formulate a test for critical thinking skills and apply it to people of various political persuasions.
My money says progressives are some of the most obtuse people on the interwebs. Seriously. Tony isn't atypical. From what I've seen, he's pretty representative of the whole obtuse bunch.
It takes more in the way of thinking of some kind to be an activist of any kind. It's not surprising to me that extremists at any extreme are more knowledgeable than people in the middle, because extremists tend to care about shit outside their immediate surroundings.
And tending to care about something (anything) tends to correlate with caring about something (anything) else.
BTW - O/T but SadBeard has been taking a seriously hilarious asswhipping on Twitter lately about his "Obamacare implementation will be great and people will love it" tweet from July.
Of course, since opinion journalism is the one line of work where one can be spectacularly wrong all the time and suffer no consequences as a result, that walking laugh track will continue to be taken seriously by his fellow journOlisters. Say hi to Weigel for me, SadBeard!
Ahhhh. Confessions of a university biochemist libertarian married to a previously illegal (now legal) alien (I never know what box I should put myself in): I manage a lab and we buy plastics from greedy companies (we depend on these items). Company A charges 10X more than Company B for the same product (Company A being the original manufacturer). Discussing this problem with boss (liberal), boss concludes, obviously, the plastic is not worth as much as Company A claims since B sells for so much less. This is the problem with the free market, greedy bastards. Now how can I argue with that logic...and retain my job?
Ask him if he'll be volunteering to take a pay cut so that his pay matches the lowest paid person at his position, and when he says "no way," say "yeah, I didn't think so."
This is the beauty of the free market: If the plastic is not worth as much as company A charges, then company B is going to be greedy and undercut their prices to take all the business, which allows you to choose to buy it for the cheap price.
I suppose you could ask why it has apparently never crossed his mind to buy from B and save some money. And perhaps ask if he would do that if the money being spent was coming from his pocket.
Oh, we buy from B. And I thank you, and all taxpayers, for my salary....
People around here definitely care about prices. It effects how much data they get and therefore their next grant. With that evil sequester and all funding is really tight.
Is your boss really trying to save money?
Why of course. We are very stingy with money. Tenure has yet to be achieved.
Now how can I argue with that logic...and retain my job?
Have him watch you test the two plastics at some relevant task, but not tell him which plastic is which, and then ask him if he can tell from the results which one costs 10X more.
It's like convincing wine snobs that 3 Buck Chuck Merlot is better than a bunch of pricy designer label Merlots -- only a blind taste testing will disprove their bias.
I don't understand why you'd argue with it. Isn't it correct?
And is Co. A Eppendorf?
"While the statistically significant difference is not likely substantive, it demonstrates that tea partiers on average are different than conservative Republicans."
And, you know, there's a significant libertarian contingent in the Tea Party. The Tea Party isn't libertarian, but there are libertarians in it. I can't help but wonder how much an impact those libertarians had on the results.
Like I said, I think if you were just measuring critical thinking skills alone, libertarians would score higher than the average bear; if we make up a significant portion of any group of people, I think we probably skew the results.
I want to know what Emily means by
.
If it is statistically significant, in what way is it not substantive? How is she defining substantive?
Being statistically signifgant is not that same as saying the magnitude of the difference is very big.
Statistical signifigance is a function of the distance between the means of the two groups and the variance of observations within each group relative to the size of the whole group.
A miniscule difference in the average between two groups can be found to be statistically signifigant if the variance is very low and/or the sample sizes are very large.
It is quite possible for some things to be statistically significantly different but not be substantively different.
If by substantive one means being different enough to even care about, which is pretty much the dictionary definition.
For example, the air quality in Beijing may be better than the air quality in Shanghai. Air quality can be measured by objective criteria and analyzed statistically. Say it turns out that Shanghai's air quality is better than Beijing's at p=0.005, but the mean is only 1% better. To me, this is statistically significant, but not substantive.
19% of his sample support the Tea Party? Where I live that would be around 38,000 people and the local tea party boasts maybe 400 names on its e-mail list of whom about 40 actually are active. Just imagine what havoc the TP could cause if the other 37,600 got off their asses, hounded congressmen who feel it safe to be RINOs, and
generally acted like they were really afraid of a leftwing takeover of the country.
Everyone would have known if you had put it in the alt-text.
I'll bet the test was heavily weighted towards arithmetic.
The comment thread on thew article is fairly interesting. Lots of discussion about political prejudices and biases, especially against Tea Partiers, by people on the left, who have never met a single tea Partier, and get their entire view of them second hand, via their own biased media sources.
But there was a particular comment I thought was pretty good, about how the Left tries to make the world the way they think it should be and ignores the economics, while the market imposes it's own merciless justice upon society, which in turn is seen by the Left as immoral because it acts against their desired goals. I.e. "Markets interfere with my ability to make the world how it should be, and are therefore evil and immoral."
I thought that was a pretty damn good insight into the leftist mindset and in particular their hatred of the free market. Economics, to them, isn't a fact of reality, it's a EVIL FORCE that has to be FOUGHT. If possible, purged from the human soul.
By comparison, libertarians regard economics as a natural product of human behavior, which is best left alone or (if you must) worked with. Economic theory teaches us that attempts to interfere with the market often result in perverse incentives that lead to worse consequences, while leaving markets alone tend to lead to pareto optimal outcomes (i.e. optimal distribution of finite resources given the available supply).
Obviously, if you are a leftist who regards economic forces as the FORCES OF EVIL that are preventing you from acehving a just society, and you see people saying "We shouldn't really interfere with this stuff", you're going to think of those people as being on the side of evil. And when they say "but this will just produce perverse incentives", you're response going to be "So what? that's just another manifestation of evil." Their goal is to rid ourselves of economics, like a bad disease, and achieve a pure economics-free society.
In other words, Star Trek (except in that one DS9 episode where it turned out that everything would be better if they listened to the Ferengi).
Interesting and insightful comment.
The thing is, capitalism best describes how resources with differing values to different people will most efficiently be allocated. It also describes when inefficiencies will arise. Ignoring the major concept that most people seek equal or advantageous exchanges of what they value is like ignoring buoyancy when building a boat.
Capitalism is efficient, but it's not fair. You see, it doesn't give everyone what they want when they want it, and that's not fair. But government can make it fair. Yes it can. With enough force it can make it fair. Or kill us all trying.
Right, we have 1000 bananas and 300 people, so the only fair way to divide this is to give everyone one banana and burn the other 700, and shoot anyone why disagrees and burn their bananas with the 700.
More like you have 1000 people and 300 bananas, so the only fair way to divide is based upon political considerations. First give them to people with children, since children are supposed to eat their fruit. If there are any left, first hand them out to minorities and homosexuals since they have been oppressed by evil heterosexual white men. If any are left then give them to women. Anything left after that must be destroyed.
Doesn't matter if any of these people actually want a banana. What matters is that they should want one.
Interrupted comment, I meant to say that Adam Smith and Karl Marx understood this. Thus why every Marxist country first tries to remake men, because man, as he exists, will always try to get value for value, and in fact will always seek something the value more for something they value less. It is this messy individualism that is antithetical to their view of people as cogs to be manipulated with each individual having the exact proportions as the aggregate. Over and over again, their philosophy start by assuming that the individual is the polis in miniature, and thus their good is the good for everyone.
The left seems to have forgotten a lot of what Marx wrote about capitalist economies.
"creative destruction" was a Marxist criticism. The economic cycle being so instrumental, that's a Marxist criticism, too.
Nowadays, the left acts like the economic cycle is figment of the right's imagination, and creative destruction is something that was made up by Ronald Reagan.
It's true the Marx expounded on creative destruction in economic development.
However, Schumpeter's characterization of capitalism's creative destruction bears little resemblance to Marx's. When most people speak of creative destruction today, they're referring to Schumpeter's characterization.
You're right, though, that the Left knows little about Marx's attitude about capitalism. He saw capitalism as an advance on earlier modes of production, which is indispensable to facilitate the vast improvements in productive capacity necessary to advance to socialism in theory of scientific history. Marx hated capitalists, but he didn't hate capitalism nearly as much as the modern Left does.
I think the divide is between people who see the world the way it should be and people who see the world the way it is.
Libertarians still want the world to be different, but we're grounded in the world the way it is. Wanting to design an system without taking economics into consideration is like designing an airplane without taking physics into consideration.
Progressives don't give a damn about such realities; in fact, anyone that limits themselves by referring to such realities is the enemy. To them, reality is an illusion. We can make it whatever we want it to be.
Right on... +1
Right on times two
No surprise to me. The big factor here is the demographics. Your level of education is strongly correlated to your political ideology. Those with high school degrees or lower lean slightly Democrat, those with only four year degrees lean slightly Republican, and those with advanced degrees lean strongly Democrat. Liberals like to point to the last as proof that they're smarter, but that's a very tiny group in comparison to the first.
Where the Tea Party bumps their score up a bit is that they're largely middle class with four year degrees.
Of course, the difference in scores is really very small. Statistically it's significant, but it's nothing to go crowing about. Given the overall level of scientific literacy in this country it's like winning the 100 yard dash in the one-legged man division.
A comment at that site brought out statistics that science knowledge in Europe is a lot worse than in the USA.
academically smarter and having awareness, as well as people skills aren't the same thing either. I know some very intellectually gifted Democrats that are the most myopic people in the world and have no comprehension about human nature. They probably scored high on the science test here.
academically smarter and having awareness, as well as people skills aren't the same thing either. I know some very intellectually gifted Democrats that are the most myopic people in the world and have no comprehension about human nature. They probably scored high on the science test here.
democrats may be smarter than me but they still don't know whats good for me.
It's impressive that a group that wants to downsize government and balance the budget is perceived as crazy bigoted religious zealots. It is certainly a testament to how effective leftist media propaganda is.
When the correlation coefficients start to get higher than +/- 0.2 or 0.3, the conclusions may approach meaningfulness.