A Ray of Hope For Americans and Scientific Literacy? 668
An anonymous reader with a snippet from Politico: "A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers. Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative. However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn't, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said. Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him. '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,' Kahan wrote. 'But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the tea party,' he continued.'" More at the Independent Journal Review.
Medical professionals (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of private practice Drs and Dentists back the tea party, as they vote single issue - lowering the taxes on their $300k+ incomes. Medical degrees and certifications are of course lumped in the science bucket so probably make up a large part of the total. They tend to dislike welfare programs such as medicaid and medicare too, as they cut into their profit margins.
That's unpossible! (Score:4, Insightful)
That can't be!
Everyone knows that the Tea party is a bunch of comic, laughable clowns with no grounding in reality. I mean, why else would they be so thoroughly lampooned using derogatory terms and snarky, dismissive comments.
Even Obama [wordpress.com] himself (praise be his name) mocks them.
It can't be true... can it?
Re:Medical professionals (Score:4, Insightful)
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The stereotypical Tea Partier is, for me, somebody who is professional, a high achiever who believes that most, if not all of that is due to their own merit. They might be really good at science and math; but they're short on compassion and unwilling to admit that they benefited in their youth from programs that are socialist. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they'd be more scientifically literate than average. Scientific knowledge isn't everything when it comes to leadership, management, politics, etc.. In fact, I'd me inclined to say it isn't worth much at all in those positions. Face it. The squishy "human factors" matter.
News Flash: Partisan Caricature Found Incorrect! (Score:5, Insightful)
I figured out in college that there were smart and dumb people (and informed and ignorant and good and evil ones) on all sides of pretty much any political question. That left emotions as the key issue, and it has never ceased to amaze and depress me how many people think of politics in the the most primitive, emotional ways: name-calling, tribalization, and tons of logical fallacies, all in the service of flinging feces at the Evil Others Who Don't Vote The Right Way.
The Tea Party is an interesting case in point. Their views, boiled down, amount to 1) the federal government should stick to its Constitutional powers, and 2) not spend more money than it has. Those are hardly extreme notions, but you'd never know it from the vicious attacks on them. This is not to say that every Tea Partier is correct on everything, or that their aren't nuts and unsavory types among them, but any political division that encompasses roughly 25-30% of the population will have some nuts and unsavory types.
So I don't find this result terribly surprising, but the people who think Tea Partiers are all ignorant racist/sexist/fascist/homophobes will certainly be surprised.
Final note: anyone interested in the psychology of political belief should check out the work of Jonathan Haidt [wikipedia.org], particularly his work on moral foundations theory. No matter what you believe politically, it will help you understand why the people who disagree with you think the way they do.
Re:actual "platform" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take the first one.
Exactly what are "excessive taxes"?
Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".
Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.
All that that site has are generalities. So say ... cutting the military ... bad! That's making things up. Okay, how about ... cutting medicare ... bad! That's making things up. Okay, how about ... cutting X ... bad! That's making things up.
Let's get it out of the way... (Score:4, Insightful)
KAHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaNNNN!!!!!!!!!
That is all.
Grr filter.
You got republicans and conservatives confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Ron Paul types are idealists, not your "normal" Republicans. We don't think of Ron Paul as a TPer, but that's only because he's so extreme. He's also a bit weird (i.e. mystical) which is why he stayed in that party.
The anti-science people are merely Republicans. There's actually very little conservative about them, and when you ask them about certain aspects of government relationship with people, they'll go left of Stalin and insist upon an extremely authoritarian police state that tells people what to do.
Then there are the non-mystics. They know about science, because science is the only way anyone has ever come up with, for understanding Anything; it turned out that everyone else (the non-scientists) were always lying about everything they said. So of course, they're informed. Not extremely informed, just better than average (remember: average is a pretty low bar). And a lot of them are idealists too. And .. get this .. some of them go with non-planned economies, really thinking that a free market algorithm will tend to find some fairly good optima (and by "fairly good" they mean something superior to everything you've ever seen in real life). So they become Tea Partiers.
That isn't to say all non-mystics become TPers; some believe in Philosopher Kings instead. If only we put unbelievable amounts of power into the hands of the best planners, they'll do Good. And also do better than anything you've ever seen in real life.
And then there's the other 90% of the population, who believe in mysticism. They split between Republican and Democrat however their parents did. And then they (incorrectly) label themselves as conservatives or liberals, or sometimes even become their self-assigned right/left labels through the power of cognitive dissonance. But without the idealism or any intellectual component at all. So they'll project anti-mysticism by knowing about evolution or global warming, but they're really doing it as dogma, not science. They just happen to be correct, as a matter of luck. Had they been told to believe in Body Thetans, they would.
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps their idea of compassion just doesn't involve using the threat of force to take money from others for their own ends.
Re:This is dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
"So far it conforms to the cultural expectations."
You mean it conforms to the stereotype promoted by liberals. Not the same thing.
"So when the people who are "conservative" but not "tea party" are included with the people who are "liberal" then that group scores worse than the group that is "tea party"."
No. If you look at his actual comments [culturalcognition.net], you will see that he found no significant difference in Cognitive Reflection Test scores between liberals and conservatives. He DID find a significantly higher score in those who identify with the Tea Party.
So get off your liberal high horse. I have found this smug attitude about IQ on the part of liberals to be [1] not supported by the actual data (see the link above for yet another bit of evidence), [2] unjustified, in my personal experience, and [3] old, tiresome, and offensive.
Re:Medical professionals (Score:4, Insightful)
What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.
Well, there you go. CNN has a political bias that is showing, and "The Daily Show" IS A COMEDY PROGRAM. It is Jon Stewart's cash cow. It isn't intended to be news, it is intended to keep his paycheck coming writ large. If you rely on either or both for your news, well, you're not getting the whole, or necessarily true, story. It's like taking a Jay Leno monologue at face value.
Perhaps the fact that CNN International carries "The Daily Show" might point you to the idea that CNN isn't trying to be a news channel anymore, if it ever was. It was Ted Turner's brainchild. The same Ted Turner who married Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda who visited the Viet Cong and made pals with them by denouncing the US, while the Viet Nam war was still going on. There can't be any biases in anything they do, can there?
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same.
Flawed logic. Take a group, and give them all the benefit of a socialist program, like government financed education. Some will do better than others, which is at least closer to a meritocracy than would otherwise be the case. Eliminate that socialist program, and only the well off will be able to afford a decent education for their children. You now have a system that is based more on your parent's wealth than your merit. Hence people who believe they've done well because of their merit, and believe that's what success should be based on, should be in favor of such a socialist program.
Tea Party =/= Religious Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:actual "platform" (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, Tea Party member are better educated and wealthier than the average American.
If you shed your prejudice, this shouldn't surprise you at all. Politically active people in general tend to be so either because they're interested in the mechanics of politics, or because they have a significant stake in the system.
That's in noticeable contrast to those who show up at "rallies", but don't vote, don't volunteer for a candidate come election season, and wonder why they're ignored by politics even though they're shouting just as loud.
The Tea Party gets press every week. Remember those "occupy" guys - yeah, neither does the press. There's a reason for that.
Re:Medical professionals (Score:5, Insightful)
You are almost right. The association with republicans leans from the fact that most of the tea party objections to the parties line up with the facade the republicans would put forward to get elected but forget about once in office. This was highlighted enormously with the bank bailouts, the GM bailouts, and the slush fund created under the guise of the stimulus in which the tea party movement more or less was created.
In short, it was easier to hijack the republican party then to create a new party and complain that they don't get any respect like the libertarians and the greens party do. (note, that isn't a jolt on the libertarians or the greens, it is just an explanation of what was happening). This is what Obama is so pissed at, it is what McCain the maverick who lost against Obama was pissed at, and what the talking heads in the MMS echoed but failed to grasp. A group of people outside the system are successfully using the system to demand change and they call themselves the tea party.
Re:actual "platform" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah I love the black and white world you live in, but reality isnt as clear.
Fulfill constitutional mandates? Easy? Have you been paying attention at all?
People have been arguing about interpretations of "constitutional mandates" since right after the constitution was ratified.
What does promoting general welfare mean? I would say Obamacare certainly promotes general welfare, but Tea Party idiots seem to think it is the harbinger of the apocalypse.
As near as I can figure, Tea Party people are ok with benefits so long as they are the ones receiving them. Once other people receive them, it is unwarranted benefits gotten from excessive taxation.
Re:actual "platform" (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes in excess of those required to fulfill constitutional mandates. Easy.
There's no constitutional mandate to maintain a standing army or navy. That will save you $680B right there, and just about balance the budget in one swoop.
Dreamers (Score:5, Insightful)
Our best hope for scientific literacy for Americans is immigration reform.
Get enough people from places where they don't think the world was made in 6 days and it might raise the average some.
Either that or hope the South secedes.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see. Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same. Maybe there is something to the concept that some people are different than others and they can excel because of who they are and not the socialist programs they were subjected to?
SERIOUSLY? Even within my small home town of 10,000, the quality of public school that you went to was pretty directly related to how wealthy your parents were. The school that all the doctors' and lawyers' kids went to? Renovated every 10 years, 20 or less kids per class, teachers' aides in every room, a number of gifted programs, and a lab full of modern PCs, along with PCs in every room, laptop carts, smart white boards, etc. But if you lived in one of the apartment complexes behind the mall you were going to the school where the bricks were falling off and the classes were packed and with few additional programs and your tech classes were taught on shared Apple IIes. In the same school district in the same town.
By highschool all of those schools filtered together...and you know what? I went to the elementary school with all the rich kids, and in highschool guess who I saw in all my AP classes, all my advanced math and science and such? The vast majority were the same kids I'd gone to elementary with -- even though there were six elementary schools in the district.
The problem isn't that these "socialist" programs don't work. The problem is that they aren't actually socialist.
You've met many more than you know (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, I've never met a single one who wasn't
In other words you almost never meet them because you are so insular - I know your type; you are the type I would not tell I am a Tea Party member because you would automatically turn against me without thought, and you'd never suspect me of belonging because my views don't match up with your bigoted notions of Tea Party members.
It's a shame that there are even some people I consider good friends who I cannot admit to being fiscally conservative, because I see how unhinged you become at the thought of any kind of conservative in your ranks...
Something to chew on is that Tea Party members are WAY more tolerant of alternative viewpoints than you are; we have to be.
The Social Conservatives are just the people more used to being loathed by people like you so they don't mind telling you what they are.
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
The stereotypical Tea Partier is, for me, an unemployed truck driver in front of the Capitol Building holding an effigy of Obama and a sign with racist epithets. I'm not trolling here; it's what a lot of people saw during the early days of its "coming out" on the cable news networks 4-5 years ago.
You should probably learn the difference between what's on television, and what is reality. You have just described a Democrat voter -- because your unemployed truck driver is probably a Teamster who votes Democrat because his union does.
I am a college graduate, a business owner, and I was Tea Party before you ever heard of it.
Stereotypes can be useful things, but only if you pull your head out of your ass and get them right.
Re:You've met many more than you know (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words you almost never meet them because you are so insular - I know your type; you are the type I would not tell I am a Tea Party member because you would automatically turn against me without thought, and you'd never suspect me of belonging because my views don't match up with your bigoted notions of Tea Party members.
Oh no, I wouldn't. Honest. If you launch into an unsolicited 45 minute long lecture about ``Fucking Obama is trampling my rights again!'' when you get a parking ticket, then I'm not going to want to be around you. Otherwise, we'd be cool. But as of yet, I've never met any self-identifying TP member who didn't do that.
It's a shame that there are even some people I consider good friends who I cannot admit to being fiscally conservative, because I see how unhinged you become at the thought of any kind of conservative in your ranks...
Christ, you act as if you're about to admit that your gay to a bunch of Muslims or something. Get over the persecution complex.
Something to chew on is that Tea Party members are WAY more tolerant of alternative viewpoints than you are; we have to be.
Hmmm..... Let's look at the behavior and voting records of the members of Congress that are part of the Tea Party....
The Social Conservatives are just the people more used to being loathed by people like you so they don't mind telling you what they are.
And they deserve it, mostly for not being honest with themselves about what their vision for the future really is.
Re:You've met many more than you know (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to differentiate between party heads and supporters. Among supporters of any party are all kind of cooks, who happen to think that the particular party will get their issues resolved. I don't know much about tea partiers, because I don't live in the US and never have except for a brief 4 month period, but I'll draw a parallel with a situation I do know:
A certain party that is economically conservative, anti-corruption, and socially liberal is being flambasted by mainstream media for being populist, ultra-conservative, and destructive. It's a long discussion on why it is so, but you'll have to trust me on this, because my point is what follows. Because this party was marginalized by mainstream media and mainstream politicians and big business (hint: they really are anti-corruption), the marginalized elements of society who are indeed ultraconservative socially and feel marginalized ended up being the strongest supporters of this party as a social group. These ultracons really are quite dumb, but they have noone else to vote for and they really want to vote for someone, because they're undeniably patriotic.
My evidence for the party being socially liberal is that when it was in power and could easily ban all types of abortion (as its ultra-conservative constituent would like), it did not. And it did this to such an extent that it tolerated a number of MPs leaving the party to form a new socially ultraconservative party based on this abortion issue alone. My conclusion on this is that when media manipulate the image a political movement wants to project, they end up recruiting for that movement a group of people who identify with the marginal viewpoints while deterring the ones who really should be supporting the movement. This actually mutates the movement and renders it sterile. It's sad, but mainstream politics and media probably know very well that they are doing this and they will continue to do it.
If you want some hints on where I have my example from, I'll tell you that the current party leader's brother died in a plane crash while serving as president of the country.
Re:What other variable were examined? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should you control for that? Where do non-white people and non-male people think science knowledge comes from?
Re:This is dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
"This is about scientific knowledge. Not IQ. They are not the same."
No, it isn't. This is about the Cognitive Reflection Test, which is correlated with IQ, and which has no direct relationship to education. Do I detect a hint of Dunning-Kruger showing through?
"At least read that link you posted all the way to the end."
I did. He claims that the difference is "trivially small", yet elsewhere he shows that it is statistically significant. I'll stick with the numbers rather than his opinion, thanks very much! He even admits that his opinion has been biased. So I'll adhere to the science.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Neither can he. Statistically significant and "trivially small" are mutually incompatible. One is science, and the other is opinion, and they are in conflict. Given that, I'll go with the statistics. Also, saying in effect "I wouldn't be surprised if it reversed" does not lead to the conclusion you appear to assume; perhaps he thinks they will undergo a shift in membership.
"Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. Understand what you're measuring and how to measure it."
From what you have written in the last couple of comments, I am pretty confidant that I understand it better than you do.
"Yes. He divided the results into 3 groups. 1. Liberal 2a. Conservative 2b. Tea Party"
Your very choice of numbering indicates a bias. But let's leave that aside for now. While what you say is not false, you present it in a very misleading way. To avoid confusion, I'm going to call them 1, 2, and 3, because they are 3 distinct subgroups of the sample population.
He compared 1 to the population as a whole, and 2 to the population as a whole, and found no significant difference between the results. He then compared 3 to the population as a whole, and found a significant difference.
You are presenting 2 and 3 as 2a and 2b as though there is some kind of statistical impropriety or shenanigans going on. He compared each of the 3 groups to the population as a whole, as is right and proper. Your insinuation that there is something wrong or weird about the way it was divided up is just so much hot air. If he had not compared each against the whole population, then there would have been something strange; but such is not the case.
In fact, his own statements show that what you seem to be implying is false. He states:
"It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.
Except that it has the opposite sign." [emphasis mine]
Clearly, then, any implied "bias" that might arise from combining your "2a" and "2b" is more than made up for by the difference in scores.
Re:It's simple: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Medical professionals (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties. The problem for them is that the differences that do remain are showstoppers for them to be in those other platforms. The tea party movement realized that infiltrating one of those parties would allow changes like when the Christian Coalition took over the republicans at one point in time.
That might be more believable if the Tea Party had not challenged republicans who held safe seats in government during the primaries just to lose the general election to political adversaries. What you are claiming would require the republicans to actually defeat themselves in an attempt to make themselves win under a false pretense. That's a little like a bank robber asking the cops to drive the get away car at his next heist.
I think the recent government shut down proves you wrong on this. It was ineffective action but if you paid attention to the contents of Ted Cruze's speeches or the speeches of the Tea Party members who were behind it, you would understand that they did it specifically because the people asked them too do something.
Just watch cruze's concession speech before the vote to end the shutdown and pay attention to what is being said before injecting your ideological opinions of the content.
So you suggest that the republican party put on masks and pretended to be tea part members for some sort of gain. What type of gain have they received? what gain has the republicans received when it only divided the party showing the difference between the establishment and the tea party conservatives? Your own president marks a clear distinction between the two, so which is it? One in the same or two separate movements?
Re: actual "platform" (Score:1, Insightful)
The Constitution only allows for an army, it doesn't specify exactly what it is composed of, nor what arms it may bear. I don't recall muskets or cannons in the Constitution either, but that doesn't mean they have to fight empty handed.
Re:I like Centralized government (Score:4, Insightful)
The federal government is basically a coalition of the fortune 100 corporations. The larger and more toxic to liberty it gets, the more power the 1% has over the rest of us. It's better to have a coalition of smaller governments as it makes it a lot harder to keep them all infiltrated enough. Also, the local interests of the population take precedence over the interests of people thousands of miles away, protecting the local values and interests of that section of society.
While centralized systems offer some advantages to this, a critical fault is that they have one point of failure.. kick it there, and it's yours for the pilfering. The founders knew that there are benefits to both, and that's why we have a system with both. However, in recent years the fed has gotten too large and too influential in too many areas for state governments to resist. "Do as we say on X, otherwise no funding for your Y" rules the day.
Today, the liberals draw more political power to the state with things like encroaching tax, identity politics, censorship, and other marxist tenets, while the neocons use that power to keep market cornering laws, passed for the benefit of their lobbyists, enforced. This includes things like tax loopholes, leaving the rest of us with the bill. Meanwhile corporates 'agree' to fund the liberals' identity politics campaigns and allow leftist politics into their corporate employee behavioral policies. This reenforces the left's voter base and keeps them coming back to the polls (vote for us or you'll lose your 'rights'!). The result is that both parties punch each other with one hand while patting each other on the back with the other, each supporting the other's interests while the rest of us lose our liberty to these very influential minority populations. Who walks away laughing to the bank? That top 1% liberals are always complaining about. Walking down the campaign funding tree to the largest donations, a lot of the names become the same across both parties. 'Why?' becomes an important question here.
Re: actual "platform" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentally incorrect. Just because a technology improves does not mean the Constitution prevents its implementation.
I don't see this in the constitution. I however, see navy clearly spelled out.
However, I challenge anyone to find Social Security in the Constitution.
Let's short circuit my straw man and get to the real meat of this.
The constitution didn't give women the right to vote. Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person. There were no Presidential term limits.
"But!" says the tea partier "The constitution gives us the ability to modify it! The founding fathers intended that to deal with future situations that they couldn't foresee! All those things were all good amendments!" And the tea partier would be right.
But then we get to other amendments. The amendments, that for example, give the government the power to create programs such as social security (Amendment 16). Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment, entirely legally and under the system the founding fathers set up. "No!" says the tea partier. "We can't do this things! These things weren't intended by the founding fathers! They wrote the constitution specifically as they did as a guidepost for this country!"
And this is when the tea party ceases to be an organization that is an advocate for the founding father or the constitution. Like any other political organization, they have ideas they like, and ideas they don't like. The difference is, they use the founding fathers as puppets for their goals when it suits them. The Constitution says nothing about protecting the skies, yet sane and reasonable people agree that it probably implies that would be ok, even though the founding fathers had never seen an airplane. The Constitutional also says nothing for or against social security, and in fact a later amendment permits it. We, as a country, have decided that the Constitution allows for social security as well. Yet to a tea partier, the air force is totally ok 100% implied by the constitution (even though it says nothing specifically about an air force) yet social security is not (even though the Constitution also says nothing about permitting an air force.)
Re:You got republicans and conservatives confused (Score:4, Insightful)
The anti-science people are merely Republicans. There's actually very little conservative about them, and when you ask them about certain aspects of government relationship with people, they'll go left of Stalin and insist upon an extremely authoritarian police state that tells people what to do.
What is it about Americans that they don't recognize that right wing conservatives can be just as authoritarian as left wing socialists. They both come in extremes including the extreme authoritarian types who push their workd view on you whether you want it or not. General Pinochet is a good example of a right wing free trader who was definitely a tyrant. Nelson Mandela is an example of a left winger who was not a tyrant.
Personally I've always been more scared of Conservatives as they like to use government to control peoples behaviour in all aspects including money whereas socialists usually just want to control peoples money witrh the left wanting to spread it around and the right wanting to hog it all.
There's a reason that conservatives (called Tories) were tarred and feathered during the American Revolution and then driven out of the country. I'd like to drive the Tories out of my government as well.
Re:progressives (Score:3, Insightful)
Ron Paul isn't mystical at all. He's very easy to understand if you look at his policies, effectively to sell everything tax payers have built to the highest bidder, including national parks, other lands, infrastructure... He's a corporation friendly capitalist. He talks big when it comes to free markets and non-coercion, but if you really consider what would unfold should his policies be put into place, sell everything to the rich, he's a just a crazy white old Texan that doesn't give a toss about people that don't have a lot of wealth.
definitions change (Score:2, Insightful)
A typical tea party type has more in common with a classic 19th century "liberal" than a modern "liberal".
A modern liberal has more in common with a 20th century collectivist (marxism, syndicalism, or corporatism) than a 19th century liberal.
A modern conservative has more in common with a 1930's progressive.
A modern progressive has more in common with a 20th century totalitarian (fascism, Stalinist communism).
All results of re-branding by the various ideologies after their various catastrophic failures.
Re:actual "platform" (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember those "occupy" guys - yeah, neither does the press. There's a reason for that.
Yes, there is indeed a reason. The reason is that the media companies (that is, those companies that a massive majority of people get their "news" and information from) are owned by a few large companies, who are in turn owned by very wealthy people. The whole point of Occupy was to protest the laws and government policies that are specifically set up to benefit very wealthy people and large corporations at the expense of everyone else. Why would a very wealthy owner of a large media corporation want to highlight something that hurts their bottom line, when they can instead just let everyone forget about it after spinning it to make it sound like it's all just a bunch of homeless hippies who wanted an excuse to sleep on a park bench (that was a pretty insignificant minority, but of course it's what the media highlighted)?