Yale Prof. Study: Tea-Partiers Smarter at Science

Hello again ATS.

This is a bit divisive for us non-partisans, but a Yale professor has released a study with findings that Tea-Partiers are smarter when it comes to science than liberals, to a mathematically significant degree.

Eureka! Tea partiers know science

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.

What's surprising is that the researcher divulges the results despite his dislike for the Tea Party:

While Kahan cautioned against thinking the results can be used to explain deep ideological fights over climate change and other politically relevant science, and he said the results wouldn’t change his negative views of the tea party, he did say he will no longer make assumptions about the level of knowledge on his opponents’ side.

From his blog:
Some data on education, religiosity, ideology, and science comprehension

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: that is, identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure:

Why do you think this is? What implications does this have regarding issues like Global Climate Change? Are scientifically illiterate leftists following the Al Gorbot?

Do you think there's any truth to this study?

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


Regardless of whether the study is credible or not, the Yale professor believes it is, and I just LOVE how he fully admits to not personally knowing any Tea Party members, yet held them in a negative light! He even admits he got this opinion by reading Huffington Post.

So you don't know a single one, yet judge them based on media...Right, I got it. But at least he is admitting now he was wrong...maybe the next time he won't be so fast to judge a person or group based on bs rags like Huff Post.

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


Let me save everyone a lot of time.

The progressive element is going to come on and say Tea Party is stupid and dumb and the story is bunk.

They will flout their IQ studies with the same aplomb as high school students with rulers and their genitalia.

The Tea Party folks will say, "Yup. Knew it." And that'll be that.

Cheers tho.

SnF for a funny thread.

The tea party are the ones crying to stop the debt, stop operation of government at a deficit, Small government, etc.

Constitutionalist as well, funny how being what the republicans used to be about, or at least what they claimed ideologically, has gotten the tea part labeled nuts.

Funny how third party advocates tend to be more knowledgable isn't it?

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


Interesting and provocative; excuses/dismissals are sure to follow.

I consider myself constitutionalist, but agree with the fundamentals of the tea party. I think there is some truth here, though I would like to see how these assessments were made. If a person understands our tax system and the economy well enough to sympathize with the tea party, they probably are above average.

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980


At first, I didn't believe it but then I thought about it. I would imagine, on average, any person who supports a 3rd party would probably be a bit above average, even if I think their politics are twisted.

Oh, and I'm a liberal so here's my obligatory reasons why it's bunk:
- The site's biased
- The people involved were paid
- They are all racist. Even the ones who aren't
- Here's a bunch of other biased studies that prove they're dumb
- I didn't have coffee yet
- Tea Parties are for girls
- Etc, take your pick

Sometimes I feel like I'm on the outside looking in. I just can't wrap my head around why we need such division between groups of politicians.

Today I am officially creating my own political party...The Human Party.

Oh, and because I am the only member, I am also the smartest. And whoever does not agree with me can create a new label and run left while I run right, round and round in circles until we bump into each other and get hurt.

Yeesh...

reply to post by InTheFlesh1980

but a Yale professor has released a study with findings that Tea-Partiers are smarter when it comes to science than liberals,

No, that's not what the article says. The conclusion reached was that tea party members were better at science than non-tea party members, NOT that they are better at science than liberals.

Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.

Two completely different issues. Just because one is not a tea partier doesn't mean one is automatically liberal. There are plenty of non-tea party members who are conservative. See the graphs you posted.

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.

those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t

****Those who didn't aren't partisan leaning according to the research, as you suggest.

reply to post by Liquesence

The conclusion reached was that tea party members were better at science than non-tea party members, NOT that they are better at science than liberals.

You are correct; however, liberals are included in the category of non-tea party members, so the original summary also remains correct as well.

My intent was not to skew the findings of the study, but rather to evoke discussion on if the findings have validity, and if so then why.

My personal take is in line with an earlier poster who suggested that those who ascribe to a third party rather than the spoon-fed two-party system are more likely to be critical thinkers in possession of more knowledge.

Look we all know progressives are dumb, just by how utterly stupid their logic and argumentation is.

Look at Global warming, an obvious communist front group attempting to institute global wealth redistribution.

NOOOOO! NO! We must save the world from itself! NOOOOOOOOOO

FreeMason
Look we all know progressives are dumb, just by how utterly stupid their logic and argumentation is.

Look at Global warming, an obvious communist front group attempting to institute global wealth redistribution.

NOOOOO! NO! We must save the world from itself! NOOOOOOOOOO

Yes, you seem to be a fine example of conservative acumen and good taste. Not to mention class, tact, and an ability to discuss without insult.

reply to post by beezzer


I'm not surprised, Democrats have started pushing ideology over science, it is really similar to religion - they left the scientific realm a few years ago, I hate to say, but it becomes an issue when it means they aren't willing to listen to legitimate criticism.

It is kind of scary, to be honest, because it means that to survive in society you have to learn the lies and taglines instead of knowing how to think - for someone who does know how to think, it could mean trouble.

How much anxiety is it going to cause someone who knows how to think critically and understands logic to have to actually take extra time to navigate the constructed lies of different political parties and religions to survive?

There was another study (poll?) where the results showed conservatives (republicans?) had more understanding of science (in general?) than liberals (democrats)? I can't recall all the details so that's why I'm using (?) so much. This was true despite most scientists being liberal or democrat.

It had to do with climate science, I think. All I know is republicans or conservatives, despite higher rates of AGW denial, had a better overall understanding of science than liberals or democrats - whom usually don't deny AGW.

There're also studies which show higher amounts of education on the conservative side do not correlate to less AGW denial, but instead are linked to MORE denial.

reply to post by Cuervo

The site's biased

You are right. If you read the article there is a link it that shows he got his knickers in a wad over the book called the Republican mind.

I would have to ask when did politics and science become the same thing. Looks like Yale is scraping the bottom of the barrel for Professors.

FreeMason
Look we all know progressives are dumb, just by how utterly stupid their logic and argumentation is.

Look at Global warming, an obvious communist front group attempting to institute global wealth redistribution.

NOOOOO! NO! We must save the world from itself! NOOOOOOOOOO

Well I've seen a lot of bad arguing come from left leaning members, but I by no means consider them any less intelligent than you or I. This post was uncalled for and is basically stooping to the same level as some of our more notorious left leaning members. Good job lowering the bar...

Smarter in science? when they are so anti-education. Its called Liberal arts.
lmao i spit my coffee(i mean tea) while reading it!

Here is some "science" from their leaders...
Is legitimate rape a science? How about science of how human body knows the difference between fetus from rape and normal ways?


I love how republicans alrdy went on the defensive lol, its like they know this is stupid.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Good job lowering the bar...

Was the bar even high to begin with?

I'm so sick of studies like these. People are allowed to have opinions regardless of their income level, IQ, dental records, ethnicity, religious beliefs, shoe size, or hair color.

I don't see this having any implications on the Global Warming debate. You can be intelligent and still have stupid beliefs. Just look at Ben Stein regarding intelligent design. Also, i'm pretty sure there are Tea Partiers that support AGW.

FreeMason
Look we all know progressives are dumb, just by how utterly stupid their logic and argumentation is.

Look at Global warming, an obvious communist front group attempting to institute global wealth redistribution.

NOOOOO! NO! We must save the world from itself! NOOOOOOOOOO

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're probably the exception to the group (assuming you're a tea-partier).