Sir Rolo posted:

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/19/congratulations-tea-party-members-you-are-just-as-vulnerable.html

Ramadu posted:

Willful misinterpretation of the Higgs-Boson, the "God Particle" maybe?

Job Truniht posted:

Wouldn't even a basic difference of means test say that those two normal curves are statistically insignificant?

Job Truniht posted:

Wouldn't even a basic difference of means test say that those two normal curves are statistically insignificant?

AShamefulDisplay posted:

Came across this. This is my (admittedly amateur) analysis.

I would like to note a truly interesting bit 'of his analysis: when he compares Tea Party scientific literacy vs non-tea party, he is adding Conservapub>0 (ie, conservatives) to non-tea party*. So what this could mean (and I wonder why he didnt consider this in his write-up) is that the tea party members score higher on scientific literacy than non-tea party conservatives, which drags the aggregate non-tea party group down enough to make it seem that tea party identification is positively correlated with scientific literacy. This seems to fit with other studies I have seen w/r/t tea party members being a bit more well-educated than others who identify with the conservative cohort.

Criticism of analysis aside, even if tea party identification correlates positively with scientific literacy, this does not mean that the people that they vote for are more likely to be scientifically literate than their more liberal counterparts (and to be fair, vice versa).

*N= Sample size.
Conservapub<0 (aka liberal)= 1168
Conservapub>0 (aka conservative)= 1148
Tea party=430

Conservative-Tea Party=718
Non-tea party conservative+liberal=1886. 1886 is his N for non tea party members. Not much of a stretch to say that he merely adds non tea party conservative sample to his liberal sample.

quote:

But because they are like everyone else, these high "science comprehending" tea-party members will be more likely to display politically biased misinterpretations of empirical data than people who display a lower "science comprehension" apptitude. The greater their capacity to engage in analytical thinking, the more systematically they will use that capacity to ferret out evidence congenial to their predispositions and block out and rationalize away everything else.

VitalSigns posted:

If the Tea Party wants to convince me that a scientific study said they're good at science, they shouldn't have a picture of a blackboard with irrelevant electromagnetics and quantum mechanics formulas.

Wouldn't a sociology professor fill his blackboard with, like, statistics?

Strudel Man posted:

From Sir Rolo's second link:


This guy really is on the ball, I gotta say.

Job Truniht posted:

Wouldn't even a basic difference of means test say that those two normal curves are statistically insignificant?

AShamefulDisplay posted:

It wasnt even really a scientific study. It looks more to me like the dude was bored, grabbed some data from someone else, and cobbled up a histogram. Nothing wrong with that, but this seems to me to be about playing with numbers than an actual scientific paper.

Vivian Darkbloom posted:

C'mon, the links are right there. This is a post-hoc analysis by a respected scholar, it's not illegitimate because you say so.

quote:

Next time I collect data, too, I won't be surprised at all if the correlations between science comprehension and political ideology or identification with the Tea Party movement disappear or flip their signs. These effects are trivially small, & if I sample 2000+ people it's pretty likely any discrepancy I see will be "statistically significant"--which has precious little to do with "practically significant."

AShamefulDisplay posted:

I dont think it is illegitimate, I just dont think it is as rigorous as some have been trying to pass it off as. His analysis is incomplete.

Just for the record, I dont think that scientific illiteracy has anything to do with political affiliation. For every creationist, global warming denying tea partier, there is gonna be at least 1 anti nuclear, anti gmo, crystal healing, homeopathic loving liberal out there.

EDIT: for the record, this is what he said:

He isnt making a claim about statistical significance in his original numbers, he is saying that future study might yield statistical significance.

AShamefulDisplay posted:

I dont think it is illegitimate, I just dont think it is as rigorous as some have been trying to pass it off as. His analysis is incomplete.

Just for the record, I dont think that scientific illiteracy has anything to do with political affiliation. For every creationist, global warming denying tea partier, there is gonna be at least 1 anti nuclear, anti gmo, crystal healing, homeopathic loving liberal out there.

Strudel Man posted:

It's in the picture, man. p = 0.05 is just barely on this side of statistically significant - a fact which he specifically calls out in the second post. There were 2316 respondents, hence the reference to 2000+.

Vivian Darkbloom posted:

edit: Also what Strudel Man says. While this "proof" of tea party smarts was misreported in a wide range of conservative media, Kahan makes it very clear that it doesn't say what the macro makers think it does.

henkman posted:

Sorbo is a pretty big conservative

Mornacale posted:

The joke is based around the desirability of a woman who is easy to persuade into oral sex. But sex should be a free exchange of affection between two people, not something that a man is trying to get "easily". It contributes to the culture of men being the aggressors seeking sex and women as the gatekeepers withholding it.

e: It's also worth noting that the campaign is misogynistic just insofar as it's clearly aimed 100% at straight men, rape culture aside.

stan worship posted:

I guess those folks are really banking on being the only source of information for their readers, because every time I've ever googled "southern strategy" I've come across the remarks Lee Atwater made about who it targeted:

quote:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

The Insect Court posted:

I'm sickened by the fact that you didn't consider that lesbians(cis and trans) can receive oral sex, you heteronormative gender-fascist.

Sir Rolo posted:

toanoradian posted:

What's the asterisk for? Also if I'm a Muslim and I read this, my status of ObamaCare exemption is a paradox!

quote:

You submit to the authority of Scripture, and they do not.

You believe all that the Bible says about human life: that it is superior to animal life, endowed with a soul, and imprinted with God’s image. They do not.

They do not value children the same way that you do. You cannot bring a child into this world with someone who does not value the child as God does and as you do.

If your future unborn child is suspected to have some sort of complication or “birth defect,” the conclusions you and your spouse will arrive at could very easily be life versus death.

If a future pregnancy comes at a tough time (job loss, inconvenience, hard season of life), you may find yourself under pressure to murder the child—a massive, stressful, possibly irreconcilable conflict.

If they do not think biblically about having children, it’s probably safe to assume that they won’t think biblically about raising children either.

Division is literally two visions, and you have division about issues that are exceedingly deep and important. This will cause a rift in your marital relationship that is supposed to be “one flesh.”

They disagree with God, and you cannot spend your life supporting someone who disagrees with God on a matter as vital as human life.

They are wrong.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

9 Reasons not to marry someone who is pro-choice

nyquil hangover posted:

I'd never date/marry anyone who ISN'T pro-choice. I know lots of other women who feel the same way.

pacerhimself posted:

Professor Liberal Strawman

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

9 Reasons not to marry someone who is pro-choice

Guilty Spork posted:

It's be really nice if the likes of Driscoll could actually admit that when they talk of people being Biblical/Christian, what they actually mean is adhering to a particular flavor of American conservative evangelical Christianity. But I guess the billions of people who claim to be Christian and have different beliefs from Mark Driscoll are all 100% fake.

Guilty Spork posted:

It's be really nice if the likes of Driscoll could actually admit that when they talk of people being Biblical/Christian, what they actually mean is adhering to a particular flavor of American conservative evangelical Christianity. But I guess the billions of people who claim to be Christian and have different beliefs from Mark Driscoll are all 100% fake.

Nenonen posted:

Herr Professor Gottless von Schtrawmann

crowfeathers posted:

Uh, everyone knows that Papists aren't really American or even Christian, didn't you see the ads Nixon put out about it?

RagnarokAngel posted:

Well...to be fair if you want to find a group largely pro-Abortion, Catholics may be the wrong place to look.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Well...to be fair if you want to find a group largely pro-Abortion, Catholics may be the wrong place to look.

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:

They do not value children the same way that you do. You cannot bring a child into this world with someone who does not value the child as God does and as you do.

quote:

Let’s presume that you accept the reality of the law of demand, and accept also that this law applies to labor no less than it applies to legumes, Legos, plywood, cigarettes, and other goods and services. (If you don’t accept this reality and its application in labor markets, explain why you do not.)