Study: Tea Partiers know more about Science than Non-Tea Partiers

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
5 star thread, like, comment, rate and share

[h=1]Eureka! Tea partiers know science[/h]


130619_tea_party_immigration_ap_605.jpg
Findings meet the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor says. | AP Photo




By TAL KOPAN | 10/17/13 1:53 PM EDT Updated: 10/17/13 3:42 PM EDT
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.
Continue Reading [h=4][/h]



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.
(Also on POLITICO: Poll: GOP bitter over tea party)
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. “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 and POLITICO). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly, I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”
(Also on POLITICO: Palin hints at tea party primaries)
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.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html#ixzz2i2kVDr8p
 
did i say that?

nope.

i just said that part was left out.

also left out was the author's admitted ongoing bias and baseless media driven negative perceptions of "teabaggers"

even smart people can be hoodwinked by the media and their non-stop campaign to paint everything not approved by the democrats as evil mean and selfish.

if the author falls for it, you have NO CHANCE.

may as well let rachel maddow write your inevitable snarky response for you.

at least she might make it funny.
 
also left out was the author's admitted ongoing bias and baseless media driven negative perceptions of "teabaggers"

really?

apparently you reading compensation has failed you? (<-----not a question, despite the question mark)

&#8220;I&#8217;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&#8217;d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,&#8221; Kahan wrote.
&#8220;But then again, I don&#8217;t know a single person who identifies with the tea party,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;All my impressions come from watching cable tv &#8212; & I don&#8217;t watch Fox News very often &#8212; and reading the &#8216;paper&#8217; (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I&#8217;m a little embarrassed, but mainly, I&#8217;m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.&#8221;
 
really?

apparently you reading compensation has failed you? (<-----not a question, despite the question mark)

&#8220;I&#8217;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&#8217;d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,&#8221; Kahan wrote.
&#8220;But then again, I don&#8217;t know a single person who identifies with the tea party,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;All my impressions come from watching cable tv &#8212; & I don&#8217;t watch Fox News very often &#8212; and reading the &#8216;paper&#8217; (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused Internet sites like Huffington Post and POLITICO). I&#8217;m a little embarrassed, but mainly, I&#8217;m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.&#8221;


the very next line:

"Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments--all very negative-- of what I understand the "Tea Party movement" to stand for. "

so easy
the author still holds to all his assumptions except the "Teabaggers are scientifically illiterate" meme.
so he can still freelyu assume "teabaggers" are:

selfish
racist
inbred
poor
white trash
alcoholic
lazy
mean
heartless
hateful
double racist
stupid
ignorant of the many-fold glories of leftism
bigoted
xenophobic
triple racist
antisemitic
blind followers of rush limbaugh/sarah palin/whoever is the boogeyman of the day
quadruple racsit
 
I think anyone who's taken a basic statistics course could easily understand how this could happen.

whoa now..
easy, take the gun out of your mouth bro...

it's not worth this.

you have so much to live for!

obama's third term is bound to be better

go to your happy place!

remember all those misspellt signs and churlish allusions to Obama's african ancestry?

yeah, thats it, put the gun down...

cool man.

everything is cool.
 
"teabaggers" are:

selfish
racist
inbred
poor
white trash
alcoholic
lazy
mean
heartless
hateful
double racist
stupid
ignorant of the many-fold glories of leftism
bigoted
xenophobic
triple racist
antisemitic
blind followers of rush limbaugh/sarah palin/whoever is the boogeyman of the day
quadruple racsit

teabaggers are like that everywhere.
 
Here's an example of a Tea Party argument with a correct premise and quite questionable conclusion:

"We're concerned about the national debt."

This is a very basic wording for what I see as why the Tea Party operates.

Turning this motive into a simple argument would be formatted thus: "National debt is staggering, and it is because of Obamacare, therefore I'm going to hold up a sign in protest."

Please let me know if I have misjudged them.
 
When is the Tea Party going to start demanding cuts to "defense" spending? That would be the correct conclusion if they cared about staggering debt.
 
When is the Tea Party going to start demanding cuts to "defense" spending? That would be the correct conclusion if they cared about staggering debt.

There was this one guy who advocated such cuts before the tea party was hijacked by the retarded likes of sarah palin. BUT HES RACIST! 1!! 1!! 1! 11!!! one
 
There was this one guy who advocated such cuts before the tea party was hijacked by the retarded likes of sarah palin. BUT HES RACIST! 1!! 1!! 1! 11!!! one

Ron-Paul-on-gays.jpg




Ron%20Paul.jpg


in 1996 he claimed he wrote these newsletters and defended them during the congressional campaign.
 
Ron-Paul-on-gays.jpg




Ron%20Paul.jpg


in 1996 he claimed he wrote these newsletters and defended them during the congressional campaign.


given your obvious callous disregard for truth, i am going to simply assume that you invented all those quotes too.

seems a pretty safe bet considering that you are engaging in FRAUD.
 
Back
Top