Tea Partiers have a better grasp of science...how embarassing!

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure, in your DREAMS you can do anything!

Pick one and prove me wrong.

He just kind of vanished lol

He kinda always does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:

1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)

2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)

3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)

4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)

So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.

Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.

Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.

Do you understand basic math?

Conservatives scored 0,05 lower than liberals. Tea PArty members scored 0.85 higher than non Tea Party members. Unless you are trying to argue that liberals are part of the Tea Party, that means liberals scored 0.80 lower than Tea Partiers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone want to guess how long it will take a liberal to point out what I did wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:

1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)

2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)

3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)

4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)

So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.

Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.

Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.

My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led. All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.

You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led. All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.

I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
What is legitimate rape to a liberal?

Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party. Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?

Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?

I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.

Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would you have had that misconception?

Because I was doing an experiment.

Care to elaborate? I'm sure there's a more concrete reason.

The more concrete reason is he can't admit he was wrong, which leads him to pretend he was doing an experiment when he gets caught in a lie.

 

[Asclepias]

Meanwhile, contrary to what the rightie kooks are ranting about, the actual linked study showed:

1. In a college-grad vs. not-college-grad matchup, science intelligence was strongly positively correlated with college attendance. (r = +0.36)

2. In a strongly-religious vs not-strongly-religious matchup, science intelligence was moderately negatively correlated with strong religious beliefs. (r=-0.26)

3. In a liberal vs. conservative matchup, science intelligence was slightly negatively correlated with conservatism. (r= -0.05)

4. In a Tea-Party vs. Non-Tea-Party matchup, science intelligence was slightly positively correlated with Tea Party membership (r=+0.05)

So, Tea Partiers were slightly smarter than the average person. But it didn't compare Tea Partiers to liberals. It compared Tea Partiers to the whole population, a population whose average was dragged down by evangelical creationist cranks.

Hence, it is not possible to make any conclusion concerning Tea Partiers vs. liberals from the study, since they weren't compared. And all the conservatives on this thread failed to grasp that. We can't generalize to all conservatives from such a small sample. We can only conclude the conservatives on this thread have a poor grasp of logic.

Oh, the test was also about vaccine risk, which is more an issue with liberal conspiracy theorists. Hence it's going to be "biased" against liberals, just as, say, a test on nuclear power would be. If the test had been about, say, climate science, conservatives would have ended up looking like raging 'tards across the board. All we see from this example is that, in a test biased against liberals by design, the liberals were still a little smarter than conservatives.

My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led. All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.

You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?

Why am I not surprised?

What are you talking about?

 

[Vox]

"
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.”

Read more: Eureka! Tea partiers know science - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com



They also have a firmer grasp of what our Constitution represents, but that's for another shocking study down the road.....
​

This one is at least HONEST.

Ones on our board are not. Just few days ago two of them were spewing around the hatred toward the TP and one was actually promoting the very policies by Paul Ryan( 2010) of increasing the SS age to 70 ( or at least 67)and was extremely surprised that 67 has been there a long time ago - everybody born after 1960 will be SS eligible 67+. The other one had no idea that TP proposed tax code overhaul as their fundamental agenda.

Talk about low informed voter.
The problem is - ours don't even WANT to get informed unlike Kahan

 

[Vox]

I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
What is legitimate rape to a liberal?

Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party. Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?

Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?

I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.

Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.

he is a typical low information leftard

 

[Asclepias]

Why would you have had that misconception?

Because I was doing an experiment.

Care to elaborate? I'm sure there's a more concrete reason.

You guys fall for everything. If you read all the way down on his post you would see he doesn't think his findings are significant and more a result of the size of his pool. Basically a bad data set.

 

[Asclepias]

I saw you claim Todd Aiken was tea party.
You still refuse to address the liberal view of child rape not being rape rape as presented by one of your own.
What is legitimate rape to a liberal?

Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party. Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?

Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?

I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.

Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.

Why would Fox lie then? I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful. Which one of you guys are lying?

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News

 

[Vox]

Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. .

no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters
you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... originality

there is no Tea Party membership - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My experiment proves you guys are not smart and easily led. All I did is pretended to be surprised and you guys fell hook line and sinker.

You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?

Why am I not surprised?

What are you talking about?

Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.

But you managed to fool him, so good for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Todd Aiken is backed by the tea-party. Why would you back someone dumber than you and support his views?

Who said child rape was not rape and why do you assume I would consider someone like that my own?

I dont know what a Liberal would think about legitimate rape, but I'm pretty sure most if not all would never believe in such a concept like the Tea party does.

Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.

Why would Fox lie then? I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful. Which one of you guys are lying?

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News

How would I know why they would lie?

From your link.

In doing so, he beat out Sarah Palin's candidate of choice, former state treasurer Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner, a businessman who poured more than $7.5 million of his own money into the race.

 

[Asclepias]

Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. .

no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters
you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... originality

there is no Tea Party membership - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.

i didnt say membership I said member. There is no membership to be a male but you may be a member of that group. People professed they identified as part of the Tea Party. Therefore they are members.

 

[Asclepias]

You managed to fool a dyed in the wool, knee jerk progressive?

Why am I not surprised?

What are you talking about?

Mamooth is not a Tea Party member. In fact, he hates the Tea Party more than you do, and, like you, thinks they are all ignorant white redneck racists.

But you managed to fool him, so good for you.

I'm well aware of that Mamooth is not a tea party member. Did you notice I thanked Mamooth and proceeded to post my confession since the beans were spilled? You seem to be 1 of 2 people fooled by that. How did you guys miss it?

 

[Vox]

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.” -Todd Akin

which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
However, I still consider him an idiot.

Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
He should have invoked Newt's tactic

 

[Asclepias]

Sarah Palin tried to find someone to run against him, but you think he was backed by the Tea Party. No wonder you think Mamooth is a conservative.

Why would Fox lie then? I thought I could trust these guys to be truthful. Which one of you guys are lying?

Tea Party-backed Rep. Akin wins Missouri GOP Senate primary to take on McCaskill | Fox News

How would I know why they would lie?

From your link.

In doing so, he beat out Sarah Palin's candidate of choice, former state treasurer Sarah Steelman, and John Brunner, a businessman who poured more than $7.5 million of his own money into the race.

Fox says he is tea party backed. Is he or is he not?

 

[Vox]

Right after you prove to me that everyone that leans conservative is a Tea Party member. .

no, the ones leaning conservative are definite dimocrap and rino supporters
you, leftard guys, are amazing in your ... originality

there is no Tea Party membership - it is a unassociated pool of groups and their sympathizers.

i didnt say membership I said member. There is no membership to be a male but you may be a member of that group. People professed they identified as part of the Tea Party. Therefore they are members.

if there is no official membership, there are no official members.

 

[Asclepias]

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down.” -Todd Akin

which was actually a mistake in terminology - what he meant was FORCIBLE rape and yes, rape to be considered rape has to be forcible - and yes, forcible rape is a very rare cause of pregnancy.
So his fundamental reasoning was accurate.
However, I still consider him an idiot.

Not for what he said, but for him getting involved into the discussion.
He should have invoked Newt's tactic

Did the fact that women do not have "a way of shutting that whole thing down" ring any alarms? What part of his reasoning was fundamentally sound BTW?