And why is he “embarrassed”? Because it turns out he’d formed his beliefs about the acumen of those who identify as TEA Partiers — he had expected them to be slightly dumb and not terribly scientifically inclined (and I’d add, probably RACIST!) — from reading the New York Times, or Politico, or the Huffington Post. Which, that’s not terribly scientific now, is it?
To his credit, however, the professor, Dan Kahan, has adjusted his world view concerning the intellect of those who identify with liberty, individual autonomy, and a desire to live free and unmolested by the whims of politicians and their bureaucratic social engineers who, as it happens, aren’t as scientifically inclined as are they.
Which is to say, by following the data and drawing conclusions from it, Professor Kahan has actually engaged in scientific inquiry of the kind that doesn’t coalesce near exclusively around some phony and largely biased “consensus” model. Or, if you prefer, from junk science.
Meaning perhaps he has more in common with the TEA Party then he ever believed, despite his evident disdain for what it is we stand for.
Science!
(h/t Mark Levin)
I guess this means we’re simply Evil, instead of Stupid and Evil.
PROGRESS!
Perhaps the good prof would care to examine the correlation between reading the NYT, Huffington Post and Politico, and complete ignorance of the real word. Probably a very high R and small p.
I wonder, does the Yale professor realize he’s admitting that he lives in an elitist left-wing cocoon?
Seeking explanations, he takes his second sailing? Somehow, I doubt he’s alighted shipboard as yet, his confidence in Anaxagoras not quite spent.
Good on him, I say. Having actual data trump preconceptions is a good thing.
Seems to me he should be embarrassed to be a Yale professor.
I wonder, does the Yale professor realize he’s admitting that he lives in an elitist left-wing cocoon?
Feature, not bug. The cocoon protects him from becoming a racist and a knuckle-dragger and from having to consort with such.
Good on him, I say.
They’ll yank hard on his choke-chain and he’ll fall back in line, denouncing his own study as an outlier.
I would bet the farm he’s not the type to stand up to the contempt of his peers. He’s not the next Horowitz.
He didn’t need data to form his opinions, he had oracles. So, has he stopped viewing the New York Times, or Politico, or the Huffington Post as oracular? Or just off by one?
They won’t fill you up, an overpriced appetizer
But with cheddar bacon chives you won’t be any the wiser
Tater skins
Tater skins
Of course, it never occurs to him that he “[doesn’t] know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party” for much the same reason that professors at the University of Berlin in 1944 didn’t know any practicing Jews.
Let’s see you support a tenure case for a libertarian, Dan. Then we’ll talk.
There will be no second sailing. He’s a psychologist. His next study will be figuring out why people with so much factual knowledge can end up drawing the ‘wrong’ conclusions.
Or a study on how to correct them, in which case the title will be “Milgram’s Missed Opportunity: Repurposing a Useful Technology.”
Holy crap, did anyone follow the links all the way to the initial article. scroll down and read the comment by Rodrigo the Brazilian.
If he’s legit then maybe there is hope in the world. Either that or he’s one savvy creative writer.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true
Shit. HTML FU.
So, has he stopped viewing the New York Times, or Politico, or the Huffington Post as oracular?
Charles poses the pertinent question I think. It would seem his own study has indicated that he’s been getting bad data from somewhere. So does he re-evaluate his viewing and reading choices? I’ma say, no, he won’t.
Him being a psychologist and all, I think he should be interested in that as a study.
But I doubt the government would kick any funding in.
Mind-bender: maybe it already is a study.
What kind of a psychologist is he? It’s like saying someone is an engineer, but not being specific about what kind of engineering is his concern.
Leigh, I beg to differ. Every engineer can do math and physics (really just applied math, but I digress). Every psychologist can do, um, what exactly?
We’re everywhere, Charles. I’m a cognitive-behavioral psychologist. I help people learn to recognize cues that cause them to do things that are counter-productive in their personal and professional lives.
Software engineer, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer — three types of engineer what worked at a place that made x-ray machines.
Their skill sets overlapped only some.
Yes. My ex is a systems analysis with an electrical engineering degree that veered off into programming in the late 70s. He sucked at home repairs, though.
I’m a bioengineer. As my dad the mechanic can attest, I’m actually hopelessly bad at mechanical problems, but I can talk your ear off about systems biology and how (theoretically) to get a cell to do anything you want it to do.
Also I still am out of work in my field, while all my ME, EE, and CE peers were snapped up right out of college.
[…] Jeff Goldstein noted a Yale professor’s surprise to discover, when he actually did the research, that TEA Party members are actually more scientifically literate than average. I don’t know why that should surprise anybody: since the TEA Partiers are primarily people who not only work for a living — the persistently unemployed and welfare malingerers are almost by definition self-excluded — but earn more than average, and there is a strong correlation between earning power and education, but that’s the image our good friends on the left want to portray. […]