Thread: Pew Poll Re Political Affiliation of Scientists

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

It doesn't tell you that, you just heard what you were told to hear!

So you're telling me that what I was told was, in fact, what I was told to hear, rather than what I was ACTUALLY told?

My God! Thank you for telling me!

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes and Freeman Dyson never got a PhD either
But you can't compare the two opposite tails of the distributions as if they're the same....
I'd say on average degrees and intelligence are very strongly correlated. But then who wants to be labeled 'average', or even worse 'below average'

They may be strongly correlated, but I think it's a stretch to say that because most people with degrees are more intelligent, and also liberal, then intelligent people are liberal or it is intelligent to be liberal. It's a pretty blanket assumption to make it seem that liberals are intelligent and conservatives are unintelligent. Once again, both sides have their share of the not so bright.

i only referred to the intelligence and degrees, the political affiliations are something completely different.
plenty of smart conservatives/liberals and plenty of dumb conservatives/liberals.

and of course, to infer intelligence/education from political orientation is a rather strong indicator for the lack of the former as it takes a bit more sophisticated statistics than the general public (or is that the average six pack joe and his plumber name-sharing friend) is accustomed to
so, naturally, i'm quite glad to see everybody here agrees it would be sketchy to do so, even if they can't quite prove it with numbers....

Originally Posted by JimR

Why is this meaningless? It's rather telling, in my book.

I actually agree that it's meaningless, and I'll explain my position.

Simply saying "scientists" is simply too broad of a term. Most of the members of M.U.F.O.N. are considered "scientists." However, they're also nut jobs.

Dr. Phil. Scientist, and moron.

Cryptozoologists...

Homeopathologist...

Al Gore...



I could go on, but why bother? I'm sure you get the point: simply being a "scientist" does not mean that a person is intelligent or even sane.

Now, if they were to say that there is a strong correlation between being a physicist with at least one Phd, and published in at least 2 professional journals and a particular view, I'd find that both meaningful and quite interesting.

As far as a correlation between further education and intelligence, once again there is no meaningful information without a more specific look at the statistics.

Person A might have a Phd. in Women's studies, any racial study, psychology (not a medical degree in psychiatry, just psychology), or any of dozens and dozens of other essentially useless degrees which require nothing more than spending enough years sitting in class rooms and regurgitatting what you're told.


Person B has a humble Associates Degree in mechanical engineering.

Who do you think is more inteligent?



Then, it also fails to take the age of the participants in the survey into account. The educational system in the United States is INCREDIBLY liberal. When I was in college, just a few years ago, I had to stomach a constant diet of liberal propaganda from teachers, administrators, fellow students, special interest groups that were welcomed on campus, etc. It's very difficult to NOT be swayed when you are continually barraged by one particular viewpoint for 19 years (the bare minimum amount of time for most people to go from kindergarten to a Phd)

Did they compare the statistics between people who were still furthering their education, to people who were recent graduates, to those who had been out of school for 5, 10 and 20 years?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Any man in his youth who is not a liberal has no heart. Any man in his age who is not a conservative has no brain."


Last but not least, having majored in mathematics in college, I'd like to point out that statistics are more or less useless without VERY carefull and highly controlled interpretation. I'll give just one amuzing example of this, but there are countless examples to be had.

About 4 or 5 years ago, a major study was done to compare the sexual habits of men and women. (At UCLA if I remember correctly)

Only heterosexual adults were included in the study.

Only sexual encounters after the age of 18 were counted.

Only very specific types of sexual encounters with the opposite sex were counted.

The questions were designed to remove all ambiguity, and were worded in such a way that there was no room for interpretation by study participants.

The study was 100% anonymous.

The study found that the average woman had been with 3.4 sexual partners, while the average man had been with 7.1 sexual partners.

For about a week, this study was touted as irrefutable proof that men are far more sexually promiscuous than women, until a senior mathematics professor (from Harvard if I remember correctly) pointed out that because roughly 51% of the population is female, and 49% male, it is mathematically impossible for the results from men and women to be that different. Even considering the "prostitute effect" as he called it, where in a tiny number of women are prostitutes who could have each had hundreds or thousands of partners, and yet been a small enough group to be under-represented in the study, there's no way that men could be averaging more than double the number of sexual partners.


So, a study that claimed to prove that men are more promiscuous than women, and appeared to do so when taken at face value, really proved something else entirely. Namely, it proved that Americans will lie about how many sexual partners they've had even when anonymously participating in a scientific study.

There's no way I'm going to get involved into an argument here. Many liberals are intelligent. Many conservatives are also intelligent. It just is very clear that liberals are a little bit intelligenter. Well okay maybe that's a little strong. Perhaps liberals aren't actually that much intelligenter than conservatives. The brain is a muscle very much like the pancreas. If one doesn't take it out and exercise it in public it may be very strong but no one sees it. You know like those guys that grunt real loud at the gym. It may be simply that conservatives simply to be gentle and humble, like to appear less intelligent, conserving their brain strength for emergencies. While liberals are more liberal with the demonstrations of intelligence. See, that's where the terms liberal and conservative come from.

This reminds me the great thinker of the last century, Soupy Sales when he pondered, "Does a crowded elevator smell different to a midget?"

Originally Posted by JimR

Why is this meaningless? It's rather telling, in my book.

You see, I think you are right--there is a general positive correlation between level of education and political liberality; and of course, for the uneducated that is a particularly damning fact.

does this poll differentiate between privately funded andthose looking for a government handout?

THAT may be where the true answer lies

Originally Posted by JimR

This, in turn, tells me that ignorance is valued by conservatives, as is a lack of critical thinking skills. Which of course makes for an easily manipulated voting public...

untrue
clearly clearly untrue

I have worked very hard to learn ways of manipulating people
and using logic (or convincing by way of reason) works sometimes
but if you try logical fallacies, and spin their head in circles, you will do much better

liberals are extremely fond of their false logic, and their constituents lack the thinking skills required to sort it all out

example
I worked for this money, it is mine.
or
In times like these, what we really need to do is help each other.

A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

example
I worked for this money, it is mine.
or
In times like these, what we really need to do is help each other.

A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED.

I'll see your examples and rise you a unified one:

You worked for this money, it's mine.

Billy boy, You gave me an idea for a thread. Check it out: http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...e-me-idea.html

Originally Posted by gugi

and of course, to infer intelligence/education from political orientation is a rather strong indicator for the lack of the former

Thanks for your reply; I agree. You would be surprised at the number of supposedly educated people who would disagree with us.

The more general these polls the less they mean. Similar to the one that says so many thousand scientists agree global warming is false. Well anyone with a basic degree in the sciences is a scientist so how does having a B.S in Geology make you an authority on global warming? Rubbish.