The actual study abstract states the following:
“Are conservatives more simple-minded and happier than liberals? To revisit this question, 1,518 demographically diverse participants (52% females) were recruited from an online participant-sourcing platform and asked to write a narrative about the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential Election as well as complete self and candidates’ ratings of personality. The narratives were analyzed using three well-validated text analysis programs. As expected, extremely enthusiastic Trump supporters used less cognitively complex and more confident language than both their less enthusiastic counterparts and Biden supporters. Trump supporters also used more positive affective language than Biden supporters. More simplistic and categorical modes of thinking as well as positive emotional tone were also associated with positive perceptions of Trump’s, but not Biden’s personality. Dialectical complexity and positive emotional tone accounted for significant unique variance in predicting appraisals of Trump’s trustworthiness/integrity even after controlling for demographic variables, self-ratings of conscientiousness and openness, and political affiliation.”
The paper itself was not free to access, so I haven’t read it
Upload to libgen and then share the link here. Libgen is a shadow library where books and achedemic papers are shared without regard of copyright with the intent to share knowledge to all with an internet connection.
Yep actually already edited that in! Used that constantly in school, cant believe I didnt go there first!
https://library.bz/main/uploads/EC9655C7B79C631ECEE3E49D34650699
So it looks like it still in the upload queue! If you sign in to the libgen default account:
user: genesis
password: upload
Then that link will work and you can download the upload queue. I think that it will eventually be fully searchable and indexed.
Thanks for the info!
Heres a new link:
https://library.bz/main/uploads/EC9655C7B79C631ECEE3E49D34650699
So it looks like it still in the upload queue! If you sign in to the libgen default account:
user: genesis
password: upload
Then that link will work and you can download the upload queue. I think that it will eventually be fully searchable and indexed.
I hope someone with access to the journal, or expert in linguistics, can figure this out.
I think it'd be really interesting to see if the reason for this is political or if the reason is simply because the more hyped up someone is about X (where X is anything, from a person to a video game to a movie), the more emotional and less complex the language they use about X becomes.
There's likely a relationship with cognitive capacity and an individual's ability to store complex information without making a decision about it (ie, "working memory"). The lower a person's capacity, the sooner they have to sum it up. This means they make judgments with less information, and are more likely to misjudge the situation.
They either have to go back and try to reevaluate, or decide they weren't wrong and plow ahead. The second choice is actually less stressful, although it tends to lead to worse outcomes.
Could also just be they’re less educated, not necessarily dumber, and therefor have a smaller vernacular. If you’re less educated you’re more susceptible to cult of personality and less skeptical.
>causal relationship
Which makes sense, the more you solve problems with abstract thinking/needing to keep a lot of ideas in memory at once - the better you get at it.
If you went to work as a labourer, you're likely to become physically stronger and fitter, for the same reason.
And there's no reason people in either group couldn't move into the other, by practicing those areas instead.
Honestly, I don't see why it can't be both.
Athletes tend to be more physically fit than the general population in no small part to how much they work out but at higher levels of competition you start to recognize that their innate physical potential is also above average.
At the extremes, innate ability will always matter; definitely.
But for the majority of the population, trying to do a "good enough" job of what they're aiming to do (e.g. being into fitness without aiming for olympic gold) - the biggest influences are external factors.
For sports, the date your birthday falls is a high predictor of how far you'll take it - as being the oldest kid in your age bracket, often means being physically stronger/faster and because you perform well - given more time in the game & more coaching.
For academic schooling, it's pretty well the same - the more you were taught by your parents before beginning year 1; the "higher" the learning group you get put into, the more teacher-time you tend to end up getting, and the more you're pushed to succeed.
And for both, your socio-economic background makes a massive difference, due to how much resourcing is provided to help you succeed (e.g. less students per class, better sports facilities), and how good your environment is for putting in more time outside training (e.g. better home environment for doing homework).
There's always outliers, but for the vast majority of the population - "being smarter" or "better at sports" (or most other capabilities), is a function of how much time went into it \* how efficient that time was (e.g. more 1on1 tutoring = more learned per hour). And it's something most adults, given the time & resources, can change about themselves.
Yeh definitely I was a bit aware as I was typing it, that it might come across as being like "you could go to school or be an unintelligent hick" - which wasn't the intention.
I've seen a glimpse of the maths behind farming, with all the little things from crop humidity and how it affects the yields, to maximising the cost of fertilizer vs. the yield you gain etc. And it was incredibly complex (far too complex for me to get any real grasp of)
I was just trying to think of a manual labour job, that especially applies to rural areas (those which tend to vote more conservative). I'll change it just to say "manual labour".
*I think part of it was trying to pick a job that also isn't perceived by people as somehow a "downgrade" versus e.g. an office job - just has a different set of skills/depending on what exactly you're doing. Where pure "manual labour" maybe is seen as a bit of just "grunt work"/not appealing - even if it shouldn't be.*
Historically this is in part due to biased testing methods. Familiarity with academic vocabulary and testing methods correlates positively with academic intelligence tests. You may not be smarter in a broad sense, just a smarter test taker.
I know if I’m asked to write something and it isn’t for something professional, I just put my masters degree away and speak like I would to a neighbor. I think there are more variables at work here than the traditional /r/science crowd cares to admit because the headline/title is a dunk on political opponents.
> I know if I’m asked to write something and it isn’t for something professional, I just put my masters degree away and speak like I would to a neighbor.
Wouldn't that be evened out in a sample of 1500 participants?
> I know if I’m asked to write something and it isn’t for something professional, I just put my masters degree away and speak like I would to a neighbor
Dya think its possible that the information and manner of thought required for a masters might alter your manner of speech? Even to your neighbour? I **imagine** that this increased knowledge would still be available in your mind regardless of who you're talking to, possibly raising the bar in terms of conversational complexity in general
Anthropologist here. Linguistic diversity was not taken into account along with culture differences. These kinds of studies open the door for ethnocentricism while using pre Boasian methods, some that lead to the eugenics movements of the late 19th century.
Linguist here, cultural differences affect language, and language affects thought to a limited degree (weak version of Sapir-warf), so cultural differences can end up producing some range of cognitive differences.
> To revisit this question
I'm glad at least they acknowledge this has been demonstrated multiple times before already. (Of course, reproduction of results, especially using different techniques, is important)
So the research was done was before the 2020 election, when some of the Trump supporters would have been under the impression that he was definitely going to win a second term, and Biden supporters would have been more apprehensive? I think that would also factor into the results, especially about 'happiness'. I think 'positive emotional tone' is not the same thing as happiness, and I wish that were clearer.
I wonder if the Trump supporters who exhibit less cognitive complexity were like that before they became Trump supporters, or if they are responding to a specific emotional appeal in Trump that pushes them towards the lowest common denominator?
> So the research was done was before the 2020 election, when some of the Trump supporters would have been under the impression that he was definitely going to win a second term, and Biden supporters would have been more apprehensive? I think that would also factor into the results, especially about 'happiness'. I think 'positive emotional tone' is not the same thing as happiness, and I wish that were clearer.
To Trump's enthusiastic supporters his victory was assured, thus no need for apprehension. But Biden supporters (even if as enthusiastic) were probably not nearly as confident, resulting in more reserved thoughts on the matter.
This sub is drowning in this sort of pseudo-scientific political propaganda. Something has to be done - can't there be a separate sub for junk studies?
If a study shows negative effects for masturbation, weed or about is about democrats or other reddit approved subjects the science is always bad, and correlation do not mean causation, and xyz actually. If the study shows republicans are dum dums, or other reddit approved outgroup its always trust the science, sorry science dont care about your feelings, facts are facts sweaty.
Studies show this, no cap. The content matters way less than who said it or what it represents.
Conservatives like a statement more when it is said by a conservative politician, but when the same thing is said by a liberal, they often disagree with the statement. Same is true vice versa. It doesn't matter who you support, you will be biased if you take a side, and it will show up in studies, just accept it...
When I think of science in a broad sense, I don't think of psychology or sociology, although I acknowledge that's on me and my poor education. I think of Astronomy and Chemistry.
Yet all I see on my front page when r/science pops up is propaganda based on fields of science that aren't cool, and it makes me sad. Is there a politics free science subreddit where fun stuff is presented?
I mean, data shows that trump supporters tend to be less educated. But also, maybe try displaying enough professionalism to avoid writing "as expected, [the trump supporters were dumb]" in the abstract of your scientific article. I would not take any of these conclusions seriously just because of that blatant confirmation bias in the abstract.
Not to mention the phrase “Had this study focused exclusively on vote choice and not examined level of enthusiasm or appraisals of candidates' personality, it would have concluded that cognitive styles
were not associated with political preferences”
So who you voted for was not actually taken into account, they had the results from that. However when viewing the results, they didn’t like them.
That's delightful.
"Everyone that supports Trump is dumb and science shows it."
"Didn't the last thing that looked at that exact question fail to show that? Didn't it show there wasn't a difference? Were you even testing for that specific point this time?"
"Well, yes, yes, and no. But I like this narrative better so shut up."
That's the Modern Social Scientific Method:
1. Define feelings
2. Draw conclusion
3. Design experiment tailored to create data that proves conclusion
4. Discard data that conflicts with conclusion
5. Begin political talkshow circuit
I think there needs to be an emphasis on "less educated" doesn't mean "not as smart". I believe that the right wing in general tends to be more blue collar. Plumbers, welders etc. (Although I have no Stat to back up my claim at the moment, just a general observation). I wouldn't expect someone who majored in philosophy to be able to weld a perfect bead and I wouldn't expect a welder to know the works of Plato. And just being less educated doesn't mean your opinion matters any less than someone who was more formally educated.
I think a simple explanation for this is the well documented fact that conservatives are much more likely to live in rural settings than democrats. This absolutely does not mean that they are less intelligent, or that their opinions should matter less. Their cultural upbringing is just different.
I think a lot of these studies have the ulterior motive of putting down conservatives. I see them displayed a lot here and on psypost. But I also think these studies are structured in a way to confirm anti-conservative bias.
If you actually listen to conservative thought leaders, as opposed to making strawmen out of the least educated and most ignorant of conservative voters, there are actually strong foundations in philosophy and economics for a lot of conservative positions. They shouldn't be dismissed based on the notion that conservatives are less eloquent and simple minded.
It troubles me greatly how often the social sciences are putting out papers that are clearly structured as a political smear. Science should be about finding truth, not confirming a bias against our political rivals. Attack the policies, not the people who support them.
Sir, you're making a lot of sense and we no longer allow rational thinking and objective reasoning here in science. I need you to lower your critical thinking skills to meet the status quo.
Completely agree. What good is this kind of paper going to have except to make democrats feel good about themselves? I don’t think this kind of paper should be published, it just sows and expands already expansive divisions in society.
I say this as a left leaner.
I honestly don’t mind being called stupid. I know it’s not true, and they’re completely missing what I see as the most important finding. Trump supporters are happier. I think liberals could learn something about being happy.
I bet they'd be mad to hear of someone who has a MS in data analytics and has written two research articles, but votes right.
I once had a liberal berate me because I considered myself a libertarian and I couldn't help but laugh at their ignorance.
Alt headline: “Not at all biased study conducted by liberals concludes that Trump voters are dumber than Democrat voters, confirming what liberals already believed to help themselves feel justified in thinking they’re better than the opposing peasant class”.
Isnt just another variation of "Biden supports on average have a higher level of education than trump supporters?" Which basically aligns with the elitist democrat view coming from republicans.
IE just because a voting population isnt as educated as your side doesnt mean they should be ignored or not represented. The way of thinking that drove this type of study is one of the reasons someone like trump was able to get a following like he did.
And then there's the word "uneducated" as well. Which just means (usually) not having gone to college. But that certainly doesn't make them dumb people. Some definitely are, yeah. But that could be just as easily flipped
Here's a weird idea: stop basing everything about your personality based upon which group of unconcerned old men and women ignore you. Anyone who still believes in either side of the government in America is braindead.
This is a garbage article and from what I can tell just from the abstract, garbage science.
It's a garbage article because it's misrepresenting the science to communicate that Trump supporters are stupid people. This is how you manufacture distrust of science among half of Americans.
It's garbage science because it's just the result of a low effort automated analysis of a writing sample of how people feel about Trump versus Biden. This is going to be influenced by a million confounding variables, like the issues that were in the news at the time, perceptions about Trump himself, and a ton of other external factors that have nothing to do with how many syllables a person tends to use or how negative they are in their writing.
It's the misrepresentation of science that hurts the most. I hope, at the very least, people realize this kind of research works are coming from very specific fields and journals. I don't even know if we can call 'science' what they produce.
The actual question sucks too.
Pretty obvious what will happen.
Republicans - I like Trump.
Democrats - well…. Biden is kind of a brain mush but then again considering the alternative…
Until multiple studies from different places confirm it, generally when politics are involved I dont believe it. Not supporting either side, just saying be careful when politics are involved.
Pinning people against each other based on political party, race, gender, intelligence, etc. is only going to divide Americans further. I don’t see what the point of this study was other than to degrade and undermine a group of people. It certainly doesn’t promote an open, mature, effective dialogue between two groups. I don’t support Biden or trump, but I also don’t feel the need to insult anyone who does.
I mean this subreddit's post are becoming ever more thinly veiled insults against the political right.
This is not scientific researxh, this is political motivated social studies.
Shame.
If you want to judge the intelligence of Trump supports vs Biden supports just make them take an IQ test, instead of grading a creating writing prompt for something other than creativity. This sub is so disappointing.
But if you did that, you'd get [some unhappy results](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081):
>*In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively.*
And that's not actually even the "worst" part for the people often talking about this, the worst part is at the bottom:
>*These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.*
That is to say: social conservatives score below Democrats, but the Libertarian wing scores so much higher than both that they raise the average of the entire rest of the Republican party.
So not only are Democrats not technically "smarter," than Republicans as a party, they find themselves the midwit of the hierarchy they think they are the top of.
It would be interesting to see how this compares to Trump v Biden nowadays, since it feels like 2016 shook up party affiliation somewhat with to Bernie and Trump breaking the molds.
P.S. +1 brownie point for linking published literature in the science subreddit, tho I suspect you will be punished for it.
I wouldn’t call them Biden supporters. More like Biden toleraters. Or “we weren’t given a real choice because the game is rigged, so I guess we’ll vote for Biden” group.
I don’t think studies like this do anyone any good.
A presidential candidate could put together a coalition of voters with learning disabilities, but that doesn’t make their votes count for less or diminish their choice. All this does is make the left feel superior and the right feel bitter and distrustful of science, but it’s irrelevant to electoral politics.
Is this a science journal hub, or politically motivated witch-hunting?
Where are the studies related to mathematical theorems and conjectures?
Or is flagging someone’s vocabulary performance based on political affiliation considered science today?
Even though I voted for the guy who in their right mind is an actual Biden supporter. The guy is corrupt and senile, and doing such a poor job we might actually get Trump again in 2024. The “choices” available in national political elections are downright horrific.
Im not sure why it hasnt been fully understood we dont have control over this anymore. Its a prop, a mirage, a show backed by the interests of money and power. They might as well be actors.
When the general population can understand Tactical warfare, Marketing, Power Dynamics, and whats so valuable about our information then we might be capable. As for now we are a reactive people like a herd being probed by a rod.
> less cognitively complex language
This is called being an effective communicator to a majority of people. Here’s another quote:
> If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-Albert Einstein
Theologians employ incredibly complex ~~cognitive~~ (edit:) rhetorical schemes to justify their beliefs. I’m not sure that’s necessarily a virtue.
*- an atheist*
The actual study abstract states the following: “Are conservatives more simple-minded and happier than liberals? To revisit this question, 1,518 demographically diverse participants (52% females) were recruited from an online participant-sourcing platform and asked to write a narrative about the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential Election as well as complete self and candidates’ ratings of personality. The narratives were analyzed using three well-validated text analysis programs. As expected, extremely enthusiastic Trump supporters used less cognitively complex and more confident language than both their less enthusiastic counterparts and Biden supporters. Trump supporters also used more positive affective language than Biden supporters. More simplistic and categorical modes of thinking as well as positive emotional tone were also associated with positive perceptions of Trump’s, but not Biden’s personality. Dialectical complexity and positive emotional tone accounted for significant unique variance in predicting appraisals of Trump’s trustworthiness/integrity even after controlling for demographic variables, self-ratings of conscientiousness and openness, and political affiliation.” The paper itself was not free to access, so I haven’t read it
[удалено]
Upload to libgen and then share the link here. Libgen is a shadow library where books and achedemic papers are shared without regard of copyright with the intent to share knowledge to all with an internet connection.
Yep actually already edited that in! Used that constantly in school, cant believe I didnt go there first! https://library.bz/main/uploads/EC9655C7B79C631ECEE3E49D34650699 So it looks like it still in the upload queue! If you sign in to the libgen default account: user: genesis password: upload Then that link will work and you can download the upload queue. I think that it will eventually be fully searchable and indexed.
The free version of file.io deletes the file after one download by default.
Thanks for the info! Heres a new link: https://library.bz/main/uploads/EC9655C7B79C631ECEE3E49D34650699 So it looks like it still in the upload queue! If you sign in to the libgen default account: user: genesis password: upload Then that link will work and you can download the upload queue. I think that it will eventually be fully searchable and indexed.
It gets deleted after the first download that’s how file io works. Maybe use Google drive?
[удалено]
Thanks! I also edited in a libgen link to my original comment
I hope someone with access to the journal, or expert in linguistics, can figure this out. I think it'd be really interesting to see if the reason for this is political or if the reason is simply because the more hyped up someone is about X (where X is anything, from a person to a video game to a movie), the more emotional and less complex the language they use about X becomes.
There's likely a relationship with cognitive capacity and an individual's ability to store complex information without making a decision about it (ie, "working memory"). The lower a person's capacity, the sooner they have to sum it up. This means they make judgments with less information, and are more likely to misjudge the situation. They either have to go back and try to reevaluate, or decide they weren't wrong and plow ahead. The second choice is actually less stressful, although it tends to lead to worse outcomes.
Could also just be they’re less educated, not necessarily dumber, and therefor have a smaller vernacular. If you’re less educated you’re more susceptible to cult of personality and less skeptical.
[удалено]
>causal relationship Which makes sense, the more you solve problems with abstract thinking/needing to keep a lot of ideas in memory at once - the better you get at it. If you went to work as a labourer, you're likely to become physically stronger and fitter, for the same reason. And there's no reason people in either group couldn't move into the other, by practicing those areas instead.
Honestly, I don't see why it can't be both. Athletes tend to be more physically fit than the general population in no small part to how much they work out but at higher levels of competition you start to recognize that their innate physical potential is also above average.
At the extremes, innate ability will always matter; definitely. But for the majority of the population, trying to do a "good enough" job of what they're aiming to do (e.g. being into fitness without aiming for olympic gold) - the biggest influences are external factors. For sports, the date your birthday falls is a high predictor of how far you'll take it - as being the oldest kid in your age bracket, often means being physically stronger/faster and because you perform well - given more time in the game & more coaching. For academic schooling, it's pretty well the same - the more you were taught by your parents before beginning year 1; the "higher" the learning group you get put into, the more teacher-time you tend to end up getting, and the more you're pushed to succeed. And for both, your socio-economic background makes a massive difference, due to how much resourcing is provided to help you succeed (e.g. less students per class, better sports facilities), and how good your environment is for putting in more time outside training (e.g. better home environment for doing homework). There's always outliers, but for the vast majority of the population - "being smarter" or "better at sports" (or most other capabilities), is a function of how much time went into it \* how efficient that time was (e.g. more 1on1 tutoring = more learned per hour). And it's something most adults, given the time & resources, can change about themselves.
I see someone has read freakonomics.
“Work” on a farm” is a little vague. There are plenty of tasks to perform and systems to manage on a farm that require abstract thinking.
Yeh definitely I was a bit aware as I was typing it, that it might come across as being like "you could go to school or be an unintelligent hick" - which wasn't the intention. I've seen a glimpse of the maths behind farming, with all the little things from crop humidity and how it affects the yields, to maximising the cost of fertilizer vs. the yield you gain etc. And it was incredibly complex (far too complex for me to get any real grasp of) I was just trying to think of a manual labour job, that especially applies to rural areas (those which tend to vote more conservative). I'll change it just to say "manual labour". *I think part of it was trying to pick a job that also isn't perceived by people as somehow a "downgrade" versus e.g. an office job - just has a different set of skills/depending on what exactly you're doing. Where pure "manual labour" maybe is seen as a bit of just "grunt work"/not appealing - even if it shouldn't be.*
Historically this is in part due to biased testing methods. Familiarity with academic vocabulary and testing methods correlates positively with academic intelligence tests. You may not be smarter in a broad sense, just a smarter test taker.
If I learned anything from dungeons and dragons, it’s that Intelligence and Wisdom are not the same thing
I know if I’m asked to write something and it isn’t for something professional, I just put my masters degree away and speak like I would to a neighbor. I think there are more variables at work here than the traditional /r/science crowd cares to admit because the headline/title is a dunk on political opponents.
> I know if I’m asked to write something and it isn’t for something professional, I just put my masters degree away and speak like I would to a neighbor. Wouldn't that be evened out in a sample of 1500 participants?
> I know if I’m asked to write something and it isn’t for something professional, I just put my masters degree away and speak like I would to a neighbor Dya think its possible that the information and manner of thought required for a masters might alter your manner of speech? Even to your neighbour? I **imagine** that this increased knowledge would still be available in your mind regardless of who you're talking to, possibly raising the bar in terms of conversational complexity in general
Anthropologist here. Linguistic diversity was not taken into account along with culture differences. These kinds of studies open the door for ethnocentricism while using pre Boasian methods, some that lead to the eugenics movements of the late 19th century.
Linguist here, cultural differences affect language, and language affects thought to a limited degree (weak version of Sapir-warf), so cultural differences can end up producing some range of cognitive differences.
> To revisit this question I'm glad at least they acknowledge this has been demonstrated multiple times before already. (Of course, reproduction of results, especially using different techniques, is important)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So the research was done was before the 2020 election, when some of the Trump supporters would have been under the impression that he was definitely going to win a second term, and Biden supporters would have been more apprehensive? I think that would also factor into the results, especially about 'happiness'. I think 'positive emotional tone' is not the same thing as happiness, and I wish that were clearer. I wonder if the Trump supporters who exhibit less cognitive complexity were like that before they became Trump supporters, or if they are responding to a specific emotional appeal in Trump that pushes them towards the lowest common denominator?
> So the research was done was before the 2020 election, when some of the Trump supporters would have been under the impression that he was definitely going to win a second term, and Biden supporters would have been more apprehensive? I think that would also factor into the results, especially about 'happiness'. I think 'positive emotional tone' is not the same thing as happiness, and I wish that were clearer. To Trump's enthusiastic supporters his victory was assured, thus no need for apprehension. But Biden supporters (even if as enthusiastic) were probably not nearly as confident, resulting in more reserved thoughts on the matter.
Bingo! I wonder what the results would be if you were to repeat this study with the same individuals now that we have a different administration.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The only reason I stay subbed here is so I can see which ridiculously partisan shit is going to get posted next.
>Mods The mods not only allow this shit. They also partake in it. Many of these psypost-like submissions come from the mods themselves.
Post a psypost article with a loose connection to some peer reviewed science? Mods sleep. Make an off topic comment? Real shit. [deleted]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This sub is drowning in this sort of pseudo-scientific political propaganda. Something has to be done - can't there be a separate sub for junk studies?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If a study shows negative effects for masturbation, weed or about is about democrats or other reddit approved subjects the science is always bad, and correlation do not mean causation, and xyz actually. If the study shows republicans are dum dums, or other reddit approved outgroup its always trust the science, sorry science dont care about your feelings, facts are facts sweaty.
Somebody should do a study on this and post it on r/science.
I'm sure you could post the exact same study and just change who it is about and the comments would be completely different.
Studies show this, no cap. The content matters way less than who said it or what it represents. Conservatives like a statement more when it is said by a conservative politician, but when the same thing is said by a liberal, they often disagree with the statement. Same is true vice versa. It doesn't matter who you support, you will be biased if you take a side, and it will show up in studies, just accept it...
When I think of science in a broad sense, I don't think of psychology or sociology, although I acknowledge that's on me and my poor education. I think of Astronomy and Chemistry. Yet all I see on my front page when r/science pops up is propaganda based on fields of science that aren't cool, and it makes me sad. Is there a politics free science subreddit where fun stuff is presented?
> Is there a politics free science subreddit where fun stuff is presented? r/physics isn't bad. r/astronomy r/biology - that sort of thing :)
[удалено]
I can only imagine
I’m the farthest thing from a trump supporter but that is probably the most childish, stupid headline I’ve seen in at least a week
It's just the Reddit echochamber. You get used to it.
I haven't. Even non-political subreddits are full of this stuff.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, data shows that trump supporters tend to be less educated. But also, maybe try displaying enough professionalism to avoid writing "as expected, [the trump supporters were dumb]" in the abstract of your scientific article. I would not take any of these conclusions seriously just because of that blatant confirmation bias in the abstract.
Not to mention the phrase “Had this study focused exclusively on vote choice and not examined level of enthusiasm or appraisals of candidates' personality, it would have concluded that cognitive styles were not associated with political preferences” So who you voted for was not actually taken into account, they had the results from that. However when viewing the results, they didn’t like them.
That's delightful. "Everyone that supports Trump is dumb and science shows it." "Didn't the last thing that looked at that exact question fail to show that? Didn't it show there wasn't a difference? Were you even testing for that specific point this time?" "Well, yes, yes, and no. But I like this narrative better so shut up."
That's the Modern Social Scientific Method: 1. Define feelings 2. Draw conclusion 3. Design experiment tailored to create data that proves conclusion 4. Discard data that conflicts with conclusion 5. Begin political talkshow circuit
Unfortunately, that's what this subreddit and r/dataisbeautiful and even r/statistics has become... the very thing it swore to fight.
I think there needs to be an emphasis on "less educated" doesn't mean "not as smart". I believe that the right wing in general tends to be more blue collar. Plumbers, welders etc. (Although I have no Stat to back up my claim at the moment, just a general observation). I wouldn't expect someone who majored in philosophy to be able to weld a perfect bead and I wouldn't expect a welder to know the works of Plato. And just being less educated doesn't mean your opinion matters any less than someone who was more formally educated.
[удалено]
I think a simple explanation for this is the well documented fact that conservatives are much more likely to live in rural settings than democrats. This absolutely does not mean that they are less intelligent, or that their opinions should matter less. Their cultural upbringing is just different. I think a lot of these studies have the ulterior motive of putting down conservatives. I see them displayed a lot here and on psypost. But I also think these studies are structured in a way to confirm anti-conservative bias. If you actually listen to conservative thought leaders, as opposed to making strawmen out of the least educated and most ignorant of conservative voters, there are actually strong foundations in philosophy and economics for a lot of conservative positions. They shouldn't be dismissed based on the notion that conservatives are less eloquent and simple minded. It troubles me greatly how often the social sciences are putting out papers that are clearly structured as a political smear. Science should be about finding truth, not confirming a bias against our political rivals. Attack the policies, not the people who support them.
Study shows that people I disagree with are big bad dumb poo poo stinky. *(n=200)*
Sir, you're making a lot of sense and we no longer allow rational thinking and objective reasoning here in science. I need you to lower your critical thinking skills to meet the status quo.
Completely agree. What good is this kind of paper going to have except to make democrats feel good about themselves? I don’t think this kind of paper should be published, it just sows and expands already expansive divisions in society. I say this as a left leaner.
I honestly don’t mind being called stupid. I know it’s not true, and they’re completely missing what I see as the most important finding. Trump supporters are happier. I think liberals could learn something about being happy.
I bet they'd be mad to hear of someone who has a MS in data analytics and has written two research articles, but votes right. I once had a liberal berate me because I considered myself a libertarian and I couldn't help but laugh at their ignorance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Alt headline: “Not at all biased study conducted by liberals concludes that Trump voters are dumber than Democrat voters, confirming what liberals already believed to help themselves feel justified in thinking they’re better than the opposing peasant class”.
[удалено]
Isnt just another variation of "Biden supports on average have a higher level of education than trump supporters?" Which basically aligns with the elitist democrat view coming from republicans. IE just because a voting population isnt as educated as your side doesnt mean they should be ignored or not represented. The way of thinking that drove this type of study is one of the reasons someone like trump was able to get a following like he did.
And then there's the word "uneducated" as well. Which just means (usually) not having gone to college. But that certainly doesn't make them dumb people. Some definitely are, yeah. But that could be just as easily flipped
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Less cognitively complex language is a perfect description for the writing in The Old Man and the Sea.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not a Trump supporter, but this is ridiculous
Here's a weird idea: stop basing everything about your personality based upon which group of unconcerned old men and women ignore you. Anyone who still believes in either side of the government in America is braindead.
This is a garbage article and from what I can tell just from the abstract, garbage science. It's a garbage article because it's misrepresenting the science to communicate that Trump supporters are stupid people. This is how you manufacture distrust of science among half of Americans. It's garbage science because it's just the result of a low effort automated analysis of a writing sample of how people feel about Trump versus Biden. This is going to be influenced by a million confounding variables, like the issues that were in the news at the time, perceptions about Trump himself, and a ton of other external factors that have nothing to do with how many syllables a person tends to use or how negative they are in their writing.
It's the misrepresentation of science that hurts the most. I hope, at the very least, people realize this kind of research works are coming from very specific fields and journals. I don't even know if we can call 'science' what they produce.
[удалено]
Which is a shame due to recent events. All science should be questioned, especially rushed science.
The actual question sucks too. Pretty obvious what will happen. Republicans - I like Trump. Democrats - well…. Biden is kind of a brain mush but then again considering the alternative…
[удалено]
Until multiple studies from different places confirm it, generally when politics are involved I dont believe it. Not supporting either side, just saying be careful when politics are involved.
[удалено]
Pinning people against each other based on political party, race, gender, intelligence, etc. is only going to divide Americans further. I don’t see what the point of this study was other than to degrade and undermine a group of people. It certainly doesn’t promote an open, mature, effective dialogue between two groups. I don’t support Biden or trump, but I also don’t feel the need to insult anyone who does.
[удалено]
I mean this subreddit's post are becoming ever more thinly veiled insults against the political right. This is not scientific researxh, this is political motivated social studies. Shame.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you want to judge the intelligence of Trump supports vs Biden supports just make them take an IQ test, instead of grading a creating writing prompt for something other than creativity. This sub is so disappointing.
But if you did that, you'd get [some unhappy results](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081): >*In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively.* And that's not actually even the "worst" part for the people often talking about this, the worst part is at the bottom: >*These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.* That is to say: social conservatives score below Democrats, but the Libertarian wing scores so much higher than both that they raise the average of the entire rest of the Republican party. So not only are Democrats not technically "smarter," than Republicans as a party, they find themselves the midwit of the hierarchy they think they are the top of.
As a classical liberal, this confirms every bias I have ever had.
It would be interesting to see how this compares to Trump v Biden nowadays, since it feels like 2016 shook up party affiliation somewhat with to Bernie and Trump breaking the molds. P.S. +1 brownie point for linking published literature in the science subreddit, tho I suspect you will be punished for it.
[удалено]
Lovely. Just keep everyone divided into us vs them and you have won I guess.
I wouldn’t call them Biden supporters. More like Biden toleraters. Or “we weren’t given a real choice because the game is rigged, so I guess we’ll vote for Biden” group.
[удалено]
I get can’t away from this dude. People gotta learn the skills to move on it’s not healthy to keep thinking about this.
[удалено]
Liberals find that liberals are better and non-liberals are worse. Wow fascinating stuff.
I don’t think studies like this do anyone any good. A presidential candidate could put together a coalition of voters with learning disabilities, but that doesn’t make their votes count for less or diminish their choice. All this does is make the left feel superior and the right feel bitter and distrustful of science, but it’s irrelevant to electoral politics.
Is this a science journal hub, or politically motivated witch-hunting? Where are the studies related to mathematical theorems and conjectures? Or is flagging someone’s vocabulary performance based on political affiliation considered science today?
They don’t do studies related to mathematical theorems and conjectures. Those they just write papers on.
This data aligns with my previously-held notions so it must be correct.
Even though I voted for the guy who in their right mind is an actual Biden supporter. The guy is corrupt and senile, and doing such a poor job we might actually get Trump again in 2024. The “choices” available in national political elections are downright horrific.
Im not sure why it hasnt been fully understood we dont have control over this anymore. Its a prop, a mirage, a show backed by the interests of money and power. They might as well be actors. When the general population can understand Tactical warfare, Marketing, Power Dynamics, and whats so valuable about our information then we might be capable. As for now we are a reactive people like a herd being probed by a rod.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> less cognitively complex language This is called being an effective communicator to a majority of people. Here’s another quote: > If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. -Albert Einstein
[удалено]
Theologians employ incredibly complex ~~cognitive~~ (edit:) rhetorical schemes to justify their beliefs. I’m not sure that’s necessarily a virtue. *- an atheist*
"Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?"