article: Better-educated Republicans are more likely to doubt global warming and believe Obama's a Muslim

[decay]

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly...singleton/

pretty interesting, even if you don't agree with all (or any) of it.

This essay originally appeared on AlterNet. It is adapted from Chris Mooney’s forthcoming book, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality," due out in April from Wiley.

Chris Mooney is the author of four books, including "The Republican War on Science" (2005).

[Acer]

And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.

[...]

Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well—and are confident they don’t need any more information on the issue.

That's certainly evident in internet forums, including this one.

[Black]

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

The obvious answer is that they're right and man-made climate change is a self-serving myth concocted by the so-called scientific community.
Why is that so hard to accept?

[Filliam H. Muffman]

Maybe the huge number of liberal arts graduates is Bob Jones University churning out every year is skewing the results? :jest:

[cbelt3]

The fact that someone disagrees with you does not make them 'stupid' despite their intelligence. Such is the very nature of scientific discourse.

However, in political-speak, the fact that someone disagrees with you automatically makes them less intelligent, human, humane, sexy, and any other attribute you wish to establish. Such is the psychology of opinion.

I find many of the folk here to be quite intelligent. I don't agree with them in many things. Which of us is therefore somehow 'flawed' ? Or should we rightly celebrate our differences and work for a viable compromise when government is involved ?

[Black]

For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

My condolences to anyone who has to work closely with such an individual on a daily basis . . .

[cbelt3]

Black wrote:
For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives liberals probably consume more conservative liberal news and opinion, such as by watching everything other than Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

My condolences to anyone who has to work closely with such an individual on a daily basis . . .

Fixed that for ya. My condolences indeed. :biggrin:

[Acer]

I don't buy the "oh, ideology colors everything for smart people on both sides" excuse. Maybe for socialism vs capitalism, where the real life seems to work best with a mix of both. But not for issues with a strong scientific component. The truth is not often clear even with science, of course, e.g. the dietary impact of eggs. In the case of global warming, though, there's several decades of study after study, graph after graph, table after table that supports the global warming conclusion. And STILL the same old weak arguments and faulty logic are trotted out by the right.

[Black]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Black]
For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives liberals probably consume more conservative liberal news and opinion, such as by watching everything other than Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

My condolences to anyone who has to work closely with such an individual on a daily basis . . .

Fixed that for ya. My condolences indeed. :biggrin: Thanks. People 'fixing' other people's posts is really a political discussion forum at its best, and, after generous linking to LMGTFY, it's surely the essence of what keeps us all coming back.
Oddly, I do have to work with one of the conservative ilk described above to a tee, but nobody who has any particular need to go to bat in the workplace for liberal ideals.

[Sam3]

cbelt3, if you had read the article, then you'd know that your "fix" of the quote is an incorrect assessment. In the article, when the liberal was presented with their boogeyman - nuclear energy, the more educated liberal, when reading the facts and studies, was less likely to be a rabid "no-nuke" person, and more likely to modify his/her position to accommodate the new facts. This is the opposite of the educated conservative, who didn't want to hear new facts or accept new facts.