PJM: Academic Tests Prove Trump Supporters Are Smarter Than Clinton Supporters

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://pjmedia.com/trending/confirmed-trump-supporters-are-smarter-than-clinton-supporters/

I’ll be collecting the refutations to recycle next time someone makes a similar, but opposite, claim.

Unknown's avatar

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

36 thoughts on “PJM: Academic Tests Prove Trump Supporters Are Smarter Than Clinton Supporters”

  1. Keep driving those wedges, Mr. Roberts It seems to be the one true talent you have.

    And might I remind you:

    “A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.”

    Nothing civil about this at all.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “Nothing civil about this at all.”

      I encourage you to read the article or, better yet, the Reason piece on which it is based.

      If you have a refutation of anything either says, I’ll be happy to archive it, as promised.

      Like

      Reply

    2. @Adam

      For what is may be worth, I do not find Mr. Roberts’s post to be uncivil. Over the years there have been quite a number of studies about “conservatives” and the various emotional, mental and educational deficits that explain their gullibility, simplistic thinking, reliance on stereotypes and eagerness to be horns-waggled by a huckster such as Trump. Now he has found a study that points in a more favorable direction. I understand his eagerness to share it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. OK, so maybe not uncivil. But I contend that Mr. Roberts is the happiest, busiest wedge driver on the forum. HE surpasses our moderator if finding ways to increase the division in this country and this forum. Even when agreeing with something, he finds a way to always find a difference to separate from facts.

        Like

        Reply

  2. I read your piece and I have to say . . . I have never been prouder or more pleased to be assumed (sorry, PROVEN) less smart than a group in my life.

    Gee; what a bummer for me not to use the “pus-y” enough to slip it through my lips as easily and perfectly as the creepy fella in the Oval office does. Just sayin’.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. That 2nd paragraph should have had the word ‘word’ in it: It should have read:

      “Gee; what a bummer for me not to use the “pus-y” WORD enough to slip it through my lips as easily and perfectly as the creepy fella in the Oval office does. Just sayin’.”

      OK – tell me now how pitifully lacking I am in using my fingers when typing fast on my cell phone.Actually accidentally leaving out that word made me sound like little ‘djt’ than anything else I could have done. Gosh, I wish I was as smart as the Republicans think they are.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  3. I wonder if they have applied this test to 2nd Amendment supporters vs Everytowners?

    I suspect the results, especially when math skills are measured , will upset a lot of hoplophobes.

    Like

    Reply

    1. @Tabor

      It is pretty easy to suspect the findings of imaginary studies. I can do it too.

      I would suspect that the results would be pretty much the opposite of what you seem to think. I think that a serious, peer-reviewed objective study would find that people who put NRA priorities at the top of their political agenda are older, less educated, less successful, more male and whiter than those at the opposite end of that gun lover spectrum. You know, more like the demographic of Trump’s hard-core base than not.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I don’t know, but I wish someone qualified would research it.

        I suspect that we would find that the great majority (though not all) of those on your side’s education level is “Oprah”

        Like

        Reply

        1. @Tabor

          I think it would be a silly waste of effort to research something like this, but . . .

          “I suspect that we would find that the great majority (though not all) of those on your side’s education level is [Nugent.]”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. Yep. And explained it in the manner you stated. However, the closing paragraph says that it should still be studied. “In summary, the topics of “gun violence” and defensive gun uses are still topics worthy of objective scientific research.”

            So maybe someone outside the CDC could do it. And the government fund it. But the GOP will not allow it, even though it could go a long way, potentially, to serve your side of the argument and win hearts and minds. The CDC may have buried it because the researcher’s bias (always a bad thing) pushed them to bury it. But even the (seemingly Libertarian who wrote the Forbes article) author says objective scientific study is a worthy endeavor.

            Like

          3. But the fact that the CDC buried the report, when they would have widely publicized it had it gone the other way, disqualifies them for administering the research.

            That doesn’t mean that the research should not be done(and it has) it just means that the CDC and BATFE have both demonstrated that they can’t be trusted to do it,

            If you want real, peer reviewed research on firearms, go to

            https://crimeresearch.org/

            Caveat, not everything there is peer reviewed, you have to note the publication info to know which ones are.

            Like

  4. “As Jim Lindgren at Reason notes, the GSS “is usually regarded as the leading omnibus academic survey in the US; it usually achieves response rates about 10 to 20 times higher than the typical public opinion poll.”

    I believe that description of the GSS is false. It is not a survey of intelligence, academic achievement or intellectual acuity It is a Social Survey for social trends. See the description below from the GSS site itself.

    “For more than four decades, the General Social Survey (GSS) has studied the growing complexity of American society. It is the only full-probability, personal-interview survey designed to monitor changes in both social characteristics and attitudes currently being conducted in the United States.”

    http://www.gss.norc.org/About-The-GSS

    So I would not only give 4 pants-on-fire to the article. I might even be concerned about the authors agenda by trying to fool the conservatives into thinking they are smarter than liberals.

    Hey, look! It seems to have worked, by golly.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    2. RE: “It [the GSS] is not a survey of intelligence, academic achievement or intellectual acuity. It is a Social Survey for social trends.”

      I don’t see how that refutes the article. The Reason piece from which PJM adapts the material points out:

      “In 1974, the GSS adopted a 10-question vocabulary test (WORDSUM) that was extracted from a standard, widely used IQ test. The National Science Foundation (NSF), in its 2018 report on science knowledge, refers to this battery of GSS items as a “verbal ability” test.”

      Like

      Reply

      1. “A correlation of 0.71 is not mind-blowing, there’s a significant difference between IQ and WORDSUM as they relate to each other linearly. But I think it’s good enough to get a sense that WORDSUM is a serviceable substitute for a more rigorous measure of g in lieu of any alternatives, and not so clumsy a proxy so as to be useless. Though that call is up to you, and readers are free to disagree with the methodology of the model used to obtain this correlation. Additionally, I would point out that WORDSUM is a subset of the vocabulary subsection of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. WORDSUM is in effect a slice of an IQ test.”

        https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/wordsum-and-iq-and-the-correlation

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    3. Here is a perfect example and a refutation of the article.

      Mike Pompeo, by any definition a true, hard line conservative from a red state, had to ask a liberal NPR reporter, Mary Louise Kelly, where Ukraine was located.

      One would have thought that the Secretary of State would know something like that. But he was apparently surprised to find that it was not where Bangladesh is located. He was so surprised that he uttered a few choice expletives, ending with “well, I’ll be dipped in @$#%”.

      So like a good diplomat, the next day he apparently credited Kelly for pointing that out.

      “it’s not Bangladesh!” he exclaimed. Thereby informing the rest of the Trump fans so they would know. He also informed the pilot so they could actually get to Kiev rather than Chittagong or Dhaka. Fortunately, it tuned out that the pilot had a leftover map from the Obama administration so he knew where to fly.

      Pompeo also thanked NPR and informed them that he would not need their help finding Ukraine. Thus saving its correspondent a trip and assigning her seat to a less informed reporter from FOX so he could watch and learn.

      And that is kind of how it all went down.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  5. Have we actually devolved (polarized) to the point of singing “my side is smarter than your side, my side is smarter than yooooouuuuurs, etc, etc. The left has been playing this ignorant claim of intellectual superiority for a while now. Just ignore obvious idiocy, smile and vote for Trump 2020.

    Like

    Reply

        1. I contend that enough held their nose, closed their eyes and threw a dart at the ballot. And that “enough” was only about 73,000 votes in three states. Eyes will be wide open come November.
          The Senate is now definitely in play, so be careful what you wish for because more voters will NOT ignore the actions of Trump and his power-hungry GOP Senators.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  6. Oh, absolutely. Of that I have no doubt. Trump supporters are largely white, male, lower- and mid-middle class, have finished high school, employed, well-fed, and watch some news (mostly Fox).

    I have no doubt, that any arbitrary 5 Trump supporters would compare well to any 5 Clinton supporters — only 2 of which would be college educated, 2 from the same as the Trump demographic, and 1 of whom would come from non-white inner city areas lacking a high school education.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment