4 Comments

Dan C
June 5th, 2012 | 9:05 pm

As highly science literate, I agree with this. I perceive the distinction as noted in this study as politically motivated, which is their CCT model.

I think, about climate change, that the right wing can comprehend the data, but, because climate change prevention would interfere with the Sacrament of Making Money, its a non-starter.

That is also what this study says. Its just uses pretty words.

TXW
June 6th, 2012 | 2:28 am

I like their labels for the two groups, how sassy. Now in primary elections, one will choose their respective ballot: egalitarian communitarian or hierarchical individualist. The former defined as “one favouring less regimented forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs.” How this differs from individual attention to collective needs confuses me.

The study shows that they try to predict their own regimented form of social organization based on if you are dumber, I mean umm . . . less scientifically literate, than the guys at Yale, but their prediction fails. They also predict, based on figure 2, that if one has a hierarchical mojo, you must be really dumb on the left of the graph, but this breadth of dumbness doesn’t apply if you have egalitarian mojo. Again, the prediction fails, perhaps the author’s campuses need more diversity and they would realize the hierarchites aren’t so dumb as they predict, if they actually met one. Egalitarians, we are told, are “morally suspicious of commerce and industry”. Is this even after typing out climate change articles on computers that are built partly from mining 50 some different minerals from the ground? Even thought the supposed communitarian/egalitarian countries in the world are the biggest polluters?
Further, since those hierarchians in figure 2 with the highest education in science perceive the lowest risk of climate change, we need to weed out the conservatives and religious fanatics from science programs. Only liberals. . . I mean egalitarians. . . are to be educated, and the hierarchian slope will cross the y-axis above zero. Mission accomplished! Uneducated hierarchians will then be more amenable to “collective attention to individual needs.” The remainder will be sent to Lubyanka.

Dan C
June 6th, 2012 | 5:25 pm

I think “hierarchical individualists” are best represented by that self-imposed moniker “ditto-heads.”

Blake
June 7th, 2012 | 1:26 pm

I think, about climate change, that the right wing can comprehend the data, but, because climate change prevention would interfere with the Sacrament of Making Money, its a non-starter.

How sad that you have to ruin it with such a lame ad hominem.

Ignoring the fact that this particular accusation of bad faith is rather implausible (given the available evidence about party affiliation and income – especially when donations and charitable giving are thrown into the mix – as someone as scientifically literate as you no doubt knows) – why the bad faith? Why can’t you approach it on substance?