Let's say there's propaganda on both sides, and a gradient of propagandists from those who would lie to keep you safe to those who would lie to gain political power. One needn't "pretend", merely look for correlation
between cognitive function and what flavor of propaganda a person is predisposed towards. But, assuming that everything you read is propaganda doesn't sound healthy.
The graph looks pretty monotonic-ish to me. Assuming the sampling is representative of the general population and the IQ tests they've done are legit, is there a reason you couldn't make both claims?
That's how a lot of conversations have started with people I know, but asking past "no way in hell" reveals actual room for consideration. "No way in hell" becomes, "Sure I'd get one if I was coming to an offsite." Or, "Get off my case and let me come to my own conclusions and I bet I'd take it." I still have tons of moral problems with that, but it's a step towards mutual understanding which is the only thing I know which will work to get us there. Spoiler: we're not going to get there anyway[0] so it doesn't matter.
Pretty sure university towns are full of educated people, students seeking education, and lots of other things that would tend to higher vaccination rates.
Do wealthier suburbs tend to support the Liberals more? The US is pretty backwards where the higher income you are, the more likely you are to support the democrats (obviously a huge generalization).
The question really seems to be is which direction is the cause and effect.
> The US is pretty backwards where the higher income you are, the more likely you are to support the democrats
That might feel correct because high income geographic areas tend to vote Democratic and low income geographic areas tend to vote Republican, but it's the opposite for individual voters[1][2]. High income voters skew Republican and low income voters skew Democratic.
Wealthier doesn't mean smarter. It may be that wealthier is associated with right-wing politics which in turn is associated with various anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.
Almost no one claims that IQ tests are invalid, they really do estimate g, very strongly correlated with IQ. What is often being questioned is the strength of correlation between scores and life outcomes. And of course there’s the incendiary nature vs nurture debate.
I've come to a similar conclusion: the people who are vaccine "hesitant" are mostly those who are either a) not smart or b) narcissistic (or both). That's because those who are not smart don't trust studies or generally don't trust authority (as in people who are experts). They trust their gut feeling and trust arguments more that fit in their world view. This goes so far that they trust messages that don't fit together (e.g. "china unleashed it to kill us" vs. "it's just like the flu, no biggy"), for as long as it helps them in justifying and maintaining their behavior.
This leads to my conclusion that most of these people are beyond convincing because a) logic doesn't work and b) empathy doesn't either (at least for the narcissists). What works for some is if they see direct effects in their closest circle, e.g. family dying. However, for many even this is not enough because of so much propaganda and peer pressure.
However, I personally have come to the conclusion that a state's responsibility is to protect these people (and everyone else) from themselves and thus a vaccine mandate is appropriate. Obviously, this is a difficult step everywhere but especially so in the US (because of the polarization). Which is why I am happy to live in western Europe.
Exactly. I just don't think its necessary to protect them from themselfs. Vaccine mandate is necessary to protect the healthcare system from collapsing. Otherwise i wouldn't care about those antivaxxers.
This should be self-evident and holds for any correlation of education and trust - people without means receive inferior education (indoctrination?) and tend to mistrust a system that does not value them (or actively harms them). So now let's do the same study but instead of measuring "intelligence", let's measure gullibility.
"If there is hope it lies in the proles" - George Orwell, 1984
I was speaking to an older maintenance engineer. He is vaccinated but he was a bit scared of the vaccine and his words stuck with me.
He said he doesn't have the background to understand or weigh up the risks of the vaccine. So he has to trust the experts. In his life time he was told working with asbestos was safe. Then he watched his father die from it. He knows his exposure was high and worries he will suffer the same fate. He knows that they're different experts in a different time but he doesn't like trusting others with his health anymore. Now he has to be vaccinated to work and go most places he enjoys. There was a sadness in his eyes that I've not seen before.
I am really glad he was able to talk about this, and that you chose to post it.
I read the abstract and conclusion from the preprint listing before reading the comments here. I was hoping for something beyond "dumb ppl no vax" and here it is.
I'm glad he got vaccinated. God bless him and thank you very much.
I think this study may in fact show that lesser educated people are less susceptible to propaganda, and less likely to be “institutionalized” by society and group-think.
This reminds me of those studies purporting to denigrate the religious by showing they have lower IQs than non-religious people. Yet, some of the biggest minds (John Von Neumann) had some religious leanings:
“ von Neumann, when dying of cancer in the hospital, sought the ministrations of a Catholic priest, Fr. Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to whom he confessed and from whom he received the last sacraments of the Catholic Church. Some explained this as the act of a desperate man who was known to have an unusually great horror of death. On the other hand, that he had some belief is indicated by the fact that he once confided to his mother, “There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t.” “
So clearly, studies such as the one in the article are not particularly useful, nor enlightening (at least not for the reasons people might think). Any who base their decisions going forward on the results of this study, rather than on their own balanced examination of the facts, is more likely to be cognitively deficient.
34 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 85.8 ms ] thread75% of papers are complete bullshit and not reproducible. Welcome to modern science.
There can be other reasons for vaccine hesitancy other than stupidity.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/who-says-covid-vaccine-boost...
The question really seems to be is which direction is the cause and effect.
That might feel correct because high income geographic areas tend to vote Democratic and low income geographic areas tend to vote Republican, but it's the opposite for individual voters[1][2]. High income voters skew Republican and low income voters skew Democratic.
[1] https://dasil.sites.grinnell.edu/2020/05/the-demographic-pro...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/940427/2018-midterm-elec...
I've seen people repeatedly claim IQ like tests were invalid.
Now if your test is to select which individuals from a minority group can go to college, of course not! How dare you?
This leads to my conclusion that most of these people are beyond convincing because a) logic doesn't work and b) empathy doesn't either (at least for the narcissists). What works for some is if they see direct effects in their closest circle, e.g. family dying. However, for many even this is not enough because of so much propaganda and peer pressure. However, I personally have come to the conclusion that a state's responsibility is to protect these people (and everyone else) from themselves and thus a vaccine mandate is appropriate. Obviously, this is a difficult step everywhere but especially so in the US (because of the polarization). Which is why I am happy to live in western Europe.
try to put yourself in those people’s shoes.
and i mean really try to get some empathy, and dont think of yourself as an omnipotent entity that can see through the mist. nobody is.
"If there is hope it lies in the proles" - George Orwell, 1984
He said he doesn't have the background to understand or weigh up the risks of the vaccine. So he has to trust the experts. In his life time he was told working with asbestos was safe. Then he watched his father die from it. He knows his exposure was high and worries he will suffer the same fate. He knows that they're different experts in a different time but he doesn't like trusting others with his health anymore. Now he has to be vaccinated to work and go most places he enjoys. There was a sadness in his eyes that I've not seen before.
I read the abstract and conclusion from the preprint listing before reading the comments here. I was hoping for something beyond "dumb ppl no vax" and here it is.
I'm glad he got vaccinated. God bless him and thank you very much.
This reminds me of those studies purporting to denigrate the religious by showing they have lower IQs than non-religious people. Yet, some of the biggest minds (John Von Neumann) had some religious leanings:
“ von Neumann, when dying of cancer in the hospital, sought the ministrations of a Catholic priest, Fr. Anselm Strittmatter, O.S.B., to whom he confessed and from whom he received the last sacraments of the Catholic Church. Some explained this as the act of a desperate man who was known to have an unusually great horror of death. On the other hand, that he had some belief is indicated by the fact that he once confided to his mother, “There probably has to be a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t.” “
So clearly, studies such as the one in the article are not particularly useful, nor enlightening (at least not for the reasons people might think). Any who base their decisions going forward on the results of this study, rather than on their own balanced examination of the facts, is more likely to be cognitively deficient.