trump's appeal to the cognitively challenged

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 62
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    During the 2016 election, Donald Trump famously proclaimed "I love the poorly educated!" Well, if "poorly educated" is a euphemism for "cognitively challenged," new research finds they loved him right back.
    It reports Trump voters, on average, performed more poorly than Hillary Clintonsupporters on a standard test widely regarded as a good indicator of intellectual ability.
    "Intellectual factors played an important role in the 2016 election," writes a research team led by Yoav Ganzach of Tel Aviv University. "These results suggest that the 2016 U.S. presidential election had less to do with party affiliation, income, or education, and more to do with basic cognitive ability."
    In the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, Ganzach and his colleagues analyzed data from the American National Election Studies, which included 5,914 participants in 2012 and 4,271 in 2016.
    Besides expressing their attitudes toward that year's presidential candidates, participants took a standard test of verbal ability. Specifically, they were presented with 10 sets of words, and asked "to identify the word or phrase in a set of five that was the closest to the target word."

    While hardly comprehensive, the test "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.
    After taking into account participants' party affiliation, the researchers found intellectual ability was a strong predictor of attitudes toward the two major candidates in 2016. Specifically, they found "clear negative relationships of verbal ability and education with attitude toward Trump."
    In contrast, they found "weak, nonsignificant relationships of verbal ability and education with attitude toward [Mitt] Romney" in his failed 2012 campaign. In both elections, higher levels of education and verbal ability were associated with support for the Democratic candidate [Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton].
    "Support for Trump was better predicted by lower verbal ability than education or income," the researchers add. "Our analyses indicate that support for Trump was less about socioeconomic standing, and more about intellect."
    Ganzach and his team note that Trump, on the campaign trail, expressed his opposition to both socially liberal beliefs (such as support for abortion rights and opposition to racism) and fiscally conservative beliefs (such as free trade). Both sets of beliefs have been linked in past research with higher cognitive ability, so it makes sense that their appeal would be largely limited to those who score lower on such measures.

    This research adds to the rapidly growing list of findings attempting to explain why the American voters (although not a majority) supported a candidate widely viewed as lacking the qualifications or temperament to be president.
    While economic anxiety has been largely ruled out as a likely explanation, studies have pointed to whites' fear of declining social status in a rapidly changing society, as well as racist and sexist beliefs, tribalism, possessing an authoritarian mindset, and even being prone to anxiety, and thus susceptible to Trump's fear-based appeals.
    Ganzach's findings align with those of another recent study that found Democrats who crossed over to vote for him were the least likely demographic to engage in analytical thinking. This may be because, in many cases, they just aren't good at it.


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,836
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    When he addresses the poorly educated, he is talking about the recent college graduates with degrees in gender studies and critical race theory.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    @pollywanna
    Nah he's talking about those who voted for him
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,357
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Greyparrot
    While economic anxiety has been largely ruled out 
    once I saw that there was no need to read more.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,836
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    That is a good article.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,357
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Greyparrot
    there were far more reasons to not vote for Clinton than to vote for Trump so.....love these biased b.s. studies though lol
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    I just love how people waste their time on trying to prove that Trump voters are stupid so they can sleep well at night.  Or better yet, insist that they are, and write articles that list stats to back it up.  

    Like there is a group of intellectuals sitting around a table contemplating who these people are that voted for someone they despise so much.  They do research and compare stats, check different correlation methods, and county voting census.  God forbid opening their minds, finding one and asking them why they voted for him, but they don't want to talk to a racist, uneducated, closed minded person, who wouldn't even be able to explain why..... Lets just use the intellectual way of figuring this out, you know, just like the polls do that are 100% correct, 10% of the time.

    .  
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,357
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @DBlaze
    there are political advantages to having a divided nation.  if you listen to the democratic presidential hopefuls for 2020 that is their platform.  they are appealing (pandering) to the minorities and lazy with promises of more entitlements, how does that bring a country together and how does that benefit me and those like me?  Say what you will about Trump but the low unemployment has benefited people regardless of race/status etc

    these sort of "studies" are insulting and degrading, what does that say about the character of those who believe them true and post positively about them?
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @n8nrgmi
    While hardly comprehensive, the test "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability," the researchers note.
    ergo less broad-minded in its considerations i.e. more limited in scope of investigations.

    That does not mean not valid research for what it did discover or conclude.
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @mustardness
    So because it does not mean it is not valid research, people should believe it and take it as fact.

    Just like this does not mean the President is exonerated from a non crime of collusion, but it does not mean that it does not mean that it could mean that he is exonerated of a non crime of collusion. This is not proof that this statement is meant to be taken as fact, but it does not mean that it doesn't mean it is not meant to be taken as fact. 

    Or replace "non crime of collusion" with "obstruction" in the above.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    trump supporters are on average less educated than not. intelligence and education are correlated. so, is it all that far fetched that they might be less intelligent? 



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,836
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    How do you objectively measure intelligence in a political environment that rewards people for calling the opposition stupid as a precursor for tyrannical censorship?

    Education most certainly does not equate to intelligence.

    Nearly 40% of all colleges in the USA have 0% conservative professors. That means 40% of "educated" people have never learned anything except one side of every issue. That's certainly not the hallmark of an intelligent person, or even a measure of education in the classical meaning of education.
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @Greyparrot
    Well put.. I could have sworn that I replied to that statement earlier, I guess I never hit the post button, that upsets me because it was a good response. N8 is falling for exactly what the left and the MSM wants. True intelligence is in the form of gullibility and critical thinking,  but it also has to do with experience. People who went to college are actually behind the 8 ball by 4 years, sometimes 5 or 6, even 12 years, from real life. 4 classes a day and partying every night just continues their adolescence.  That’s why kids in colleges don’t really understand free speech, and why it is important. They actually protest it.

    N8 has fallen for what Democrats,  MSM, and college professors, who don’t have real people jobs, have done to continue dividing the country, and is spreading the message of Trump voters being less intelligent as fact..stats provided to you by the same people who do the polls, who are incorrect ... always.

    n8, don’t you think it is a bit wrong to call half the country stupid?  That is what you just did, whether you realize it or not. Might as well call them deplorable.  Who is really dividing the country here? 

    I hate Don Lemon! Watching his unbelievable BS right now.

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    all ya'll are just choosing to ignore the data with no data of your own. u choose to reject it simply because u dont like it. that's not how science works. very trumpian of ya'll
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,836
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    If anything, one could wonder how any educated people could possibly vote for Trump when 40% of the colleges have 0% conservative teachers.

    Maybe the indoctrination is not going as planned?
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @DBlaze
    True intelligence is in the form of gullibility and critical thinking,  but it also has to do with experience.
    It also has to do with moral integrity i.e.,

    1} i, those who choose to be ignorant of the data, and truth when presented to them and,

    2} to lazy to do any critical thinking, so ...go with the political flow... wherever it may go, as long my{ their } baseline is not obviously being adversly affected { tho they may not realize it is being affected because of their lack critical thinking of complicated issues }.

    "Experience" is example of common sense empathy shared by most people and that is  why Trumps seperating parents from children at the southern border was obvious blunder of empathetic concerns by empathetically dis-inclined Trumpanzees.




  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,836
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @mustardness
    But when Obama separated children then it was somehow "moral?"

    Seems like you are following your number 1 and number 2 with your conclusion statement.

  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    3
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Greyparrot
    But when Obama separated children then it was somehow "moral?"
    I'm not familiar with the details regarding Obama, but my guess is were considering two differrent sets of circumstances and that is most likely why it has not reached the level of critical considerations that Trumps has received.

    and I recently heard some ICE{?} official say the Trump policy made errors in that respect and their trying take better approach now.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,836
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @mustardness
    The details are pretty much the same as Trump. Neither WANTED to separate children, but a court ruling by an activist liberal judge made it illegal to keep children with the parents when the parents criminally invaded the country with child in tow.

    Afterwards "journalists" took some images from the Obama era with kids in cages and attempted to say Trump, and only Trump was responsible.
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Yes. You are saying that statement as fact It is more propaganda trying to divide us and you are helping them to achieve their goal.  Don't you see that?  It is like calling people deplorable, which was actually, in itself, deplorable, that didn't help Clinton at all.   You are spreading it around as truth, you are falling for their trap and doing exactly what they want you to do, being all high and mighty.  You think that all Trump supporters are hicks and inbred farmers that have no social skills.  That is far from the truth as well.

    You say, if a person voted for Trump, chances are they are less educated, and therefore dumber, that is hipocracy from the left at its best.  Just because someone was able to eek their way through college, does not make them intelligent.  Being able to think critically, and not being gullible are signs of intelligence, it does not take a college degree to do that.  

    In fact, I would think people that don't go to college, and actually get a job to support themselves have a pretty big advantage over students getting ready to graduate.  Life experience can help with intelligence more than going to four classes a day and partying every night for four years straight, and listening to liberal teachers that most never had a real job in the first place.

    You are dividing the country by spreading these falsehoods.  That is the goal of the MSM, and they are winning to keep us watching... making mountains out of molehills, and not reporting real news, just things that make you hate Trump and support the delusion that Trump voters are dumb.  
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,357
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @n8nrgmi
    so how does the voter mix for Trump compare to past elections and presidents?  Please factor in actual turn out as well since that also makes a difference.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @DBlaze
    Yes. You are saying that statement as fact It is more propaganda trying to divide us and you are helping them to achieve their goal.
    Do come back when you have a detail explanation on how it is false or provide evidence that contradicts his.
    It is like calling people deplorable, which was actually, in itself, deplorable, that didn't help Clinton at all.
    You are making the argument deplorable is self-defeating. Do explain.
    You think that all Trump supporters are hicks and inbred farmers that have no social skills.  That is far from the truth as well.
    Where did he say that?
    You say, if a person voted for Trump, chances are they are less educated, and therefore dumber, that is hipocracy from the left at its best.
    How else do you measure who is d*mber if it isn't the less educated of the two? You also make the claim it is hypocritical without saying how it is the case.
    Just because someone was able to eek their way through college, does not make them intelligent.  Being able to think critically, and not being gullible are signs of intelligence, it does not take a college degree to do that.  
    Researches have already noted this  "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability,". The burden on you is to discredit the research, the research he took part in or find a better way of measuring who is d*mb. Nothing that you said substantiated anything.
    I would think people that don't go to college, and actually get a job to support themselves have a pretty big advantage over students getting ready to graduate.  Life experience can help with intelligence more than going to four classes a day and partying every night for four years straight, and listening to liberal teachers that most never had a real job in the first place.
    Anecdotes in the face of evidence. That is not a counter to what he said instead gave an "I think" statement. 
    You are dividing the country by spreading these falsehoods.  That is the goal of the MSM, and they are winning to keep us watching
    CNN and Fox's goal is to make money. If spreading falsehoods and dividing the country makes them money then they will carry on doing so. If you actually had a problem it would be with the government not regulating enough or capitalism since those are the core problems. 
    making mountains out of molehills, and not reporting real news
    Just like what you said earlier on not supported with a evidence.
    just things that make you hate Trump and support the delusion that Trump voters are dumb.  
    If it makes money then they will. 
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Yes. You are saying that statement as fact It is more propaganda trying to divide us and you are helping them to achieve their goal.
    Do come back when you have a detail explanation on how it is false or provide evidence that contradicts his.  
    It is a statement coming from a poll, a statistical poll that is not based on fact.  Therefore, there is no evidence to support or contradict, that is why it is wrong for you to spread it as fact.  I am not saying that what I say is fact, either.
    It is like calling people deplorable, which was actually, in itself, deplorable, that didn't help Clinton at all.
    You are making the argument deplorable is self-defeating. Do explain.  It self defeated Clinton, it did not help her to call half the country deplorable, it made them dislike her even more.  If people were on the fence, this probably put many in the Trump category. I don't know why I had to explain that.
    You think that all Trump supporters are hicks and inbred farmers that have no social skills.  That is far from the truth as well.
    Where did he say that?  That was an assumption based on his uneducated base position.
    You say, if a person voted for Trump, chances are they are less educated, and therefore dumber, that is hipocracy from the left at its best.
    How else do you measure who is d*mber if it isn't the less educated of the two? You also make the claim it is hypocritical without saying how it is the case. 
    Why would anyone choose to measure that statistic?  The analytics crew, or polling crew made a hypothesis and distorted findings or picked and chose ways to make that hypothesis seem feasible.   It is a way to divide the country, a way to hype up the left, and make people who did vote for Clinton feel like they are smarter than the average person, and should stand up and try to overturn an election that happened 3 years ago.  

    The left says they do not judge people by their beliefs, yet you are doing exactly that.  Putting people in the dumb group.  That is hypocritical.

    Just because someone was able to eek their way through college, does not make them intelligent.  Being able to think critically, and not being gullible are signs of intelligence, it does not take a college degree to do that.  
    Researches have already noted this  "is considered a good indicator of general cognitive ability,". The burden on you is to discredit the research, the research he took part in or find a better way of measuring who is d*mb. Nothing that you said substantiated anything.

    And what I am saying is your researchers are biased, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, including that "quote" above.
    I would think people that don't go to college, and actually get a job to support themselves have a pretty big advantage over students getting ready to graduate.  Life experience can help with intelligence more than going to four classes a day and partying every night for four years straight, and listening to liberal teachers that most never had a real job in the first place.
    Anecdotes in the face of evidence. That is not a counter to what he said instead gave an "I think" statement.  
    This was just a side note,  not proof of anything.
    You are dividing the country by spreading these falsehoods.  That is the goal of the MSM, and they are winning to keep us watching
    CNN and Fox's goal is to make money. If spreading falsehoods and dividing the country makes them money then they will carry on doing so. If you actually had a problem it would be with the government not regulating enough or capitalism since those are the core problems.

    I agree, they will not stop, but sooner or later, people will catch on, and they will be, and have been losing a lot of viewership due to that fact.  They will soon go the way of the National Enquirer, reading things they want to believe to keep themselves entertained. 
    making mountains out of molehills, and not reporting real news
    Just like what you said earlier on not supported with a evidence. CNN and MSNBC have been focused on Barr and Mueller non stop for 24 hours, and not reporting on anything else that is happening in or outside of the country.... unless it has to do with "Trump is bad"
    just things that make you hate Trump and support the delusion that Trump voters are dumb.  
    If it makes money then they will.

    You are right they will, and it takes someone with intelligence to believe what is right, that is why I don't believe your "researchers findings"  or the conclusions that they made.  I'm sure there are dumb (gullible and inability to critically think) people on both sides of the isle.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,909
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @DBlaze
    It is a statement coming from a poll, a statistical poll that is not based on fact.  Therefore, there is no evidence to support or contradict, that is why it is wrong for you to spread it as fact.  I am not saying that what I say is fact, either.
    So polls are not factual?
    It self defeated Clinton, it did not help her to call half the country deplorable, it made them dislike her even more.  If people were on the fence, this probably put many in the Trump category. I don't know why I had to explain that.
    You said "calling people deplorable" is self-defeating. This does not in anyway address that. You don't understand for something to be self-defeating it would mean the person saying something contradicts what they are saying or doesn't help them. You have not told me the intention behind Clinton saying deplorable instead accepted as something that did not help her win half the country. You didn't provide evidence to state the intent behind statement and evidence of what occurred later on that made it self defeating.
    That was an assumption based on his uneducated base position.
    A person can be uneducated without being an inbred who has no social skills. You basically made a remark that is not logical to what the person who made this topic brought up. Even this assumption is far-fetched.
    Why would anyone choose to measure that statistic?
    You can find reasons why the data is like that. That is why people try to find reasons in data. You make it seem as though every single data is not used to find out why this occurs.
    The analytics crew, or polling crew made a hypothesis and distorted findings or picked and chose ways to make that hypothesis seem feasible.
    How is the data distorted?
    The left says they do not judge people by their beliefs, yet you are doing exactly that.  Putting people in the dumb group.  That is hypocritical.
    This does not matter too much but evidence?
    And what I am saying is your researchers are biased, and nothing they say should be taken seriously, including that "quote" above.
    Biased doesn't mean wrong. The burden is on you to state that this bias is impacting their research so much that it is distorting data like you said earlier on.
    This was just a side note,  not proof of anything.
    1 out 4 paragraphs were dedicated to a "side note". You could have easily removed that if you are incapable of defending your stance but you didn't. Do you want to change what your anecdote represents?
    I agree, they will not stop, but sooner or later, people will catch on, and they will be, and have been losing a lot of viewership due to that fact.  They will soon go the way of the National Enquirer, reading things they want to believe to keep themselves entertained. 
    You need data to say how Fox and CNN will lose revenue eventually due to the spreading of false information.
    CNN and MSNBC have been focused on Barr and Mueller non stop for 24 hours, and not reporting on anything else that is happening in or outside of the country.... unless it has to do with "Trump is bad"
    What has this got to do with anything? They are the news and they are reporting on what is relevant. What have you got against that?
    I'm sure there are dumb (gullible and inability to critically think) people on both sides of the isle.
    If you agree with that why are you against the creator of this topic using data to find Trump supporters did poorly in an intellectual ability test compared to Hillary supporters? 
  • DBlaze
    DBlaze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 318
    1
    1
    2
    DBlaze avatar
    DBlaze
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    there are political advantages to having a divided nation.  if you listen to the democratic presidential hopefuls for 2020 that is their platform.  they are appealing (pandering) to the minorities and lazy with promises of more entitlements, how does that bring a country together and how does that benefit me and those like me?  Say what you will about Trump but the low unemployment has benefited people regardless of race/status etc

    these sort of "studies" are insulting and degrading, what does that say about the character of those who believe them true and post positively about them?

    I completely agree, I hope you got my sarcasm in my post.  It says that they think Hilary was in the right by calling a potential voter base deplorable.