They read a lot of fiction.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JacobAWohl
So how do you explain that the Democrats just elected a bunch of scientists to Congress, and that Republicans don't seem to accept even established scientific ideas like evolution and climate change? Seems like kind of a huge, gaping flaw in your argument, dude.
3 replies 0 retweets 112 likes -
Replying to @sctadsen @JacobAWohl
The hypothesis is not "scientists are mostly Republicans." The hypothesis is that reading fiction wires you differently than non-fiction. Scientists read both. Liberal arts majors might read mostly fiction, and would lean Democrat.
8 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JacobAWohl
And you're basing this on... what? Research? Personal observations? What? And how many liberal arts majors have you interacted with? And if you're not trying to tie these things to specifc political parties/leanings, why include that information at all? Why bring in politics?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @sctadsen @JacobAWohl
Your criticism of your misunderstanding of my point is on point.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @JacobAWohl
So what exactly *is* your point, then? What are you basing your "hypothesis" on?
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Let's see: "reading different literature develops different ways of thinking." Okay. What's that claim based on? And how does politics enter into this? I didn't bring that up bit - it's right there in the stupid diagram.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
A hypothesis is not a claim. That's where you are going off the rails.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.