“Fart sniffers”. From adept.
Yes, smug people who cannot possibly be wrong or who could not produce anything poor in taste (e.g., a smelly fart)
Borrowed from a description of Bay Area liberals in a South Park episode from way back.
Cartoons. I’ll pass on his opinion.
76% of self-reported PhDs agree with me.
So what’s the issue?
Just look up Carnegie Mellon Delphi. There’s a ton of info on methodology. You can download aggregated CSVs but not the raw data unfortunately. Too bad - I have tomorrow off and was looking for an R project to kick some rust off 
I’m a Twitter person. FB mystifies me. I don’t want to show you pictures of my entire family, nor do I want to see or hear about yours.
1 Like
Laugh all you want.
It’s true.
Even for you?
I’d like to see the raw data and the study and the methodology.
The open access bias and the PhD reporting bias can be adjusted for.
But as stated it’s utterly false that just because one has a PhD one is free from bias or one understands more about the virus just because one has a PhD.
I do like your last conclusion. One bias a PhD (or any smart person) is likely to have IS that they have considered everything and thus have no biases.
So if a PhD was vaccine hesitant, I could see them being less flexible about their initial stance than other groups of “lesser” intelligence/schooling (I put “lesser” in quotes so please none of the predictable responses in return).
Sweet, sweet irony.
I don’t have a PhD and am not very smart either.
There are a lot more people without internet access than phones.
Allan
Could have sworn I saw the internet on my phone once.
2 Likes
That doesn’t seem to make sense. Social media polling represents people who have no internet connection?
Please elucidate.
Doesn’t not.
A mental fart.
Allan
Thanks
Would it be fair to suspect that the hesitancy numbers are skewed by the threat of being sanctioned by the platform for expressing politically incorrect judgment? That hesitancy may well be higher than the measurements suggest.
It isn’t representative.
