Pandemic missed opportunities

shakahislop

Well-known member

Vaccines are a powerful and relatively safe tool to protect against a range of serious diseases. Nonetheless, a sizeable minority of people express ‘vaccination hesitancy’. Accordingly, understanding the bases of this hesitancy represents a significant public health opportunity. In the present study we sought to examine the role of Big Five personality traits and general intelligence as predictors of vaccination hesitancy across two vaccination types in a large (N = 9667) sample of UK adults drawn from the Understanding Society longitudinal household study. We found that lower levels of general intelligence were associated with COVID-19 and seasonal flu vaccination hesitancy, and lower levels of neuroticism was associated with COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Although the self-reported reasons for being vaccine hesitant indicated a range of factors were important to people, lower general intelligence was associated with virtually all of these reasons.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________

Vaccines are a powerful and relatively safe tool to protect against a range of serious diseases. Nonetheless, a sizeable minority of people express ‘vaccination hesitancy’. Accordingly, understanding the bases of this hesitancy represents a significant public health opportunity. In the present study we sought to examine the role of Big Five personality traits and general intelligence as predictors of vaccination hesitancy across two vaccination types in a large (N = 9667) sample of UK adults drawn from the Understanding Society longitudinal household study. We found that lower levels of general intelligence were associated with COVID-19 and seasonal flu vaccination hesitancy, and lower levels of neuroticism was associated with COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Although the self-reported reasons for being vaccine hesitant indicated a range of factors were important to people, lower general intelligence was associated with virtually all of these reasons.
The only meaningful correlation is with age; the others include significant but very weak effects.

The other thing is that we know that there is a class signaling thing going on, which means that bien pensant middle class types dumbly do as they are told they should do and make a big noise about it for fear of otherwise being ostracized while the lower orders bumble along as ever and the MENSA crew and PhDs actually read and understand the literature before making rational decisions not caring what anyone else thinks (as they know the rest are thick)
 
Last edited:

shakahislop

Well-known member
The only meaningful correlation is with age; the others include significant but very weak effects.

The other thing is that we know that there is a class signaling thing going on, which means that bien pensant middle class types dumbly do as they are told they should do and make a big noise about it for fear of otherwise being ostracized while the lower orders bumble along as ever and the MENSA crew and PhDs actually read and understand the literature before making rational decisions not caring what anyone else thinks (as they know the rest are thick)
i think the 'big five' and intelligence testing are nonsense for what its worth, and therefore the paper as well, i just came across this while looking for something else and.....thought of you
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
There wouldn't be any reason to, as it's only a meaningful association by virtue of the massive sample size.
that's not what he says go and deck him

Lower intelligence had a small but consistent association with greater vaccination hesitancy across both samples, and both types of vaccine. This observation is in line with findings that those with a more intuitive style of cognition were less likely to vaccinate, those with a more analytical style of cognition were more likely to vaccinate [29], and those with lower cognitive sophistication scores were more susceptible to vaccine misperceptions [38]. However, given intelligence’s modest correlation with cognitive styles [45], it appears that intelligence provides a meaningful, independent contribution to understanding vaccination hesitancy.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
They've probably used rank correlation because it's not a linear association (ie vaccine hesitancy peaks at either end)
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
that's not what he says go and deck him

Lower intelligence had a small but consistent association with greater vaccination hesitancy across both samples, and both types of vaccine. This observation is in line with findings that those with a more intuitive style of cognition were less likely to vaccinate, those with a more analytical style of cognition were more likely to vaccinate [29], and those with lower cognitive sophistication scores were more susceptible to vaccine misperceptions [38]. However, given intelligence’s modest correlation with cognitive styles [45], it appears that intelligence provides a meaningful, independent contribution to understanding vaccination hesitancy.
The numbers say it: v small association. Statistically significant doesn't necessarily mean it's very influential...it just means the elicited signal is probably representative. Eg if we took 5,000 people from either Carlisle or Dover, there would be a statistically significant association with kilt-wearing but there would still be precious few kilted folk in either location. If you took 50 from each, there's a good chance no difference would be found
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
The numbers say it: v small association. Statistically significant doesn't necessarily mean it's very influential...it just means the elicited signal is probably representative. Eg if we took 5,000 people from either Carlisle or Dover, there would be a statistically significant association with kilt-wearing but there would still be precious few kilted folk in either location. If you took 50 from each, there's a good chance no difference would be found
yeah. that is basically what they're saying in the paper, that it's one small (but real) predictor among many.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
yeah. that is basically what they're saying in the paper, that it's one small (but real) predictor among many.
I don't think it would be a very useful predictor given how small it is: in fact, the news to the jabbed middle is that being unjabbed is far less of an indicator of inferiority than they were led to believe
 

Leo

Well-known member
apocalypse-final.jpg
 
Top