Divergence in opinions men and women hold

[Grace]

I personally am not strongly opposed to nuclear power plants, but given our government’s track record, I probably would not want to live down river or nearby. There are a few neighborhoods around here with documented increased cancer rates from previous soil/water contamination from various sources over the years, and all it takes is some slackers who decide to cut corners, and we have a problem. i’m sure that it has gotten significantly safer since Chernobyl, and people learn from disasters like Fukushima, but I still would rather it not near residential areas.

Although Three Mile Island doesn't compare to Chernobyl and Fukushima, I don't trust the company that owns that. I was pretty young when the partial nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island occurred.

[temporal1]

I personally am not strongly opposed to nuclear power plants, but given our government’s track record, I probably would not want to live down river or nearby. There are a few neighborhoods around here with documented increased cancer rates from previous soil/water contamination from various sources over the years, and all it takes is some slackers who decide to cut corners, and we have a problem. i’m sure that it has gotten significantly safer since Chernobyl, and people learn from disasters like Fukushima, but I still would rather it not near residential areas.

Although Three Mile Island doesn't compare to Chernobyl and Fukushima, I don't trust the company that owns that. I was pretty young when the partial nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island occurred.

It’s an example of how statistics can be disturbingly deceiving.
Stats may prove there is little or no reason to doubt.

When it’s your family, your farm, your church, that’s harmed, it’s 100%.

[Bootstrap]

One of the more interesting things going on lately is the divergence in opinions that men and women hold, including about scientific facts. For example, a survey in the UK found that 69% of women believed that nuclear power plants result in more carbon emissions:

Nope. That's not what it found, according to the numbers they posted.

They were asked this question:

Do you think nuclear energy produces low or no carbon emissions?

31% of women said they do not believe that nuclear power plants are low or no carbon. That's rather different from the way these results are being presented in this discussion. Even the 31% who said they do not believe they are low or now carbon did not say that they believe they result in more carbon emissions. They answered ‘No’ to whether nuclear produces low or no carbon emissions.

One of the real big differences: women are much more likely to say "I don't know" in surveys. Men are likely to have clear opinions, whether or not they know. We see this in all kinds of survey data.

The data table for the survey is here:

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-e ... 260413.pdf

[JohnH]

31% of women said they do not believe that nuclear power plants are low or no carbon.

Here is the detailed data:

Answers of women / men:

No carbon: 7% / 25% (this is the correct answer according to mainstream science)
Low carbon emissions: 43% / 24%

Moderate carbon emissions: 14% / 17%
High carbon emissions: 12% / 13%

Don't know: 31% / 11%

Sum of no/low carbon answers: 68% / 31% (correct answer)
sum of moderate/high carbon answers: 22% / 38% (wrong answer)

68% of men knew the correct answer, 22% were wrong, and 11% said they didn't know.

31% of women knew the correct answer, 38% were wrong, and 31% said they didn't know.

What I originally stated still stands: women are simply mis-informed on this issue, and seem to be operating from a different set of facts as compared to men. This did not used to be a case, and presents a major problem to, for example, public policy, since women would presumably choose candidates that present a scientifically bogus point of view.

[Bootstrap]

What I originally stated still stands: women are simply mis-informed on this issue, and seem to be operating from a different set of facts as compared to men. This did not used to be a case, and presents a major problem to, for example, public policy, since women would presumably choose candidates that present a scientifically bogus point of view.

That’s a lot to conclude from a single survey question.

This wasn’t a test of what people actually know. It was one quick question in a larger poll, and it doesn’t separate misunderstanding from uncertainty or general attitudes toward nuclear.

Women were also much more likely to say “I don’t know,” which matters here.

[JohnH]

Women were also much more likely to say “I don’t know,” which matters here.

It doesn't matter here when one looks at the rest of the questions:

68% of men knew the correct answer, 22% were wrong, and 11% said they didn't know.

31% of women knew the correct answer, 38% were wrong, and 31% said they didn't know.

This is obviously a serious problem for public policy, particularly if you have goals in mind like "reduce carbon emissions". I am surprised you are so unconcerned with this given I perceive that in other threads you have repeatedly said how important it is to be well-informed, trust mainstream science, journalism, and mainstream sources, and so on.

[Bootstrap]

I am surprised you are so unconcerned with this given I perceive that in other threads you have repeatedly said how important it is to be well-informed, trust mainstream science, journalism, and mainstream sources, and so on.

That's exactly what I was saying in the parts of my post you did not quote. I don't think you are using data responsibly here. I don't think it strongly supports the conclusion you are drawing from it.

[temporal1]

One of the real big differences: women are much more likely to say "I don't know" in surveys. Men are likely to have clear opinions, whether or not they know. We see this in all kinds of survey data.

i expect this is true. i don’t know.

[Soloist]

Wife: Unless these ladies were actively campaigning against nuclear energy, is there some reason they should know? The vast majority of my theologically conservative friends don’t know what’s going on in the news and might not be able to explain a bunch of scientific or other technical stuff, are less likely to get involved in debates about politics or policy, but they do know a lot of practical things that have a lot more use in their life, are generally good students, and have a lot more common sense than me in some areas even if I might have more book learning and know what rock paper scissors is.

Edit: just being honest, I wouldn’t have actually been able to say one way or another if it caused any carbon emissions, I would just assume less than the other ones because it’s ‘clean energy.’ It’s not a subject that I feel dramatically affects my life if I’m well read up on it or not.

[JohnH]

Wife: Unless these ladies were actively campaigning against nuclear energy, is there some reason they should know? The vast majority of my theologically conservative friends don’t know what’s going on in the news and might not be able to explain a bunch of scientific or other technical stuff, are less likely to get involved in debates about politics or policy, but they do know a lot of practical things that have a lot more use in their life, are generally good students, and have a lot more common sense than me in some areas even if I might have more book learning and know what rock paper scissors is.

Edit: just being honest, I wouldn’t have actually been able to say one way or another if it caused any carbon emissions, I would just assume less than the other ones because it’s ‘clean energy.’ It’s not a subject that I feel dramatically affects my life if I’m well read up on it or not.

I was focusing on the people who says they do know as opposed to the people who said they don’t know.