|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 2, 2014 19:45:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 3, 2014 8:28:03 GMT -6
Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education. Good one. I'd be concerned if I thought you were doing anything other than baiting me or Ken during the doldrums. Nationwide exit polling data from the last 6 elections shows the Democrats consistently leading two education demographics: the least educated "no high school" and the highly educated "postgraduate degree" groups. The "high school degree" group tends to flip or tie between Republican and Democrats. The "some college" and "college degree" groups voted Republican in each of the last 6 elections, based upon exit polling. link Thus, Liberalism does not tend to increase as a function of education, reality is a bit more complex. In the mathematical terms you chose, liberalism tends to decrease as a function of education to the point of a college degree and then liberalism tends to increase as a function of education. We can certainly debate whether exit polling is generally suspect. Also, this source could be biased. Also, the fact that the relatively tiny cohort of Doctors, Lawyers, professors and other post-grad professions leans left is supported by this data...post grads know where their bread is buttered, particularly my brothers and sisters who specialize in litigation. Still, only one who wants to get a rise out of the fish formerly known as Trout would post something as counter-factual as, "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education." Unfortunately, the NYC/Boston and Silicon Valley "intellectual" class, as voiced by the op-ed writers for the NYT believe something even worse - that folks in the middle of the country are simply stupid in general and that this stupidity correlates with conservatism. They are bigots in my opinion. Jim
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 3, 2014 11:39:00 GMT -6
Middle of the country, hell. Most New Yorkers think the U.S. ends at the Hudson River, so anything west of it contains savages who can hardly be expected to know better.
Honest to God, I once spent 20 minutes or so regaling a half dozen New Englanders with a tall tale about how every so often an Indian raid alert would appear on tv, and people in the little town where I lived about 50 miles west of Dodge City would all jump in their cars and head to Ft. Dodge for sanctuary.
Those people actually were taking in that bullshit. None of them had been further west than Pennsylvania but had seen Gunsmoke, of course. They consequently thought they knew what the Wild West was like out where I lived.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 3, 2014 13:54:18 GMT -6
Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education. Good one. I'd be concerned if I thought you were doing anything other than baiting me or Ken during the doldrums. Nationwide exit polling data from the last 6 elections shows the Democrats consistently leading two education demographics: the least educated "no high school" and the highly educated "postgraduate degree" groups. The "high school degree" group tends to flip or tie between Republican and Democrats. The "some college" and "college degree" groups voted Republican in each of the last 6 elections, based upon exit polling. link Thus, Liberalism does not tend to increase as a function of education, reality is a bit more complex. In the mathematical terms you chose, liberalism tends to decrease as a function of education to the point of a college degree and then liberalism tends to increase as a function of education. We can certainly debate whether exit polling is generally suspect. Also, this source could be biased. Also, the fact that the relatively tiny cohort of Doctors, Lawyers, professors and other post-grad professions leans left is supported by this data...post grads know where their bread is buttered, particularly my brothers and sisters who specialize in litigation. Still, only one who wants to get a rise out of the fish formerly known as Trout would post something as counter-factual as, "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education." Unfortunately, the NYC/Boston and Silicon Valley "intellectual" class, as voiced by the op-ed writers for the NYT believe something even worse - that folks in the middle of the country are simply stupid in general and that this stupidity correlates with conservatism. They are bigots in my opinion. Jim Why go through all the trouble to label the statement as counterfactual while simultaneously acknowledging that those with the highest levels of education actually do tend ( tend, you understand) to lean left?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 3, 2014 14:04:00 GMT -6
Good one. I'd be concerned if I thought you were doing anything other than baiting me or Ken during the doldrums. Nationwide exit polling data from the last 6 elections shows the Democrats consistently leading two education demographics: the least educated "no high school" and the highly educated "postgraduate degree" groups. The "high school degree" group tends to flip or tie between Republican and Democrats. The "some college" and "college degree" groups voted Republican in each of the last 6 elections, based upon exit polling. link Thus, Liberalism does not tend to increase as a function of education, reality is a bit more complex. In the mathematical terms you chose, liberalism tends to decrease as a function of education to the point of a college degree and then liberalism tends to increase as a function of education. We can certainly debate whether exit polling is generally suspect. Also, this source could be biased. Also, the fact that the relatively tiny cohort of Doctors, Lawyers, professors and other post-grad professions leans left is supported by this data...post grads know where their bread is buttered, particularly my brothers and sisters who specialize in litigation. Still, only one who wants to get a rise out of the fish formerly known as Trout would post something as counter-factual as, "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education." Unfortunately, the NYC/Boston and Silicon Valley "intellectual" class, as voiced by the op-ed writers for the NYT believe something even worse - that folks in the middle of the country are simply stupid in general and that this stupidity correlates with conservatism. They are bigots in my opinion. Jim Why go through all the trouble to label the statement as counterfactual while simultaneously acknowledging that those with the highest levels of education actually do tend ( tend, you understand) to lean left? Because (A) "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education" and (B) "those with the highest levels of education actually do tend (tend, you understand) to lean left" are entirely different statements. (B) is correct (at least according to the recent exit data I found). (A) is not correct. As illustrated above, my point is not semantic nit-picking. My apologies if (B) is what you meant all along. I'm guessing that you made statement (A) knowing that it was loaded, with the intention of provoking a reply. J
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 3, 2014 20:17:03 GMT -6
The Republican Party and conservatism has changed considerably since I was in college.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 3, 2014 20:49:31 GMT -6
Why go through all the trouble to label the statement as counterfactual while simultaneously acknowledging that those with the highest levels of education actually do tend ( tend, you understand) to lean left? Because (A) "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education" and (B) "those with the highest levels of education actually do tend (tend, you understand) to lean left" are entirely different statements. (B) is correct (at least according to the recent exit data I found). (A) is not correct. View AttachmentAs illustrated above, my point is not semantic nit-picking. My apologies if (B) is what you meant all along. I'm guessing that you made statement (A) knowing that it was loaded, with the intention of provoking a reply. J No, if I had meant to provoke a response, I might have chosen this instead: www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 4, 2014 6:24:57 GMT -6
I wonder if there isn't some justification for intelligent people adopting beliefs or habits they deem superior. Namely, an attempt to feel better about all the "brain-bashing" they're subjected to from childhood on up. It's not as if nuclear physicists sign 10-year contracts raking in $150 million, now is it?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 4, 2014 8:16:58 GMT -6
Because (A) "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education" and (B) "those with the highest levels of education actually do tend (tend, you understand) to lean left" are entirely different statements. (B) is correct (at least according to the recent exit data I found). (A) is not correct. As illustrated above, my point is not semantic nit-picking. My apologies if (B) is what you meant all along. I'm guessing that you made statement (A) knowing that it was loaded, with the intention of provoking a reply. J No, if I had meant to provoke a response, I might have chosen this instead: www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/That certainly helps to explain why I am fairly liberal and entirely monogamous! Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 4, 2014 8:25:04 GMT -6
Because (A) "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education" and (B) "those with the highest levels of education actually do tend (tend, you understand) to lean left" are entirely different statements. (B) is correct (at least according to the recent exit data I found). (A) is not correct. As illustrated above, my point is not semantic nit-picking. My apologies if (B) is what you meant all along. I'm guessing that you made statement (A) knowing that it was loaded, with the intention of provoking a reply. J No, if I had meant to provoke a response, I might have chosen this instead: www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/Who would argue against those facts?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 4, 2014 8:50:03 GMT -6
fb,
I'm sorry for thinking you were an idiot when you were a fundamentalist type Christian. It was wonderful to see evolution, your education and mental abilities kick in so late in life. Would you estimate somewhere around a 30 point IQ jump when you became an atheist?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 4, 2014 9:25:24 GMT -6
fb, I'm sorry for thinking you were an idiot when you were a fundamentalist type Christian. It was wonderful to see evolution, your education and mental abilities kick in so late in life. Would you estimate somewhere around a 30 point IQ jump when you became an atheist? Biesty was never a "fundie" along the lines of Doug Matulis or others. I don't recall any denials of evolution science for example. I've always admired FB as the thinking man's Christian or Atheist, whichever was applicable at the time. Also, some of Biest's old A/A nemeses had room temp IQs. Present company excluded of course!! That's the problem with broad demographic generalizations about intelligence. My guess is that any large enough population, for example Republicans v. Democrats or Christians vs. Atheists would actually show a median IQ of 100 for each group. Anything else suggests testing bias if the population tested is large enough. More specifically; possibly, the A/A population would test slightly higher IQ-wise than the Christian population because an actual correlation between analytic propensity, the rejection of childhood faith and IQ might be supported. On the other hand, some agnostics come to Christianity late through an intelligent process. It's probably a wash. With respect to R vs D IQ claims, it is all posturing partisan BS. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 4, 2014 10:40:33 GMT -6
Jim,
fb was evangelical Christian hybrid. I sensed he wanted to proclaim the glory of god and salvation through Jesus, but he was practical towards the inerrant nature of the Bible/Gospels. He was a great Bible/Christian advocate in that regard and I don't believe I've had discussions at that level since.
You're right about these sort of surveys, pure political posturing BS. I consider myself to be a conservative/libertarian hybrid, and as a consequence, a bit confused politically.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 4, 2014 11:24:50 GMT -6
That certainly helps to explain why I am fairly liberal and entirely monogamous! Jim It also helps to demonstrate that your original response, based entirely on exit polling data from recent presidential elections, does not hold much water. Incidentally, that approach has been the go to tool for conservative apologists who wish to dispute published apolitical peer review studies on this topic. I think a few things can be said here with a high degree of confidence: 1. Broad statistical tendencies in a population cannot be safely extrapolated to individuals. The fact that there do seem to be some correlations between intelligence, education and certain political stances does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult to find individuals who buck the trend. 2. Education level does predict (again, at a population level) liberalism on social issues. Anyone who denies this is the case simply isn't paying attention or iisn't nterested in the available evidence. 3. The correlations that do exist are not simple, black/white affairs. I acknowledge, for example, that you hold several liberal views while being, overall, somewhat right of center. Likewise, you probably recognize that I hold some conservative views while being, on balance, left of center. 4. There is some evidence to suggest that education among conservatives does NOT decrease science denial (evolution, GCC, etc), but rather tends to entrench it. Puzzling, but true.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 4, 2014 13:59:40 GMT -6
2. Education level does predict (again, at a population level) liberalism on social issues. Anyone who denies this is the case simply isn't paying attention or iisn't nterested in the available evidence. I suppose that social issues was the point of your original post, but this is a limitation not included in the text of your original post and not what I have been talking about. Liberalism on social issues among the most highly educated academic class seems pretty obvious to anyone who spends any time on campus, hanging out in Boulder or reading the NYT (three things I enjoy). On the other hand, I spend a lot of time each day with highly educated engineers and research scientists in the private sector. These people are almost always apolitical in professional settings. Even so, the ones I know well seem split like you and I - left and right centrists with only subtle differences. Your statement, "It also helps to demonstrate that your original response, based entirely on exit polling data from recent presidential elections, does not hold much water. Incidentally, that approach has been the go to tool for conservative apologists who wish to dispute published apolitical peer review studies on this topic." is as yet only a simple appeal to vaguely hinted authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam... I had to Google the Latin ). Maybe you read those peer reviewed journals, but I certainly don't. J
|
|