|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 4, 2014 19:45:33 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. Let's do the math. You concede, apparently, that education level correlates with liberalism on social issues. Further, it is also the case that liberalism on foreign policy issues (e.g. opposition to US military action in the Middle East) tends to increase as a function of higher education. For you to present a coherent argument against my original statement, you would therefore need to speculate that persons with increasing levels of education tended to gravitate towards conservative views on non-social, non-foreign policy issues. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 4, 2014 19:53:09 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? Given that all parameters for human physiologic performance are in decline by age 30, I think I can safely assume that I am less intelligent now than I was then. The benefit, in my experience, of rejection of religion is not increased intelligence, but rather an increased willingness to question authority, which I would file under "wisdom". |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 4, 2014 19:58:38 GMT -6
Who would argue against those facts? Jim, apparently. On what rational basis, I'm not certain. So far all he is offering is a questionable proxy for liberalism (i.e. voted for a Democrat in a given Presidential election) and his water cooler gestalt. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 8:52:37 GMT -6
Who would argue against those facts? Jim, apparently. On what rational basis, I'm not certain. So far all he is offering is a questionable proxy for liberalism (i.e. voted for a Democrat in a given Presidential election) and his water cooler gestalt. Hi FB. Why is voted D a "questionable" proxy for liberalism? Also, it is a bit hypocritical for you to cite my water cooler gestalt when you have provided nothing to support your original claim (that liberalism increases as a function of education level) other than vague calls to unnamed authority. Also, I argued against your original point, paraphrased above, not the point made in the follow up posts (to which Steve replied). Attempting to shell game my replies to your rhetorical advantage is kind of cheesy. Do you dispute the exit poll data? J |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 5, 2014 9:41:52 GMT -6
Who would argue against those facts? Jim, apparently. On what rational basis, I'm not certain. So far all he is offering is a questionable proxy for liberalism (i.e. voted for a Democrat in a given Presidential election) and his water cooler gestalt. I don't believe Jim disputed the fact that atheists have higher IQ's, I would question his IQ if he did. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 5, 2014 12:34:22 GMT -6
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. Let's do the math. You concede, apparently, that education level correlates with liberalism on social issues. Further, it is also the case that liberalism on foreign policy issues (e.g. opposition to US military action in the Middle East) tends to increase as a function of higher education. For you to present a coherent argument against my original statement, you would therefore need to speculate that persons with increasing levels of education tended to gravitate towards conservative views on non-social, non-foreign policy issues. Good luck with that. Please respond to this, Jim. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 14:32:03 GMT -6
Let's do the math. You concede, apparently, that education level correlates with liberalism on social issues. Further, it is also the case that liberalism on foreign policy issues (e.g. opposition to US military action in the Middle East) tends to increase as a function of higher education. For you to present a coherent argument against my original statement, you would therefore need to speculate that persons with increasing levels of education tended to gravitate towards conservative views on non-social, non-foreign policy issues. Good luck with that. Please respond to this, Jim. OK, but "let's do the math..."  ? Kinda snarky, no? (Also quite ironic, given that your initial statement spoke in unambiguous mathematical terms: (L increases as a function of E) later you argued that L>C for the range of E comprising postgrads, but this does not prove that L increases as a function of E. Anyway, You have left off the economy. Economic issues are the single most important class of issues for most Americans. link A very significant majority of Americans tend to be conservative on the economy and have been for many years. link Although this Gallup poll is not correlated with education, I doubt that the raw number of college or post-grad respondents among the 42% of Americans who report themselves as conservative on the economy is significantly less than the number of college or postgraduates in the mere 21% who report themselves liberal on economic issues. Your initial statement, "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education" was over broad. I understand that R/D voting patterns in recent presidential elections might be a poor proxy for genuine liberal v. conservative ideology, but this metric is specifically a poor proxy because it too is over broad. Many voters (like you and me both) are liberal on some issues and conservative on others - still we only get to pull one lever. Since your initial statement, (L increases as a function of E) was over broad, I believe that the over broad exit poll data reasonably rebuts it. See graphs (A) and (B) posted yesterday. If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of an alleged correlation of liberalism on selected topics with education level please feel free to present some evidence. I don't doubt that you can prove special cases, social issues being one. I am skeptical about foreign policy and the economy. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 5, 2014 16:03:39 GMT -6
Please respond to this, Jim. OK, but "let's do the math..." ? Kinda snarky, no? (Also quite ironic, given that your initial statement spoke in unambiguous mathematical terms: (L increases as a function of E) later you argued that L>C for the range of E comprising postgrads, but this does not prove that L increases as a function of E. Anyway, You have left off the economy. Economic issues are the single most important class of issues for most Americans. link A very significant majority of Americans tend to be conservative on the economy and have been for many years. link Although this Gallup poll is not correlated with education, I doubt that the raw number of college or post-grad respondents among the 42% of Americans who report themselves as conservative on the economy is significantly less than the number of college or postgraduates in the mere 21% who report themselves liberal on economic issues. Your initial statement, "Liberalism tends to increase as a function of education" was over broad. I understand that R/D voting patterns in recent presidential elections might be a poor proxy for genuine liberal v. conservative ideology, but this metric is specifically a poor proxy because it too is over broad. Many voters (like you and me both) are liberal on some issues and conservative on others - still we only get to pull one lever. Since your initial statement, (L increases as a function of E) was over broad, I believe that the over broad exit poll data reasonably rebuts it. See graphs (A) and (B) posted yesterday. If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of an alleged correlation of liberalism on selected topics with education level please feel free to present some evidence. I don't doubt that you can prove special cases, social issues being one. I am skeptical about foreign policy and the economy. Jim The fact that we only get to pull one lever is also the reason that some people who identify as conservative will occasionally vote for a Democrat (e.g. my dad in 2008, my entire conservative family except my mother in 1992), or a liberal will occasionally vote for a Republican (e.g. me in 2004--and don't rub that one in, by the way). Exit polling data will regularly break out what percentage of liberals went Democratic and what percentage of conservatives went republican. You know full well that the number isn't 100%, an this is not counting at all the people who stay home. Yes, polling data is a proxy, and for one nitpicking numbers that you can't even seem to consistently argue against, you probably should be willing to acknowledge this. You say I haven't made my case. Here is what I have done: 1. I started with data concerning a highly educated demographic which leans liberal. 2. I gained your concession that education definitely increases liberalism in social issues. 3. I posted a link to an article about an article in a peer review journal (Social Psychology Quarterly) linking intelligence to liberalism. Slightly off topic, I recognize, but I've got $5 that says that this isn't why you chose to completely ignore it. 4. I made an effective argument that if education produces liberalism in social and foreign policy areas, it increases liberalism overall UNLESS you can demonstrate a strong conservative offset on non-social issue domestic policy. This isn't leaving out the economy; it's inviting you to prove that education produces more Adam Smiths than Maynard Keyneses. Bring it on. Incidentally, since you doubt on foreign policy, here's one more for you to chew on: www.gallup.com/poll/7768/war-support-education-gap.aspxIt's another nice linear relationship. Of course I'm sure your little visuals trump mine somehow. By the way, if you want to invoke the Snark-O-Meter TM, please calibrate it on your opening response first. Don't get indignant if I respond in kind. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 16:10:59 GMT -6
3. I posted a link to an article about an article in a peer review journal (Social Psychology Quarterly) linking intelligence to liberalism. Slightly off topic, I recognize, but I've got $5 that says that this isn't why you chose to completely ignore it. (Ignore this post, see below) I didn't ignore it. I never saw it. Where is this link? Is it the one me and Steve joked about? I'll go re-read. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 16:26:00 GMT -6
You have reduced the entire subject of "foreign policy" to one highly politicized incident - our war in Iraq. In addition, the conclusion you wish to draw from this data taken at a very specific highly conflicted time is not one that is mentioned by Gallup: "Despite the differences by party, the general conclusion remains: the more formal education people have, the more likely they are to oppose war with Iraq. Whether this is a response that applies just to this war and this country, or more generally to people around the world in other war situations, is well worth pondering. Would more education for people around the world lead to fewer conflicts? Or is the educational effect observed here an idiosyncratic response of some Americans to this particular war? Answers to these questions are not trivial." You have satisfactorily proved that in 2003, under a highly polarizing Republican President, opposition to the war in Iraq correlates with education level. (I would call isolationists "conservative" and they are opposed to any foreign war). We have a ways to go before you have proved that liberalness on foreign policy correlates with education level. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 16:36:10 GMT -6
3. I posted a link to an article about an article in a peer review journal (Social Psychology Quarterly) linking intelligence to liberalism. Slightly off topic, I recognize, but I've got $5 that says that this isn't why you chose to completely ignore it. I didn't ignore it. I never saw it. Where is this link? Is it the one me and Steve joked about? I'll go re-read. OK, I see that you're talking about the CNN article. I skimmed and replied yesterday about how it described me well. I ignored it (other than my reply of course) because it was more than slightly off topic. This CNN summary is full of intriguing evolutionary conjecture, but has nothing to do with your original point. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 16:40:07 GMT -6
No comment at all on the Gallup data I posted? It is not proof by any means, but it is far more indicative of a general trend than 2003 attitudes concerning a war started by a highly polarizing conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 16:56:59 GMT -6
By the way, if you want to invoke the Snark-O-Meter TM, please calibrate it on your opening response first. Don't get indignant if I respond in kind. Apparently we do not play well together. I was not intentionally snarky in my first response, although I see how you could have read it that way. Here is something new for you to think about. It is true that the average educational attainment of US citizens has increased over time.  In view of this fact, if liberalism tends to increase as a function of educational attainment, one would expect the overall viewpoint of the country to have become more somewhat more liberal as we have become somewhat more educated. I think that is demonstrably true in the case of social issues. Something like 50% of Rs favor gay marriage now. It is not so apparent to me that this is true with respect to the economy, foreign or non-social domestic policy. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 5, 2014 17:09:47 GMT -6
You have reduced the entire subject of "foreign policy" to one highly politicized incident - our war in Iraq. In addition, the conclusion you wish to draw from this data taken at a very specific highly conflicted time is not one that is mentioned by Gallup: "Despite the differences by party, the general conclusion remains: the more formal education people have, the more likely they are to oppose war with Iraq. Whether this is a response that applies just to this war and this country, or more generally to people around the world in other war situations, is well worth pondering. Would more education for people around the world lead to fewer conflicts? Or is the educational effect observed here an idiosyncratic response of some Americans to this particular war? Answers to these questions are not trivial." You have satisfactorily proved that in 2003, under a highly polarizing Republican President, opposition to the war in Iraq correlates with education level. (I would call isolationists "conservative" and they are opposed to any foreign war). We have a ways to go before you have proved that liberalness on foreign policy correlates with education level. Jim Jesus H Christ, Jim. It makes not one iota worth of difference what I post. Here's another for you to ignore: www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/17/united-nations-retains-strong-global-image/Read down for the juicy bits. Then tell me how I am just pointing to another isolated case, and tell me I'm wrong based on one article about exit polls. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 17:21:48 GMT -6
Sadly, I feel the same way. My points and arguments have been met with nothing but dismissive hand waving. |
|
? Kinda snarky, no? (Also quite ironic, given that your initial statement spoke in unambiguous mathematical terms: (L increases as a function of E) later you argued that L>C for the range of E comprising postgrads, but this does not prove that L increases as a function of E. 