|
Post by Jim on Jun 5, 2014 17:30:03 GMT -6
Sadly, I feel the same way. My points and arguments have been met with nothing but dismissive hand waving. Even so, I've tried to address your arguments and reply to your questions. Something you should consider doing. My thoughts on economic conservatism remain undiscussed. The UN article had potential. I would concede that American liberals are more likely to favor the UN as a matter of foreign policy. Duh. The graph correlating education level with UN approval excludes the US. Did you notice that and/or read the explanation?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 5, 2014 20:39:49 GMT -6
Sadly, I feel the same way. My points and arguments have been met with nothing but dismissive hand waving. Even so, I've tried to address your arguments and reply to your questions. Something you should consider doing. My thoughts on economic conservatism remain undiscussed. The UN article had potential. I would concede that American liberals are more likely to favor the UN as a matter of foreign policy. Duh. The graph correlating education level with UN approval excludes the US. Did you notice that and/or read the explanation? Do you mean the comment that there isn't a double digit gap in the US? The commentary certainly said nothing to indicate that the trend is reversed in the US. Do you think that this is the case? Why? Nor did my original statement make any specific reference to the United States, as long as you are doggedly picking nits. Scandinavia is certainly more liberal and more educated than the Arabian peninsula. Apparently you are of a mind to see these two facts as utterly unconnected. But hell, you have your footnote. Go ahead and dismiss a solid article from a good source that leant specific and on-point support to my thesis. Then tell me once again that I have done nothing to support my case. Yeesh. As for your Gallup link, it is interesting, but as you concede, not sorted by education. You intuit that there probably isn't any difference between the education level of those who identify as economically conservative. Again, why? There may be a relationship between economic policy preference and education level. I don't really know, and you certainly haven't presented anything whatsoever that would make this case. My argument was that it is quite easy to demonstrate liberalism rising with education levels in other areas where the data really is clear. In order, therefore, for my original post to have been flawed (let alone baiting--see below), there would have to be a reversal of the effect of education on economic policy preference. Tell me why you think this is the case with information which is actually deals with the parameters in question. Personally, I think that the null hypothesis is that people of varying education levels tend to hold similar views on economic issues. I have demonstrated that this is NOT the case for foreign and social policy. I invite actual information to the contrary. Where is it? I was not intentionally snarky in my first response, although I see how you could have read it that way. I see. So when you come off as dismissive, snarky, etc, it is merely because you were misunderstood? I posted to start a discussion. I like discussions, and as luck would have it, I run a discussion board. I'm generally prepared to back up what I say and I have done this reasonably well in this thread, winning concessions from you in at least one major policy area, and a palpably lame dismissal from you in a second. In contrast, you went off and pulled the first opinion piece that occurs under a Google search of "liberal", "conservative' and "education". Strong work, and definitely noticed, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 7:37:15 GMT -6
As for your Gallup link, it is interesting, but as you concede, not sorted by education. You intuit that there probably isn't any difference between the education level of those who identify as economically conservative. Again, why? Consider the last 100 years of US history. After WWI, communism in the US became quite popular, extolled by the intelligentsia and understandably embraced by large portions of the huge working class. during/after the depression FDR's new deal was indisputably genuinely economically progressive. These are huge liberal thrusts. What has happened since then? Do you think that Clinton was more liberal than LBJ on economic policy? (I am using the policies of the president as proxy for what the majority of people wanted at the time of course). How do the communists fare in the US versus say 1920? I admit that Obama's economic policies are more liberal than Clinton's, but I submit that they are not being well received by a majority and are therefore out of step with the majority. On the R side, I suspect that you agree that Reagan and Bush's economic policies were more conservative than Eisenhower's. I believe that the "liberalness" of the economic theory across all educational attainment classes waxed and then waned over the last 100 years. On the contrary, the general educational attainment level of the population has only waxed. If we went through the same exercise with respect to social issues there is no waxing and waning, social liberalism tracks the educational attainment level true - to the point where 50% of conservatives hold social issues positions now that less than 5% of liberals would have expressed 100 years ago. The lesson is that the prevalence of liberal social issues views track education (as I conceded initially) However, the "liberalness" of prevailing economic issues (plus I believe foreign policy issues) are much more complex and wax and wane without much correlation to educational attainment. "L increases as a function of E" is far too over broad to be valid. This was of course my original point, although you have yet to acknowledge it. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 7:46:06 GMT -6
In contrast, you went off and pulled the first opinion piece that occurs under a Google search of "liberal", "conservative' and "education". Strong work, and definitely noticed, for what it's worth. It is true that the exit polling data analysis was the result of a quick Google hit. I don't have unlimited time to devote to this diversion from my regular work day. Even so, the exit poling data from the last several elections indicates that L does not increase as a function of E. On the contrary, the exit polling indicates that L is highest for the least and most educated groups and relatively lower in the middle. This pattern does not describe an increasing function. I say indicates because certain fairly reasonable assumptions need to be made. For example we need to assume that D correlates generally with liberal and R correlates generally with conservative. These are reasonable assumptions, therefore, in my opinion it is not reasonable for you to dismiss the exit polling data out of hand. Your dismissive tone with respect to this piece of evidence (quoted above) is silly and germane to my next point. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 8:00:59 GMT -6
I posted to start a discussion. I like discussions, and as luck would have it, I run a discussion board. This is no discussion board. You and I argue occasionally and I'm good with that. Other than our arguments, quite a bit of the input consists of you, Steve and Dot posting an endless but fairly redundant criticism of organized religion. That is OK too, but hardly involves discussion. Some of the time however, what comes close to discussion here, actually consists of you mocking and belittling those with different views to the point where they leave and never return. See Malleodei/CCC and I expect Ken. Woodrowli's participation has been a breath of fresh air. You have been respectful... so far. I'm not asking you to change your style, it is your board obviously. I'm just noting that for someone who is interested in leading a discussion board, you sure have an curious way of "fostering" participation and discussion and unfortunately it shows in the failure to launch. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 6, 2014 9:53:17 GMT -6
As for your Gallup link, it is interesting, but as you concede, not sorted by education. You intuit that there probably isn't any difference between the education level of those who identify as economically conservative. Again, why? Consider the last 100 years of US history. After WWI, communism in the US became quite popular, extolled by the intelligentsia and understandably embraced by large portions of the huge working class. during/after the depression FDR's new deal was indisputably genuinely economically progressive. These are huge liberal thrusts. What has happened since then? Do you think that Clinton was more liberal than LBJ on economic policy? (I am using the policies of the president as proxy for what the majority of people wanted at the time of course). How do the communists fare in the US versus say 1920? I admit that Obama's economic policies are more liberal than Clinton's, but I submit that they are not being well received by a majority and are therefore out of step with the majority. On the R side, I suspect that you agree that Reagan and Bush's economic policies were more conservative than Eisenhower's. I believe that the "liberalness" of the economic theory across all educational attainment classes waxed and then waned over the last 100 years. On the contrary, the general educational attainment level of the population has only waxed. If we went through the same exercise with respect to social issues there is no waxing and waning, social liberalism tracks the educational attainment level true - to the point where 50% of conservatives hold social issues positions now that less than 5% of liberals would have expressed 100 years ago. The lesson is that the prevalence of liberal social issues views track education (as I conceded initially) However, the "liberalness" of prevailing economic issues (plus I believe foreign policy issues) are much more complex and wax and wane without much correlation to educational attainment. You seem to think that you can define liberal and conservative outside of the context of a given time. This is one of (but certainly not the only) problem with your dependence on the exit poll blogger. I'll pass on whether Clinton was more liberal on LBJ, since I do not remember and haven't particularly studied the latter's administration. I am familiar with the broad brushstrokes (War on Poverty, Great Society, Civil Rights Acts, Viet Nam, etc), but certainly not enough to speak intelligently beyond that. As for the Bush/Eisenhower comparison, I would challenge you to consider whether Bush's domestic policy, while conservative in its temporal context, was demonstrably left of Eisenhower's on virtually every aspect of domestic policy except maximum marginal tax rates--size, scope and role of government, level of public employment, Federal role in healthcare/education. So no, I don't accept that Reagan and Bush were right of Eisenhower, at least without serious qualification of what that means. Parenthetically, I would assert that the tendency to see tax rates as the sine qua non of economic liberalism/conservatism is an interesting cultural development--ascendency of the individual. [/quote"L increases as a function of E" is far too over broad to be valid. This was of course my original point, although you have yet to acknowledge it. [/quote] I'd acknowledge it if it were true. We've already apparently reached some degree of agreement that liberalism on social and foreign policy matters definitely increases with education level. Unless economic conservatism increases in an offsetting matter with education level--and I will continue to suspect a wash in this area until I see some data suggesting otherwise, what I said was not at all unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 10:06:39 GMT -6
I'd acknowledge it if it were true. We've already apparently reached some degree of agreement that liberalism on social and foreign policy matters definitely increases with education level. Unless economic conservatism increases in an offsetting matter with education level--and I will continue to suspect a wash in this area until I see some data suggesting otherwise, what I said was not at all unreasonable. We've reached agreement on social issues. The trend of more liberal views on social issues matches the increasing education of the population and I believe that there is correlation. This matches my bias of course. I believe that people should be more socially liberal as they become more educated. I do not agree that there is a similar match on economic issues and I am very uncertain on foreign policy issues. The UN piece was suggestive. The Iraq war item was way too open to other interpretations to be useful. The economy and foreign policy are complex and I do not believe that conservative vs. liberal fiscal (or foreign) policy is a correct/incorrect dichotomy. This suggests that increased education is not going to drive one viewpoint or the other. On the other hand I do believe that conservative vs. liberal social stances are in many cases correct v. incorrect. (Bigotry is incorrect etc.). I recognize that relative L. versus C. changes over time. The high - lower - high curve reflected in the exit polling data was consistent over 20 years. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 6, 2014 11:27:18 GMT -6
In contrast, you went off and pulled the first opinion piece that occurs under a Google search of "liberal", "conservative' and "education". Strong work, and definitely noticed, for what it's worth. It is true that the exit polling data analysis was the result of a quick Google hit. I don't have unlimited time to devote to this diversion from my regular work day. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that the sequential thought process was along the lines of: 1. You didn't like the statement on some level. 2. You decided it was false. 3. You did a quick Google to find backing for your opinion. 4. You found something that seemed to fit the bill. 5. Argument ensued. The way you have proceeded here would be completely understandable if what I was originally saying was "All Republicans are idiots." I said nothing of the sort, and in fact I anticipated (wrongly as it turns out) that any discussion which followed my OP would likely relate to what it is about the practice of medicine that fosters or selects for liberal thinking. My mistake. For the self-styled "adult in the room", you haven't demonstrated the sort of maturity in either thought process or presentation that would be worthy of emulation. In a manner that is frankly unusual for you, you put the cart way before the horse (see above), took a little dig*, and since then have been arguing largely on the basis of what intuitively makes sense to you, clinging tenaciously to the position that I made some sort of wildly unsupportable opening statement, when what I said is neither novel nor particularly difficult to establish. Again, I think your objection would be completely understandable if what I said were some sort of global slander on conservatives. It wasn't. At any rate, I might expect this sort of truncated thinking from others, but not you. Generally, you have your rhetorical shit substantially more together. * = totally ok, BTW, until such point at which you start whining about others being snarky. You're too damned smart to pass the sort of initial response you did without an inkling that it was pejorative and dismissive.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 6, 2014 11:36:35 GMT -6
I posted to start a discussion. I like discussions, and as luck would have it, I run a discussion board. This is no discussion board. You and I argue occasionally and I'm good with that. Other than our arguments, quite a bit of the input consists of you, Steve and Dot posting an endless but fairly redundant criticism of organized religion. That is OK too, but hardly involves discussion. Some of the time however, what comes close to discussion here, actually consists of you mocking and belittling those with different views to the point where they leave and never return. See Malleodei/CCC and I expect Ken. Woodrowli's participation has been a breath of fresh air. You have been respectful... so far. I'm not asking you to change your style, it is your board obviously. I'm just noting that for someone who is interested in leading a discussion board, you sure have an curious way of "fostering" participation and discussion and unfortunately it shows in the failure to launch. Jim These sort of boards are dinosaurs. They hit their peak in the 1990's and have dwindled since. Have you checked out the master board where I advertise the board? We do WAY more traffic here than most of them. The "failure to launch" here is indicative of nothing more than the fact that this sort of thing has a limited appeal. I deliberately ran out Mama Cass, even there, I gave him a more than generous amount of rope to hang himself with. I won't dispute that I spar with Ken and that I give at least as well as I take, but "poor little CCC?"--that guy was the undisputed master of condescension. I can only aspire to such greatness. To suggest that he left under pressure is ridiculous and not particularly respectful to him. I have invited him back, publicly and privately, and I still hope he returns. I thought perhaps it was just Lent, but it appears not to be.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 11:44:35 GMT -6
It is true that the exit polling data analysis was the result of a quick Google hit. I don't have unlimited time to devote to this diversion from my regular work day. I think if you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that the sequential thought process was along the lines of: 1. You didn't like the statement on some level. 2. You decided it was false. 3. You did a quick Google to find backing for your opinion. 4. You found something that seemed to fit the bill. 5. Argument ensued. The way you have proceeded here would be completely understandable if what I was originally saying was "All Republicans are idiots." I said nothing of the sort, and in fact I anticipated (wrongly as it turns out) that any discussion which followed my OP would likely relate to what it is about the practice of medicine that fosters or selects for liberal thinking. My mistake. For the self-styled "adult in the room", you haven't demonstrated the sort of maturity in either thought process or presentation that would be worthy of emulation. In a manner that is frankly unusual for you, you put the cart way before the horse (see above), took a little dig*, and since then have been arguing largely on the basis of what intuitively makes sense to you, clinging tenaciously to the position that I made some sort of wildly unsupportable opening statement, when what I said is neither novel nor particularly difficult to establish. Again, I think your objection would be completely understandable if what I said were some sort of global slander on conservatives. It wasn't. At any rate, I might expect this sort of truncated thinking from others, but not you. Generally, you have your rhetorical shit substantially more together. * = totally ok, BTW, until such point at which you start whining about others being snarky. You're too damned smart to pass the sort of initial response you did without an inkling that it was pejorative and dismissive. 1-5 are accurate of course. The rest of your post is self serving hyperbole, but I know what your motivation is and I'm good with it. It matches my motivation nicely. It is fun to walk to the edge but I do not enjoy going over like we did a month ago. J.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 11:52:12 GMT -6
This is no discussion board. You and I argue occasionally and I'm good with that. Other than our arguments, quite a bit of the input consists of you, Steve and Dot posting an endless but fairly redundant criticism of organized religion. That is OK too, but hardly involves discussion. Some of the time however, what comes close to discussion here, actually consists of you mocking and belittling those with different views to the point where they leave and never return. See Malleodei/CCC and I expect Ken. Woodrowli's participation has been a breath of fresh air. You have been respectful... so far. I'm not asking you to change your style, it is your board obviously. I'm just noting that for someone who is interested in leading a discussion board, you sure have an curious way of "fostering" participation and discussion and unfortunately it shows in the failure to launch. Jim These sort of boards are dinosaurs. They hit their peak in the 1990's and have dwindled since. Have you checked out the master board where I advertise the board? We do WAY more traffic here than most of them. The "failure to launch" here is indicative of nothing more than the fact that this sort of thing has a limited appeal. I deliberately ran out Mama Cass, even there, I gave him a more than generous amount of rope to hang himself with. I won't dispute that I spar with Ken and that I give at least as well as I take, but "poor little CCC?"--that guy was the undisputed master of condescension. I can only aspire to such greatness. To suggest that he left under pressure is ridiculous and not particularly respectful to him. I have invited him back, publicly and privately, and I still hope he returns. I thought perhaps it was just Lent, but it appears not to be. Fair enough. Your assessment of the lifespan of this type of diversion seems reasonable, I've not thought about it that way up to now. I appreciate and endorse your handling of Cass. I have not checked out the master board. I do have a point regarding your style and I imagine you know it. CCC might have been the master of condescension but he did not take the effort to launch a board and then try to attract participants. We can discuss this privately... or not. I'm pretty sure you know where I was heading. J
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 11:59:25 GMT -6
* = totally ok, BTW, until such point at which you start whining about others being snarky. You're too damned smart to pass the sort of initial response you did without an inkling that it was pejorative and dismissive. You misinterpreted my initial remarks. Mine was a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" post, not a pejorative and dismissive post. You have laid bait for me here before and when I took the bait and replied (as you expected me to reply) you have said something along the lines of "I knew that would draw you out..." Remember? (I can find it for you if required) In my mind I was cleverly getting one step ahead of that good natured jab - or so I thought.... You're just going to have to take my word for it this time. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 6, 2014 16:09:55 GMT -6
* = totally ok, BTW, until such point at which you start whining about others being snarky. You're too damned smart to pass the sort of initial response you did without an inkling that it was pejorative and dismissive. You misinterpreted my initial remarks. Mine was a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" post, not a pejorative and dismissive post. You have laid bait for me here before and when I took the bait and replied (as you expected me to reply) you have said something along the lines of "I knew that would draw you out..." Remember? (I can find it for you if required) In my mind I was cleverly getting one step ahead of that good natured jab - or so I thought.... You're just going to have to take my word for it this time. Jim Yeah, and perhaps you should just take it for granted that if I really wanted to be snarky, I could have done a hell of a lot better than "Let's look at the math."
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 6, 2014 16:31:23 GMT -6
I do have a point regarding your style and I imagine you know it. Up to a point. I argue aggressively in these fora and there are certain viewpoints which I think are worth a substantial amount of effort to destroy. On the other hand, you sometimes act as if there is some sort of a global point here, i.e. that in setting up BS and conducting myself in the way that I do I have somehow revealed a tragic or moral flaw. Granted, you make the sort of statements above with a little less vindictive glee than when Ken subsequently quotes them, but it seems to be a matter of degree. Whatever. This is a hobby, and I have several. I set this place up because people were acting disappointed that BC was technologically dysfunctional--in other words if they were disappointed that it didn't work, they probably still wanted it to survive. And, I put an effort into recruiting and re-establishing because that's my style. I don't do shit work. Setting it up half-assed wouldn't have served any purpose. Did we grow to 100 members? No, but again, you seem to see some moral parable in this--a "failure to launch". It's at least as busy as it was when BC crapped out, people are getting some amusement, and the server doesn't crap out every two days. Mission accomplished, as W would say. This is not, from my side anyway, a case where we are teetering on some sort of brink like we were a while back. I'm simply calling "sauce for the goose" in response to some of your mildly moral indignation about my posts. Of course I know that you think I'm some sort of loose e-cannon. I balance out this by thinking you're a bit self-satisfied and unused to being criticized. The reality is that I've met you in the real world, I think you're a decent person--well within the norms of functional human personality--and doubt that I gave you much cause to think about me in much different terms.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 6, 2014 18:31:56 GMT -6
You misinterpreted my initial remarks. Mine was a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" post, not a pejorative and dismissive post. You have laid bait for me here before and when I took the bait and replied (as you expected me to reply) you have said something along the lines of "I knew that would draw you out..." Remember? (I can find it for you if required) In my mind I was cleverly getting one step ahead of that good natured jab - or so I thought.... You're just going to have to take my word for it this time. Jim Yeah, and perhaps you should just take it for granted that if I really wanted to be snarky, I could have done a hell of a lot better than "Let's look at the math." This is a better closing post than the one that followed. Jim
|
|