Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Necrosis on July 26, 2011, 09:59:40 AM
-
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
This shit is hilarious. Remember smart people support democratic movements, while the vast majority of high school only graduates are republican.
-
LMFAO - stick with canadian stuff, you have no clue.
-
LMFAO - stick with canadian stuff, you have no clue.
are you saying the data is false?
-
Nobody here cares what happens in your country...don't bother about mine.
-
not one adequate reply yet
-
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
This shit is hilarious. Remember smart people support democratic movements, while the vast majority of high school only graduates are republican.
Just to clarify, are you saying only smart Americans are Democrats?
-
Just to clarify, are you saying only smart Americans are Democrats?
I think he's saying on average
-
I think he's saying on average
Yeah, the demo states are the ones all on the verge of collapse, real bright people running these states.
-
I think he's saying on average
Based on what?
-
Yeah, the demo states are the ones all on the verge of collapse, real bright people running these states.
you didn't address the original post
and the political beliefs of a majority of the population in a state do not necessarily translate into who is elected in those states.
-
Based on what?
well I think he got a little too specific in his original post. But studies typically show that on average as intelligence rises (based on years of schooling) there is a trend to liberal political beliefs. Maybe liberal minded people tend to do better in school and enjoy it so they keep on, maybe intelligent people favor liberalism, maybe many years of schooling makes a person liberal.
I did a study on this in one of my research classes, there is a correlation but I don't think there is enough that we can make judgement on it. For example I'm sure many (maybe you) disagree with using years spent in school as a measurement of intelligence etc etc.
-
well I think he got a little too specific in his original post. But studies typically show that on average as intelligence rises (based on years of schooling) there is a trend to liberal political beliefs. Maybe liberal minded people tend to do better in school and enjoy it so they keep on, maybe intelligent people favor liberalism, maybe many years of schooling makes a person liberal.
I did a study on this in one of my research classes, there is a correlation but I don't think there is enough that we can make judgement on it. For example I'm sure many (maybe you) disagree with using years spent in school as a measurement of intelligence etc etc.
What studies? You have a link? I'd like to read them.
There is a popular saying that people become more conservative as they get older and start paying taxes. I think that's true. I haven't seen a correlation between education and liberalism. In fact, in my experience conservatives tend to be better educated about politics and government.
Years spent in school can be part of an intelligence analysis, but it's certainly not the total measure of whether someone is bright or not. Much more involved than that. You should read Daniel Goleman's book Emotional Intelligence. Sheds a lot of light on how intelligence is measured. It's more than education and IQ.
-
What studies? You have a link? I'd like to read them.
There is a popular saying that people become more conservative as they get older and start paying taxes. I think that's true. I haven't seen a correlation between education and liberalism. In fact, in my experience conservatives tend to be better educated about politics and government.
Years spent in school can be part of an intelligence analysis, but it's certainly not the total measure of whether someone is bright or not. Much more involved than that. You should read Daniel Goleman's book Emotional Intelligence. Sheds a lot of light on how intelligence is measured. It's more than education and IQ.
There are studies out there, I don't have time to google search and then analyze the study to make sure it was done correctly but I have the data to replicate a study in SPSS. I dealt with this stuff all in political research and methodology.
In regards to your last paragraph, yes operational definitions are a crucial part in doing studies. It has to be quantifiable, etc etc to put into the program to see the correlation. Years spent in school is one of the easiest ways to measure it. I'm not saying its perfect, no study is perfect. Doing studies is a different ballgame than composing a psychological report.
Granted, I should add that finding studies solely on this correlation might be hard. First of all, nobody wants to publish a study that can be done in less than 20 minutes in SPSS once the data is compiled. Most studies will probably be related to something else or will claim a causal factor or something more than a simple correlation.
-
I think its safe to say that the more time spent in the den of political liberalism that is American academia, the more your gonna be a leftwing nut. Education does not equal intelligence. Alot of the so called college grads can't articulate points, find countries on a map etc etc....they can barely spell when it matters.
-
well I think he got a little too specific in his original post. But studies typically show that on average as intelligence rises (based on years of schooling) there is a trend to liberal political beliefs. Maybe liberal minded people tend to do better in school and enjoy it so they keep on, maybe intelligent people favor liberalism, maybe many years of schooling makes a person liberal.
I did a study on this in one of my research classes, there is a correlation but I don't think there is enough that we can make judgement on it. For example I'm sure many (maybe you) disagree with using years spent in school as a measurement of intelligence etc etc.
intelligence and amount of schooling arent the same thing...
hope this helps...
-
intelligence and amount of schooling arent the same thing...
hope this helps...
you're exactly right, but for purposes of doing a study one has to make operational definitions (Ex: For the purposes of this study, intelligence will be defined as years of schooling). This is to create a general average that can be generally accepted, and also it is used because years of schooling is a simple number that can be quantified and easily put into the SPSS program used to find correlations and also to control for other factors found in the data (Income, race, marriage status, etc etc).
I don't think you all are realizing that this is what it takes to do a study. It's not news to any adult that education doesn't exactly equal intelligence. It is just as difficult to find an operating definition for "intelligence" as it is to find what is "liberal", etc. Of course there are other problems with this correlation like I've already stated. "Maybe liberal minded people tend to enjoy school more than nonliberals so they continue to get more schooling" "maybe intelligent people do actually favor liberalism" "maybe many years of schooling makes a person liberal if higher level academics is liberal biased" "maybe the person lied about how many years they really were in school" "maybe many years in school don't equate to actual higher education (such as 6 years on a BA)". There are tons of problems with doing a simple correlation, which is why it would be hard to find a published study on just a simple correlation that takes 20 minutes or less to do in SPSS. The fact is that there is a correlation when controlling for other factors (Income, race, etc...but then again, how do we know we controlled for all possible factors?).
To put the correlation in safe terms would be something along the lines of: In a comparison of individuals, those who attended higher education are more likely to have liberal political ideals than those individuals who attended lower education.
We cannot establish causation. There are problems with operational definitions of certain words such as "higher education" "lower education" "liberal political ideals" (which would be explicitly spelled out within the study analysis). We have to make sure we controlled for likely factors, etc etc. This is how studies are generally done.
-
you're exactly right, but for purposes of doing a study one has to make operational definitions (Ex: For the purposes of this study, intelligence will be defined as years of schooling). This is to create a general average that can be generally accepted, and also it is used because years of schooling is a simple number that can be quantified and easily put into the SPSS program used to find correlations and also to control for other factors found in the data (Income, race, marriage status, etc etc).
I don't think you all are realizing that this is what it takes to do a study. It's not news to any adult that education doesn't exactly equal intelligence. It is just as difficult to find an operating definition for "intelligence" as it is to find what is "liberal", etc. Of course there are other problems with this correlation like I've already stated. "Maybe liberal minded people tend to enjoy school more than nonliberals so they continue to get more schooling" "maybe intelligent people do actually favor liberalism" "maybe many years of schooling makes a person liberal if higher level academics is liberal biased" "maybe the person lied about how many years they really were in school" "maybe many years in school don't equate to actual higher education (such as 6 years on a BA)". There are tons of problems with doing a simple correlation, which is why it would be hard to find a published study on just a simple correlation that takes 20 minutes or less to do in SPSS. The fact is that there is a correlation when controlling for other factors (Income, race, etc...but then again, how do we know we controlled for all possible factors?).
To put the correlation in safe terms would be something along the lines of: In a comparison of individuals, those who attended higher education are more likely to have liberal political ideals than those individuals who attended lower education.
We cannot establish causation. There are problems with operational definitions of certain words such as "higher education" "lower education" "liberal political ideals" (which would be explicitly spelled out within the study analysis). We have to make sure we controlled for likely factors, etc etc. This is how studies are generally done.
lol then it isnt intelligence its amount of education...you dont redefine words for the sake of the experiment...
LOL broham I have a BS in psychology, trust ive done more than enough studies and reviews of cases in my life to know what and how to do a proper experiment.
-
lol then it isnt intelligence its amount of education...you dont redefine words for the sake of the experiment...
LOL broham I have a BS in psychology, trust ive done more than enough studies and reviews of cases in my life to know what and how to do a proper experiment.
I said in my first post But studies typically show that on average as intelligence rises (based on years of schooling) so I never said intelligence is always and only based on years of schooling. I also said "I think he got a little too specific in his original post" . So don't make the mistake of thinking that I myself am saying "a person's years of schooling is the only measurement of a person's intelligence", I never claimed that.
I'm saying that studies can make that leap within the study itself (it will be spelled out explicitly) and someone saying "I don't think years spent in school is a good measure of intelligence" would be a valid objection. But a safer version (to guard against that objection) of the correlation would be what I spelled out in my last post.
Agree with me now?
-
I said in my first post But studies typically show that on average as intelligence rises (based on years of schooling) so I never said intelligence is always and only based on years of schooling. I also said "I think he got a little too specific in his original post" . So don't make the mistake of thinking that I myself am saying "a person's years of schooling is the only measurement of a person's intelligence", I never claimed that.
I'm saying that studies can make that leap within the study itself (it will be spelled out explicitly) and someone saying "I don't think years spent in school is a good measure of intelligence" would be a valid objection. But a safer version (to guard against that objection) of the correlation would be what I spelled out in my last post.
Agree with me now?
Yes I agree with you.
I wasnt implying you said so, and youre right if the used the term intelligence as determined by years of schooling they would most definitely disclose that fact...something Jag didnt do.
still a valid objection regardless and would certainly be brought up by the person conducting the experiment.
-
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
This shit is hilarious. Remember smart people support democratic movements, while the vast majority of high school only graduates are republican.
Not quite!!! Check CNN's exit poll of the 2004 election. The voters with:
- Less than a high school diploma: (4% of voters) 50% Kerry, 49% Bush
- High School Diploma (22% of voters): 52% Bush, 47% Kerry
- Some college (32% of voters): 54% Bush, 46% Kerry
- Bachelor's Degree (26% of voters): 52% Bush, 46% Kerry
- Post Graduate degree (16% of voters): 55% Kerry, 44% Bush
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
-
Not quite!!! Check CNN's exit poll of the 2004 election. The voters with:
- Less than a high school diploma: (4% of voters) 50% Kerry, 49% Bush
- High School Diploma (22% of voters): 52% Bush, 47% Kerry
- Some college (32% of voters): 54% Bush, 46% Kerry
- Bachelor's Degree (26% of voters): 52% Bush, 46% Kerry
- Post Graduate degree (16% of voters): 55% Kerry, 44% Bush
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
You just had to piss all over the left wing morons on this board. Didn't you?
-
I think its safe to say that the more time spent in the den of political liberalism that is American academia, the more your gonna be a leftwing nut. Education does not equal intelligence. Alot of the so called college grads can't articulate points, find countries on a map etc etc....they can barely spell when it matters.
BINGO!!!
-
Not quite!!! Check CNN's exit poll of the 2004 election. The voters with:
- Less than a high school diploma: (4% of voters) 50% Kerry, 49% Bush
- High School Diploma (22% of voters): 52% Bush, 47% Kerry
- Some college (32% of voters): 54% Bush, 46% Kerry
- Bachelor's Degree (26% of voters): 52% Bush, 46% Kerry
- Post Graduate degree (16% of voters): 55% Kerry, 44% Bush
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
let's see here...biased sample because it only includes those who voted in the 2004 presidential election so not representative....it's only one election so it presents a sort of false dilemma (only two/three choices)....there is an inherent assumption that bush=conservative and kerry=liberal where there may be some crossings....etc
-
let's see here...biased sample because it only includes those who voted in the 2004 presidential election so not representative....it's only one election so it presents a sort of false dilemma (only two/three choices)....there is an inherent assumption that bush=conservative and kerry=liberal where there may be some crossings....etc
You'll have similar findings, no matter what election you choose. The point, of course, is that Necrosis' claim is woefully false. This is just one example to show that.
-
You almost have to feel sorry for the run of the mill liberal dolt with how many delusions, lies, misconceptions, and falsehoods their entire belief system is based upon.
-
You'll have similar findings, no matter what election you choose. The point, of course, is that Necrosis' claim is woefully false. This is just one example to show that.
that's why it's not valid to choose only one election to prove/disprove a correlation...how hard is that to figure out? ???
I said that Necrosis might have been a little too specific in his post (and I took the liberty and modified his point earlier in this thread), but to say that he is "woefully false" based on a faulty poll in which you made invalid conclusions...is not evidence to prove Necrosis' claim to be false.
-
You almost have to feel sorry for the run of the mill liberal dolt with how many delusions, lies, misconceptions, and falsehoods their entire belief system is based upon.
if you want to make this claim, start a thread that lists and explains the "delusions, lies, misconceptions, and falsehoods" that liberalism is based upon.
or it could just be that you don't understand what exactly is liberalism.
-
if you want to make this claim, start a thread that lists and explains the "delusions, lies, misconceptions, and falsehoods" that liberalism is based upon.
or it could just be that you don't understand what exactly is liberalism.
Lets start w Keyensian economics ok?
-
Lets start w Keyensian economics ok?
that's an economic theory, not a political theory
liberalism was around for many years before Keynes
you're changing the topic, but I really don't expect an adequate answer out of you anyways, so go ahead.
-
that's an economic theory, not a political theory
liberalism was around for many years before Keynes
you're changing the topic, but I really don't expect an adequate answer out of you anyways, so go ahead.
The average lib of today worships at the altar of Keynes
-
The average lib of today worships at the altar of Keynes
irrelevant to the political theory of liberalism
I'll make this easier on you. What do you think of Nozick (father of libertarianism) allowing for the redistribution of wealth if the original distribution is not a just one? What do you think of Locke in his second treatise of government specifically stating that property should be regulated? What do you think about common thought experiments like the prisoner's dilemma or the tragedy of the commons to show how Adam Smith's theory to be inadequate?
-
irrelevant to the political theory of liberalism
I'll make this easier on you. What do you think of Nozick (father of libertarianism) allowing for the redistribution of wealth if the original distribution is not a just one? What do you think of Locke in his second treatise of government specifically stating that property should be regulated? What do you think about common thought experiments like the prisoner's dilemma or the tragedy of the commons to show how Adam Smith's theory to be inadequate?
::) ::)
Using 18th and 19th century definitions are utterly usless in the context of today.
-
::) ::)
Using 18th and 19th century definitions are utterly usless in the context of today.
so you really don't know anything about liberal political theory?
Nozick died in 2002 by the way. Not really a 18th nor 19th century writer. Clearly you don't even know the fundamentals of libertarianism :D
-
so you really don't know anything about liberal political theory?
Nozick died in 2002 by the way. Not really a 18th nor 19th century writer. Clearly you don't even know the fundamentals of libertarianism :D
I'm talking about the average liberal of today as we define the term, not as was used centuries ago with no application today.
-
I'm talking about the average liberal of today as we define the term, not as was used centuries ago with no application today.
I think you're talking mostly about the economic theory that most democrats believe. Again economics is a different issue.
But okay, we'll stick with liberalism since 1970. Please list out your specific objections to Rawlsian liberalism.
:D
Ready to admit that you don't fully understand liberal political theory?
-
I think you're talking mostly about the economic theory that most democrats believe. Again economics is a different issue.
But okay, we'll stick with liberalism since 1970. Please list out your specific objections to Rawlsian liberalism.
:D
Ready to admit that you don't fully understand liberal political theory?
I hope so, becuase what I see wherever it is practiced is pure shit, bankruptcy, chaos, and failure. so go ahead chief.
BTW - the communist manifesto's 10 planks seems closest to the modern day lib more than anything.
-
You'll have similar findings, no matter what election you choose. The point, of course, is that Necrosis' claim is woefully false. This is just one example to show that.
no its not. You posted up stuff based on who they voted for, that is not the same as being a libertarian or conservative, magoo pointed this out to you but you seem to not comprehend the difference.
education does positively correlate with intelligence with a very strong correlation to post graduate work.
-
no its not. You posted up stuff based on who they voted for, that is not the same as being a libertarian or conservative, magoo pointed this out to you but you seem to not comprehend the difference.
education does positively correlate with intelligence with a very strong correlation to post graduate work.
LOL that doesnt mean anything in your argument....intelligence is highly correlated to those who have higher degrees but that doesnt mean that those without higher degrees are any less intelligent you just have a higher concentration with schooling(of a smaller pool something you conviently overlook)...
simple misinturpretation of results here...