Nothing to debate about my point, Bill, unless you have conflicting data. Like I said, it’s empirical. I can go try and dig up the relevant copy of PS (I think it was PS) if you’d like to know the methodology etcetera.
Which is just more evidence that I’m a statistical fluke… I’m dumb as a stone (or so my High School grades would indicate), but I’m as socially liberal as all get out. And I’m dirt-poor, yet I’m quite the conservative when it comes to economics.
I’m not a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Reformer, etc… I’m a HYBRID of conservative and liberal views! That’s what I’ll refer to myself from now on… as a hybrid… that sounds so effing cool…
Gadarene wrote
Alright, I’ll bite. Bear in mind, I’m not arguing in favor of the OP, which I intended as a poke at similar recent threads. Rather your point, which seems to indicate the opposite (that conservatives are dumber than liberals).
a) How do you account in the third empirical fact that the higher one’s level of education, the higher one’s income?
b) You specifically called out social liberal-ness and economic conservative-ness. You used the word “Conversely”, which specifically implies that the two sentences were opposites. Yet, social conservativism/liberalism and economic conservativism/liberalism are two different beasts. How do you account for this?
c) Cites please.
It indicates no such thing. What it indicates is that people with a higher level of education are more likely to be socially liberal, not that liberals are more educated than conservatives. And intelligence doesn’t even enter into it.
Um, there’s no inherent contradiction here. Well-educated, wealthy people are perforce more likely to be socially liberal and economically conservative than people with lower levels of education and income. Why does the positive correlation between education and income matter in this regard at all–especially given that the correlation isn’t absolute (that is, there exist many educated, non-wealthy people, as well as a nonzero number of less-educated people with high incomes)?
Account for what? Perhaps “conversely” was the wrong choice of words. What about “additionally?”
Anyway, I’d argue–and have argued–that the dominant political ideology in this country, particularly in terms of institutional policy, is a centrism which is fairly socially liberal and fairly economically conservative. Which makes sense, because most social and political institutions in this country are run by people who are both well-educated and wealthy relative to the population as a whole.
I’m looking. I’m pretty sure it’s either from a Pew survey or an NES survey. Or both.
Here’s an overview of the Pew Research Center’s ten political typologies. It provides a rough concurrence of the correlations in question here.
It also has a survey you can take to find out where you might fit on the axis.
For those who don’t know, [url=“http://www.people-press.org/moreabout.htm”]Pew Research Center is an independent research group that used to be the Times-Mirror Center for the People & the Press. To my knowledge, their survey results are respected within the political science and journalist communities as being trustworthy and free of ideological bias. If someone has information that contradicts Pew’s neutrality, I’d like to hear it.
This is the website of the National Election Studies at the University of Michigan. I believe they have data on income/ideology and education/ideology correlation–I have to be off-line for a while right now, but I’ll check it out later tonight. Feel free to do the same.
FWIW, after controlling for other demographics both education and IQ are positively correlated with wages.
Well, keep in mind that IQ isn’t the only means of measuring intelligence. And schooling isn’t the only means of gaining intelligence.
(Not to dispute Gad’s assertions, of course)
Gadarene, I don’t mean to be harsh here, but you just took up a lot of screen space when the one sentance would have sufficed:
No problem. Complete retraction of your original statement accepted.
I do appreciate the cites. Very interesting.
Gadarene**, I took the pew survey and was shocked to be told I’m a “staunch republican”.
I’d considered myself fairly moderate. For example, I’m pro-gay, pro-choice, neutral-to-barly-anti-guns, atheist. I’m not a strong supporter of additional military. I’m a big believer in spending bucks on education. I’m anti-social security, and anti-farmers. Hell, now that I list them out there, I’m surprised I’m even a republican.
Anyway, either a) this pew thing isn’t all that accurate in their analysis, or b) I should really start listening to Limbaugh (I can’t stand him).
Their site does have some interesting reading though.
I wasn’t aware that I was retracting anything, other than the word “conversely.” What are you talking about?
Point him in the right direction, and I bet Ronald Reagan could still whip Jimmy Carter’s peanut-plantin’ ass.
Gadarene wrote
From Webster, here’s the definition of “Converse”
And “Addition”
As you can see, these two words are quite different, in fact they are practically opposites.
Your changing your statement by changing the word “conversely” to “additionally” completely retracts the original statement and creates a new one. That’s fine. I completely agree with the new one.
That’s fine, Bill. But you apparently have issues with my statement beyond the use of the word “conversely,” as you’ve laid out in yesterday’s post dated 3:11 pm. I addressed those issues (in my post of 3:56), and answered one of your several points by retracting “conversely.” This, however, does not indicate a “complete retraction of my original statement,” as you say it does. Substituting “additionally” for “conversely” doesn’t change the empirical worth of the statement, nor does it mitigate my responses to your concerns about the data.
The new statement is as follows:
If you “completely agree” with this, then may I assume that you’re withdrawing concern a) in yesterday’s post?
Gadarene wrote
Yes. Perhaps my phrasings above were more hostile than necessary, and if so I apologize. My interpretation of your original comment was that fact #a (which I agreed with) plus fact #b (which I also agreed with) proved that liberals were smarter than conservatives (which I disagreed with). The new comment (or my new understanding of the original comment) says #a and #b are facts and are interesting, but don’t allow us to conclude any intellectual champion. All of which I agree with.
I just work from the premise that I’m smarter than everyone else. Proof? I’m not going to tell you if I’m liberal or conservative.
Fair enough, Bill. And I agree with your last post. 
Fact number a? Fact number b? 
[sup]Just thought I’d pop in and point that out…[/sup]
Yeah, but that’s only because Carter would be too polite to strike back against the empty-minded geriatric dinosaur. Ronnie would probably be in the middle of a flashback during filming of Iwo Jima or somesuch.