Seems like we need better education.

[Grizzly]

The only reason that a higher education level means a more liberal voter is this: the longer you spend at university, the more exposure to liberal indoctrination you're forced to go through. Conservatives don't get treated the same as liberals at college. It got to the point where several states are proposing legislation REQUIRING a more balanced curriculum since the universities can't seem to grasp that their entire reason for existence is to PROVIDE a mix of different views, whether they be ethnic, religious, OR POLITICAL.

And before you go claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about, ask yourself this: if 90% of college professors who acknowledge their political leanings are liberal, what sort of students will they be turning out?

Indoctrination is not education. Until people figure that out, the universities will keep doing exactly what they're doing: telling people what to think instead of teaching them HOW to think.

Once again, you attribute way too much power to professors. It's not like we are teaching kindergarten. Most students simply care about what's going to on an exam, and most courses don't even cover politics or beliefs.

Plus, professors don't simply spring out of the ground - they too are products of education. The mere act of being around people of different views with different ideas tends to breed tolerance (a cuss word in conservative circles). There aren't alot of conservatives on campuses mostly because they tend to hold the idea that their ideas are better than everyone elses and that ideas different from theirs don't deserve to be heard. It's hard to make friends with your co-workers when you don't respect their different ideas and opinions.

This is not to argue that all ideas are equally valid or correct. To the contrary, I believe that ideas have to compete in the marketplace of ideas and prove their worth. But it doesn't mean I can't respect a person for having different views. The current conservative movement in America is intolerant of differences in opinion. And that's a shame.

 

[k]

I'm not a big fan of standardized tests so this doesn't mean too much to me, and in looking at the states, they have a common denominator of being coastal states which means their populations are more diverse than say, Oklahoma or Wisconsin.

However, I do question how in the hell people can claim to support the Bush admin when they have never heard of the PNAC or read its manifesto?

Also, I do agree we need better education all the way around and we need to stop the textbook monopoly because the crap they put in some of the books....

 

[LogicChristian]

IQ actually correlates fairly strongly with a number of things, such as academic sucess, number of years of education, and economic and social status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Economic_development_and_IQ

Due to the racial discrepencies inherent in IQ testing though, I find it hard to believe its testing total intelligence. There's no genetic reason some minorities should score considerably lower on IQ tests, but nevertheless, they do. Are you going to tell me that Hispanics and Blacks are inherently dumber than whites in this country? Obviously, IQ tests are not geared to test pure "intelligence" whatever that may be.

If it's an aptitude test to show how well you'll do in society, why not say so?

 

[Maxwell511]

There also those which have no particular name, but which are present everywhere, such as the tendency of today's academia to try to solve problems through statistics rather than actual theory.

The latest "fad" that I know of in academia is the field of complex systems which combines the ideas of statisitics and complex network theory to develop understanding of how systems behave. This "fad" can be applied to nearly all fields of academia from the sciences to the social sciences.

To take an example is something that I am looking at the moment. In theory the frequency of blackouts relative to their size should drop following an exponential law. However in papers Carreras et al. it is shown that the frequency drop statistically seems to follow a power law. In another paper by the authors a model is used that supports the power law.

The same thing can be applied, and is, to other systems (mostly biological but also to economic systems, physical systems and chemical systems). The reason to do this is because theory sometimes fails to capture the dynamic global behaviour of the system. A good example is in weather forecasting which is based on statisically analysis more than phyiscal laws because trying to predict when particles in the air will self-organise into a hurricane is quite difficult using fluid theory.

Statistical analysis can be as important as theory.

 

[Marek]

There's no genetic reason some minorities should score considerably lower on IQ tests, but nevertheless, they do.

What makes you think this?

 

[Grizzly]

Due to the racial discrepencies inherent in IQ testing though, I find it hard to believe its testing total intelligence. There's no genetic reason some minorities should score considerably lower on IQ tests, but nevertheless, they do. Are you going to tell me that Hispanics and Blacks are inherently dumber than whites in this country? Obviously, IQ tests are not geared to test pure "intelligence" whatever that may be.

If it's an aptitude test to show how well you'll do in society, why not say so?

I made no claim as to what IQ tests actually measure, just how well IQ tests correlate with other things.

The IQ test was originally developed in France to determine which children would benefit from education and which ones would not.

Intelligence, on the other hand, is a hotly debated construct that may or may not be tapped by most IQ tests.

 

[LogicChristian]

What makes you think this?

The fact that there's more genetic variation within "races" than between them. Also, race isn't really discrete in genetic terms, it's cladal.

In other words, if you take two white people, there's a very good chance there's more genetic difference between them than if you took a white person and compared their genes to a black, hispanic, or asian.

 

[Grizzly]

The fact that there's more genetic variation within "races" than between them. Also, race isn't really discrete in genetic terms, it's cladal.

In other words, if you take two white people, there's a very good chance there's more genetic difference between them than if you took a white person and compared their genes to a black, hispanic, or asian.

I was with you all the way up to the last statement. You seem to be saying that any two caucasians are less similar than a caucasian and a non-caucasian. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Phylogeny]

I believe that someone several posts back mentioned that people with post-graduate education tended to vote democratic, while those with some or full college education tend to vote republican and that those with high school education leans slightly toward democratic.

I believe this is the result of the weird way our two party system evolved. It used to be that economics was the deciding factor in voting patterns for many people. Predicatably, working class voted democratic for their populist tones. Republicans were voted by upper incomed individuals who had a more fiscally conservative outlook.

Fast forward a few decades, social issues are now at the forefront and people are more partial to vote based on social causes like abortion, gay marriage etc. Hence, 'progressive' people are more liberal leaning socially are going to vote democratically, while socially conservative people are voting republican. Others have already mentioned the reasons why more educated individuals tend to vote more liberally (exposure to different people/cultures/beliefs/etc_.

People with only a high school degree may more or less split because of their conflicting economic and social interests on what party to vote for.

But anyways, I always figured it was pretty normal for educated individuals to hold more 'liberal' viewpoints. I see that happening not just here in this country, but in my native China, and in other countries in Europe. The bastion of liberalism, the fermentation of new ideas, always starts in the universities..

When I was in college, the reason our campus was liberal was because so many of the students came from the northeast and were relatively young---the traditional liberal voters. Now that I'm back for graduate school, I find most of my professors are liberal because of the perceived 'anti science' tone of the Bush administrations. As others pointed out, stem cells, evolution, global warming have all convinced a many professors, especially biology professors, that Bush is either 1) very dumb 2) caters to a very dumb constituent. Understandable tone given that many utilize evolution on a daily basis in their work and are told by Bush that the 'jury is still out' on it.

As for me, I came to my liberal leanings by myself. I met many people of different religions, beliefs throughout my journey from college onwards, and I've tried to stay well informed on issues that I care about.

What I find is that social conservatives thoughts conflicts strongly with my ideals. I think I took one or two social science courses in college, neither of which had college professors "indoctinating" me so I think the belief that people are 'indoctrinated' in college does not apply to me, or any of my friends, most of whom are science majors. I guess the liberal ideals just appeals to us and not because someone force fed us the content.

 

[Marek]

The fact that there's more genetic variation within "races" than between them. Also, race isn't really discrete in genetic terms, it's cladal.

In other words, if you take two white people, there's a very good chance there's more genetic difference between them than if you took a white person and compared their genes to a black, hispanic, or asian.

I think you might be confused. When people say that there's more genetic variation within races than between them, it means that the majority of gene variation can be found within one race. I think it's something like 85%. But the other 15% of variation is only found in other races. So while it's possible that a random white person is more genetically similar to a random black person than another white person, it is probably very unlikely.

 

[LogicChristian]

I was with you all the way up to the last statement. You seem to be saying that any two caucasians are less similar than a caucasian and a non-caucasian. Is that what you are saying?

That's exactly what I said, check out Lewontin's work in genetics. 85% of human variation occurs within populations, not between populations

 

[Marek]

That's exactly what I said, check out Lewontin's work in genetics. 85% of human variation occurs within populations, not between populations

Read post #50.

 

[Grizzly]

That's exactly what I said, check out Lewontin's work in genetics. 85% of human variation occurs within populations, not between populations

I think you may be misunderstanding how sources of variance are estimated. If total genetic variance is divided into between population and within population variance, then it stands to reason that the source of variability between two subjects from the same population would be solely due to within population variability. However, the differences between two subject from different populations can have two sources of variability (a within population component and a between population component). If the between population variance component is nonzero, then this would make the likelihood that differences between two subjects from different populations would be greater than average diffences between two subjects from the same population.

 

[LogicChristian]

I think you may be misunderstanding how sources of variance are estimated. If total genetic variance is divided into between population and within population variance, then it stands to reason that the source of variability between two subjects from the same population would be solely due to within population variability. However, the differences between two subject from different populations can have two sources of variability (a within population component and a between population component). If the between population variance component is nonzero, then this would make the likelihood that differences between two subjects from different populations would be greater than average diffences between two subjects from the same population.

The "between population" variance is almost never zero except in a few extremely isolated populations. Studies in genetics today have shown that even before civilization there was a fair amount of gene flow even across continents. Check out the candelabra model.

 

[chaim]

I think we are on the same track. There is also a significant anti-correlation between education and 'relegiousness' particular in highly educated people. The less relegious you are the more apt you are to be liberal.

I believe that someone several posts back mentioned that people with post-graduate education tended to vote democratic, while those with some or full college education tend to vote republican and that those with high school education leans slightly toward democratic.

I believe this is the result of the weird way our two party system evolved. It used to be that economics was the deciding factor in voting patterns for many people. Predicatably, working class voted democratic for their populist tones. Republicans were voted by upper incomed individuals who had a more fiscally conservative outlook.

Fast forward a few decades, social issues are now at the forefront and people are more partial to vote based on social causes like abortion, gay marriage etc. Hence, 'progressive' people are more liberal leaning socially are going to vote democratically, while socially conservative people are voting republican. Others have already mentioned the reasons why more educated individuals tend to vote more liberally (exposure to different people/cultures/beliefs/etc_.

People with only a high school degree may more or less split because of their conflicting economic and social interests on what party to vote for.

But anyways, I always figured it was pretty normal for educated individuals to hold more 'liberal' viewpoints. I see that happening not just here in this country, but in my native China, and in other countries in Europe. The bastion of liberalism, the fermentation of new ideas, always starts in the universities..

When I was in college, the reason our campus was liberal was because so many of the students came from the northeast and were relatively young---the traditional liberal voters. Now that I'm back for graduate school, I find most of my professors are liberal because of the perceived 'anti science' tone of the Bush administrations. As others pointed out, stem cells, evolution, global warming have all convinced a many professors, especially biology professors, that Bush is either 1) very dumb 2) caters to a very dumb constituent. Understandable tone given that many utilize evolution on a daily basis in their work and are told by Bush that the 'jury is still out' on it.

As for me, I came to my liberal leanings by myself. I met many people of different religions, beliefs throughout my journey from college onwards, and I've tried to stay well informed on issues that I care about.

What I find is that social conservatives thoughts conflicts strongly with my ideals. I think I took one or two social science courses in college, neither of which had college professors "indoctinating" me so I think the belief that people are 'indoctrinated' in college does not apply to me, or any of my friends, most of whom are science majors. I guess the liberal ideals just appeals to us and not because someone force fed us the content.

 

[Grizzly]

The "between population" variance is almost never zero except in a few extremely isolated populations. Studies in genetics today have shown that even before civilization there was a fair amount of gene flow even across continents. Check out the candelabra model.

By between population variance, I mean variance that can be accounted for by knowing what population you come from (I'm sure you know this already, but I just wanted to be clear).

So if I select a random person from a population that has a mean score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (for example), and then I select two more people.

1) another person from the same sample
2) another person from a different sample with a mean of 90 and a standard deviation of 15

The odds that person #1 will be similar to the initially selected case is greater that the odds that person number two will be.

It's possible that we are talking apples and oranges, as I am refering to phenotypic expressions and you may be refering to genotypes.

 

[Zoot]

"Not all conversatives are stupid, but the most stupid people are conservative." - JS Mill

Not that conservative meant then what it means now, really.

 

[LogicChristian]

By between population variance, I mean variance that can be accounted for by knowing what population you come from (I'm sure you know this already, but I just wanted to be clear).

So if I select a random person from a population that has a mean score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (for example), and then I select two more people.

1) another person from the same sample
2) another person from a different sample with a mean of 90 and a standard deviation of 15

The odds that person #1 will be similar to the initially selected case is greater that the odds that person number two will be.

It's possible that we are talking apples and oranges, as I am refering to phenotypic expressions and you may be refering to genotypes.

Yep, I'm almost we're talking about the same thing.

A little gene flow can go a long way.

 

[chaim]

I think a relevant corollary would be

"Not all liberals are smart, but the smartest people are liberals"

"Not all conversatives are stupid, but the most stupid people are conservative." - JS Mill

Not that conservative meant then what it means now, really.