Problematic Stuff

[DRSB]

There's a stoicism scene?

Oh, yes, there is! "Stoicism for modern life", groups, tutorials, courses. I just now downloaded a book on Marcus Aurelius.
This guy voted Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJtp20u ... ture=share

[Svartalf]

at that degree, it's not stoicism, it's sheer masochism

[DRSB]

at that degree, it's not stoicism, it's sheer masochism

What if you listened in?

[JimC]

There's a stoicism scene?

They're a bit embarrassed by it, but they manage to put up with it...

[Hermit]

We are back to my proposition that educational level and intelligence is no good predictor of political allegiance.

There are of course many factors that influence which side we vote for, and none of them act in a law-like fashion. At best we can speak of tendencies. In this article Nate Silver argues that in retrospect education levels turned out to be an even better indicator of who would vote for whom in the 2016 US Presidential election than the much vaunted income levels, and he goes into much detail about he tested that claim.

In the end Trump only attracted only 46% of the overall vote while Clinton's share was 48%. Trump did a lot better with all voters who lacked a college degree, though: 52% as against Clinton's 44%. When it came to all voters with a college degree, the situation was almost perfectly reversed. Trump: 43%. Clinton: 52%.

That said, we need to be mindful that these are only trends. After all, having a college degree did not stop 43% of all voters with one from voting for Trump, and not having a college degree did not stop 44% of all those lacking on from voting for Clinton.

Still, among all indicators, education seems to be a fairly solid one. In the US - I'm only guessing now - perhaps the second strongest, the strongest being where you live - rural or urban, south or north, inland or coastal.

[DRSB]

Actually, the polls before the election were totally inaccurate and intentionally misleading, as it turned out! Hillary only beat Trump to 2 %, come on, this is precisely the point! How could she not beat him to the curb! Bill would have! And a couple of other democratic candidates I could mention! Anyone would have!

There are all these biases we are prone to! From keeping up with Joneses to gender stereotyping.
It is the same with psychology and social sciences: they can make pretty good predictions about groups of people, and none at all in relation to any one particular individual.

[Hermit]

Actually, the polls before the election were totally inaccurate and intentionally misleading, as it turned out!

The pre-election polls are totally irrelevant. Silver's analysis is based on who had voted. The article was published two weeks after the election, and as indicated, it shows a clear trend in the relationship between education and where the votes were likely to go.

Having discussed the alleged inaccuracy of pre-election polls at length with Coito here and a Clinton fanatic in another forum, I'll resist going into detail again, but I suggest you are mistaken about the lack of accuracy of the polls.

[DRSB]

Actually, the polls before the election were totally inaccurate and intentionally misleading, as it turned out!

The pre-election polls are totally irrelevant. Silver's analysis is based on who had voted. The article was published two weeks after the election, and as indicated, it shows a clear trend in the relationship between education and where the votes were likely to go.

Having discussed the alleged inaccuracy of pre-election polls at length with Coito here and a Clinton fanatic in another forum, I'll resist going into detail again, but I suggest you are mistaken about the lack of accuracy of the polls.

Good article, thanks!

[Forty Two]

We are back to my proposition that educational level and intelligence is no good predictor of political allegiance.

There are of course many factors that influence which side we vote for, and none of them act in a law-like fashion. At best we can speak of tendencies. In this article Nate Silver argues that in retrospect education levels turned out to be an even better indicator of who would vote for whom in the 2016 US Presidential election than the much vaunted income levels, and he goes into much detail about he tested that claim.

In the end Trump only attracted only 46% of the overall vote while Clinton's share was 48%. Trump did a lot better with all voters who lacked a college degree, though: 52% as against Clinton's 44%. When it came to all voters with a college degree, the situation was almost perfectly reversed. Trump: 43%. Clinton: 52%.

That said, we need to be mindful that these are only trends. After all, having a college degree did not stop 43% of all voters with one from voting for Trump, and not having a college degree did not stop 44% of all those lacking on from voting for Clinton.

Still, among all indicators, education seems to be a fairly solid one. In the US - I'm only guessing now - perhaps the second strongest, the strongest being where you live - rural or urban, south or north, inland or coastal.

That's a fair statement, however, I think we need to be mindful that this analysis is multivaried. Look at the stats - 52% of voters with college degrees went to Clinton. 43% went to Trump. Yes. However, now, women are outstripping men on college degrees, and they now hold several percentage points more of the college degrees than men. And, women voted more for Clinton than Trump. So, it may be that sex, rather than "education" was the determining factor. Also race was more dramatic than either sex or education - as blacks and suchs voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.

I would also be curious what the distinction is among degrees or areas of study. I would expect pretty much everyone in Gender Studies to vote either Clinton (or something farther left), and I would expect engineers to vote more Trump. Most engineers and engineering majors are men, most Genders Studies students and graduates are women.

It may be that the male-dominated degrees went Trump, and the female dominated ones went Clinton, and the reason why it looks like "education" is a deciding variable is because most college students and most graduates are women.

I do not suspect that it's a "Trump voters are stupider than Clinton voters" thing. I think that would be missing some depth in the numbers.

[laklak]

Yoga. It's a tool of the cisheteropatriarchy. Honestly, you couldn't make up the jargon:

“Especially during this time when the underbelly of capitalism — white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, and xenophobia – is being exposed, it is imperative that everyone, especially those who have access to spiritual practices like yoga, ask difficult questions of ourselves and one another,” the two concluded. “We must ask, in what ways are we complicit in a system that harms people of color, queer and trans people, poor people, people with disabilities, and immigrants?”

The two argued “the explosion of yoga studios, yoga video, apps, yoga pants, and other yoga swag over the last two decades is evidence” of the “(mis)appropriation of yoga” that “is part of systemic racism” built on “the labor of black people and people of the global south.”

OK, I'll admit that yoga pants are pretty white-chick, like pumpkin lattes. It's a bit of a stretch to white supremacy, though.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/29/am ... laims.html

Oh, the "two" in question are Shreena Gandhi, a religious studies professor at Michigan State, and Lillie Wolff who self-describes as an “anti-racist white Jewish organizer, facilitator, and healer”.

Does living in Florida mean I'm from the "global south"?

[Hermit]

...we need to be mindful that this analysis is multivaried.

Yes. Definitely.

...now, women are outstripping men on college degrees, and they now hold several percentage points more of the college degrees than men.

Wrong. The difference is half a percentage point. In 2016 33.7% of women and 33.2% of men have completed four years of college or more. (Link)

I do not suspect that it's a "Trump voters are stupider than Clinton voters" thing.

If I slipped "stupid" or "IQ" into my post anywhere, I do apologise. I meant to talk about people with college degrees, or to put it more generally, levels of education. In my untutored opinion an unfavourable social milieu is a greater hindrance to obtaining further education than personal IQ. To put it in other words, I think more people don't go on to get college education because the money for it just isn't there, they lack support from their family, don't see any value in it or some other extraneous factor than because they are "stupider than Clinton voters".

[Forty Two]

Yoga. It's a tool of the cisheteropatriarchy. Honestly, you couldn't make up the jargon:

“Especially during this time when the underbelly of capitalism — white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, and xenophobia – is being exposed, it is imperative that everyone, especially those who have access to spiritual practices like yoga, ask difficult questions of ourselves and one another,” the two concluded. “We must ask, in what ways are we complicit in a system that harms people of color, queer and trans people, poor people, people with disabilities, and immigrants?”

The two argued “the explosion of yoga studios, yoga video, apps, yoga pants, and other yoga swag over the last two decades is evidence” of the “(mis)appropriation of yoga” that “is part of systemic racism” built on “the labor of black people and people of the global south.”

OK, I'll admit that yoga pants are pretty white-chick, like pumpkin lattes. It's a bit of a stretch to white supremacy, though.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/29/am ... laims.html

Oh, the "two" in question are Shreena Gandhi, a religious studies professor at Michigan State, and Lillie Wolff who self-describes as an “anti-racist white Jewish organizer, facilitator, and healer”.

Does living in Florida mean I'm from the "global south"?

White people doing yoga is misappropriation from Indian culture, and therefore part of systemic racism built on the labor of black people and people of the global south? Is India in the global south now?

Whites doing yoga is white supremacy, but it's also xenophobia -- becauase I guess they fear the foreign, so they adopt it, appropriate it, and make it not foreign? LOL.

[Svartalf]

Actually, there's no misappropriation of Indian culture as its roots are the same as Western culture, as Sanskrit belonging to the Indo European family of languages, and Indian society conforming to the three orders of Dumezilian society amply shows

[Forty Two]

...we need to be mindful that this analysis is multivaried.

Yes. Definitely.

...now, women are outstripping men on college degrees, and they now hold several percentage points more of the college degrees than men.

Wrong. The difference is half a percentage point. In 2016 33.7% of women and 33.2% of men have completed four years of college or more. (Link)

I've been trying to work through the numbers, and I'm suspecting there is some parsing of terms here. I think the 33.7 and 33.2 numbers refer to 4 year "bachelor" degrees. If you look at overall numbers, women are earning about 62% of the associates degrees and 56% of all four year degrees on an annual basis. And, they have earned a higher percentage of degrees than men every years since 1978 (associates) and 1982 (4 year degrees), and each year the gap widens. So, I'm not saying you're wrong -- I'm not comfortable that I understand the numbers yet. It doesn't seem to make sense that more than half of all degrees are going to women for the last nearly 40 years, and yet the total numbers of degrees held by women and men would be roughly equal. I haven't figured that out yet.

I do not suspect that it's a "Trump voters are stupider than Clinton voters" thing.

If I slipped "stupid" or "IQ" into my post anywhere, I do apologise. I meant to talk about people with college degrees, or to put it more generally, levels of education. In my untutored opinion an unfavourable social milieu is a greater hindrance to obtaining further education than personal IQ. To put it in other words, I think more people don't go on to get college education because the money for it just isn't there, they lack support from their family, don't see any value in it or some other extraneous factor than because they are "stupider than Clinton voters".

Sure, and I would add that going to college in the United States does not, in the main, warrant any assumption that one is a more adept thinker, more knowledgeable about politics and current affairs or government, or to be otherwise someone whose vote carries more persuasive weight. It seems to me the reason to suggest that people with college degrees vote one way rather than another is to suggest that the more educated among us are more apt to make the better voting decision. A good percentage of American college graduates, however, are barely "literate" in history, government, politics, current affairs, geography, science, mathematics, and other primary subject areas. It's an unfortunate thing in the US, but high school kids are graduating with formerly middle school level educations, and they are partying most of the way through college which has been reduced in terms of education/study demands over the last 40 years to the point that taking 12 credits (4 classes) a semester is deemed normal, and so many of the classes offered are rather less than "primary" or "core" or "foundational" to a broad, solid knowledge base, to put it mildly.

[JimC]

My son Nick has just returned from doing a semester of his masters degree in urban planning in North Carolina. He loved it, and had a great time, but commented that the rigour of the subjects was significantly lower than his first semester in Melbourne. He didn't have to exert himself too much to be top of his cohort academically...