Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Well, I went and analysed the evidence and wrote a post about it. Take a look if you like this sort of thing:
Good luck with that.
Green in the UK map doesn't represent the Greens - different shades represent Plaid and the NI parties.
Ok, I'll change that.
In Scotland, most of the yellow is SNP. Oops.
I have nothing else to offer
that way I can save time in deciding whether I'm going to agree with your arguments or not in advance.
But seriously, my findings are basically neutral.
If you were right or left leaning yourself?
I think we're getting close to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here
and I managed to keep it pretty neutral. Believe me, it's hard work critiquing any data that claims conservatives are stupid. I just so badly want it to be true.
there are many other differences between rural and urban other than education, class, ethnicity, age profile probably being the main 3 confounding variables.
to see the role intelligence plays you would have to control for everything else that influences wingedness, and see if there is a difference when like for like cases are compared where the only difference is IQ.
There seems to be alot of research that says it does have an effect so it is probably the case where you compare people from the same backgrounds IQ will pull them towards the left, but other background elements may pull them the other way, its never going to be the case that one thing overrides all the other influences
I had a quick look and admittedly I'm a bit pissed, but I am a second year psychology student and your post flagged red warning signs. Here is what I found:
NHS cadet schemes: student experience, commitment,
job satisfaction and job stress
Cadets forming the most senior
cohort from each of the 62 schemes (n=596) were surveyed using a questionnaire
We have several issues to deal with here. Firstly you appear to be picking what suits from a study but most importantly a survey of 596 people who, in almost certainly live geographically very closely together is not condusive to a well carried out and respectful psychological survey. Towns have mentalities: cross regions and borders and then you can gain some insight.
I've no idea what you're talking about. Cadet schemes?
Or 'The Righteous Mind'?
You could also discuss the distinction between US and UK conservatives. British conservatives are generally way more centrist than the Republican Party. And the US 'liberal' Democratic party is probably closer to the UK tories than to the Labour Party.
I always find it hilarious the way that some people on here bang on about the Democrats and the people who wanted to go and campaign for them out there. They are to the right of the Conservatives without question.
yeah but surely the lesser of two evils is always the best option, If the republicans get in the world would be an even bleaker place than it is now, thats worth campaigning against
if British lefties want to 'help' with an American election, the best possible thing they can do is mind their own business.
That seems to be a completely different issue, how it backfired, you questioned why people would want to support the democrats in the first place which to me seems pretty obvious
There's only marginally more of a difference between Republican and Democrat as there is between Conservative and Labour.
Democrats still largely believe in manifest destiny/US hegemony, capital punishment etc etc. They share little in common with bleeding heart Brits who think that this country is a police state.
Yeah but you probably find it amusing because you think it doesn't make sense which is the same as questioning why. I'd disagree that there is a similar gap between their parties, they are a much more polarised country than the uk, yeah their best party isn't that good but their worst is far worse and seem to be getting even more extreme
the general method that you've used to link education and voting preference isn't really workable. This seems to be to compare geographically averaged measures of education and geographically averaged voting outcomes.
The problem is that both are way, way too broad. Levels of education (and all related demographics, such as income, access to services, etc) vary massively within each of these. And so you're vulnerable to simpson's paradox, where broader measures are actually less informative than more specific (and properly controlled) ones. I don't think the body of research you're talking about is good enough to draw any solid conclusions from yet, but I'm not sure if you can dismiss it at this stage using epidemiological-type data without doing properly epidemiological-type analyses.
but there just isn't any other data to work with at the moment. I'd love more specific data (as I mention later in the post) but it's not available (or at least I can't find it. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough). You're totally right in the sense that more specific data may come along and dismantle everything I've said. I'm well aware of that possibility. But, for now, I just thought I'd construct something out of what I could find.
Because I can't be arsed reading otherwise.
who are tory :D
There are definitely some very intelligent, yet very conservative people. They'd be fascinating to study.