▲ 471 ▼ Trump Suggests He Can Use the Military on Bond Markets: ‘If We Have To Use That, We Will’ (www.yahoo.com) submitted 1 week ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world 149 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 177 points 1 week ago (6 children) Decades of stripping education funding is taking its toll permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml 64 points 1 week ago (1 child) Idiocracy was the game plan all along. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 18 points 1 week ago It was idiocy all along. Signed - a native whose ancestors talked at length and wrote down (or had someone else write down) how dumb they were in the very beginning, before there was even a nation permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoly@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 child) It’s worse than that. Everyone has been brought up to be a narcissistic consumer and they approach public policy the same way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 child) The amount of times I've heard "why should I pay taxes for school, my kids are grown" is way too damn high permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago I became so disappointed in my grandmother when I was in high school when she expressed this attitude. I couldn’t understand why it mattered as children still needed school. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 week ago (2 children) That's not the issue at all. It's the curriculum, the no child left behind act implementation, and the overall indoctrination and corruption of a system of government that rewards the rich. Most schools get plenty of money and just blow it on things they don't need. Buildings way too fancy and overpriced educational subscriptions to crap, instead of spending it on more teachers and teacher salary. The money is plenty there. None of the rich fucks get a cut from cheaper buildings and teacher payrolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (3 children) Stripping education doesn't necessarily mean money. The GOP has waged an all out war on knowledge over the last few decades. Hell Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. No Child Left Behind gas been terrible. And I agree that money needs to go to teachers, not admins permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] WoodYouLookAtThat@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago I'm in my mid 30s and Fox News was saying that colleges make liberals when I was in middle school. Probably even before that, I was just too young to notice permalink fedilink source parent [–] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. Wait, Jesse Waters has a college degree? permalink fedilink source parent [+] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago In 2001, he graduated from Trinity College in the state capital of Hartford, Connecticut, with a Bachelor of Arts in history A liberal arts major, no less. From an East Coast private school in one of the bluest states in the country. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago They use their money on the sports stuff because they can sell it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 14 points 1 week ago (2 children) You'd rather have uneducated strippers? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago That's the best kind permalink fedilink source parent [–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago When the economy goes to shit, the practical trades are the great bastion of the working person. Strippers will thrive. .../s? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago well trump like strippers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (2 children) You say that like some of the most educated people in the country don't consistently vote Republican. This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong. The idea that failing to earn a HS Diploma makes you unqualified to vote is equally dogshit. Politics is a consequence of your social affinity and your material conditions. You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Folstar@lemmus.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Yes, but ceteris paribus, an educated electorate is going to make better decisions. Or rather, the number of obviously bad decisions rejected is increased as knowledge of history and concepts deems them unworkable. Society exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) an educated electorate is going to make better decisions I have seen no evidence to this effect. Consider South Africa under Apartheid. Once an individual realized how they benefited from systematic oppression of those below them, more and more fell in line. It is the "uneducated" underclass that made the revolution possible. And it was only possible through a strong social network that defied the "educated" understanding of micro-ethnicities that the Apartheid government sought to entrench. Same with Israel. You've got tons of educated professionals in that country who are explicitly and knowingly there to participate in a genocide. The Palestinian opposition has no education infrastructure. They can only resist through social cohesion and trust networks predicated on faith. The UK, another excellent example. A massive university system that largely exists to reproduce neoliberal ideological beliefs in a population that manages a predatory financial system and an arms export industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Folstar@lemmus.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) Yes, if you cut off those two proceeding words then hyper focus on a few examples (which have become examples of bad when once they were the norm- sort of making my point for me) without global or historic context, you've really made a strong case. Meanwhile, more people living in more places today have a better standard of life in more just nations than at any point in history and it correlates to increases in education. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong Well, on average.. it does. You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough. No, but being intelligent is correlated with both of these things. Dumb people are more easily tricked by right wing talking points. Dumb people also don't get good grades. Smart people are, for whatever reason, more likely to agree with liberal or leftist talking points. Smart people are also more likely to get high grades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 child) Well, on average… it does. The Republican majority in Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all have advanced degrees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) Average. On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. As a group. Separate the degrees from the non-degrees, and measure their liberalism/leftism, and find which group has the higher average. Average. Average. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people. Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average. Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate. Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml 64 points 1 week ago (1 child) Idiocracy was the game plan all along. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 18 points 1 week ago It was idiocy all along. Signed - a native whose ancestors talked at length and wrote down (or had someone else write down) how dumb they were in the very beginning, before there was even a nation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BooBees@fedinsfw.app 18 points 1 week ago It was idiocy all along. Signed - a native whose ancestors talked at length and wrote down (or had someone else write down) how dumb they were in the very beginning, before there was even a nation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 child) It’s worse than that. Everyone has been brought up to be a narcissistic consumer and they approach public policy the same way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 child) The amount of times I've heard "why should I pay taxes for school, my kids are grown" is way too damn high permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago I became so disappointed in my grandmother when I was in high school when she expressed this attitude. I couldn’t understand why it mattered as children still needed school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (1 child) The amount of times I've heard "why should I pay taxes for school, my kids are grown" is way too damn high permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago I became so disappointed in my grandmother when I was in high school when she expressed this attitude. I couldn’t understand why it mattered as children still needed school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago I became so disappointed in my grandmother when I was in high school when she expressed this attitude. I couldn’t understand why it mattered as children still needed school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 week ago (2 children) That's not the issue at all. It's the curriculum, the no child left behind act implementation, and the overall indoctrination and corruption of a system of government that rewards the rich. Most schools get plenty of money and just blow it on things they don't need. Buildings way too fancy and overpriced educational subscriptions to crap, instead of spending it on more teachers and teacher salary. The money is plenty there. None of the rich fucks get a cut from cheaper buildings and teacher payrolls. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (3 children) Stripping education doesn't necessarily mean money. The GOP has waged an all out war on knowledge over the last few decades. Hell Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. No Child Left Behind gas been terrible. And I agree that money needs to go to teachers, not admins permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] WoodYouLookAtThat@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago I'm in my mid 30s and Fox News was saying that colleges make liberals when I was in middle school. Probably even before that, I was just too young to notice permalink fedilink source parent [–] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. Wait, Jesse Waters has a college degree? permalink fedilink source parent [+] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago In 2001, he graduated from Trinity College in the state capital of Hartford, Connecticut, with a Bachelor of Arts in history A liberal arts major, no less. From an East Coast private school in one of the bluest states in the country. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago They use their money on the sports stuff because they can sell it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Prairie_Madness@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (3 children) Stripping education doesn't necessarily mean money. The GOP has waged an all out war on knowledge over the last few decades. Hell Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. No Child Left Behind gas been terrible. And I agree that money needs to go to teachers, not admins permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] WoodYouLookAtThat@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago I'm in my mid 30s and Fox News was saying that colleges make liberals when I was in middle school. Probably even before that, I was just too young to notice permalink fedilink source parent [–] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. Wait, Jesse Waters has a college degree? permalink fedilink source parent [+] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago In 2001, he graduated from Trinity College in the state capital of Hartford, Connecticut, with a Bachelor of Arts in history A liberal arts major, no less. From an East Coast private school in one of the bluest states in the country. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WoodYouLookAtThat@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago I'm in my mid 30s and Fox News was saying that colleges make liberals when I was in middle school. Probably even before that, I was just too young to notice permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago Fox News was recently saying "colleges make liberals" despite the fact that all the people saying it had college degrees. Wait, Jesse Waters has a college degree? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago In 2001, he graduated from Trinity College in the state capital of Hartford, Connecticut, with a Bachelor of Arts in history A liberal arts major, no less. From an East Coast private school in one of the bluest states in the country. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago In 2001, he graduated from Trinity College in the state capital of Hartford, Connecticut, with a Bachelor of Arts in history A liberal arts major, no less. From an East Coast private school in one of the bluest states in the country. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago They use their money on the sports stuff because they can sell it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 14 points 1 week ago (2 children) You'd rather have uneducated strippers? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago That's the best kind permalink fedilink source parent [–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago When the economy goes to shit, the practical trades are the great bastion of the working person. Strippers will thrive. .../s? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago That's the best kind permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago When the economy goes to shit, the practical trades are the great bastion of the working person. Strippers will thrive. .../s? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago well trump like strippers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (2 children) You say that like some of the most educated people in the country don't consistently vote Republican. This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong. The idea that failing to earn a HS Diploma makes you unqualified to vote is equally dogshit. Politics is a consequence of your social affinity and your material conditions. You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Folstar@lemmus.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Yes, but ceteris paribus, an educated electorate is going to make better decisions. Or rather, the number of obviously bad decisions rejected is increased as knowledge of history and concepts deems them unworkable. Society exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) an educated electorate is going to make better decisions I have seen no evidence to this effect. Consider South Africa under Apartheid. Once an individual realized how they benefited from systematic oppression of those below them, more and more fell in line. It is the "uneducated" underclass that made the revolution possible. And it was only possible through a strong social network that defied the "educated" understanding of micro-ethnicities that the Apartheid government sought to entrench. Same with Israel. You've got tons of educated professionals in that country who are explicitly and knowingly there to participate in a genocide. The Palestinian opposition has no education infrastructure. They can only resist through social cohesion and trust networks predicated on faith. The UK, another excellent example. A massive university system that largely exists to reproduce neoliberal ideological beliefs in a population that manages a predatory financial system and an arms export industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Folstar@lemmus.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) Yes, if you cut off those two proceeding words then hyper focus on a few examples (which have become examples of bad when once they were the norm- sort of making my point for me) without global or historic context, you've really made a strong case. Meanwhile, more people living in more places today have a better standard of life in more just nations than at any point in history and it correlates to increases in education. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong Well, on average.. it does. You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough. No, but being intelligent is correlated with both of these things. Dumb people are more easily tricked by right wing talking points. Dumb people also don't get good grades. Smart people are, for whatever reason, more likely to agree with liberal or leftist talking points. Smart people are also more likely to get high grades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 child) Well, on average… it does. The Republican majority in Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all have advanced degrees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) Average. On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. As a group. Separate the degrees from the non-degrees, and measure their liberalism/leftism, and find which group has the higher average. Average. Average. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people. Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average. Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate. Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Yes, but ceteris paribus, an educated electorate is going to make better decisions. Or rather, the number of obviously bad decisions rejected is increased as knowledge of history and concepts deems them unworkable. Society exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) an educated electorate is going to make better decisions I have seen no evidence to this effect. Consider South Africa under Apartheid. Once an individual realized how they benefited from systematic oppression of those below them, more and more fell in line. It is the "uneducated" underclass that made the revolution possible. And it was only possible through a strong social network that defied the "educated" understanding of micro-ethnicities that the Apartheid government sought to entrench. Same with Israel. You've got tons of educated professionals in that country who are explicitly and knowingly there to participate in a genocide. The Palestinian opposition has no education infrastructure. They can only resist through social cohesion and trust networks predicated on faith. The UK, another excellent example. A massive university system that largely exists to reproduce neoliberal ideological beliefs in a population that manages a predatory financial system and an arms export industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Folstar@lemmus.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) Yes, if you cut off those two proceeding words then hyper focus on a few examples (which have become examples of bad when once they were the norm- sort of making my point for me) without global or historic context, you've really made a strong case. Meanwhile, more people living in more places today have a better standard of life in more just nations than at any point in history and it correlates to increases in education. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) an educated electorate is going to make better decisions I have seen no evidence to this effect. Consider South Africa under Apartheid. Once an individual realized how they benefited from systematic oppression of those below them, more and more fell in line. It is the "uneducated" underclass that made the revolution possible. And it was only possible through a strong social network that defied the "educated" understanding of micro-ethnicities that the Apartheid government sought to entrench. Same with Israel. You've got tons of educated professionals in that country who are explicitly and knowingly there to participate in a genocide. The Palestinian opposition has no education infrastructure. They can only resist through social cohesion and trust networks predicated on faith. The UK, another excellent example. A massive university system that largely exists to reproduce neoliberal ideological beliefs in a population that manages a predatory financial system and an arms export industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Folstar@lemmus.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) Yes, if you cut off those two proceeding words then hyper focus on a few examples (which have become examples of bad when once they were the norm- sort of making my point for me) without global or historic context, you've really made a strong case. Meanwhile, more people living in more places today have a better standard of life in more just nations than at any point in history and it correlates to increases in education. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Folstar@lemmus.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) Yes, if you cut off those two proceeding words then hyper focus on a few examples (which have become examples of bad when once they were the norm- sort of making my point for me) without global or historic context, you've really made a strong case. Meanwhile, more people living in more places today have a better standard of life in more just nations than at any point in history and it correlates to increases in education. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) This idea that earning a MBA or a JD or an MD makes your politics good is completely wrong Well, on average.. it does. You don't just take a class and become a liberal Democrat if your grade is high enough. No, but being intelligent is correlated with both of these things. Dumb people are more easily tricked by right wing talking points. Dumb people also don't get good grades. Smart people are, for whatever reason, more likely to agree with liberal or leftist talking points. Smart people are also more likely to get high grades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 child) Well, on average… it does. The Republican majority in Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all have advanced degrees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) Average. On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. As a group. Separate the degrees from the non-degrees, and measure their liberalism/leftism, and find which group has the higher average. Average. Average. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people. Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average. Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate. Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 child) Well, on average… it does. The Republican majority in Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all have advanced degrees. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) Average. On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. As a group. Separate the degrees from the non-degrees, and measure their liberalism/leftism, and find which group has the higher average. Average. Average. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people. Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average. Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate. Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child) Average. On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. As a group. Separate the degrees from the non-degrees, and measure their liberalism/leftism, and find which group has the higher average. Average. Average. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people. Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average. Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate. Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) On average, people with degrees are more liberal/leftist. On average, liberal neighborhoods and counties have more educated people. Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes. Mormons break 70 R / 22 D / 8 I for candidates while enjoying a 36% bachelor completion rate - 3pts higher than the national average. Hindus break 46 D / 49 R and have a staggering 70pt college competition rate. Meanwhile, historically black Protestants have a meager 24pt college rate, but regularly vote 80/20 Democrat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) Go into a red neighborhood, and the math changes No, it actually doesn't. Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. Sure, if this is the only thing you knew, there could be a Simpson's paradox situation, but we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone as one big group. Your "exceptions" can be true, and at the same time, are not evidence against the original claim. Even IF you found that, within EVERY group, education correlates with conservatism... it would just be Simpson's paradox, because we already know that, on the whole, education is correlated to liberal/leftist attitudes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) Within a Mormon community, I would wager we would still see that the most educated Mormons are also, ON AVERAGE, the most liberal/leftist Mormons. You're welcome to check. But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. we already know what the data looks like when we count everyone We know that we have an overall liberal voting demographic that is unevenly distributed across the country. But we also know that age, industry, ethnicity/culture, and region play bigger factors in your voting habits than degree of education. We can even see shifts in voting trends over time within the same voter cohort. The trend you're looking for is temporary at best, and highly contingent on the state, the school, and the field of study. When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being "educated" in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child) But we can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block. Mormons have more bachelor degrees than average: Yes. Mormons are more conservative than average: Yes. We can see very definitively that a higher-than-average rate of education does nothing to increase the partisan character of the voting block: No. That's not what this shows. The two facts, together, are not enough to show a correlation between education and conservatism or to show a lack of correlation between education and liberal/leftist attitudes. To make a claim about correlation, as you are trying to do, you have two options: Show a correlation or lack of correlation within this block, Show a correlation or lack of correlation between average education level and average political leanings, using voting blocks as data points. I have a perfect analogy: I claim that smoking will decrease your life expectancy. You claim that the smoking rate in the United States is 9.6%. The smoking rate in Japan is 16.4%. Life Expectancy in the United States is 79.8. Life Expectancy in Japan is 85.2. Therefore "we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country". No. That doesn't show that. Because if you look at data within Japan, you will still see a lower life expectancy among the people who smoke, and if you look at data globally, using countries as data points, you will also see lower life expectancy among the countries that smoke the most. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country When you take broad averages like this, you very often lose useful information. In this case, just being “educated” in the abstract carries a weak correlation to political beliefs. That's true, but unfortunately, once you started trying to create a more complex model, you started making mistakes. And you aren't even an idiot. Imagine your dumbest neighbors trying to make sense of this conversation. No. I start off by giving you one variable correlated with one other variable. Once someone understands that, THEN we can start talking about nuance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I have a perfect analogy What does Japan have that America lacks, which might give them better long term health outcomes and a higher life expectancy? Therefore “we can see very definitively that a higher rate of smoking does nothing to decrease the life expectancy of the country”. Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. If your diagnosis is "we need to cut cigarette use to save lives", but we're ignoring the very successful early medical interventions against cancer that save lives, then we've traded actual useful policy for This One Neat Trick that clearly doesn't deliver the intended results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) Not relative to a public universal health care system, no. I'm saying not at all. With public universal health care, without public universal health care... it does not matter. There is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. If your diagnosis is “we need to cut cigarette use to save lives”, Yes, that is a conclusion one could draw from this. but we’re ignoring the... For the purposes of discussing this correlation, it does not matter. If we have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. If we do not have universal health care, then cutting cigarette use will save lives. Conclusion: cutting cigarette use will save lives. That is true. No amount of discussion about unrelated third variables will make that not true. If a third variable makes the model better, go ahead and add a third variable. But if someone doesn't even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don't understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) With public universal health care, without public universal health care… it does not matter. It matters enormously. Literally the difference between surviving and not surviving. You know, the thing you're measuring for. But if someone doesn’t even understand the two-variable model, we should make sure they understand THAT model before we add even more stuff that they don’t understand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) It matters enormously. Not for the purpose of establishing whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy. Also that comic is saying that adding a third variable does not always make the model better. Also p-hacking is a thing. It's the opposite of what you're trying to establish, which is the existence of a third variable which improves the model. And once again, I will say that if you find two correlated variables confusing, adding a third variable is NOT going to help you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child) whether there is a negative correlation between smoking and life expectancy If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. That's the magic of modernization. The thing about education is that it's not apolitical. You can receive an education that encourages social proclivities and biases. Conservative states produce conservative leaning academic institutions, which yield a higher rate of conservative voters even as they reward these people with degrees. Going to BYU or Stanford or Princeton or Liberty will not turn you into a Liberal, pretty much by design. The Federalist Society is not turning out Democrats. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 5318008@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) If you have tools to mitigate the risk, then you eliminate the correlation. No, only if you eliminate the risk. Smoking is still negatively correlated with life expectancy in Japan. The correlation exists if you only look at the USA. It exists if you only look at Japan. It exists if you look at the global population. permalink fedilink source parent