Education, Not Income, Predicted Trump's Victory

Started by Shiranu, January 07, 2018, 07:33:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

omokuroi

Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2018, 07:31:24 PM
But because I am not a violent advocate for dwarf liberation (ala French Revolution) doesn't mean I am a fellow traveler .. of heightism.
To be fair, if you really don't like it when people are taller than you are, it's always an option to cut off their legs. It doesn't have to be the head.

trdsf

Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:54:44 PM
That is new to me, but it only suggests that they move left after they become a Supreme Court justice. There's still good evidence that 1) being in a position of advantage makes you more conservative (especially on economic issues), and 2) defense attorneys are far left, prosecutors are fairly left, low-level judges are fairly right, and high-level judges are far right... relative to the legal profession as a whole.
You can't make that assumption.  No data to support it, nor is it a reasonable extrapolation from the research shown.  You just want to try to justify your unsupported comment from before, and you're doing it by making up something whole cloth.

I showed you data, you show me yours.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan


Baruch

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

omokuroi

Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2018, 02:10:21 PM
Ideology trumps facts, for both parties ;-(
Eh, did I do something wrong?

If so, I'd love to hear about it. I do worry I'm a bit too committed to the "everyone is wrong" path and discarding things even when they're right.

(Though I wonder why justices become more leftist over time... Decreasing psychological salience of the successful rise to power over time spent in a position where power is held for life once gained? There's good evidence that lack of competition facilitates fairer treatment of people, so sitting on a bench where the only way off is to retire or die would probably be a good treatment for competitive anti-outgroup bias...)

trdsf

Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 12:37:52 PM
I'll just spit tons of relevant data at you, then.

Point 1:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/new-evidence-that-the-ric_b_7153396.html

http://www.occonnect.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16601

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X89900421

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.372/pdf

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/6524-study-estrogen-fuels-female-need-for-power-and-control

https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/high-estrogen-levels-make-women-more-attractive

https://jezebel.com/5950013/hot-or-not-why-conservative-women-are-prettier-than-liberal-ladies

I included some naive attempts at refutation which really just manage to support the point. You may notice.

Basically... uh, it's biology. Natch.


Point 2:

https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/2/277/2502548

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577378
With regard to point 1, only the very first link has any tenuous relevance.  The rest are about testosterone and estrogen -- got a problem you want to discuss here?  Sorry, I'm not a doctor.  Even the first link, that the wealthy tend Republican, undercuts the assertion that the wealthy are more conservative.  They trend more conservative on economic issues, not across the board, and are more socially liberal/libertarian than the poor and middle classes.

So, nice cherry-pick there.

With regard to point 2, neither of these addresses whether judges become more conservative, or are nowadays more conservative when appointed than the average judge used to be.

Your own original assertion:
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.
Not demonstrated.  Neither of these studies show that being made a judge makes you more conservative, only that judges are more conservative, and the reason for that is quite easy to see: the wholesale blocking of judicial appointments by the (Republican) Senate under President Obama, of which the case of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland was only the most egregious.  Now that they have one of their own in the White House, why, all of a sudden they have plenty of time to hold hearings and votes.


Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 12:37:52 PM
But yeah, "there's no data" because it's not data you like.
Wrong.  "there's no data" because you didn't fucking provide any when you made your assertion.  And when pushed, you provided irrelevance.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

omokuroi

Quote from: trdsf on January 17, 2018, 03:06:29 PM
blah blah blah
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Anyway.

"On economic issues!"

Not only did I mention that in the first place (I guess you just forgot?), but also economic issues are more important to partisan affiliation. Actually, if you look at Libertarians, you can see this--all evidence suggests most Libertarians are just as socially liberal as Democrats, but they tend to despise Democrats and think Republicans are the lesser evil. To the extent a lot of them, uh, vote Republican, or even join the party outright.

Also, all of the testosterone and estrogen articles stated at least one of 1) the hormones increase in response to social power/dominance competitions and increase yet further when you win, and 2) the hormones make you more conservative. Again.

If you can't infer that maybe showing multiple cases and multiple reasons for advantage = conservative should give pause to the unsupported assertion that the partisanship of judges is entirely deliberate (despite that the people in charge of appointing judges aren't nearly as biased toward the right as the judges are), then I might need to link you the article about highly intelligent people failing basic math when it contradicts their beliefs again.

trdsf

Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 03:21:13 PM
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
We haven't spoken in over 7 years because she equates atheism with alcoholism and demands that I attend church as a prerequisite for visiting.

Also, irrelevant -- although I'm getting used to that from you.  The fact is, you made your initial assertion without any fucking evidence, and then reiterated it without any fucking evidence when presented with evidence to the contrary of your assertion.

Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 03:21:13 PM
Anyway.

"On economic issues!"

Not only did I mention that in the first place (I guess you just forgot?), but also economic issues are more important to partisan affiliation. Actually, if you look at Libertarians, you can see this--all evidence suggests most Libertarians are just as socially liberal as Democrats, but they tend to despise Democrats and think Republicans are the lesser evil. To the extent a lot of them, uh, vote Republican, or even join the party outright.
No, in fact, you did not:
Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
It's unfortunate, but any Supreme Court is sort of a threat to progressive ideals. Research has been converging on the idea that being in a position of judicial power makes you more conservative, too.

No subconscious motivation to share or play nice if you hold almost all the cards already.
That was your entire post -- I have made no redactions of any sort.  No mention of economic issues or party affiliation, just judicial power.


Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
Also, all of the testosterone and estrogen articles stated at least one of 1) the hormones increase in response to social power/dominance competitions and increase yet further when you win, and 2) the hormones make you more conservative. Again.
Which has fuck-all to do with your assertion about judges unless you can point to a study that connects them.

Quote from: omokuroi on January 16, 2018, 01:21:12 PM
If you can't infer that maybe showing multiple cases and multiple reasons for advantage = conservative should give pause to the unsupported assertion that the partisanship of judges is entirely deliberate (despite that the people in charge of appointing judges aren't nearly as biased toward the right as the judges are), then I might need to link you the article about highly intelligent people failing basic math when it contradicts their beliefs again.
"Maybe" doesn't mean "is".  You are positing a connection without any study showing the connection exists.  There is a difference between 'assert' and 'demonstrate'.  No doubt this comes as a surprise to you.

And, quelle surprise, another bald assertion without data ("the people in charge of appointing judges aren't nearly as biased toward the right as the judges are"), and an ad hominem.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

omokuroi

Quote from: trdsf on January 17, 2018, 04:00:03 PM
an ad hominem.
How about this one, you fucking manchild.

You started spewing curses at me unprovoked, you fucking bet I'm going to react.

Learn some fucking civility and get your fucking testicles out of the goddamn equation and maybe we can have a motherfucking conversation.

Or would you prefer to scream incoherently at me some more because I don't fucking agree with every bullshit ideal you hold precious?

And yeah, count our fucking presidents, it turns out they're not exactly uniformly fucking Republican.

Baruch

Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 04:11:16 PM
How about this one, you fucking manchild.

You started spewing curses at me unprovoked, you fucking bet I'm going to react.

Learn some fucking civility and get your fucking testicles out of the goddamn equation and maybe we can have a motherfucking conversation.

Or would you prefer to scream incoherently at me some more because I don't fucking agree with every bullshit ideal you hold precious?

And yeah, count our fucking presidents, it turns out they're not exactly uniformly fucking Republican.

None of our Presidents were Che, so they are all Hitler ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2018, 06:28:04 PM
None of our Presidents were Che, so they are all Hitler ;-)

I refuse to believe that my PM, Justin, is not the bastard son of Che.

Left is Justin's supposed father, Pierre. Middle is Justin. Right is Che.


Baruch

Quote from: omokuroi on January 17, 2018, 02:49:42 PM
Eh, did I do something wrong?

If so, I'd love to hear about it. I do worry I'm a bit too committed to the "everyone is wrong" path and discarding things even when they're right.

(Though I wonder why justices become more leftist over time... Decreasing psychological salience of the successful rise to power over time spent in a position where power is held for life once gained? There's good evidence that lack of competition facilitates fairer treatment of people, so sitting on a bench where the only way off is to retire or die would probably be a good treatment for competitive anti-outgroup bias...)

I think you are both either projecting what you fear or what you hope for.  Hence the emotionalism and pseudo psychology.  Did anyone ever psychoanalyze Scalia?  Didn't think so.  Actual history says, the decisions lean toward conservative, relative to the avant guard opinion of the day.  That result is what the Founders intended ... all the action is in the House, the Senate is a nod to the States, the White House has to execute the will of Congress (not the President being a god-ling).  The courts are the ... hold up now, that is inconsistent with prior precedent!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on January 16, 2018, 12:36:39 PM
Gerrymandering had nothing to do with that, it was the Electoral College -- although one could make a case that the Electoral College represents a sort of national gerrymandering, I suppose.

Gerrymandering is what keeps the GOP in power in the House, and yes, that very much needs to be rooted out.  I just wish I felt better about the current Supreme Court tackling it.

Gerrymandering IS what warps the Electoral College.  The Gerrymandered districts control the State legislatures and that's what is measured in the Electoral College.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

trdsf

Quote from: Cavebear on January 18, 2018, 05:30:46 AM
Gerrymandering IS what warps the Electoral College.  The Gerrymandered districts control the State legislatures and that's what is measured in the Electoral College.
No, actually, outside of Maine and Nebraska, the actual congressional districts have nothing to do with it beyond the total number of them per state.  It doesn't matter how twisted the individual districts are because outside of those two exceptions, all states are winner-take-all without any regard to who's won each individual district.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Cavebear

Quote from: trdsf on January 18, 2018, 09:32:12 AM
No, actually, outside of Maine and Nebraska, the actual congressional districts have nothing to do with it beyond the total number of them per state.  It doesn't matter how twisted the individual districts are because outside of those two exceptions, all states are winner-take-all without any regard to who's won each individual district.

I deeply regret saying that you are in error.  I respect you very much. 

The Electoral College is number of House and Senate seats assigned to each State.  The States are divided into Representative Districts.  Each State has 2 Senators but varying numbers of Representatives.

The Gerrymandering does not affect Senators, being fixed at 2 per State.  Gerrymandering affects Representatives.  And The Electoral College mostly counts those Representatives.

It is the lines of the Representative Districts where all the problems exist.  I wish I could post a picture...  The gist is that a 60-40 State can be divided up for the 60% party to win all districts, just more than half, or none.  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-is-the-best-explanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/?utm_term=.b063b467189d)

Sorry for the long link. 

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!