Best Universities are Blue

More stats on patriotism

80% of the military comes from the red states. 60% come from towns or counties with populations less than 100,000. The second figure takes into account the fact that even the soldiers from blue states tend to come from the red counties of that state. Since the war started, recruiting is down in the blue states but up in the red. Red states have lower average unemployment than blue states so there goes they need a job theory.

Also, the statement that over 50% of the country is registered democrats is entirely void of factual basis. Even in blue state Illinois most registered voters do not have a preference listed. It is not required to list one and in fact most voters identify themselves as independant.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Universities are Blue

The problem with the Left, and the reason they cannot win an election is because they think of the Right as a bunch of "bible thumpers and backwoods country boys"

The left has a massive superiority complex. It is run by the Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore types that want nothing more to do with the "little guy" than to keep him in his place and convince him that only the exhaulted few can deliver him from his strife.

This is also true in academia. Many professors believe that their level of education puts them among the elites of the world. They strive to advance to the worlds most elite schools. The further up the list they ascend, the more elite they become.

I don't know that liberals are necessarily more educated, but the more educated tend to be liberals.

 

Check out the best places to live in America. Redder than Ted Kennedy's nose on St. Patrick's Day.

http://money.cnn.com/best/bplive/cities_table/

 

Speaking of idiotic theories. I'm not sure where you dredged up this data, but the differences in IQ's that you list are statistically equivalent to zero. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

What you've shown is that, given a large enough sample, the average IQ of the sample is statistically equivalent to 100. That's what IQ tests are supposed to show.

This is exactly the kind of demonstration that gives rise to the inside joke among statisticians, "if you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess."

 

Well, not really. There are a few towns on the list that I'm familiar with: Pleasanton, Santa Rosa, Danville, Livermore, and Fremont - all I'm pretty sure, are blue. In any case, I don't know of any sane people that would choose Livermore over San Francisco except for financial reasons.

Notice, too, part of their criteria: "In addition, the town had to be located no more than 60 miles from a major city. That ensures reasonable access art and culture resources."

Ah, now we're back to the urban centers that are primarily blue. In other words, if you want "culchah" you gotta be blue or near blue. If you want to live on the third fairway, and slowly perish in a quagmire of sterility, then go red. Simple.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Universities are Blue

Nah. The Democrats just didn't understand that their voter base has a significantly different, and often diametrically opposed value system that correlates to urban centers.

Dems should just ignore the wasteland and suburban sprawl victims and zero in on the people who are in the urban centers.

There are simply those of us who welcome difference and heterogeneity, and those of us who cherish sameness and homogeneity. We live in two different realities.

 

It was your suggestion that because the Times of London's top college picks are in blue states means that there is a higher degree of intelligence in the blue states, my stats.

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than to show that the general population in the blue states in no smarter than the general population in the red states.

I didn't "dredge up" data. Anyone can find the information with a simple internet search. Your just pissed because the data doesn't support the conclusion you THOUGHT you discovered.

In case your interested The information came from a corrected version of the hoax (posted 11/24) and retracted by the Economist magazine. The data comes from a variety of sources, but the summary can be viewed here.

http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm

 

This information has been exposed as a hoax, anyway.

http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-May2004.htm#38115.6465670139

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best Universities are Blue

Not my opinion, theirs. If there's one theme to the Democratic party, it's gotta be a sense of alienation and resulting grievance.

I think that it's obvious. Look at the Democratic coalition: Labor feels exploited by the bosses who they believe run things. Blacks feel victimized by the whites who they believe run things. Jews feel uneasy surrounded by so many Christians who they believe run things. Feminists resent the patriarchy that they believe runs things. Immigrant groups feel culturally estranged from the majority who they believe runs things. Adolescents feel alienated from the adult world which they believe runs things. The cultural avant-garde feels contempt for the bourgeois who they believe runs things. Gays feel rejected by the straights who they believe run things.

You sound kind of alienated and resentful yourslf.

I think that once again it's obvious that the symbols of patriotism are more in evidence in communities that vote Republican. That's where you find people proudly flying the flag. That's where you find the well-attended 4'th of July celebrations. The thng to notice is that the symbols of patriotism are symbols of belonging, of group identity.

Republicans don't gather together in opposition to, or in fear of, a system that they believe is run by people unlike themselves. Republicans identify with the system and they believe that those in charge are essentially the same as they are. (Even if it isn't really true, that's how they line up.) Businessmen see themselves as the backbone of the nation. The military sees itself as the armed force of the nation. The Protestant churches see themselves as expressing the faith of the nation. Families raising children see themselves as the future of the nation.

All of this shows up in different styles of politics.

Democrats muck-rake. They collect together and display social problems, and they demand deep and fundamental social change to make all the problems, and their own sense of alienation, go away. They believe that it's fundamentally immoral to feel comfortable while people are suffering. That doesn't stop Democrats from living in million-dollar Manhattan condos or view homes in the Hollywood Hills (or accepting cushy university tenure), as long as they pose as crusaders.

Republicans feel much more comfortable with their lives. They don't really feel any great desire to change anything dramatically. If they feel militancy, it's in order to protect what they feel identity with, rather than to overthrow what they don't.

Of course they admit that there are social problems, but the problems are just minor blemishes on a system that's fundamentally great, the best country in the world in fact. The crusading and muck-raking of the liberal press seems almost like disloyalty to Republicans, a never ending struggle to diminish everything decent and to spotlight everything sordid.

 

No, that is not correct. If you had bothered to follow my link or looked at your own, you would know that the numbers I posted are correct and verified. In fact, had you looked at any of the available links you find that almost all studies show that there is a negligible difference in average IQ with the exception of those states that are exceptionally poor.

I even stated they were corrections to the numbers posted as hoax in November; did you not even read the post.

The "hoax" numbers are listed below (the first 25).

Rank State AVG IQ
(1) Connecticut..................113
(2) Massachusetts.............111
(3) New Jersey..................111
(4) New York.....................109
(5) Rhode Island...............107
(6) Hawaii.........................106
(7) Maryland.....................105
(8) New Hampshire...........105
(9) Illinois..........................104
(10) Delaware...................103
(11) Minnesota..................102
(12) Vermont.....................102
(13) Washington...............102
(14) California...................101
(15) Pennsylvania.............101
(16) Maine........................100
(17) Virginia......................100
(18) Wisconsin..................100
(19) Colorado.....................99
(20) Iowa...........................99
(21) Michigan......................99
(22) Nevada.......................99
(23) Ohio............................99
(24) Oregon........................99
(25) Alaska.........................98

 

I still fail to see how IQ is relevant. The results you show still show that there are some very low IQ people in the red states.

I would not use IQ to show how stupid or not stupid red staters are; I would use a more lengthy, valid discourse on the subject such as the book "What's the Matter with Kansas"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805073396/qid=1101786111/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-3198061-4720158


You need a more in depth discussion as to why people would vote against their own economic interests.

I liken the blue state v. red state situation to that of battered wife....red states are still identifying with the oppressors...

 

I did NOT make the claim that people in red states were smarter than people in blue states. It was claimed that presence of top universities in blue states somehow indicated that the blue states were of higher intelligence. This led another to comment that Republicans kept their folks "dumbed-down".

I posted the information to show that there is little difference in the average IQs of most of the states, but if one wants to make a claim, those supporting Bush actually sport a slightly higher average IQ.

I was only disputing another claim.

If you want to start another thread we can debate the "What's the Matter with Kansas" lunacy. As a long time resident of the state, I find his conclusions highly lacking.

What I don't understand (and perhaps you can shed some light) is the fact that I support candidates who best align with my top priorities (abortion, national defense, marriage admendment, lower taxes) somehow makes me less intelligent.

Foolish as I am, I thought the chasms in ideaology were born of different priorities, different life experiences, and different goals NOT from lack of intelligence or understanding.

I have never thought liberals to be stupid (my oldest son is a liberal), they are simply driven by different priorities.

I never had nor will I ever understand the need for one person to insult the intelligence, understanding, or motives of another simply because they posess a different political ideaology.

As I tell my son, convince me that FOR ME, national health care is more important than lower taxes, that social progressive beliefs are somehow better than traditional beliefs, or that the right to terminate a pregnancy is of more value than the life, then I will most certainly vote democratic in the next election

 

And I meant to add.

Simply calling me stupid and uniformed is NOT the best method for changing my mind and certainly does not help you (not personally but leftists in general) make your case.

 

I can't argue with deeply religious people, anyway. We are starting from a base that is just alien.

Like Joe Simpson who wote "Touching the Void" says, to very roughly paraphrase: "what life is worth living if there is supposed to be one so much better waiting? I found myself with more desire to live because I am an atheist...I have only this life to look forward to so I make the best of it...no second chances."

 

This is exactly what I am saying. Your atheism and my Christianity are part of the fiber that drives our priorities in life; therefore, different issues filter to the top. It does not make one smarter, more informed, or more enlightened than the other; just motivated to action by different things.

This thread seems to be typical of the post-election debate. No discussion of the issues, no attempt to understand what motivates traditionlists, and certainly no credit for weighing the issues and making an informed decision.

If you voted for Bush you are a stupid, uniformed, intolerant, gay-bashing, loud-mouth Christian --- That has been the extent of the debate.

I am still left lacking an answer to this question.

If abortion (for example) is an important issue for me and I am driven by belief, conviction, history, or experience to support a candidate who is pro-life, I am "attempting to shove my religous beliefs down everyone's throat". However, if you believe a woman's right to choose is paramount and is an important plank in first admendment rights, you are simply more enlightened than I am. Are not both sides attempting to legislate a moral issue?

Aren't both sides trying to promote, support, and drive what is important to them in life?

 

I don't think that describes all Bush voters, but it certainly describes the person they voted for.

 

So much for blue state Harvard geniuses:

http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1104/news/yale_harvard_prank.html

 

If abortion is an important issue for you, and your are anti-abortion, then DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION.

By keeping others from having an abortion, you are, indeed, shoving your religous beliefs down everyone's throat.

 

These are thoughtful, insightful questions. I fall on the side of "live and let live", but the same position could be argued by an anti-abortion supporter...


While I have always believed that abortion is wrong, I also believe that I have no right to tell any woman what to do with her womb or its contents. I believe my position allows more self-governing...opening up options to those who do not believe what I believe.

I think the folks that believe as I do think your position is restricting; not just on abortion.

I have read many articles that talk about "cultural relativism" in negative terms and the need to assert a moral position in government in order to build a proper society. I am not a mental giant, and these discussions confuse me. How can a society profess to be open and free and yet be governed by morals as dictated by one religion?

Isn't it entirely possible to be a moral country without referring to the Bible specifically? Isn't it possible to know right from wrong without injecting religious dogma?

These are questions for which I just don't know the answers.

 

That's like saying "I don't rape women because I'm against it, but it's OK for anyone else to". Abortion, to Pro-Lifers is not necessarily a matter of religion and certainly not a matter of personal rights. It's a matter of right and wrong. The pro-life crowd believes abortion is murder, and as we all agree, murder is wrong.