The difference is education, not class

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Oct 18, 2021.

  1. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    10,418
    Location:
    Cambridge
    The question of how strong something is as a predictor is completely different to what is the causal relationship between things. It is always much harder to determine causality than correlation without active interventions. There would be expected to be a very complex multi directional thing going on, with income allowing education and education allowing income for example.
     
  2. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    21,169
    Sounds like class, but with the non-monetary things put in along with our nation-god Lucre.

    Now to explain the gender unbalance in higher education. We've managed to backtrack to 1970 on the disparity in college classes, and we're accelerating into the past. Seems like that may also be class.
     
  3. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    10,418
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Here (and in much of the rest of the world apparently) the news is that girls are continuing to extend their lead in outnumbering the boys. It is going the other way there?
     
  4. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    21,169
    Why would you think that?
     
  5. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    10,418
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Because here and in much of the world not as many women as men went to university in 1970.
     
  6. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    21,169
    The term was disparity. I thought that was the problem, not the specific preference of layout in genitals.
     
  7. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,481
    Location:
    UK
    The solution depends on what kind of disparity exists, how it manifests, and the factors relevant in how it develops. You were the one asking for an explanation, so naturally, people are going to want clarifications.

    You asked, specifically, to explain the "gender unbalance". This kinda means the "specific preference of layout" is important.
     
  8. Drakle

    Drakle Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,200
    Ah David Shor. I've been reading some of his stuff for a little while. He has a Twitter account with a fair bit of stuff (thought going through Twitter back logs can be a nightmare), a few articles and some podcast interviews, if you want to see him explain himself.

    Some of the discussion is a tad shallow in regards to what he is saying. Not sure if that is the article, as I can't access it.

    Essentially if you want to drill down even further, he thinks that education isn't even the metric at hand. Instead it is a proxy for the actual variable, which is 'Trust'. Trust in society, in institutions, in organisations, in media, etc. That Left-Liberal Parties are taking higher trust voters from right wing parties, as those parties become more and more detached from sense and basic reality. While Right wing parties are eating at the lower trust voter bases that used to vote for those left parties. And this isn't an American only issue, it is happening to variable degrees elsewhere.

    And Trust has been on a steady decline, which is why there is now a possible majority (or a big enough minority) for these delusional right wing parties that ask their voters to deny the evidence in front of their eyes.

    And by Trust, it doesn't mean being skeptical and knowledgable. It's being cynical. Because these people do trust some things. But the things they trust are brazen liars who tell them that everything is broken. Your Donald Trump's, your Fox News, a score of right wing grifters trolls and liars. You can show them evidence that they are lying to them, quite directly, and they won't care. The core reason being, is they think everybody is lying to them.

    And the thing is, a lot of the reason why societal trust is lower, is because of them. They break it, and it benefits them. Watergate lowered trust. So did 9/11 and the following invasions. Fox News lowers Trust and increases polarisation. Republican efforts to destroy education lowers trust. People who believe that Bush did 9/11 now worship Donald Trump and Q.

    So from 2012 to 2016-2020 was where people started noticing it, but it's been going on for a while. 2012 was just a lurch, because Obama according to Shor (who worked on the campaign, so he is a bit biased) stayed disciplined on appealing to lower trust voters, by emphasising economics and downplaying cultural issues and stuff in regards to race and sex.

    However I think he overstates this to a degree, because Romney is a vastly different candidate then Trump. A point which to be fair, he does make, and according to his inside campaign knowledge, was what they in the Obama campaign were hoping would be the candidate so it would turn the picture of the RNC into the business tyrant convention. Running ads about Romney the corporate raider who wanted to let Detriot and General Moters go under, take your healthcare, and destroy social security in order to cut taxes for the rich. Not a word of that is a lie, and the thing is, Mitt Romney would say all of that, even if he flip flopped around or danced around some of the more unpopular parts of his platform . He preferred talking about economics even unpopular economics, rather than red meat issues like railing against immigration. He even picked as VP, the economic focused Paul Ryan who in 2012 wanted to raise taxes on the non rich, and cut taxes for the rich, along with brazen austerity. But he got somewhat the worst of both worlds, because he also said stuff about self deportation, which riled up the pro immigration but didn't pull away enough of the anti immigration voters who went for Obama.

    Shor wants to wind back time to 2012 in regards to campaigning. Being a Democrat, a lot of his stuff is advise about message targeting and policy, since the people who are on campaigns (very young educated diverse people) are very different from the median voter (a middle aged white person with some or no university education). Most of it makes sense. But the issue is of course, is that you will never be running against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan again, it is going to be Donald Trump or some one like him.

    Education is a proxy, for trust, but also for a bundle of other attitudes, relating to race, sexism, etc. But the reason why Shor says proxy, is because people aren't a monolith and it's not exact. Because tracking the data between 2012-2016, people who were highly educated, but had conservative views on race and sex, swung to the right. The reason it is a proxy of course is that most people who come out of higher education are more more tolerant and cosmopolitan, even ones who don't do a single humanities related thing. Part of it is self selection bias, the youth is tilted towards left liberal parties by a lot, and those who want to be educated even more so. More of those accepted into Harvard in 2020 wanted to vote for the Greens candidate (who got less than Kanye in votes) than Donald Trump. The overwhelming majority if course was Biden. Conservatives now being actively hostile to higher education isn't going to help this self selection bias.

    But part of it is the experience of learning, knowing how to think and research, and living alongside lots of different people. If you went to university, and learnt how to research and think critically, why would you vote for the party that is lying to your face about basic facts?

    The reason why the proxy thing is important, is it isn't about making everybody go to university (that's silly). It's about thinking critically, being open to new experiences and new people, not xenophobic. It shouldn't be blind trust in institutions (many are terrible) but being aware of their biases, instead of latching onto a liar that's 'on your side'.

    So why it is happening around the world, but at different rates, is education and news sources. In the USA there is Fox News, in the UK there are all the tabloids and other Murdoch media, and in Australia the media is also heavily Murdoch dominated. They all have far worse education/trust polarisation than Canada and New Zealand, the other two major Anglosphere countries. It's still happening in this countries to a degree, because of the Internet. The expansion of Internet into areas has a proven impact on increasing polarisation. So people can still get it from social media, or online 'news' sites, or whatever.

    Social media companies have in their own reports, found that they design their system of what content gets shown to drive engagement, which is strongest with negative or sensational content. A majority of those who got into Qanon on Facebook, did so, because Facebook targeted obe of those groups to them.

    So in terms of longer term societal response, educating people to think critically is very important, regulating social media to not be actively toxic to society is important and finding a way to deal with these corrosively dishonest news sites is very important.
     
    Gori the Grey likes this.
  9. Joij21

    Joij21 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,393
    That's what happens when you have 40 years of failure after failure type leaders running your country. A simply cause and effect.
     
  10. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,101
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Part of it yes. Seeds planted in Vietnam War with the government lies and disillusioned veterans.
     
  11. Aiken_Drumn

    Aiken_Drumn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2021
    Messages:
    521
    Location:
    NES/FG/SF Activity:Arguing the toss
    We have been planting seeds since we discovered agriculture.

    Humans are weak and typically self serving, regardless of the timeline.
     
  12. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd You exist here

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,631
    Location:
    On the one spin
    You forgot...

    "more income correlates to more money"
    "more money correlates to more education"
     
  13. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,101
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Early 60s people didn't struggle to get vaccines and there was more bi partisan approach even into the 80's.

    Fox news has it's origins in the aftermath of Watergate.

    Reading a right wing policy announcement here from 1972 is very different to now.
     
    Drakle likes this.
  14. Joij21

    Joij21 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,393
    Yeah IDK, but I feel people trusted their government more back in those days. And they weren't really that educated per say, as most of the population was illiterate in ancient times. Religion is what kept the trust, with religion's erosion in recent decades it would explain the more recent distrust when combined with a series of bad leaders.

    In the past if a leader was bad, he could blame the gods and that was it, the people would trust that he had no responsibility. Now without any gods all failures are blamed on the leaders and government in general leading to a severe lack of trust.
     
  15. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,232
    It's also not an accurate one. It predicts outcomes we don't observe.

    Education certainly pushes leftist rationale, but lack of education does not imply rationale consistent with the right, at all. And even some very wealthy people are pretty leftist, so simply having money isn't an ideal proxy for who goes left/right either.

    I'm not sure what factors most strongly. Preference for empirical observation vs feelings? Envy? Shift of responsibility? Basic indoctrinated tribal allegiances? Genetics? Probably all of that and more, with money/education being poorly predictive factor (but still predictive in some capacity) as well.
     
  16. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd You exist here

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    20,631
    Location:
    On the one spin
    *in CinemaSins voice* Thaaaat's racist *ding* (see footnote)

    -----
    -I'm aware that others have made this implication. However I am much more willing to joke about it, coming from you, for reasons I hope are obvious.
     
  17. GinandTonic

    GinandTonic Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,512
    Odd. The reverse seems to be true in Europe. The more religious the country the less they seem to trust the gov. The less religious the country the more they seem to trust the gov. But as a confounding factor the quality of national governance in Europe seem to corelate with godlessness, excepting the UK.
     
  18. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,759
    Location:
    California
    And when there’s no education when there is the money these folks trend ignorant as f and cause problems. So education is a counterweight to the increased pressure to selfishness as you rise income classes.
     
  19. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    10,418
    Location:
    Cambridge
    This is a very good point, and it seems that the rule extends well beyond europe. I wonder how the UK manages to be such an outlier:


    Global Gallup Poll in 2009 research which asked "Is religion important in your daily life?"
    Spoiler Table :
    Rank Country/District Yes, important No, unimportant
    1 Estonia 16.00% 78.00%
    2 Sweden 17.00% 82.00%
    3 Denmark 19.00% 80.00%
    4 Czechia[a] 21.00% 75.00%
    5 Norway[a] 22.00% 78.00%
    6 Japan 24.00% 75.00%
    7 Hong Kong 24.00% 74.00%
    8 United Kingdom 27.00% 73.00%
    9 Finland[a] 28.00% 70.00%
    10 Vietnam 30.00% 69.00%
    11 France 30.00% 69.00%
    12 Australia[a] 32.00% 68.00%
    13 Netherlands[a] 33.00% 67.00%
    14 New Zealand[a] 33.00% 66.00%
    15 Belgium[a] 33.00% 58.00%
    16 Cuba[a] 34.00% 64.00%
    17 Bulgaria[a] 34.00% 62.00%
    18 Russia 34.00% 66.00%
    19 Belarus 34.00% 56.00%
    20 Luxembourg 39.00% 59.00%
    21 Azerbaijan 39.00% 53.00%
    22 Hungary 39.00% 58.00%
    23 Latvia 39.00% 58.00%
    24 Germany 40.00% 59.00%
    25 Uruguay 41.00% 59.00%
    26 Switzerland 41.00% 57.00%
    27 Canada 42.00% 57.00%
    28 Lithuania 42.00% 49.00%
    29 South Korea 43.00% 56.00%
    30 Taiwan 45.00% 54.00%
    31 Ukraine 46.00% 48.00%
    32 Slovenia 47.00% 52.00%
    33 Slovakia[a] 47.00% 52.00%
    34 Spain 49.00% 51.00%
    35 Albania 50.00% 49.00%
    36 Israel 51.00% 48.00%
    37 Kazakhstan 53.00% 48.00%
    38 Serbia 54.00% 44.00%
    39 Ireland 54.00% 46.00%
    40 Austria[a] 55.00% 43.00%
    41 Uzbekistan 59.00% 38.00%
    42 Belize[a] 62.00% 33.00%
    43 Argentina 65.00% 34.00%
    44 United States 69.00% 31.00%
    45 Nicaragua 70.00% 30.00%
    46 Croatia 70.00% 28.00%
    47 Chile 70.00% 29.00%
    48 Singapore 70.00% 29.00%
    49 Jamaica[a] 70.00% 30.00%
    50 Montenegro 71.00% 28.00%
    51 Greece 71.00% 28.00%
    52 Portugal[a] 72.00% 26.00%
    53 Italy 72.00% 25.00%
    54 Moldova 72.00% 19.00%
    55 Kyrgyzstan 72.00% 25.00%
    56 Iran[a] 73.00% 27.00%
    57 Mexico 73.00% 25.00%
    58 Poland 75.00% 19.00%
    60 Cyprus 75.00% 25.00%
    61 North Macedonia 76.00% 22.00%
    63 Botswana[a] 77.00% 23.00%
    64 Bosnia and Herzegovina 77.00% 21.00%
    65 Venezuela 79.00% 21.00%
    66 Costa Rica 79.00% 20.00%
    67 Armenia 79.00% 19.00%
    68 Turkmenistan 80.00% 18.00%
    69 Togo[a] 80.00% 13.00%
    70 Georgia 81.00% 16.00%
    71 Turkey 82.00% 15.00%
    72 Ecuador 82.00% 17.00%
    73 Colombia 83.00% 16.00%
    74 Peru 84.00% 14.00%
    75 Iraq 84.00% 11.00%
    76 Romania 84.00% 12.00%
    77 South Africa 85.00% 15.00%
    79 Tajikistan 85.00% 12.00%
    80 Haiti[a] 85.00% 12.00%
    81 Mozambique[a] 86.00% 14.00%
    82 Malta 86.00% 10.00%
    83 Brazil 87.00% 13.00%
    84 Dominican Republic 87.00% 13.00%
    85 Lebanon 87.00% 12.00%
    86 Zimbabwe 88.00% 12.00%
    87 Cote d'Ivoire 88.00% 12.00%
    88 Burkina Faso[a] 88.00% 12.00%
    89 Panama 88.00% 11.00%
    90 Angola[a] 88.00% 11.00%
    91 Guatemala 88.00% 9.00%
    92 Tanzania 89.00% 11.00%
    93 Bolivia 89.00% 10.00%
    94 Syria 89.00% 9.00%
    95 India 90.00% 10.00%
    96 United Arab Emirates 91.00% 8.00%
    97 Kuwait 91.00% 6.00%
    98 Namibia[a] 92.00% 9.00%
    99 Trinidad and Tobago[a] 92.00% 8.00%
    100 Paraguay 92.00% 8.00%
    101 Pakistan 92.00% 8.00%
    102 State of Palestine 93.00% 7.00%
    103 Sudan 93.00% 7.00%
    104 Uganda 93.00% 7.00%
    105 Madagascar[a] 93.00% 7.00%
    106 Benin[a] 93.00% 7.00%
    107 Nepal 93.00% 6.00%
    108 Tunisia 93.00% 5.00%
    109 Saudi Arabia 93.00% 4.00%
    110 Central African Republic[a] 94.00% 6.00%
    111 Kenya 94.00% 6.00%
    112 Liberia[a] 94.00% 6.00%
    113 Democratic Republic of the Congo 94.00% 5.00%
    114 Bahrain 94.00% 4.00%
    115 Ghana 95.00% 5.00%
    116 Zambia 95.00% 5.00%
    117 Qatar 95.00% 4.00%
    118 Algeria 95.00% 4.00%
    119 Chad 95.00% 5.00%
    120 Rwanda 95.00% 5.00%
    121 Republic of the Congo[a] 95.00% 5.00%
    122 Mali 95.00% 3.00%
    123 Philippines 96.00% 4.00%
    124 Cameroon 96.00% 4.00%
    125 Malaysia 96.00% 3.00%
    126 Nigeria 96.00% 3.00%
    127 Cambodia 96.00% 3.00%
    128 Senegal 96.00% 4.00%
    129 Jordan[a] 96.00% 4.00%
    130 Myanmar[a] 97.00% 3.00%
    131 Afghanistan 97.00% 3.00%
    132 Laos[a] 97.00% 3.00%
    133 Guinea[a] 97.00% 3.00%
    134 Morocco 97.00% 2.00%
    135 Egypt 97.00% 2.00%
    136 Comoros 97.00% 2.00%
    137 Thailand 97.00% 2.00%
    138 Burundi 98.00% 2.00%
    139 Djibouti 98.00% 2.00%
    140 Mauritania 98.00% 2.00%
    141 Malawi 99.00% 1.00%
    142 Indonesia 99.00% 1.00%
    143 Yemen 99.00% 1.00%
    144 Niger 100.00% 0.00%
    145 Somalia[a] 100.00% 0.00%
    146 Bangladesh 100.00% 0.00%
    147 Oman 100.00% 0.00%
    148 Sri Lanka 100.00% 0.00%
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,232
    Hehe. People see race where they want to see it I guess. Below is more so for people to get some context why I list it, because not everyone has read through all the old threads.

    "Genetics" implies more than "race" of course. WRT intelligence for example, genetic differentiation between individuals in any one race is higher than the differentiation between any two races (for any arbitrary definition of "race" that is large). When it comes to "genetics", our normal association of "race" doesn't align well, because populations did in fact develop differently between Spain, Russia, Nigeria, and Ethiopia etc. There are diseases where if you hear the diagnosis, you can predict that it is more likely to be had by white or black people. If you try to project that to the entire population of white or black people you'll fail, because they happen due to selective pressures in specific regions/environments. Having dark skin doesn't make you resistant to malaria, having ancestry in the malaria belt does. In that case, "genetics" maps to "ancestral regionist" rather than "racist". In the context of favoring one party, experiences like health issues or perception of unfairness can certainly color one's preferences/incentives. Enough that it must matter, at least a little bit, in whether someone ultimately leans left or right.

    More broadly, when considering "nature" and "nurture" in development, if anybody thinks either one isn't significant, that person is wrong :p.
     

Share This Page