A Gallup poll of over 4000 Americans indicates that Republicans have significantly better mental health than their Democratic counterparts.
Various statistical perspectives are graphed as well, all showing Republicans as being significantly healthier. Gallup’s key conclusions:
Previous analysis (see Related Items) shows that a number of variables are related to self-reported mental health — including, in particular, income. Because Republicans have on average higher incomes than independents or Democrats, part of the explanation for the relationship between being a Republican and having better mental health is a result of this underlying factor. The same is true for several other variables.
But the key finding of the analyses presented here is that being a Republican appears to have an independent relationship on positive mental health above and beyond what can be explained by these types of demographic and lifestyle variables. The exact explanation for this persistent relationship — as noted — is unclear.
So what does this mean exactly?
Correlation is no proof of causation, of course. The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel).
In a way I’m surprised. At first blush I wouldn’t have expected such a large gap between Republicans and Democrats. But I have an idea what’s behind it.
On average Republicans are more conservative than Democrats, obviously, and to me that’s a significant factor. After all, it must be quite emotionally taxing to fervently believe in illogical causes like bans on animal fur coats, nuclear power, and the death penalty while supporting unrestricted access to abortion, illegal immigration, and wealth redistribution.
Ironically, it’s not hard to believe in these ideas - at first. After all, who wouldn’t want to feel good about themselves and live in harmony with others and nature while having everything we need provided for us through the efforts of others? Sadly, such an idyllic state of existence is not sustainable and I think many liberals subconsciously realize this even as they stridently push the anti-establishment, anti-religion, anti-freedom agenda they love so much on the rest of us.
Yet the truth catches up to them in the end. I’d suggest that the mental health issues the Gallup poll hints at manifest themselves in liberals over time as they live with the subtle tension caused by the contradictions between the purity of the unrealized, untenable, and unattainable objectives that are critical to their ideology and the harsh, inescapable reality that liberalism’s central ideal of moral relativity is utterly wrong, that there are absolutes in the world, and that their intellect is insufficient to understand to the truth that surrounds them.
Disappointments, following after the failure of grand dreams that, unknown to the architect, were built on a faulty foundation, must inevitably take their toll.
h/t memeorandum
They had this posted at Stubborn Facts too. Mostly as a joke. I only hope you’re joking too.
But maybe not. As I’ve pointed out previously, the level of Democrat-bashing has been increasing around here as the primary season draws near.
Perhaps it’s time to take a bit of a vacation until this unfortunate tendency starts to fade….
simple personal observation:
The less intelligent people are happier ones.
The requirements to life are much more simpler and primitive.
In general. Don’t want to offend anybody…
I like the “cognitive dissonance” interpretation, marc.
“animal fur coats, nuclear power, and the death penalty while supporting unrestricted access to abortion, illegal immigration, and wealth redistribution. ”
Animals get tortured, people get killed with painful and flawed injections after racial distribution no matter the severity of the crime, democrats in general DO NOT allow abortion without time limits. This can not have been written by a man my senior. No way.
The level of taxation is another matter, and I am for lower taxes and social programs that act effectively and in small doses. I am also against uncontrolled and unregulated immigration unless in times of war/genocide etc.
But hey, if you’ve got stats showing that you’ve summarized it all then I’ll be more impresed.
I think you lmay have looked at the causation all wrong as well just so you could work in your contemptuous armchair sociology - democrats/lefties generally act on negativity, seeing bad things, (over)appreciating problems, noticing imperfections and injustice and believing in the infallibility and unmeritocratic effect of mores, traditions and other systems. Hence they become democrats.
Those who are satisfied/less capable of sympathy/egoistic (I do not find egoism a bad trait, au contraire)/traditional/authoritarian/skeptics/dozens upon dozens of reasons which I cannot list feel the need to either slow the change, solidify the way things are or just counter the change. Hence they become republicans.
“Sadly, such an idyllic state of existence is not sustainable and I think many liberals subconsciously realize this even as they stridently push the anti-establishment, anti-religion, anti-freedom agenda they love so much on the rest of us. ”
You tell me that when your party gives back habeas corpus to the people and takes away the executive loopholes they tore up in the first place. Tell me that when they express concern for the coercion, manipulation and peer pressure that is used to turn army recruits into evangelicals. Tell me that when they respect the environment and economic situation their children will inherit.
“Disappointments, following after the failure of grand dreams that, unknown to the architect, were built on a faulty foundation, must inevitably take their toll.”
So what is keeping republicans from falling into depression now that Iraq turned out to be a “struggle for break even” affair and Afghanistan turned out to be a waste of money and a good cause? A mixture of faith and sheer close-mindedness maybe? Hey who am I to speculate - I wouldn’t want to prattle carelessly about the inner workings of people I’ve never met.
Edit by MvdG: don’t leave comments like that Xel. Do it again and you’re banned.
I would also like to point out that a human goes through different stages and I do not believe one matures or becomes more attuned to something just out of progressing in age.
See, as one goes through younger periods of life more options are open, yet one feels that the freedom is not taken care of, and you feel that if the possibilities are so great then why isn’t more done? Why aren’t gays allowed in the military? Why has christians been allowed to dictate something som mindlessly selfish, regressive and cowardly? Etc.
But as one grows old and becomes preoccupied with children and family and more personal stuff, you feel that “everything turned out OK” and you build your own world around you, which you feel is threatened by change.
So as one enters a comfortable stage the more republican positions come into the picture as well.
So once again I think that these numbers can mean whatever. My theory (which is just as plausible as Marc’s) is that at a young age one feels slightly too much frustration, while at an older age one feels slightly too little.
Wow, there’s this guy on TMV who would love you Marc. He goes by the handle of DLS, this is just his sort of stuff, though he has a great sense of humor to boot, something I see totally lacking here. Feel free to inform me that I’m an idiot if this is really just very subtle irony or tongue in cheek. It would relieve me to no end to know that you don’t really MEAN the whole of that post.
Look I can do it too! Conservatives are more happy because no one is more happy than the town idiot. Ignorance is bliss, after all, and if you’re the sort who still thinks that we found WMDs, that there’s a “war on Christmas” and that the Geneva conventions are some pinko conspiracy (while being totally unable to even locate the approximate area where Geneva is located), then I can easily see why you might be just as happy as can be, not living in the real world can do that.
Well, that was easy. Do I believe what I just said? No, of course not, only a small minority of real people probably fit such a distorted stereotype. Sadly, I think you really DO mean what you’ve just said. This just might get my comment deleted, but quite frankly this post is in conservative what many of Shaun Mullens posts are in liberal.
Edit: we don’t want that kind of discussions. The person you quoted will be banned immediately if he ever leaves a similar comment again.
Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The answer is so simple. Republicans only THINK they have excellent mental health. The reality is most of them are in extreme denial. Democrats are more aware of their shortcomings & are usually more honest about them.
Ya see your own denial yet? The survey measures only their opinions of their own mental health., not actual mental health, as you so poorly report. Like I said, denial . . .
Are you really sure you want to go down that path? It would ignore scores of studies of positive mental attitude vs negative mental attitude.
But hey - whatever floats your little boat.
I see now that if you look at the tags conservatives are spelled “cosnervatives”, which made my day.
Anyway, who is happier than the town idiot? Yeah, that’s insulting and generalizing too but hey why not?
I see many people have trouble separating the concepts of mental health and happiness. They are not the same thing.
Tully, the fact remains that whether we are talking about mental health or happiness, the post remains some of the most bigoted, stereotypical stuff I’ve ever seen on this blog. It’s bad even for marc’s usual liberals=bad, conservatives=good standard. Again, leaving the possibility that this is just a subtle joke I’m not getting, it’s pure prejudice. I’ve seen stuff like this on Little Green Footballs and also (the other way around) on AmericaBLOG, but I don’t go there expecting rationality and moderation, as I do here.
“Again, leaving the possibility that this is just a subtle joke I’m not getting, it’s pure prejudice. I’ve seen stuff like this on Little Green Footballs and also (the other way around) on AmericaBLOG, but I don’t go there expecting rationality and moderation, as I do here.”
Seconded. I’ve once pointed out when I’ve agreed with Moore before but most of the time he gives me no more food for thought or sensible information than a certain namesake of his.
what I find interesting is that Marc is attacked for pointing out that according to a study Republicans are more mentally healthy than Democrats. Argue all you want, those are the facts. The question than is, why is that so? Frankly, we can’t say much about that, except for what the article states: Republicans earn more money on average and more money results, on average, in a better mental health (/ less problems).
To call that insulting is utterly ridiculous.
The results are crystal clear: Republicans are mentally more healthy than Democrats. Now we can ask, what’s the cause for that. Obviously, Marc then proceeded to give an explanation I can’t possibly agree with.
That’s shear nonsense in my humble opinion.
I’d say look at two things:
- the money they make
- Democrats are often minorities and people who are dependent on the government. Basically, I’d say, people who aren’t healthy in one way or another tend to vote for the Democrats. The ‘weaker’ in society as we say in the Netherlands. That’s not because of their political views, that’s because - well, you’ve got to look at the private life of each and every individual and that’s a bit above my blogging capacities. Anyway, these people want the government to help them. Democrats agree, thus they vote for the Democratic Party.
And yes, that means that if there were no weak people in society the DP wouldn’t exist.
on the other hand, if there were no ‘weak’ people, we wouldn’t need much of a government at all.
Ooooo, so nasty. A study shows that Republicans consider themselves mentally healthy more often than Democrats consider themselves mentally healthy. What would we expect next?
Why, Democrats like I presume? Tom to be howling that Republicans are STUPID, of course.
I, for one, don’t find the results of the study surprising, even though some of you obviously do. I’m sure that Saschal doesn’t want to offend anybody by accusing Republicans of being stupid. Who could possibly be offended by that?
Xel says Republicans are ‘less capable of sympathy’, ‘egotistic’ and ‘authoritarian’.
Lynx repeats that Republicans are idiots, bob says they are in denial, and Xel agrees that they are idiots.
Now, Lynx posts a follows up
comment declaring this to be “some of the most bigoted, stereotypical stuff I’ve ever seen on this blog”. Xel agrees with him.
You know what? So do I. But I don’t think it’s Marc exhibiting the bigotry and sterotyping.
Sorry, Tom, that wasn’t you. That should’ve read Saschal. I apologize.
If you leave comments like that, you definitely lose the highground you had.
Let me put this clear, I think the post is over the line and worded too harshly. I didn’t read it until this morning. When I did, it didn’t make me happy.
On the other hand, some of the comments don’t make me happy either. There’s enough blame here to go around so I suggest that everyone calms the heck down.
You can disagree and you can do so passionately, but it’s better to send an e-mail in such a case and to remain calm in the comment section.
Well, that’s perhaps the silliest explanation I’ve seen all day.
Lastly, although I believe that this post was over the line and although we don’t usually publish posts like that, I get a bit annoyed by the comments attacking Marc personally, and saying he shouldn’t write for the Gazette. I decide about that, and I believe that Marc adds very to this blog. His posts are usually well though out and, quite simply, great reads. One over-the-top post doesn’t change that.
So: stop attacking Marc. This one was over-the-line, it won’t happen again, moderate your tone because I’m not allowing people to offend Republicans and / or Marc.
No Michael… the study shows that Republicans THINK they are more mentally healthy than Democrats THINK they are.. Gads where’s the comprehension regarding this study?
Michael, you’ve misunderstood the point of my entire comment. Let me lay it out for you:
1. I do not object to the veracity of the study in itself. I also do not consider it insulting. That’s not what I object to. I object to the speculation Marc embarked on afterwards, that you yourself called “sheer nonsense”, which WAS insulting and prejudiced.
2. The entire paragraph you quote me on is follow by this:
I wasn’t offering my own serious rebuttal to Marc’s “arguments” I was showing how easy it is to take a fact like the result in the study and twist it into an unreasonable attack on “the other side”. Mine WAS tongue in cheek, but Marc’s, so far as I’m aware, was not.
I hope that clears things up.
PS: My above comment counts for you as well. I EXPLICITLY SAID that I did NOT subscribe to the “justification” for the study I wrote down but was merely showing it as an example of how two can play at the ridiculous stereotype game.
I actually thought it was a bit overkill to explain it, since I already said “look, I can do it too!” which is indicative that I wasn’t being serious in what followed. Clearly, I was wrong. Go back and read the comment again, and you’ll find the disclaimer.
Great, I direct a comment at someone, and then fail to say who. Number 20 is directed at Tap. Sorry ’bout that.
“Lynx repeats that Republicans are idiots, bob says they are in denial, and Xel agrees that they are idiots.”
That was a jest over the effects and implications of taking a study and adding BS speculation to rub off credibility from the study itself and make uncivil pokes at people you’ve never met. It was not supposed to be attacking anything except for what it was an exaggeration of.
“Xel says Republicans are ‘less capable of sympathy’, ‘egotistic’ and ‘authoritarian’.”
So you argue that egoism is a bad trait, which I did not (”au contraire”) and you conveniently forget that I said that there are plenty other reasons. Mmhm. But if you need a spot of outrage I can be as uncivil and insulting as you wish.
“Now, Lynx posts a follows up
comment declaring this to be “some of the most bigoted, stereotypical stuff I’ve ever seen on this blog”. Xel agrees with him.”
Moore was completely without moderation or even basic irony. He was fram from “extreme” but in comparison to what this blog usually serves it was pretty darn bad - justifying that part of Lynx’s comment. I said explicitly that there are many reasons for being a republican. I was joking when I used the word “idiot”. I can see how your point is built but it ain’t there.
“I get a bit annoyed by the comments attacking Marc personally, and saying he shouldn’t write for the Gazette.”
Saying some writing isn’t qualified for a venue of speech != Attacking the author personally.
“His posts are usually well though out and, quite simply, great reads. One over-the-top post doesn’t change that.”
Well when the rest is arguably quite *close* to the top…
“I wasn’t offering my own serious rebuttal to Marc’s “arguments” I was showing how easy it is to take a fact like the result in the study and twist it into an unreasonable attack on “the other side”. Mine WAS tongue in cheek, but Marc’s, so far as I’m aware, was not. ”
See, Tap: No reason to jump to conclusions.
I offered my own speculation which portrayed republicans as good and bad in some ways, doing the same for democrats and not stating that either had the best approach or mentality. When I was joking, I thought I made it clear that I was.
I’m a little surprised no one linked back to the source at Gallup.
But it’s so much more fun to misrepresent what it actually says, and use it to walk your personal political demons around the block a bit.
Excuse me, but I did read the study & also used a quote directly from it as my lead. Throughout the study, the results are clearly stated as self perceptions of levels of mental Health. Yet the study itself, & Marc’s comments, claim Republicans have a higher level of actual mental health w/o any material presented to back up this claim. Such a correlation simply is not supported. If this study, as written, had been submitted as an undergraduate level assignment, the authors would have been given a poor or failing grade for this reason.
This post WAS over the top in its inaccuracies & conclusions. I saw it as a slur against Democrats in general - the spin was Democrats are mentally imbalanced much more so than Republicans. Many of us to the left of the far right wing in politics are sick & tired by the constant bombardment of this kind of slander. Edited by MvdG. Lets not misrepresent what I said and how I dealt with this controversy. I think I made clear that I disapprove of the way the post was worded. At the same time, however, I also disagree with the tone of some of the comments. If you read a post that crosses the line, which can happen sometimes, you shouldn’t fight fire with fire.
To be fair, my response was a little harsh. A more accurate comment would be that it appears there are more Republicans in denial about their mental health status than Democrats or independents. IMO, almost anyone who rates their mental health as excellent is in denial. I base that on the idea that the more aware a person is of their strengths & their weaknesses, the better mental health they actually possess. At least, before I became aware of my own, the more sane I thought I was. And back then in that dark age of my life, I would always tell you how wonderful I felt, never daring expose my weaknesses to you so you could take advantage of me.
I see you didn’t read my comment, bob. LINK LINK LINK. Short word, four letters. As in, LINKED in my previous comment.
You may resume walking things around the block.
Republicans may have better mental health, but Democrats are more exciting in bed. (less repressed, I guess)That’s worth a little neurosis, lol!
It appears that the right side of the room don’t even want to accept the fact that poll this post is based on is about what people THINK their mental health is not their ACTUALLY state of mind… Then it got twisted into which side was more stupid then the other.
The 12/1/07 issue of U.S.News & World Report reports on Education in the United States, let’s try another approach.
Best High Schools… Blue.
100 Gold Medal High Schools… Blue.
There are also reports on:
* America’s Best Colleges… Blue.
* America’s Best Graduate Schools… Blue.
* Best Hospitals 2007… Blue.
(sub-links removed to allow post… follow U.S.News link to find.)
Blue states (read democrat) are head and shoulders above the red states (read republican) in every category of excellence in education and providing their children a better chance to succeed.
The only category where red states did as well as blue states was “Best Places to Retire”… But even then:
Lawrence, Kansas - Red
“It’s a Democratic stalwart in a state otherwise solidly Republican, the seat of the only county to vote against the state’s ban on same-sex marriages.”
Fayetteville, Arkansas - Red
“But people let you live the way you want to live,” says Haines, a retired teacher who last lived in Houston. “I think it helps that there is a university here.”
Here’s two video LINKS (for Tully):
The first is to the #1 High School in the United States… Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County, Va.
Look at and listen to the kids from “TJ” High and tell me whether you think they’re getting a liberal or conservative education.
The second is a discussion on methodology and how this report came into being for those wanting to claim a biased report.
————————–
Hell… If the red state folks here weren’t so happy with the predicament they’re in I’d feel real bad for them. But I guess it’s best to leave well enough along.
“Hell… If the red state folks here weren’t so happy with the predicament they’re in I’d feel real bad for them. But I guess it’s best to leave well enough along.”
You give some good info in that comment but don’t meet wide generalizations with wide generalizations.
Gee, Monty. Four of the top ten high schools in the country are in Florida, deep in the reddest part of this red state. Of course, your little off-the-cuff silliness is recognized as more of the self-congratulatory mindset of loo-zers set in their bubble of condescension where they neurotically and unhappily deride their moral and cultural betters.
My daughter went to a private school in Florida that is better than Dreyfoos in Palm Beach. Pinecrest is also better. Both St. Andrews & Pinecrest get about ten percent of their grads into Ivy League schools and about half into the top-fifty universities.
And they both have RED CURRICULA that teach actual history and literature, not the NEA & other teachers’ union twaddle.
“Of course, your little off-the-cuff silliness is recognized as more of the self-congratulatory mindset of loo-zers set in their bubble of condescension where they neurotically and unhappily deride their moral and cultural betters.”
Yes yes more generalizations!
“Pinecrest is also better. Both St. Andrews & Pinecrest get about ten percent of their grads into Ivy League schools and about half into the top-fifty universities.”
Those are two whole anecdotes!
“And they both have RED CURRICULA that teach actual history and literature, not the NEA & other teachers’ union twaddle.”
Because those are the only factors, this invisible study next to me shows.
Okay, neither dave nor Monty have themselves covered, it seems.
Ah, yes, Xel. Proving a negative is impossible. But my anecdotes DO have the merit of being true. Monty is working off a video.
Seems you won’t believe factual “anecdotes” if they don’t conform to your deeply-held prejudices.
Liberals do resort to supercilious condescension when their pandemic self-hatred is exposed by a Gallup poll. And like a bizarre “blogger” who attacks credentials named Cernig when his lies and distortions are quietly exposed, the worst enemy of liberals is a recitation of facts, which they only acknowledge if the facts support their positions, an occurrence that happens very infrequently, given their penchant for distortions based on their ideology.
The old “anecdotal evidence kicks the data based studies butt” ploy huh dave?
I’ll start by admitting my parting shot was uncalled for BUT the overall results of the U.S. News study DOES show that MOST of the top tier education is being taught in the blue (liberal) states.
I’m glad you’ve got some great schools in Florida however you inference that “Four of the top ten high schools in the country are in Florida, deep in the reddest part of this red state.” is simply not correct.
Heres “map of the county-by-county vote in the 2004 presidential election“ that paints quite a different picture.
How about you actually watch the video on the studies methodology and then we start this debate over… keeping it civil next time?
“Ah, yes, Xel. Proving a negative is impossible.”
I do not know what you mean here. But no matter; unfortunately what I’ve read after this is understood in its message.
“But my anecdotes DO have the merit of being true. Monty is working off a video.”
He *partially* worked of a video. Look again.
“Seems you won’t believe factual “anecdotes” if they don’t conform to your deeply-held prejudices.”
Seems you read other people’s comments the way the anti-gay-rights christians and pro-lifers read the bible.
“Liberals do resort to supercilious condescension when their pandemic self-hatred is exposed by a Gallup poll.”
First, I’ve kept myself above Moore’s level in this comments section, secondly I’ve pointed out when Lynx and Monty took the easy road - even when I was “supposed” to knee-jerk a complete agreement with everything they said, being a liberal -, thirdly I haven’t used generalizations and moderated my own speculation, never stating which people are “better” or which are “generally wrong”.
You, much like these apparently very plentiful yet for your argument non-referenced “liberals” (how many do we need here anyway?), have failed on one or more of these counts so be a bit more circumspect in your selection when you, eh, arrange verbal lexemes in the future.
“And like a bizarre “blogger” who attacks credentials named Cernig when his lies and distortions are quietly exposed, the worst enemy of liberals is a recitation of facts”
Keep me out of your personal spats and stop assuming people know your points of self-martyrizing references.
As for your somewhat demagogic last point I do not see why another generalization is justified, especially since I can find plenty anecdotes showing popular conservatives’ articles turning into verbose bumf the minute some reality is added. See Joe Klein for one example of thousands. So your pique can strike pundits, speakers and commenters of all fields, and what matters is which camp is most attuned with reality and your kind of bluntness doesn’t persuade and does not help in answering such questions.
“which they only acknowledge if the facts support their positions, an occurrence that happens very infrequently, given their penchant for distortions based on their ideology.”
Well, see above. Also, see the intertrons. Also, see sooty kitchenwares.
MontyP, your generalization is sophomoric, the schools I cite are simply run on conservative principles, and of course, the methodology excludes or underrates schools with a religious orientation, leaving out some of the best schools in Florida, for example. And the following DOES show that MOST of the top tier education is being taught in the blue (liberal) states is a typical specimen of the illogic prevalent among lefty thinkers. There are a lot of conservative schools in blue zones and vice verse. Dreyfoos in West Palm Beach is very conservative in a blue part of FL.
You don’t seem to be able to avoid little debate tricks and factitious half-truths in your avid pursuit of wrong-head appearing to be correct.
You’d be suitable for a nanny-state administrator, but leave out the second-rate generalizations. And “you inference” isn’t an acceptable grammatical term. Watch those things if you’re going to be talking about education. It looks very bad.
And lose the supercilious tone.
As daveinboca appears to be incapable of civil debate there is no reason for me to waste more time trying to engage in any discussion with him.
“lose the supercilious tone.” Who’s torturing who here bucko?
“As daveinboca appears to be incapable of civil debate there is no reason for me to waste more time trying to engage in any discussion with him.”
Drat.
“and of course, the methodology excludes or underrates schools with a religious orientation”
How good can a school be when it orientates in a world that per definition isn’t supposed to be empirical and can dictate its own logic?
Whew, two featherweights weigh in with the usual twaddle signifying nothing.
The lobical truth of this sentence “There are a lot of conservative schools in blue zones and vice verse. Dreyfoos in West Palm Beach is very conservative in a blue part of FL.” is a perfect spanking of Monty’s little bottom, to which he responds in a tiny tantrum “incapable of debate” which in his cocoon means “he whupped my ass & I’d better scuttle under the nearest rock.”
Yeh, Monty, keep believing you ARE capable of debate. You are just a sophomoric silly-boy when it comes to serious examination of broad issues like education.
Xel fits the description to, though like a broken clock, he occasionally fetches up on the right side of issues. Just not this one. The sentence“a world that per definition isn’t supposed to be empirical and can dictate its own logic” simply demonstrates the narrowness of Xel’s presumptions, which obviously also show he never had a Jesuit education, which as Bill Clinton and Charles de Gaulle, and of course Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes, attested is the best in the known universe.
I doubt if Xel & Monty ever heard of those gentlemen.
Some worship Derrida, even though they don’t know the name.
ROFLMAO at Monty’s complete inability to assess the legitimacy of pseudo-statistical methodology. EX: Thomas Jefferson High School, a “highly selective” school. When you pick the students admitted, you can of course help pre-determine the performance of the school. Wow, that’s a shocker! Ya mean that if I only let Olympic-class athletes on the team, my team will be better than one that has to draw from a fixed-size sample of the general population?
Here’s another surprise–hospitals that only admit healthy people have lower mortality rates!
And another one that’ll really floor you. Schools that have separate programs for the learning disabled have higher aggregate test scores in the remainder of the student population. Who would ever have beleived it?
And now one that will REALLY amaze you. Public schools in wealthy urban areas have fewer disadvantaged students, fewer learning disabled students, much higher budgets, and draw from elementary and middle schools that enjoy those same advantages.
Next you’ll be telling us that students in honors and IB programs have better AP/ACT test scores than those in remedial education classes.
It is to laugh.
“The sentence“a world that per definition isn’t supposed to be empirical and can dictate its own logic” simply demonstrates the narrowness of Xel’s presumptions, which obviously also show he never had a Jesuit education, which as Bill Clinton and Charles de Gaulle, and of course Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes, attested is the best in the known universe.”
Lessee… There have been a bunch of sane people throughout the ages, and now the regards of four intelligent but flawed men is supposed to make me fawn or something? Listen, religious thinking, presupposing the religious (which in turn presupposes entities and events that will never be verified scientifically yet arguments truth based on faith alone) is by definition averse to reality and what demands humans must place on themselves in order to survive in it. There is nothing narrow here - the concept of religion contains a description that makes it improper for our kind of organism to base decisions on.
“Public schools in wealthy urban areas have fewer disadvantaged students, fewer learning disabled students, much higher budgets, and draw from elementary and middle schools that enjoy those same advantages. ”
Well, don’t good schools get more money after having proved their worth? Urban areas are usually blue as well, quite regardless of state. Also, only schools that are already good can afford to select the better students and feel attractive to parents in the first place. So it seems you just made and egg out of a chicken…Um, wait. No, you made an egg out of an omelette.
Well, don’t good schools get more money after having proved their worth? Urban areas are usually blue as well, quite regardless of state. Also, only schools that are already good can afford to select the better students and feel attractive to parents in the first place. So it seems you just made and egg out of a chicken…Um, wait. No, you made an egg out of an omelette.
BS, xel. What bizarre evasionary logic you employ there. I’m pointing out that Monty’s claims are empirically irrelevant in regard to the point he THINKS he’s making. He thinks he’s showing political orientation as a causative in school excellence, but close examination of the study cited only shows elitist exclusionism as a driver that disqualifies the claim, and the study shows nothing in particular about the style (liberal versus conservative, itself an undefined criteria) of education being used. If you go down lower in the rankings, you’ll find that the bulk of upper-tier schools cited using the criteria are overwhelmingly found in two general groupings–wealthy suburban enclaves, and rural areas. Wealthy suburban areas are NOT overwhelmingly “blue,” and rural areas are decidedly not.
The correct metric for assessment of schools is the entire overall district results in the system after adjusting for the unique circumstances of each district, not cherry-picked individual select schools. And similar-size districts should be compared–it’s not apples and oranges to compare a 1K student district to a 10K student district to a 100K student district.
But a complete deconstruction is not necessary, as even a cursory glance shows that the evidence as offered is not supportive of the claim as offered. And offering it is indicative of a base lack of comprehension of the proper assessment of methodological evidence.
Well, don’t good schools get more money after having proved their worth?
That one deserves separate addressing. The answer is that in the United States, awarding disporportionate public funding to public schools on the basis of superior performance has been ruled to be discriminatory, and will quickly result in lawsuits from lower-performing districts (rightly) claiming to have been shorted, thus further depressing their resources. Suits which they will win. It actually works the other way around–lower-performing districts that can show their lower performance is directly related to measurable social factors are the ones that get more money.
Well, to continue my analogy - egg on my face, apparently.
See dave; I have no problem being dismissed as false by anyone as long as they are actually pertinent/write as if they are actually interested in argumentation.
Well, as examples won’t impress Xel, I guess a more legalistic argument is the way to go, though whenever you get debunked in a spectacular fashion as Xel just was, you have to come back with some sort of disclaimer.
Xel, one way or another, you and Monty are simply wrong. Whether I’m “pertinent” or “actually interested in argumentation” isn’t as important as the fact that you are factually, contextually, and quite off-base.
But it’s a free country, and it’s more than just egg on that face.
“But it’s a free country, and it’s more than just egg on that face.”
Was that a bukkake joke?
“Whether I’m “pertinent” or “actually interested in argumentation” isn’t as important as the fact that you are factually, contextually, and quite off-base.”
You prove the latter by being the former, y’know?