|
Post by el Gusano on May 24, 2007 20:40:57 GMT -5
What does an urban legend have to do with his views on voting?
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 24, 2007 20:56:10 GMT -5
You're saying only one is an urban legend?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 24, 2007 22:29:12 GMT -5
You're the only one who said anything about an urban legend, and since I got one directly from his writings (the one about voting) and the other one seems highly unlikely (although I've never heard it), you're the one saying that one is an urban legend.
I have Asimov's writings, including every editorial he ever wrote. I've read all of his editorials, a couple thousand of his essays, about half of his non-fiction books, and about half of his fiction books. I've never heard him mention not being able to change a toilet paper roll, although his wife might have accused him of it.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 24, 2007 22:37:24 GMT -5
I could find no mention of the superior intellect of conservatives in Asimov's Election Day 2084: A Science Fiction Anthology on the Politics of the Future.
Does some other reference have Asimov saying this?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 24, 2007 23:14:38 GMT -5
In one of the couple hundred or so essays he wrote in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, while lamenting the political process in this nation that is often determined by the lowest common denominator. (He also had outstanding tastes in TV shows, I discovered, when he was talking about hurrying home to watch "Newhart" after a dinner engagement. I've never quite figured out how someone with such intellect and good tastes could be so wrong politically. Kind of like Marvell.)
He may have mentioned it in "I, Asimov" also, but I don't recall for certain.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 25, 2007 0:01:26 GMT -5
I doubt Isaac Asimov would have concluded that "most intelligent, well-educated people" were his political opposites.
Perhaps the terminology is the hangup. In "I Asimov", he wrote: "Conservatives tend to like people who resemble themselves and distrust others." Was he bashing ideology or passive conformity?
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 25, 2007 19:55:56 GMT -5
Sitting here trying to figure out why the vast majority of my "liberal" friends have managed to obtain at least one, if not more, degrees and still somehow have kept from falling into lockstep with Rush et. al. Also wondering why highly educated people, such as University professors, who exhibit an extreme ability to comprehend both the spoken and written word are held up by conservatives to be the bogy-men of liberalism Oh yeah, I have never watched "Idol" or "Lost" or any of that other hoseshit "reality" TV and never will. That crap is even worse than organized religion.
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on May 26, 2007 10:25:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 26, 2007 12:59:51 GMT -5
Sitting here trying to figure out why the vast majority of my "liberal" friends have managed to obtain at least one, if not more, degrees and still somehow have kept from falling into lockstep with Rush et. al. Also wondering why highly educated people, such as University professors, who exhibit an extreme ability to comprehend both the spoken and written word are held up by conservatives to be the bogy-men of liberalism You apparently need to re-read what was said and work a bit on your reading comprehension. "Most well educated people are conservative" is not synonymous with "most liberals are uneducated".
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 26, 2007 16:02:03 GMT -5
That doesn't fly.
If "most well educated people are conservative," then the minority are something else.
Secondly, what documents the contention that "the intelligence scales weigh heavily in favor of conservatives?"
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 26, 2007 16:56:58 GMT -5
That doesn't fly. If "most well educated people are conservative," then the minority are something else. "Well educated" would be a subset of "people" to anyone with a shred of reading comprehension. Much like, "Most college professors are extremely liberal". "College professors" would be a subset of "people", as well. (You could also say, "Most college professors are well educated.") Your vacuous attack would be like attacking the statement that "most white people eat beef" with "So, you're claiming that most black people are pig-eaters!" Secondly, what documents the contention that "the intelligence scales weigh heavily in favor of conservatives?" It was simply a contention by Isaac Asimov, based completely on his opinion that was based on his personal experience. I neither agree nor disagree with that statement, since my personal observation is that with well educated people, it's split pretty evenly, depending upon the field in which they are well educated. Now, if you were to change it to "Most intelligent people are conservative", then I'd agree with it. (That is a joke, BTW, as I know plenty of intelligent people on both sides, and they will all come around to my way of thinking eventually.) Although, I have noticed a great propensity for uneducated people (both in general, and specifically those who know nothing about the nature of our political structure) to be very liberal, but that's because they want a free handout, not because they want to do something to benefit everyone. Politicians have learned this and know how to buy votes, and that's both sides of the aisles, both with moderates like Bush and whackos like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 26, 2007 16:59:57 GMT -5
BTW, part of the reason he quit MENSA was because he found it quite shocking that so many intelligent people were conservative.
I quit because I found their parties boring.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 27, 2007 4:20:05 GMT -5
No, it wasn't. Your assertion that "the intelligence scales weigh heavily in favor of conservatives" was not attributed to *anyone.* Read your own post.
Isaac Asimov didn't say or write that or you would have offered a reference. It is obviously not the kind of statement that would have gone unnoticed in the literary realm.
And that's off the subject. You proposed Asimov might be an exception to the rule that "most well educated people are conservative," which is NOT that same as saying he believed it.
This is a celebrity author whose many known statements are contrary to the sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 27, 2007 6:26:06 GMT -5
You are quite correct. Your ramblings irritated me and I answered in haste. This is something that interested me in passing; not something that I consider important. (Except to irritate Marvell with.) It was Asimov's contention, based on his personal experience, that most well-educated people are conservative. It was my statement that the intelligence scales weigh heavily in favor of conservatives, based on personal observation, and some studies that I was reading that showed that by-and-large on the average, those with moderate IQs make more money than those with high IQs. (Bush is a good example of this, although based on his officer entry exam, his IQ is about 122, he is president; Gore's is a 133, and he's not.)
Now, based on the Bush-Gore election, if you assume that most conservatives voted for the moderate Bush since no conservative ran, the average education in all the states were a dead heat. But, that's based on the high school (maybe 8th grade, come to think of it) proficiency scores, which I don't think means "well educated".
I did find someone on an Asimov discussion board that remembered the essay, but he thinks it was more along the lines of being thrown out for discussion than being supported by Asimov. He's not going to dig through hundreds of issues to find it, either. (He thinks it was in F&SF, which multiples the possible number of issues.) A couple of people on the board remember that he quit MENSA because a large number of the members were conservative and that distressed him. (This is not something that I was aware of until they pointed it out.)
As an anecdotal thing, I find it interesting that they have to send vans into the projects to get people to the polls to vote for liberals, and that every time that the idea of a test for voting is brought up, they're the ones who are screaming the loudest and that conservatives are just trying to turn them into slaves again.
As a non-sequiter, those with moderate IQs tend to rise faster in management, and make more money more quickly than most of those with high IQ's, although the highest income earners tend to be high IQ.
Although not important to this discussion directly, the higher the education, the more likely the person is to vote. (Well, at least in the past; I don't know if this still holds true.) But, in past elections before the motor voter laws were put into place, the more education, the more likely the person would turn out for the election. For example, in the 1980 election in which Reagan won by a landslide, 80% of those with a college education voted, 59% of those with a high school education voted, and only 43% with a grade school education voted. (That 43% was apparently the segment that voted democrat.)
The 1996 election seems to have changed this pattern, but I don't know how significantly and in what direction, but it was the lowest voter turnout since 1924, and this was after the huge turnout in 1992.
edited to change "average" to "moderate". I used the incorrect word.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 28, 2007 19:33:38 GMT -5
Gus, I'd feel much better about your arguments if you would just "cite your sources" as I learned in debate classes. You share a multitude of facts, statements and figures without once stating specifically where you read or heard them. You would have failed miserably in the debate classes I took. And my personal take on Bush being elected/reelected is that a helluva lot of people that voted for him had IQ's far lower than his, again merely MVHO.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 28, 2007 21:45:35 GMT -5
What facts? Almost everything has been an opinion, except for the IQ's of Bush and Gore, or the test scores, those are easily found via Google. My opinions are based on information that I have gleaned over a course of time, just like everyone. To think that I have every article I've ever read right in front of me is absurd, and your cries of "is not!" need verification just as much. I have them on my computer, but I'll dig around Google and post a link in a moment. As to those with moderate IQ's rising faster in management, if I remember, it was posted by someone on this board a while back on another Bush discussion. I'll see if I can find it again. As to the 1980 election, that's also old news, as well as the voter turnout for 1996. Since most of what was brought up here was either opinion, based upon something read long ago, or common numbers that have been brought up on this very board in the past (which would be cited), with no new information being presented, I didn't realize that you would be incapable of reading it. Oh, here is a new one that has not been cited on this board before: Those who voted for Gore formed a big "U" on a graph, with those at the bottom end of the education spectrum and those at the top end, both voting more for Gore, with the rest voting mostly for Bush. Those with a college education were more likely to vote for Bush than Gore, but when broken down with post-graduate degrees, they were more likely to vote for Gore. Linky LinkyHere's a link to the National Reading Scales and the Math Scores of every state. You can divide them up by which ones voted for which candidate, but in the math averages, Bush States were 276.5 and Gore States were 277.1. For the reading, it was Bush States - 262.2 and Gore States - 262.5. BTW, if you've gotten the hoax email about the IQ disparity in the different states in the last election, here's a list of estimated IQ's, based on SAT scores. It's just an estimate, and makes a lot of assumptions, but there's not the huge difference that the hoax makes of it: State IQ EstimateOf course, you can read here where even people who don't like Bush say his IQ is probably higher than Kerry's. They try to denigrate Bush by saying he was very cunning at keeping his job, but clueless on current events, which Kerry would excel at. Bill Bradley was rejected by Yale, and you can see that they rank Gore about 10 points higher than Bush. But, Bush is still in the 95th percentile. After the most cursory Google, I found this at a UK web site. Even they know about American voter turnouts: In 1980, 80% of college educated adults voted, 59% of those with four years high school education voted 43% of those with a grade school education voted. Linky LinkyAs to those with moderate IQ's earning more money, that is for individuals, not a society as a whole. Nations and states with higher average IQ's earn more money, but with individuals, this is not necessarily the case. How about the WSJ? WSJ blogHere's a quote: As to the Asimov quote, I'm not even considering digging through hundreds of magazines to find it. I have found some others that remember the quote, but with no idea if it was in IAsfm or F&SF. One of them thinks that he was discussing an idea that was his own, another one thinks he got if from Mark Twain. (That's for the idea of earning multiple votes.) The others stated that although they don't remember him bringing up the idea of well-educated people being conservative in relation to voting, they pointed out that part of the reason he quit MENSA was because of the shocking number of intelligent people who were conservative. (One of his bones of contention with Heinlein is that Heinlein was very conservative and rumor has it that Asimov blamed Ginny, but he either didn't say that he blamed her or if he did, he retracted it.) However, after studying the numbers, I would have to disagree with his assessment. It seems that although the majority of well educated people are conservative (already posted the link), the best educated seem to be a majority liberal. But, well educated and intelligent aren't synonymous. There was a study I read a while back that I'll post if I can find the pdf. It has nothing to do with politics, but it has to do with pay disparity among computer programmers. (It was sent to me by a Bible teacher who says his two most brilliant students have excellent analytical abilities, but cannot memorize Scripture at all. He found this study at a pay site that indicates that it seems to go across many different fields.) The most intelligent programmers, for the most part, don't make as much as those who are less intelligent. Apparently those who are most intelligent have a problem with organization, application, and common sense. If I can find the study , I'll post it later.
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on May 28, 2007 23:26:46 GMT -5
I think for the most part people vote not based on their intelligence but, who they think will better serve them. If you are in a low income bracket you will tend to vote for the democratic party because of the social services programs the party usually fights for. The only time this is usually not true is when religion plays a part in the vote. That's why IMO in the last 2 presidential cycles you saw low income groups who should not have (based on their interests) voted for a Republican. Hey I give the Republican party credit for bringing the Christian Coalition into their party to take votes away from the dems and convince them that the dems were for abortion, gays, and were going to take their guns away.
Again, I don't think one party has more intelligent people in it vs the other party. Both have the extremely sharp, and the most ignorant in representation.
As I have told the story before. I use to have a co-worker who lived in government housing, got food stamps and refused to vote for a democrat because "democrats supported abortion" do do do do
Sometimes the most intelligent people are the dumbest when it comes to leadership positions. Some of the least educated are the best in leadership roles. I actually trust leaders with more street smarts than book smarts...but, that is just me.
I agree with what you said Gus about the bus loads to the polls....in regards to the dems. I do think everyone should have the opportunity to get to the polls...but, I have a problem with people bussing people on the basis of their skin color thinking that because someone is black in an inner city that they will automatically vote for a democrat. Or, if a person was taken off the voter roles who was black that if he/she had been on the role they would have voted for a dem IMO that is racist.
Dems are not the only ones that play the games though. Repubs get the the "less educated" in the churches convinced that if he/she votes for a dem that they are voting against God. Because the dems are for abortion and the gay lifestyle.
Come to think of it.......maybe more of the least intelligent are actually voting and the intelligent people are staying home lol
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 29, 2007 1:53:17 GMT -5
and convince them that the dems were for abortion, gays, and were going to take their guns away. The democrats do quite a convincing job of this and the republicans have to do nothing. The most difficult thing the republicans have to do is to convince conservatives to vote for a moderate like Bush. If they ever trot out a conservative, expect a landslide just like the last conservative who ran.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 29, 2007 8:08:22 GMT -5
Tom Wolfe is probably right. The left-right debate is overplayed and driveling:
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 30, 2007 10:33:11 GMT -5
Would you like fries with that degree? And "professional student" is a wonderful career path, if you can get someone else to pay for it.
As to whether intelligence makes for a good president, I'd have to say it probably doesn't, but I'd also say stupidity makes for a bad one. Fortunately, we've not had many stupid presidents. The stupid candidates rarely make it that far. In today's media blitz, spin doctored world, it is more likely to happen, but really hasn't yet. I may dislike Clinton and Carter, and think the world of Reagan, but none of them were stupid men, and none of them were what I consider exceedingly intelligent either.
And then there is a difference of opinion as to what intelligence actually means. Knowing how computers or internal combustion engines work might qualify as intelligence, knowing how to design them from scratch might be more likely to qualify. But technical knowledge won't make a good president. Another measure is the ability to solve problems. This would seem to be a good thing to have in a president, but again, it really depends on what kind of problems you are solving. Being able to figure out why an air conditioner is broken is not the same thing as figuring out how to slow inflation, nor is figuring out how to get a leader of another nation to agree to some plan or course of action that you propose. Einstein could figure out how to split the atom, but he couldn't dress himself well or comb his hair (he could, but he rarely bothered).
All of the above applies to voters as well as presidents, but you get to pick who is president, you don't get to pick who can vote.
Dream, it is possible that one can enjoy American Idol and still be informed on political issues. I don't doubt that you are an example. But think about it for a while and see if you think that you are typical, or exceptional in that regard. Even look about on this message board, which is hardly a representation of the population at large, and compare who posts here in the Debate Lounge, with all of our widely different viewpoints, with those who post mostly in Entertainment (a few will surprise you, like Milk, who is very politically aware but doesn't often join the debates, and is about as opposite from myself as is possible). I'll stand by my assertion that more people care about who is going to win American Idol than care about who'll be our next president. And even if not more, if only roughly equal (to judge by the Nielson ratings for the finale versus the state of the union address last year), I'd still say that is a sad state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on May 30, 2007 10:50:27 GMT -5
Just as Americans in the 1920s cared more about Fatty Arbuckle's sex-murder scandal than Warren G. Harding. Only 49.24% of eligible voters showed up at the polls.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on May 30, 2007 14:01:54 GMT -5
So, Worm, how would you differentiate between intelligence and education and the way they combine to make a good politician or a good ________? What would be a benefit and what would be a detriment?
|
|
|
Post by daworm on May 30, 2007 15:14:30 GMT -5
I think both are required, but neither alone are sufficient, nor together. Intelligence would mean inherent problem solving ability, and education would exercise that ability, plus provide reference material in a variety of relevant areas (history, political science, economics, sociology). I doubt an engineer such as myself would make a good president, because even though I have a passing understanding of most of those subjects, I don't have an in depth one. Of course, I don't think very many presidents have had a great understanding of these topics, either. Some don't need to, because they are great organizers and can build a staff that does understand them, and can present the issues in ways the president can understand. I think Reagan was a great example of that kind of president, and Bush II a relatively poor one.
I don't see any of the present candidates as what I am looking for (nor have I since I've been voting these past 22 years). Like most people, I have to pick the one that is closest to what I am looking for, despite how far short they fall.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on May 30, 2007 20:38:13 GMT -5
Unfortunatly for all of us Worm, I'm very afraid that people care about what they are told to care about by media shitstorms. Thus the interest in "Idol", "Lost", CSI somewhere, "24 Hours" and the rest of the absolute dreck foisted on the public by TV. A very astute advertising pioneer, said no-one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the audience. Or something like that anyway. My take, most people would rather be entertained than informed. I.m just happy I'm 55 and hope I die, or am able to retire to a planet far far away, before the world turns to absolute shit.
|
|
Jay
Senior Forumite
Captain Cupcake
Posts: 5,070
|
Post by Jay on Jun 22, 2007 22:45:17 GMT -5
I think they should get rid of the electoral college. Just have popular votes count... "US President George W. Bush's approval rating plunged to a new low of 26 percent, making him the least popular US president since Richard Nixon, a poll released on Thursday found." ""Nixon's approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in." rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_s_approval_rating_plunges_to_n_06212007.html
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jun 23, 2007 0:22:45 GMT -5
I think they should get rid of the electoral college. Just have popular votes count... Thankfully, the founding fathers were much wiser, and saw the danger of putting complete control in the hands of a few elite cities and/or states.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jun 23, 2007 6:04:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bernardjenkins on Jun 23, 2007 9:04:01 GMT -5
Reid's & Pelosi's #s r lower than that.
I thought congress was @ 14%?
|
|
Dreamwebber
Senior Forumite
Denise Who?
Burning up my minutes since 1973
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by Dreamwebber on Jun 23, 2007 13:22:58 GMT -5
I heard the President was now 27% approval and congress 17% My guess because the dems caved on war funding/bringing the troops home. Even the dems I know are unhappy with the congress right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2007 15:18:08 GMT -5
Depends (no pun intended) on what he was trying to change it into.
|
|