glowing-fish posted:

Ah, so you don't like my map because it tried to provide a more detailed explanation and pattern to voting than "folks capable of a line of thought I would consider delusional are capable of voting for donald trump."

?

glowing-fish posted:

What do you dislike about them?

anthonypants posted:

Hey I know you didn't answer my very easy question earlier but I just wanted to say that the manner in which you dismiss slight criticism is a really great analogy for every other attempt at data analysis and presentation you've made in this thread.

Mrit SA posted:

Gerund posted:

I mean if you want to humor someone's motte-and-bailey bullshit of furiously generating cute amounts of data with zero claim of a thesis like a flailing graduate student, go ahead. What we have is a vacillation between shouting down anyone for "not having any conclusions backed by trufax" when challenged on any claims and "I'm not making on conclusions, I'm just making cute maps" when challenged on data. I can quote him doing this specific act within the last 40 posts.

anthonypants posted:

This is an oddly self-referential post.

Solkanar512 posted:

Just be specific about what you don't like and maybe we'll have something interesting to discuss rather than this dumb sniping.


You know, like this.

Solkanar512 posted:

How about you folks quit being giant assholes to each other and simply deliver your critiques in a respectful and meaningful manner.

Gerund posted:

I mean if you want to humor someone's motte-and-bailey bullshit of furiously generating cute amounts of data with zero claim of a thesis like a flailing graduate student, go ahead. What we have is a vacillation between shouting down anyone for "not having any conclusions backed by trufax" when challenged on any claims and "I'm not making on conclusions, I'm just making cute maps" when challenged on data. I can quote him doing this specific act within the last 40 posts.

glowing-fish posted:

Well, I wouldn't say I don't have a thesis, not just a super formal type of thesis.

I do have a conjecture, or several conjectures, and they are kind of general ideas.

Conjecture 1: Across the country, there is in general no single demographic key to explain candidate preference, either in general or in terms of Donald Trump. The demographic keys that do exist are almost tautologies: Republican voters support Republican candidates. But trying to tie voting patterns to income, education level, urban/rural residence, etc., is generally hard to generalize across the country as a whole. (Exception: being a minority is pretty easily correlated to voting Democratic)

Conjecture 2: Within a limited geographical area, like within a state or region, demographic factors do show more definite correlations to voting patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, completion of a college education is the single demographic factor that correlates most strongly with Democratic voting preference.

Both of these are conjectures, rather than a thesis that I am trying to rigorously trying to defend. They are ideas that I think are fun to discuss on an internet comedy forum, not dogmas of political science I am trying to proclaim as written in stone.

glowing-fish posted:

Well, I wouldn't say I don't have a thesis, not just a super formal type of thesis.

I do have a conjecture, or several conjectures, and they are kind of general ideas.

Conjecture 1: Across the country, there is in general no single demographic key to explain candidate preference, either in general or in terms of Donald Trump. The demographic keys that do exist are almost tautologies: Republican voters support Republican candidates. But trying to tie voting patterns to income, education level, urban/rural residence, etc., is generally hard to generalize across the country as a whole. (Exception: being a minority is pretty easily correlated to voting Democratic)

Conjecture 2: Within a limited geographical area, like within a state or region, demographic factors do show more definite correlations to voting patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, completion of a college education is the single demographic factor that correlates most strongly with Democratic voting preference.

Both of these are conjectures, rather than a thesis that I am trying to rigorously trying to defend. They are ideas that I think are fun to discuss on an internet comedy forum, not dogmas of political science I am trying to proclaim as written in stone.

Shifty Nipples posted:

America is the cool place to hang out. You can find most of the cool people there.

anthonypants posted:

The thesis which you're trying to rigorously defend is that there's some magic combination of demographics that can describe why and how people vote for one of two political parties, instead of taking a wild guess at how people might react to "Make America Great Again" vs "America is already great because America is good" ideologies.

glowing-fish posted:

Conjecture 2: Within a limited geographical area, like within a state or region, demographic factors do show more definite correlations to voting patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, completion of a college education is the single demographic factor that correlates most strongly with Democratic voting preference.

Both of these are conjectures, rather than a thesis that I am trying to rigorously trying to defend. They are ideas that I think are fun to discuss on an internet comedy forum, not dogmas of political science I am trying to proclaim as written in stone.

coyo7e posted:

People with educations have this thing where they can afford to pick and choose where to move, and often when and where to work, as well. So trying to tie degrees to locales is largely stupid, except insofar as to prove that in big swathes of farmland, people with degrees often do not move there in hopes of becoming hobby farmers. But hey, my folks did exactly that. I grew up picking berries at a dollar a flat, bucking bales at a quarter each, and it really didn't do anything but convince me that a job where I could read and stuff would be way more pleasant, and probably pay more for less actual physical labor in general.

coyo7e posted:

People with educations have this thing where they can afford to pick and choose where to move, and often when and where to work, as well. So trying to tie degrees to locales is largely stupid, except insofar as to prove that in big swathes of farmland, people with degrees often do not move there in hopes of becoming hobby farmers. But hey, my folks did exactly that. I grew up picking berries at a dollar a flat, bucking bales at a quarter each, and it really didn't do anything but convince me that a job where I could read and stuff would be way more pleasant, and probably pay more for less actual physical labor in general.

coyo7e posted:

People with educations have this thing where they can afford to pick and choose where to move, and often when and where to work, as well. So trying to tie degrees to locales is largely stupid, except insofar as to prove that in big swathes of farmland, people with degrees often do not move there in hopes of becoming hobby farmers. But hey, my folks did exactly that. I grew up picking berries at a dollar a flat, bucking bales at a quarter each, and it really didn't do anything but convince me that a job where I could read and stuff would be way more pleasant, and probably pay more for less actual physical labor in general.

glowing-fish posted:

College graduation rates are about twice as high in Corvallis than in Albany, even though most other demographics are roughly equal. I don't see why looking at this is "stupid".

Relevant Tangent posted:

Glowing-fish, why don't you just start a thread?

Shifty Nipples posted:

There is a loving college in Corvallis.

glowing-fish posted:

It doesn't really make sense to dismiss a political issue of this magnitude in favor of more beer and commute chat.

If people want a general chat thread, I will close this thread, and you can start a new thread in GBS.

TheBalor posted:

There's a community college in Albany.

anthonypants posted:

And would you rather graduate from a community college or a loving college? That's what I thought.

TheBalor posted:

There's a community college in Albany.

glowing-fish posted:

Well, I wouldn't say I don't have a thesis, not just a super formal type of thesis.

I do have a conjecture, or several conjectures, and they are kind of general ideas.

Conjecture 1: Across the country, there is in general no single demographic key to explain candidate preference, either in general or in terms of Donald Trump. The demographic keys that do exist are almost tautologies: Republican voters support Republican candidates. But trying to tie voting patterns to income, education level, urban/rural residence, etc., is generally hard to generalize across the country as a whole. (Exception: being a minority is pretty easily correlated to voting Democratic)

Conjecture 2: Within a limited geographical area, like within a state or region, demographic factors do show more definite correlations to voting patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, completion of a college education is the single demographic factor that correlates most strongly with Democratic voting preference.

Both of these are conjectures, rather than a thesis that I am trying to rigorously trying to defend. They are ideas that I think are fun to discuss on an internet comedy forum, not dogmas of political science I am trying to proclaim as written in stone.

coyo7e posted:

I don't really care where you graduate as long as you gained the skills and knowledge to do your job well and hopefully be a better and more productive citizen. Of course a broad background of gen studies and social studies helps, but people usually get out of school what they put into it, and even a 4 year degree won't guarantee someone won't graduate with some odd notions or other, about something or other... See Silicon Valley libertarians with very slightly masked racist beliefs, conservative water and power engineers, lobbyist scientists who buck scientific trends, etc.

glowing-fish posted:

Smokers tend to have shorter life spans than non-smokers.

Well, though, how do we define smokers? Because everyone has really smoked at least once in their life? And if we define smokers as say, 10 or more cigarettes a day, what about all the people who smoke 9 cigarettes a day? Won't ignoring them just ruin our data? Also, what about cigar smokers? What about people who inhale only lightly? Also, how do we know that smokers aren't also more likely to have other unhealthy behaviors? Also, what about this friend of a friend who smoked 2 packs a day and lived to be 90 and got hit by a truck?

All of these are actually really good arguments. Defining a behavior or trait is not always exact. There are always exceptions to the definitions. There are always confounding variables. And there are always anecdotes about people who don't follow the trend, or sometimes entire populations that don't follow the trend. But even after all of that, I still accept that smoking is bad for people's health.

Gerund posted:

College education doesn't really mean anything especially if Religious Indoctrination College is equated the same as Liberal Arts University.

Die Sexmonster! posted:

This is the general PNW chat thread, you literally just admitted that. Can you not see you've hijacked it?

I said it awhile ago, I'll say it again: this discussion should be its own thread.

glowing-fish posted:

Smokers tend to have shorter life spans than non-smokers.

But, like, how can we say that, because then we are equating cigar smokers with cigarette smokers. Also, what if someone if totally fit in every way, but they smoke a few cigarettes a week?

Are we saying that someone who is 500 pounds and has diabetes is going to have a longer lifespan than someone who exercises regularly, is very fit, but smokes a few times a week? CHECKMATE STATISTICS! CHECKMATE DEMOGRAPHICS.

Educational attainment is one category that can be used to analyze how populations act. It isn't true in every situation, but across populations, and across large enough numbers, the correlation can't be dismissed just by mentioning situations where it might not hold.

In a lot of states in the South, college education isn't a demographic marker for political preference, because many of those people did go to conservative religious colleges, and also many of those people's economic status is more important than their educational status. In Oregon and Washington, where there are less religious institutions, this is less of a factor, and IN GENERAL, education is a good demographic marker of political preference.

coyo7e posted:

I have no idea what brought to the conversation outside of it just seeming more and more as though glow fish is flinging crap at a wall looking for patterns without realizing he's unwittingly created his own personal rorschach test.

glowing-fish posted:

So you really think that me equating educational obtainment to voting patterns as a general demographic trend, at least in some places, is me just imagining patterns that aren't there?

glowing-fish posted:

If I said "African-American voters are more likely to vote Democratic", would you believe the same thing? Would you accuse me of inventing patterns for the sake of it, if I made such a claim?

turn it up TURN ME ON posted:

I'm very community minded.