Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (192288)	6/29/2004 11:59:25 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577903

You are providing good examples of exceptions, but not many why the correlation should be negative I never said anything of the sort, and so don't see why I should prove any such negative correlation. What I have said is that the correlation between parents' political affiliation (assuming they are not different from each other) and that of their children (assuming they are the same) can be so low as to be insignificant. 0.01 correlation is still positive but so low as to be meaningless. it is an indication of various character traits or behaviors for which there is a correlation between parents and children. The study I linked showed one example Sorry, but no. The study you linked shows NOT character traits being transmitted from parents to children, BUT the way in which a happy family (or lack thereof) affects the kid's opinion of marriage in the future. This is not far from how victims of car accidents don't like riding in cars - once bitten twice shy, and all that... Does it make sense for generations (beyond some rebelious years) to alternate in the party affiliations? Why would a personal choice such as political affinity alternate in generations of a family, especially since the family in question will probably not be inbred, hence will have to take in kids of other families (leaning which way politically?) in order for the next generation to come to life? Yes, but 1-2 years of childbearing age are forever lost Are you suggesting that women start making babies as soon as they start menstruating and then make one baby per year until menapause? You must realize that is not correct. The reality is that women only have a couple of children despite a fertile life spanning decades. Women try not to have babies when they are not secure financially and emotionally, and as such, it is entirely normal for a woman to abort pregnancies when single, in college, or in desperate financial need to continue working hard. Once the same woman is in a stable relationship and financially more comfortable, she can have as many kids as they want. Now take a close election, you may get a different result as a result of abortion hypothesis. How are we supposed to know that the "close election" leaned towards the Republican side because of the "abortion hypothesis" or, say, because Americans are scared of terrorism and want the more aggressive people in power? This correspondence can go on forever, but in short, I don't buy it. The theory has no facts backing it, from its first assumption ("political affiliation is passed from parents to their kids") all the way to its conclusion ("and as Democrats do abortion, their voting base shrinks in time"). I understand that you sympathize with this theory, even at the absence of proof or a scientific study, because it resonates with your own convictions (or "intuition", as you put it). But I find it difficult to find it convincing on that basis only. That's all.