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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (86365)	11/15/2004 8:13:54 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793707

two, The very uneducated and the very educated both tend to be more liberal in their voting patterns than those that have received a moderate level of formal education. Can this be inferred by statistical analysis of economic status from the highly trustworthy 'exit polls'? Perhaps we should suggest this is an assumption of the very same people being critiqued :-) I would like to see it broken down by major. I will assume that the majority of advanced degrees in liberal arts schools vote democratic and from experience that the majority of engineers and practicing scientists (as opposed to academics) vote republican. Professionals are also divided - business & medical doctors = republican, lawyers and other medical professionals = democratic. Large inherited estates & service via State Dept = democrats. Self-made wealth & service via Military = republican. etc Although I live in a red state, I used to live in Washington State and Mass and think these assumptions could hold. John ps My metro area has more Phd's, MD'd and Masters graduates per population than any other metro (populations 1 million or more). Its a red state, but Duke, Chapel Hill and other colleges tends to make for some blue counties. However the suburbs - where all the non-Academic scientists live - are deep red.

To: TimF who wrote (86365)	11/15/2004 9:33:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793707

Steve Rogers and you both seem to ignore the possibility that the resentment of, or disagreement with, "the elite", might be about their opinions, rather than a resentment of their status, or more general negative thoughts about education. Status never occurred to me. I was thinking more culture and values. The "elite" have no status unless non-elites look up to them. That does not appear to be the case. I didn't read "resentment" but rather disparagement, but your read on that might be better than mine. But what's your take on the 2nd? I don't seem to be able to locate the one, two, and three in question so I can't address your query. The very uneducated and the very educated both tend to be more liberal in their voting patterns than those that have received a moderate level of formal education. Wasn't thinking about level of education, either. It's more a value or a mindset. Just as a part of our society seems to glorify victim status, there's a part of our society that seems to glorify anti-intellectualism. The dittohead is the personification of anti-intellectualism. And folks who think getting drunk and throwing rocks at each other outside bars is the "real America" we should all value are the same folks who think nuance is effete, bromides are wisdom, and curiosity is for cats. I call that anti-intellectual and that's the parallel I was drawing with the "acting white" phenomenon. It's rejecting personal growth because mental and experiential uplift lacks value in one's subculture. Of course, the notion that pelting people with rocks (as well as playing victim) verges on subhuman whereas mental stretching is evolved reflects my own bias (constructiveness scale). <g>