Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Trump Presidency...

On black voting demographics:



The website gives a good summary of black voting history and the switch from supporting Republicans (Lincoln) to Democrats (Kennedy).

These are solid, descriptive statistics.

Since Kennedy the vote has been around 10-15% Republican.

Electing the first black president in 2008 (unsurprisingly) takes that to an all time low of 4%.

Now I’ll just introduce the concept of ‘regression to the mean’. Something that all people with any education in statistics will have heard of but isn’t something that most people would have heard of.

Basically, it’s completely within statistical norms for the black Republican vote to rebound from the unprecedented low of 4% to something in the 10-15% range.

20% would be possible but statistically unlikely (though not impossible) without another explanatory variable (like a black middle class reaction to BLM, for example).

But, given that we are talking about black and (normally) democratic ‘swing’ voters here, it will be interesting to see what effect having Harris on the ticket has on that exact demographic.


 
Small sections of the uk are slowly becoming self aware of this but 80% or so believe anything in their social media echo chamber and rate Facebook as 2nd only to oxygen. It's hard to make your own news feeds unbiased sadly.

And that is the issue with Social media, and it is designed to do this.

It maxmises clicks, likes and screen time - so it shows you what you like in order to serve it revenue-generation function.

Coupled with the decline of rational thinking, and we have a recipe for problems.

Not saying it is totally correct, but I find the way of thining about thining here to be a good guide. When people play on emotion, I do wonder if it is because they cannot come up with a compelling actual argument.


We should be more critical and logical, all of us.

 
Being as though Trump was hauled over the coals for his son-in-laws possible activities in Russia, why are the dubious activities of Biden’s son not being treated the same?

See my posts passim ad nauseaum on why we should read this latest "find" with critical curiousity.

Useful resources and discussions contained therein.
 
That’s the strangest DFS advert I’ve ever seen...
**** you, I'm safe when the Zombies rise.

But then my preference for horror is more thought than gore.

Which is why The Ninth Gate is one of my favourite films.

(Nothing to do with Emmanuelle Seigner getting her kit off and riding Johnny Depp like he was Seabiscuit)
 
Small sections of the uk are slowly becoming self aware of this but 80% or so believe anything in their social media echo chamber and rate Facebook as 2nd only to oxygen. It's hard to make your own news feeds unbiased sadly.
Well everybody wants a " like" and for you to know about their blissfully perfect lives!
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
**** you, I'm safe when the Zombies rise.

But then my preference for horror is more thought than gore.

Which is why The Ninth Gate is one of my favourite films.

(Nothing to do with Emmanuelle Seigner getting her kit off and riding Johnny Depp like he was Seabiscuit)
Point of order that circle, even if done with salt won't protect you from zombies unless you can get them to eat it.
 
Funnily enough I saw that, as some conservative pundit had sent it out as example of Satanism in America.

The Church of Satan has since pointed out this is a recreation of the Kali Ma sacrifice in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom


I think the church of satan comes across as actually quite reasonable.

You missed out on the flag burning, which many people consider very offensive and would come to blows over.
 
And now on the paper

“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults”

Published on a top-rate site so we can accept it as peer-reviewed:


I’ll extract the main relevant bits.

They asked American students to rate themselves as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ using a 5-point Likert scale. More on that below.

They then scanned their brains and found a correlation between these self-made ratings and brain tissue sizes in two different parts of the brain

“The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust, and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views”.

I would humbly suggest that those with more sensitivity to fear, disgust, and less able to deal with uncertainty are a much better fit for the term snowflakes’, as you were originally suggesting.

In fact, one might actually dare to posit that you didn’t actually read the paper you cited as evidence, but instead threw a few bits of random word salad into google and cut and paste the title of first hit it gave you.

But don’t worry, maybe the paper gives you a bit of a way out of complete embarrassment:

“Although these conceptual links facilitate interpretations of the relationship between the brain structures and political orientation, our findings reflect a cross-sectional study of political attitudes and brain structure in a demographically relatively homogenous population of young adults. Therefore, the causal nature of such a relationship cannot be determined. Specifically, it requires a longitudinal study to determine whether the changes in brain structure that we observed lead to changes in political behavior or whether political attitudes and behavior instead result in changes of brain structure. Our findings open the way for such research. Moreover, the voting public span a much wider range of ages and demography than those studied here, and indeed political representatives themselves tend to be drawn from older adult groups. It therefore remains an open question whether our findings will generalize to these other groups or whether such demographic factors may modulate the relationship that we observed”.

Oh, oops, it doesn’t.

And why not?

Well, in your rush to find some support for your own beliefs (confirmation bias again (!)) you failed to spot that you had made a schoolboy error in statistics. Simply:

“Correlation does NOT mean causation”.



The study would have been much more interesting if they repeated it in Europe to map out differences between different flavours of conservatism. Sort of a neurological dendrochronology.
 
And now on the paper

“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults”

Published on a top-rate site so we can accept it as peer-reviewed:


I’ll extract the main relevant bits.

They asked American students to rate themselves as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ using a 5-point Likert scale. More on that below.

They then scanned their brains and found a correlation between these self-made ratings and brain tissue sizes in two different parts of the brain

“The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust, and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views”.

I would humbly suggest that those with more sensitivity to fear, disgust, and less able to deal with uncertainty are a much better fit for the term snowflakes’, as you were originally suggesting.

In fact, one might actually dare to posit that you didn’t actually read the paper you cited as evidence, but instead threw a few bits of random word salad into google and cut and paste the title of first hit it gave you.

But don’t worry, maybe the paper gives you a bit of a way out of complete embarrassment:

“Although these conceptual links facilitate interpretations of the relationship between the brain structures and political orientation, our findings reflect a cross-sectional study of political attitudes and brain structure in a demographically relatively homogenous population of young adults. Therefore, the causal nature of such a relationship cannot be determined. Specifically, it requires a longitudinal study to determine whether the changes in brain structure that we observed lead to changes in political behavior or whether political attitudes and behavior instead result in changes of brain structure. Our findings open the way for such research. Moreover, the voting public span a much wider range of ages and demography than those studied here, and indeed political representatives themselves tend to be drawn from older adult groups. It therefore remains an open question whether our findings will generalize to these other groups or whether such demographic factors may modulate the relationship that we observed”.

Oh, oops, it doesn’t.

And why not?

Well, in your rush to find some support for your own beliefs (confirmation bias again (!)) you failed to spot that you had made a schoolboy error in statistics. Simply:

“Correlation does NOT mean causation”.



The study would have been much more interesting if they repeated it in Europe to map out differences between different flavours of conservatism. Sort of a neurological dendrochronology.
Then one would have to ask if Conservatives are more prone to aggression, what is up with the Leftist's in the streets committing acts of violence? Followed by what happens if Conservatives get tired of their peers on the actions on the other end of the political spectrum.
 
And now on the paper

“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults”

Published on a top-rate site so we can accept it as peer-reviewed:


I’ll extract the main relevant bits.

They asked American students to rate themselves as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ using a 5-point Likert scale. More on that below.

They then scanned their brains and found a correlation between these self-made ratings and brain tissue sizes in two different parts of the brain

“The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust, and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views”.

I would humbly suggest that those with more sensitivity to fear, disgust, and less able to deal with uncertainty are a much better fit for the term snowflakes’, as you were originally suggesting.

In fact, one might actually dare to posit that you didn’t actually read the paper you cited as evidence, but instead threw a few bits of random word salad into google and cut and paste the title of first hit it gave you.

But don’t worry, maybe the paper gives you a bit of a way out of complete embarrassment:

“Although these conceptual links facilitate interpretations of the relationship between the brain structures and political orientation, our findings reflect a cross-sectional study of political attitudes and brain structure in a demographically relatively homogenous population of young adults. Therefore, the causal nature of such a relationship cannot be determined. Specifically, it requires a longitudinal study to determine whether the changes in brain structure that we observed lead to changes in political behavior or whether political attitudes and behavior instead result in changes of brain structure. Our findings open the way for such research. Moreover, the voting public span a much wider range of ages and demography than those studied here, and indeed political representatives themselves tend to be drawn from older adult groups. It therefore remains an open question whether our findings will generalize to these other groups or whether such demographic factors may modulate the relationship that we observed”.

Oh, oops, it doesn’t.

And why not?

Well, in your rush to find some support for your own beliefs (confirmation bias again (!)) you failed to spot that you had made a schoolboy error in statistics. Simply:

“Correlation does NOT mean causation”.



The study would have been much more interesting if they repeated it in Europe to map out differences between different flavours of conservatism. Sort of a neurological dendrochronology.
So in conclusion:-
1. You accept the Black vote is going up for Trump from the 2016 vote and in a significant number and don't forget it actually said: Black and Hispanics, where it said he is struggling with white women in suburbs... But remember, I argued weeks ago, this is about certain blocks of voters of which this is one, who are not been sampled by the pollsters.
2. On Biology; You are stretching what I said for your own purposes by suggesting, that I was applying causation across all demographics.... I explicitly used the term snowflake and was referencing the many young idiots on the streets protesting against Trump and using BLM, as a standard to motivate political violence and the tendency of cancel culture to shutdown debate.
 
Then one would have to ask if Conservatives are more prone to aggression, what is up with the Leftist's in the streets committing acts of violence? Followed by what happens if Conservatives get tired of their peers on the actions on the other end of the political spectrum.
The US constitution really is a beautiful piece of work and it encourages freedom, but despises disorder. So yes, Conservatives can be disgusted with things, but generally we despise disorder even more and that gap makes us tolerant.

The modern woke/snowflake Authoritarian that infests the Democrats is a person who wants to remake society. The older establishment democrats are like the RINOs just wanting to keep control.
 
You missed out on the flag burning, which many people consider very offensive and would come to blows over

Arrest and prosecute then.

Decide matters in court rather than public order rubbish, shooting people or running them over.

You know, rule of law type stuff.
 
Anyone who gets overly upset about a bit of material or paper being burnt is of a somewhat reduced intellect.
And the same for those burning them?
 
Then one would have to ask if Conservatives are more prone to aggression, what is up with the Leftist's in the streets committing acts of violence? Followed by what happens if Conservatives get tired of their peers on the actions on the other end of the political spectrum.
Simple mindedness again.
The "leftists" are ONLY NOW (ie "less likely to") resorting to violence mostly because they are finally pissed off with the relentless violence that is the normal background of society committed by, "Conservative" forces of law and order and ignorant hicks against the poor and minorities.
As usual, the leadership of most such street protests are the college age educated radicals (future middle aged chartered accountants).
Your "Conservatives" have been "tired of their peers" since the Civil War, when they lost. As far as they are concerned, their peers look down on them as ignorant racist thuggish hayseeds.
They are correct. And probably correct to be so viewed.
 

Latest Threads

Top