Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Intelligence and who you support for President

  1. #81
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2771979]So if you voted for John Kerry over JC Watts (hypotheticly speaking) would race have anything to do with it? I can't cast a vote for the opponent of the most liberal Senator without being questioned about whether his race influenced my decision? This whole "race" thing is just a version of a Democratic "scare" tactic.[/QUOTE]
    Please tell me what is so difficult to understand that a discussion of voter trends doesn't mean that every single voter applies to that trend?

    Do you really think that anybody is arguing that every vote ever cast against a black candidate is racism?

    On the converse though, are you going to deny that there are voters who vote against a candidate because of race or religion?

  2. #82
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2771996]Please tell me what is so difficult to understand that a discussion of voter trends doesn't mean that every single voter applies to that trend?

    Do you really think that anybody is arguing that every vote ever cast against a black candidate is racism?

    On the converse though, are you going to deny that there are voters who vote against a candidate because of race or religion?[/QUOTE]I don't think it is as widespread as you are implying. I also believe that more people will vote for him just because he is black than not vote for him solely because he is black. So if anything, his race is beneficial.

    My other point is that if the shoe was on the other foot, and Watts was running against Clinton, would the same question be asked?

  3. #83
    For what its worth, one does not get the level of certification needed to be an academic without 'doing' quite a bit. Most university teaching posts require a PHD, which winnows out 'those who cant' pretty well.

    1) Since its ridiculously difficult to get into a good academic graduate school (with acceptance rates below 5% in many cases) without any prior field experience, most pure Ivory Tower types end up debating paradoxes and torts in law school. Moreover the average age of incoming PHD students in my field is 29 (this is a little high but still), so they typically come packaged with 7 years of pre PHD credentials.

    2) PHD programs are professional training. No doctor gets a MD without several years on residency. In the case of medical school professors, the MD is almost always concommitant with a PHD in biology or chemistry, adding several more years of practical lab experience. Doogie Howser doesnt exist, and you only become an academic doctor by building up a fairly impressive resume of experiences.
    As an anthropologist, I will be spending the next two years up to my waist in rain in Irian Jaya. Wouldnt that make me more qualified than the 90% of America that doesnt know where Irian Jaya is to speak about the plight of its natives? Furthermore, like Medical School professors my advisors typically have two degrees, meaning they have undergone professional initiation in two fields. I'm sure similar findings abound everywhere.

    3) While unbeleivable raw talents the likes of a Babe Ruth do exist, it doesnt always follow that they can bequeath skills onto others. Babe Ruth was a great hitter and a warm hearted man, but he was also an overgrown child and a street urchin with no formal education. If you revived Ruth and had both him and a biophysicist turned trainer work on fixing the mechanics of a swing, chances are that the trainer will do a better job. Analagously, all of academia speaks in a similar register, and academic speech is more or less rigorously tested for its ability to precisely represent and communicate ideas. Plus, since a dissertation is essentially a book, almost all successful academics communicate extremely clearly. Teaching is just as valuable and marketable a skill as this nebulous 'doing' is.

    4) Lastly, even if you beleive that academics are ineffectual Ivory Tower dwellers, the fact remains that academia is THE most competitive field in the country. Run of the mill graduate programs accept 10-15% of applicants, and the applicant pool tends to be more accomplished than it would be for undergrad (To put it into perspective, only Columbia and Princeton accepted fewer than 15% of applicants for undergrad in 2005). So even if as a set you consider academics useless and not necessarily intelligent, remember that only the top 10% of this demographic ever achieves success. Just because I dont come home from work with a sore back doesnt mean that I do not work hard, that I'm unintelligent, or that my vocation isnt valuable.

  4. #84
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2772011]I don't think it is as widespread as you are implying. I also believe that more people will vote for him just because he is black than not vote for him solely because he is black. So if anything, his race is beneficial.[/QUOTE]
    Ok I guess we will see on election day as to how widespread it is. I think his race was very beneficial to him getting nominated, but is a detriment in the general election.

    [QUOTE]My other point is that if the shoe was on the other foot, and Watts was running against Clinton, would the same question be asked?[/QUOTE]
    In my opinion Watts would not get the majority of black votes but he would get more black votes then a typical Republican. Also, I think that Clinton would have gotten some votes from some bigots who would never would for a black man, or those bigots would just not vote if Clinton disgusted them too much.

    Listen, I don't think that race is the only factor and people will vote race no matter what. There also has to be some agreement on basic issues.

  5. #85
    [QUOTE=hamburglar;2772057]For what its worth, one does not get the level of certification needed to be an academic without 'doing' quite a bit. Most university teaching posts require a PHD, which winnows out 'those who cant' pretty well.

    1) Since its ridiculously difficult to get into a good academic graduate school (with acceptance rates below 5% in many cases) without any prior field experience, most pure Ivory Tower types end up debating paradoxes and torts in law school. Moreover the average age of incoming PHD students in my field is 29 (this is a little high but still), so they typically come packaged with 7 years of pre PHD credentials.

    2) PHD programs are professional training. No doctor gets a MD without several years on residency. In the case of medical school professors, the MD is almost always concommitant with a PHD in biology or chemistry, adding several more years of practical lab experience. Doogie Howser doesnt exist, and you only become an academic doctor by building up a fairly impressive resume of experiences.
    As an anthropologist, I will be spending the next two years up to my waist in rain in Irian Jaya. Wouldnt that make me more qualified than the 90% of America that doesnt know where Irian Jaya is to speak about the plight of its natives? Furthermore, like Medical School professors my advisors typically have two degrees, meaning they have undergone professional initiation in two fields. I'm sure similar findings abound everywhere.

    3) While unbeleivable raw talents the likes of a Babe Ruth do exist, it doesnt always follow that they can bequeath skills onto others. Babe Ruth was a great hitter and a warm hearted man, but he was also an overgrown child and a street urchin with no formal education. If you revived Ruth and had both him and a biophysicist turned trainer work on fixing the mechanics of a swing, chances are that the trainer will do a better job. Analagously, all of academia speaks in a similar register, and academic speech is more or less rigorously tested for its ability to precisely represent and communicate ideas. Plus, since a dissertation is essentially a book, almost all successful academics communicate extremely clearly. Teaching is just as valuable and marketable a skill as this nebulous 'doing' is.

    4) Lastly, even if you beleive that academics are ineffectual Ivory Tower dwellers, the fact remains that academia is THE most competitive field in the country. Run of the mill graduate programs accept 10-15% of applicants, and the applicant pool tends to be more accomplished than it would be for undergrad (To put it into perspective, only Columbia and Princeton accepted fewer than 15% of applicants for undergrad in 2005). So even if as a set you consider academics useless and not necessarily intelligent, remember that only the top 10% of this demographic ever achieves success. Just because I dont come home from work with a sore back doesnt mean that I do not work hard, that I'm unintelligent, or that my vocation isnt valuable.[/QUOTE]

    Bravo. Well said. :clapper:

  6. #86
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2772060] Ok I guess we will see on election day as to how widespread it is. I think his race was very beneficial to him getting nominated, but is a detriment in the general election.[/QUOTE]My problem here is that you seem to be setting up an excuse in advance. "The only reason Obama lost was because America wasn't ready for a black President". How will you judge on election day how widespread it is? You vote for a candidate, you don't give reasons for the vote. How are you going to judge the intent of the voters?

    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2772060]
    In my opinion Watts would not get the majority of black votes but he would get more black votes then a typical Republican. Also, I think that Clinton would have gotten some votes from some bigots who would never would for a black man, or those bigots would just not vote if Clinton disgusted them too much.[/QUOTE]Fair statement here.

    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2772060]
    Listen, I don't think that race is the only factor and people will vote race no matter what. There also has to be some agreement on basic issues. [/QUOTE]Agree. But I am personally getting sick and tired of conservatives being broadly labeled as not willing to vote for a candidate just because he is black. It is not the skin color, but the issues.

  7. #87
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2772112]My problem here is that you seem to be setting up an excuse in advance. "The only reason Obama lost was because America wasn't ready for a black President". How will you judge on election day how widespread it is? You vote for a candidate, you don't give reasons for the vote. How are you going to judge the intent of the voters?[/QUOTE]
    There is no reason to set up an excuse. You are right. It will be hard to determine just how much a factor race is. Exit polls will be usefull. Examining voting trends in comparison to past election will also be key. There is no doubt that it will be hard to make a defninitive judgement either way.



    [QUOTE]Agree. But I am personally getting sick and tired of conservatives being broadly labeled as not willing to vote for a candidate just because he is black. It is not the skin color, but the issues[/QUOTE]
    Again you are generalizing. I don't think that anybody is labeling Conservatives as not willing to vote for a black. There is no question that in this election self identifying Conservatives support McCain and that vote should never be called racist. It's the people who don't really like McCain but will turn out and vote for him to prevent the black guy from getting in. If these people turn out just to prevent the liberal from getting in obviously that's not racist.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 09-25-2008 at 12:00 PM.

  8. #88
    [QUOTE=quantum;2771893]Of course not. But it does happen on a consistent basis. Hence, the birth of FIRE. (pls google if you don't recognize the acronym)



    My only response is :rolleyes:




    [B]I know plenty of people who went to college who are not only dopey, but completely lacking common sense. This whole premise is ridiculous, really; trying to find commonalities where none exist.

    Its like I said previously: the left has used this trick before. Republicans are all stupid, Dems/Libs are smart. Be like us and people will think you're smart even if you're really not. Detestable[/B][/QUOTE]

    Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I checked out their website and saw what they're about.

    Top flight organization in my opinion. Good for them.

    And I never argued against the fact that the vast majority of collegiate professors are liberal, rather that students are being "brainwashed" by them.

    Thinking like that pisses me off. As so many in this thread have already stated, they're convinced that I support Obama because I have been influenced by my professors and the collegiate atmosphere. I don't pretend to know why you or some of the other posters are supporting McCain, if that is the case. The main reason I post on this political forum is because I'm fed up with the bullsh*t I see here. I've read these boards for a while before I started contributing. And a lot of what pisses me off comes from the Republican posters on this board. Posters like FlushingJet and ComeBackToNewYork and DeansPatsFan are vicious attack dogs who post so frequently and vehemently attack those with whom they disagree with. The majority of their posts are disingenuous and downright disturbing. And I'm not talking about their political beliefs, but rather their intolerance for those with whom they disagree with politically. Apparently I'm a traitor to my country because I support Obama or because I state that America has some skeletons in her closet or because I don't believe Islam to be an inherently evil religion.

    FYI, I voted for Kerry in 2004, regretfully so I might add (I thought both he and Bush were horrible, just tried to pick the lesser of two evils at that point), two months into my collegiate career. I had just graduated from a private Catholic and very conservative high school. And the two months I spent in collegiate classes did not turn me into a Democrat.

    And I agree with both of the bold statements in your post. Just because someone graduated college, does not mean they are any brighter than someone who hasn't. And just because someone agrees with me, I don't necessarily think they're intelligent.

    But college does help people learn to sift through large amounts of information to get to the core of what's important or pertinent in that data. That's what every class teaches you in college.

    It's illogical to argue that there isn't any significance to this article. If the majority of people who have a college diploma are voting for Obama whereas the majority of non-college graduates are voting for McCain, that is an important statistic.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us