Educated vs "Non-Educated"

This is not a single study. It controlled for other variables. It built on foundations of other’s work. The consensus is that religious involvement leads to better academic performance. You can’t cite a single study that doesn’t agree. Basically you are engaging in the same behavior as climate change deniers. The exact same behavior. You are confronted with something you don’t like and you are unable to deal with the facts. Your assertion of only correlation is no different than if I said CO2 levels and global temperatures were only correlations.

You say you and I are not qualified but you claim there is only correlation. Well, you just disqualified yourself from voicing that opinion. I’m intelligent enough to read and understand the research and come to accurate conclusions. You can’t even tell the difference between Canadian government bureaucracies and United States based ones. Even when I clearly, on several occasions named the US one.

 

Which cite? The Stanford study?

 

You prove your negatives. I’m talking about correlations.
There is no correlation greater then income level in YOUR study Own study. Just because you refused to use your little ruler is no fault of mine.

 

What? Who claimed all people involved in religious activities were superior performers? This is ridiculous. You are nearly out of straws, but obviously not out yet. Are you saying that because a poor kid has a 4.0 gpa, income level is not a valid metric for predicting academic success?

 

Who cares which one is bigger. I’ve never claimed religious activity has more influence on performance than income. It’s completely irrelevant to my original point.

 

You made the claim low income people can’t involve their kids in other activities. Back up your claim.

 

You aren’t qualified to make definitive statements. You’re only giving opinions...and not based on facts. The study doesn’t show what you want it to. “Prove I’m wrong” is the delusional wailing of a person who isn’t a serious contender for ligit conversation that involves scientific discourse.

 

That you don’t even state it income level in a summary of the study shows a disregard for facts.

 

Quote me exactly.....

 

Why are you making definitive statements? Prove you’re right. Just post some facts. Some study to back up your opinions. Anything.

 

Good point.

 

You’re unqualified because you keep misrepresenting the chart on regression lines. Look up what a regression chart represents.

 

Hard sentence to understand, but you are hung up on income level. The only reason it is included in the graph I provided is to demonstrate religious activity has a positive affect on performance at all income levels. The fact this is part of moving in the direction of causation is lost on you. No surprise.

 

I’ve not misrepresented anything. I’ve supplied a graphical representation of data too complicated for you to understand. I’m sorry you can’t wrap your head around the idea of more than one variable having an affect on performance at the same time.

 

Thanks...I did not say they couldn’t involve kids, I did say they don’t have the freedom to. If you doubt me, answer this question. Does increased wealth give one more or less freedom to make choices ? Everyone makes choices but the poor have less freedom and fewer choices.

 

Nope, you’re hung up on totally disregarding the income level. There are many students that attend church less that have higher a higher gpa, So attending church cannot be a causal factor with disregard to that fact.

 

Your cite is not really better than the one I "cited".

The study attempts to verify that there is a correlation. But, it does NOT study causation. It does not study the possible reasons for the correlation to exist. It CLAIMS certain possible reasons, but it doesn't actually test for them.

It controls for a few variables they chose, but again that is clearly not enough.

Also, the n is highlly likely to be way too small. For example, two of the categories had only 15 representatives. What would you say about a study of common political charactistics of our population where some of the categories had only 15 respondants?

Beyond that, I don't see a clear and justifiable action to be taken here even if causation were to be found.

Let's say we wanted to improve the grades of the "avoider" group after having read this study.

What action should be taken? I would claim that there is nothing in this study to lead toward that, as it doesn't actually study anything about avoiders other than that they exist - possibly, but not necessarily in numbers that are significant given the small sample size.

 

I’m obviously more aware of math then you. I graduated from high school and attended church regularly. Maybe others are incline to speak from the view of heathen college degreed folks. Not me. I have nothing against religion. But it’s not the end all be all for everyone, nor is it a solution when there are more important factors imo.

 

If you have a problem with how the researcher set this up, come out with the details.

 

There are three variables in the regression graph , for you to make a “ causation “ based on just two of them, is totally false. .

 

This study does not exist in a vacuum. It’s one of many coming to the same conclusions. Nobody can supply me with any studies coming to differing conclusions. I would not base my assertions on one study. I haven’t. But you won’t supply any data in conflict with mine. Why?

I have never had any interest in taking any action. The only point I set out to make was that another poster was in error by saying essentially religious students were underperforming. I made that point. It matters not to my original point whether there is causation or just correlation. It is a cold hard fact, shown by numerous studies, that students involved in religious pursuits outperform those who don’t.

I’m not advocating for anything. Just pointing out errors.

 

I’m not basing anything on one study. You are doing that. I’ve provided two sources for information. They are not in a vacuum. If you think this is all hocus pocus, let’s see some studies that come to different conclusions. You certainly have some, right?

 

How is one “aware” of math? I’ve already stated I don’t care one whit whether anyone is religious or not. My only point before you drug us down a rabbit hole was that religiously active students outperform ones who aren’t. You have been unable to prove me wrong on this. I’ve never said religion is a solution for anything. I’m just stating facts.

 

Yes, they are. The government collects FICA and the SS account balance is sent to general revenue and replaced with IOUs (government bonds).

Do you want reality or a government fig leaf? The government doesn't have a SS piggy bank ... SS surplus funds are used to buy government bonds.

The overhead of the Social Security program is less than two percent. That is the return to the "business" of running the program, collecting taxes and distributing benefits.

As I said, the socialist (collective production) part of SS is the administration of the program. The rest of the program--the benefits--are income redistribution, not socialism.

Socialism is collectivizing the means of production. Period.

Redistributing income? No. All government spending other than voluntary payments for government goods or services redistribute income.

Medicaid supplements the incomes of indigent, disabled Americans who require skilled nursing services. Care is provided by private business. No socialism, just income transfers.