Educated vs "Non-Educated"

Funny story. Have a friend, a devout born again Christian, wanted help understanding exponential decay and “ half life”:
Much to his surprise, I told him I didn’t want to help him. I told him that this topic proved controversial to Christians who felt the earth was less the 6 k years old. I didn’t want to shake his belief system.

 

It isn’t. How’s that ? I have to hear this one.

 

Canada? Why would your beloved socialist government publish Canadian numbers instead of US numbers?

Here’s a more recent one from Stanford University in 2018. Abiders are active participants in religious observances. Avoiders are not involved in religious expression.





There is a lot more of this kind of research out there. Just because people are ignorant of facts like this doesn’t mean they aren’t facts.

 

Ah, calling me a liar again. Cool move. Too bad you can’t prove any assertions to be incorrect. Keep up friend. Just because you are ignorant of facts doesn’t mean I’m faking things.

 

Yes. It’s based on how involved in religious practices the subjects were. It’s all there for you to learn from.

 

This story doesnt ring true, and if somehow it is, it only means that you are a world class jerk, and not a friend to that person even remotely. What kind of person attacks the devout spirituality of their "friend"? I am not religious in the slightest, but I would NEVER mock a friend of mine who was a devout adherent to any religion. With a "friend" like you, who needs an enemy?

 

They just aren’t involved. The sewage system for my house was designed and built before any government here cared to be involved in such things. No government has ever expressed interest in it, let alone involved themselves with it. And yet, I’m not drowning in sewage.

 

Is it town or septic system ? You didn’t say.

 

Try this. CANADIAN study from 22 years ago
There is nothing in your post that refers to religion and this study has been inactive for ten years. So far, it looks bogus,


National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search
The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) is a project of Statistics Canada which engages in the long-term study of children.

The NLSCY is implemented by Statistics Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada, and charged with identifying and charting longer-term trends in Canadian youth. The survey tracks the progress and development of children from birth through early adulthood, and is meant to identify factors influencing each child's development. Specific areas of study include emotional, social and behavioral development and their implications for the child in adulthood. This is done by observing physical development and overall health, learning ability, behavioral tendencies, family and friend structure, the type of school and community in which the child is raised.

The study is conducted every two years, and was first conducted in 1994. The information gathered is used for policy decisions ranging from university financial aid and enrollment to distribution of educational, medical or family-related funds and education reform. The types of classes offered in schools, for example, may reflect the types of classes shown to best bolster a child's development.

The program targets children raised in each of Canada's 10 provinces, but excludes children living on Indian reserves, Crown lands (lands belonging to the crown—in this case, the British Royal Family), residents of institutions, children of full-time members of the Canadian Forces and those in certain remote regions.

The study has been inactive since 2009.[1]

 

I don’t have any interest in this. It’s from another country. I’m talking about US data from a US survey. Sorry.

There is data on this subject from numerous sources from years past and currently. It all agrees.

 

Seriously. Do you know how to read a chart. It’s gpa ( grade point average) and FAMILY income. Before it’s claimed to be another bogus misrepresentation, you’ll have to provide a link. Otherwise, this says nothing. There is no break down of religion.

 

Seriously, where is the link ? To falsify the last one, I had to find the link.

 

No it doesn’t. It shows family income has the biggest affect. As a matter of fact, regardless of religiosity, family income Trumps everything. A rich heathen does better then a poor but frequent “ place of worship” goer. .

LIKE ALL regression statistics, there are two factors, not one that need be considered.

 

Those who are tolerant of the views of others (for example) are not found on the Left of the political spectrum.

 

There is some socialism practised in First World democracies, but not very much.

 

They tried that. They started selecting for 'warm fuzzies' some years back. All that happened was that those driven by the prestige and dollars of medicine, just trained themselves (by rote) to present as warm and fuzzy. If the selection panel wants extra-curriculars like musical instruments, charity work etc, they simply add those things into the preparation schedule.

None of it is real. It doesn't matter though, because at the end of the day - that individual HAS learned an instrument, and HAS done charity work- and both activities add to the breadth of the individual.

 

1) All parents are in a position to do something about it. There are endless examples of poor and working parents doing whatever it takes to ensure their kids graduate high school with high marks. Education is free, libraries are free, parental time is free. If the parent is working three jobs, she/he can sacrifice sleep to sit with their child through studies, the way Asians do. It's all choices.

2) WE are not leaving OUR kids behind, because WE made different choices.

3) When you insist on 'programs' which you believe will reduce poverty, you are demanding that people make the choices you want them to make.

 

LOL, no it isn't. It's still a luxury (luxuries which don't exist in poor places .. that's how you know they're luxuries!) purchased via the profits of capitalism, no matter what it's called. Doesn't matter who 'runs' it. When it's purchased labour or services, it's capitalism.

And another chuckle for suggesting it's socialism because it has the word 'social' in it, bless your heart

 

You don't understand what 'luxury' means, do you? It's all relative. Our benchmark for human existence is the poorest individual on the planet, not your next door neighbour.

Social security is the very antithesis of socialism. No socialist collective would ever support such a concept given its gross inequity, quite apart from its essential capitalism (purchased labour or services). A system in which some can choose not to work, while others work to support them, is the least socialist system imaginable.

 

You don't understand collectivism either. Collectivism is the foundation of both socialism and communism. Collectivism is NON PROFIT. It's a subsistence model, predicated upon every member pulling their weight. Labour and services are self generated, not purchased. There is a very small surplus retained for the care of the elderly/infirm/young - but that's it. Everyone else must work.

 

Very clearly, in English, at the bottom of the the chart, are the designations of what each line represents. I included descriptions of the groups corresponding to the two most relevant lines.

The other day when we all veered off into healthcare debate, I thought about introducing this statistic. It’s estimated the rate of illiteracy in this country costs us about 6% more in medical costs than if everyone was literate. It’s estimated 50% of Americans can’t read well enough to adequately understand health information, both preventative and treatment protocols. I believe 50% may not be literate enough to discuss an issue on a forum.

I’ve never had any interest in “breaking down” religion. It’s not the point. I’m not even sure what you mean by that.

Here is the link. You should read it. It’s very interesting. It even supports my theory that progressivism, and especially progressive educational methods, mirror tenets of dogmatic religious observance.

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8ye3s/

 

You haven’t falsified anything. You are bloviating about a foreign country. What part of US Bureau of Labor Statistics is hard for you to understand? I was quite clear. If you must have a link, here is the link to the study. Knock yourself out.

 

Views based on conspiracy theories and bogus fake news, and opinions , of course not

 

Did you not say that social security was based on collectivism ?

 

That’s unlikely btw that no government approved plan was put in place to keep sewerage from contaminating ground water in either a septic system and well or public waste disposal system. Unless of course, you’re over two hundred years old.