Educated vs "Non-Educated"

A real science guy knows the principle of the null hypothesis and that it must be rejected by evidence.
Correlation does not reject the null hypothesis.
Sorry you don't understand this basic principle of science and research.

 

sorry you don't understand how science works, science guy

 

It's an observation. I can only speak for myself, but it goes a long way towards explaining Trumps popularity with what he called the uneducated. There was a big divide between whites with degrees and those without. 66% of those without degrees voted for Trump. My opinion is that that difference is created by better earnings by those with degrees. As degrees have become more important in getting good jobs. Hence the slogan make America great again.

 

Before we can decide you need to tell us how many of each are in the population.

 

I have no clue what point you are making except what appears to be the claim that republicans are not as smart as democrats because they are not educated as well. Which takes me to the study I brought up earlier. Republicans are better informed than democrats.

 

No. actually what is happening is the uneducated are turning into Republicans.
And educated people are turning into Democrats.
See the difference?

 

Same insult. Republicans are not as smart as democrats because they are not as educated. Or would care to state that republicans are just as smart as democrats regardless of education.

 

Smart? I don't know about smart. But there are lots of reasons they might be less educated.
But I'll give you another opinion.
I think the uneducated voted for Trump because they are not doing very good in the economy.
Trump gave them a lot of people to blame for their inability to get ahead besides themselves.

 

Too bad democrats aren't as well informed as republicans. Maybe then they would change their attitude.

 

What demographic do you expect to attract with all the twitter hate and rah rah emotional pep rallies? Serious question. Are those the people you would like to be associated with your party?

 

It depends on what the null hypothesis is. If it is there is no correlation and you find a correlation, you have rejected the null hypothesis.

 

Sure. The Democrats have become the party of the elites and would-be elites.

 

You can be well informed and still make mistakes. I see it here everyday when the Trumpers support Trump even when the information says they are wrong.

 

And?

 

I, like most republicans do not support Trump 100%. We believe he is better than the alternatives. I did not vote for Trump or Hillary, but I am guessing you voted for Hilary. I do not need a lecture from anyone who voted for Hilary.

 

I did. I held my nose while voting for Hillary.
If you don't like different opinions, a political forum is probably not the place for you.
But I'm still interested in why you might think the uneducated went for Trump.

 

if you say A causes in B, the null hypothesis is not rejected by correlation.

 

I never looked at it as the uneducated voted for Trump. But, if you want to insist on looking at it that way, most institutions of higher learning lean liberal. it is not surprising that after four years of brainwashing, they would come out leaning liberal. I would not call that admirable.

Very likely that ends up with an "uneducated" group who is more independent and who, by the way, is better informed because they tend to listen to more than one news source rather than one they have been brainwashed with.

 

I'm surprised you never looked at it. It is mentioned in almost every analysis of the election.
But let's put that aside and look at the other.
Clinton did get the young voters while Trump got the old white guys.
But if the Clinton voters were corrupted by the education system I would think women would have been corrupted as well.

 

This is actually funny.

 

A single chart like that proves very little. Of all the one hundred plus million voters, it is likely that there are not a single two alike in why they vote like they did. However, influence during a four year period will affect about everyone, but not necessarily equally nor does it erase other factors.

 

It still has nothing to do with education vs intelligence.

But FTR, conservatism/liberalism are not manifestations of politics, they're character traits. They exist in the same ratios across the political spectrum.

 

Yes, that's the point. A generalisation (like an observation of life success) is a useful tool, in this case. Assuming intelligence is being measured, rather than knowledge.

Retention of knowledge is memory. APPLICATION of knowledge is intelligence.

 

Irrelevant to the question. Which (of the two dinner guests) is more intelligent?

 

Who do Democrats blame?