***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
I have provided several pieces of evidence. They all point one way. Have you found any articles, poorly written or otherwise that even suggest the opposite. Nope!
You posted information, which I debunked. I don't have to find someone else's work because I posted my own.
Yup, bears are just like us. They have the ability to contemplate ethical decisions and have access to modern agriculture techniques and food production. Fantastic stuff.
It's ethical to eat what we are supposed to eat, just as the rest of nature does. You can make your own choices for yourself, but LOL at judging anyone else's ethics.
If you vote for a punch in the face instead of a kick in the balls, I guess you're a punch in the face supporter.
You'd vote for neither if you supported neither. Now you get it?
Like I said, facts are facts. This seems to really escape you. You seem to be very interested in why these Trump slappies didn't know facts. That doesn't matter. What matters is they didn't know them.
The facts are facts. The survey results regarding those facts, though, are very biased for the reasons I already explained.
Anyway, if this is the case where is the survey that shows people when presented with Trumpy facts get the questions wrong and vote for Kamala. Why doesn't that exist? Same questions that show less educated people tend to vote Trump. Why doesn't that exist? What about data that shows that people who claim they don't follow the news closely tend to vote for Trump. Why does the opposite of that not exist? You never seem to answer these questions other that "I don't know". Maybe pause to think about it for a while and it will come to you. If all the data is pointing one way, it should tell you something. Well, it would tell a rational person something.
Legacy media won't conduct polls like that, which isn't my problem. They apparently believe Trump supporters are misinformed, and that's why they surveyed what they surveyed. It's unbelievably biased, to the point where only you believe it's objective evidence of anything but the biases of the team who conducted it.
Man, I don't know what you think this proves. If someone's subjective evaluation of the nation's economy was that it was doing well and that they were doing better today than four years ago, that means they're "low info". Come on, man, even you're not stupid enough to realize those are general subjective evaluations and not the same as "stock market is up", " Inflation is down", ect.
Then try to pay attention. It proves that a Kamala supporter who has no clue about the "facts" being asked is very likely to answer "true" to the true/false question based on their own biases. This can't be that hard for you to comprehend. Maybe take a moment to read before replying.
Many women certainly have negative attitudes towards women in leadership. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, because of the nature of the questions asked. I don't doubt that it is high. Internalized sexism is a thing. College educated women seem to be likely to have these attitudes than less educated women.
Have you stopped to consider whether this is "discrimination"?
Like if I meet 10 people, and I can win a million dollars if I guess who refuses to use a toilet and free shits, I'm guessing a jeet 100% of a time because I can pass a freshman level math class.
No, Melk, you didn't. You failed to make your case that Kamala supporters are more intelligent or more informed than Trump supporters.
The most ardent democratic groups are some of the least educated groups (which is correlated with intelligence). They're also black, which represents an overall lower IQ group.
I went from thinking that Kamala voters smarter on average to thinking Trump voters smarter on average reading all of this tbh.
In the tails it's not even close.
You posted information, which I debunked. I don't have to find someone else's work because I posted my own.
LOL at debunked. I don't want you to post someone else's "debunking". I want you to post actual facts. You know, the thing you deal in?
Look man, your argument is transparent and completely unfalsifiable. I find some research that shows that people who didn't know something tend to vote Trump. You then gin up some reason why that's an unfair question to ask Trump voters.
It's ethical to eat what we are supposed to eat, just as the rest of nature does. You can make your own choices for yourself, but LOL at judging anyone else's ethics.
Oh wait, so we're not bears now. We can make ethical judgements. Which is it bears or not bears?
You'd vote for neither if you supported neither. Now you get it?
You realize you're contradicting yourself, right. Of course you don't. A few pages ago you said someone who didn't vote for either was more aligned with Trump because they knew Kamala's campaign needed their vote. So two days ago, if you didn't vote for either you were a quasi-Trump supporter. Now if you don't vote for either you don't support either. I wonder what it will be next week!
The facts are facts.
Holy fack. Real breakthrough here. Finally, we agree on something.
The survey results regarding those facts, though, are very biased for the reasons I already explained.
And as I've already explained you can just claim "bias" anytime you see a survey with results you don't like. This was on full display at your attempt to hand wave away the self-identified people who don't follow the news closely.
Rich Muny: Well, we don't know how many people that was. It could have been 3%
Melk: Dude we know exactly how many it was if you follow the link all the questions and numbers are there. It's 15%
Rich Muny: 15% lol, that's not enough
Melk: Um, OK, why
Rich Muny: Obviously 85% of people don't follow news closely
Melk: Survey didn't say that, but of course you don't know that because you didn't actually read it.
It's pretty clear. You have your mind made up. If new evidence is presented, you will reject it. You won't even actually read it. You'll just keep grasping at straws for some reason it can't be true, because you "know" (based on no evidence at all) that it isn't true.
Legacy media won't conduct polls like that, which isn't my problem. They apparently believe Trump supporters are misinformed, and that's why they surveyed what they surveyed. It's unbelievably biased, to the point where only you believe it's objective evidence of anything but the biases of the team who conducted it.
So Fox News wouldn't do a poll like that to prove that point? Come on, man. If they had that data, Hannity would be going on about it non-stop.
Then try to pay attention. It proves that a Kamala supporter who has no clue about the "facts" being asked is very likely to answer "true" to the true/false question based on their own biases. This can't be that hard for you to comprehend. Maybe take a moment to read before replying.
I love how when it comes to things you want to "prove" your standard of proof is non-existent. How does it prove that? Why can't it be that they know the stock market is up and they know inflation down, therefore they think the economy is in good shape?
I'm serious. I really want to see how in Rich Muny's brain that data (from NBC News, which apparently you've been telling me is biased trash for days, but now seems to be a reliable source) proves what you think it does. Please. I have to hear this!
Just to see how far out there you are Rich, can you verify one thing for me:
You agree that less educated voters tend to vote Trump (but you think their are doing so because it is in their interest). Is that correct?
LOL at debunked. I don't want you to post someone else's "debunking". I want you to post actual facts. You know, the thing you deal in?
Look man, your argument is transparent and completely unfalsifiable. I find some research that shows that people who didn't know something tend to vote Trump. You then gin up some reason why that's an unfair question to ask Trump voters.
Legacy media and the left have been pushing a narrative that people are getting misinformed by "disinformation". They push this narrative pretty hard, against X and nontraditional media.
The survey you cited happens to align with that. It has many others issues too, which I cited for you.
You ask me for data on the other side, but conservatives are not out surveying people to show imaginary disinformation exists, nor are we trying to prove someone is smarter than someone else. The GOP welcomes working class people and many others who are traditionally conservative and anti-communist. Why would we insult people the way Democrats are? I actually saw a segment on ABC, where high school graduates were described as "uneducated". LOL. As I said before, nothing like elitism to win over the working class.
Oh wait, so we're not bears now. We can make ethical judgements. Which is it bears or not bears?
Please read my replies before replying. I said there's nothing unethical about eating meat, but you can make your own choices for how you live your own life. Which part of that confused you?
You realize you're contradicting yourself, right. Of course you don't. A few pages ago you said someone who didn't vote for either was more aligned with Trump because they knew Kamala's campaign needed their vote. So two days ago, if you didn't vote for either you were a quasi-Trump supporter. Now if you don't vote for either you don't support either. I wonder what it will be next week!
I said people who chose not to vote for Kamala knew she needed their vote to win, so it was a conscious choice not to vote for her. This can't be hard for you to understand. If it is hard, go look at how she did on Nov. 5th.
That's completely different than voting FOR a candidate like you did.
And as I've already explained you can just claim "bias" anytime you see a survey with results you don't like. This was on full display at your attempt to hand wave away the self-identified people who don't follow the news closely.
I explained its clear and obvious biases.
Just to see how far out there you are Rich, can you verify one thing for me:
You agree that less educated voters tend to vote Trump (but you think their are doing so because it is in their interest). Is that correct?
Exit polls showed that men with college degrees were equally likely to vote for Trump as for Kamala, men without college degrees were more likely to vote for Trump, and women in general were more likely to support Kamala.
Exit polls showed that men with college degrees were equally likely to vote for Trump as for Kamala, men without college degrees were more likely to vote for Trump, and women in general were more likely to support Kamala.
OK, cool. So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?
OK, cool. So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?
Absolutely yes, more people who are less educated voted for Trump.
'Educated' does not guarantee you have a high IQ or are smarter as I have outlined previously. So please don't interchange the phrase
'more educated people voted for Kamala' with 'smarter people voted for Kamala.'
Avg college educated person has a 102 IQ.
I would bet $1 that if you gave an IQ test to all 74.7Million Kamala voters and 77.1Million Trump voters and averaged each group separately,
you would get 100.0 IQ average for both groups. (difference being less than 0.1%)
It almost has to be this way because of the size of the population sampled and the IQ distribution curve.
What I would really like to see is if you did a poll of all Mensa society voters what the vote ratio would be .. IQ requirement to join Mensa is 130.
Yeah. Dunno how this is really a debate. But this is peak AIDS, so I probably shouldn't wonder.
I went from thinking that Kamala voters smarter on average to thinking Trump voters smarter on average reading all of this tbh.
TBH over the last 30y you prob end up with nearly identical breakdowns.
I think one of the more striking things is most people who vote R will just be like "Yeah, Trump does some very shitty and weird stuff." whereas you see some really convoluted mental gymnastics (undocumented people means documented and undocumented since we don't have more precise language to describe illegals we know and don't know) out of the left wing. Wait till you have one talk you through illegals and tax fraud/identity theft, hot but livable IQ levels.
If this whole convo was one giant aidsy logical fallacy, this might deserve a rebuttal, but actually pretty accurately describes one viewpoint.
Absolutely yes, more people who are less educated voted for Trump.
'Educated' does not guarantee you have a high IQ or are smarter as I have outlined previously. So please don't interchange the phrase
'more educated people voted for Kamala' with 'smarter people voted for Kamala.'
Avg college educated person has a 102 IQ.
I would bet $1 that if you gave an IQ test to all 74.7Million Kamala voters and 77.1Million Trump voters and averaged each group separately,
you would get 100.0 IQ average for
I don't think it is that close, but certainly within the realm of reality. Educational attainment (not college students) tracks decently with IQ and its say to say that there is some reasonable amount of discrepancy, but we're quibbling about a few IQ points on our arbitrary scale. Regardless of how you slice this any reasonable estimate is gonna prob average 1.3-1.7 SDs off baseline from the average poster here. (Median is a lot stronger, but N1 killing us.)
As someone in that latter group and knowing a bunch of people also in that group (none of which actually have membership tho), I'd so most people aren't really accurately described by a R/D split in America. For example, I think we should erase Obongocare, undergo massive tort reform, solve the bizarre doctor/insurance fraud issue and unify all the various fed programs into providing a baseline of emergency services and healthcare for all people (including the unemployed) and also stop the excess utilization of resources on end of life care, which is decidedly not a view held by pretty much anyone in the political sphere of the US.
Next we can cover housing first and how we need to bring back 150sqft shared bathroom accommodations for poor people.
OK, cool. So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?
You can say non-college educated men were far more likely to vote for Trump than for Kamala and college educated women were far more likely to vote for Kamala than for Trump. You can also say non-college educated women were more likely to vote for Kamala, but not to the extent of college educated women. And, you can say college educated men were evenly split between the two.
If you just said that in the first place, no one would have replied with an objection to that claim.
Absolutely yes, more people who are less educated voted for Trump.
'Educated' does not guarantee you have a high IQ or are smarter as I have outlined previously. So please don't interchange the phrase
Obviously it's not a "guarantee" but there is definitely data to show that education and intelligence are positively correlated. Here's one study which shows this. It's easy to find others.
Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...
You can also correlate intelligence with educational attainment:
Longitudinal studies have shown a predictive interaction of intelligence on educational attainment. In one study[4] which measured around 70,000 children in the UK, they investigated how a general factor in the Cognitive Abilities Test taken at age 11 correlated with GCSE scores taken at age 16. They found that the two measures correlated about 0.8 with each other, showing intelligence at age 11 is predictive of grades at age 16. In this instance, children had received the same level of education, suggesting the variance is explained primarily by differences in intelligence rather than education. The predictive effect of IQ on educational success is even apparent if IQ is measured before any formal education, with measured correlations of IQ at the beginning of education and educational attainment six year later correlating 0.46.
Obviously it's not a "guarantee" but there is definitely data to show that education and intelligence are positively correlated. Here's one study which shows this. It's easy to find others.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...
You can also correlate intelligence with educational attainment:
100% agree with all those reports.
What I was trying to say with my 102 IQ report was that if you did an IQ test on any large group of college graduates, 50% will have
102 IQ or over and 50% will have under 102. If we assume that there are say 10% in the 120 IQ, and there is a minimum IQ of say 90 to get into college,
there must be a lot of 102-90 IQ people with College degrees.
Something like this. (apologies in advance for my crude sketch)
Now the majority of those to the right of the 102 line didn't get high paying jobs after
getting their degree and vote D because those with lots of debt vote D hoping for college debt forgiveness.
Not an official study, but my guess of why majority of female college grads vote D.
Apologies,
The label on the diagram should read IQ distribution of college graduates.
You can say non-college educated men were far more likely to vote for Trump than for Kamala and college educated women were far more likely to vote for Kamala than for Trump. You can also say non-college educated women were more likely to vote for Kamala, but not to the extent of college educated women. And, you can say college educated men were evenly split between the two.
If you just said that in the first place, no one would have replied with an objection to that claim.
Yeah, like I said, that's cool and all. We can say all of those things. But you're not answering the question, as you well know. Let's try again:
So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?
Yeah, like I said, that's cool and all. We can say all of those things. But you're not answering the question, as you well know. Let's try again:
So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?
You keep trying to force conclusions where they don't exist. In this data set, gender is (likely) too important simply to disregard. I don't think you can just add men and women together and treat them as a monolithic group when the differences between the two groups are so large. You can say support for Kamala tends to increase with educational level, if you really want to. That's in the data, independent of gender.
As I stated earlier, the GOP wants the votes of the working class. In this election, working class voters were important in keeping Kamala from winning a single battleground state. If you (you voted for Kamala, so yes, you) want the elitist "we're smarter" trophy to go along with losing the trifecta, have at it. I hope the GOP expands its working class support in 2026 and 2028. In 2028, if Dems have a clear voter IQ advantage, it will be because they lost that election pretty badly.
"I was doing an event with the steel workers, across the street where I live, and I was noticing [a] different kind of energy with this, with Trump. It was clear at that time that people were voting for Trump. And the Democrats’ response was, ‘Aren’t they smart enough to realize they’re voting against their interests?’ And that’s insulting, and that’s, I mean, that’s, that’s just not helpful. It’s condescending. And if anything, that reinforces that kind of stereotype." -- Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)
I keep asking why is this so important to you. So, why?
Yeah, like I said, that's cool and all. We can say all of those things. But you're not answering the question, as you well know. Let's try again:
So when we add up all of those subgroups, less educated people, as a group, tend to vote for Trump. Yes?
Absolutely yes. That is a conclusion that is reflected in the data.
Now think of this..
47% of men take stem degrees.. 53% non stem degrees
30% of women take stem degrees, 70% non stem degrees.
Now assume a high % of non stem degrees do not actually improve your earning potential and are much more likely to put you into long term debt.
(My first girlfriend did an Asian Studies degree) Never did anything in work related to it. For her, degree/no degree she would have gotten the same pay in her after college work. I know it is just an anecdote, but I say it because it is an example of what I am talking about.
It looks like STEM/non STEM degrees has a decent correlation with the split on the College educated vote for Trump and Kamala.
Just another possibility to think about.
OK, bros, we've finally done it! After weeks of posts, we're finally there.
You keep trying to force conclusions where they don't exist. In this data set, gender is (likely) too important simply to disregard. I don't think you can just add men and women together and treat them as a monolithic group when the differences between the two groups are so large.
Sure.
You can say support for Kamala tends to increase with educational level, if you really want to. That's in the data, independent of gender.
Yes. I'm glad we can finally agree that saying that is correct.
So, going from education level to intelligence, is not that big a leap. I explained that just a couple of posts ago, but here's a good source to show the correlation (same as I posted before.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...
As I stated earlier, the GOP wants the votes of the working class. In this election, working class voters were important in keeping Kamala from winning a single battleground state.
I have never disagreed with this.
If you (you voted for Kamala, so yes, you) want the elitist "we're smarter" trophy to go along with losing the trifecta, have at it.
In this case "you" is perfectly fine, as I was a Kamala voter. Sounds like we even agree that smarter voters, tended to vote Harris; less smart ones tended to vote for Trump. We can both have at it!
I hope the GOP expands its working class support in 2026 and 2028. In 2028, if Dems have a clear voter IQ advantage, it will be because they lost that election pretty badly.
I 100% agree with this as well. Back in the day when Clinton was crushing elections, I think the less intelligent voters tended to vote Clinton. I'm sure I've seen a source on that somewhere, might take a while to dig up.
"I was doing an event with the steel workers, across the street where I live, and I was noticing [a] different kind of energy with this, with Trump. It was clear at that time that people were voting for Trump. And the Democrats’ response was, ‘Aren’t they smart enough to realize they’re voting against their interests?’ And that’s insulting, and that’s, I mean, that’s, that’s just not helpful. It’s condescending. And if anything, that reinforces that kind of stereotype." -- Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)
I agree that it is insulting. I agree that it is bad strategy. I also think that in many cases, at least some of those people (but definitely not all) of those people were voting against their interests. And, yes, telling them that they are dumb for doing that, even if you might be right, is not the best way to go about it. I've been consistent on this throughout.
I keep asking why is this so important to you. So, why?
It's not. As most everyone else here knows, I one sick puppy when it comes to stuff like this. There wasn't much "point". As I mentioned earlier, what you or I write here in the H&F LC doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things. It's pointless. I'm weird. I have spent far more time posting about things far more trivial. Also, like I said earlier I don't really interact much with people like you, so it's novel and probably good for me in some ways.
Yes. I'm glad we can finally agree that saying that is correct.
So, going from education level to intelligence, is not that big a leap. I explained that just a couple of posts ago, but here's a good source to show the correlation (same as I posted before.
I agreed all along that support for Kamala tends to increase with educational level. I don't agree that you can say that correlates with anything regarding the intelligence of supporters of either candidate.
I read all the articles and studies you posted suggesting that formal education, even in college-age adults, may raise IQ. It's an interesting hypothesis, but an unproven one. There are also studies on the other side of this showing that the average IQ of college students has dropped significantly as a greater percentage of the population goes to college. The study Mindflayer shared above found that undergraduates’ IQs dropped from 119 in 1939 to 102 in 2022.
If there is an effect on IQ due to continued stimulus of the brain, it would also be interesting to learn if the internet has had an effect on the IQ of non-college educated people. They can read and learn with ease too, should they so choose. I'm not aware of any studies, but it does seem clear that we live in a different world than we did a couple of generations ago.
In this case "you" is perfectly fine, as I was a Kamala voter. Sounds like we even agree that smarter voters, tended to vote Harris; less smart ones tended to vote for Trump. We can both have at it!
Nope...I never said that. 😀
I agree that it is insulting. I agree that it is bad strategy. I also think that in many cases, at least some of those people (but definitely not all) of those people were voting against their interests. And, yes, telling them that they are dumb for doing that, even if you might be right, is not the best way to go about it. I've been consistent on this throughout.
That's another mistake the Democrat Party keeps making. They think they know what's best for the working class, but clearly many working class don't see it that way. The party does come across as condescending, as Fetterman noted.
Democrats might try asking working class voters what they want, rather than asking high priced consultants what the working class wants. Trump clearly did a better job speaking to these voters than Kamala did. LOL that one multi-billionaire using nothing but instinct can outperform the party that used to claim to represent that group.
Rich & Mind,
You guys do yourself a disservice and bluntly come across as complete ****ing ******s when you link a blog article with a dead citation link and misrepresent it as a study, then incorrectly quote the study repeatedly.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...
The actual "study" you're referencing is a preprint that is not peer reviewed and studies undergrads who matriculated, not graduated.
Please stop with your bullshit "facts".
Or like read the dogshit you're citing: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/2munr It is ****ing AIDs.
IQ of top 10percentile 119.. reflects the study.. 1939 only 10% of population went to university
IQ of top 40percentile 104 .. Please note that many people who have high IQ, (bookeepers, plumbers, electricians etc.)
did not get a degree so the IQ number is higher than 102 avg of those with college degree.
IQ of top 60 percentile 96...
around 60% of Americans studied some college but only 39% have degrees.
The meta analysis is just a summation of all bunch of IQ studies. I would assume that all the prior IQ studies are peer reviewed.
If you are implying (saying the meta analysis is not peer reviewed) that the meta analysis picked only the studies that gave the lowest IQ for college graduates and skewed the result downward, yes this is possible.
I am just looking from the outside, trying to figure out how and why you guys voted the way you did. The reason I study things like this,
is that when I am convinced of a discrepancy in the information provided and the actual reality I try to make big investments that puts my money
where my thinking is.
It is a very Mungerish thing to do.
Ie. when my friends believed that Kamala was going to win and the betting odds were 2-1 for Trump, I told them that if their deep analysis was correct that
they should be making bets and taking advantage of the odds.
I do the same, but in equities and real estate.
Come on, Rich. Are we doing that thing again when it's a fact you don't like, your standard for proof is unattainable. How exactly would anyone prove this to you if this is not enough:
Across 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving over 600,000 participants, we found consistent evidence for beneficial effects of education on cognitive abilities of approximately 1 to 5 IQ points for an additional year of education.
Even if the average college student's IQ is going down, it doesn't mean it's less than than the average person who doesn't go to college. Moreover, the article I linked is fairly recent.
If you want to still stick to your guns and say, "Gee, I don't know, maybe education doesn't actually make people smarter. Sure, it makes sense, and there is data to suggest it, but who can really know?", then you're really beyond reasonable discussion.
Nope...I never said that. 😀
Well, perhaps I misunderstood you. What was this supposed to mean:
If you (you voted for Kamala, so yes, you) want the elitist "we're smarter" trophy to go along with losing the trifecta, have at it.
Are you giving Harris voters that trophy or not?
That's another mistake the Democrat Party keeps making. They think they know what's best for the working class, but clearly many working class don't see it that way. The party does come across as condescending, as Fetterman noted.
Democrats might try asking working class voters what they want, rather than asking high priced consultants what the working class wants. Trump clearly did a better job speaking to these voters than Kamala did. LOL that one multi-billionaire using nothing but instinct can outperform the party that used to claim to represent that group.
I don't know why you keep posting this stuff. Dems are bad at strategy and a lot of things. One of the reasons I am not a Democrat. These exchanges would be a lot shorter if you didn't feel the need to keep saying stuff that is irrelevant to the point and that I am not disputing.
