protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,240
- 18,387
- 2,250
Often when conservatives speak out in something, they are countered by oh-so-confident liberals who attempt to refute, using studies to back them up. And what about these ubiquitous studies ? Do ty have anything in common with each other ?
Often, yes they do. Asa teacher of Geography and Economics in 4 colleges of the City University of New York, I was inundated with studies from other professors, all of them ultra-liberal. As a liberal myself back in those days (1970s), I tended to believe these many studies. I rarely questioned them, and generally took them at face value (as i suspect today's liberals do as well).
But the tide having turned for me politically, and having become a conservative in 2009, and a registered Republican in 2016, I've gotten to see this long-time liberal weapon in a new light. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold studies from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.
Problem for liberals is, quite often (too often) the studies have major holes in them. Here's 3 examples >>
1) The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.
Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.
Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.
Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >> Ann Coulter did a study on states inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high lever of close quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).
The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
So you said you have a study ? Well, isn't that nice ?
2) In another study, often cited by liberals, it's maintained that women are paid less than men for doing the same work. What the study doesn't tell you is that >>
a. it uses annual pay as a criteria, which is less for women because they work fewer hours, having more part-time work, so as to pick up kids after school, and then watch them at home.
b. women work less hours annually due to pregnancies
c. Study uses average wage which (because of a tiny group of highly paid male executives) pushes the average wage way up, thereby distorting the picture. It's like having 10 workers, 9 of whom making $20K/yr, and one making $5 Million/yr, and then correctly announcing the average wage being $ 510,000/year. Lots of people would get the wrong impression that the workers in the study are all making over half a Million $ a year, when actually, they're making only $20K/year (less than $10/hour).
3) A third study, tells us that backs are imprisoned per capita more than whites. OK. We get that. Study concludes blacks are being arrested and imprisoned unfairly. Study doesn't mention that blacks COMMIT MORE CRIMES per capita than whites. If you commit crime, you get arrested and imprisoned, you think ?
Often, yes they do. Asa teacher of Geography and Economics in 4 colleges of the City University of New York, I was inundated with studies from other professors, all of them ultra-liberal. As a liberal myself back in those days (1970s), I tended to believe these many studies. I rarely questioned them, and generally took them at face value (as i suspect today's liberals do as well).
But the tide having turned for me politically, and having become a conservative in 2009, and a registered Republican in 2016, I've gotten to see this long-time liberal weapon in a new light. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold studies from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.
Problem for liberals is, quite often (too often) the studies have major holes in them. Here's 3 examples >>
1) The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.
Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.
Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.
Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >> Ann Coulter did a study on states inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high lever of close quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).
The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
So you said you have a study ? Well, isn't that nice ?
2) In another study, often cited by liberals, it's maintained that women are paid less than men for doing the same work. What the study doesn't tell you is that >>
a. it uses annual pay as a criteria, which is less for women because they work fewer hours, having more part-time work, so as to pick up kids after school, and then watch them at home.
b. women work less hours annually due to pregnancies
c. Study uses average wage which (because of a tiny group of highly paid male executives) pushes the average wage way up, thereby distorting the picture. It's like having 10 workers, 9 of whom making $20K/yr, and one making $5 Million/yr, and then correctly announcing the average wage being $ 510,000/year. Lots of people would get the wrong impression that the workers in the study are all making over half a Million $ a year, when actually, they're making only $20K/year (less than $10/hour).
3) A third study, tells us that backs are imprisoned per capita more than whites. OK. We get that. Study concludes blacks are being arrested and imprisoned unfairly. Study doesn't mention that blacks COMMIT MORE CRIMES per capita than whites. If you commit crime, you get arrested and imprisoned, you think ?
