361–370 of 421 posts
> "Accuracy remained high (69%) even when controlling for age, gender, and ethnicity." So if I just assign the majority label to all of the population of a given demographics group, I would get the same result right? i.e., predicting "left" for all minorities under 30. You would also get ~70% accuracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why this comment got downvoted. This is the most scientific explanation possible. In males, more testosterone induces more risk taking, while low testosterone is linked to risk avoidance. Left-wing policies (“nanny state”) cater to people who avoid risks; people who are risk takers prefer right wing policies. Testosterone also affects muscle growth and facial characteristics.
I've learned some things about testosterone 'cos it's interesting. You're slanting it. People with more testosterone are more unsatisfied, aggressive, sexually driven, restless, and disappointed. This has nothing to do with something as apparently laudable as risk-taking vs. risk-avoiding, and in fact it's quite easy to be loaded with testosterone and yet constantly fretting over enemies and bad stuff you expect to h…
Aggressiveness is only going to have that association with testosterone when aggressiveness seems like the best strategy to maintain status.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have data that includes non-voters? I haven't seen any; most polls are limited to voters.
There were tons of national polls done for Trump's approval that included all adults (instead of likely or registered voters). Trump fared noticeably worse in the polls of all adults throughout his presidency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"controlling for ... ethnicity" There's significant signal buried in here that is likely not controlled for, depending on how granular their controls are. White-German and White-Italian are much more (10-13 percent) likely to be conservative leaning than White-Irish or White-British. Hispanic-Cuban are more likely to be conservative leaning than Hispanic-Mexican.
In the US or generally?
At some point in grade school I was home sick for a few days and ended up watching C-SPAN for several hours on end. I don't recall exactly what was going on politically during that time, but many congresspersons were standing up and giving speeches for a few minutes at a time. I eventually started a game in my mind where I'd try to guess their political affiliation before the chyron appeared. I'm pretty sure by the e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The left is literally pushing for the banning of a childhood classic with no racial problems. No slippery slope needed.
That isn't true. There was a scholarly paper that came out in 2019 observing that a few of Dr Seuss's many children's books included racial stereotypes that are dated to the point of being offensive, and that Geisel/Seuss had also produced a lot of adult cartoons that were overtly racist, a complicating factor for educators who used his books to to educate children about discrimination. https://sophia.stkate.edu/cgi/…
The outrage over racial overtones came from a left aligned organization. Fact.
It was carried on and cheered on by left leaning people. Fact.
People on the right don’t use words like “problematic” and “racialized undertones”
That’s on you guys.
This is from The horses mouth:
“ Six popular Dr. Seuss books — including And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street and If I Ran the Zoo — “will stop being published because of racist and insensitive imagery, the business that preserves and protects the author’s legacy said Tuesday,” The Associated Press reported.
“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises told The Associated Press in a statement marking the late author and illustrator’s birthday.”
^ The above is just stupid.
I can see making inferences from dress, makeup, style, etc. But, this is surprising; “facial morphology” This skims somewhat close to people who tried to infer criminality from facial and cranial characteristics... a century ago
Would it fail if you added a modern AI? How about if you had an MRI that provided more-direct information for the AI model? Feeding actual brain structure data into an AI is far more sophisticated than measuring heads and feeling for lumps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > Accuracy remained high (69%) even when controlling for age, gender, and ethnicity.
I'm not sure this is enough. If you classify all old white men as Republican you can have 69% accuracy. I'd even argue the more such factors you control the less it means something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why this comment got downvoted. This is the most scientific explanation possible. In males, more testosterone induces more risk taking, while low testosterone is linked to risk avoidance. Left-wing policies (“nanny state”) cater to people who avoid risks; people who are risk takers prefer right wing policies. Testosterone also affects muscle growth and facial characteristics.
I've learned some things about testosterone 'cos it's interesting. You're slanting it. People with more testosterone are more unsatisfied, aggressive, sexually driven, restless, and disappointed. This has nothing to do with something as apparently laudable as risk-taking vs. risk-avoiding, and in fact it's quite easy to be loaded with testosterone and yet constantly fretting over enemies and bad stuff you expect to h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US or generally?
The words conservative and liberal have wildly other meanings outside of the US. Even in the US they are not well agreed upon (especially the definitions, people seem to know which one to pick though when they have to).
Financial: balanced budget types.
Government: Common defense, otherwise minimal.
Responsibility: Your job to feed and cloth yourself.
Morals: don’t kill babies.
Religious: Act like God watches you and you will be judged.