DescentBB

I disagree with the \"Why\" ... but it's an interesting map.

Would be interesting to see that map compared to what states were won by what candidate in the last 4 elections. Only then would it be anything but 'interesting'. (IMHO)

Kind of entertaining to see Texas and Arkansas with so many dark spots, though neither can compare to Kentucky, Tennessee, or Georgia.

What am I supposed to be taking from this map? Bush won Texas, which has such a high proportion of uneducated people... and Bush won Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada, which have a very low proportion of uneducated people. Romney-McCain and Biden-Dodd are possible juggernaut tickets -- very few uneducated people in those states!

How about Cheney for president?

WOW. I didn't expect that.

That's pretty sad...

Just think- most of that is public education. Our public schools at work!

Got any more info on that map ? Pretty worthless w/o a parameter set.

I used a mainstream title. Just a general cause and effect. It also explains why the creationist museum is down there.

I just thought it was a horrible depiction of this country. I know The South is lean on intelligence, but I figured most at least made it to 12th grade or equivalent. I always guessed this country has an 8th grade emotional level, but I didn't know how accurate I was. (I judged from the entertainment industry, what's on mainstream tv channels, commercials and the news)

It's depressing, and it's heading right for me. I'm thinking of moving, and I think I'll be saving this map as a reference when considering locations.

I'm curious about the rash of dumb up in N. Dakota. Could that be a Canadian influence? (jk Merl!) eh? Or maybe your brain just freezes in winter and never really thaws out in summer? (Explains those Canadians!) Hehe sorry.

Testicules wrote:Just a general cause and effect. It also explains why the creationist museum is down there.

That's a very poor assumption. From what I understand, the creation museum in Kentucky was strategically placed:

creationmuseum.org wrote:The Creation Museum is located just 7 miles west of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and within a day’s drive of almost 2/3 of the U.S. population (within 650 miles of the museum).

The Creation Museum was started by a man named Ken Ham, who came to America from Australia in 1987.

Ken Ham - Wikipedia wrote:He has a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and also holds a Diploma of Education from the University of Queensland.[1]

I was watching his lectures on DVD before the museum was even started, and they're very good. This museum is not the creation of a bunch of country bumpkins that you're implying.

Atheists absolutely hate it, but it has just as much a scientific as a faith basis.

this map is ... really hard to read :-/

why, oh why, didn't they use multiple colours, pls

Sorry, he's a nutjob if he thinks Dinosaurs and man existed at the same time, and that he put two of every kind of dinosaur on a 400 foot wooden boat.

Yes, it was very strategically placed....the only place where people would actually believe that garbage. Notice Kentucky has the darkest colors. It's an obvious assumption.

Athiests don't hate it, we think it's @#$%ing hysterical. Comedy Gold. A friend of mine moved to Kentucky (Yes, he's one reason that the state has darker colors ) and I'm going down to visit one day, I am most definitely going to stop by and see it first hand, and laugh my ass off.

WHHOOOOOOOOiwasnotexpectingthat!
I mean, in Ireland, it's pretty much illegal not to stay in school for nine years if you're born in Ireland! (actually, it could be 11, I can't remember if the two years in school before 1st class count as education or are mandatory.

Also, it might be worth noting that Ireland, which has a strong reputation for educated people, there is actually a HUGE pro-Barack 'agenda' going on nationally right now. All the radios and newspapers are going 'Americans should vote for Obama!'

Doesn't take more than a few brain cells to figure that out. Ron Paul FTW! Ok, he doesn't stand much chance, but the democrats have not offered up a good candidate... The race between 'Bama and Hillary is moot.

What age do you start education in the States?

About 5 years old.

You're joking! So those stats are based on people leaving education at fourteen? I'm gob smacked...and if i was a US citizen, i'd be bloody scared also.

The \"education\" system in America is practically the textbook example of money doesn't fix everything. It is easily one of the greatest failures in the history of America or western society as a whole.

If you look at it closely, the urban areas are mostly okay. It's the rural populations that have the highest rates of less-than-nine-years education.

That said, Flabby Chick is right. It's scary; there's WAY too much red on that map, especially where I'm originally from.

Foil, that is why the rural areas are predominately Republican.

Educated people tend to vote Democrat. Non-educated people tend to vote Republican. It's no secret...the way it is.

I'm guessing that people forgot that Nevada and Wyoming hold some of the smallest population density figures in this country, hence why there is a lot of white. It is NOT because they are educated...

Krom wrote:The "education" system in America is practically the textbook example of money doesn't fix everything. It is easily one of the greatest failures in the history of America or western society as a whole.

That is because money does not discipline a child. If our classrooms were disciplined similar to Asia, I have no doubt that the money we 'throw' at it would be an additive contribution.

Where does it say the map doesn't represent early 1800 ? What's the percentage of home schooling ? What's the period of time the data was collected ? Statistial method ? Only colored people, white ppl, all ? etc. etc.

Again: W/o some more information this map is absolut worthless.

Zuruck wrote:Educated people tend to vote Democrat. Non-educated people tend to vote Republican. It's no secret...the way it is.

Hmmm.... My dad once told me that the presidency is basically determined by two groups. The National Rifle Association and the Teachers union. Anyway, I voted for my candidate today.

Bee

Good for you! Everyone should vote for their candidate of choice. Especially if it's not Hillary!


Oh, and here's the map, in context.

Thanks, didn't help tho. Still no context. Good example of sensationalism.

The \"blue\" states would still have plenty of purple in them. And beyond that, an election in the US is never \"picking the good candidate\" it is always \"trying to pick the least bad candidate and usually failing since they are all so alike\".

Regardless of who you vote for on the list, you will be voting for a complete and total moron who is willing to do whatever the bureaucracy tells them. Only someone who is that stupid and brainwashed by the system would think of running for president, no normal idiot would do it.

Krom wrote:Only someone who is that stupid and brainwashed by the system would think of running for president, no normal idiot would do it.

I don't know about that. Maybe insanely optimistic. I wouldn't be totally opposed to running for president, myself in another XX years. Of course there are a great many important public offices below that. Not that I consider myself presidential material or anything, I'm just talking about possibly being willing to take on that kind of responsibility.

What responsibility? About the only thing the president can do these days is screw up, and send troops to war, which might just be one and the same. Oh, and you get to deliver speeches too. As far as I can tell the job really doesn't have any rewards anymore (other than you will probably never have to open another car door or drive for yourself).

When is the last time you have heard of the president doing anything new and exciting? People who would do things like that either don't run, or would never get elected.

What are you talking about?! Here are two things bush has done!

Laugh! I like him a bit more now, actually. Not as a president of course, but he might be fun to have a beer with.

WillyP wrote:here's the map, in context.

That's "the map in the context of a politically charged but ultimately useless and moronic blog post". It doesn't explain any of what Grendel asked -- time period, data collection method, demographics, whether homeschooling counts, etc. Where's the map in the context of an actual study with methodology and such?

Your "context" asserts the red states stay red map to map, but the analysis is sloppy and misleading. The large patches of white on the map are Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and eastern Cali (traditionally Republican areas), and a segment of the northeast which is significantly more populous and traditionally more Democrat-leaning. The darkest colors on the map are in a clump in KY/WV, and along the Texas-Mexico border. Kentuckyhas historically leaned slightly Democrat, with 57% of voters as registered D's and 37% R's in 2006. The southwest and least educated part of West Virginia leans heavily Democrat, with the Republicans off to the northeast. The darkest parts of Texas are near El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley, also heavily Democrat-voting areas. The south as a whole is redder than most other parts of the country on both maps, though I suspect the southern blacks who vote Democrat are no more educated than the southern whites who vote Republican. At best, the map shows us that the very least educated areas vote Democrat, while the moderately uneducated areas vote Republican.

There is a correlation between education and voting, but it's not as simple as Zuruck tries to spin it. Both the very least educated (middle school dropouts) and the very most educated (PhD's) tend to vote Democrat. Republicans get a lot of support from those with engineering/math/technical degrees, and from people with only high school diplomas. The college-educated who don't fall into one of the above categories are pretty evenly split.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The Creation Museum was started by a man named Ken Ham, who came to America from Australia in 1987.

Ken Ham - Wikipedia wrote:He has a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and also holds a Diploma of Education from the University of Queensland.[1]

True AFAIK.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I was watching his lectures on DVD before the museum was even started, and they're very good.

Good production value? Good at reinforcing your worldview?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:This museum is not the creation of a bunch of country bumpkins that you're implying.

True, the folks who created it are quite savvy compared to the country bumpkins at which it's targeted.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Atheists absolutely hate it, but it has just as much a scientific as a faith basis.

False, it has no scientific basis. I don't know about atheists, but I don't like the museum because it saddens me to see people deluded.

Congrats, your post is mostly true or at least not demonstrably false with only one exception.

Zuruck wrote:Foil, that is why the rural areas are predominately Republican.

Educated people tend to vote Democrat. Non-educated people tend to vote Republican. It's no secret...the way it is.

I'm guessing that people forgot that Nevada and Wyoming hold some of the smallest population density figures in this country, hence why there is a lot of white. It is NOT because they are educated...

I think you interpreted the map incorrectly... It is the percentage of the population (in that particular county, map is divided by counties) that has only 9 years or less of education.

It doesn't matter how many people there are in that location, 9% (for example) would still be 9% regardless how many people are there.

Therefore ... Hurray for Wyoming schools! (I grew up there).

Genghis wrote:Good production value? Good at reinforcing your worldview?

Good at supporting the Bible's world-view using real science. I am not an unobjective person.

Genghis wrote:False, it has no scientific basis.
I don't know about atheists, but I don't like the museum because it saddens me to see people deluded.

I too am deeply saddened when people don't share my appraisal of the facts. The whole point of AIG and the Creation Museum is to show that science does support it. They're not hiding from the secular scientific world in order to maintain their favored view-points.

Genghis wrote:Congrats, your post is mostly true or at least not demonstrably false with only one exception.

Why thank you, professor, I didn't realize this test was being graded.

I can tell you grew up there TechPro...it's \"hooray\" btw. You sure you went to school for those nine years?

Zuruck wrote:I can tell you grew up there TechPro...it's "hooray" btw. You sure you went to school for those nine years?

"Tomatoe", "Tomato" ... Are you sure you went to school those nine years? (or ... "Did you not know there are multiple correct spellings for that expression?")

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hurray
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hooray

I is be like educacioned!!!22!1!1!11!!

Dakatsu wrote:I is be like educacioned!!!22!1!1!11!!

Hell, I done gradumacated YEERS agoe!

OMG…I just love it when some Chat Nazi gets their Comeuppance.

Woa Spidey havn't seen you in E&C for years.