and compared against other factors, like IQ, poverty, crime and other fun stats.  Correlation does not equal causation of course.

...and that is why I'm staying right here  ;)

and compared against other factors, like IQ, poverty, crime and other fun stats.  Correlation does not equal causation of course.


Interesting... only two states have a lower average IQ than California does.  ;D

Why is Mississippi always first at being last?
:D

Why is Mississippi always first at being last?
:D


Mississippi didn't get around to ratifying the 13th Amendment until 1995.  I figure it was because they thought they mattered. 

I noticed that Vermont was the least religious - we're such a bunch of free thinkers, Godess love us

Mississippi didn't get around to ratifying the 13th Amendment until 1995.  I figure it was because they thought they mattered.  


I didn't know that in 1980 and I didn't know Ronnie Reagan started his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, where the GOP held their national convention that year.  When I found out, I went, "Hmmmmmm...."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif


I noticed that Vermont was the least religious - we're such a bunch of free thinkers, Godess love us


But what is the ethnic makeup of Vermont's population makeup versus the ethnic population makeup of Mississippi?  That's where the study becomes less entertaining and more controversial.  I also don't like the way they threw the average IQ in there.  You know who likes to use "average IQ" to judge people en masse?  Racists like Charles Murray.  For one thing, not everybody has an IQ test.  You can go from kindergarten through graduate school and never have an IQ test.  I've had three IQ tests, one at 12, one at 18, one at 33, and I'm going to have to have a fourth IQ test in the near future.  Why so many IQ tests?  I have learning disabilities and clinical depression.  Once you get diagnosed, they do a lot of prodding.  Here's another thing, that raw IQ score is not the be-all end-all determination of a person's capabilities or potential in life.  The IQ test is not administered like the SAT.  It is administered by a qualified psychometrician who will obtain a complete socioeconomic and psychiatric background on the test-taker, and administer several other psychometric tests at the same time.  The intelligence quotient score is not a Huxleyan rank designation and to treat it as such is gross misuse.  My IQ far higher than hundreds of millions of people who lead far more stable, happy, and productive lives than I.  I don't mean to sound hard on myself, but that's the way the mop flops.

Percent of religious people broken down by state
I didn't think the state broke down that many religious people ;)

I didn't know that in 1980 and I didn't know Ronnie Reagan started his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, where the GOP held their national convention that year.  When I found out, I went, "Hmmmmmm...."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif

But what is the ethnic makeup of Vermont's population makeup versus the ethnic population makeup of Mississippi?  That's where the study becomes less entertaining and more controversial.  I also don't like the way they threw the average IQ in there.  You know who likes to use "average IQ" to judge people en masse?  Racists like Charles Murray.   For one thing, not everybody has an IQ test.  You can go from kindergarten through graduate school and never have an IQ test.  I've had three IQ tests, one at 12, one at 18, one at 33, and I'm going to have to have a fourth IQ test in the near future.  Why so many IQ tests?  I have learning disabilities and clinical depression.  Once you get diagnosed, they do a lot of prodding.  Here's another thing, that raw IQ score is not the be-all end-all determination of a person's capabilities or potential in life.  The IQ test is not administered like the SAT.  It is administered by a qualified psychometrician who will obtain a complete socioeconomic and psychiatric background on the test-taker, and administer several other psychometric tests at the same time.  The intelligence quotient score is not a Huxleyan rank designation and to treat it as such is gross misuse.  My IQ far higher than hundreds of millions of people who lead far more stable, happy, and productive lives than I.  I don't mean to sound hard on myself, but that's the way the mop flops.




The last time I took an IQ test, I think I scored about 120 and I was burning a 102 fever when I took it.  :o :o :o I often wondered if I wasn't sick, if my score would be higher or lower.  :-\\



Cat

But what is the ethnic makeup of Vermont's population makeup versus the ethnic population makeup of Mississippi?  That's where the study becomes less entertaining and more controversial.  I also don't like the way they threw the average IQ in there.  You know who likes to use "average IQ" to judge people en masse?  Racists like Charles Murray.   


I would imagine the best way to evaluate this theory is to run correlations "versus ethnicity" against correlations "against poverty level" to put the issue to bed one way or another.

There is prolly another factor involved though.  If I am an ethnic minority in, say, a nearly all-white area (Beverly Hills, maybe?) then discrimination will hold me down to a huge degree since I am in a super-minority, the "black jelly bean" in Texaco-talk.  On the other hand, if I am a minority in a predominately similar area (Let's say, a Hispanic dude in Laredo Texas), the "discrimination factor" should not play against me nearly as much (ie, a Hispanic person in Laredo is not part of a Local Minority but is part of a National Minority)

In the end, regardless of what correlation numbers will tell you, the numbers are essentially DATA which then need to be evaluated for root cause and then remediation.  The numbers are not an "end" but a "beginning" to take superstition and unwarranted discriminatory practices out of the picture.

LyricBoy, are you equating superstition and religion?

LyricBoy, are you equating superstition and religion?


Not sure where that question comes from but...

Religion is more or less a form of superstition.

I do not mean that in a denigrating manner.  Religion is essentially belief in "that which cannot be proved".  Because if it were proveable, it would be science and not religion.

What amazes me is when some people who profess to be religious undertake efforts to "prove" their religious beliefs; my opinion is that those who try to "prove" it are in fact insecure in their faith.

But what is the ethnic makeup of Vermont's population makeup versus the ethnic population makeup of Mississippi?  That's where the study becomes less entertaining and more controversial.  I also don't like the way they threw the average IQ in there.  You know who likes to use "average IQ" to judge people en masse?  Racists like Charles Murray.   For one thing, not everybody has an IQ test.  You can go from kindergarten through graduate school and never have an IQ test.  I've had three IQ tests, one at 12, one at 18, one at 33, and I'm going to have to have a fourth IQ test in the near future.  Why so many IQ tests?  I have learning disabilities and clinical depression.  Once you get diagnosed, they do a lot of prodding.  Here's another thing, that raw IQ score is not the be-all end-all determination of a person's capabilities or potential in life.  The IQ test is not administered like the SAT.  It is administered by a qualified psychometrician who will obtain a complete socioeconomic and psychiatric background on the test-taker, and administer several other psychometric tests at the same time.  The intelligence quotient score is not a Huxleyan rank designation and to treat it as such is gross misuse.  My IQ far higher than hundreds of millions of people who lead far more stable, happy, and productive lives than I.  I don't mean to sound hard on myself, but that's the way the mop flops.



Poverty and religion are most commonly matched.  So ethnicity really doesn't have as much to do with religiousness.  In general, the wealthier you are, the less religious you become.  There are notable exceptions to this though...  like Mormons and Jews.

Religion is much more appealing to me now that I've realized I will certainly die poor and alone. 

My friend Paul found his religion:  Smoking pot and chasing skirt.  Works out well for him.  However, if he loses his job, it won't be much solace. 
::)

There are notable exceptions to this though...  like Mormons and Jews.

Certainly from a Jewish perspective, it's not that simple: being Jewish is a racial & cultural as well as a religious thing, but I'd argue that the ones who are most religious within that group are less wealthy than those whose primary motivation is business rather than religion.

Certainly from a Jewish perspective, it's not that simple: being Jewish is a racial & cultural as well as a religious thing, but I'd argue that the ones who are most religious within that group are less wealthy than those whose primary motivation is business rather than religion.



True. I claim that I am of Jewish heritage but not a practicing Jew. Even though I was also brought up in the Episcopal Church, I don't claim the same heritage of the Christian side of the family. 



Cat

Thing about this chart is, once you get outside the South (and below the 70% rate of "religiousness," whatever that means), the stats become so similar that they really don't correlate much of anything.

Certainly from a Jewish perspective, it's not that simple: being Jewish is a racial & cultural as well as a religious thing, but I'd argue that the ones who are most religious within that group are less wealthy than those whose primary motivation is business rather than religion.


Good point...  I doubt Madoff was very religious.

LyricBoy, are you equating superstition and religion?


I can't speak for him, but personally, I don't see any difference between the two.

Good point...  I doubt Madoff was very religious.


Being religious doesn't make you good or bad.  Being good or bad makes you good or bad.

Being religious doesn't make you good or bad.  Being good or bad makes you good or bad.

Totally agree with that.

Poverty and religion are most commonly matched.  So ethnicity really doesn't have as much to do with religiousness.  In general, the wealthier you are, the less religious you become.  There are notable exceptions to this though...  like Mormons and Jews.

I understand what you are saying and there is a lot of truth in that.

I wonder what the stats are like in Canada. Geographically, the west coast of Canada ( where I live) is less religious than most parts of Canada, and Vancouver is also the most expensive city to live in Canada, by far.

LyricBoy, are you equating superstition and religion?


Oh, now I see where you came up with the superstition question.  No, I was not equating superstition with religion.  (See excerpt of my quote below)


In the end, regardless of what correlation numbers will tell you, the numbers are essentially DATA which then need to be evaluated for root cause and then remediation.  The numbers are not an "end" but a "beginning" to take superstition and unwarranted discriminatory practices out of the picture.


My comment regarding "superstition" is to address the usual explanation that all bad outcomes are due to poverty, or that the bad outcomes can be explained by the % of "religiousness".  Those of course are politically-correct superstitions in some circles.  

Or the superstition that unwed parentage does not matter (the statistics clearly show that children without wedded parents are VASTLY put at a statistical disadvantage, all other things being equal).  When I used to live in South Bend, Indiana, there was a furor amongst one element of society, when the statistic was revealed that 70% of its constituents were born out of wedlock.  "Why should that matter, it is just our culture" was the outcry.  

Poverty sure as hell puts people at a disadvantage and it is a setup for poor outcomes.  But in the USA there are a multitide of cultures, some of which promote overcoming the obstacles of poverty, and others which perpetuate the cycle of poverty.  The complete disregard for the nuclear family in some segments of the population, in my opinon, is A PRIMARY CAUSE OF POVERTY and not a result of poverty.  But let's run the numbers instead of arguing one opinion versus another, that was kinda my point about superstition.

So... we need to lay out the data to disprove the superstitions and to clearly outline what factors and cultures promote poor outcomes, so that society, the law, and government programs can deal with the numbers and then proceed from there.

Oh, now I see where you came up with the superstition question.  No, I was not equating superstition with religion.  (See excerpt of my quote below)

My comment regarding "superstition" is to address the usual explanation that all bad outcomes are due to poverty, or that the bad outcomes can be explained by the % of "religiousness".  Those of course are politically-correct superstitions in some circles.  

Or the superstition that unwed parentage does not matter (the statistics clearly show that children without wedded parents are VASTLY put at a statistical disadvantage, all other things being equal).  When I used to live in South Bend, Indiana, there was a furor amongst one element of society, when the statistic was revealed that 70% of its constituents were born out of wedlock.  "Why should that matter, it is just our culture" was the outcry.  

Poverty sure as hell puts people at a disadvantage and it is a setup for poor outcomes.  But in the USA there are a multitide of cultures, some of which promote overcoming the obstacles of poverty, and others which perpetuate the cycle of poverty.  The complete disregard for the nuclear family in some segments of the population, in my opinon, is A PRIMARY CAUSE OF POVERTY and not a result of poverty.  But let's run the numbers instead of arguing one opinion versus another, that was kinda my point about superstition.

So... we need to lay out the data to disprove the superstitions and to clearly outline what factors and cultures promote poor outcomes, so that society, the law, and government programs can deal with the numbers and then proceed from there.


Don't say "certain segments."  Nut up and say who you mean.

I neither agree nor disagree with you 100%.  Familial breakdown is both a cause AND a result, both a result AND an aggravating factor in the persistence of poverty. 

I don't mind the argument you make in itself, but I strongly object to right-wing politicians using it as an excuse to scapegoat social problems on single-parent households and indeed to quite inhumanely cut needed social programs to give rich suburban pigs another tax cut.  Thank you.
:)

Don't say "certain segments."  Nut up and say who you mean.

I neither agree nor disagree with you 100%.  Familial breakdown is both a cause AND a result, both a result AND an aggravating factor in the persistence of poverty. 

I don't mind the argument you make in itself, but I strongly object to right-wing politicians using it as an excuse to scapegoat social problems on single-parent households and indeed to quite inhumanely cut needed social programs to give rich suburban pigs another tax cut.  Thank you.
:)


I usually don't do this but my second daughter has been a single parent for about  five years now, having divorced her husband soon after her daughter was born, and yes, she has taken advantage of every strand in the social safety net that she could. But my grand daughter is far from deprived, because deprivation is only marginally related to income.  Rather, it is related to culture.  You might want to check out the works of Oscar Lewis on "the culture of poverty".  My first job after college was at an anti-poverty agency called COPE where I was a teacher at the 1st-3rd grade level for teenagers from Newark N.J. ghettos (mostly Hispanic).  These kids were very street smart, but terrified of succeeding at academics - and so they didn't.

I can't speak for him, but personally, I don't see any difference between the two.

I'd call superstition a superset of religion - it's possible to be superstitious but not religious.  Touch wood.

Being religious doesn't make you good or bad.  Being good or bad makes you good or bad.


True, but Madoff clearly doesn't fear anything resembling a just God.  If he did, he would've been too scared to screw so many people over.

I usually don't do this but my second daughter has been a single parent for about  five years now, having divorced her husband soon after her daughter was born, and yes, she has taken advantage of every strand in the social safety net that she could. But my grand daughter is far from deprived, because deprivation is only marginally related to income.  Rather, it is related to culture.  You might want to check out the works of Oscar Lewis on "the culture of poverty".  My first job after college was at an anti-poverty agency called COPE where I was a teacher at the 1st-3rd grade level for teenagers from Newark N.J. ghettos (mostly Hispanic).  These kids were very street smart, but terrified of succeeding at academics - and so they didn't.


I have trouble understanding the psychology of being terrified of academic success.  The usual argument that peer pressure rules it "uncool" or "acting white" doesn't wash with me.  It must be something deeper.

I do notice the people who want to destroy public education are the ones with the most money and the least culture.