Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] And the next president of the United States...

#11
Quote:I guess it's what's causing the intercorrelations among all the different variables that leads me to my view of it.

This is the reflective interpretation. I don't think it is very plausible. But I don't think we need to debate that here. See e.g. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt221d.htm


Quote:I agree 1.8 IQ points is small, assuming the typical SD of 15 for IQ tests.

But, I'm perhaps missing something: wouldn't moving 1.8 IQ points in an IQ distribution with a SD of 2.7 be a large effect? I tried researching whether a standardized beta is a measure of effect size, but got mixed results...



Depends what you mean. It is large in the standardized sense at the state-level. It is quite small at the individual level. Generally, I think it is more sensible to use the individual-level norms for interpretation. So, while you do find evidence that Republication majority states have lower IQs controlling for various factors, this effect is quite small. This is what would be expected because the individual-level literature on the topic finds only minor and inconsistent differences in IQ between preferred party, and conservative/liberal self-placements (depending on sample, measure, control variables etc.).

I don't see any updated version of the submission. As per standard practice, please create a repository on OSF for it and place (and update) the submission there. OSF is easy to use and free.
 Reply
#12
"Controlling for percent White (or percent Black or Hispanic), blue states were smarter than red states. [...]. Controlling for race, blue states had even higher levels of global well-being, and health, and even lower levels of crime and religiosity.

You should have gone beyond the data and ask what those differences mean. If we look at whites who voted for Trump, they tended to be those who have borne the brunt of globalization, either through outsourcing of manufacturing to low-wage countries like China (rust belt states) or through insourcing of low-wage labor into industries which, by their very nature, cannot be relocated overseas (construction, landscaping, agribusiness, food processing, and most service jobs). In other words, the traditional working class voted for Trump. In contrast, the upper class and upper middle class tended to vote for Clinton.

Of course, even people in higher-up jobs will eventually suffer the effects of globalization. This is already happening in programming and other high-tech jobs. The global marketplace will tend to level incomes around the world, and there's going to be a lot more levelling down than levelling up. It will also tend to redistribute income from labor to capital. An unemployed American doesn't have the option of relocating to a country with a higher GDP per capita and less unemployment. For one thing, those countries are becoming fewer and fewer. For another, he or she cannot easily emigrate to such countries either legally (not enough money or skills, sorry) or illegally (the U.S. is not recognized as a refugee-producing country). Meanwhile, owners of capital have much more freedom to move their money from one country to another.

So I disagree with the inference that Americans with higher IQs support globalism because it is a better political choice. It's better in the short term for them because they don't suffer the negative effects of globalism. In fact, they benefit by getting cheaper manufactured goods (made in low-wage countries) and cheaper services (maids, restaurant help, landscapers, etc.). But it's not a better choice for Americans in general.
 Reply
#13

.docx   scatter_trump.docx (Size: 27.62 KB / Downloads: 23)
Thanks, Peter,

I will try to address your comments soon-- I need some time to think about them.

Emil:

I’m pretty much ready to upload my revision and host everything at OSF, but first I have a comment, and then a question.
 
1. My comment regards how to interpret the size of the key effect here (i.e., the -.65 beta for IQ predicting Trump when controlling White). I still think it’s a large effect. As you note, it’s only 1.8 IQ points because the state SD is 2.7 (not 15). I guess I still don’t understand why we should impute the 1.8 points to individual IQ scores with a SD of 15, given that the paper uses only state-level data.
 
2. Robustness tests. Frankly, I don’t know how to do these, nor do I have a stats package like R (or have ever used it). Here is a plot for the key effect in my paper (IQ predicting Trump when White is in the equation). I don’t see data points bunched up on the left side relative to the right side. I’m not sure what to do next, so any guidance is appreciated.
 
Bryan
p.s. The biggest outlier is Vermont, for some reason.

ETA, I guess this BBS doesn't like SPSS output tables, so I've attached it as a file.
 Reply
#14
Attached is a revision that addresses, I think, all Emil's concerns.

All stuff is also posted at OSF:

http://osf.io/twkem

Bryan


Attached Files
.docx   Trump_ODP_v2_Oct_10.docx (Size: 59.8 KB / Downloads: 25)
 Reply
#15
Bryan,

Looks good to me. Will be interesting to see whether this suppression effect replicates at the county level. I didn't check.

I approve.
 Reply
#16
This version of the paper is further improved from the one that I reviewed peviously for Intelligence. I have no additional recommendations and suggest acceptance.
 Reply
#17
(2017-Nov-20, 20:27:36)Michael Woodley Wrote: This version of the paper is further improved from the one that I reviewed peviously for Intelligence. I have no additional recommendations and suggest acceptance.


Thank you for the review-- I think you've seen this four times now!

The final version (I think) is attached.

Bryan

p.s. Emil. You knew someone who did formatting on these to make them look good / be standardized?


Attached Files
.docx   Trump_ODP_v2_Oct_10.docx (Size: 59.54 KB / Downloads: 15)
 Reply
#18
Published.

https://openpsych.net/paper/54
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)