In sci.stat.edu Neil W. Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Herman Rubin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
>>
>
> Rubin's is not a very controversial statement. I would think that most readers
> of this newsgroup not only agree with it, but have access to documentation of it.
> Here's a table from the 1996 General Social Survey of American adults that shows
> that partisan Democrats score lower on a short (10 word) vocabulary test, on the
> average, than partisan Republicans.
>
>
It is certainly a controversial statement. It is logically equivalent to
the statement that:
"Non Bush-voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters"
and I assume that the intended reading is that:
"Gore voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters".
You, on the other hand, have brought in evidence to defend the different
(but still controversial) assertion that:
"Bush voters are more likely to be *more* literate than Gore Voters"
--------------------------------------------------------
do you see the difference? One fellow is throwing around implications
of *illiteracy*. The other pretends to defuse the controversy by
playing as if the first fellow was talking only about *relative* literacy.
Moreover, is the base-rate for illiteracy among voters
significant enough to even make the discussion anything
more than an exorcism of a hypothetical bugbear:
Such courage some have, blurting out the unspeakable! even if it
scarcely has any measurable effect on the matter at all.
------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I will repeat what I wrote previously: I fail to appreciate
the alleged signficance of "literacy" or "relative literacy"
in regard to someone's likelihood of committing one or another
error of cognition or dexterity in manipulating either simple
or complex machines. Does anyone contest the claim that
there are illiterate mechanics as well as highly literate
persons who cannot change a loose electric switchplate, or
butter a piece of hot toast without burning themselves
or dropping the bread or knife or jam-jar or all three?
All these discussions in which the controlling preoccupation
seems to be one of "fitness" all have the same colour:
that the "fit" shall lead; and the "unfit" shall step
aside. Now, sir, who shall guard us from the guards
of "fitness" themselves?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
