It blows my mind that anybody could be naturally pro-war.
And yet the modern rural population is much more likely to support the war in Iraq and intervention in Iran than the urban population. There's clearly a difference of perspective.
Jason, riots happen in cities because that's where opinions and world-views clash together. It would be by far harder to find a riot that wasn't in a city. What Rym was talking about is the difference in percentages of people that fit the criteria he described. In urban environments the percentage is by far smaller than in rural areas.
The same goes for poverty. The majority of poor are drawn to cities in search for work. That's why there are slums and run down areas in cities. The logic that democrats are poorer is also the other way around since rich folks are more likely to vote republican since conservative thinking is beneficial to a high status people while liberal thinking is often in hope of change to benefit the less fortunate.
Personally I think Rym's points often can be traced back to poorer education and limited interaction with a diverse group of people. I think based on that and the influence of the internet on a new generation we could possibly see a significant drop of conservatives in the next 30 years.
Rural culture is thus, in aggregate, dangerous to America.
There are no humane ways to solve this problem.
You probably haven't read my post yet but I think it can be solved for generations to come with better education and greater interaction with a more diverse field of people through the means of the internet.
It blows my mind that anybody could be naturally pro-war.
And yet the modern rural population is much more likely to support the war in Iraq and intervention in Iran than the urban population. There's clearly a difference of perspective.
Perhaps they believe that because they live far from the urban centrers they are somehow immune to war. I have no idea, obviously. This is an interesting topic, as I didn't know that the U.S was segregated so much.
I think based on that and the influence of the internet on a new generation we could possibly see a significant drop of conservatives in the next 30 years.
Do you think education makes a difference in whether a person is liberal or conservative?
Do you think education makes a difference in whether a person is liberal or conservative?
Actually I do. For me education also includes to learn about how other people think and why things are, not only that they are. At least from what I heard this is rarely given in U.S. education system, especially in rural areas. Even more if the education system is obstructed by biblethumpers.
Do you think education makes a difference in whether a person is liberal or conservative?
I've seen several studies showing clear correlations between higher levels of education and liberal social attitudes (not to mention lower religiosity, lower obesity rates, and a whole host of not-necessarily-causative-but-definitely-correlative items of interest).
Do you think education makes a difference in whether a person is liberal or conservative?
Actually I do. For me education also includes to learn about how other people think and why things are, not only that they are. At least from what I heard this is rarely given in U.S. education system, especially in rural areas. Even more if the education system is obstructed by biblethumpers.
Do you think education makes a difference in whether a person is liberal or conservative?
I've seen several studies showing clear correlations between higher levels of education and liberal social attitudes (not to mention lower religiosity, lower obesity rates, and a whole host of not-necessarily-causative-but-definitely-correlative items of interest).
Does it follow that conservatism is a sign of a lack of education, or perhaps a faulty education?
Probably. The religious right and intelligent design would be good discussion points here. Another would be how the bible often tells you that people who do not think like you need to be destroyed and it's influence on education in rural areas.
I live in one of the (if the most) rural states in the country. And yet it is amongst the most liberal states in the country. We were the first state to provide for civil unions. We have a strong human rights commission. We lost the most people in the civil war, per capita. We consistently vote Democrat and adopt anti-war positions. And on, and on, and on...
Either we're an aberration or you are confusing correlation with causation.
I've got some things to say on this topic when I get home. I'll just note, for everyone's benefit, that Rym has never lived in an environment that even approximates rural living. Thus, his experience in dealing with rural people is limited.
Rym has never lived in an environment that evenapproximatesrural living. Thus, his experience in dealing with rural people is limited.
I base my observations solely on polling and demographic statistics.
Yes, but in regards to the discussion of the meaning of said statistics, you need a little more insight. Statistics can tell you a trend, but not necessarily the source of said trend or its actual impact.
Part of the problem, besides poverty (in terms of community wealth, not individual wealth), is education. It's not always the LACK of education, it's the improper application thereof.
- The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate. - Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females. - Motor vehicle theft in urban areas is twice the rural rate. - Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger.
Enjoy your liberal neighbors. I suppose that will give you some consolation as you ignore the increased violence around you.
- The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate. - Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females. - Motor vehicle theft in urban areas is twice the rural rate. - Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger.
Enjoy your liberal neighbors. I suppose that will give you some consolation as you ignore the increased violence around you.
I think this might have to do with the fact that in sparsely populated rural areas, everybody knows each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're much more likely to be attacked by a stranger than by your neighbor (of four miles away :P).
Poorer, yes, but richer culturally and with more opportunities for advancement.
I'm not so sure about the greater cultural opportunities argument. Maybe before the advent of television, radio, Hollywood, and the internet, when the only high culture a rural area got was the occasional travelling theatre troupe, but what about nowadays? I can see some of the finest actors in the world for the price of a movie theatre ticket. If I want something older I can buy the DVD. I can listen to the nation's most popular musicians on the radio for free, and if I get tired of my local musicians I can hunt down other region's local musicians on iTunes for a dollar a song. High resolution scans of most of the famous paintings are available for those willing to pay for them. Probably the only things not accessible are famous sculpture and historic archives of a national level of importance instead of local archives.
I don't mean social as in the popular girl vs. the wallflower. I mean social as in society, as in civilization.
Might the terms you are looking for be industrial and agrarian?
Does it follow that conservatism is a sign of a lack of education, or perhaps a faulty education?
I'd think the opposite, since education tends to demonstrate that many of those old dead guys actually had useful things to say, and that the past should not be ignored simply because it is old.
- The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate. - Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females. - Motor vehicle theft in urban areas is twice the rural rate. - Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger.
Enjoy your liberal neighbors. I suppose that will give you some consolation as you ignore the increased violence around you.
And we are back again to the arguments we already addressed when "riots" came up. Cultural divides and poverty are larger in cities which directly influence the numbers you presented.
You still did not answer my question:
I live in one of the (if the most) rural states in the country. And yet it is amongst the most liberal states in the country. We were the first state to provide for civil unions. We have a strong human rights commission. We lost the most people in the civil war, per capita. We consistently vote Democrat and adopt anti-war positions. And on, and on, and on...
Either we're an aberration or you are confusing correlation with causation.
- The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate. - Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females. - Motor vehicle theft in urban areas is twice the rural rate. - Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger.
Enjoy your liberal neighbors. I suppose that will give you some consolation as you ignore the increased violence around you.
If that's the price to live away from conservatives, it's worth it.
Vermont is an exception. Sure, it's the boonies, but it's the skiing resort wine and cheese boonies, not the farming boonies. Those are city folk who are going to the country to get away. Go West from Vermont into the most northern parts of NY, and you'll see an entirely different situation.
Also, there are many explanations for the higher crime rate in cities, but it's really pretty obvious. Take for example, the most stereotypical of rednecks. He's pro-war. He sits in a lawn chair in the back of his pickup truck with his shotgun. Obviously has no problem shooting people who come onto his lawn. So why is the crime rate so low? Because there's nobody for him to shoot. None of them satan-worshipin' queers or foreigners are going to be anywhere near him. Put that same guy in a city and watch the fuck out!
In a city, there are lots of people, and they are forced to interact with each other. The vast majority of those interactions are pleasant, or at least non-criminal. However, it is impossible to expect there to be a very low rate of crime. When people are packed in tight, they bump into each other, and they will fight. It's how it happens.
The crime rate is measured by number of crimes divided by time and population. I think that if you divided the crime rate by the rate of human interactions (if such a thing could be measured) the city's crime rate would be minuscule compared to that of the rural areas. New Orleans, Baltimiore, and maybe Detroit excluded.
Vermont was named the nation's smartest state in 2005 and 2006.[111] In 2006, there was a gap between state testing standards and national which is biased in favor of the state standards by 30%, on average. This puts Vermont 11th best in the nation. Most states have a higher bias.[112] However, when allowance for race is considered, a 2007 US Government list of test scores shows Vermont white fourth graders performed 25th in the nation for reading (229), 26th for math (247).[113] White eight graders scored 18th for math (292) and 12th for reading (273). The first three scores were not considered statistically significant from average. White eighth graders scored significantly above average in reading. Statistics for blacks students were not comparable because of their small representation in the testing. The state authorized two more pre-K grades to the school system for the benefit of three and four year olds. Entry to these two grades is capped.[114]
According to one study, enrollment in kindergarten through 12th grade has declined by nearly 10 percent during the 1990s. During the same period total staff numbers have increased by more than 20 percent. Per pupil spending grew from $6,073 in 1990 to $13,664 in 2006.[115] A study by the Census Bureau lists Vermont with the fourth highest expenditure per pupil in the country at $11,835 for 2005.[116]
In 2008, there were 19,145 full-time equivalent teachers and 94,114 students in public schools.[117] Teacher-pupil ratio is 11.12:1.
Pretty much strengthens my point. I guess Vermont is lucky to have a good educational system and funding.
The crime rate is measured by number of crimes divided by time and population. I think that if you divided the crime rate by the rate of human interactions (if such a thing could be measured) the city's crime rate would be minuscule compared to that of the rural areas. New Orleans, Baltimiore, and maybe Detroit excluded.
The only thing that matters is how likely crime is to happen to you. You argument above does not negate the fact that you are more likely to experience violent crime in an urban area. Sure, you'll have more non-crime interactions, but that's little consolation as the knife plunges into your thigh.
Vermont is an exception. Sure, it's the boonies, but it's the skiing resort wine and cheese boonies, not the farming boonies. Those are city folk who are going to the country to get away. Go West from Vermont into the most northern parts of NY, and you'll see an entirely different situation.
Also, there are many explanations for the higher crime rate in cities, but it's really pretty obvious. Take for example, the most stereotypical of rednecks. He's pro-war. He sits in a lawn chair in the back of his pickup truck with his shotgun. Obviously has no problem shooting people who come onto his lawn. So why is the crime rate so low? Because there's nobody for him to shoot. None of them satan-worshipin' queers or foreigners are going to be anywhere near him. Put that same guy in a city and watch the fuck out!
In a city, there are lots of people, and they are forced to interact with each other. The vast majority of those interactions are pleasant, or at least non-criminal. However, it is impossible to expect there to be a very low rate of crime. When people are packed in tight, they bump into each other, and they will fight. It's how it happens.
The crime rate is measured by number of crimes divided by time and population. I think that if you divided the crime rate by the rate of human interactions (if such a thing could be measured) the city's crime rate would be minuscule compared to that of the rural areas. New Orleans, Baltimiore, and maybe Detroit excluded.
I was thinking along similar lines myself, Scott. As an estimate of the rate of human interaction (per unit time), you'd be looking at a function of population and area.
The most primitive assumption would be to assume that the interaction rate would be approximately proportional to the square of the population (i.e. (wrongly) assuming that everyone will interact with everyone else). (Per capita, it will then be proportional to the population).
Comments
The same goes for poverty. The majority of poor are drawn to cities in search for work. That's why there are slums and run down areas in cities. The logic that democrats are poorer is also the other way around since rich folks are more likely to vote republican since conservative thinking is beneficial to a high status people while liberal thinking is often in hope of change to benefit the less fortunate.
Personally I think Rym's points often can be traced back to poorer education and limited interaction with a diverse group of people. I think based on that and the influence of the internet on a new generation we could possibly see a significant drop of conservatives in the next 30 years.
And yet it is amongst the most liberal states in the country.
We were the first state to provide for civil unions.
We have a strong human rights commission.
We lost the most people in the civil war, per capita.
We consistently vote Democrat and adopt anti-war positions.
And on, and on, and on...
Either we're an aberration or you are confusing correlation with causation.
@kilarney: Just to make sure, is it Vermont you are talking about?
Part of the problem, besides poverty (in terms of community wealth, not individual wealth), is education. It's not always the LACK of education, it's the improper application thereof.
- Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females.
- Motor vehicle theft in urban areas is twice the rural rate.
- Urban violent crime victims were more likely than suburban or rural crime victims to be victimized by a stranger.
Enjoy your liberal neighbors. I suppose that will give you some consolation as you ignore the increased violence around you.
You still did not answer my question: Is it Vermont you are describing?
Also, there are many explanations for the higher crime rate in cities, but it's really pretty obvious. Take for example, the most stereotypical of rednecks. He's pro-war. He sits in a lawn chair in the back of his pickup truck with his shotgun. Obviously has no problem shooting people who come onto his lawn. So why is the crime rate so low? Because there's nobody for him to shoot. None of them satan-worshipin' queers or foreigners are going to be anywhere near him. Put that same guy in a city and watch the fuck out!
In a city, there are lots of people, and they are forced to interact with each other. The vast majority of those interactions are pleasant, or at least non-criminal. However, it is impossible to expect there to be a very low rate of crime. When people are packed in tight, they bump into each other, and they will fight. It's how it happens.
The crime rate is measured by number of crimes divided by time and population. I think that if you divided the crime rate by the rate of human interactions (if such a thing could be measured) the city's crime rate would be minuscule compared to that of the rural areas. New Orleans, Baltimiore, and maybe Detroit excluded.
The most primitive assumption would be to assume that the interaction rate would be approximately proportional to the square of the population (i.e. (wrongly) assuming that everyone will interact with everyone else). (Per capita, it will then be proportional to the population).