You are incorrect. Norway is a socialist country with the highest average quality of life on the planet(
http://news.discovery.com/human/nations-quality-of-life-rankings.htm). They also have the lowest income inequality on the planet. the Norwegian government owns all major infrastucture (roads, oil reserves, gas, etc) and utilities. They match the definition of a pure socialist government TO THE T! They're quality of life is much higher than Americans. They pay Mcdonalds employees a LIVING wage, the economy prospers since most of the population has additional income to keep the economy going, and they also save more on average then Americans so they are better prepared for economic collapse.
Please quote some sources. Quoting yourself as you Spew garbage from your trailer-park is not considered acceptable debate tactics.
"latter" (
https://www.google.com/search?q=ladder&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&q=ladder definitions)
No it must not be true. It gets too complicated to make blanket statements above 100 since the dots (meaning there is little correlation) are all over the graph. I guess I could try to break it down by IQ partitions (Ex IQ 100-105, 105-110,vote this way etc etc) but that is too much work for me to prove a point that will be lost in the din of your trailer-park. Noone has done the work for me in a paper I can find(I'm lazy). I also lack the language skills to break it down for you. I will pointlessly try anyway....
In essences: If you are of low intelligence (IQ below 100) you are more likely to vote conservative (my guess is you don't even try to read the sources I post, otherwise I would find and post one here but not wasting my time as you obviously did not read or possibly could not comprehend the previous sources). As intelligence increases above 100, there is no correlation between voting either way (unless you make over $200,000 a year than if you have an IQ above 100 you will most likely vote republican). If one statement is true at one end it DOES NOT mean it is reflected on the other end. Data graphs are NOT always symmetric about an axis, especially when you are charting people. Meaning at 100-105 IQ they may vote (THESE NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP FOR THE SAKE OF EXPLANATION) 51/49 liberal conservative, 110-115 59/43, 115-120 43/59....Since every statistic has a margin of error they are considered inconclusive statistics (meaning you cant make blanket statements about them like I did about IQ's below 100 and voting conservative). Once you get above IQ 100; geographic, socioeconomic, culture, and age begin affecting political affiliations more so than religious affiliation does at lower IQ's. I will venture the hypothesis that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to think for yourself and consider multiple topics when considering political affiliation. When you are dumb you'll pick an easy one that requires zero thought and mostly parrot what people around you say (Ex. trailer-park racists, religious zealots, blue-collar workers voting for whoever they're boss tells them etc)
Agreed, it's a good thing that the major purpose of a college education is to promote parallel thinking, problem-solving skills, and critical thinking. The facts you learn in college are barely retained, the entire purpose is to promote a well-rounded ability to solve a variety of problems. That is why Physics majors have to take history, language, and other seemingly unrelated classes. It is to promote a well-rounded individual that can solve a variety of problems. We all have google to answer the definition of a zwitterion, but only someone who actually studied it could recall the way that zwitterion would behave in a variety of environments and use that to solve a particular problem. Knowledge is easily attained (and forgotten) while the ability to use logic to solve a problem through reason lasts for life. To say an educated person lacks something (like common sense, life-skills, etc)due to having an education doesn't make any sense. (Please quote sources, I doubt you will find them since your are standing on a very weak argument).
I disagree, I am a secret socialist. If I wasn't protected by the anonymity of the internet i would not say so but I support socialism entirely. I know some countries do not implement in a fair way (Ex. France and the %75 tax on earning over 1 million [whatever the french currency is, franc maybe..]) But there are plenty of countries that are socialist and do an excellent job of balancing fair social safety nets Vs encouraging individual success (Norway). You say you are uncomfortable with giving corporations tax breaks, but i say you are less comfortable voting for a black guy than you are for giving corporations tax breaks....That's why you vote republican (They do NOTHING but give tax breaks to the rich since they are job creators, it doesn't even matter if you are a minimum wage job creator=TAX BREAK!). You could never bring yourself to vote for a black man since your fear of someone different than you will always override your fear of being poor forever.