Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
On 2/2/2023 at 12:19 AM, brakeman said:

Image

I was listening to the radio on the way home one night and they had the FAU professor (who has taught history longer than DeSantis has been alive) on who is suing to keep his classes/major intact.  As he put it, DeSantis wants the history books to read, "black people came over and worked for free for a while."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

AHMZnnp.thumb.jpeg.d11fd82bc768b7981563705852d994e4.jpeg

Abstract

Political ideology not only influences political activities, but also apolitical fields such as charitable giving. However, empirical studies regarding political ideology and charitable giving have yielded mixed results. To find out the effect size and explain the variation in effect sizes, we deploy a meta-analysis to estimate the average effect size and examine the potential moderators from four perspectives. Following scientific data collection and coding procedures, we identify 421 effect sizes from 31 empirical studies. Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios. Furthermore, meta-regression results indicate that the measure of charitable giving, the type of charitable giving, and controlling for religiosity can account for the variation in effect sizes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000752

 

But see, if you control for religiosity we account for the variation in effect size.  LOL. 

Posted

Well duh, those super churches and private jets don't pay for themselves...

 

Quote

Since conservatives are more charitable, they can contribute more to our society through charitable giving. From the perspective of total welfare, however, the story will be different. By total welfare, we mean the total contributions from charitable giving (i.e., private contributions) and government redistribution (i.e., public contributions). Paarlberg et al. (2019) demonstrated that counties with higher percentages of individuals voting Republican had higher levels of charitable contributions due to lower tax burdens, but the higher charitable giving did not fully compensate for the loss of government revenue, so the total contributions including both charitable giving and government redistribution were lower in Republican-leaning counties. More charitable giving of conservatives does not lead to higher levels of total welfare. Therefore, we should have an integrated understanding on the more charitable conservatives.

 

Basically, conservatives tend to donate more to causes that benefit other conservatives. I'm sure Jesus would have been on board with that

Posted

The hyperlink in your quote links to Yang 2021 paper I just cited. Can you link the text that you just quoted?

At face value the following is hilarious and totally appropriate for this thread though.

Since conservatives are more charitable, they can contribute more to our society through charitable giving. 

Posted (edited)
On 2/16/2023 at 10:55 PM, Anastasis said:

Abstract

Political ideology not only influences political activities, but also apolitical fields such as charitable giving. However, empirical studies regarding political ideology and charitable giving have yielded mixed results. To find out the effect size and explain the variation in effect sizes, we deploy a meta-analysis to estimate the average effect size and examine the potential moderators from four perspectives. Following scientific data collection and coding procedures, we identify 421 effect sizes from 31 empirical studies. Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios. Furthermore, meta-regression results indicate that the measure of charitable giving, the type of charitable giving, and controlling for religiosity can account for the variation in effect sizes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000752

 

But see, if you control for religiosity we account for the variation in effect size.  LOL. 

Spoilered for maninblack

Spoiler

Glad Yang was able to find truth for you from so much data. While reading more info at your link, I found this passage interesting. 

Unlike liberals, who favour status signals that are high in cultural capital, conservatives are more likely to have the desire to signal economic status in their consumer behaviour. The two factors that contribute to favouring more explicit signs of economic capital are being wealthier and having a higher tolerance of economic inequality (Oliver et al., 2016;Margolis and Sances, 2017;Yang and Liu, 2021). Therefore, as charitable behaviour is just like any other consumer behaviour, conservatives will donate more as this will be regarded as a sign of economic capital. *
 

* Edited to note this is supposition.

 

(I think you will agree, the reward has been achieved).

And, despite my uncertainty of your trust in the following, it is an ironic possibility for someone in your line of work.


Among Americans, more conservative ideology decreases willingness to participate in a hypothetical longitudinal cohort study of AD (edit: Alzheimer’s disease) both directly and through its negative effect on confidence in science. The Knight ADRC study participants expressed more liberal ideology and greater confidence in science than Americans in general.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6051930/

*


(Yep. Plain text is beyond me).

 

 

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...