|
Strudel Man posted:Whoa, absolutely not. The heritability of IQ, at least, has been robustly shown in study after study to be quite high, between .5 and .9; moreover, it actually increases as one ages. That is to say, social factors are more relevant in children than they are in adults. I wasn't suggesting that there is no genetic factors to intelligence, or that it isn't a heritable trait etc. More talking about the fact that your brain after a comparatively short period of time is radically different at a structural level than what your DNA is programmed to create, which suggests a strong social or learned component to intelligence, rather than just born smart/born dumb. Like I said tho I haven't really looked at this stuff since undergrad so ymmv 
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
IQ also does not equal intelligence. Like, seriously. It just doesn't. I don't think any professionals use it as a measure of intelligence. It can be a good marker for cognitive impairments or brain damage and suchlike, but calling it Intelligence Quotient is something of a misnomer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:IQ also does not equal intelligence. Like, seriously. It just doesn't. I don't think any professionals use it as a measure of intelligence. It can be a good marker for cognitive impairments or brain damage and suchlike, but calling it Intelligence Quotient is something of a misnomer. Implants posted:I wasn't suggesting that there is no genetic factors to intelligence, or that it isn't a heritable trait etc. More talking about the fact that your brain after a comparatively short period of time is radically different at a structural level than what your DNA is programmed to create, which suggests a strong social or learned component to intelligence, rather than just born smart/born dumb. Like I said tho I haven't really looked at this stuff since undergrad so ymmv Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Implants posted:I wasn't suggesting that there is no genetic factors to intelligence, or that it isn't a heritable trait etc. More talking about the fact that your brain after a comparatively short period of time is radically different at a structural level than what your DNA is programmed to create, which suggests a strong social or learned component to intelligence, rather than just born smart/born dumb. Like I said tho I haven't really looked at this stuff since undergrad so ymmv To clarify, I dug out my old notes and found the (single lecture) notes on the biopsychology of intelligence. The conclusion was this - there are a number of biological features (pre-frontal lobe size, overall brain mass, etc) which correlate with high general intelligence, but research has yet to find a gene which can be conclusively linked with general intelligence, with the lecturer citing this study, and noting that further research may yet find definitive genetic markers for general intelligence. So I noticed taht study was from 2001 and dug into some of the author's later work - I can't see anything yet that shows a genuine high significance genetic marker for intelligence but every paper seems to have "shows promising opportunities for future research" in the discussion section about 1908074 times. So I guess there's good reason to suspect there may be some genetic component but also good reason to suspect that it is not large or obvious!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
I can't view your link, but heritability studies make it basically beyond dispute that the genetic component of intelligence is, in fact, quite large. The fact that a single gene can't be conclusively linked to it only conveys the unsurprising fact that intelligence is a complicated phenomenon. Hell, eye color is controlled by at least six different genes; I wouldn't expect anything less than a broad constellation of genes to shape human intellect. Particularly, quote:Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I can't view your link, but heritability studies make it basically beyond dispute that the genetic component of intelligence is, in fact, quite large. The fact that a single gene can't be conclusively linked to it only conveys the unsurprising fact that intelligence is a complicated phenomenon. Hell, eye color is controlled by at least six different genes; I wouldn't expect anything less than a broad constellation of genes to shape human intellect. Beyond that, consider that we can't even really measure human intellect. Six genes control eye color and that's for something we can be rather definitive about. We don't even know what intelligence is really. Intelligence is such a complex phenomenon (the human brain is one of the most complex objects in the universe) trying to reduce it down to a single "IQ score" simply ignores how little we actually understand about it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I can't view your link, but heritability studies make it basically beyond dispute that the genetic component of intelligence is, in fact, quite large. The fact that a single gene can't be conclusively linked to it only conveys the unsurprising fact that intelligence is a complicated phenomenon. Hell, eye color is controlled by at least six different genes; I wouldn't expect anything less than a broad constellation of genes to shape human intellect. Yah I'm with you. Looking back over these materials makes it pretty clear that the biopsych component of this program was uh, advancing a specific agenda to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:This is one of the main reasons why "cite please" used to be the near-catchphrase of D&D, and mods did regularly punish people who couldn't/wouldn't respond. There's too many situations where you find people trying to cover up their argument's lack of any factual basis with a confident tone, some sort of position of authority, verbal abuse, or all three. To add to this, I can't tell you how many times I've been arguing on Facebook or wherever, and had my opponent make an outlandish claim. Only to be found to have made it up completely when asked to cite. People remember things wrong, all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It doesn't "equal" intelligence, but IQ tests are absolutely used by professionals as a measure of one's general intelligence or 'g factor'. Right. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid - the concept of the g-factor does not demonstrate practical application of the concept by professionals. The reason for my skepticism is that I'm actually sort of familiar with the practices in this area, having neuropsychologists in the family (and colleagues of said neuropsychologist at some gatherings), and this debate keeps coming up and they keep saying that you basically use IQ tests to check for abnormalities connected to brain dysfunction. To clarify: I'm not saying that IQ does not correlate with what we call intelligence at all, I'm saying it's a very unreliable factor and claiming that the relatively high heritability of IQ (at least some of those studies have some problems with regards to the sample selections, too) equals to any significant degree heritability of 'intelligence' is problematic at best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 10:43
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Right. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid - the concept of the g-factor does not demonstrate practical application of the concept by professionals. The reason for my skepticism is that I'm actually sort of familiar with the practices in this area, having neuropsychologists in the family (and colleagues of said neuropsychologist at some gatherings), and this debate keeps coming up and they keep saying that you basically use IQ tests to check for abnormalities connected to brain dysfunction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Right. You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid - the concept of the g-factor does not demonstrate practical application of the concept by professionals. The reason for my skepticism is that I'm actually sort of familiar with the practices in this area, having neuropsychologists in the family (and colleagues of said neuropsychologist at some gatherings), and this debate keeps coming up and they keep saying that you basically use IQ tests to check for abnormalities connected to brain dysfunction. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/289/5478/457.short quote:Universal positive correlations between different cognitive tests motivate the concept of “general intelligence” or Spearman's g. Here the neural basis for g is investigated by means of positron emission tomography. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289696900082 quote:General intelligence (Spearman's g) accounts for over 50% of the reliable variance in a battery of mental tests in a sample of the general population. In a “differentiation hypothesis” originally suggested by Spearman it is hypothesized that the degree to which g pervades performance on mental tests is greater at lower ability levels. In addition to providing a critical review, the study presented here tests the differentiation hypothesis: (a) at different ability levels and ages; (b) when groups are selected on the basis of a wide range of criterion abilities; and (c) by developing new statistical techniques for sampling groups of different ability levels. http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/fjabad/cv/articulos/paid/sex_dif.pdf quote:The g factor is common to all cognitive abilities and to measures of academic performance. An important question in the research on cognitive sex di€erences is whether, on average, females and males differ in g. This question is technically the most diffcult to answer. Furthermore, it has been the least investigated. In the present study, two samples of young adolescents solved several cognitive and scholastic (achievement) tests. The samples were a total of 1565 young adolescents (797 girls and 768 boys). Sex was considered to obtain separate g factors. The congruence coeffcients between the g vectors extracted for each sex suggested a near identity. Then the sex difference in g was represented on each of the subtests in terms of a point-biserial correlation. These correlations were included with the full matrix of subtest intercorrelations for factor analysis. The results reveal the factor loading of sex on g, which in the present study suggest a null sex difference. Furthermore, I should point out that the fact that a neuropsychiatrist primarily uses IQ tests to check for mental dysfunction is probably attributable to the fact that psychiatrists are primarily focused on addressing mental dysfunction; they would have little reason or purpose just to check intelligence. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Here's another one I'd like some help with:quote:"When Obama took office in 2009, our debt was $10.6 trillion. Today it stands at $15.23 trillion and is on track to smash through the $6.2 trillion dollar threshold during Obama’s first term. That would be a record – one president amassing more debt than all of the presidents from Washington to Clinton COMBINED" Any help? Also here's a bonus quote from a crazy friend of this friend: quote:I just was debating with some Clinton loving, vote for the biggest smile, liberal: I came to a neat comparison of Newt; Churchill. I said dont vote for the smile layer, don't vote for the personality or moral layer, vote for the leader and intelligence layer - Churchill was the smartest, most arrogant man in the room..I think we got a tiger in hands that may fix this entitlement nation that is sliding to becoming the next France...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Any help? 6.2 is less than 10.6, not more than 10.6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Here's another one I'd like some help with: For example the first quote is a literal fact but you could say why the nominal debt figures are not comparable, that it's a good thing that massive deficit spending occurred, that the deficit was due in large part to declining revenues, etc. Phyzzle posted:6.2 is less than 10.6, not more than 10.6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Here's another one I'd like some help with: "We just had a global recession you dumb gently caress" is the correct response, followed by an exposition of the historical trend of the debts increasing under republicans and decreasing under democrats in both federal and state governments. Throw in lots of references to "Big-government conservatives" in there. Then finally put on your best  face and say "Read Marx" before moonwalking backwards out the room. Not that marx has anything to do with it, but its fun to upset conservatives. Or punch him or something I dont know duck monster fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I'm not totally sure how to demonstrate effectively that a concept is taken seriously. Maybe by citing its use in serious papers? Psychologist, not psychiatrist. But I'll read this and get back to you if I remember, cheers!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2012 11:43
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Here's another one I'd like some help with: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Psychologist, not psychiatrist. But I'll read this and get back to you if I remember, cheers! Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Oh, and here's a fascinating Malcom Gladwell article about IQ: Thank you so, so much for this article. You're right, it's pretty eviscerating and it's no surprise I haven't heard much about Flynn before in debating with these scientific racism types. But I *have* heard of Rushton... Gladwell posted:Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion. Hahahahahahaha! How the hell do I get into academia? I have some 'studies' to conduct involving breast:brain size ratios.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Here's one I had the other day when discussing ending "the welfare state" and making charities the only welfare givers: Me: So if you want to end the welfare state and make it charity only where will this money come from? Friend: Well the rich donate tons already, with the tax burden removed they'd have more to donate. (at this point I wanted to find something that showed him wrong, but couldn't given time constraints) Me: Well, what about your Apple founder, Mr. Jobs. The first thing he did when he came back to Apple was cut all their charitable donations, and he himself didn't donate. Friend: Well its his money to do with as he please. Me: So we shouldn't have a social safety net system because rich people donate even though they don't have to, thus will not give enough most likely to truly benefit society. Friend: Like I said, its his money, we shouldn't force anyone's hand. Plus, his products have benefited society in such a way that he is in fact providing charity. My jaw dropped. I told him he was being circular and that his reasoning was weak, then we both were out of time to keep talking to each other. Any suggestions, articles to show him? Everything I've found is from conservative think tanks (american enterprise institute most specifically).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Here's one I had the other day when discussing ending "the welfare state" and making charities the only welfare givers: It sounds like you may be arguing three different points which should be considered independently. The first issue: Should it be possible for the government to levy taxes to pay for a social safety net? The second issue: Is there enough of a safety net right now? I infer you are arguing from the position that there is either enough of one at present or there should be a greater social safety net. I can't tell what your friend is arguing on this issue from what you posted. The third issue: Would it be more effective to provide a social safety net, to whatever extent there is one, through charitable giving or through government spending?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Friend: Well the rich donate tons already, with the tax burden removed they'd have more to donate. Don't bother trying to prove that the wealthy don't give enough to support those in need, because he'll say, "the elimination of the welfare state will increase charitable donations," and there's no way to prove how much or how little. Instead, ask him if he thinks the government should rescue people stranded on rooftops after hurricanes like Katrina. There was no criminal theft or violence involved in the hurricane. It's the weather. It's just a bad thing that happens. Is it appropriate for the government to intervene just because a bad thing happens, or does some crime need to be involved? If yes, then loosing the sole breadwinner to cancer is a bad thing that happened, hence welfare. If no, then you just got him to advocate the elimination of disaster relief, fire departments, ambulances, and CPR training for police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Mark Kidd posted:Response to me. My friend believes we should have no social safety nets, as its robbing someone of their income to pay for it. Sorry if my post didn't convey that. I agree that the issues have separate components to them that should all be investigated, when he gets going on topics though he really just jumps around a lot so I have to do my best to tie them into single issues and break them down from there, which is why I use articles a lot when talking to him. It's quite cumbersome though since he usually attributes my article to media bias or the "statistics lie all the time" postition. (He doesn't argue in good faith that often, but the look on his face when I stump is always worth it) Phyzzle posted:Response post I'll probably go this route next time he brings it up. I'm sure he will go with "well ya, we should privatize everything, free market!" which should be fun to respond to. Is there any articles on the failures of privatized emergency services?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
Any privatized first world emergency service will still have enough regulations and government mandates attached to it for him to pull the no-true-Friedman claim. At least neoliberals tend to say that the reason they support neoliberalism is because its demonstrably the best way to raise everyone's standard of living. Libertarians, by contrast, don't justify Libertarianism by saying everyone will be better off. Sure, some of them believe that, but I've never met a Libertarian who tried to justify his political position based on the idea it would actually maximize universal welfare. Instead they claim it will maximize everyone's freedom. Thats the goal, in and of itself. More freedom, with freedom defined as lack of government (but not private) coercion. You can argue with him about the disastrous effects of specific Libertarian policies all day long. It doesn't matter because his commitment is a pseuo-religious one. It would be like arguing with a Christian Dominionist that theocracy is bad for GDP. What do they care? I think the best tactic is to try and corner him on the question of whether people should die in the streets. Force him to admit that without a social safety net there will be cases where people will die if society doesn't step in. Under these circumstances would he really be comfortable with people dying rather than having a small mandatory pool of social insurance devoted to helping these people. If you can get him to accept, in principle, that there should be a small but mandatory fund for smoothing over life's rough patches, then you have a wedge through his arguments. Once he's accepted a compromise of personal liberty like that you might be able to point out other borderline cases. If, on the other hand - and this is quite likely - he says he's fine with people dying in the street, or if he's so dishonest he simply cannot accept that this would ever ever happen in Libertopia, then its unlikely any argument will get through to him. The best I can say about such people is that I doubt many of them have the courage of their convictions - if they were actually confronted with the kind of society they claim to want, I think a large number of Libertarians, especially younger ones, would probably recoil in horror. I mean even just in the space of the last ten years you can see how the Great Recession has cut very deeply into the 1990s bumper crop of Libertarians. This is an ideology that tends to flourish at the height of our boom economy and which mostly hibernates during the busts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I'll probably go this route next time he brings it up. I'm sure he will go with "well ya, we should privatize everything, free market!" which should be fun to respond to. Is there any articles on the failures of privatized emergency services? My favorite example would be the health care situation in the US. Point #1: By law, hospitals are REQUIRED to take in anyone who comes to an emergency room. Since you know, you can't just leave people to die on the streets due to accidents or heart attacks or other disasters. However, since poor people can't pay for their medical bills (many are uninsured) the hospital has to eat the cost. This means that in order to remain afloat, the hospitals pass the cost of care onto everyone else who DOES have medical insurance, and EVERYONE's medical bills and insurance premiums cost more. By enrolling everyone into a health care system everyone is paying into it to help keep costs low. Point #2: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If people get routine checkups, any problems or diseases will be caught in the early stages and will be easier to treat. What costs more, getting a polyp removed in a routine colonoscopy for 500$, or loads of chemotherapy treatments that cost $30,000 or so? The more preventative care people get, the easier and cheaper their treatments will be. If their treatments are cheaper, health insurance costs decrease for everyone across the board, and our entire population becomes healthier on average. Point #3: Private insurance not only has to gear for profits, but they have to pay out for advertising and exposure. Because of this, their overhead costs around 30%. A socialized system like Medicare has overhead costs of 3%. That's a tenth of the private insurance industry. Talk about efficient government! In essence, your friend is focusing too much on his ~*~ideals~*~ and not enough on reality. Pull him back down to the real world of cause and effect and solid consequences. I had another friend who was just like this, and I gave him the old example of abstinence-only education (which he knows is clearly stupid).  "So why does abstinence-only education not work?" "Well because it doesn't actually do anything to lower rates of teenaged premarital sex! Plus, teen pregnancy rates INCREASED under these programs because they never learned how to use protection!" "So why do people keep pushing for abstinence-only programs?" "Because they're evangelists and they're blinded to the facts by their take on religion." "You're EXACTLY right. When people focus on abstract ideologies instead of actually framing their politics on concrete reality, their policies become hosed up." "...Okay I see where you're going now."After presenting him with more data he turned from a staunch flat-tax fiscal Conservative to a progressive-tax proponent. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
It makes sense to think of Libertarianism as being more of an attitude than a doctrine. Its an extreme reaction against government authority more than its a reasoned set of positions on how to best secure the good life or increase the general welfare. That makes it much harder to argue the merits of the system because you either value their rather arbitrary idea of liberty or you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It makes sense to think of Libertarianism as being more of an attitude than a doctrine. Its an extreme reaction against government authority more than its a reasoned set of positions on how to best secure the good life or increase the general welfare. That makes it much harder to argue the merits of the system because you either value their rather arbitrary idea of liberty or you don't. I think you're right - it's very easy for a political philosophy to lose its moorings, becoming a crusade for pure ideals rather than a system to make as many people as possible decently happy. In that vein, I came across this article, Marxism of the Right, which deconstructs libertarianism in language that isn't off-putting to conservative types. Another great article to bear in mind in approaching these kind of debates, is this piece about the work of Jonathan Haidt. He's done a lot of research in the field of political and moral psychology, trying to pin down what is the basic difference in mindset between liberals and conservatives. The insights about the groupthink and core irrationality that we are all susceptible to are essential. It's impossible to have a constructive discussion with someone if you view them as being an ineffable other, motivated by bizarre beliefs that they must have been brainwashed into.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It makes sense to think of Libertarianism as being more of an attitude than a doctrine. Its an extreme reaction against government authority more than its a reasoned set of positions on how to best secure the good life or increase the general welfare. That makes it much harder to argue the merits of the system because you either value their rather arbitrary idea of liberty or you don't. Phyzzle fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Here's another one I'd like some help with: pangstrom posted:This created a lot of blogo-tears when it came out, so maybe read up on it a little and you can anticipate/respond/pre-empt (and in a few areas concede) the counterpoints. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/adding-to-the-deficit-bush-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html (and the related article http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html )
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
I remember a study from Yale or Princeton posted in D&D a while back (a few months, at least) that qualitatively showed that revealing clothing was not correlated with sexual assault that looked more official than the Psychology Today article in the OP. (Not that there's anything wrong with Psychology Today). Does anyone have that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Actually, Psychology Today is a really bad source. It's basically the TMZ of the the psychology world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Actually, Psychology Today is a really bad source. It's basically the TMZ of the the psychology world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Does anyone have any solid sources of racism in the drug war? I found little tidbits on various sites(drug policy alliance) but I'm afraid that's just not going to cut it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:Does anyone have any solid sources of racism in the drug war? I found little tidbits on various sites(drug policy alliance) but I'm afraid that's just not going to cut it. There's the Crack vs Powder Cocaine sentencing differentiation, and how minorities are more likely to use the former rather than the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's the Crack vs Powder Cocaine sentencing differentiation, and how minorities are more likely to use the former rather than the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Wolfy posted:What I'm really looking for is I saw stats on drug policy that said African-Americans consist of 13% of drug users and well over 50% of convictions for drugs. From everything I can find, those stats are from the late 80s. While I'm sure the proportions haven't moved a whole lot, something more modern would be lovely. That's loving ridiculous though. Oh yeah we fixed it, it's down from 100 to 1 to only 18! There's also this 2002 DOJ report, which shows that "During the traffic stop, police were ... more likely to carry out some type of search on a black (10.2%) or Hispanic (11.4%) than a white (3.5%) ... Searches of black drivers or their vehicles were less likely to find criminal evidence (3.3%) than searches of white drivers (14.5%), and somewhat less likely than searches of Hispanic drivers (13%)." I found both of these studies in this excellent article which should be enough to convince anyone that racism is still a huge problem in America. The links to the sources are broken, but you can usually find out where they were intended to go. edit: Oh, that article is mentioned in the OP, and Zeitgeist's thread on it has a copy with fixed links. Phlag fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Does anyone still have a link for the Cefte/Grover Iranian nuclear weapons debate? I was just loving reading it earlier today and now I can't find it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Anyone have a good resource on that national debt. I mean, not just in terms of the breakdown where tax dollars go, but also about the relationship with t-bills and such?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
Crossposting this from the Libertarians thread, it's a study by the University of Minnesota about the cost effectiveness of school vouchers and charter schools in improving student performance (hint, it's not very). Not sure if it's been posted before but it seems like something that should be in here. http://www.growthandjustice.org/sit...5_4-19-2007.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Anyone have some good links for facts and statistics about welfare? Especially if it breaks down differences between TANF and SNAP? It seems that's one of the biggest hot button issues around the office. It seems like all of the studies and statistics I've seen were all done in the 90s. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 23:10
|
|
