Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] And the next president of the United States...

#9
Hi Bryan,

I'll reply in thread since that's easier to follow. Anything not commented on is things that were ok.


Quote:Notes. I started by replying to your Word comments in Word, but that was hard to follow. So, I decided to do my replies here as an outline. I will upload the entire revised paper once I know what changes other reviewers suggest. Also, I am now rewriting various sections of the paper (and changing the title) to sound less dramatic / conclusive about the results.


Sounds good.

Quote:2. Actually, it’s about how the states vote in the presidential elections cf. first past the post. The states don’t have to be very skewed politically for this to happen. I’m not sure I completely understand your first point here. I agree it’s the states—via how its residents vote—that are either blue or red. If it helps, here is the dictionary definition of a blue state: A US state that predominantly votes for or supports the Democratic Party. Please let me know if I’m not addressing your concern.

My point is that a state can be consistently blue/red while the actual voter margin is fairly close to 50%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states...lue_states

Example: Montana is listed as a consistent red state (4/4 last elections to R). However, the average voter margin is only 3-10%, meaning that results like 45-55% and 48.5-51.5% are seen. Quite small difference in actual voter behavior.

This red/blue state terminology is an artifact of the bizarre voting system (FPTP).

Quote:4. Results which were also found by Kirkegaard 2015a, b. Now cited.

Don't have to cite all my work, just some suggestions. Unethical for reviewers to require submissions to cite their own work. Cite it if you think it is relevant.

Quote:5. Very old citations [on suppression]. Are there any newer reviewers? When I originally submitted this to a different journal, I relied on Pesta and McDaniel (2014) as the background citation on suppression effects. A reviewer there wanted more details about these effects, including mention of some classic papers. Thus, my paper evolved to discussion of that. This is an example of the rabbit hole one goes down when resubmitting a manuscript to a different journal. I hope you won’t ask me to go back up it!

Haha. Yes. This is alright.

Quote:6. I think this section should clarify matters of unidimensional vs. multi-dimensional measures of politics vs. self-identification with labels/parties. Messy findings result from messy conceptualization. Noah’s studies used a 2-dimensional conceptualization. Good point. This was a hard section to write, and I will work on making this distinction in the revision.

The dimensionality of political preferences is not very well researched I'm afraid. Some references of interest:

- http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...6512436995
- http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...6511434618

US research on the topic is particularly annoying in that it is almost always reduced to a single left-right/liberal-conservative dimension. Another artifact of the FPTP system I guess.

Quote:8. Is this with or without excluding proportions to third parties? It matters in some states. The non-perfect correlation here means that the non-main parties were not excluded. Does it change results if they are? In my data, (100% - %Trump - %Clinton) = %Third Party votes. Across the 50 states, this mean / residual value was 5.97 (SD = 3.54). But, it cannot be allocated to some unified “independent” vote. In California, for example, although 93.4% of residents voted for either Trump or Clinton, the remaining percentages were scattered across several other, distinct candidates / parties. Specifically, 3.4% voted Libertarian; 2.00% voted Green, 0.28% voted “independent,” and 1.00% of votes were coded as “others” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2016).


In my data, the third party vote correlated nominally with percent Clinton (r = -.28, p = .05). It also correlated strongly with percent Black (r = -.52), and with Health (r = .44). The percent Clinton correlation, however, was attenuated to .11 when controlling for percent Black. Thus, I don’t see much value in adding data about third party votes to my manuscript.

Maybe add a brief note to a robustness section. Good practice to have a robustness section that briefly summarizes what happens if various alternative method choices. Don't want to end up like this!
http://www.nature.com/news/crowdsourced-...rk-1.18508

Quote:12. Unclear if adjusted for overfitting [page 13]. I don’t think the analyses I’m running are “inferential,” in that I’m not trying to estimate population values from some sample. Instead, I have data for an entire population—the 50 U.S. states. Statistical techniques used to make a sample more representative of a population don’t seem relevant / appropriate here.

Nonetheless, my understanding is overfitting is a concern with small sample sizes. I agree that N = 50 is small, but each case is quite “stable” in that it is an aggregate number based on the voting patterns of millions of people in each state. In sum, I don’t think overfitting is a concern here, but I will again defer to those with more knowledge of the topic.

The discussion of this is more philosophical. I lean towards the other view, but it's a judgment call.


Quote:14. Why [is well-being the common dimension]? What about reverse causation? What about common cause? Good question, and I now mention these other possibilities in the discussion.

In my thinking, we know that scores on seemingly distinct mental tests nonetheless correlate. We explain this by appeal to a latent trait common to scores on all mental tests. I’ve applied the same idea to the seemingly distinct social, political, and economic variables that nonetheless correlate by state. My explanation appeals to a general factor named well-being. It includes IQ; whereas your S factor does not.

I think of S as a formative factor, not a reflective one though. It's a useful index of social well-being, but it's not a cause or much of a thing at all.

Quote:15a. A finding that parallels the usual finding of more left-wing politics in cities, and cities are more prosperous. Maybe try a control for population density? Thank you. The correlations for state population density are .07 (IQ), .50 (% Trump), .32 (% White), and -.37 (% Black or Hispanic). However, in a regression with IQ, % White, and population density predicting % Trump, the IQ suppression effect still occurred (i.e., IQ’s Beta was still -.563).


I was going to add a section reporting all this, but when % Black or Hispanic is instead the race variable, the IQ suppression result goes away (IQ’s Beta was -.241, n/s). Given the lack of consistency (and the many additional analyses previous reviewers asked me to add), I chose not to present these data in the revision.

Seems like it is worth mentioning in a robustness section.

Quote:15b. It would be wise to note the effect sizes here are quite tiny. To derive it, you need the standard deviation of state-level IQ, which is quite small: 2.7 IQ. The IQ / voting pattern effect sizes are small only initially, because they are being suppressed by race. When percent White is controlled, for example, the effect size for IQ now predicting percent Trump is -.65.

Standardized metrics are tricky. A std. beta of .65 at the state level and at the individual level is not the same in terms of IQ at the individual level. It depends on the variance. As I mentioned, the state-level IQ SD is only 2.7 (18% of the individual-level one). When you find a std. beta at the state level of .65, it means that for an .65 decrease in Trump voting (state-level), the IQ of a state goes down by .65*2.7=1.8 IQ. Very small effect size.
 Reply
 
Messages In This Thread
[ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Jun-10, 03:38:42
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Jun-12, 22:27:20
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Jun-17, 15:59:51
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Jul-03, 04:55:07
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Jul-18, 16:10:41
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Jul-19, 04:25:39
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Aug-13, 02:00:31
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Aug-28, 03:26:54
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Aug-31, 10:04:55
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Sep-04, 17:09:27
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Sep-25, 00:58:41
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Peter Frost - 2017-Oct-05, 00:55:49
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Oct-09, 18:14:50
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Oct-11, 01:59:55
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Nov-09, 14:43:05
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Michael Woodley - 2017-Nov-20, 20:27:36
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Dec-14, 06:00:39
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Dec-16, 07:06:22
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)