View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: How Important is Eye Color in Choosing a President? |
|
|
We all know that looks are important, especially in this media age. Height counts. Weight counts...or at least some people didn't like Richardson because he's too cuddly for their taste.
Of the 43 people who have served, how many have had light colored (blue, green) and how many have had dark eyes (brown)?
Choose your numbers, then go here: http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/6a8aac43-a680-4370-995e-ddebd808430e
The answer is interesting. And extremely important. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fascinating. hope he follows up w/ research on the losers. kerry,gore,dukakis etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
tomato

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
We criticize Korean directors for choosing teachers for trivial reasons, and now the boomerang comes back.
I read somewhere that there is something comforting about a final N in the candidate's name: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Truman, Nixon, Clinton.
Last edited by tomato on Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:56 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Location: Oregon, USA
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt this means anything at all. Think about it: how many trivial characteristics are there, and what are the odds that at least one of them would show a skewed distribution in a population of only 43 people?
Then there's the logical problem with the "causal conclusion" that Medved so eagerly leaps to: before color photography, the vast majority of voters would not have been aware of the color of a candidate's eyes. Strangely, Medved raises this objection himself but fails to address it at all.
Remember last election, when we were told the performance of the Washington Redskins could predict the outcome? Same deal. It's a statistical oddity -- actually, it's not even an "oddity", it's a completely banal statistical outcome when one considers a range of possible identifying traits rather than a single cherry-picked example. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, still. I'm convinced that people with light-colored eyes are inherently superior and the universe, in its mysterious ways, arranges for them to be elected president. What else does the universe have to do?
AND there's a lot more to tomato's theory as well: Jackson, Van Buren (2 n's), Buchanan, Johnson (not elected), Harrison (2 Harrisons), Wilson.
The secrets of the universe are revealed when you connect the dots. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Location: Oregon, USA
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh.
Oh, another funny thing about Medved's article is that he says "only 20%" of Americans have light-colored eyes. Well, sure, but non-Caucasian Americans have been de facto ineligible for the Presidency the whole time, and none of them have light eyes, so you'd have to take them out of the sample, which Medved doesn't. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Location: you boys like mexico?
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I heard on NPR that English speakers prefer the sound of names that end with "n", especially when it comes to first names. Hence the explosion of stupid baby names like Cayden, Brayden, Zaden, etc. When those children grow up, I will hate them. But I bet this is also true of last names. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|