Teen birth rates highest in bible belt

[fisher]

If as you are saying Bob and Lucifer believe there is more of a problem with teenage sex in religious states I would think the data to look at would not be pregnancy rates but the number of teens who are sexually active as this would be considered a "sin" among the more religious population. Pregnancy would be the result of those not practicing safe sex. I did not see a table for this rate (maybe I missed it). Sexual activity should include all forms of sex not just intercourse.
Reports have indicated teens who sign chastity pledges are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex believing they are not breaking their pledge.

I agree. The author of the referenced piece, Bob and Lucifer are trying equate religiousity and teenage sex or pregnancy or births to somehow prove that religious folks are hypocritical. But, as noted in my posts and your post, you cannot draw such a conclusion from the data presented.

Not even a good try on their part.

 

[poppy]

I agree. The author of the referenced piece, Bob and Lucifer are trying equate religiousity and teenage sex or pregnancy or births to somehow prove that religious folks are hypocritical. But, as noted in my posts and your post, you cannot draw such a conclusion from the data presented.

Not even a good try on their part.

From Lucifer's post no. 21-

I speculate that poor people might tend to be more religious. I don't say this in a judgemental way, only that I think they might take comfort in religion. I don't in any way think that religion causes poverty or teen pregnancy. My guess is that religion might be a consequence of poverty, and that teen pregnacy might also be the result of poverty.

I agree with him on this statement but I also believe religious people can be very hypocritical just as we all can be on any number of the beliefs we hold.

 

[LuciferSam]

There are too many relevant omitted variables in the model to place any reliance in your linear regression model of religiosity and pregnancy rates (for instance, age of marriage, poverty levels). In addition, ASSUMING that there are no other variables that could effect the data, the data point pattern is not tight enough around the line to come to the conclusion you would like to reach. Do you understand the term deviation as it relates to linear regression analysis? Only one of your data points actually sits on the line and the deviations of all the other data points (not even considering the omitted relevant variables) is significant. In other words, the graph you submitted is worthless in terms of drawing the conclusion you would like to make.

Sorry. Spin doesn't work when the facts don't support you. It doesn't take linear regression analysis or a rocket scientist to see that when Nevada, California, Hawaii, and New York are in the top 15 of the data, religiousity and pregnancy in teens are not related.

It was a pretty chart though. Nice to know you can use excel. Did you lose your job with ACORN recently?

I'm not trying to reach any conclusion. I'm on a fact finding mission. Thank you to those who have contributed.

 

[fisher]

I'm not trying to reach any conclusion. I'm on a fact finding mission. Thank you to those who have contributed.

Why haven't you found them? They are right in front of you if you give it a look.

However, the facts are not included in your attempt at linear regression analysis using excel. Instead, the graph looks like you took a shot at a piece of paper with a 12 guage shotgun with bird shot from 300 feet away and then used it to come to a conclusion. This conclusion was also made AFTER omitting significant variables (read as FACTS) that would have made it look like you were taking the same shot from 500 feet away.

Oops, you probably don't understand that analogy being as it relates to guns. ;-) I'll try another, it looks like you took a paint brush and slung it at a protest sign from 50 feet away splattering little paint drops all over your sign in a totally random pattern.:funn:

 

[fisher]

Here's another one showing the rank of religiousness vs. the rank of personal income. The Personal Income figures were obtained here: The 2009 Statistical Abstract: State Rankings There appears to be an inverse correlation between religiousness and personal income.

Once again, your attempt at using excel for linear regression isn't working. One problem is that the pattern of data points is too scattered (too much deviation) to draw any conclusions from. But, the bigger problem with your simplistic regression analysis is the omitted variables that would create an even larger deviation.

One such MAJOR variable is single earners versus dual earner households. Typically, more religious people are more inclined to live in households where the wife stays at home. The more of this situation that you have in a state, the lower the per capita income in that state. It does not mean that religious people make less than non religious folks.

Finally, the test for religiousness was done on an individual by individual basis not an average for a state. Whereas the personal income is an average for all individuals in a state. You are mixing apples and oranges in your linear regression.

To put it another way, you could have a single earner family where the wage earner makes $50k per year, but the per capita average for the family is $25k. However, this "religious" individual is making more than the average wage earner in a double income non religious family that has total income of $90k or an average of $45k apiece. The religious wage earner in this example makes more than the average wage earnings of the two individuals in the dual income family.

Just trying to make sure you are getting those facts you are looking for. Remember, garbage in (to an excel spreadsheet) makes for garbage out ("linear regression charts").

I think they've been using those excel spreadsheets a lot over at ACORN haven't they?

 

[LuciferSam]

Why haven't you found them? They are right in front of you if you give it a look.

However, the facts are not included in your attempt at linear regression analysis using excel. Instead, the graph looks like you took a shot at a piece of paper with a 12 guage shotgun with bird shot from 300 feet away and then used it to come to a conclusion. This conclusion was also made AFTER omitting significant variables (read as FACTS) that would have made it look like you were taking the same shot from 500 feet away.

Oops, you probably don't understand that analogy being as it relates to guns. ;-) I'll try another, it looks like you took a paint brush and slung it at a protest sign from 50 feet away splattering little paint drops all over your sign in a totally random pattern.:funn:

It's certainly not random. I've calculated the correlation and the significance. I done working on this. It's all yours.

 

[fisher]

It's certainly not random. I've calculated the correlation and the significance. I done working on this. It's all yours.

Please do tell the calculations you made related to correlation and significance. Then, please tell me how you accounted for the huge omitted variables noted above plus the others such as average age in the individual states (older or younger populations will tend to have lower per capita incomes than those with more people in the prime earning years).

Why do you say you are done? You never really started with a valid statistical analysis. You plotted totally unrelated and random information and called it a linear regression analysis.

Come on back and support your conclusions and analysis. You have stated over and over that you are all about facts. Yet, when presented with a challenge to your "facts", you have absolutely no reply.

Liberals???

 

[LuciferSam]

Please do tell the calculations you made related to correlation and significance. Then, please tell me how you accounted for the huge omitted variables noted above plus the others such as average age in the individual states (older or younger populations will tend to have lower per capita incomes than those with more people in the prime earning years).

Why do you say you are done? You never really started with a valid statistical analysis. You plotted totally unrelated and random information and called it a linear regression analysis.

Come on back and support your conclusions and analysis. You have stated over and over that you are all about facts. Yet, when presented with a challenge to your "facts", you have absolutely no reply.

Liberals???

You've got the numbers, you can do all the calculations yourself.

 

[poppy]

Please do tell the calculations you made related to correlation and significance. Then, please tell me how you accounted for the huge omitted variables noted above plus the others such as average age in the individual states (older or younger populations will tend to have lower per capita incomes than those with more people in the prime earning years).

Why do you say you are done? You never really started with a valid statistical analysis. You plotted totally unrelated and random information and called it a linear regression analysis.

Come on back and support your conclusions and analysis. You have stated over and over that you are all about facts. Yet, when presented with a challenge to your "facts", you have absolutely no reply.

Liberals???

I will admit this is way beyond my area of expertise so I could use the education. Could you show me an example of calculations made related to correlation and significance accounting for every conceivable variation.
I may be mistaken but this appears to be what you are requesting. This could be never ending if everytime someone were to provide a calculation or even an opinion another points to a missing variable. Is it possible to include every variable?

 

[Matt J]

90% of all statistics are wrong.