Popularity

Unpopular Life

When reading The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain des Botton, I was able to relate to Socrates during his life and his unpopularity. Setting oneself apart from the majority is what he would do so that he could live through his true nature. Taking the side to an argument that was against what most Athenian citizens would believe. By going against the norm he was challenging the Republic and its entire people but he still could not see that and instead died the only way he knew living
The way in which Botton described the actions of Athens towards Socrates to me seems as any majority would act towards a weaker minority. This has continued for thousands of years and no one has been able to stop it. People would much rather join together and fight against another with different morals or beliefs “We stifle our doubts and follow the flock because we cannot conceive of ourselves as pioneers of hitherto unknown, difficult truths.” (p13). Being apart from the crowd is what normally is not done but I can say that being with the crowd is not for everyone. Throughout my life I have attempted to be the same as the popular kids in school but it never worked. In the end I realized that I was different and that who I want to hang out with is my choice and I can chose because of free will.
Even at the hour of his death Socrates would look the same as any other day. Socrates was described as not the most appealing man always wearing the same cloths and staying unkempt or not wearing shoes. Either way he chose that wealth was not necessary for him to do what he enjoys. Since he did not care about his appearance others thought of him as dirty and Botton said that there was a caricature that formed many prejudice opinions against him and his lifestyle. One view that I saw as remarkable was how Socrates was able to put his life on the line for what he believed for because it was through death. I believe that this was one of the very first protests that could be seen as non-violent.
Along with protesting his thoughts Socrates would question others and break down the building blocks of their understanding. Although it was not done intentionally he would basically question someone until he could state that whatever the person or people he was conversing were speaking about was incorrect in some form. This caused the citizens of Athens to growth a hate towards him. I feel that being an individual was what Socrates view was all about but there are some cases in which being a philosopher must come second. When he questions an idea that another person has it in itself could be considered an insult and that is not what Socrates would see it as. The problem with this is that he was going against the majority and caused hatred without remorse of what he would do. I believe that throughout my life I have been unpopular but through learning others opinions I can see that questioning has a time and place.
Forming a stance of questioning everything is very difficult to do but I must say that I denounce Socrates for questioning everything. Even though one has free will does that mean that they should be able to question others who happen to encounter Socrates and his philosophical beliefs? This question was brought to mind when I considered that Socrates method of discussion are indeed flawed and that he has no right to ask what he did. I agree that questioning is very important but without a line of judgment his beliefs are flawed.
Socrates was criticized for what he did because of being an individual “We feel justified in taking unpopularity seriously not only for pragmatic reasons, for reasons of promotion or survival, but more importantly because being jeered at can seem an unequivocal sign that we have gone astray.” (p29). For one to give their life for a cause I see great devotion but I personally do not support this idea. This is because how else can Socrates continue what he preached by meeting his death would this not only ask a question of his judgment that he can never answer? It would only bring more questions that may never be solved.
Overall I see Socrates as a brilliant philosopher but his teachings have not always been beneficial to society and taking a stance that unpopularity can allow one to love knowledge I feel can be seen both ways. Nowadays these teachings are used to harm and manipulate others by forming arguments which can cause a loss of faith or lead others to acts to pursue in which should not be committed. These can be considered terrorism or other dreadful acts. I believe that being unpopular should be a decision to live life being yourself but not necessarily infringing on others rights as Socrates had in the past. I have not changed my view on philosophy from this account but I see knowledge as a form of power, but is this power really necessary in order to live ones life?

P. 33
Appearance
Common sense
p.29
criticism

Technological Dependance

People Have become Overly Dependent on Technology

Common necessity for handheld devices

1. Cell phone- communication, internet, face book, e-mail
2. IPod- music, games
3. Most people find it impossible to leave home without their cell phone because of their dependency on texting, phone calls, status updates and checking the internet
4. 5 Reasons people are becoming too dependent on technology
   • We are losing our ability to think
   • Computers are there to do simple tasks for everyday life
   • We are losing the ability to sustain
     • Mechanized production of packaged food
     • Farming has become mechanized
   • We are losing our ability to do
     • Information is presented visually and no longer conceptually
     • Communication is no longer the same
   • We are becoming lethargic, obese and out of shape    Convenience of mechanized transportation
     • We lost our appreciation of the arts
     • Entertainment is based through the electronic media

At the same time each of these areas has a positive side to the argument as well

1. Losing the ability to think
   1. Simple tasks are finished quicker allowing more time for other activities
   2. Everyone is able to do a certain level of work by the help of machines
2. Production of food
   1. Storage of food has become better
   2. Production of food is more productive and less time consuming
3. Ability to do
   1. Simplifies tasks and narrow options
   2. Allows ideas to spread and the availability of the resources to increase
4. Lethargic, obese and out of shape
   1. Transportation makes traveling for efficient and open to all people
   2. There are forms of technology which allow exercise to be built in
5. Appreciation of the arts
   1. Different forms of art have been created
   2. Different ways to adapt other art forms to modern ideas.
6. Preservation
   1. History has become readily available and more accurate
7. Ecosystem
   1. The effects on our environment are ever changing affecting our life and other species around us
   2. Expansion of humans forcing other species out of their environment
   3. “In the preservation of biological diversity, the use of technology is a last resort. When the preservation of ecosystems falters, their fragments may have to be cared for piece by piece.”

Global Warming

1. The heating of our environment through fossil fuel emissions

Dependency

1. Has cultured evolved to the desire of the top technology
2. Prejudice against those who do not use technology
3. How to counter the dependency

False Love

False Love

While reading Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton the one chapter that popped out at me was the very first one because of how direct and trues it is. This chapter describes why people desire love, how they desire it and what happens when they do not receive it. When reading this I could think to myself that everybody is the same and started to analyze this thought in my own life. The last thought that came to mind was will knowing this change me or how I think?
People desire love. Within society they want attention, gratification and to be accepted by others. In order for one of these goals to be fulfilled you must first be a social person that is involved with others. By involving yourself with others you are opening yourself up to the possibility of being critiqued or made fun of because of how you are. This as Botton put it a “hunger for status” the way he described it was that people crave for status and recognition from other people in society and because of this desire they are able to form an actual society or group of people. When people come together and have the same desire for status they open themselves up to live by the same guidelines and setting rules/laws so that they may attain a new level of status that arises from the creating a society.
The desire for status can be seen as both good and bad. Status is a motivator which drives people to work hard and attempt to achieve a higher level of status in society. At the same time it is also a way for laws to be made and a common ground to be decided upon for the safety of the people or only on the whims of those in the different groups. Although at the same time there can be extremes to every issue but status can help to cut down on these extremes and instead create an inequality which will motivate others to strive for a higher class.
I believe that status is indeed something that people strive for but because of it people are given a false sense of hope for love and instead will fall into more despair when they are able to truly recognize that they may have status but they are not necessarily loved. This lovelessness is something that I know all too well because of my differences and my desires. When I was younger I never cared about what people thought of me but nowadays as much as I do not want to say it, my desire for status is always one of the first things I think about before I do anything. Although even with this as it is I have begun to realize that the recognition by others is not for everyone and that sometimes status can come behind many other things because it is only an incomplete form of love in which we endure.
This is complete love is what we attempt to fill ourselves with when are unable to attain love on our own. Instead of fulfilling our desire for love on our own we turn to society and instead seek approval at the level of achievement of status in order to replace the hole that is left by our inability to love or find love. At the same time I am able to see that status Is a suitable temporary replacement for love. What I mean by this is that by desiring status in place of love you are able to continue on with your life such as by being promoted in your job or career. Although I must say that if you are to take status over love then I feel that you will always be empty. This emptiness would change the person and they would instead desire only status and no longer love. It would become a way separate this person from others emotionally and cause a shadow that will always be following them because of their lack of love.
The love that one desires will always be there but by clouding ones judgment you are denying love for something that was created by humans. The more I think about this chapter, the more I think about how Status is unneeded. Living my life as an example I would rather do what I enjoy and be disregarded by others than do what everyone else does so that I may be accepted by them into their little groups or as I could call them, corporate cults. These cults are formed around the principles that by working hard one may achieve a higher level of status as is the motto of the United States and their free market enterprise.
This higher level of achievement also comes with the point of view that you are better than everyone below you and this is the main reason I believe that status and the enforcement of such principles is the downfall to human society. Human’s desire and greed is the ugliest thing that I have ever seen throughout my life but the only thing I can say is that greed and desire does motivate people. It pushes people to work harder and always strive for the best and to be the best no matter what may happen. Although the ugliness that is created is 10 times as harmful as any positive influence can be thought to help society.
The last point that I would like to make is that the injustice created by status is what drives the people today but in itself it is the root of all problems today and throughout history. Unless we are able to see that we will be unable to stide forward improving on yesterdays downfalls and living our lives to their fullest extent filled with love .

Government

The Entity over the Individual

Have you ever read a bill written by Congress? Every bill that is sent through Congress is always added to by both sides, Republicans and Democrats, when one side does not obtain what they desired on the bill they will refuse to listen to what the other side has to say unless their demands are met. To most people this could be considered in other light. For example you could compare politicians to a stubborn child who does not listen unless they are given what they desire out of a given situation. When thinking of situation such as this it begins to become clearer that the government does not work as smoothly as it can hurting the American people.
The government often takes its time when attempting to put something through legislation but often the original idea is skewed by the time it ends up as a bill and eventually a law. There is a problem with American politics today and it centers on this idea that principles become skewed in the eyes of politicians. When you learn about what is necessary for a law to come into action there are several points that in the description written by Indiana University about the Congress brings up a controversy in the minds of people. The very first point on the checklist is the “Bill Introduction”, within the description below the checklist it states that a politician may submit a bill even when it is not under their own set of beliefs and may do it out of “professional courtesy’. This means that the original idea did not come from the member of Congress but instead could have come from an outside source where it may be considered that is was done as a favor. This one point begins to show that the government is not as straight as we believe it to be.
In actuality there are many under the table deals that occur on a daily basis but are brushed away with little or no publicity because of the power each of these politicians hold. After the Bill is introduced to Congress there are many other steps that are taken into account among the two worst that cause politicians to fight for their own amendments are during the votes and while they are in committees. These are the main areas because in order for bills to pass there needs to be a majority support of the bill and after the bill is sent to committees where much of the deliberation occurs. The power of a legislator is mainly based on which committee if any they are a part of and this influences their outside assets which are accessed by which lobbyists and interest groups. In order to be successful in Washington you must be able to please the lobbyists of powerful interest groups.
Lobbyist’s usually work for larger organizations and will almost be a part of an interest group. The job of a lobbyist is for them to push ideas and to use money to get done what they want to get done. This is the first place where politicians are influenced and causes much trouble with directing the actions of Congress. The lobbyist is usually a part of or supported by an interest Group which is a group with similar goals and strategies. The actual job of a lobbyist as described in the Princeton Review is for them to be able to persuade law makers to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent. By doing this it is necessary to not only appeal to specific individuals but to appeal to the group as well.
When taking into account lobbyists and the facilitating interest groups it’s very easy to see why legislators are always pushing to get their interests involved. On the other side of lobbyists, the interest groups or larger entities that support them are usually funded by millions if not billions to ensure that their interests are heard. According to PBS.org in the 1990s the amount of money invested by interest groups was capped at 83.3 million but from 2000 to 2009 the amount that was spent exceeds 206.9 million dollars. This massive amount of capital may be what is persuading legislators to support interest groups and as well hooking them to the demands of Special lobbyists after taking a taste of the bait the first time.
The issue at hand is of how the government officials will always attempt to put their two cents into a bill that may not necessarily involve their constituents. Instead of the government working for its people it is instead only working for its own interest of those with power. Each of the interest groups that push their ideas are multi-million dollar factions that are made of powerful entities. These figures are able to control the government using money and the influence that they hold. The most current and prime example of how a Interest group is able to control the government is found in a Frontline video of Obama care and his health reform bill. While watching the video there are many interesting points that are made, in a mere 56 minutes the ins and outs of politics are described in very deep and engrossing detail. The video explains how the original bill was in no comparison even related to the final outcome of what the public knows as Obama care. The lobbyists were able to influence different politicians to sway their votes against the bill unless certain amendments were added to the proposed bill. Instead of decreasing the costs of health care and making it so the pharmaceutical company’s profits would decrease it had the opposite effect.
After watching the video it opened my eyes along with many of my other classmates. The many points that are made are a sum of only the fewest details of how politics are actually run in Washington. After learning about Obama’s Deal it is becomes more noticeable of how a bill to decrease the cost of health care can instead increase the profits of large companies. The creation of interest groups was mostly likely because there were opinions and ideas that the people wanted to be spread but instead interest groups are now controlled and used for large corporations to gain control and increase their influence using the government as a middle man.
Obama’s Deal is just one of many potential articles of legislation that has come through Congress to hit a roadblock and become a Christmas Tree Bill. This kind of bill is also a root of the evil because it allows a bill to go through but along with 100s of unneeded amendments that are only added because it legislators wanted them to pass in order for their vote. As the increase of these bills grows it also brings rise to politicians gaining more favor with interest groups which also in turn opens the dorm to certain new committee opportunities or potential job options after they retire from Congress. There are many different moral areas that this affects but the people continue to believe in the government.
While politicians are fighting over different interests to fill out the quota for Interest groups and lobbyists the country is in a crisis. Legislators will continue to build new branches and to put them on smaller ones to make all bill to look like a Christmas tree; people are freezing in the cold on Christmas Eve. Large corporations continue to get wealthier at the cost of the little people. The government is straying from what it was once meant to be used for. Instead of working for the people the politicians that are elected into power take advantage of the trust of Americans and instead of fighting for bills that could help the people they fight of tax cuts and push to allow companies to import raw products at a cheaper cost from other countries. Politicians in Congress are arguing for now reason and by pushing the ideas of the corporation above the Individual the politics of Congress in Washington are hurting the country.

Bibliography
Gentile, S. (2010, Augest 17th). Interest groups spend millions to control state courts,
study finds . Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/interest-groups-spend-millions-to-control-state-courts-study-finds/2892/

Rosenthal, A. (1999, August). The good legislature. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legislatures/the-good-legislature.aspx

Idiana University. (n.d.). The legislative process. Retrieved from
http://congress.indiana.edu/legislative-process

Federal Election Commision. (2013, February 18th). Interest groups. Retrieved from
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/

U.S. Senate. (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved from
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/christmas_tree_bill.html

Princeton Review. (n.d.). Career: Lobbyist. Retrieved from http://www.princetonreview.com/careers.aspx?cid=88

Frontline. (Producer) (2010). Obama’s deal [Web]. Retrieved from http://video.pbs.org/video/1468710007/

Big Business

Big Business Support

Introduction
Among many different things in our lives today between jobs and others areas of life people in the United States are affected by every day big business is one area that I am curious of. With the financial standpoint of Americans I hold a curiosity as to what affects people opinions of it and what factors may be involved. Big business is involved in everything, how we get our food to how we interact with people this is all influenced by those large corporations that say what is favored in society. As Political Science students we have interests in politics which is largely controlled by those with wealth or those that hold high positions in larger corporations or in big businesses. This is an important factor which is why it is so interesting to me. Based on this I am hoping to find out what people’s opinions are on big business and whether or not their education level, employment status and political ideology affects these opinions. For all of the following the dependant variable used to compact each variable against is the variable bigbus_therm which is an interval variable from the NES 2004 data set which all of the following variables were used from. This variable is a feelings thermometer which ranks the opinions on a ranked scale of the lowest number being completely against to the highest number being in complete support.
The first of these factors is the education level of those who were surveyed. People who have a higher level of education are more likely to support big business than those who have a lesser level of education. I have come to this conclusion because with more education are more likely to be involved with larger businesses and they are able to see how important these big businesses are to our economy and how without them it is detrimental to society. The variable am using is educ7 from the NES 2004 data set and is divided into 7 different category’s. This category’s range from little high school all the way to multiple or a single master’s degree from a university in any area. For these categories, involving all of them is important because as one becomes more educated their opinions change from high school to an undergraduate degree or even a masters/graduate degree. There is also partial education included because there may have been underlying conditions involving their education level that may affect the outcome of these test and because this variable is ordinal from the levels of education categorized as an increasing of their education the category’s show the change of opinion as the education increases.
The second factor I am researching is the employment status of those who were surveyed. The variable used is called employstat from the NES 2004 data set as well. For this data set it was somewhat confusing in some areas of the variable because of the fact that there are several different divisions that are specific to unknown reasons. Some of these factors where disabilities, injury and those who may have been laid off for different reasons, For the difference of means test I only wanted to measure the opinions of those who were either working or unemployed because those in other category’s of the variable may have biased opinions based on their current status. For the rest of the data I used the entire data set to show the differences in these opinions and to represent all areas equally. But in for each test my hypothesis stayed the same; people who are employed are more likely to support big business than those are unemployed. This data set is ordinal based that there is no way to clearly categorize this data including all of the special situations.
The last variable used is for the political ideology of the individual named libcon3_r from the NES 2004 data set. A way to describe this is that; people who are Republican are more likely to support big business than those who are not Republican. This variable is coded into 3 separate areas being; Republican, Democrat, and independent, of which could be seen as Republican more likely supporting big business, where as independents usually support big business less and Democrat believe more in equality than either of the other two. The political ideology of the person can affect their opinions because of their opinions on different policies that affect big business or the public. Such as for example environmental restrictions, each ideology may have different stances on the subject and therefore the impact it has on big business would be different for each ideology. The variable is coded clearly as an ordinal variable because there is no distinct order that could be formed and because of that the opinions will be clearly distributed.

Other Variables
Of these 3 independent variables I have chosen to compare to the big business dependant variable there are many other factors that may affect ones opinion of big business. Two of these variables may be the person’s age or their media exposure. When considering a person’s age it could be assumed that; people who are older than 65 are less likely to support big business than those who are under 65. This may be because those who are 65 and older may have already retired and because of that they may not support big business controlling large amounts of a specific industry as well they have had more experience with big business and their age may reflect the experiences they have had with it. For the other variable; people who are exposed to more media are more likely to support big business than those who are exposed to less. This could be because the media is able to control public opinion based on what is released so there would be a more positive view reflected by different forms of media because of big businesses ability to influence it. These could also be affect different people’s opinions on big business but there are too many underlying variable that can affect the specific affect of these variables in which are too complicated to test such as who has had positive life influences with big business for their age or whether they are involved in big business and the media may not be relevant to their area of big business.

Data
When starting my research I conducted a difference of means test using the Independent Sample T test which compares the difference of the means of the selected independent variable’s category’s to represent the difference in the average score or select in the specified variable also measuring whether or not the hypothesis can be supported or if there is too high a level of error involved in the test to differ. By conducting the difference of means test I used the variable employstat as my independent variable and recoded it into two different categories’ using 1 as working now and 4 as currently unemployed. The dependant variable used was bigbus_therm. For this specific test I wished to test whether people who are currently employed are more likely to support big business than those who are currently unemployed. According to the data there is only a difference in the means of 1.030. Using the Sig value of 0.005 I am able to use the bottom row of the variances assumed for my Sig (2-tailed0 value). But based on the Sig (2-tailed) column my conclusion is unsupported. According to the Sig (2-tailed) there is a value of 0.803 which means there is just over an 80% chance that the results were concluded due to random error. This means that my hypothesis is rejected and that the null hypothesis is accepted because of the fact that there is no relationship between whether the employment status of a person affects their opinion on big business.
Difference of Means T-test employ status 1-employed 4-unemployed

Group Statistics
R employment status N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Feeling Thermometer: Big Business dimension1 1 Working now 695 55.17 21.346 .810
4 Unemployed 29 54.14 30.062 5.582

Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Feeling Thermometer: Big Business Equal variances assumed 8.004 .005 .250 722 .803 1.030 4.122 -7.063 9.123
Equal variances not assumed .183 29.190 .856 1.030 5.641 -10.503 12.564

The next level of testing is that I conducted a bivariate regression between each of my independent variables and my dependent variable. The first variable I tested for is educ7 which is education level of those surveyed. The first area to be looked at is R value in the model summary. This value is measured at 0.08 which means that only 8% of the variance in our DV can be explained by the education level of the person. This means that the relationship between the IV and the DV is not were significant. This means that my hypothesis is most likely incorrect because of the little relationship there is between ones education and their opinions on big business. Then when looking at the coefficients table the Sig column has a 0.010. Being as the number is less than 0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected so that this data is caused by random error. When looking at the B column or beta value the number is -1.078. This means that for every increase of the independent variable by 1 the dependent variable’s score decreases by -1.078 for the little effect it has on it. This shows there is a negative relationship between the education level of the people surveyed and their opinions on big business.

Bivariate Regression Educ7
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
dimension0 1 .080a .006 .005 21.505
a. Predictors: (Constant), R education level: 7 cats

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 60.334 1.921 31.410 .000
R education level: 7 cats -1.078 .416 -.080 -2.592 .010
a. Dependent Variable: Feeling Thermometer: Big Business

For the variable employstat I conducted another bivariate regression to measure the relationship between the employment status of those surveyed and their opinions on big business. For this test I again looked at the R value in the model summary and it was measured as 0.036. This means that 0.36% of the variance can be attributed to the employment status of the person. This is a weak relationship meaning ones opinion on big business is not affected by their employment status. After learning of this you look at the Sig value of the coefficients table to learn that the Sig value is 0.240. Although because this value is greater than 0.05 the null hypothesis fails to be rejected.
Bivariate Regression Employstat
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
dimension0 1 .036a .001 .000 21.570
a. Predictors: (Constant), R employment status

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 54.787 .998 54.905 .000
R employment status .346 .294 .036 1.177 .240
The last variable I ran a bivariate regression was the libcon3_r which measures the political ideology of the peoples surveyed. For this variable I chose to leave the variable as is so that I would be able to notice if there was a change between any of the three ideologies. From the model summary in the R column I am able to deduce that from the 0.326 value there is a strong relationship and that just over 32% of the variance can be contributed to the ideology of the person surveyed. After this I looked at the Sig value in the coefficients table to a 0.00 value meaning because it is below 0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected. This mainly means that random error did not cause the results. So when looking at the B column you can see that the beta value is 8.797. This means that for each level of increase by 1 in ones political ideologies the persons support for big business increases by 8.797 points, so approximately 9 points. Based on this for the level of 3 which is the max and also the republican value it means that one’s support increases the most for being Republican versus Democrat or independent. This means my hypothesis is supported.
Bivariate Regression libcon3_r
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
dimension0 1 .326a .106 .105 20.691
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ideology: 3 cats

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 36.362 2.076 17.513 .000
Ideology: 3 cats 8.797 .897 .326 9.812 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Feeling Thermometer: Big Business

For my final test I conducted a multiple regression analysis to see if the independent variables I chose affect each other in any other way to increase the percent of variance or their beta value as to how much the relationship affected an increase or decrease in support. Based on the model summary the R value is 0.332 meaning that these 3 variables affect about 33% of the dependent variables variance. As I see it this is not a major difference because of each of my previous bivariate regression analyses the political ideology affect 32% of the variance so there is no major difference between these variables based on the R value and the strong relationship is based on the variable libcon3_r. For the coefficient table the Sig value for education level and employment status is still above 0.05 so it can be accepted that both are caused due to random error again and the null hypothesis is accepted meaning each has no effect in ones opinions on big business while the political ideology variable rejects the null hypothesis.

Multivariate Regression
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
dimension0 1 .332a .110 .107 20.685
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ideology: 3 cats, R employment status, R education level: 7 cats

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 39.754 3.166 12.556 .000
R education level: 7 cats -.795 .462 -.057 -1.721 .086
R employment status .159 .330 .016 .482 .630
Ideology: 3 cats 8.730 .897 .323 9.731 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Feeling Thermometer: Big Business

Conclusion
In conclusion, based on the weak percent variance and the small beta value (B) and Sig value for employment status and education level for the regression analysis, I conclude that for both variables the null hypothesis is accepted and both hypotheses are incorrect due to random error and the weakness of the relationship. On the other hand the data for the political ideology regression analysis supports my hypothesis through the fact that the positive relationship between those who are republican and those who are of a different ideology has a greater affect on the support of big business. Also the fact that the Sig is 0.00 means that the null hypothesis is rejected unlike my other two independent variables. After completing the multiple regression analysis both the education level and employment status of those surveyed are both rejected as being due to random error while the only hypothesis still remaining supported is of political ideology. From the data collected those who are Republican are more likely to support big business than those who are democrat or independent.