PDA

View Full Version : Called it


Zombie Sammael
02-07-2012, 06:43 AM
Study shows that people with right wing views are of lower intelligence. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left)

NOTE: I first became aware of this via the Daily Mail, but to avoid giving their website traffic, I'm instead linking to an opinion piece on the matter.

Terez
02-07-2012, 07:17 AM
It is a noticeable trend on my local newspaper forum. It's not that there isn't an occasional idiot lefty or an occasional articulate righty. It's just that the righties are in general overwhelmingly aggressive and stupid, while the liberals are in general quite articulate. The righties never make actual arguments; they just hurl random insults and link articles from Drudge Report. You can be talking about something random like our local Northrup Grumman project, and one of them will inevitably say, "Oh yeah? Well what about Solyndra??" as if it has some bearing on the discussion at hand.

Davian93
02-07-2012, 08:11 AM
Well, this would gel quite nicely with the Right's long-standing attacks on intellectural elitism (IE "I want a President I can have a beer with, not one of dem smarty pants Ivy League graduates").

Terez
02-07-2012, 08:53 AM
Well, this would gel quite nicely with the Right's long-standing attacks on intellectural elitism (IE "I want a President I can have a beer with, not one of dem smarty pants Ivy League graduates").I like this clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-1-2012/indecision-2012---jump-on-the-blandwagon). (Around 2:00 in.)

DahLliA
02-07-2012, 09:17 AM
I think it's more that everyone is stupid.

it's only that the stupidity of righties are more your garden-variety stupidity.

at least that's the way I see it in Norway.

you can choose between the ignorant stupidity of the right or the naive stupidity of the left.

then you got a few ruthless dicks on the top and a few people who get it, but are too lazy and demotivated to do anything except throw out sarcastic remarks and complain.

three guesses to which group I place myself in :p

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 09:22 AM
Ah, but in Norway you have an uncommonly good quality of righties. That is not how it is in the real world, though.

DahLliA
02-07-2012, 09:27 AM
Ah, but in Norway you have an uncommonly good quality of righties. That is not how it is in the real world, though.

true. that's the one good thing about living hidden away in the mountains at the end of the world.

global stupidity takes a while longer to arrive.

we're getting there though. had our first public scandal about anti-abortion a few weeks ago for instance

Terez
02-07-2012, 09:44 AM
true. that's the one good thing about living hidden away in the mountains at the end of the world.

global stupidity takes a while longer to arrive.

we're getting there though. had our first public scandal about anti-abortion a few weeks ago for instanceWe of the global 1% would like to apologize for unleashing Reagan and Thatcher on the world.

Res_Ipsa
02-07-2012, 10:46 AM
This article is a piece of crap. We have had the discussion of the limitations of a left right spectrum. (Some of you know my preference for a individualist/collectivist spectrum) More to the point, it falls victim to a Morton's Fork where you are presented with only two options and one of them must be decidedly wrong.

Additionally, there is no strict barometer for intelligence. There is a saying that scientists have been trying to explain what farmers have known for centuries. Some may be mechanically inclined, while others may be book inclined. More to the point, the apex of cognitive ability is not limited to "x." (Where x is your conception of worth and value)

These studies strike me as wrong. They seem only to serve as a basis by which one class of people judge themselves superior to others; something which, in my experience, I have found that people will find any criteria by which to judge themselves superior. It is just silly.

Now, the study that said Republicans are better in bed than Democrats is most definitely true.

Davian93
02-07-2012, 10:50 AM
Two sides to every argument.

For example, you'd probably say the sky is blue. I happen to believe it is yellow. I feel that my viewpoint should have equal footing to yours.


Teach the Controversy

Zombie Sammael
02-07-2012, 11:25 AM
Two sides to every argument.

For example, you'd probably say the sky is blue. I happen to believe it is yellow. I feel that my viewpoint should have equal footing to yours.


Teach the Controversy

You know, I've always felt that, when it comes to issues like evolution, there is actually a value to teaching the controversy, but not necessarily in a science classroom. I've always though the arguments against it ignored the lessons that could be learned about different beliefs, myth and reality, and politics by presenting and contrasting what science says and what people believe.

Also, the sky often looks yellow (among other hues) of an evening. If you said it was green I'd have to take issue with you.

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 11:56 AM
Two sides to every argument.

For example, you'd probably say the sky is blue. I happen to believe it is yellow. I feel that my viewpoint should have equal footing to yours.


Teach the Controversy
I have just looked outside, and, based on actual facts (I know, a very liberal thing to do), I have to say that I disagree with your side of this issue: the sky is gray.

You know, I've always felt that, when it comes to issues like evolution, there is actually a value to teaching the controversy, but not necessarily in a science classroom. I've always though the arguments against it ignored the lessons that could be learned about different beliefs, myth and reality, and politics by presenting and contrasting what science says and what people believe.
Actually, Creationism could be a very good tool for teaching what science is not. With it, you can highlight a number of huge flaws in thinking, and hopefully some of the pupils would pick some of that up and apply this knowledge to other areas too.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-07-2012, 12:00 PM
Study shows that people with right wing views are of lower intelligence. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left)

NOTE: I first became aware of this via the Daily Mail, but to avoid giving their website traffic, I'm instead linking to an opinion piece on the matter.

:rolleyes:

eht slat meit
02-07-2012, 12:30 PM
Study shows that people with right wing views are of lower intelligence. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left)


Saw the original article, and I noticed they dance around the issue, not exactly willing to say it straight out, but going the "suggestive" route.

Nothing new, really, just another shot in the war between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives is stupid, liberals is mentally ill, etc ad infiniderp:

http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/

One of many reasons to dislike both sides, not because what they say about each other necessarily has any merit, but because of that incessant back and forth garbage that sounds like an only slightly more educated version of a recess-on-the-playground argument.

Sinistrum
02-07-2012, 01:21 PM
I'm sure that study was completely scientific and not all influenced by bias or the political leanings of those conducting it. :rolleyes: Especially in a science that is one of the most subjective and open to interpretation and personal influence as "social" psychology. And yet I'm sure most of you are still sitting their scratching your head and wondering why there is legitimate concern among conservative circles on how "science" is being used to justify their policy preferences despite you practically slobbering at the prospect of taking this "study" and running with it. "Science" that establishes the conclusion first and then finds data to match that conclusion is not science at all.

If I didn't know better Zombie, I'd say Gonzo hacked your login. I think its infinitely more likely that low IQ is linked specifically to poorly done and politically charged research and those who unthinkingly leap at the chance to use such poorly done research to tar and feather their political opponents.

Ivhon
02-07-2012, 01:40 PM
I was gonna call that this thread was going to go nowhere positive.

I saw the original study - somebody posted it here some time ago - and thought it was flawed. As was the study that says that Conservatives are happier than Liberals. Whatever.

Although....ignorance is bliss, they say.



KIDDING!

tworiverswoman
02-07-2012, 02:04 PM
Weirdly enough, one of my favorite sound bites was someone explaining that "Liberals think Conservatives are evil, and Conservatives think Liberals are stupid."

I always felt that seemed to hit the nail on the head.

Terez
02-07-2012, 02:07 PM
Weirdly enough, one of my favorite sound bites was someone explaining that "Liberals think Conservatives are evil, and Conservatives think Liberals are stupid."

I always felt that seemed to hit the nail on the head.I thought about doing a study on my newspaper forum based on spelling and grammar alone. I started out wanting to do it based on how often factual arguments are made but that's a little trickier.

Terez
02-07-2012, 02:48 PM
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/Screenshot2012-02-07at14622PM.png

Davian93
02-07-2012, 02:58 PM
~reads T's post~

http://jasonlefkowitz.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/facepalm_picard21.jpg

GonzoTheGreat
02-07-2012, 03:53 PM
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/Screenshot2012-02-07at14622PM.png
Over 90% of your entire population is on welfare? Maybe Newt and friends have a point after all.

Cor Shan
02-07-2012, 05:07 PM
See, if you actually read the abstract, it basically says that "racists tend to be stupid/uneducated, and they tend to also be for socially conservative things (DOMA, abstinence only, no immigration, etc)"

Sei'taer
02-07-2012, 05:43 PM
I think I gotted more dumberer reading that...the words I could make out at leastest.

SonofElvis
02-07-2012, 06:03 PM
The key quote in this is "Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others particularly "different" others requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking."

In other words, they are not distinguishing between political conservative and liberal, they are distinguishing between open-minded and closed-minded. And as I'm sure Sei can agree, the open-minded acceptance by people on the left, the willingness to listen to other ideas, is just WILDLY prevalent.

I often point to a strange source when things like this come up: In the movie "American President, in the climactic speech, he says, "Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." But too often, the answer is "Shut up, you're wrong."

Of course, I also always find it funny that there is an overlap between people who called Bush stupid, and people who believed he orchestrated 9/11 and managed a cover-up.

Zombie Sammael
02-07-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm sure that study was completely scientific and not all influenced by bias or the political leanings of those conducting it. :rolleyes: Especially in a science that is one of the most subjective and open to interpretation and personal influence as "social" psychology. And yet I'm sure most of you are still sitting their scratching your head and wondering why there is legitimate concern among conservative circles on how "science" is being used to justify their policy preferences despite you practically slobbering at the prospect of taking this "study" and running with it. "Science" that establishes the conclusion first and then finds data to match that conclusion is not science at all.

If I didn't know better Zombie, I'd say Gonzo hacked your login. I think its infinitely more likely that low IQ is linked specifically to poorly done and politically charged research and those who unthinkingly leap at the chance to use such poorly done research to tar and feather their political opponents.

Tar and feather? I would never engage in such an archaic practice. Trolling, however? I have to admit I am partial to the occasional troll.

*countdown to someone using this against me in an argument I actually give a shit about... 5... 4... 3... 2...*

Sukoto
02-07-2012, 08:50 PM
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/Screenshot2012-02-07at14622PM.png
The moral of this story is that Google is conservative.

Uno
02-08-2012, 09:36 PM
Eh, I looked at the original research paper, and the criteria for determining what constituted a conservative rather predetermined the level of intelligence, to put it like that. Sure, someone who thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen could, in a sense, be called a conservative, but it's hardly what most of us consider conservative values, any more than being against the taming of fire is--"darkness was always good enough for us!" Besides, it was all dreadfully Anglo-American.

fdsaf3
02-08-2012, 09:51 PM
I'm sure that study was completely scientific and not all influenced by bias or the political leanings of those conducting it. :rolleyes: Especially in a science that is one of the most subjective and open to interpretation and personal influence as "social" psychology. And yet I'm sure most of you are still sitting their scratching your head and wondering why there is legitimate concern among conservative circles on how "science" is being used to justify their policy preferences despite you practically slobbering at the prospect of taking this "study" and running with it. "Science" that establishes the conclusion first and then finds data to match that conclusion is not science at all.

If I didn't know better Zombie, I'd say Gonzo hacked your login. I think its infinitely more likely that low IQ is linked specifically to poorly done and politically charged research and those who unthinkingly leap at the chance to use such poorly done research to tar and feather their political opponents.

I promise you I'm not trolling or trying to aggravate you, but have you read the study? I'm skimming through it now* and it's pretty interesting. Might be worth a quick skim if issues of social factors (intelligence, for example) and racism are of interest to you.

You can get the whole article here:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full

Edited to add:

If you think trying to figure out intelligence is hard, these authors are trying to gauge racism and other negative feelings towards minority groups using a Likert style scale. There might be some issues with that...

Sinistrum
02-08-2012, 10:44 PM
Yes I have, though I will admit I couldn't actually stomach getting all the way through it. What I read was enough for me to determine that it was absolute garbage designed for nothing more than political publication. Its neither fascinating nor relevant.

Uno
02-09-2012, 12:07 AM
you can choose between the ignorant stupidity of the right or the naive stupidity of the left.


Oh, dash it, Dahl, you can't say that. We're living in a post July 22 era, don't you know. It changed everything.

DahLliA
02-09-2012, 03:09 AM
On, dash it, Dahl, you can't say that. We're living in a post July 22 era, don't you know. It changed everything.

oh right, I forgot. now that we have more freedom, openess and democracy than ever you're not allowed to say anything bad about anyone. my bad :p

Uno
02-09-2012, 03:12 AM
oh right, I forgot. now that we have more freedom, openess and democracy than ever you're not allowed to say anything bad about anyone. my bad :p

Quite. Just don't let it happen again, otherwise you'd be attacking democracy, you would. Or so I'm given to understand.

Terez
02-09-2012, 07:22 AM
None of those inside Norwegian jokes, now.

Uno
02-09-2012, 08:07 AM
None of those inside Norwegian jokes, now.

Those jokes ought to be self-evident. The same damn thing that's being going on in the US for the last decade has now been going on in Norway for several months. Yes, many people died. Tragic. Now stop making political capital off of it. And it didn't change everything.

Terez
02-09-2012, 08:20 AM
Does Norway have a Patriot Act now? Are they going to start invading countries to bring democracy to the less fortunate?

Uno
02-09-2012, 08:24 AM
Does Norway have a Patriot Act now? Are they going to start invading countries to bring democracy to the less fortunate?

No, we did that in 2001, the same time as you lot did. And before that we did it in Kosovo, same as you. For that matter, we did it again in Libya last year, same as you. What we do have is a newfound disturbing tendency to censore political discussions, all in the name of democracy and freedom. Again, same as you.

Res_Ipsa
02-09-2012, 09:23 AM
No, we did that in 2001, the same time as you lot did. And before that we did it in Kosovo, same as you. For that matter, we did it again in Libya last year, same as you. What we do have is a newfound disturbing tendency to censore political discussions, all in the name of democracy and freedom. Again, same as you.

If it makes you feel better, the US was the one doing the blind following in Libya as well as Norway.

DahLliA
02-09-2012, 09:37 AM
No, we did that in 2001, the same time as you lot did. And before that we did it in Kosovo, same as you. For that matter, we did it again in Libya last year, same as you. What we do have is a newfound disturbing tendency to censore political discussions, all in the name of democracy and freedom. Again, same as you.

and we're increasing surveillance of the public in the name of freedom. same as you :p

Davian93
02-09-2012, 10:00 AM
If it makes you feel better, the US was the one doing the blind following in Libya as well as Norway.

Come on now...that's just ridiculous. Its not like the Brits and French had ulterior motives in pushing for a NATO invasion. Its slander and libel to suggest such a thing.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-09-2012, 10:18 AM
~refuses to throw stones at other country's "motives" while we're engaged in a land war in Asia~

Davian93
02-09-2012, 10:24 AM
~refuses to throw stones at other country's "motives" while we're engaged in a land war in Asia~

Our "motives" suck monkey balls too.

Gilshalos Sedai
02-09-2012, 10:54 AM
Our "motives" suck monkey balls too.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vNW3ypyF5Sw/TaWr5YMD0CI/AAAAAAAAFDg/PhYUsQimFYs/s400/classic+blunders+vizzini+the+princess+bride+land+w ar+in+asia+motivational+posters+sicilian++death+fu nny+filthy+hot.jpg

eht slat meit
02-09-2012, 11:02 AM
Come on now...that's just ridiculous. Its not like the Brits and French had ulterior motives in pushing for a NATO invasion. Its slander and libel to suggest such a thing.

Gosh, I hope that's sarcasm.

bowlwoman
02-09-2012, 11:10 AM
Of course, I also always find it funny that there is an overlap between people who called Bush stupid, and people who believed he orchestrated 9/11 and managed a cover-up.

Bush didn't orchestrate it, Cheney did. :p :D

Gilshalos Sedai
02-09-2012, 11:10 AM
Bush didn't orchestrate it, Cheney did. :p :D

That's DARTH Cheney to you.

bowlwoman
02-09-2012, 11:13 AM
That's DARTH Cheney to you.

Darth Dubai Cheney?