Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

[daveman]

Yep. I do not deny my intolerance of the far right. Anyone who has read my posts knows this and why.

Yes. It's because you cannot tolerate disagreement, nor those who do not share your lofty opinion of yourself.

Narcissism, what fun!

A common trait among progressives.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep. I do not deny my intolerance of the far right. Anyone who has read my posts knows this and why.

Yes. It's because you cannot tolerate disagreement, nor those who do not share your lofty opinion of yourself.

Narcissism, what fun!

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

 

[martybegan]

Yes. It's because you cannot tolerate disagreement, nor those who do not share your lofty opinion of yourself.

Narcissism, what fun!

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Calling you a narcissist when you flat out admit you can't tolerate people who disagree with you is far from an ad hominem attack.

Saying you like to suck off goats, THATS and ad hominem attack.

 

[Oddball]

Yes. It's because you cannot tolerate disagreement, nor those who do not share your lofty opinion of yourself.

Narcissism, what fun!

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Prolly because you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

 

[daveman]

Yes. It's because you cannot tolerate disagreement, nor those who do not share your lofty opinion of yourself.

Narcissism, what fun!

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Considering this thread is a leftist circle-jerk with a bunch of mindless progs congratulating themselves over how smart they are, I'd say your objections are less than compelling.

And given that you believe any argument that you disagree with is not reasoned only because you disagree with it, it looks like the rest of your post is nonsense as well.

 

[Si modo]

The OP is too stupid to realize that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are two different things.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Narcissism, what fun!

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Calling you a narcissist when you flat out admit you can't tolerate people who disagree with you is far from an ad hominem attack.

Saying you like to suck off goats, THATS and ad hominem attack.

Calling someone who doesn't tolerate people whose ideas with which they disagree "narcissistic" is abject ignorance of the term. Are those who were intolerant of the Nazis and the Holocaust all narcissistic?

 

[martybegan]

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Calling you a narcissist when you flat out admit you can't tolerate people who disagree with you is far from an ad hominem attack.

Saying you like to suck off goats, THATS and ad hominem attack.

Calling someone who doesn't tolerate people whose ideas with which they disagree "narcissistic" is abject ignorance of the term. Are those who were intolerant of the Nazis and the Holocaust all narcissistic?

ah, right to argumentum ad hitlerem. We dont even get off the first page before you invoke Godwin's law.

Its not the disagreeing thats narcissisim, its the way you disagree, assuming anyone who does is either stupid or evil.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Narcissism, what fun!

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Prolly because you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

Well, you've never offered anything reasonable, "prolly" cause you are a bit of a narcissist -using made-up words to be cute is little more than an attention getting device (please, please look at me).

 

[Wry Catcher]

Calling you a narcissist when you flat out admit you can't tolerate people who disagree with you is far from an ad hominem attack.

Saying you like to suck off goats, THATS and ad hominem attack.

Calling someone who doesn't tolerate people whose ideas with which they disagree "narcissistic" is abject ignorance of the term. Are those who were intolerant of the Nazis and the Holocaust all narcissistic?

ah, right to argumentum ad hitlerem. We dont even get off the first page before you invoke Godwin's law.

Its not the disagreeing thats narcissisim, its the way you disagree, assuming anyone who does is either stupid or evil.

That's your take, not my intent. Some are incapable of critical thinking, some too lazy and others willfully so. That's my opinion, not in any way an ad hominem attack.

BTW, the Nazi comment was an example, nothing more (and your response was an example of the "willfully so").

 

[daveman]

Oh goody, a double-team ad hominem, how sweet. Rarely am I confronted by a reasoned argument opposed to policy matters I proffer. Too often the response is limited to glib, that is thoughtless, one liners (idiotgrams) or name calling. Example abound.

Prolly because you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

Well, you've never offered anything reasonable, "prolly" cause you are a bit of a narcissist -using made-up words to be cute is little more than an attention getting device (please, please look at me).

Oh, you mean like you do.

 

[martybegan]

Calling someone who doesn't tolerate people whose ideas with which they disagree "narcissistic" is abject ignorance of the term. Are those who were intolerant of the Nazis and the Holocaust all narcissistic?

ah, right to argumentum ad hitlerem. We dont even get off the first page before you invoke Godwin's law.

Its not the disagreeing thats narcissisim, its the way you disagree, assuming anyone who does is either stupid or evil.

That's your take, not my intent. Some are incapable of critical thinking, some too lazy and others willfully so. That's my opinion, not in any way an ad hominem attack.

BTW, the Nazi comment was an example, nothing more (and your response was an example of the "willfully so").

For all your flowery rhetoric, you are still calling me stupid. I suggest looking in the mirror instead.

 

[daveman]

Sheesh, will somebody tell Fly Catcher he's the smartest guy in the room? His fragile ego is wilting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

ah, right to argumentum ad hitlerem. We dont even get off the first page before you invoke Godwin's law.

Its not the disagreeing thats narcissisim, its the way you disagree, assuming anyone who does is either stupid or evil.

That's your take, not my intent. Some are incapable of critical thinking, some too lazy and others willfully so. That's my opinion, not in any way an ad hominem attack.

BTW, the Nazi comment was an example, nothing more (and your response was an example of the "willfully so").

For all your flowery rhetoric, you are still calling me stupid. I suggest looking in the mirror instead.

No I wasn't calling you stupid because you're not. I disagree with much of what you post but you are able to write cogent paragraphs and express you opinions. That I disagree in no way means I think you're stupid or I'm always correct. On most issues argued here, the only way to get a point across is take to one's argument to it's limits (some go to the outer limits and they are the idiot fringe).

Suggesting you were of the "willful" variety means, generally, that you won't (can't) give ground because (possibly) you want so badly to win. So to accept any point which weakens your argument is unacceptable.

 

[Truthmatters]

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.

The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.

I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.

Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.

Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.

Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties. That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).


AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks

 

[martybegan]

That's your take, not my intent. Some are incapable of critical thinking, some too lazy and others willfully so. That's my opinion, not in any way an ad hominem attack.

BTW, the Nazi comment was an example, nothing more (and your response was an example of the "willfully so").

For all your flowery rhetoric, you are still calling me stupid. I suggest looking in the mirror instead.

No I wasn't calling you stupid because you're not. I disagree with much of what you post but you are able to write cogent paragraphs and express you opinions. That I disagree in no way means I think you're stupid or I'm always correct. On most issues argued here, the only way to get a point across is take to one's argument to it's limits (some go to the outer limits and they are the idiot fringe).

Suggesting you were of the "willful" variety means, generally, that you won't (can't) give ground because (possibly) you want so badly to win. So to accept any point which weakens your argument is unacceptable.

Or it could be that the proposed point has no merit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For all your flowery rhetoric, you are still calling me stupid. I suggest looking in the mirror instead.

No I wasn't calling you stupid because you're not. I disagree with much of what you post but you are able to write cogent paragraphs and express you opinions. That I disagree in no way means I think you're stupid or I'm always correct. On most issues argued here, the only way to get a point across is take to one's argument to it's limits (some go to the outer limits and they are the idiot fringe).

Suggesting you were of the "willful" variety means, generally, that you won't (can't) give ground because (possibly) you want so badly to win. So to accept any point which weakens your argument is unacceptable.

Or it could be that the proposed point has no merit.

Could be, but no counterpoint offered does nothing to prove a lack of merit. When combined with the usual logical fallacies - ad hominem, red herring, staw man, slippery slope, etc. - it is not surprising that some will become intolerant of cavilous retorts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, I hope I didn't hurt too many feelings.

 

[KR811]

Even though I also dislike the people who you describe as dumb, I think people put too much stock into IQ tests and treat the scores as an absolute. IQ doesn't even factor (but ASSUMES) one's work ethic and discipline which are just as important as intelligence in life. They also devalue environmental factors and cultural or sub-cultural influences.

Also in IQ test statistics, When did they do the test? How often do they do tests? How big are the samples? where do they do get their subjects?

Nobody I have ever known has taken a legit (non-online) IQ test which are very expensive (for a test). I doubt anyone here has taken one either.

 

[martybegan]

Gee, I hope I didn't hurt too many feelings.

No but at this point we are arguing about arguing. I try not to create any rips in the space time contiuum, and that type of argument can do that.

Or make a really funny Monty Python sketch.