turtledude
Minnow Control Specialist
yet the group that voted for Obama at 96% rate have the lowest IQ of any major ethnic group
Face It Repubs: Studies Show Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives
- Thread starter Billy000
- Start date
yet the group that voted for Obama at 96% rate have the lowest IQ of any major ethnic group
- Thread starter
- #142
Oh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.
Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
turtledude
Minnow Control Specialist
so its hypocrisy to use a service that you were taxed for? Gawd are you one stupid dullardOh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.
Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
now if those people had received a REFUND for all the taxes taken from them for Medicare and then tried to use it-then you would have a point
but you don't
- Thread starter
- #144
Lol this study makes it clear that it doesn't challenge the political sensibilities of being liberal. I'm sure if the quesrion asked if tax cuts paid for themselves, you and your brain dead kind would say they do.
- Thread starter
- #145
Lol your assumption that any tea bagger receiving Medicare pays the taxes for it is pure fallacy.so its hypocrisy to use a service that you were taxed for? Gawd are you one stupid dullardOh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.
Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
now if those people had received a REFUND for all the taxes taken from them for Medicare and then tried to use it-then you would have a point
but you don't
How can one forget that famous tea bagger: "get your government hands off my Medicare!"
turtledude
Minnow Control Specialist
Lol your assumption that any tea bagger receiving Medicare pays the taxes for it is pure fallacy.so its hypocrisy to use a service that you were taxed for? Gawd are you one stupid dullardOh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
now if those people had received a REFUND for all the taxes taken from them for Medicare and then tried to use it-then you would have a point
but you don't
How can one forget that famous tea bagger: "get your government hands off my Medicare!"
a tea bagger is a *** that likes to lick other men's balls. probably far closer to you than what TEA PARTY activists are into
Clementine
Platinum Member
- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,832
- 350
None of the studies are talking about actual intelligence. Intelligence, to the researcher, is defined as whether a person believes in the theory of evolution over believing in God. That is the measure by which they are defining intelligence.
A lot of children are smart and those children are more apt to attend college. As young adults, they are more apt to claim to be liberal after being indoctrinated by liberal professors. They enter into the world as young adults believing in big government, socialism and atheism. Liberals call that mindset 'genius.'
The study didn't go far enough to see what mature people had to say. Many of us called ourselves Democrats in our youth, but that was before we had a clue as to how things really work in the world.
This study is really stretching it. But the liberals need a boost to their confidence and I suppose this is the best they could do.
A lot of children are smart and those children are more apt to attend college. As young adults, they are more apt to claim to be liberal after being indoctrinated by liberal professors. They enter into the world as young adults believing in big government, socialism and atheism. Liberals call that mindset 'genius.'
The study didn't go far enough to see what mature people had to say. Many of us called ourselves Democrats in our youth, but that was before we had a clue as to how things really work in the world.
This study is really stretching it. But the liberals need a boost to their confidence and I suppose this is the best they could do.
Last edited:
Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel. Most of your links focus on one study and one of your links refers to a study which looked at amygdala volume and correlation to political orientation.
The Kanazawa study makes clear:
The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.
That liberalism is some form of mutation which lessens survival advantage:
Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.
Right here, right at the very start, is an internal logical flaw. There is nothing which indicates that giving away one's found to strangers in a tribal society is the mark of intelligence. This is a tautological argument, he's setting out to prove that which he has already assumed.
What the model ACTUALLY does SHOW is that such behavior is reckless and threatening to the welfare of the tribe. The tribal liberal takes the community's food and gives it to strangers from another tribe. Maybe liberals can't be found in tribal society because the tribe hangs, throws them off cliffs or feeds them to sharks for their behavior of endangering their tribe by showing greater allegiance to strange tribes rather than their own tribe.
Now why would a liberal act this way? This is the where the amygdala research comes into play:
Conservatives respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions.”
“So, when faced with an ambiguous situation, conservatives would tend to process the information initially with a strong emotional response. This would make them less likely to lean towards change, and more likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety.”
That explains how the larger right amygdala influences conservative behavior, but it follows that if conservatives have a larger right amygdala then liberals must have a deficient right amygdala. We could rewrite the above paragraph and focus on liberal behavior. It might read something like this (if the researchers weren't such biased hacks by only including conservative behavior in their report.)
Liberals respond to threatening situations with more passivity than do conservatives and are less sensitive to threatening facial expressions. Liberals can't recognize danger signals.
“So, when faced with an ambiguous situation, liberals would tend to ignore the information. This would make them more likely to lean towards danger and folly, and less likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety.” Liberals would be more anxious, more like rabbits than hawks.
This brain structure finding fits the internal logic of the hypothesis that liberals are not found amongst tribal societies because their thoughtless and reckless behavior is a threat to both themselves and to the tribe and when liberals do manifest they quickly get themselves killed or the tribe kills them because of the danger they bring to the tribe.This hypothesis actually holds together. The problem for Kanazawa is that this behavior doesn't describe intelligence, it describes selfishness and recklessness.
So what happens when Kanazawa tests for intelligence? Bad experimental design. Here is who he tests:
For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.
He's not testing liberalism, he's testing youth. We have mountains of evidence that young people are more liberal than old people and that people tend to become more conservative with age. And here's the beautiful part, from a study that you didn't link. It's quite likely that the most intelligent of those young people actually become conservatives as they mature, resulting in this outcome:
Carl (2014) analysed data from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS), and found that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat. An important qualification was that the measure of verbal intelligence used was relatively crude, namely a 10-word vocabulary test. This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively. Path analyses indicate that the associations between cognitive ability and party identity are largely but not totally accounted for by socio-economic position: individuals with higher cognitive ability tend to have better socio-economic positions, and individuals with better socio-economic positions are more likely to identify as Republican. These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.
Now let me ask you, don't you feel bad about being a parasite on society?
- Thread starter
- #149
No the childhood scores are compared with how the participants describe themselves as either liberal or conservative. Their childhood IQs would not differ much from their adult IQs, you know that right? The adults who identified as "very liberal", on average, would still have higher IQs than those who identified as "very conservative". And yes older people tend to be conservative but that doesn't mean you get more conservative as we age. That isn't how it works. What were the political beliefs of today's senior conservatives when they were young? They probably weren't any different. Culture and generation plays a role in this.
You need to post the link to this Carl study. What you gave is not nearly enough for the sake of context. I have a few questions about it:
"individuals with higher cognitive ability tend to have better socio-economic positions, and individuals with better socio-economic positions are more likely to identify as Republican. These results are consistent with Carl's (2014) hypothesis that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans."
What you're implying is a bi directional fallacy. These results can be interpreted differently. The political beliefs of these people are more likely dictated by their SES than their actual intelligence. Meaning poor people are more likely to believe the poor need government assistance. A wealthy person is more likely to believe in total self-sufficiency because of their personal experiences. Many factors contribute to SES. Intelligence is is just one of those factors. Many intelligent people can still wind up being poor.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Oh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.
Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
Unless you don't crintrubute any income tax or prefer another group of taxpayers to pay for your government entitlements, you aren't a moocher ... it's that simple. Those advocating for less taxes are those desiring less government involvement in their lives, they don't want government health care, nor pay for someone else's birth control that they can pay for themselves.
As far as infrastructure, if you knew your history, you would already know interstate highways were handed over to the state after federal funding was given to build them. This is why states turned to tolls, to help pay for their OWN repairs to highways and bridges. We don't need the federal government supplementing for a state's poor budgeting habits.
- Thread starter
- #151
Bullshit. You cons loved Bush's tax cuts that failed to pay for the wars he started and the government subsidies he proposed. I'm sure you support all those things that his cuts didn't pay for.Oh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.
Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
Unless you don't crintrubute any income tax or prefer another group of taxpayers to pay for your government entitlements, you aren't a moocher ... it's that simple. Those advocating for less taxes are those desiring less government involvement in their lives, they don't want government health care, nor pay for someone else's birth control that they can pay for themselves.
As far as infrastructure, if you knew your history, you would already know interstate highways were handed over to the state after federal funding was given to build them. This is why states turned to tolls, to help pay for their OWN repairs to highways and bridges. We don't need the federal government supplementing for a state's poor budgeting habits.
Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
I know a lot about psychometrics and IQ, thanks for your concern.
I'm not talking about IQ changing, I'm talking about political orientation changing. Most young people see themselves as liberals. This is a pretty constant finding across time. Then they grow out of their youthful folly as they grow older and wiser. Kanazawa's error is that he measures youthful political identity. I was a liberal when I was 14 and stupid too. Then when I was exposed to university life and began developing my own thinking on subjects I rather quickly abandoned my childhood liberalism. The same process happens with many people but their transition happens when they're in the workforce and having some success. The folly of liberalism slowly becomes more evident to them. Kanazawa isn't capturing this at all.
Think of it this way, most boys when they are growing up, both heterosexual and homosexual boys, go through a period where they say they hate girls. If Kanazawa took a snapshot poll at that instant in boys' lives, he'd conclude that all boys are homosexuals. He wouldn't be measuring heterosexuality, he'd be measuring the attitudes of young boys at one point in their developmental cycle.
They were the hippies, the free love freaks, the coke snorting disco-dancing party animals of the 70s. Now they're the TEA Party people.
I ALWAYS link to studies I quote.
Get your story straight, you just told me that political beliefs don't change:
And yes older people tend to be conservative but that doesn't mean you get more conservative as we age. That isn't how it works.
Even still, let's work with your hypothesis that their political beliefs are dictated by their SES than their actual intelligence. That's fine. There were, apparently, enough young liberals who did well in life and became conservatives such that the IQ of Republicans actually surpassed Democrats. Even with your hypothesis, the outcome works.
Now to the problem with your hypothesis:
The political beliefs of these people are more likely dictated by their SES than their actual intelligence.
You're positing a causal link which likely doesn't exist. Intelligence is unlikely to dictate political beliefs. There is no non-idiotic model to explain why high intelligence would lead one to favor liberalism. All you have is this: high IQ people should like liberalism because liberalism appeals to high IQ people.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Which is why the Democrats stimulus bill and unemployment extensions created so many long term high paying career jobs, and a strong robust economy, right?
- Thread starter
- #154
Those hippies believed in personal freedom and less government...just as the tea baggers do now. Their political ideology did not change in this regard.
This "growing out of liberalism" is just something you pulled out of your ass. Your anecdotal story is not proof of anything.
What I said was that age itself does not dictate change in ideology. I posited that it is SES that dictates it.
The link I posited is a possible explanation to a weak correlation you gave. It is fallacy to assume that just because IQ has a correlation with SES that republicans are smarter because wealthy people tend to lean toward the right. It perfectly reasonable to assume it is SES that dictates political ideology. Like I said, many intelligent people end up liberal and poor.
The study about IQ is what ultimately matters. If you agree IQ doesn't change than it is safe to assume the "very liberals" are, on average, smarter than the "very conservative"
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Bullshit. You cons loved Bush's tax cuts that failed to pay for the wars he started and the government subsidies he proposed. I'm sure you support all those things that his cuts didn't pay for.Oh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
Unless you don't crintrubute any income tax or prefer another group of taxpayers to pay for your government entitlements, you aren't a moocher ... it's that simple. Those advocating for less taxes are those desiring less government involvement in their lives, they don't want government health care, nor pay for someone else's birth control that they can pay for themselves.
As far as infrastructure, if you knew your history, you would already know interstate highways were handed over to the state after federal funding was given to build them. This is why states turned to tolls, to help pay for their OWN repairs to highways and bridges. We don't need the federal government supplementing for a state's poor budgeting habits.
You have to be an idiot to believe higher corporate taxes equates to more jobs. The liberal idea of trickle up as the job creator is a fallacy. Case in point, the United States was the largest steel industry in the world industry back in the 40s, however where is all that steel being manufactured now? Where did all this industry the United States was so dominant go? Yet, all this belief in lowering of taxes to put more money in the hands of the middle class for them to spend didn't save it, now did it?
If GM decides to close it's production plant and move to some place cheaper, laying off all those workers, there will STILL be a growing consumer demand for their cars and trucks. That plant will still close in that state and workers will still be holding their pink slips, no matter how much "trickle up" tax reductions you do for the middle class. It hasn't changed and it won't change were businesses set up their next production plant. They will still venture to where they have to pay less in taxes in order to compete the most globally. Liberals like yourself simply don't seem bright enough to grasp that.
Last edited:
Are you one of the mentally disabled? Are you unable to comprehend the writen word?
Nothing that I wrote, in any way indicates that expanding one's knowledge is a better test of intelligence than IQ. In fact, the concept that an act of expanding could be a test of anything except a balloon, is absurd.
IQ is a test of the ability to learn. It does not indicate that one is actually learning anything useful. It takes both knowledge and the ability to understand and use that knowledge that determines whether one is, or is not smart.
- Moderator
- #157
That disproves the OP.
With all of the name calling I see coming from liberals, I doubt they are any smarter then conservatives. To borrow a quote from William F. Buckley:
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
What do you think happens when you offend a liberal?
Oh please. Do you not see the hypocrisy of these old tea baggers accepting Medicare?Liberals only care about the gov assisting the people who really need it which is the dirt poor, elderly, and disabled persons in this country. Scumbags like tea baggers are the moochers. They would rather have the government pay for everything for them by wishing they didn't have to pay taxes.
Is that why liberals prefer a bigger government "parent" system to depend upon and take care of more of their needs for them? Welfare, retirement, healthcare, contraception, all dependent upon the backs of someone else - like working taxpayers and those among them who have educated themselves to be successful and self reliant, to provide for themselves without government dependency? I chuckle at what the tabloids are putting out these days to try and convince others of.
Conservatives are the mooches? ROTFL !!! If you prefer a big government system that provides you with more "entitlements" then you have it backwards. Try taking some of those big government provisions and have the people earn for themselves, learning how to set aside and budget for their OWN retirements, and provide for their own needs, and we will see who these "mooches" are.
If liberals were the more "intelligent" as you say, they wouldn't look to the Federal Government to bail them out and provide all these handouts. Instead, they would use their intelligence to find a way to earn for themselves, take whatever job was available to them, pull up their sleeves, and do a little hard work to provide themselves with what they need for their families to have a better life. Just look at the economy at Greece. The government there was going to take their "entitlements" away and the people were in an outrage, because they couldn't figure out how they were going to make it without all those government provisions. More intelligent? Hardly.
Also, how is it that cons are not moochers if they are so against paying taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense?
If you were smart, you would know that conservatives are not against taxes that provide basic services like infrastructure and defense. That is an indication of a serious lack of knowledge, or even worse, dishonesty.
Fiscal conservatives are opposed to high taxes that pay for government that we do not want. Oppressive government and government using tax money to buy political power from gullible people.
If you had a high IQ, you would be able to learn the truth, and cease the childish hyperbole.
Yarddog
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2014
- 20,256
- 15,041
- 2,405
Right.......... like that Democrat Congressman who thought The Island of Guam could capsize because there were to many weapons on it. Like that one?
Hank Johnson I believe. Or Nancy Pelosi? who said we have to pass the health care law to Find out whats in it?
Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
Yeah, hippies were a big Republican voting bloc. In Bizarro Universe.
When I debate, I don't lose and you know why I don't lose? Because I know what I'm talking about. I don't need to pull made up stories from my ass:
For the past 10 years, I’ve studied political divisions through the lenses of evolutionary anthropology, genetics, and neuroscience. Research reveals that during their 20s people around the world experience significant shifts in the traits biologists use to describe the human personality. Specifically, “openness” declines and “conscientiousness” increases. Higher openness is associated with intellectual curiosity, a preference for variety, and voting for the left; higher conscientiousness, characterized by self-discipline and dutifulness, predicts support for more conservative politics.
This rightward shift in political personality is fairly universal, and so is the timing. A 2004 study by psychologists Robert McCrae and Jüri Allik in the Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology of 36 cultures across Africa, Europe, and Asia discovered that openness and conscientiousness differ between 18- to 22-year-olds and older adults. If an individual’s political personality hasn’t changed by the time of his or her 30th birthday, however, it’s not likely to differ all that much at 40, 50, or 60. This isn’t to say that all teenagers are liberal and all older people are conservative. In any age group, people are distributed along the left-right spectrum on a bell curve. The entire curve, however, moves somewhat to the right during the mid-20s.
A common explanation for this personality change in young adulthood was voiced during the politically turbulent 1960s in the U.S. At the time, the young leftist counterculture claimed that its ideological enemies could be found on the far side of Guizot’s magic number, 30. This belief implied that people older than that became more conservative because they were more likely to own a house, to earn a higher salary, and to have too much at stake to back a revolutionary call to destroy the existing order.
Contrary to popular belief, paying taxes, accumulating wealth, and being in the 1 percent or the 99 percent are extremely poor predictors of left-right political orientation. According to American National Election Studies, an academically run survey project, the correlation between family income and party identification for U.S. voters in the 2012 presidential election was a mere 0.13. This weak statistical relationship is typical of past elections.
This rightward shift in political personality is fairly universal, and so is the timing. A 2004 study by psychologists Robert McCrae and Jüri Allik in the Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology of 36 cultures across Africa, Europe, and Asia discovered that openness and conscientiousness differ between 18- to 22-year-olds and older adults. If an individual’s political personality hasn’t changed by the time of his or her 30th birthday, however, it’s not likely to differ all that much at 40, 50, or 60. This isn’t to say that all teenagers are liberal and all older people are conservative. In any age group, people are distributed along the left-right spectrum on a bell curve. The entire curve, however, moves somewhat to the right during the mid-20s.
A common explanation for this personality change in young adulthood was voiced during the politically turbulent 1960s in the U.S. At the time, the young leftist counterculture claimed that its ideological enemies could be found on the far side of Guizot’s magic number, 30. This belief implied that people older than that became more conservative because they were more likely to own a house, to earn a higher salary, and to have too much at stake to back a revolutionary call to destroy the existing order.
Contrary to popular belief, paying taxes, accumulating wealth, and being in the 1 percent or the 99 percent are extremely poor predictors of left-right political orientation. According to American National Election Studies, an academically run survey project, the correlation between family income and party identification for U.S. voters in the 2012 presidential election was a mere 0.13. This weak statistical relationship is typical of past elections.
So much for your hypothesis that SES drives political identity.
There is one life event, though, that greatly accelerates a person’s shift to the right, and it often occurs in the 30s: parenthood. Its political impact is easy to see among a cohort of Canadian college students studied by psychologist Robert Altemeyer. Their scores on an ideology test at age 22 grew more conservative by an average of 5.4 percent when they were retested at 30. But among those 30-year-olds who’d had children, conservatism increased by 9.4 percent.
Why did having kids push people to the right? Parents stay on the lookout for possible sources of danger that nonparents can ignore. This shift in perception is so strong it creates an illusory sense of risk; new parents tend to believe that crime rates have increased since they had children even when actual crime has dropped dramatically. Because “dangerous world” thinking is associated with political conservatism, parenthood pushes people to the right, and more so when they have daughters.
Experts on personality, such as McCrae, a psychologist at the National Institute of Aging, say people’s personalities may also be hard-wired to shift over time. As we age, changes in gene expression may subtly alter openness, conscientiousness, and other traits. These traits and the personality shifts that unfold between late adolescence and early adulthood are moderately heritable between generations.
To understand why both nature and the environment tug at our personalities at certain times, we must trace these subtle changes in our personality to activity in the brain. Neuroscientists once assumed that the brain, along with the rest of the body, finishes dramatic development after puberty. But we now know that it doesn’t reach full maturity until at least age 25. Consider the prefrontal cortex, which lies directly behind the forehead. It’s responsible for regulating emotions, controlling impulses, and making complex cost-benefit judgments that weigh immediate incentives against future consequences. Unlike most regions of the brain, the prefrontal cortex continues to grow, and its cautionary functions go on developing well into the mid-20s.
How does it feel to understand the world is a way which is 100% backwards from the way the world really works?
IQ is very stable, but political identity is not. Like I noted above, Kanazawa took an IQ snapshot as kids were entering early adulthood. Kids are very liberal. What happens, apparently, is that the more intelligent young liberals transition into being well-off high IQ conservatives. All the pieces fit together - conservatives have more children than liberals, further strengthening the divide, they earn more money which enables them to have larger families and to earn their higher incomes they use their higher IQs. They started out as young and foolish liberals and reality mugged them as they grew older and turned the smart ones into conservatives.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Is it time for JD to stake his claim as the next President ?- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 1
-
If China does not invade Taiwan while the USA is occupied in war...is Taiwan safe from Chinese invasion?- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 0
-
Joseph Kent (director of the National Counterterrorism Center) resigns- Started by YoursTruly
- Replies: 6
-
Will anyone in the current administration be charged with war crimes?
- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 3
-
No BBC: Islamist Terror Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were not and are not "Retaliatory."- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 1
