Research: The intellectual differences between liberals and conservatives

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me know the next time you make it to a distant location faster than a train when you are using a bicycle or by walking.

So long as it's not a direct train a bicycle will beat them. If the trains don't have to stop then they're faster.

Well, the point was distance over time. Shorter distances it is better to walk or ride a bike, etc.

Certainly yes. But the sheer volume of cars on the road in Southern California would be greatly lowered with a good rail system.

I live here, I know the horrors of traversing the 2 4-hour blocks of rush hour a day.

You should take some time and really look at the numbers, light rail is never a solution to taking cars off the street.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don’t believe conservatives are any less intelligent than non-conservatives.

But the source of the perception is understandable.

It’s likely a consequence of the right’s propensity to adhere blindly to dogma, ignoring the facts. When the facts are presented – such as Bush canceled the Shuttle program or outcomes of elections aren’t effected by ‘voter fraud’ – conservatives can appear less intelligent.

 

[westwall]

Fearing the advance of technology is techno-phobia, fearing a specific technology is just fearing a specific technology.

Not saying rail systems replace buses as a whole, but if what you say is true, would not cargo buses be better than cargo trains?

What you perceive as fear I take as concern over an inefficient system.

If it is shut down before it is able to be fully realized, it will remain inefficient.

Please fell free to let us know of ANY light rail system from anywhere in the world that is efficient and doesn't require massive subsidies from the car drivers.

 

[del]

Cargo Train:

1. I have never had anything delivered to my doorstep by a cargo train. You?

2. Cargo trains are not light rail.

3. Were you all proud of yourself for thinking up the concept of the "cargo bus"?

1. When was the last time you have cargo delivered to your doorstep from one of these "busses."

2. The premise remains absolutely the same.

3. Just because you can't think of a good argument doesn't mean you need to resort to that stupid unmoderated bullshit. Please stay on topic.


What this argument has shown me is that a mix of the two is what is necessary.

yesterday, it was a UPS *light* cargo bus.

can't fool you for long, huh?

 

[daveman]

I don’t believe conservatives are any less intelligent than non-conservatives.

But the source of the perception is understandable.

It’s likely a consequence of the right’s propensity to adhere blindly to dogma, ignoring the facts. When the facts are presented – such as Bush canceled the Shuttle program or outcomes of elections aren’t effected by ‘voter fraud’ – conservatives can appear less intelligent.

I've seen what you use instead of facts. They bear little resemblance to reality.

Oh, and have you seen how the left reacts to anyone who doesn't toe the lefty line? It's like the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Photonic]

1. I have never had anything delivered to my doorstep by a cargo train. You?

2. Cargo trains are not light rail.

3. Were you all proud of yourself for thinking up the concept of the "cargo bus"?

1. When was the last time you have cargo delivered to your doorstep from one of these "busses."

2. The premise remains absolutely the same.

3. Just because you can't think of a good argument doesn't mean you need to resort to that stupid unmoderated bullshit. Please stay on topic.


What this argument has shown me is that a mix of the two is what is necessary.

yesterday, it was a UPS *light* cargo bus.

can't fool you for long, huh?

Just validate my point some more why don't you.

 

[rdean]

Nothing was "skewered". Just someone who disagreed with the study, but no counter argument. Not one of any worth.

But let's look at some facts:

You can go online and find all kinds of organizations dedicated to science but founded by different social and ethnic groups. Societies of Scientists made up of "Gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, and so on". But the only ones made up of conservatives or Republicans are pushing "magical creation over evolution" or "science is a faith" or "climate change is a conspiracy". Why do right wing clowns still insist scientists must be Republicans and Conservatives? Next, they'll be telling us the Republican Party isn't 90% white.



Cosmic Log - Climate controversy spotlights GOP stands on science

No Windbag, it's not a lie.

A lie is "magical creation".

A lie is "science is a faith".

A lie is "climate change is a conspiracy".

A lie is "more than 6% of scientists are Republican".

THOSE are lies.

If you go to right wing universities, the majority don't teach "evolution" or teach the minimum to be accredited. They teach "Natural Science". You know, "bees pollinate flowers" and "the green stuff in plants turns sunlight to energy". Anything touching on evolution, they go to great lengths to avoid.

I've put up enough links to know this is true.

It is a lie because you said it.

Which is exactly why so few scientists are Republicans. Republicans feel they can just "say" something and if they repeat it often enough, it somehow becomes legitimate.

A perfect example is "magical creation" and wanting to "teach the controversy". There is no controversy. Only there is. The one right wingers "made up". So anything they refuse to believe, automatically becomes a "lie". Fact and evidence not needed.

Other areas where Republicans have repeated the same lies until it becomes a "controversy"?

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama has grown Government.

Trickle down works.

Cutting taxes creates jobs.

More regulations under Obama than under Bush.

And so on.

One of my favorites is "Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day". I've always had a fondness for that one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No Windbag, it's not a lie.

A lie is "magical creation".

A lie is "science is a faith".

A lie is "climate change is a conspiracy".

A lie is "more than 6% of scientists are Republican".

THOSE are lies.

If you go to right wing universities, the majority don't teach "evolution" or teach the minimum to be accredited. They teach "Natural Science". You know, "bees pollinate flowers" and "the green stuff in plants turns sunlight to energy". Anything touching on evolution, they go to great lengths to avoid.

I've put up enough links to know this is true.

It is a lie because you said it.

Which is exactly why so few scientists are Republicans. Republicans feel they can just "say" something and if they repeat it often enough, it somehow becomes legitimate.

A perfect example is "magical creation" and wanting to "teach the controversy". There is no controversy. Only there is. The one right wingers "made up". So anything they refuse to believe, automatically becomes a "lie". Fact and evidence not needed.

Other areas where Republicans have repeated the same lies until it becomes a "controversy"?

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama has grown Government.

Trickle down works.

Cutting taxes creates jobs.

More regulations under Obama than under Bush.

And so on.

One of my favorites is "Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day". I've always had a fondness for that one.

Isn't it wonderful how I point out the inherent flaws in your argument that only 6% of scientists are Republicans by actually looking at the survey you cited, pointing out the flaws in it, and then proving that an organization that accepts people who believe in ghosts is not a group of scientists, and you respond by arguing that Republicans believe things that most of them do not believe? I already showed you numbers that prove that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans, yet you continue to insist that only Republicans believe it.

Then you have the nerve to argue that they are the ones that believe if they say something often enough it is true.

 

[rdean]

It is a lie because you said it.

Which is exactly why so few scientists are Republicans. Republicans feel they can just "say" something and if they repeat it often enough, it somehow becomes legitimate.

A perfect example is "magical creation" and wanting to "teach the controversy". There is no controversy. Only there is. The one right wingers "made up". So anything they refuse to believe, automatically becomes a "lie". Fact and evidence not needed.

Other areas where Republicans have repeated the same lies until it becomes a "controversy"?

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama has grown Government.

Trickle down works.

Cutting taxes creates jobs.

More regulations under Obama than under Bush.

And so on.

One of my favorites is "Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day". I've always had a fondness for that one.

Isn't it wonderful how I point out the inherent flaws in your argument that only 6% of scientists are Republicans by actually looking at the survey you cited, pointing out the flaws in it, and then proving that an organization that accepts people who believe in ghosts is not a group of scientists, and you respond by arguing that Republicans believe things that most of them do not believe? I already showed you numbers that prove that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans, yet you continue to insist that only Republicans believe it.

Then you have the nerve to argue that they are the ones that believe if they say something often enough it is true.

This isn't the first time you've been so dishonest. You make a statement you falsely attribute to me and then argue against what is a ridiculous position that you completely made up. You have no shame. Seriously, you are damaged goods. The worst part is you know it and don't care.

I've always said the Democratic Party is a coalition party made up of many diverse groups of people. People that aren't welcome in the Republican Party, which, of course, is 90% white.

Certainly, atheists aren't welcome in the Republican Party and neither are Muslims, people who obviously have extreme mystical and occult views, just like right wing Christians.

The Republican Party is 90% white, mostly a kind of weird Fundagelical extreme American Christian religion (nothing like those in other countries, except maybe Uganda) whose average age is near sixty. They are the party that pushes magical creation. The "anti-science" party. The party that says "science is a faith" and "climate change a conspiracy". That's just the way it is.

The Democratic Party is made up of diverse groups of people including blacks, Hispanics, Hindus and Muslims - all of whom have a strong sense of faith. As well as atheists and others who have no mystical leanings at all. I've always said this. You can't prove otherwise and you know it.

Throwing out a statement you made up but preface with, "You said" is not only a lie, it's bearing false witness. If you have mystical and occult beliefs, I believe the punishment for what you do is to burn in Hell forever. You should apologize and ask your God for forgiveness. I don't think your religion makes a distinction whether or not I believe in mysticism. A lie is a lie and you lied. Your immortal soul is in jeopardy, but you still have time to "repent".

Well? I'm waiting.

 

[westwall]

Which is exactly why so few scientists are Republicans. Republicans feel they can just "say" something and if they repeat it often enough, it somehow becomes legitimate.

A perfect example is "magical creation" and wanting to "teach the controversy". There is no controversy. Only there is. The one right wingers "made up". So anything they refuse to believe, automatically becomes a "lie". Fact and evidence not needed.

Other areas where Republicans have repeated the same lies until it becomes a "controversy"?

Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama has grown Government.

Trickle down works.

Cutting taxes creates jobs.

More regulations under Obama than under Bush.

And so on.

One of my favorites is "Obama took a trip costing 200 million dollars a day". I've always had a fondness for that one.

Isn't it wonderful how I point out the inherent flaws in your argument that only 6% of scientists are Republicans by actually looking at the survey you cited, pointing out the flaws in it, and then proving that an organization that accepts people who believe in ghosts is not a group of scientists, and you respond by arguing that Republicans believe things that most of them do not believe? I already showed you numbers that prove that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans, yet you continue to insist that only Republicans believe it.

Then you have the nerve to argue that they are the ones that believe if they say something often enough it is true.

This isn't the first time you've been so dishonest. You make a statement you falsely attribute to me and then argue against what is a ridiculous position that you completely made up. You have no shame. Seriously, you are damaged goods. The worst part is you know it and don't care.

I've always said the Democratic Party is a coalition party made up of many diverse groups of people. People that aren't welcome in the Republican Party, which, of course, is 90% white.

Certainly, atheists aren't welcome in the Republican Party and neither are Muslims, people who obviously have extreme mystical and occult views, just like right wing Christians.

The Republican Party is 90% white, mostly a kind of weird Fundagelical extreme American Christian religion (nothing like those in other countries, except maybe Uganda) whose average age is near sixty. They are the party that pushes magical creation. The "anti-science" party. The party that says "science is a faith" and "climate change a conspiracy". That's just the way it is.

The Democratic Party is made up of diverse groups of people including blacks, Hispanics, Hindus and Muslims - all of whom have a strong sense of faith. As well as atheists and others who have no mystical leanings at all. I've always said this. You can't prove otherwise and you know it.

Throwing out a statement you made up but preface with, "You said" is not only a lie, it's bearing false witness. If you have mystical and occult beliefs, I believe the punishment for what you do is to burn in Hell forever. You should apologize and ask your God for forgiveness. I don't think your religion makes a distinction whether or not I believe in mysticism. A lie is a lie and you lied. Your immortal soul is in jeopardy, but you still have time to "repent".

Well? I'm waiting.

Deanie, in the dictionary definition of "untruthful" is your picture. You are the textbook definition of a lying scumbag.

 

[rdean]

Isn't it wonderful how I point out the inherent flaws in your argument that only 6% of scientists are Republicans by actually looking at the survey you cited, pointing out the flaws in it, and then proving that an organization that accepts people who believe in ghosts is not a group of scientists, and you respond by arguing that Republicans believe things that most of them do not believe? I already showed you numbers that prove that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans, yet you continue to insist that only Republicans believe it.

Then you have the nerve to argue that they are the ones that believe if they say something often enough it is true.

This isn't the first time you've been so dishonest. You make a statement you falsely attribute to me and then argue against what is a ridiculous position that you completely made up. You have no shame. Seriously, you are damaged goods. The worst part is you know it and don't care.

I've always said the Democratic Party is a coalition party made up of many diverse groups of people. People that aren't welcome in the Republican Party, which, of course, is 90% white.

Certainly, atheists aren't welcome in the Republican Party and neither are Muslims, people who obviously have extreme mystical and occult views, just like right wing Christians.

The Republican Party is 90% white, mostly a kind of weird Fundagelical extreme American Christian religion (nothing like those in other countries, except maybe Uganda) whose average age is near sixty. They are the party that pushes magical creation. The "anti-science" party. The party that says "science is a faith" and "climate change a conspiracy". That's just the way it is.

The Democratic Party is made up of diverse groups of people including blacks, Hispanics, Hindus and Muslims - all of whom have a strong sense of faith. As well as atheists and others who have no mystical leanings at all. I've always said this. You can't prove otherwise and you know it.

Throwing out a statement you made up but preface with, "You said" is not only a lie, it's bearing false witness. If you have mystical and occult beliefs, I believe the punishment for what you do is to burn in Hell forever. You should apologize and ask your God for forgiveness. I don't think your religion makes a distinction whether or not I believe in mysticism. A lie is a lie and you lied. Your immortal soul is in jeopardy, but you still have time to "repent".

Well? I'm waiting.

Deanie, in the dictionary definition of "untruthful" is your picture. You are the textbook definition of a lying scumbag.

OK, so you say I lied. Care to tell me about what?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Wow, is this like that "Bell Curve" book that stated blacks were stupid because they were the ones that got caught? Is this written by the same author?

I don't see how the first study is similar. That study is based upon brain scans and the Bell Curve is based upon IQ numbers. The second study simply compared IQ scores between liberals and conservatives.

Like all studies they do not reflect the real truth. Being conservative or liberal has nothing to do with intelligence.

 

[rdean]

Wow, is this like that "Bell Curve" book that stated blacks were stupid because they were the ones that got caught? Is this written by the same author?

I don't see how the first study is similar. That study is based upon brain scans and the Bell Curve is based upon IQ numbers. The second study simply compared IQ scores between liberals and conservatives.

Like all studies they do not reflect the real truth. Being conservative or liberal has nothing to do with intelligence.

I'm not so sure. If you pass intelligence tests with high scores but believe in "magical creation" or see "Noah's Flood" as a historical event or believe science is a faith and climate change a conspiracy, are you really that intelligent? Or just good at fooling a test?

I have to admit, I keep coming back to this thread because there is nothing more entertaining than right wingers discussing "intellectualism".

 

[westwall]

I don't see how the first study is similar. That study is based upon brain scans and the Bell Curve is based upon IQ numbers. The second study simply compared IQ scores between liberals and conservatives.

Like all studies they do not reflect the real truth. Being conservative or liberal has nothing to do with intelligence.

I'm not so sure. If you pass intelligence tests with high scores but believe in "magical creation" or see "Noah's Flood" as a historical event or believe science is a faith and climate change a conspiracy, are you really that intelligent? Or just good at fooling a test?

I have to admit, I keep coming back to this thread because there is nothing more entertaining than right wingers discussing "intellectualism".

Well, you are a Pseudo-Intellectual so I can see how watching smart people discuss things would float your boat. Hopefully some will rub off on you.

 

[Oldstyle]

I was reading an interesting article that looked at the differences in brain structure between samples of people who identified themselves as liberal and people who identified as conserative. The study indicates that conservatives have larger amygdalas while liberals have larger anterior cingulate cortexes.

The amygdala is involved with memory and processing emotional reactions. This suggest that conservatives are more efficient at processing threats.

The anterior cingulate cortex is involved with several autonomic functions, such as regulating blood pressure and heart rate, as well as rational cognitive functions like reward anticipation, decision-making, empathy and emotion. This means that liberals may be more efficient at managing conflicting information

Current Biology - Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

This study says that liberals, on average, have higher IQ's than conservatives:

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

I can't wait for all of the rants about the supposed "liberal indoctrination" in higher education as a response to this thread.

Funny thing, Billy...liberals are supposed to be so much "smarter" than conservatives but for some reason they can't procure proper ID or find the right polling place come election day. Why do you think that is?

 

[daveman]

Which is exactly why so few scientists are Republicans. Republicans feel they can just "say" something and if they repeat it often enough, it somehow becomes legitimate.

Sheer projection.

 

[Zander]

Some commonly held misconceptions:

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Fat people smell
Mrs O'Leary's Cow started the great Chicago Fire
Obama is a "great orator"
Joe Biden has a brain
The great wall of China can be seen from the moon
Liberals are intelligent

 

[yidnar]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

Conservatives resist new technology and liberals embrace it? Why do liberals like light rail? Do you really think that something that has to run on tracks that cannot be moved works better than a bus that can take a different route to avoid problems? Doesn't it make more sense to buy 8 buses that are more flexible and can carry more people than it does to purchase a single light rail car that shuts down completely if there is an accident?

For the record, being a conservative, I oppose light rail because it sucks, not because it is new.

There is also the point that every technophile I have EVER known has been conservative. (Not necessarily republican)

Also if we don't work on things like the light rail now, the technology will never advance to the point where it would be better than the old shit it is replacing.

Imagine if they had never build the car because at first it was more trouble than a horse and far more costly?

henry ford was a capitalist !!

 

[Listening]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

Kinda like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer telling potential SCOTUS judges they could not tamper with changes or "gains" that have been made.

It's O.K. to change as long as we like it......but you can't change it back.

That is not O.K.

Hypocrites.

 

[Listening]

I was reading an interesting article that looked at the differences in brain structure between samples of people who identified themselves as liberal and people who identified as conserative. The study indicates that conservatives have larger amygdalas while liberals have larger anterior cingulate cortexes.

The amygdala is involved with memory and processing emotional reactions. This suggest that conservatives are more efficient at processing threats.

The anterior cingulate cortex is involved with several autonomic functions, such as regulating blood pressure and heart rate, as well as rational cognitive functions like reward anticipation, decision-making, empathy and emotion. This means that liberals may be more efficient at managing conflicting information

Current Biology - Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

This study says that liberals, on average, have higher IQ's than conservatives:

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

I can't wait for all of the rants about the supposed "liberal indoctrination" in higher education as a response to this thread.

And I am wondering just how it is that you have not heard about this before. I have seen this kind of "research" posted for the last couple of years.

So let's start with one question. Is a higher IQ supposed to mean something ? I know plenty of "smart" people who don't have sense enough to come in out of a lightning storm. Truly remarkable that such a statement is supposed to imply a correlation that really does not seem to exist.

Maybe the research shows it does.

I guess we'll find out.