Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby crankyhead » Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:15 pm

and then I found this.

"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
Greybeard
Greybeard
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby crankyhead » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:08 pm

and then this popped up on my screen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

Don't worry right wingers, it's just a peer-reviewed, independent, scientific study. Nothing serious or note worthy ever came out of that process.
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
Greybeard
Greybeard
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby WTFO » Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:59 pm

Study Claims Conservatives Less Intelligent Than Liberals, But We've Seen This Nonsense Before
Posted by T. Mannis Friday, February 03, 2012

February 3, 2012 - by Tom Mannis - Every couple of years or so, some "scientific study" claims to "prove" that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

It's always ridiculous, for so many reasons that it's hard to know where to begin.

The liberal Huffington Post is just one of hundreds of media outlets that wrote about a recent study published in Psychological Science that claims to prove that conservatives have lower intelligence than liberals. The study was done at Brock University in Ontario, Canada. Its primary author is one Gordon Hodson, Department of Psychology.

This story, of course, is being reported gleefully by chuckling liberal sycophants everywhere. Huffington Post contributor Rebecca Searles is one of them, and she began her article about the study by asking, "Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals?"

I'll agree that racism and racists are dumb. I don't need a politicized "scientific study" to tell me that. But hold on a minute: Notice how, right off the bat, Searles not-so-subtly equates conservatives with racists? (We'll revisit that point momentarily.)

Her report continued: "A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes," and that it "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."

This is laughable, of course, because there are plenty of intelligent people, stupid people and those in between in both camps. It's also laughable because the way liberals tend to abuse science toward their own propagandist ends is criminally amusing. From Al Gore and his climate science by consensus to Trofim Lysenko and his bizarre Soviet science, liberals (leftists, progressives - call what you will) have been politicizing science for a long time.

The result, of course, is not actually science but propaganda that pushes a viewpoint all dressed up in the guise of legitimate research. The point here is that science is often hijacked and twisted in an effort to reinforce purely political views and propaganda. Such is the case, I believe, with this latest "scientific proof" of how dumb conservatives are.

Hodson's Brock University study is not the first time this kind of nonsense has been presented as science. For example, in February of 2010 Science Daily happily ran a story about a study by Satoshi Kanazawa, an Evolutionary Psychologist at the London School of Economics, which came to conclusions similar to those of the 2012 Hodson-Brock University study. That is, liberals are smarter.

"More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history," gushed Science Daily on Feb. 24. "Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds."

A month later, columnist Neil Reynolds ripped apart the Kanazawa findings. Writing in The Globe And Mail, Reynolds questioned the assumption that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

"Perhaps," he wrote, "although you can't prove it from the dubious evidence provided by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa." Kanazawa got his 15 minutes of fame after "proving" that, and liberals everywhere chuckled giddily as they heralded Kanazawa as a minor Hero of Leftist Propaganda.

Liberals were not so happy with Kanazawa, however, when it soon became apparent that Kanazawa was a bit too nutty for them. Scandal surrounded Kanazawa when, in May of 2011, he published an article in Psychology Today with the unpleasant title "Why Black Women Are Less Attractive Than Other Women." That was part of his ill-fated blog at Psychology Today, which was called "The Scientific Fundamentalist: a hard look at truths about human nature."

"In his incendiary piece, which has since been taken down," wrote Nanjala Nyabola in The Guardian (UK), "Kanazawa discussed the scientific basis for 'why black women are less attractive than any other women'. Note that Kanazawa did not claim to have discovered why black women are perceived to be less attractive, or why he believed that black women are less attractive." Psychology Today fired Kanazawa and removed his blog within weeks of the piece about the attractiveness of black women.

The selective hypocricy of liberals and their willingness to tolerate pseudo-science as long as it agrees with their political preconceptions shines brightly through the Kanazawa scandal.

On June 5, 2011, Anissa Ford wrote on Huliq.com that "Kanazawa’s blogs, for as long as Psychology Today has published them (a little over five years now) have always been controversial, racist, sexist, and unfounded. Most of his blogs are hypotheses on human nature (or why men and women do the the things that they do). Readers are drawn into Kanazawa's ideologies because his notions offer one explanation for human behavior in our contemporary culture and its current setting."

Remember that the Kanazawa study that "proved" the superior intellect of liberals was published in 2010, well within the five year lifespan of his Psychology Today blog mentioned by Anissa Ford. Kanazawa, a liberal, was a popular blogger for the liberal Psychology Today.

Kanazawa's mad science was tolerated only until it caused such a firestorm with piece about black women that he could no longer be forgiven. Even liberals can only take so much craziness.

Are there conservatives who are racist? Of course. There are also plenty of liberals who are racist. (Some of the most racist people I know profess to be liberals, although most just call themselves Democrats.) As for low IQs, no political group holds exclusivity on that. It must be said, however, that low IQs seem spectacularly more prevalent among Democrats and liberals in the U.S. Congress than on the other side of the aisle.

Remember Congressman Hank Johnson? He was the shining example of liberal genius who worried aloud that the island of Guam might tip over if more military personnel and equipment were placed there. He was actually re-elected - by a whole lot of brilliant liberal voters. Watch Johnson's amazingly stupid-but-funny performance here.

Here's a story about the preconceptions and prejudices held by many liberals about conservatives. I used to be a regular at a nightclub in Rogers Park. Often, I was the only conservative in the room. The crowd is ethnically diverse. I often played pool with a group of regulars and I would be the only white guy near the table. Anyway, there was a young man whom I shall refer to as Jim (not his real name), who was from downstate Illinois who called himself a progressive liberal.

One day Jim and I were having a conversation. I said something, I can’t remember what, that prompted him to say, "Gee, Tom, you sound like a conservative!" I said, "That's probably because I am a conservative, Jim." He said, "I'm shocked." I asked him why.

Jim's mind numbing response was, "Well, uhm, I mean, because I see you talking to black people in here!"

I was stunned by his ignorance and by how thoroughly he had bought into the Big Lie that to be a conservative just automatically requires racism as part of the package.

Poor Jim, with his utter lack of critical thinking ability, had gotten through 26 years of life assuming that all conservatives are racists who never speak to black people.

Jim's delusions were happily fed by left-leaning media and politicians, of course, who endlessly "remind" the dim-witted of the evil nature of stupid conservatives.

I have no doubt that "Jim" - like millions of other imbeciles - will use the Hodson-Brock University study as "proof" of their own superior intelligence. Unlike so many liberals who are intellectually dishonest, I can admit that there are racists and idiots who live in my own conservative camp. The liberals, however, blind themselves to the same kind of people within their own ranks and seem to believe that those types are exclusively conservative.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby WTFO » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:11 pm

The higher intellect of liberals on display


More evidence of superior liberal intelligence?


Proof that conservatives are racists


Democrats and their Roots to Racism and the KKK


These are typical intellectually superior liberals


And to finally sum up the liberal BS and unearned moral superiority


Don't be scared liberals, this is all just provable facts and evidence instead of self-serving biased studies from a socialist/liberally dominated/corrupt college.
WTFO
User avatar
PolitiGod
 
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby crankyhead » Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:28 pm

A 30 year study involving over 15,000 test subjects. Peer-reviewed and reputably published. Anyone who understands science, (y'know, college educated) will tell you that this is a more than adequate sample size from which to develop a proper hypothesis. (ask JGalt if you don't believe me, he's a scientist) But if you insist, I'll explain it for you WTFO. I know how you feel about people who read books that don't have pictures in them.

Nowhere in the original paper do the authors claim that all conservatives are unintelligent. Had they done so, their claim would be a fallacy of composition. (you know what that is right? :thumbsup: ) This would be an erroneous failure of logic. The claim the authors make, is that people of low intelligence, more typically than people of normal, or above average intelligence (think liberal lefty commie colleges), grow up to be conservative. The study has proven the claim, with empirical evidence and has subjected their paper to peer review analysis, before having it published. (think the opposite of andrew breitbart)

Not to mention that this Tom Mannis guy, in his rebuttal piece, doesn't actually refute the evidence in the paper in question, he just points to other papers that were published with similar theme, and refutes those instead. With all the convenience of having had other people actually do his research for him on this subject. Well, actually he doesn't refute them, just tries to disparage the authors. (I thought you said this is what liberals do? :owned: ) He even tells a cute little personal story about a guy named Jim he met at a bar. Telling anecdotes, while entertaining, is non sequitur.

Classic, lazy, conservative, copy-paste, distraction tactics.
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
Greybeard
Greybeard
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby BeNiceToMe » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:31 pm

hey cranky, have you ever, I mean ever ever ever in your life, convinced a m*ron that he would be better off if he/she had brains ?

and yet think about all the nice stuff you could have done in your life with all the time you spent trying...

food for thought

I still love you very very much :rofl:
BeNiceToMe
User avatar
PolitiSeedling
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby crankyhead » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:07 pm

BNTM, it's not a case of whether or not someone has brains, everyone does. How people choose to use their brains is what matters to me.

To answer your question, yes, I've changed an opinion or two in my lifetime, and I have to say, the whole process, albeit successful or not, is rather satisfying, and it's own reward.

Thanks for saying you love me, I appreciate it, but I'd like to remind you, that you don't even know me, so ease up with that stuff ok?

I'm here looking for a debate, I'm not here looking for a date, no offense intended. :thumbsup:
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
Greybeard
Greybeard
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby BeNiceToMe » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:59 pm

gotcha

sorry about the love stuff

amen to the rest - you're a good person
BeNiceToMe
User avatar
PolitiSeedling
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby arnnatz » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:17 am

You know Cranky, I remember back in the 50s or 60s, there was a "scientific" study done that resulted in stating that Negroes (the term in use back then) were of inferior intellect. Now we know that it's bs and has a lot to do with the subjects who are chosen to participate, the way questions are posed, and whether or not there is any bias or predetermined outcomes. The way questions are posed can have a drastic impact on the viability of a survey. If you pick 100 random people off the streets you ask them who the vice president is or who it was under George Bush, what do you think the percentage of correct answers would be? If you then ask that same group whether Nancy Pelosi made a good vice president under George Bush, what do you think those results would show? Now let's assume that the results showed that 39% of the respondents answered correctly to the first question and 89% of the second question answered that she was horrible. Do you look at the 100 to determine the percentage of liberals or conservatives, or do you look at the makeup of the 39% or the 89%? Now let's say that you look at the makeup of the 100% and you find that it's split 50/50 how does the 39% or the 89% breakdown? Bias plays a big role in how the results are determined and how the whole survey is conducted.
arnnatz
User avatar
PolitiMaster
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:54 am

Re: Here I was, thinking that my day had already been made.

Postby crankyhead » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:56 am

You're putting your cart in front of your horse arnatz. When you conduct a survey, you don't start the thing by making assumptions of what the conclusions are going to be.

Also, why stop at just 100 people? Wouldn't you have a much clearer picture of what people actually think if you asked, say, fifteen thousand people instead?
"Because what good are the first amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances, if you can't keep a magnum in the nightstand?" - Roy Zimmerman
crankyhead
User avatar
Greybeard
Greybeard
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:17 pm

Next
Forum Statistics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Options

Return to PolitiChat

cron