Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says Canadians

[Native Texan III]

Right wing extremist Daily Mail dares to publish the truth of what some have suspected of its readers all along. A study of the daily posts on this board would confirm the thesis beyond all reasonable doubt.

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study




Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#ixzz1lhe9Yjr6

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligentthan left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow upto have racist and anti-gay views.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudiceagainst others, say the Canadian academics.

Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whetherthey are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.
Social status also appears to play no part.

The study, published in Psychological Science, claims thatright-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability tobecome prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.


'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of otherpeople and in being open minded,' say the researchers.


'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towardsmore socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.

'It provides a sense of order.'

[bigmack]

Get a load of these drones reporting in from The Mothership.

Somebody grill this NativeTex nerd on how closely this 'study' followed common scientific criteria. With a modicum of debating skills any maroon should be able to box this wannabe into a corner of retraction and/or soiling himself in no time.

[rastajenk]

No shit. Get yer antenna fixed, Tex, that report came down last week.

[gm10]

Right wing extremist Daily Mail dares to publish the truth of what some have suspected of its readers all along. A study of the daily posts on this board would confirm the thesis beyond all reasonable doubt.

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study




Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
Analysis of more than 15,000 people


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#ixzz1lhe9Yjr6

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligentthan left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow upto have racist and anti-gay views.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudiceagainst others, say the Canadian academics.

Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whetherthey are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.
Social status also appears to play no part.

The study, published in Psychological Science, claims thatright-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability tobecome prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.


'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of otherpeople and in being open minded,' say the researchers.


'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towardsmore socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.

'It provides a sense of order.'

I read an article about this in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

I agree. Sensible, "left-wing" people who recognize the outrageous stupidity and unfairness of the current right wing ideas are being too quiet.

[maddog42]

Get a load of these drones reporting in from The Mothership.

Somebody grill this NativeTex nerd on how closely this 'study' followed common scientific criteria. With a modicum of debating skills any maroon should be able to box this wannabe into a corner of retraction and/or soiling himself in no time.

Just the contrary.From Wikipedia:

A recent USA study connecting political views and intelligence has shown that the mean adolescent intelligence of young adults who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106.4, while that of those who identify themselves as "very conservative" is 94.8[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#cite_note-80). Two other studies conducted in the UK reached similar conclusions[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#cite_note-81)[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#cite_note-82).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#Other_correlations_with_IQ

Note that every study I have found reached similar conclusions. Don't soil yourself Mack. This is starting to look like fact.

[lsbets]

Get a load of these drones reporting in from The Mothership.

Somebody grill this NativeTex nerd on how closely this 'study' followed common scientific criteria. With a modicum of debating skills any maroon should be able to box this wannabe into a corner of retraction and/or soiling himself in no time.

The funniest thing to me, is he's the dude who posted that Jews are loyal to Israel and not loyal to the US, then he trolls with this post. But since Jew hate has found a comfortable home on the left, I'm sure it doesn't count as prejudice.

[Greyfox]

University Faculties are loaded with Left Wingers.
Some of them have become "so smart that they're stupid."
(Certainly getting a job outside of "Academia" would be impossible for many of these wizards with airy-fairy artsy-fartsy ideas that cannot be applied in the real world.)

[Tom]

What kind of morons post the same stuff that was already posted? :lol:
On the right, RIF.
On the left, RIO.

[badcompany]

Just the contrary.From Wikipedia:

A recent USA study connecting political views and intelligence has shown that the mean adolescent intelligence of young adults who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106.4, while that of those who identify themselves as "very conservative" is 94.8[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#cite_note-80). Two other studies conducted in the UK reached similar conclusions[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#cite_note-81)[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#cite_note-82).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_test#Other_correlations_with_IQ

Note that every study I have found reached similar conclusions. Don't soil yourself Mack. This is starting to look like fact.

I'm sure your massive intellect was of great value during those high level discussions about whether Aquaman or The Human Torch had the more desirable superpowers.:lol:

[sammy the sage]

Note that every study I have found reached similar conclusions. Don't soil yourself Mack. This is starting to look like fact.

:lol:

[maddog42]

I read an article about this in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

I agree. Sensible, "left-wing" people who recognize the outrageous stupidity and unfairness of the current right wing ideas are being too quiet.

Nice article GM. If you don't mind me quoting from it.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum (http://www.thedailybeast.com/davidfrum.html) and Mike Lofgren (http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=342), have been saying. Frum warns that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/their-own-facts/)". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".

Honestly, the last time I read a quote like this was from Albert Speers and of course he was talking about Nazi Germany. Eery similarities.

[Tom]

Don't stop now, more reading.

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_liberali.php

Not only are libs sex perverts, they are mentally ill, too.

I think this thread and the last one show who the REAL mental midgets are. :lol:

[ArlJim78]

I read an article about this in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

I agree. Sensible, "left-wing" people who recognize the outrageous stupidity and unfairness of the current right wing ideas are being too quiet.
any chance you could give us some specific examples? I'd love to know which stupid and unfair ideas you are referring to, and of course at the same time you can contrast them to the intelligent and fair ideas of the left.

Please go into as much depth and detail as possible. I can't guarantee that it won't go over my head, being a conservative and all, but I have an open mind and I'm willing to learn.

here's your chance to speak up and not be quiet any longer.

[rastajenk]

Honestly, the last time I read a quote like this was from Albert Speers and of course he was talking about Nazi Germany. Eery similarities.You don't have to back that far. That quote could be about Global Warmists.

[Tom]

http://ironshrink.com/2010/04/are-liberals-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-another-broken-study-says-it-is-so/


Get out your dictionary, there some big words in here.

[maddog42]

You don't have to back that far. That quote could be about Global Warmists.

That point is a good one, and it applies to most extremists. Maybe it shows how extreme Republicans have become.

[rastajenk]

Maybe, except that most Global Warmists probably don't consider themselves extremists. After all, "the science is settled."

[maddog42]

Maybe, except that most Global Warmists probably don't consider themselves extremists. After all, "the science is settled."

It is easy to become a fanatic when it comes to "saving the earth". While global warming is a fact. I only rate the cause as being man-made at 90%. We need
sensible solutions.

[Greyfox]

It is easy to become a fanatic when it comes to "saving the earth". While global warming is a fact. I only rate the cause as being man-made at 90%. We need
sensible solutions.

I don't want to take this thread off track re: Intelligence and Politics.
However, while global warming may be real, where did you get that 90% figure?
Chances are the sun is 99.9% responsible for the warming, if it is happening.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm curious...in that article from overseas, there are two photos...one of Obama and one of Romney getting "glitter bombed" by some fringe left-wing group (and therefore HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, according to recent studies...as we all know, all the smart folks love to GLITTER BOMB)...

Anyhoo...the caption to this photo reads:

Left-wingers tend to be more open-minded says the survey - Democrats voted in first black U.S. president Barack Obama. But right-wing ideology forms a pathway for prejudice - Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, pictured right, was glitter-bombed yesterday by gay-rights activists because of his viewsSo Romney was glitter-bombed by gay-rights activists because of his views.

Hmmmm...what views are those, exactly? Can anyone on the left please explain to this right-wing dumbass what views Romney was glitter-bombed for, and how exactly those views contrast with Obama? It can't be the gay marriage thing, can it? Aren't Obama's views the same as Romney in that regard?

Did a right-winger write that caption?

Signed,

A right-winger with a tested 142 IQ.

[Tom]

It is easy to become a fanatic when it comes to "saving the earth". While global warming is a fact. I only rate the cause as being man-made at 90%. We need
sensible solutions.

Of course you do understand that no one is saving the earth.
The earth is in no danger of anything, especially anything man has done.

Do you think that the earth will get too hot and melt?
I remind you, Al Gore, the grandfather of global warming says that the interior of the planet is "millions of degrees." There is that left wing IQ in action! :lol:

Seriously, are you under the assumption that the earth is in danger? :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Hmmmm...what views are those, exactly? Can anyone on the left please explain to this right-wing dumbass what views Romney was glitter-bombed for, and how exactly those views contrast with Obama? It can't be the gay marriage thing, can it? Aren't Obama's views the same as Romney in that regard?

...

Stop with the facts and logic.

If you want to prove your intellect, you'll have to do better than facts and logic. Tell us how much you favor pro-gay legislation and then we'll believe you may be smarter than 97.341% of conservatives.

[maddog42]

I'm curious...in that article from overseas, there are two photos...one of Obama and one of Romney getting "glitter bombed" by some fringe left-wing group (and therefore HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, according to recent studies...as we all know, all the smart folks love to GLITTER BOMB)...

Anyhoo...the caption to this photo reads:

So Romney was glitter-bombed by gay-rights activists because of his views.

Hmmmm...what views are those, exactly? Can anyone on the left please explain to this right-wing dumbass what views Romney was glitter-bombed for, and how exactly those views contrast with Obama? It can't be the gay marriage thing, can it? Aren't Obama's views the same as Romney in that regard?

Did a right-winger write that caption?

Signed,

A right-winger with a tested 142 IQ.

You'll probably "see the light" one of these days and renounce your rightie brethren, like a couple of the republicans in the GM article.LOL.

[PaceAdvantage]

You'll probably "see the light" one of these days and renounce your rightie brethren, like a couple of the republicans in the GM article.LOL.So you don't know why Romney was glitter-bombed? Is that what you're telling me?

A highly intelligent left-winger such as yourself without an answer to a simple question? Somebody call the Daily Mail...

[Tom]

While you're at it, 'splain this! :lol:

[maddog42]

I don't want to take this thread off track re: Intelligence and Politics.
However, while global warming may be real, where did you get that 90% figure?
Chances are the sun is 99.9% responsible for the warming, if it is happening.
I am sorry. That was my odds that global warming is man made. Lots of heat from inside the Earth too, although it tends to stay constant.Very complex problem. We need to study this problem intensely. It may be the defining problem of our age.

[maddog42]

So you don't know why Romney was glitter-bombed? Is that what you're telling me?

A highly intelligent left-winger such as yourself without an answer to a simple question? Somebody call the Daily Mail...

I honestly don't know anything about the Glitter bomb incident, nor what MIGHT
cause someone to do it.

[rastajenk]

Here's some irony fer ya...

From the original post here: "'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.

'It provides a sense of order.'"

And yet, it's the smarter lefties that have adopted (and adapted) junk science to support the need for maintaining the status quo.

[lsbets]

Doubtful that our resident geniuses read the study, but it discusses social conservatives and not political conservatives. That begs the question, what drives most people who are social conservatives? Religion. So the implication of this so called study is that people who are religious and allow their views to be shaped by their faith are less intelligent. Shocking that someone on the left put out a study bashing people of faith and that the study is wholeheartedly embraced by the left.

Now who's bigoted? Nevermind, its okay for the left to be bigoted against religious people (as long as they are not Muslims).

[PaceAdvantage]

I honestly don't know anything about the Glitter bomb incident, nor what MIGHT
cause someone to do it.Well, I told you why, as it was right there in the article linked to at the top of this thread.

The photo caption says he was glitter bombed by gay-rights activists because of his views (presumably his views on homosexuals, gay marriage being most likely a hot topic).

And being the dumbass right-winger that I am, I am turning to you, a highly intelligent left-winger, to fill me in as to why gay-rights activists might be glitter-bombing Romney and not Obama (whose picture was printed right next to Romney's in that article as an apparent contrast in principles/views).

The only thing this dumbass right-winger knows is that both Obama and Romney oppose gay marriage.

Thus, I ask you again, good sir...how do Romney's and Obama's views differ when it comes to homosexuals, enough so that Romney gets glitter-bombed and Obama does not (let's leave out the Secret Service for a second as a reason why Obama doesn't get glitter-bombed...but I suspect even without a SS detail, Obama would still not get glitter-bombed by that ultra-intelligent, fringe left-wing group).

I only ask a simple question as to why this might be. Are there other views Romney holds on gays (other than gay marriage of course, a view he shares with Obama) that would piss the glitter-bombing folks off and cause the Daily Mail to print that picture and caption supposedly showing us a stark contrast in views when it comes to homosexuals?

I really would love to know.

[JBmadera]

While you're at it, 'splain this! :lol:

LMAO. hey, at least in this photo he is awake (apparently).

[PaceAdvantage]

Doesn't this whole study smack of bigotry? What's next? A breakdown of IQs by race, gender, or sexual orientation?

I wait with baited breath for those... :lol:

[maddog42]

Doesn't this whole study smack of bigotry? What's next? A breakdown of IQs by race, gender, or sexual orientation?

I wait with baited breath for those... :lol:

Those have already been done.

[maddog42]

Well, I told you why, as it was right there in the article linked to at the top of this thread.

The photo caption says he was glitter bombed by gay-rights activists because of his views (presumably his views on homosexuals, gay marriage being most likely a hot topic).

And being the dumbass right-winger that I am, I am turning to you, a highly intelligent left-winger, to fill me in as to why gay-rights activists might be glitter-bombing Romney and not Obama (whose picture was printed right next to Romney's in that article as an apparent contrast in principles/views).

The only thing this dumbass right-winger knows is that both Obama and Romney oppose gay marriage.

Thus, I ask you again, good sir...how do Romney's and Obama's views differ when it comes to homosexuals, enough so that Romney gets glitter-bombed and Obama does not (let's leave out the Secret Service for a second as a reason why Obama doesn't get glitter-bombed...but I suspect even without a SS detail, Obama would still not get glitter-bombed by that ultra-intelligent, fringe left-wing group).

I only ask a simple question as to why this might be. Are there other views Romney holds on gays (other than gay marriage of course, a view he shares with Obama) that would piss the glitter-bombing folks off and cause the Daily Mail to print that picture and caption supposedly showing us a stark contrast in views when it comes to homosexuals?

I really would love to know.

Republicans haven't exactly been a supporter of gay rights. In Montana the republican party still wants homosexuality outlawed, and it is part of the state repub plank. This has been condemned by some of the National Repubs. Here in oklahoma the parties try to out redneck each other by both gay-bashing.

[FantasticDan]

I'm curious...in that article from overseas, there are two photos...one of Obama and one of Romney getting "glitter bombed" by some fringe left-wing group (and therefore HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, according to recent studies...as we all know, all the smart folks love to GLITTER BOMB)...

Anyhoo...the caption to this photo reads:

So Romney was glitter-bombed by gay-rights activists because of his views.
Actually the "bomber" in that photo was protesting immigration policy, not gay rights:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57369887-503544/mitt-romney-glitter-bombed-calls-it-confetti/

[Mike at A+]

It's obvious that Obama voters were excluded from this study.

[bigmack]

A right-winger with a tested 142 IQ.
Shazzam!

OK, that's one Repubug. Let's get a slice of some of that 'Demo big brain' thang we've been hearing so much about. What ya got, maddoog?

Actually the "bomber" in that photo was protesting immigration policy, not gay rights:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57369887-503544/mitt-romney-glitter-bombed-calls-it-confetti/
:lol:

Look at this headline from CBS.

Mitt Romney glitter bombed, calls it confetti.

Major faux pas.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually the "bomber" in that photo was protesting immigration policy, not gay rights:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57369887-503544/mitt-romney-glitter-bombed-calls-it-confetti/So I was right. An idiot right-winger must have been behind that photo caption in the Daily Mail.

Next question. Has Romney (who has been glitter bombed more than once), ever been glitter bombed by folks protesting his views on homosexuals?

[PaceAdvantage]

Republicans haven't exactly been a supporter of gay rights. In Montana the republican party still wants homosexuality outlawed, and it is part of the state repub plank. This has been condemned by some of the National Repubs. Here in oklahoma the parties try to out redneck each other by both gay-bashing.We're specifically talking about Romney here. Try and stick with me...it should be easy...I'm a dumb-ass right-winger.

[mostpost]

Don't stop now, more reading.

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_liberali.php

Not only are libs sex perverts, they are mentally ill, too.

I think this thread and the last one show who the REAL mental midgets are. :lol:
You are seriously presented Lyle H. Rossiter as a counter argument to peer reviewed, scientifically constructed studies. Several pages from Dr. Rossiters book are available on line. His book is nothing but opinion and diatribe.

The study by Gordon Hadson and Michael Buseri of Brock University in Ontario, Canada as well as the studies referred to in other threads were carefully designed and conducted in accordance with the rules of the profession. Further they were published in professional journals for the scrutiny of other experts in the field.

[Tom]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2024764/posts

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes So they all want to raise taxes and then cheat on them.

[mostpost]

I read an article about this in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

I agree. Sensible, "left-wing" people who recognize the outrageous stupidity and unfairness of the current right wing ideas are being too quiet.
The Guardian article is much better than the Daily Mail article in that it actual tells you who did the study and gives a link to the abstract.

[mostpost]

http://ironshrink.com/2010/04/are-liberals-more-intelligent-than-conservatives-another-broken-study-says-it-is-so/


Get out your dictionary, there some big words in here.

Even assuming that the arguments presented at the link are valid, they discuss a completely different study than any of those being discussed on these forums.

"Conservatism and Cognitive Ability are Negatively Correlated" by Lazer Stahnkov of the National Institutes of Education in Singapore. NOT SATASHI KANAZAWA.

"Conservatism As Motivated Social Cognition" By John T Jost of Stanford University, Jack Glaser University of California, Berkeley and others. None of whom is Satashi Kanazawa.

"Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right Wing Ideology And Low Intergroup Contact" by Gordon Hadson and Michael Buseri of Brock University in Ontario, Canada. Those guys aint Satashi Kanazawa either.

[maddog42]

We're specifically talking about Romney here. Try and stick with me...it should be easy...I'm a dumb-ass right-winger.

I am glad you said that. I tell you what. You pretend that you are me, and answer it for me . I give you permission. You can have me say whatever stupid stuff you want. I have no idea what answer you are looking for. You may be a
"dumb-ass right-winger" but you have done me in.

[bigmack]

Behold - The big brains.

"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked.

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

[mostpost]

I'm curious...in that article from overseas, there are two photos...one of Obama and one of Romney getting "glitter bombed" by some fringe left-wing group (and therefore HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, according to recent studies...as we all know, all the smart folks love to GLITTER BOMB)...

Anyhoo...the caption to this photo reads:

So Romney was glitter-bombed by gay-rights activists because of his views.

Hmmmm...what views are those, exactly? Can anyone on the left please explain to this right-wing dumbass what views Romney was glitter-bombed for, and how exactly those views contrast with Obama? It can't be the gay marriage thing, can it? Aren't Obama's views the same as Romney in that regard?

Did a right-winger write that caption?

Signed,

A right-winger with a tested 142 IQ.

A right winger with a talent for distraction and misdirection. Whether and why Romney was glitter-bombed is really irrelevant to the discussion. Provide us with peer reviewed, scientifically constructed studies that dispute the findings of the three studies I referenced and we can discuss the issue.

Signed

A left winger who also has a tested IQ in the 140's

[Tom]

7 signs of a weak mind:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/02/02/seven_huge_flaws_in_the_way_liberals_think/page/full/

[maddog42]

Man I am humiliated. Is everyone on this board smarter than me? I am pretty sure I test in the 130's since the mensa people told me that I should try the test again, because I was so close. Thats ok, I knew I was no genius.

[badcompany]

IQ is a quantity not a quality.

You can have a high IQ, but, as many of the scary smart liberals here have shown, still be an insecure, emotional infant.

No offense!

http://im.in.com/connect/images/profile/nov2009/Rodney_Dangerfield_300.jpg

[Tom]

I read an article about this in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

I agree. Sensible, "left-wing" people who recognize the outrageous stupidity and unfairness of the current right wing ideas are being too quiet.

I just read that article.
Is the what you guys in the Old World call journalism?
Over here, we would call that guy a writer for SNL! :lol:
I never knew a damned liberal that could keep his mouth shut about anything, to tell you the truth. Especially a European one. It's that lack of teeth that lets the bitching and moaning flow out so easily!

[mostpost]

Man I am humiliated. Is everyone on this board smarter than me? I am pretty sure I test in the 130's since the mensa people told me that I should try the test again, because I was so close. Thats ok, I knew I was no genius.

130's is smart, but in the end it is just a number. My number is actually a few points higher than Mike's, yet there is no way that I could create and administer a board like this. If I am away from my computer more than a few days, I have to call tech support to help me turn it on. IQ is IQ but a lot of factors go into how you use your intelligence. A person can be very smart about some things and not so much about others.

[maddog42]

130's is smart, but in the end it is just a number. My number is actually a few points higher than Mike's, yet there is no way that I could create and administer a board like this. If I am away from my computer more than a few days, I have to call tech support to help me turn it on. IQ is IQ but a lot of factors go into how you use your intelligence. A person can be very smart about some things and not so much about others.

Have you noticed how very few real arguments have come forth to disagree with the main assertion of this thread? One of us is going to have to play devils advocate and help them. I am too prejudiced, so you do it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Have you noticed how very few real arguments have come forth to disagree with the main assertion of this thread?I'm already content to call myself a dumbass...what more would you like?

[Tom]

Have you noticed how very few real arguments have come forth to disagree with the main assertion of this thread?

It only took a post or two to expose it for what it is. You have to be on the slow side to take it seriously.

We are just having fun mocking you.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am glad you said that. I tell you what. You pretend that you are me, and answer it for me . I give you permission. You can have me say whatever stupid stuff you want. I have no idea what answer you are looking for. You may be a
"dumb-ass right-winger" but you have done me in.No, I want you to tell me. You seem to endorse articles like the one that was the genesis for this thread.

I read the article. And then I noticed the photos and the photo caption in the article, and I'd like it explained to me. The photo caption states Romney was glitter bombed because of his views on gay people. The caption also contrasts those views with the other person in the photo...Barack Obama. It also goes on to say that dumbass conservatives are more likely to be bigoted against gays.

Thus, I would like YOU, an endorser of the article and study that is the subject of this thread, to specifically tell me how Romney's views on homosexuality differ from Obama. It has already been shown that both men share the same view when it comes to gay marriage.

Please, fill in the rest for me. What other horrible anti-gay views does Romney hold?

[bigmack]

I wonder when one of these birdbrains will stop to realize what 'socially conservative' means.

Social conservatism is a political, and usually morally influenced, ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism often associated with the position that the national government, or the state, should have a greater role in the social and moral affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.

Somebody ax one of these nerds what % of Dim's are socially conservative.

Get it? Socially conservative. It doesn't say politically conservative.

[Tom]

I'm already content to call myself a dumbass...what more would you like?

Wow! Your real name is Alexandre, and you wrote The Three Musketeers?
I never knew that!

Color me a dummy!

[mostpost]

It only took a post or two to expose it for what it is. You have to be on the slow side to take it seriously.

We are just having fun mocking you.

I have already pointed out the inadequacies in your two posts which tried to debunk the study. #40 and #43 to make it easy for you.

You guys are actually very good at mocking. Debating, not so much.

[bigmack]

Have you noticed how very few real arguments have come forth to disagree with the main assertion of this thread?
Bring it, Einstein. Start waxing poetic of social conservatives.

You too, mostposty. Get in here and start talking to us about social conservatives. Be sure do your homework. I have.

(This should be entertaining)

[maddog42]

No, I want you to tell me. You seem to endorse articles like the one that was the genesis for this thread.

I read the article. And then I noticed the photos and the photo caption in the article, and I'd like it explained to me. The photo caption states Romney was glitter bombed because of his views on gay people. The caption also contrasts those views with the other person in the photo...Barack Obama. It also goes on to say that dumbass conservatives are more likely to be bigoted against gays.

Thus, I would like YOU, an endorser of the article and study that is the subject of this thread, to specifically tell me how Romney's views on homosexuality differ from Obama. It has already been shown that both men share the same view when it comes to gay marriage.

Please, fill in the rest for me. What other horrible anti-gay views does Romney hold?

No. I won't tell you. You sound like my mother and she is 95 and smarter than either of us. If you want to start a different thread, about Romney's Gayness,
I will comment on it in a few days. Right now I am enjoying myself playing with my granddaughter and bashing low iq conservatives.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have already pointed out the inadequacies in your two posts which tried to debunk the study. #40 and #43 to make it easy for you.

You guys are actually very good at mocking. Debating, not so much.Here's someone much smarter than this dumbass right-leaner who debunks this study quite effectively...

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

[PaceAdvantage]

No. I won't tell you. You sound like my mother and she is 95 and smarter than either of us. If you want to start a different thread, about Romney's Gayness,
I will comment on it in a few days. Right now I am enjoying myself playing with my granddaughter and bashing low iq conservatives.So you don't want to discuss what is contained in the link that started this thread, yet you had no problem participating earlier in this thread.

You're weaseling out on me, aren't you? Poor form for someone who is supposedly my intellectual superior.

If I were mostpost and NJ Stinks, I would probably label this one another "victory" in the message board trenches... :lol: :lol:

[lsbets]

I wonder when one of these birdbrains will stop to realize what 'socially conservative' means.



Somebody ax one of these nerds what % of Dim's are socially conservative.

Get it? Socially conservative. It doesn't say politically conservative.

Mack, I pointed that tidbit out a few pages back, but unsurprisingly wonder woman had no response to social vs. political. And from what you bolded, it sounds like they mean as a social conservative anyone who wants the government dictating what people can and cannot do, which sounds a lot like wonder woman and postal man. I took the study to be one bashing religious folk, but I like the quote you bolded.

[bigmack]

Mack, I pointed that tidbit out a few pages back, but unsurprisingly wonder woman had no response to social vs. political. And from what you bolded, it sounds like they mean as a social conservative anyone who wants the government dictating what people can and cannot do, which sounds a lot like wonder woman and postal man. I took the study to be one bashing religious folk, but I like the quote you bolded.
It struck me the first time some geek posted this laughable study.

Nitwits saw 'conservative' and went googoo. Darn shame they've boxed themselves into a corner with their assumptions. Should be good for a snicker or two to watch this maddoog & mosty try and wiggle out of.

Hey nerds, what percentage of Dim's are socially conservative? :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey nerds, what percentage of Dim's are socially conservative? :lol:Off the top of my head, I'd say a whole helluva lot...

Let's take the Black population for example. Most would agree that African-Americans are largely Democrats when it comes to political affiliation. Even mosty can't (and certainly wouldn't want to) argue this point...

And yet...

Blacks Are More Socially Conservative Than Barack ObamaGo ahead....read more if you will:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/10/usnews/whispers/main4589954.shtml

I wonder just how far the left-leaners on here wish to travel down this road?

[bigmack]

I wonder just how far the left-leaners on here wish to travel down this road?
This is going to be a real hoot.

Huh, nobody home on the other question. Let's try another...

Hey nerds, what percentage of Independents are socially conservative?

[lsbets]

Don't forget Cathlics too PA. And Hispanics.

So it appears that these geniuses posted a "study" which says blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics have low IQs. Interesting what these guys will get behind.

[bigmack]

You guys are actually very good at mocking. Debating, not so much.
Have you noticed how very few real arguments have come forth to disagree with the main assertion of this thread?
Hey ding dongs, the bell just rang for the 12th and final round.

You getting up from your corner or want to forfeit? :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't forget Cathlics too PA. And Hispanics.

So it appears that these geniuses posted a "study" which says blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics have low IQs. Interesting what these guys will get behind.I think these guys usually criticize dumbass conservatives like you and me for supporting studies that label certain groups more prone to dumbness, or more prone to going to jail...they bristle at those kinds of studies...

This study though? No problemo...perfectly sound to them...

Hey, I even heard that left-leaners hate IQ tests...they think they're unfair don't they? They think they're meaningless...

In fact, I found an excellent little comment at the end of one of these articles online:It's amazing, the left have spent the last two decades trying to bury the conclusions of IQ studies based on race from the '70s and '80s, now the facts about IQ and race are settled (and rarely mentioned) the left have spent the last 5 years trying to devalue the term "intelligent", questioning whether we can actually record it (yes we can) as well as muddying the water by implying there's such a thing as "physical intelligence" or "emotional intelligence" to try to balance the intelligence argument. Yet, as soon a study links being "conservative" with IQ they jump on it in a flash! - Standard hypocrisy of the left.Those who support the impetus for this thread and the other one like it a few days ago should be down for the count right about now.

[bigmack]

Too funny.

Let's review what we've learned to this point.

- Native Tex, maddoog & mosty have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader.
- mostly boasts an iq in the mid 140's which should put me somewhere in the high 300's
- madK9 & mosty are currently sitting, bloodied & beat-up with egg smeared all o'er their fleshy faces without a word to say.

I knew this would be ripe for a chuckle.

Thanks for playing our little game, Nerds. :D

[Native Texan III]

Too funny.

Let's review what we've learned to this point.


- Native Tex, maddoog & mosty have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader.

- mostly boasts an iq in the mid 140's which should put me somewhere in the high 300's
- madK9 & mosty are currently sitting, bloodied & beat-up with egg smeared all o'er their fleshy faces without a word to say.


I knew this would be ripe for a chuckle.

Thanks for playing our little game, Nerds. :D

Everything you write is a chuckle, but for all the wrong reasons.
Native Texan did not read or comprehend anything here - he posted a view of the research as written by UK's right wing extremist daily Mail. 10 /10 for not comprehending that, in true conservative truth-light style. 10/10 for the second grader silly insults. Like being savaged by a sheep. Even the right wing nuts in Europe are laughing at the state of Conservatism in USA. 5 pages of responses falling right into the simple trap here prove they may be right. Your clan is oh so predictable.

A battle of wits with you is real unfair being that you are only half equipped.

[bigmack]

A battle of wits with you is real unfair being that you are only half equipped.
Riddle me this, Einstein; what's the difference between someone being socially conservative and politically conservative?

When you can answer that, ask yourself what the hell you're talking about.

[PaceAdvantage]

Everything you write is a chuckle, but for all the wrong reasons.
Native Texan did not read or comprehend anything here - he posted a view of the research as written by UK's right wing extremist daily Mail. 10 /10 for not comprehending that, in true conservative truth-light style. 10/10 for the second grader silly insults. Like being savaged by a sheep. Even the right wing nuts in Europe are laughing at the state of Conservatism in USA. 5 pages of responses falling right into the simple trap here prove they may be right. Your clan is oh so predictable.

A battle of wits with you is real unfair being that you are only half equipped.So you're giving up on defense of original point of this thread? Good to see...fitting for someone who considers themselves intellectually superior...

[NJ Stinks]

If I were mostpost and NJ Stinks, I would probably label this one another "victory" in the message board trenches... :lol: :lol:

I haven't even posted anything in this thread. :confused:

But I will now.

Another triumph for good over evil! (Guess who won? :D )

P.S. Is Mack a legend in his own mind or what? :rolleyes:

[bigmack]

I see madK9 bailed. NJ brings his usual squat. And most assuredly, mostposty is working feverishly on a retort.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_let5asucR91qe0eclo1_r5_500.gif

All told they've got bupkis with the exception of bruised egos for running with ASSumptions. Poor dears.

I gotta dance but somebody call my beeper if anything develoops.

401-992-4056. Give it a call. Funny recorded message.

[NJ Stinks]

I see madK9 bailed. NJ brings his usual squat. And most assuredly, mostposty is working feverishly on a retort.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_let5asucR91qe0eclo1_r5_500.gif

All told they've got bupkis with the exception of bruised egos for running with ASSumptions. Poor dears.

I gotta dance but somebody call my beeper if anything develoops.

401-992-4056. Give it a call. Funny recorded message.

Mack, I don't care what anybody says - that clip is hilarious!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

Mack, I don't care what anybody says - that clip is hilarious!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Iffin' you ain't seen it, do.

EvBF3Lxla98

[Greyfox]

I am pretty sure I test in the 130's since the mensa people told me that I should try the test again, because I was so close. Thats ok, I knew I was no genius.

Do you know what the Pygmalion Effect is?
I have a cousin who is a "Mensa Man." Supposedly members have IQ's 140 and higher.
My own theory about Mensa is that it is a long term Pygmalion Effect Experiment wherein brighter than average individuals are told that they are geniuses. An equal number of brighter than average individuals are told that they are not geniuses. After 100 years the outcomes of the two groups will be compared. :rolleyes:
(Observe a few Mensa people and tell me if they really are smarter. Remember IQ tests only measure the ability to do IQ tests. They are a rough guide at best to identifying actual intelligence. )

[maddog42]

Riddle me this, Einstein; what's the difference between someone being socially conservative and politically conservative?

When you can answer that, ask yourself what the hell you're talking about.
Here is part of the wikipedia definition of Social Conservatism that you conveniently left out. It seems to peg most of you guys right down to your anus.

The general ideas and philosophies social conservatives support are the nuclear family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family) model as society's foundational unit, public morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_morality) and what they call traditional family values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values), and they oppose secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) and militant atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life) position in opposing abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), embryonic stem cell research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell_research), and euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia); oppose both eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_enhancement) (transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism)) while supporting bioconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioconservatism);[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism#cite_note-2) support defining marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)); oppose prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution), premarital sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_sex), and non-marital sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extramarital_sex); and object to pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement) and what they consider to be obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) or indecency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency).

Some of you guys may differ on these views but this little umbrella definition seems pretty close, to politically conservative. You guys are the ones that are weaseling.

[maddog42]

Do you know what the Pygmalion Effect is?
I have a cousin who is a "Mensa Man." Supposedly members have IQ's 140 and higher.
My own theory about Mensa is that it is a long term Pygmalion Effect Experiment wherein brighter than average individuals are told that they are geniuses. An equal number of brighter than average individuals are told that they are not geniuses. After 100 years the outcomes of the two groups will be compared. :rolleyes:
(Observe a few Mensa people and tell me if they really are smarter. Remember IQ tests only measure the ability to do IQ tests. They are a rough guide at best to identifying actual intelligence. )

Finally a very good criticism of the argument. I was beginning to think you guys were really lacking in smarts. IQ tests can certainly be criticised, because of cultural and other biases. They are however the best thing we have.

[Greyfox]

Off the top of my head, I'd say a whole helluva lot...

Let's take the Black population for example. Most would agree that African-Americans are largely Democrats when it comes to political affiliation. Even mosty can't (and certainly wouldn't want to) argue this point...

I wonder just how far the left-leaners on here wish to travel down this road?

That is indeed a very dangerous road to go down.
Arthur Jensen and others (Rushton etc) have traveled it comparing race and supposed IQ. Campus riots, death threats etc. occurred.
I would advise any lefty to steer clear of that hook.

[maddog42]

Mack, I pointed that tidbit out a few pages back, but unsurprisingly wonder woman had no response to social vs. political. And from what you bolded, it sounds like they mean as a social conservative anyone who wants the government dictating what people can and cannot do, which sounds a lot like wonder woman and postal man. I took the study to be one bashing religious folk, but I like the quote you bolded.
If you are going to hang your hat on that socially conservative thing, you will be embarassed. Studies don't usually rely on one definition to decide who is lib/conservative and this one didn't either. They asked questions like:

In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'

They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#ixzz1lkL8lKBc

I don't think your "social conservative" criticism holds water at all. You are showing a pathetic lack of understanding of how they come up with these categories.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think your "social conservative" criticism holds water at all. You are showing a pathetic lack of understanding of how they come up with these categories.If you can't see how seriously flawed this "study" is, then I must take back my "intellectually superior" comment I bestowed upon you earlier. I even provided a link from a third party that thoroughly debunks this "study" right down to the wording of those "questions" they asked years later.

Your argument, along with the basis for which, has been destroyed. You have either ignored my posts in this thread, or your reading comprehension has taken a massive hit.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Thus, I would like YOU, an endorser of the article and study that is the subject of this thread, to specifically tell me how Romney's views on homosexuality differ from Obama. It has already been shown that both men share the same view when it comes to gay marriage.

...

You really set the smarter minds on the left up for an easy answer here and none of the half-dozen self-identifying liberals took you up on it. I've been at the track all day and was sure that by the time I came back you would have gotten a reply to how they differ, even if some consider it a somewhat subtle difference:

Romney claims (hard to know when he's being genuine) that he would amend the constitution to define marriage in such a way that everyone in the country would live under his definition.

I think he's an idiot for choosing that platform to distinguish himself from the President. Obama's method of having an opinion and sharing it without legislating it appeals much more to me.

[PaceAdvantage]

You really set the smarter minds on the left up for an easy answer here and none of the half-dozen self-identifying liberals took you up on it. I've been at the track all day and was sure that by the time I came back you would have gotten a reply to how they differ, even if some consider it a somewhat subtle difference:

Romney claims (hard to know when he's being genuine) that he would amend the constitution to define marriage in such a way that everyone in the country would live under his definition.

I think he's an idiot for choosing that platform to distinguish himself from the President. Obama's method of having an opinion and sharing it without legislating it appeals much more to me.But this doesn't change the fact that their VIEWS on the subject are identical. That's all I'm trying to get at...just wanted that photo caption explained to me...I'm a dumbass after all. I thought my liberal friends would relish the thought of being able to school me yet again.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But this doesn't change the fact that their VIEWS on the subject are identical. ...

I agree, hence my early post when you brought it up - but I'm still SHOCKED that NOBODY in that 138 to 191 IQ range tossed it out there as an answer.

[sammy the sage]

I agree, hence my early post when you brought it up - but I'm still SHOCKED that NOBODY in that 138 to 191 IQ range tossed it out there as an answer.

I already did...I even started a thread ABOUT this before THIS thread...if ya'll can't figure out which one and why :p

[maddog42]

Too funny.

Let's review what we've learned to this point.


- Native Tex, maddoog & mosty have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader.

- mostly boasts an iq in the mid 140's which should put me somewhere in the high 300's
- madK9 & mosty are currently sitting, bloodied & beat-up with egg smeared all o'er their fleshy faces without a word to say.


I knew this would be ripe for a chuckle.

Thanks for playing our little game, Nerds. :D

Unfortunately, mack, IQ is not "what you think it is". It is a measurable quantity. Get it measured then we will talk.

[maddog42]

Here's someone much smarter than this dumbass right-leaner who debunks this study quite effectively...

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118
Quit calling yourself a "dumbass right-leaner". Self deprecation doesn't suit you.
Getting a statistician to judge this study is like getting a mechanic to work on your teeth. I also noted that he said the results were significant, and that "you really can prove anything with statistics". He also doesn't even state "if" he knows which questions were asked in the study, He only states that most of the questions were not used. He gave no real evidence that there was any bias in this study. I also don't think he really knows what G is. Their method of computing G seems to be a standard in psychology. I also note that this is not a peer reviewed study but some statistician posting on a web set. Get some REAL
legitimate criticism from an authority (actually in the appropriate academic field) and then we will talk.

[bigmack]

Unfortunately, mack, IQ is not "what you think it is". It is a measurable quantity. Get it measured then we will talk.
Bit of levity there, Bub.

Man, you sure is dense.

[newtothegame]

Mack, I don't care what anybody says - that clip is hilarious!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
I'm with you on this one NJ, nearly five minutes later and I am still in tears from laughing!!

[maddog42]

Iffin' you ain't seen it, do.

EvBF3Lxla98

I certainly agree that Brazil is brilliant. Funny, most of the great film makers are
Lib/radicals. Gilliam once said that he had to leave the US or turn into a bomb throwing radical.

[maddog42]

More food for thought:

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf

Did I get stupider by no longer being and atheist?
Many of you peoples cherished beliefs about IQ and education are just false.
also from Wikipedia:

Average adult combined IQs associated with real-life accomplishments by various tests:[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKaufman2009126-83)[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#cite_note-84)


MDs, JDs, or PhDs 125+ (WAIS-R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAIS-R), 1987)
College graduates 112 (KAIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_S._Kaufman), 2000; K-BIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_S._Kaufman), 1992), 115 (WAIS-R)
1–3 years of college 104 (KAIT, K-BIT), 105-110 (WAIS-R)
Clerical and sales workers 100-105
High school graduates, skilled workers (e.g., electricians, cabinetmakers) 100 (KAIT, WAIS-R), 97 (K-BIT)
1–3 years of high school (completed 9–11 years of school) 94 (KAIT), 90 (K-BIT), 95 (WAIS-R)
Semi-skilled workers (e.g., truck drivers, factory workers) 90-95
Elementary school graduates (completed eighth grade) 90
Elementary school dropouts (completed 0–7 years of school) 80-85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#cite_ref-81

Criminals tend to have IQ's between 70 and 90.

[bigmack]

great film makers are Lib/radicals. Gilliam once said that he had to leave the US or turn into a bomb throwing radical.
Hate to break it to ya but I heard he's socially conservative. :p

In your want to 'pin the tail on the donkey' with this 'study' do try and keep in mind there are piles of socially conservative D's & I's, & everything in between.

Don't drive down the Mosty Highway and readily editorialize what you WANT to believe. Try and stick with facts or some of us will be all over you like a pit bull on a poodle.

That's 'a wrap' with thread.

Mackalopolus/lsbets/PA 1. Nerds 0.

Better luck next time.

[maddog42]

Hate to break it to ya but I heard he's socially conservative. :p

In your want to 'pin the tail on the donkey' with this 'study' do try and keep in mind there are piles of socially conservative D's & I's, & everything in between.

Don't drive down the Mosty Highway and readily editorialize what you WANT to believe. Try and stick with facts or some of us will be all over you like a pit bull on a poodle.

That's 'a wrap' with thread.

Mackalopolus/lsbets/PA 1. Nerds 0.

Better luck next time.

Mack you need to get your facts right: from wikipedia:

In 1968, Gilliam obtained British citizenship, then held dual American and British citizenship for the next 38 years. In January 2006 he renounced his American citizenship.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gilliam#cite_note-60) In an interview with Der Tagesspiegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Tagesspiegel),[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gilliam#cite_note-tagesspiegel-61) he described the action as a protest against then President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), and in an earlier interview with The Onion AV Club,[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gilliam#cite_note-tagonionav-62) he also indicated that it was related to concerns about future tax liability for his wife and children.

The bomb throwing radical comment was also correct.

[mostpost]

Quit calling yourself a "dumbass right-leaner". Self deprecation doesn't suit you.
Getting a statistician to judge this study is like getting a mechanic to work on your teeth. I also noted that he said the results were significant, and that "you really can prove anything with statistics". He also doesn't even state "if" he knows which questions were asked in the study, He only states that most of the questions were not used. He gave no real evidence that there was any bias in this study. I also don't think he really knows what G is. Their method of computing G seems to be a standard in psychology. I also note that this is not a peer reviewed study but some statistician posting on a web set. Get some REAL
legitimate criticism from an authority (actually in the appropriate academic field) and then we will talk.

In studies like this many questions are used as controls. They are used to determine the truthfulness of the respondent. Any respondent will answer in a manner that makes them look good. Of course the control questions will not be used in judging the subject of the study. They are only used to determine if the respondent is answering the core questions honestly. The fact that our statistician does not know this pretty much negates any expertise he may claim.

There may be legitimate criticism of this study somewhere, but so far all the righties here have provided is generic opinion. I await their providing a legitimate study using the same methods but proving the opposite conclusion.
So far there are plenty of peer reviewed, professionally published studies that corroborate all or some of the theories posited by Hodson and Bucieri, and none that dispute them.

[Greyfox]

There may be legitimate criticism of this study somewhere, but so far all the righties here have provided is generic opinion.
.


Mosty,
High IQ that you are.....
Care to comment or respond to PA's question at the bottom of Post 65 in this thread.

[PaceAdvantage]

Quit calling yourself a "dumbass right-leaner". Self deprecation doesn't suit you.
Getting a statistician to judge this study is like getting a mechanic to work on your teeth. I also noted that he said the results were significant, and that "you really can prove anything with statistics". He also doesn't even state "if" he knows which questions were asked in the study, He only states that most of the questions were not used. He gave no real evidence that there was any bias in this study. I also don't think he really knows what G is. Their method of computing G seems to be a standard in psychology. I also note that this is not a peer reviewed study but some statistician posting on a web set. Get some REAL
legitimate criticism from an authority (actually in the appropriate academic field) and then we will talk.Right. So now you and mosty are more qualified to judge the legitimacy of this study over a stats professor from Cornell University. Got it...thanks for clearing that up.

Ph.D., Statistics, Cornell University, 2004.

M.S., Atmospheric Science, Cornell University, 1995.

B.S., Summa Cum Laude, Meteorology and Math, Central Michigan University, 1992.

[Cardus]

Given the thread title, I thought this was a hockey thread.

And given the initial post's content, a hockey thread would have made a lot more sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

http://www.bloggernews.net/127686

Briggs had a strong enough stomach to read the whole article. And when he did, he basically found that the authors had misrepresented their results. The correlations with IQ were in fact negligible. They were statistically significant but statistical significance is only a correction for small sample size and the sample sizes in the data used by the Canadians were large.

So statistical significance is irrelevant. It is other forms of significance we have to look at. Let me put it this way: What the Canadians found was (roughly) that out of 100 high IQ people, 51 would be liberals and 49 would be conservatives. Such a near-even split means of course that IQ is essentially irrelevant to ideology, or is not a socially or scientifically significant predictor of ideology.

Now we come to “racism”. The correlations between conservatism and racism were more substantial. Briggs rightly detects the flaw in that. The correlation is between WHAT THE AUTHORS SAY is conservatism and racism and there is no external validation of either measure. So all I want to do is draw attention to something I set out long ago: That even eminent Leftist psychologists have NO IDEA what conservatism is. A much noted paper in the field even identified Stalin, Khrushchev and Castro as conservatives! Can you get any madder than that? So it is no wonder that when they use their questionnaires to predict how people will vote, they find that “conservatives” AS IDENTIFIED BY THEM are just as likely to vote Democrat as Republican (for instance). How clueless can you get? What is going on of course is that Leftist psychologists swallow hook line and sinker of Leftist propaganda about conservatives. They believe that conservatives really are as Leftist propaganda describes them. It would appear that they never bother to talk to any actual conservatives to find out what they really think.I thought the above was interesting. What I'd really love to know is whether or not the bolded part of the above quote is in fact true. Those intimately familiar with this study should be able to answer this question.

Again, I am a right-leaning dumbass, so I reach out to my intellectually superior left-leaning friends here in off-topic for help in validating the above part highlighted in bold.

[lamboguy]

maybe the IQ's of the conservatives just went up today, they voted in 3 states against a two faced SOB, and maybe found a guy that might actually win a national election against a bum in the ballpark

[bigmack]

In studies like this many questions are used as controls. They are used to determine the truthfulness of the respondent. Any respondent will answer in a manner that makes them look good. Of course the control questions will not be used in judging the subject of the study. They are only used to determine if the respondent is answering the core questions honestly. The fact that our statistician does not know this pretty much negates any expertise he may claim.

There may be legitimate criticism of this study somewhere, but so far all the righties here have provided is generic opinion. I await their providing a legitimate study using the same methods but proving the opposite conclusion.
So far there are plenty of peer reviewed, professionally published studies that corroborate all or some of the theories posited by Hodson and Bucieri, and none that dispute them.
Read carefully this forlorn, misguided post.

After all that has been said and proven, this - Our most dishonest debater - Is what he has to offer as a reButtal. Mere dodge & dart crumbs.

Is there any way we can trade this dishonestly debating nerd in for someone with urban skills and the honesty to admit when they're painfully wrong?

140 IQ from NoRiverslide has become a shuck n' jive artist.

Can ya dig it?

[rastajenk]

I agree, hence my early post when you brought it up - but I'm still SHOCKED that NOBODY in that 138 to 191 IQ range tossed it out there as an answer.At 192, I felt compelled to pass. :eek:

[maddog42]

Hey Mack, you never retracted your error about Gilliam. But about just about Everything I ever read about him suggested far, far left. Are you guys ever right about anything? Most is most certainly correct in his assessment of your evidence. We bring you scientific published papers from prestigious sources, in peer reviewed journals and you bring us self published Internet crap. You guys have the score all wrong.

Libs: 4 different studies form varying places and times
righties .5 Lucky we are giving you any credit for a self published work
deduct -.5 for being wrong about Gilliam and peripheral stuff.
Can you guys add and subtract?
We win 4- zip.
ciao

[Tom]

We win 4- zip.
ciao

If only your read and understand were half as good as your cut and paste. :lol:

[lsbets]

Here is part of the wikipedia definition of Social Conservatism that you conveniently left out. It seems to peg most of you guys right down to your anus.

The general ideas and philosophies social conservatives support are the nuclear family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family) model as society's foundational unit, public morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_morality) and what they call traditional family values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values), and they oppose secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) and militant atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life) position in opposing abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), embryonic stem cell research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell_research), and euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia); oppose both eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_enhancement) (transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism)) while supporting bioconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioconservatism);[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism#cite_note-2) support defining marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)); oppose prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution), premarital sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_sex), and non-marital sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extramarital_sex); and object to pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement) and what they consider to be obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) or indecency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency).

Some of you guys may differ on these views but this little umbrella definition seems pretty close, to politically conservative. You guys are the ones that are weaseling.

Just for shits and giggles oh bright one, where would you say that BM, PA, and I fall on your wiki definition of social conservative?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Here is part of the wikipedia definition of Social Conservatism that you conveniently left out. It seems to peg most of you guys right down to your anus.

The general ideas and philosophies social conservatives support are the nuclear family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family) model as society's foundational unit, public morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_morality) and what they call traditional family values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values), and they oppose secularism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism) and militant atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life) position in opposing abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion), embryonic stem cell research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell_research), and euthanasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia); oppose both eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_enhancement) (transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism)) while supporting bioconservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioconservatism);[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism#cite_note-2) support defining marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage); support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(drugs)); oppose prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution), premarital sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarital_sex), and non-marital sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extramarital_sex); and object to pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement) and what they consider to be obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) or indecency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency).

Some of you guys may differ on these views but this little umbrella definition seems pretty close, to politically conservative. You guys are the ones that are weaseling.

I don't understand where you come up with this conclusion. There is just about nothing in your wiki-definition that applies to me, yet most everyone here would label me as pretty darn politically conservative. Maybe the labels are all wrong and the definitions a matter of convenience.

[Tom]

Political conservatism - strong national defense, smaller government (fiscal responsibility), pro-family social values.

The three legged stool.

[cj's dad]

If only your read and understand were half as good as your cut and paste. :lol:

hey Tom,

Maddog is soooo smart, he can't even spell "chow" correctly.:eek:

[bigmack]

Hey Mack, you never retracted your error about Gilliam.
My ERROR about Gilliam? You are either:: A. hopped-up on narcotics or B. very seriously thick in the head. NEWSFLASH: It was a joke.

As this has simply moved into a display of your inability to think rationally, ask yourself one last question - Does the study refer to social or political conservatives?

After you figure out it's social, put your tail between your legs and go sit in the corner.

No biscuit for you for months.

[boxcar]

I don't understand where you come up with this conclusion. There is just about nothing in your wiki-definition that applies to me, yet most everyone here would label me as pretty darn politically conservative. Maybe the labels are all wrong and the definitions a matter of convenience.

To divert here for a brief moment, it appears that the whole gay marriage thingy (since it was mentioned) will go to the Supreme Court. No surprise here. It was a foregone conclusion the Ninth Circus would once again override the will of the majority of the people in CA.

Sorry for the interruption. Everyone, carry one, please. :)

Boxcar
P.S. Just remember: No hitting below the belt, please. :D

[Lefty]

Comparing their administrations, please give me more dumbass presidents like
Reagan and less of the smart ones like Carter.

[lamboguy]

i listened to a guy today, his name is JEFF BERWICK. he claimed that there were 3 presidents that tried to keep this country's currency backed by precious metal's, they were JAMES GARFIELD, JOHN KENNEDY, RONALD REAGAN. GARFIELD and KENNEDY were gunned down, and they almost got REAGAN. KENNEDY and REAGAN wanted to bypass the federal reserve system and issue the money here.

the guy seems a little bazaar though

http://www.kitco.com/events/2012/cambridgehouse/california/

[mostpost]

i listened to a guy today, his name is JEFF BERWICK. he claimed that there were 3 presidents that tried to keep this country's currency backed by precious metal's, they were JAMES GARFIELD, JOHN KENNEDY, RONALD REAGAN. GARFIELD and KENNEDY were gunned down, and they almost got REAGAN. KENNEDY and REAGAN wanted to bypass the federal reserve system and issue the money here.

the guy seems a little bazaar though

http://www.kitco.com/events/2012/cambridgehouse/california/
He's a small middle eastern marketplace?? :confused: :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Speaking of Romney, gays, glitter, and weapons of mass destruction...



Denver authorities detained Smith for questioning on Tuesday night, and he was cited on misdemeanor charges of creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and an unlawful act on school property, Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said.



I'm trying to think of a way to get charged with first-degree throwing a missile it sounds so cool.

...

On another note, how many redundant charges can they possibly file for one goofy stunt? Unlawful act on school property? If the act is unlawful, isn't there already a law to prosecute under? It's a crime to commit a crime if it is on school property?

Throwing gay glitter may be dumb, but its borderline dumb to prosecute for it and completely idiotic to file three lame ass charges trying to make a show of it.


http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-student-charged-glitter-bomb-romney-043424065.html

[Lefty]

Yeah, that's one intelligent left winger, alright... :kiss:

[bigmack]

Throwing gay glitter may be dumb, but its borderline dumb to prosecute for it and completely idiotic to file three lame ass charges trying to make a show of it.
You know, & I know, & the American people know, that normally chahges are piled on initially and dropped latah. I applaud the action of the 'authorities' in this matter. This kind of thing to continue is out of the question. Out.

[Capper Al]

This whole notion that we can have the answer ahead of time by prescribing to a political philosophy is crazy, left or right. When an issue arises for consideration, it takes a lot of hard work to figure out the pros and cons. The populace doesn't have the time or the ambition to do the work to get to the truth. It's easy to have a preconceived idea to cover every situation. Reality doesn't work that way.

[Robert Goren]

The assassination of JFK and the gold standard currency debate is "marriage made in Heaven" for the fringes of politics. The crazies have had this on their radar since the year after JFK was killed.

[maddog42]

My ERROR about Gilliam? You are either:: A. hopped-up on narcotics or B. very seriously thick in the head. NEWSFLASH: It was a joke.

As this has simply moved into a display of your inability to think rationally, ask yourself one last question - Does the study refer to social or political conservatives?

After you figure out it's social, put your tail between your legs and go sit in the corner.

No biscuit for you for months.

I did not realize I was dealing with such a master of wit and subtlety; A veritable connoiseur of humor and English prose. That you could be so bereft of a terminal inexactitude.
I wanted to spare you the embarassment of espousing the movies of a fellow like Gilliam who would rather renounce his citizenship than be associated with
a president like W.

[bigmack]

I wanted to spare you the embarassment of espousing the movies of a fellow like Gilliam who would rather renounce his citizenship than be associated with a president like W.
Looks like you figure you've made such a fool of yourself in this thread you might as well go all the way, huh?

Suck on your own embarassment.

AVC: Why did you renounce your American citizenship earlier this year?

TG: I thought I’d just simplify my life. I’m getting old. I’m gonna die. I’m not at all happy with what America has been in the last 10 years.[Laughs.] The reality is, when I kick the bucket, American tax authorities assess everything I own in the world—everything I own is outside of America—and then tax me on it, and that would mean my wife would probably have to sell our house to pay the taxes. I didn’t think that was fair on my wife and children.

Tax liability, Birdbrain. Tax liability.

[BlueShoe]

Political conservatism - strong national defense, smaller government (fiscal responsibility), pro-family social values.
It should be noted that there is a distinct divide and difference between neocons and paleo, or traditional conservatives. Most of the right wingers on this forum, and most emphatically myself, express and believe in paleocon views. Todays neocons and liberals are actually cousins, they both are descendents and branches of classical liberalism. One branch turned right and became neocons while retaining liberal beliefs in big government and an active interventionist globalist view of foreign affairs. The other branch turned left and embraced Marxism, which permeates modern liberalism. The often maligned Wikpedia has a pretty good article defining paleoconservatism. Very intellectual and delves deeply into political science, but worth reading. The Republican Party, with a few exceptions, is controlled by neocons. This is why many of we paleocons were so critical of previous GOP adminsistrations, and why we remain cool to the Party today.

[boxcar]

It should be noted that there is a distinct divide and difference between neocons and paleo, or traditional conservatives. Most of the right wingers on this forum, and most emphatically myself, express and believe in paleocon views. Todays neocons and liberals are actually cousins, they both are descendents and branches of classical liberalism. One branch turned right and became neocons while retaining liberal beliefs in big government and an active interventionist globalist view of foreign affairs. The other branch turned left and embraced Marxism, which permeates modern liberalism. The often maligned Wikpedia has a pretty good article defining paleoconservatism. Very intellectual and delves deeply into political science, but worth reading. The Republican Party, with a few exceptions, is controlled by neocons. This is why many of we paleocons were so critical of previous GOP adminsistrations, and why we remain cool to the Party today.

Forget "cool". The Party of Stupid to me is stone cold dead. I can't stand the stench of their rotting corpses. Far too many CORPSEmen in their ranks. :D

Boxcar
P.S. See, even I learned something form Obama.

[maddog42]

Looks like you figure you've made such a fool of yourself in this thread you might as well go all the way, huh?

Suck on your own embarassment.



Tax liability, Birdbrain. Tax liability.



I ask myself, why didn't mack post the link, from which this quote is taken? Could he be trying to HIDE something !!???!! Part of the rest of this article:

In the film, government agents arrest suspects in hordes, going so far as to charge them for their interrogation, including the electricity applied to their bodies. Detainees who couldn’t afford the costs of their torture could apply for loans (at favorable interest rates). The machinery of government-sanctioned torture and data collection became a self-sustaining apparatus.

“It is absolutely frightening,” he said of the current political scene. “Homeland Security is just like [the film's] Ministry of Information, because if your job is counter-terrorism, what do you need to keep in business? You need terrorists, and even if they aren’t there, we may have to create new ones. It works very well.”

http://www.nostate.com/515/terry-gilliam-ex-american/



Lets let others judge who is a Birdbrain and who is not . Note that I posted the link where the ENTIRE article can be read. Gilliam has issued scathing attacks on the US government for many many years. Tax liability was only part of it.

“I’m thinking of suing George Bush and Dick Cheney for making the remake of ‘Brazil’ without my approval,” he told a New York screening audience this week. “Their version isn’t as funny, though.”

He accuses the Bush administration for trying to make his film a reality.
Try to be a little more honest Mack.

[maddog42]

Mack you need to get your facts right: from wikipedia:

In 1968, Gilliam obtained British citizenship, then held dual American and British citizenship for the next 38 years. In January 2006 he renounced his American citizenship.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gilliam#cite_note-60) In an interview with Der Tagesspiegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Tagesspiegel),[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gilliam#cite_note-tagesspiegel-61) he described the action as a protest against then President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), and in an earlier interview with The Onion AV Club,[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gilliam#cite_note-tagonionav-62) he also indicated that it was related to concerns about future tax liability for his wife and children.

The bomb throwing radical comment was also correct.


This is my original post. I think I was MUCH more honest than Mack about Terry Gilliam.
To hell with intelligence, maybe we should make this a debate about who is more honest. I understand that you must be embarrassed about endorsing a
leftie like Gilliam, but sh*t Mack: man-up.

[bigmack]

What an unbelievably dense geek. Now we have honesty & man-up? :lol:

Little putz goes off on a jag about Gilliam and citizenship as if he's making some point about creative types & Bush. :lol: WhyTF would I gives a rats ass about such idiocy?

Oh, speaking of renounced, get a load of how he treats it in this interview.

Yep. Straight from the horses mouth. Hit it, TG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOvmQuyT8M

This nerd NEEDS to have a sole reason for Gilliam's action he can barely stand it. It must be only one reason. It must be...

After viewing that clip I hope he doesn't have a conniption. Or do I? :D

Bye, Nerd.

[maddog42]

What an unbelievably dense geek. Now we have honesty & man-up? :lol:

Little putz goes off on a jag about Gilliam and citizenship as if he's making some point about creative types & Bush. :lol: WhyTF would I gives a rats ass about such idiocy?

Oh, speaking of renounced, get a load of how he treats it in this interview.

Yep. Straight from the horses mouth. Hit it, TG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOvmQuyT8M

This nerd NEEDS to have a sole reason for Gilliam's action he can barely stand it. It must be only one reason. It must be...

After viewing that clip I hope he doesn't have a conniption. Or do I? :D

Bye, Nerd.

You don't like it when people catch you distorting the truth do you. I never ever said there was one reason. You don't read so well. YOU were the one stating one reason, but I think you know that. Happy conniption!!