Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical liberal deflection away from the main point that liberals can boast all they want about their "superior" intelligence (a dubious hypothesis) but at the ballot box, conservatives hold just as much power as liberals do.
But you are right......a low-class liberal (which includes most of them) would say "f**king" instead of "darn".
Darn: Mend.
F**king: Reproduce?
I wonder if after WWII, or later; well I wonder if the Brits still say, "bloody".
On the average, republicans have higher IQs. However, the average IQ means very little as far as determining which political party, by analysis, makes the most sense. This is the point of contention by the OP- liberalism is ultimately more "factual" and "correct" as more people of higher IQs ascribe to this philosophy. However, as a foil, is the factual data that republicans (who are never liberals) have a higher IQ than democrats.
I do not care so much for either contention, as I realize that I have an IQ much higher than average (156), which is considered genius. Keep in mind, however, that Sharon Stone (who in my opionion is an idiot) has the identical IQ. The contentions of liberalism are the antithesis of common sense and that is really all that matters. I would much rather rest the fate of my future on those who are practical in dealing with issues of daily living than an "intelllectual" who is so far detached from reality that his view of the world has no practical relevence. It is analagous to practical and theoretical physics.
I have a high IQ, and have very good common sense, and can recognize (even from the perspective of one who grew up very poor) that liberals are insane.
" Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.
Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal†in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative†in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8."
I take such studies with a grain of salt but on an anecdotal note will say I have seen many intelligent children from both parents of liberals and conservatives. Again, just my perception. I have worked with a lot of kids though and am fairly "Vulcan neutral" in my observation techniques.
However. There is stupid. And stupid finds its way into both parties. Look at yourself.
Conservatives hear catch words and ask no questions. Plenty of examples; Obama's a commie, an evil muslim, God created the world, etc.
To convince a conservative is not much of a challenge. That is demonstrated daily by the conservative big mouths like Limbaugh, Beck etc.
Less intelligent people are easily motivated by fear; terrorism, muslims conquering America, Commies taking over America, etc.
Many conservatives will say that liberal elected Obama. Not true. Many of those who voted for him, although Democrats, can probably be rated lower on the IQ scale.
In many of the threads it seems that many conservatives believe in this equation: intelligence means financial success, financial success means intelligence.
On the average, republicans have higher IQs. However, the average IQ means very little as far as determining which political party, by analysis, makes the most sense. This is the point of contention by the OP- liberalism is ultimately more "factual" and "correct" as more people of higher IQs ascribe to this philosophy. However, as a foil, is the factual data that republicans (who are never liberals) have a higher IQ than democrats.
I do not care so much for either contention, as I realize that I have an IQ much higher than average (156), which is considered genius. Keep in mind, however, that Sharon Stone (who in my opionion is an idiot) has the identical IQ. The contentions of liberalism are the antithesis of common sense and that is really all that matters. I would much rather rest the fate of my future on those who are practical in dealing with issues of daily living than an "intelllectual" who is so far detached from reality that his view of the world has no practical relevence. It is analagous to practical and theoretical physics.
I have a high IQ, and have very good common sense, and can recognize (even from the perspective of one who grew up very poor) that liberals are insane.
Congratulations on your high IQ. Anyone can claim any IQ they desire on these forums. What if your IQ was judged by the caliber of your posts?
Why are numbers only given for those in early adulthood?
Are 20 somethings opinions really who we should trust when it comes to politics? I am only 24 years old and I know I had ideals only a few years ago that proved to be absolutely stupid when I graduated college and got out into the real world. I would like to see the same study, but for all age ranges.
The reason twenty-somethings were selected is because the numbers are cherry-picked to yield the desired result.
And again, how large was the pool? What was their selection criteria? How did they account for unknowns? What statistical method did they use, etc...
Without that, you might as well have posted a comic from the funnies and claimed it "scientific" in its mention.
Without proper citations, its all garbage.
/shrug
Agreed! We would have to read the peer reviewed publication to analyze those things.
But so far, I've seen very little posted in the political group that is beyond race-bait, nonsensical, irrational, shock jock, tabloid equivalent material ready for the compost pile.
It seems to me the political group of threads is more for rants, venting, and baiting.
Sooo, pa-leese. Give me a break.
The researcher's name is, Satoshi Kanazawa. The study was published in the peer reviewed journal, Social Psychology Quarterly.
After seeing some posts in these threads I gotta tell ya..I have my doubts about that study.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
