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.
Raw intelligence isn't everything. In my experience, the more "intelligent" people are in the traditional academic way, the less common sense they have. Exceptionally intelligent people have a tendency to over complicate problems or issues that someone with a more modest IQ could easily solve through common sense. This is why good managers know that it is wise to ask the supposedly less intelligent blue collar or lower level what works and doesn't work from time to time. The super intelligent are highly susceptible to the group think that comes along with being impressed with oneself and ones group.
One could argue that in government, the best and brightest tend to go to Washington and the less accomplished to state and local government. Interestingly, most people consider the federal government to be the worst run tier of federalism whereas people are often pretty satisfied with their state and local governments. Certainly most state governments appear to operate more efficiently than DC, and that is with the rejects that couldn't get a job in DC.
I remember someone saying that liberals form their political views based on facts and logic. Conservatives base their political views on emotions then try to back into facts to support it.
I remember someone saying that liberals form their political views based on facts and logic. Conservatives base their political views on emotions then try to back into facts to support it.
I always thought that was very true.
Huh,
I always thought it was liberals who were basing political view on emotions then using facts to support it while conservatives use facts and "logic."
This has been proven in multiple psycological studies. The "smartest" genetic intellgience by demographic is male liberal atheists. Yes, it is evolutionary (has to do with rational thinking).
Conservative brains are hardwired to react easily to fear. Fear clouds the ability to rationalize thoughts.
Everyone is both liberal and conservative to varying degrees, so, let's clear that up. Atheists are the first to proclaim that they can be moral without the need for transcendent beliefs. Morals often root in conservative principles across broad cultural perspectives, so there you have it. Asian atheists and Middle Easterners tend to be A LOT more conservative in their morals than Westernized atheists. But Hi IQ Asian atheists aren't scoring lower than their white male counterparts.
Fear is a meaningless word in this discussion. Saying conservatives react easily to fear is a non-scientific assertion that sounds more like something out of a phrenology textbook. Here's a hint for you: You won't find ANY STUDIES at all coming out of the West that do anything BUT disparage anyone who isn't a secular liberal. And the neat thing about THIS particular pseudo-study is that it gives white males the decidedly NON-politically correct opportunity to feel racially superior again. Something the Left hasn't been able to do since eugenics was discredited by the Nazis back in WW2.
White liberal atheists tend to dominate in the advanced degree departments by far in the West. In many degree fields, they cannot advance in their careers if they are NOT liberals and NOT atheists. So, when the deck is stacked against people, it is hardly fair to pay a lot of attention to the demographics. It's not the same as comparing racial or gender differences for these professions. But, by the same token, just because women are dominating in many general degrees now is not evidence that womens' IQs have made a dramatic saltatory leap in America over the past 30 years. And just because the USA's average on the SAT is lagging behind even some third world countries now does not mean that Americans have some how "de-volved" intellectually.
-Liberalism is a 'novelty' in human evolution and intelligent people tend to be drawn to novelty (not socially defined novelty, evolutionary novelty).
-less intelligent people tend to conform to tradition, because they have been instructed not to trust their own intelligence.
-their higher intelligence explains why liberals tend to control practically ALL of the institutions with a few exceptions-- notably the world of business.
-extreme conservatism is shown to be positively correlated with the lowest IQs.
-Religiosity has a very high correlation with a low IQ.
Guess what? In the Middle East, not a single atheist is smart enough to teach in the great universities of the region! Guess why? Well, studies must show that religiously orthodox Muslim ultra-conservatives are the smartest people in Asia! Iran has NOTHING BUT Shiite Muslims working on it's Nuclear program! Ta-da! Shiites are at the top of the top of the heap!
White male atheist liberals dominate in the advanced degrees in America kinda' for the same reason that only loyal communists dominated in the professions in Stalin's Soviet Union and only loyal Nazi Party supporters dominated in the advanced professions in Hitler's Germany. In fact, amazingly, both those places had virtually no Jews in the sciences or technology fields during those times... even though Jews seemed to dominate the intellectual life of Europe at the time.
In America, if you want a career in many advanced sciences, you will not succeed UNLESS you are politically correct on the religion front. The world of secularized science would rather take affirmative action high school dropouts for it's degree programs than it would a Christian ID proponent with straight As. And that's a fact.
Honestly, this is like saying blacks are inferior in intelligence because not a single one of them did anything except shine shoes and pick cotton for the first 150 years of America's existence.
-Liberalism is a 'novelty' in human evolution and intelligent people tend to be drawn to novelty (not socially defined novelty, evolutionary novelty).
-less intelligent people tend to conform to tradition, because they have been instructed not to trust their own intelligence.
-their higher intelligence explains why liberals tend to control practically ALL of the institutions with a few exceptions-- notably the world of business.
-extreme conservatism is shown to be positively correlated with the lowest IQs.
-Religiosity has a very high correlation with a low IQ.
I will be honest: I do not know my IQ (I've never taken an IQ test). However, I am highly educated and work in a field with extremely intelligent people (I will not go as far as to label myself extremely intelligent). I've noticed that the most intelligent people that I've ever met are conservative. I am also conservative (in that I don't believe we should have social programs, don't believe in gay marriage, do believe in family values and traditional marriage, etc).
So my personal (anecdotal) experiences have not been in line with these statistics.
I completely agree with you on the first point, Wolf. I'm somewhat in agreement with you on the second, though I think non-essential administration is a far bigger issue in higher education. However, I also don't want to see jobs being eliminated in public schools in order to be filled by volunteer parents. This is what has happened with some positions at my kids' high school, and we live in a wealthy county.
I think we need a total reform of public schools--starting with the curriculum (think we need to adopt a more engaging, hands-on, interdisciplinary approach--which Finland does well) and a required commitment from parents.
Ask teachers in lower-income (more inner city, here) how many teachers show up for parent-teacher conferences? Or how many call up or stay connected with the schools/parents? How do you throw endless amounts of money to "fix" education if the kids never show up? Also, and this applies across all income and schools, parents need to stop thinking their kid is going to be the next pro athlete and start putting the passion they have for their kids' athletics into their education (not saying athletics is bad, but it shouldn't be the primary focus).
At the higher education, I think we need to get rid of federal financial aid all together. Reward academic performance (GPA, SAT/ACT, finish in class). Give the top half of graduating seniors a four-year fixed amount (let's say $10,000 max per year, number itself isn't really important) grant to whatever college they select. Let the colleges fight for them based on performance, private scholarships, and the college's efficiency in how it manages the way it spends money and the results of its students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
You're right about lifestyle choices. But, as for financial strains, you could apply the same argument to private health insurance companies, no? Are our insurance rates, copays and deductibles going to continue to increase? How much can the average middle-class or lower-middle-class family afford for health care costs? Private health insurance isn't going to stop aging, diabetes, and poor lifestyle choices, either.
I guess this is the question then: How would single-payer or universal health care fix the financials? It isn't working in other countries, so why would it be better here? Medicare is going to blow up financially, and we are, as a country, already stretched beyond financially as it is. However we fund health care it isn't going to change the costs of it. Other countries are experiencing this, and they get the benefits of us leading the way on the R&D/Testing and Approval/Training front. The NHS (UK) has limits on what they fund, especially as patients get older. Health care is just damn expensive, and the money isn't going to magically fall from the sky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
Yes, I know there are non-liberals who didn't support the war. I've spoken to quite a few of them. But when I hear people who have never bothered to go to war themselves calling for more war (that will result in thousands MORE Americans being killed) that gets me a little upset. What can I say?
I'm also patiently waiting to see the outcome of this infrastructure bill. Right there with ya!
I was against Iraq from the beginning--but I do think we're going to have go in after ISIS with feet on the ground. Not something I want to see, but it's a damn if we do, damn it if we don't situation.
I don't want to spend more money on infrastructure until we start seeing the results from this first bill. Accountability.
Why do liberals think that they're smarter than conservatives should be the real question. I have a very high IQ (13% of the population) and I am not a liberal (nor a conservative). Your political beliefs have nothing to do with how smart you are.
-Liberalism is a 'novelty' in human evolution and intelligent people tend to be drawn to novelty (not socially defined novelty, evolutionary novelty).
-less intelligent people tend to conform to tradition, because they have been instructed not to trust their own intelligence.
-their higher intelligence explains why liberals tend to control practically ALL of the institutions with a few exceptions-- notably the world of business.
-extreme conservatism is shown to be positively correlated with the lowest IQs.
-Religiosity has a very high correlation with a low IQ.
Hate to tell you, but someone's "intelligence" does NOT come from their political views! At birth, and through school people develop affinities towards various political beliefs, or follow whatever their families follow, which are all stupid and wrong. However, someone's intelligence comes from a well rounded education and not some political view. This has to be one of the dumbest things I ever heard.
PS: These "conservationists/republicans/tea party lovers" are not stupid, they know that by making everyone else stupid they can rise above. They are the ones maintaining social classes in America because it is easier to lead the "uneducated," which they create by offering minimum wages=impeding a large portion of the people living here to afford a higher education/travel/access to culture/access to the arts etc., than rule over smart educated people. AND When I say "educated" I don't mean knowing how to do your job, I mean a vast general education, speaking various foreign languages, knowing and appreciating history, and generally being an intellectual.
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.
I'm somewhat in agreement with you on the second, though I think non-essential administration is a far bigger issue in higher education. However, I also don't want to see jobs being eliminated in public schools in order to be filled by volunteer parents. This is what has happened with some positions at my kids' high school, and we live in a wealthy county.
