Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[IAmJacksUserName]

We already have IQ testing to measure intelligence, but it's still fairly taboo to compare IQ in sociological analysis, in large part because so little is still understood about intelligence. Try to do the same thing between blacks and whites and people will rip your methodology apart before they even take a look at what you are saying.

 

[Heuristic]

The blogger seems to have forgotten to include any sources for that graph.

And in any event, the author should revisit a statistics class.

Let's take the graph at face value.

It tells us that of the small proportion of population that would self-describe as "very liberal," the average IQ is 106.

This doesn't mean that more above-average intelligent persons are liberal than are moderate, or even conservative. In fact it could simply mean that the group who would describe themselves as "very liberal" is unusually concentrated within a subset of those of above-average intelligence. It's entirely possible that far more intelligent people would NOT describe themselves as "very liberal."

Put differently, the persuasive power of the graph relies on the implication that the "average" political belief of those that are intelligent is "very liberal" But in fact the graph does not indicate that.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Conservatism is simply avoiding change except when absolutely necessary. Liberalism is being willing to experiment and try that which is unprecedented and not at all proven to work. I fail to see what connection this has with intelligence. Many very intelligent people can be, and are, raised to associate change with certain loss, and can cite good historical evidence, in their lives and those of others, for change being generally more problematic than maintaining the status quo. On the other end, many people who aren't very bright are raised to hear rallies for change and automatically raise their fist in the air and yell 'Yeah, my kind of people are finally gonna be in charge!'

I lean progressive liberal, by the way. But I'm moderate in that I don't advise people who can't afford even a minor sudden catastrophe to deviate much from what they know for a fact works, unless they're all out of options.

 

[marsmellow]

You don't need IQ tests to realize that many republicans are mentally deficient. All you need to do is talk to them.

I don't care if saying that makes me a smug liberal elitist. It's the truth, and you know it.

Conservatism is simply avoiding change except when absolutely necessary.

Yeah, but the Republican Party isn't really a conservative party anymore. It wants to go back to "the good old days." It's a reactionary party.

Right now, the Democrats are more conservative (in the way you defined it) than the Republicans are. They are the status quo party. Not the Republicans.

 

[rowland2110]

You don't need IQ tests to realize that many democrates are mentally deficient. All you need to do is talk to them.

I don't care if saying that makes me a smug conservative elitist. It's the truth, and you know it.
Yeah, but the Republican Party isn't really a conservative party anymore. It wants to go back to "the good old days." It's a reactionary party.

Right now, the Democrats are more conservative (in the way you defined it) than the Republicans are. They are the status quo party. Not the Republicans.

Reality mars... please look for it.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's really quite simple, Republicans are dumb as posts and that obviously carries through to the results of the study. It's got nothing to with with being smug, rather the inherent liberal-bias of reality.

 

[rowland2110]

It's really quite simple, Republicans are dumb as posts and that obviously carries through to the results of the study. It's got nothing to with with being smug, rather the inherent liberal-bias of reality.

If this is the way you libs are dealing with your incoming ASS KICKING in November than so be it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Bring it on!

WASHINGTON - Tea Party darling Christine O'Donnell's Delaware win triggered angry GOPer-vs.-GOPer backbiting Wednesday and gave Democrats new hope of avoiding disaster in November.

O'Donnell followed up her 6-point victory over veteran Rep. Mike Castle for the Republican Senate nomination by thumbing her nose at party establishment types and mocking the GOP feud with the Tea Party as "Republican cannibalism."

"There are a lot of people who are rallying behind me who are frustrated that the Republican Party has lost its way," O'Donnell said.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol..._division_within_the_ranks.html#ixzz0zgLQfnXr

 

[rowland2110]

Bring it on!

The people who are voting for a more conservative base really dont care about the internal issues repubilcans are having.

The people who vote liberal are going to vote liberal, and the people who would vote republican/tea party are going to vote republican/tea party no matter which wins the primary. This is a liberal vs conservative issue. And despite what marshanfromanotherplanetmellow said in the other thread, the republicans are still considers conservative.

You can cheer all you want, but trust me.. it will be short term even if republicans dont win as many seats this election. If you think the tea party movement is going away after this your delusional. Eventually it IS going to be democrats/vs tea party more than it is democrates vs republicans.

Liberals reactions towards the tea party is what validates them as a legitimate threat to them.

Anyway.. one thing i am sure of is you will have states wanting out of the Union if the federal government keeps growing into the nanny state direction its heading.

 

[qwe]

(^i'll get to that)

Reality mars... please look for it.

there may be a lot of progressive rhetoric, but democrats as a whole are almost us bought and sold as republicans

If this is the way you libs are dealing with your incoming ASS KICKING in November than so be it.

you say that as if a win wouldn't be a small hiccup with time still remaining on our side*. an avalanche of awareness, including about what goes on on the congress floor, is slowly growing. yes, bring it

* besides increasing awareness and information, there's a decreasing proportion of whites in the country. the republicans will go right off of a cliff if they keep trying to nab a smaller and smaller portion of the vote, and continue to have policies that aren't exactly friendly to minorities. so enjoy your victory in the upcoming elections, it won't last for a hundred reasons

social cohesion and order have their place. but they can be taken too far

 

[rant*N*rave]

You conveniently leave out the fact that those same liberals who want taxes to pay for higher education would also, themselves, be paying those higher taxes. It's a perfectly valid school of thought (and a fairly common one in many places, especially Western Europe) that some services, such as funding education, are a necessary and proper function of government that should not be left to individual short-term whim.

You conveniently leave out the fact that, as everyone harps on about, very few Americans have this money we're talking about giving away, so no, "themselves" wouldn't be paying those higher taxes because only a very small percentage of the population would be paying those taxes. People only talk about raising taxes on the very wealthiest people, not on themselves, because by definition and staggering statistics, the vast, vast majority of people are not among the wealthiest in America. (Not to mention that bringing up Western Europe is even more disingenuous - the LOWEST tax bracket in Sweden is around 30%. In America it's 0% with money coming back in services, and no one's talking about raising rates in that bracket, only the top one.)

The worst part is that I don't think there's anything *necessarily* wrong with suggesting that we do things that way, but it's presented so disingenuously as to be revolting. "We want YOU to pay for OUR pet projects." And then "Oh yeah, and it doesn't matter that people spent beyond their means on 10 credit cards and 3 mortgages and defaulted on all their debt for the rest of us to deal with because they wanted a big house and a flat screen and spinners. Now you have to deal with the fucked up economy and give up your money." It's just as bad as the Republicans trying to take my money to pay for their many pet projects (and then calling it conservatism... hmm...). If people feel that it's "the right thing to do" to give money to poor people via whatever method they prefer, they can do that without the intervention of the government, or at least by less drastically invasive means if the government needs to be used as a tool. 'sall I'm sayin'.

I'm strongly for providing much better social services, but I don't like the notion of bluntly taking money from rich people and handing it out to everyone else.

 

[qwe]

^ re last sentence, wealth stratification perpetuates itself, and that road will take us to a far worse place. wealth redistribution done right can alleviate so much suffering, kickstart the economy (if you give money to the rich, jobs are made overseas; if you give money to the poor, it goes directly into the economy), and slow down the perpetual cycle of wealth accumulating in fewer and fewer hands

the wealthy complain their tax dollars are being handed away. no, their tax dollars are going to support the system that made them wealthy in the first place. with such a priveledged position, you'd think they would be able to give some back

i understand the concept of ownership, and i don't mind that some have billions of dollars while others have less. but should *anyone* have *nothing*? that's the point where at in some parts of the globe, and the trend is continuing

 

[rowland2110]

there's a decreasing proportion of whites in the country.[/I] the republicans will go right off of a cliff if they keep trying to nab a smaller and smaller portion of the vote, and continue to have policies that aren't exactly friendly to minorities. so enjoy your victory in the upcoming elections, it won't last for a hundred reasons

social cohesion and order have their place. but they can be taken too far

Ya.. makes you wonder why Obama doesnt want to enforce immigration laws. 8)

Other than that.. points well taken.

 

[bit_pattern]

You can cheer all you want, but trust me.. it will be short term even if republicans dont win as many seats this election. If you think the tea party movement is going away after this your delusional. Eventually it IS going to be democrats/vs tea party more than it is democrates vs republicans.

Yeah, like Contract for America, look how well that went for small 'c' conservatives! :D The Tea Baggers are a bunch of corporate stooges and they're too dumb to recognise it, they will get chewed up and spat out by their puppet-masters just as soon as their usefulness has been expended and all of this libertarian sentiment will fall by the wayside as "moral" issues take front and centre stage again.

 

[qwe]

the tea party really is nothing. they arrive on buses paid for by corporations. they eat food and get pre-made signs, organized and paid by institutions like fox news. their talking points are absurd. and their media portrayal, while sure it's often showing the more silly ones, still does show a lot. it's not just "a few bad apples"

one more way republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. the trade off is that they get to activate many emotions that will lead to votes, but this emotional behavior gets to be seen by the media

imo, any honest look at the social and economic side reveals that they are pawns. i understand the desire for limited government, but that can be taken too far just like increased government presence. i'm not saying every teapartier is either disingenuous or a fool, and i'm sure plenty of productive discussion takes place among plenty of intelligent people at these places. just... perhaps not as much as other rallies

 

[SubDude]

Now I get it... Left libs are smarter, have more compassion, understanding, and tolerance. Conserves are hateful bigots and stupid morons blindly folowing fox & friends. I'm gonna start taking those "smart pills" they talked about in Time magazine... so I can be a lib too. Wait for me guys... I'll get there soon.

Didn't want to disappoint Jam...

 

[SubDude]

Here's even more evidence for libs....

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,2687256.story

Since I tend to lean right... I'm not sure I understand this, but it seems like their kinda confirming the thread topic??

 

[rowland2110]

Yeah, like Contract for America, look how well that went for small 'c' conservatives! :D The Tea Baggers are a bunch of corporate stooges and they're too dumb to recognise it, they will get chewed up and spat out by their puppet-masters just as soon as their usefulness has been expended and all of this libertarian sentiment will fall by the wayside as "moral" issues take front and centre stage again.

I really don't care about moral issues because ultimately government can't regulate them. Hell government can barely regulate and enforce its laws, let alone peoples subjective personal morals. I am voting for fiscal freedom first. The freedom to do more with the money i earn. And i refuse to be hypocrite by fighting for my own money while refuses to do the same for those evil reach people.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ Didn't yopu get a tax cut from Obama? Yet you're happy to give that up to the Republicans to give people erning $250,000 p/a. Yah, this is the conservative stupid I was getting at earlier...

 

[qwe]

I really don't care about moral issues because ultimately government can't regulate them. Hell government can barely regulate and enforce its laws, let alone peoples subjective personal morals. I am voting for fiscal freedom first. The freedom to do more with the money i earn. And i refuse to be hypocrite by fighting for my own money while refuses to do the same for those evil reach people.

what made them rich in the first place? a society with public services. the bottom 98% buying their products

if someone has 4 jets, should the money from his 5th be taxxed extra? yeah. wealth accumulation is a serious thing. left untouched, money will (and has been through conservatve leadership since reagan) shift to fewer people. besides the unimaginable suffering, and the obvious fact that society is quite easily capable of alleviating this, we need to give hundreds of thousands per millionaire or more, raising our budget by billions of dollars, so that the rich (top 2% ) get the same tax cuts as us?

i can see your argument, truly. i agree, it's a dangerous game when your philosophy involves using others' property. it's not right, when looked at from a financial-freedom perspective; and of course you probably think an unregulated market would regulate itself

money itself is a human construct, as is freedom i suppose though freedom is a fundamentally human aspect imo. money isn't, it's simply a tool we use. money isn't permanent, it's a feature of the modern era. we shouldn't blindly "respect its power" and whoever has/gets the money has/keeps the money--we should use this tool of society wisely

and the market wouldn't regulate itself. not when politicians get absurd salaries once they leave office, absurdity level depending on how well they play ball with the companies

p.s. voting for the democratic bottom 98% cut, as opposed to a cut for all, is not hypocritical. they are taxed the same -- the first 250k of a wealthy person is taxed the same as the first 250k as the bottom 98%. if the bottom 98% become priveledged somehow (bceause of society) they will have to give back more to that society on each extra million they earn (each extra million that they do not need), and it's the same for the 2%