http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

Quote :

" The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be. "

2/27/2010 7:11:13 PM

Quote :

"male sexual exclusivity"

well that is boring

2/27/2010 8:25:13 PM

aren't the three sort of redundant?

2/27/2010 8:48:59 PM

if you buy the whole theism-> morality thing, i’d think atheists would be LESS likely to be sexually exclusive.

2/27/2010 9:01:28 PM

well you would also have to subscribe to a set of morals saying that one sexual practice is more moral than another, its not universal

2/27/2010 9:48:06 PM

^^Zeus had all kinds of partners. Odin got around too. The God of the Mormon's didn't seem to object to multiple partners too much either apparently. Even the Bible has characters who aren't the exclusive types.

2/27/2010 10:05:27 PM

i was talking about in modern contexts.

Practically nothing the far-right believes about religion reflects reality in any meaningful way.

2/27/2010 10:06:59 PM

I feel smarter after I've had a blowjob.

2/27/2010 11:09:44 PM

if liberals are so much smarter. why the fuck did they have so much trouble getting 2 presidents in office during 40 fucking years.

2/28/2010 12:52:05 AM

smarter men are just better at being perceived as sexually exclusive. AKA they are smart enough to not get caught, ever.

2/28/2010 1:17:35 AM

^^what?

2/28/2010 1:31:15 AM

^ don't worry about him, he's a conservative... he's not very bright.

2/28/2010 1:32:06 AM

their definition of liberalism is approximately meaningless.




dumb study.

2/28/2010 1:47:24 AM

Quote :

"It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people."

By this definition, clearly they mean liberalism to be what yanks call classical liberalism, as far from the democratic party as possible (which wants to impoverish the rest of the world through protectionism, impoverish domestic outsiders for the benefit of insiders through unions and regulation, and silence the politically isolated through restrictions on speech).

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2010 1:48:18 AM

^^ that's something i'd expect to hear from a conservative... figures...

^ in the past 20 years in the US, democrats have reduced poverty, while the republicans have made it significantly worse. Worldwide, the poverty rate has been dropping fairly steadily.

And there's just no sense to claim that modern democrats want to "silence politically isolated." Use your brain for once, jeez.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 2:39 AM. Reason : ]

2/28/2010 2:17:49 AM

Quote :

"The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights. "

So in other words, they basically defined "liberals" as people who believe in helping strangers and then asked a bunch of people if they like helping strangers.

Like I said... meaningless.

2/28/2010 2:44:20 AM

^ That's actually not an accurate representation, but you're probably not intelligent enough to understand why.

2/28/2010 2:47:18 AM

Their definition is approximately meaningless. They would automatically pick up all catholics/christians and basically anyone with half a heart.

Hell, I'd even get categorized as a "liberal"

ROFL. Like I said, a stupid meaningless study with a completely pointless conclusion

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 2:52 AM. Reason : s]

2/28/2010 2:48:36 AM

Quote :

"The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106. "

2/28/2010 3:06:32 AM

Anyone who actually believe this "study" is, statistically speaking, a moron.

2/28/2010 3:56:54 AM

If anything, it just goes to show how hypocritical christian conservatives are.

"my money shouldn't go to pay for some poor persons food"

2/28/2010 9:08:29 AM

Considering that most of them would prefer to contribute their money to charities and contribute their time to the volunteer work their churches do (you know, private resources), by this survey's definition, they would be liberals and thus in the high IQ section.

2/28/2010 9:54:36 AM

Quote :

"^ in the past 20 years in the US, democrats have reduced poverty, while the republicans have made it significantly worse. "

Facts not in evidence.

Quote :

"Worldwide, the poverty rate has been dropping fairly steadily."

And whose fault is that? The Republicans championed free trade, the Democrats championed fair trade. Yet it has been relatively-free trade that has allowed China to escape poverty, all the while the Democrats were jostling to stop it in the name of their union constituents.

Quote :

"And there's just no sense to claim that modern democrats want to "silence politically isolated." Use your brain for once, jeez."

What else can I conclude from their efforts to overturn the Citizens United ruling? Big politically connected corporations have no trouble forming political action committees and filling paperwork, so only small politically isolated minorities are affected by legal requirements to do so. As usual, regulation favors insiders over outsiders, and the Democrats are only in favor of their insiders.

And the Democrats favor card-check, a law designed to help the insiders they know at the expense of outsiders they don't. Hence, Democrats are not "liberals" by the studies definition.

And as it is usually Republicans which are giving their own money help strangers, I suspect the studies definition of "liberal" caught more Republicans and Libertarians than it did Democrats.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2010 11:11:31 AM

You mean the ruling that overturned corporate spending limits? The ruling that FAVORED "big politically connected corporations"? And now you try to paint the Dems as favoring insiders? GTFO with that intellectually dishonest BS.

I will admit that while I can understand higher IQ being linked to liberalism, I have a very difficult time believing that higher IQ is linked to concern for other people.

2/28/2010 12:19:48 PM

Quote :

"Considering that most of them would prefer to contribute their money to charities and contribute their time to the volunteer work their churches do (you know, private resources), by this survey's definition, they would be liberals and thus in the high IQ section."

picking and choosing how you want to help is not christian.

2/28/2010 12:35:16 PM

Quote :

"Facts not in evidence. "

You are not familiar with the evidence then. It’s blatantly obvious from the poverty rate stats.

Quote :

"If anything, it just goes to show how hypocritical christian conservatives are. "my money shouldn't go to pay for some poor persons food” "

They are hypocritical, just not in the way you describe.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2010 1:01:55 PM

^^
Neither is theft.

Quote :

"my money shouldn't be stolen from me go to pay for some poor persons food."

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2010 1:04:53 PM

^ haha, no one’s stealing from you. That’s some 95-iq-level reasoning though, good going.

2/28/2010 1:08:00 PM

Romans 13 :1-7

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A1-7&version=NIV

Quote :

" 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Obama was established by god, therefore you must pay his taxes

2/28/2010 1:13:15 PM

So its says fairly large sample size. I would be interested to see the bias in his sample. Because all statistics has bias in it, this psychologist is more than likely an atheist and probably identifies with more liberals than conservatives, so he has bias in his research already. I would like to see more cold facts from his study and not just a summary.

I do like that he says the reason liberals, atheists, and monogamist males are displaying a form of elitism and trying to show they are better than you are.

2/28/2010 1:55:47 PM

^^
...just another reason why I think that social conservatives and fiscal liberals should form their own party.

Quote :

"That’s some 95-iq-level reasoning though, good going."

THAT'S A 95-IQ LEVEL INSULT, GOOD GOING.

Authority is derived from the consent of the governed.
To the extent that taxation covers the costs of protecting individuals' rights, defending the nation against foreign threats, and upholding the constitution, taxation is just. Most anything past that is mere theft. In a free society, no one is forced to give charity.

2/28/2010 1:58:40 PM

Quote :

" taxation covers the costs of protecting individuals' rights"

poverty doesn't exactly give someone the right to life liberty and freedom does it?

o, use old text only when it benefits your argument, nvm.

2/28/2010 2:04:34 PM

^^ aww… imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you know...

2/28/2010 2:17:03 PM

Quote :

"poverty doesn't exactly give someone the right to life liberty and freedom does it?"

Sure it does. What, do you think we have a right to money?

2/28/2010 2:28:44 PM

Quote :

"You are not familiar with the evidence then. It’s blatantly obvious from the poverty rate stats."

Even if it such correlation existed, it is a sign of low intelligence to believe logical fallacies such as correlation proving causation. But such correlation does not exist, as poverty fell dramatically after the Republicans took over in 1994 and poverty has increased dramatically since the democrats took over in 2006.

Quote :

"You mean the ruling that overturned corporate spending limits? The ruling that FAVORED "big politically connected corporations"?"

Citizens United is a big politically connected corporation? Check your facts, they are running away from you.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2010 3:44:51 PM

Quote :

" But such correlation does not exist, as poverty fell dramatically after the Republicans took over in 1994 and poverty has increased dramatically since the democrats took over in 2006."

This is factually incorrect.

2/28/2010 3:52:31 PM

Quote :

"Sure it does. What, do you think we have a right to money? "

No but we do have a right to things that keep you alive and allow you the freedom to persue happiness. Its not freedome if someone has to spend the whole life working jjust to pay for medical bill. Its not freedom if people have to work just to be able to eat.

We don't have a right to money but we have a right to many things that in this society you have to have money to buy. Thats the problem. The fact that it takes money to get things like good education, medicine and food.

2/28/2010 3:58:03 PM

Your system is unworkable. It requires work to produce the things you seem to believe people should not be required to work for. If no one worked, then we would all die. As such, it is impossible for everyone to have a right to the products of work without working.

2/28/2010 4:10:49 PM

Quote :

"we have a right to .... good education, medicine and food."

Yeah, you're right. Food and medicine should be free. We should just get free food insurance from the government, because food is a right, right? Everyone just swipes their government-provided food insurance card, and we get the food for free -- and since all rich people are evil, we can just tax them for it all. I'm gonna get steak and shrimp!

Quote :

"Its not freedom if people have to work just to be able to eat."

Good point. I think everyone should be entitled to a TV and a computer -- what do you think? (Again, all the evil rich people can get the bill.)

Quote :

"Its not freedome if someone has to spend the whole life working jjust to pay for medical bill."

Hell yeah, and with free health insurance from the government, I'm gonna take up snowboarding and skydiving. (I'm gonna try to jump from a helicopter and snowboard down a hill.) If I get hurt, I can exercise my right to not have to spend my whole life working just to pay the medical bill. Also, I'm gonna eat a lot of delicious high-fat and high-carb foods (all for free, as mentioned above,) while chasing it with copious amounts of booze. Then I can get free liposuction and liver treatment, because, you know, I have a right to free health-care. Right?

2/28/2010 4:14:31 PM

^^Funny you say that when you support a system of volunteer slavary where amount of work is inversely proportional to income.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM. Reason : k]

^nice funny but the likelihood of public healthcare paying for lipo is just as lol

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM. Reason : healthcare nation is whoopin us just went up 2-0]

2/28/2010 4:14:34 PM

What the fuck is voluntary slavery? Either it is voluntary, or it is slavery, something cannot be both.

Look, neither me nor the system has imposed this state of being upon us. God did this to us: a human being thrust into nature either works hard every day of their life, or they die. Sometimes, it does not matter how smart of clever a human is, they still die of some genetic abnormality, an animal attack, or adverse weather. All we are discussing are the terms under which we labor and die. And it is my opinion that to force humans to live on planet Earth, as God has, the least we can do is not make us subservient to the whims of all powerful kings, no matter how enlightened these kings may be.

2/28/2010 4:48:10 PM

Its volunteer slavery because working on your own is not an option. Its either work as a slave (slaves were given room and board, volunteer modern slaves often arne't even given THAT) or you
could starve.

Oftentimes its worse than actual slavery. In slavery, there weren't potential slaves who couldn't find a master willing to enslave them. Under volunteer slavery, masters don't even enslave everyone who is willing to be enslaved therefore masters don't have incentive to take care of their slaves like they did in mandatory salvery (insurance). Education is still severely limited.


As long as capitlists own the ability to work its slavery. Or you could get some of the money from those capitlists to compensate for the slavery and maybe offset it.

2/28/2010 4:53:10 PM

Quote :

"Its volunteer slavery because working on your own is not an option."

What are you talking about? I know lots of people that work on their own. The vast majority of corporations in this country are sole-proprietorship. The nation is filled with self-employed contractors. Your objective is poorly placed, however, as both workers and factory owners (which are sometimes the same thing) are both subservient to customers. You may own the factory, but you don't eat if no one wants to buy what your factory makes.

And, again, you can still go live as God created you. There are many groups of Americans living far away from the cities, making a subsistence living off in the wilderness. My great grandfather lived on his own with his family in the west virginia mountains. Nothing has fundamentally changed since then. If I was so inclined, I could go move into his abandoned cabin. So could you, or maybe you have, if only you knew where it was.

Clearly what you mean is that one cannot be productive without working with others. This is true, back in the time of Jesus, living on your own in the mountains only meant accepting a living standard 1/2 that of getting a job in Rome. Today, that living standard is 1/20th. The subsistance standard of living of the mountains has actually improved with time, thanks to steel tools and hunting rifles, but the standard of living that working for customers in the city can offer has exploded. So I can see why you are being tricked into believing there is no alternative to such life, but that does not make it true.

2/28/2010 5:50:24 PM

Quote :

"What are you talking about? I know lots of people that work on their own. The vast majority of corporations in this country are sole-proprietorship."

Again, you have to have money to make money. It would be nice if bannks were fair and allowed anyone to take out a loan and start a business that had a legit shot at competing with businesses who had more money. I hate when people try and use smal business owners who started off with all sorts of capital and often easily make 250k as "americans working on their own".

Quote :

"You may own the factory, but you don't eat if no one wants to buy what your factory makes. "

its often the workers buying the product because its a necessity. Thus the slave makes the necessity with their labor and is allowed to have a small amount of it in return. what a joke.

Quote :

"So could you, or maybe you have, if only you knew where it was. "

you have to have the money to own and maintain land.

2/28/2010 6:22:35 PM

Quote :

"B In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said."

(this one made me laugh a bit. Blind unconventionalism is the perfect measure of people who think they're smart but aren't smart enough to be aware of what they're doing... see: college athiests who don't know what they're talking about, many of the people who join any counterculture movement ever)

Quote :

" It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people."

Quote :

""Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said."

So... given these definitions and the fact that they called liberalism "unconventional"... the study has virtually nothing to do with modern American politics. It's not a bad definition of liberalism, really, just not one that is relevant to the Reps vs Dems idea of "conservative" and "liberal".

So, as a study with almost no bearing on politics, it's a good (if unsurprising) study. Given the third thing I quoted, they likely could have gotten an even better definition of liberal by going farther than simply concern for "genetically non-related" people. Many conservative Christians (low IQ rating, by this study), for example, may LOVE giving to genetically non-related people and total strangers through a church or other religious charity, but it's likely that many wouldn't be quite as eager to give if they were presented with a secular charity that donates to impoverished children of the world from all backgrounds.

The study tries to, very mildly, measure generosity vs xenophobia, using "liberal" and "conservative" because those two things do kind of line up along party lines... but there would be so many more effective methods than that without the veil of pseudo-political-relevance. Then again, maybe (probably) it's just the way the article is written obscuring what may have been a very well-thought-out study.


For anyone who didn't bother actually reading anything I said, here's something shorter:
ITT moron acts amusingly smug, mambagrl continues to be goddamned stupid, and LoneSnark wastes his time by treating mambagrl like she's a real person with a real brain.

2/28/2010 6:54:47 PM

Quote :

"Again, you have to have money to make money."

And here in America, money is readily available. Get a job and people will just give you money in exchange for your time. Money you can use however you see fit: take a vacation to Hawaii, buy a house, or save it all in expectation of starting your own business. This is freedom unavailable under communism.

Quote :

"its often the workers buying the product because its a necessity. Thus the slave makes the necessity with their labor and is allowed to have a small amount of it in return. what a joke."

You are aware that profits make up only about 9% of GDP, right? (far less right now, thanks to the recession). And that the workers in question are free to spend their wages buying stock, if they so choose?


Note how the New York times includes 'overall compensation' in the name of journalistic integrity, but tried to pretend it isn't there. An amazing graph, in my opinion. Workers are being compensated with a larger share of GDP than they got in the 60s.

Quote :

"LoneSnark wastes his time by treating mambagrl like she's a real person with a real brain."

I like hearing myself type.

[Edited on February 28, 2010 at 7:05 PM. Reason : graph + ^]

2/28/2010 6:57:55 PM

so, basically we have a bullshit definition of liberalism that was used, and moron thinks it actually means something

2/28/2010 7:12:02 PM

To address the original topic:

1. This has no bearing on which side is right and which side is wrong. Smart people can be wrong.

2. Does this surprise anyone? The conservative movement today is, at its core, anti-intellectual.

2/28/2010 7:23:05 PM

^^ sounds like someone is mad because they're dumb.

2/28/2010 7:44:14 PM

ahhh, the old "anti-intellectual" kool-aid. I love it

2/28/2010 9:08:53 PM