Recommended Posts
wmw999 2,122
Well, the source isn't exactly biased towards US liberals
That said, the part about the differences not being stunning is entirely valid.
But don't diss the social sciences. The fact that they are still too squishy to quantify exactly does not make them worthless. Really. Because people don't quantify exactly. All you can do when dealing with people (or the future) is take pieces of data and put them together, and try to convince folks. Even if you're talking about scientific data. Remember that AGW debate? It's based on data.
Only the past is thoroughly quantifiable, and while it's very useful to study, it doesn't guarantee the future.
So you're going to be stuck with the study of squishy things.
Wendy P.
QuoteEvolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
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.
That said, the part about the differences not being stunning is entirely valid.
But don't diss the social sciences. The fact that they are still too squishy to quantify exactly does not make them worthless. Really. Because people don't quantify exactly. All you can do when dealing with people (or the future) is take pieces of data and put them together, and try to convince folks. Even if you're talking about scientific data. Remember that AGW debate? It's based on data.
Only the past is thoroughly quantifiable, and while it's very useful to study, it doesn't guarantee the future.
So you're going to be stuck with the study of squishy things.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteHey Quade, you should take the political compass test (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2114986;) and update the thread so we can confirm this Ultra Lib moderator imbalance.
Billvon is clearly sticking out already.
Mostly because I don't agree with a number of assumptions they've made, I don't like two dimensional testing as a means for judging ones worth and they've never revealed their methodology.
In other words, I think the test is flawed to begin with.
I don't think anyone is talking about "judging one's worth.".
Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rhaig 0
Quote
Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means.
odd... I thought the point of the thread was a perceived imbalance in the moderation of this forum.
and the definition of the word liberal depends on your context, and viewpoint.
The most generic one-word definition I can think of is "permissive". That certainly misses on many viewpoints and is completely off depending on your context.
Let's not get into the preciseness of the use of the English language.
--
Rob
Rob
Calvin19 0
QuoteQuoteMaybe because studies show that liberals are on average more intelligent than the opposing parties?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html
Matt this is a myth Liberals continue to spew. It's just not true. The media are the last people to listen to since the media are Liberals and are in the business to brainwash people into whatever agenda they want to pursue.
Liberals who happen to be scientists (and other technical fields) are obviously very intelligent individuals. But Liberals who majored in Art History and other Social Studies continue to pound their chest proclaiming their supreme intellect while non-liberal business oriented entrepreneurial individuals are far more intelligent, have much stronger work ethics and are the bread and butter than keeps the economy ticking (and before anyone whines about the current recession, anyone with half a brain with knowledge about how economies work knows the economy is cyclical. There will always be times of growth and times when the economy is pushed too far and it is time to recede).
So for all the University educated people who majored in business, science, technology, engineering and medical fields (plus a few others) my hat goes off to you people. You are very smart. For all the University educated people who majored in Liberal Art History and other social studies ... STFU with your rhetoric about how supremely intelligent that you are because the vast majority of the time you are wasting everyone's time spewing forth your useless crap that nobody but yourself and your fellow lemmings care about. I will say one thing though. All these leftist Liberal artsy'farts socialists are damn good at indoctrinating the youth of the world into their Marxist ideology. The battle is not lost, but many young people these days (thanks to the pathetic state of the family and the piss poor job parents are doing raising their children) may not call themselves communists, but they sure believe in the Marxist dream. The goal of world communism may just be a few short decades away. Why work in life when you can be brainwashed from a young age by all the educators you are ever exposed to that the nanny state will be there to manage every aspect of your life for you.
I have no argument here. maybe a better way for me to put it would be "researchers seem to believe" instead of "studies show". It's not like I am monotonous.
-SPACE-
quade 3
QuoteQuote
Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means.
odd... I thought the point of the thread was a perceived imbalance in the moderation of this forum.
And pretty much the only way there would be a perceived "imbalance" would be if somebody thought there was something wrong.Quote
and the definition of the word liberal depends on your context, and viewpoint. The most generic one-word definition I can think of is "permissive".
Not when it comes to politics. It's actually very well defined when it comes to political science. Your definition of "permissive" is pretty far off the mark. That's ok though, you've probably just heard it used incorrectly a LOT of times by certain members of the right wing that have attempted to use the word itself as a wedge issue.
While certainly not definitive, you might check out a political science text on the subject or if you want the short version, check out the Wikipedia entry here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
At the very least, read the first three paragraphs and then compare them to what you've said about the word and how you generally have understood it up to this point.
***Let's not get into the preciseness of the use of the English language.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not in my nature. I will NOT dumb down my thinking for the benefit of simply being agreeable to the use of words when they're used to attack me.
I don't think you would either.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means.
odd... I thought the point of the thread was a perceived imbalance in the moderation of this forum.
And pretty much the only way there would be a perceived "imbalance" would be if somebody thought there was something wrong.
thus my note about context and point of view.Quote
***
and the definition of the word liberal depends on your context, and viewpoint. The most generic one-word definition I can think of is "permissive".
Not when it comes to politics. It's actually very well defined when it comes to political science. Your definition of "permissive" is pretty far off the mark.
did you read the part you clipped "That certainly misses on many viewpoints and is completely off depending on your context. "
or did you snip it to change the meaning of what I said? :)Quote
That's ok though, you've probably just heard it used incorrectly a LOT of times by certain members of the right wing that have attempted to use the word itself as a wedge issue.
you're planing a lucky now. thinking you know what I think, and beyond that apologizing for me.
please don't (on either account)Quote
While certainly not definitive, you might check out a political science text on the subject or if you want the short version, check out the Wikipedia entry here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
now you're adding a context. that would change my "generic" definition.
***
***Let's not get into the preciseness of the use of the English language.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not in my nature. I will NOT dumb down my thinking for the benefit of simply being agreeable to the use of words when they're used to attack me.
I don't think you would either.
I do recognize that the English language can be very precise, yet when used that way is hard to read. It's mostly used in more general terms, and as such, tends to be rather imprecise, and subject to mis-interpretation.
You may have inferred that I thought you should dumb down your thinking. you were incorrect. Perhaps I was unclear in my text. (precise written communication is not my strong suit) We can start multiple threads about how the language is used and mis-used, and none of it is precise enough for anyone else. All of those threads will turn into threads about racism, politics, and/or guns. Let's not.
--
Rob
Rob
Bolas 5
QuoteSo for all the University educated people who majored in business, science, technology, engineering and medical fields (plus a few others) my hat goes off to you people. You are very smart.
Just because someone gets a degree doesn't mean they are smart. All it means is they got the grades necessary to pass. That could be due to intelligence, but also could be cheating, a good bullshitter, etc.
As expensive as colleges have gotten, unless one has a way to pay for it besides going into massive debt, it just may not make economic sense for some careers anymore as well.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
champu 1
QuoteQuoteQuoteMostly because I don't agree with a number of assumptions they've made, I don't like two dimensional testing as a means for judging ones worth and they've never revealed their methodology.
In other words, I think the test is flawed to begin with.
I don't think anyone is talking about "judging one's worth." It's entirely possible for someone to have value regardless of where they stand. On the other hand, if someone takes the evaluation and they are plastered anywhere on the edges of the plot it may not be worth your time to discuss certain things with them. Personally, I think you're being a little paranoid.
Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means.
I don't think that's the predominant direction of this thread. I think the couple claims that any leanings affect moderator performance have fallen pretty flat.
...of course if you DID post your results and it turned out you WERE an ultra left-winger it might explain why you've been failing to meet your warning quota lately.
quade 3
Ultra left-winger does not equal libertarian. Believe it or not, I actually do believe in "he who rules the least, rules the best" and I have actually cut people quite a bit of slack on both sides of the aisle here regardless of how "lefty" or "whateverthefuck" label they want to attach to that philosophy.
Fortunately, there is no quota, although it would be incredibly easy to meet on most days.
Fortunately, there is no quota, although it would be incredibly easy to meet on most days.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteI actually do believe in "he who rules the least, rules the best"
Concur.
How very Libertarian of you, lefty.
"Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be." ~ Temple Grandin
winsor 186
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHey Quade, you should take the political compass test (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2114986;) and update the thread so we can confirm this Ultra Lib moderator imbalance.
Billvon is clearly sticking out already.
Mostly because I don't agree with a number of assumptions they've made, I don't like two dimensional testing as a means for judging ones worth and they've never revealed their methodology.
In other words, I think the test is flawed to begin with.
I don't think anyone is talking about "judging one's worth.".
Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means.
Politically, it has been defined with regard to application of government. That is to say, should we address problem X, Y or Z with a liberal dose of government, or should we be conservative in our use of government in seeking a solution?
I, for one, am fascinated by people who somehow think that a governmental solution is the default best. Robert Heinlein noted that “Government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master," and I think he was, if anything, an optimist.
Then again, I think Orwell was an optimist.
I consider myself to be conservative to the extent that I am very leery of government in general - its good intentions are of the variety with which the road to hell is paved - and that I begrudge much of anyone the right to do my thinking for me.
I really don't give a rat's ass what you and the object of your affection do behind closed doors (no, really - spare me), and think abortion should be kept safe and legal until the fetus can vote, so that puts me out of touch with the religious right.
OTOH, I am wildly indifferent to the plight of various pressure groups who strike me as being victims of their own choices (Sam Kinnison did a pretty good bit about "Feed The Children" advertising from the same standpoint). This separates me from the bleeding heart left pretty solidly.
I distrust those in whom skepticism is weak, regardless of how they describe themselves.
BSBD,
Winsor
Matt this is a myth Liberals continue to spew. It's just not true. The media are the last people to listen to since the media are Liberals and are in the business to brainwash people into whatever agenda they want to pursue.
Liberals who happen to be scientists (and other technical fields) are obviously very intelligent individuals. But Liberals who majored in Art History and other Social Studies continue to pound their chest proclaiming their supreme intellect while non-liberal business oriented entrepreneurial individuals are far more intelligent, have much stronger work ethics and are the bread and butter than keeps the economy ticking (and before anyone whines about the current recession, anyone with half a brain with knowledge about how economies work knows the economy is cyclical. There will always be times of growth and times when the economy is pushed too far and it is time to recede).
So for all the University educated people who majored in business, science, technology, engineering and medical fields (plus a few others) my hat goes off to you people. You are very smart. For all the University educated people who majored in Liberal Art History and other social studies ... STFU with your rhetoric about how supremely intelligent that you are because the vast majority of the time you are wasting everyone's time spewing forth your useless crap that nobody but yourself and your fellow lemmings care about. I will say one thing though. All these leftist Liberal artsy'farts socialists are damn good at indoctrinating the youth of the world into their Marxist ideology. The battle is not lost, but many young people these days (thanks to the pathetic state of the family and the piss poor job parents are doing raising their children) may not call themselves communists, but they sure believe in the Marxist dream. The goal of world communism may just be a few short decades away. Why work in life when you can be brainwashed from a young age by all the educators you are ever exposed to that the nanny state will be there to manage every aspect of your life for you.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites