NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.

Centrists are the smartest of all.

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.
Nice rant?

Last time I paid attention to the media the right was calling us "Intellectual elitists" almost as much as anyone on our side claimed such a thing.

Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.

Of course. But fewer than there are on yours.

Well, the survey might have been covering the South, with the families of Earl, his sister Gabiel (spelled wrong for comic reasons), and their web toed kids.

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack Liberals.

Then again, if they HAD, the Congress wouldn't have changed hands, would it?

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.
Compensating much?

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack Liberals.

Then again, if they HAD, the Congress wouldn't have changed hands, would it?

Well the problem there was that the Neo-Cons were just like the Democrats, they spent too much, expanded the power of Gov. Co. and basically gave Bush unlimited control, so yea they were bound to lose Congress.

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack LiberalsIn reality that may be read either way.

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack Liberals.

Then again, if they HAD, the Congress wouldn't have changed hands, would it?

Also, the same can be applied to Liberals attacking Conservatives Kat. ;)

Well the problem there was that the Neo-Cons were just like the Democrats, they spent too much, expanded the power of Gov. Co. and basically gave Bush unlimited control, so yea they were bound to lose Congress.

Also, everything was a democrats fault. And if you couldn't pin it on a democrat, the guy responsible mysertirously became a democrat...

Well the problem there was that the Neo-Cons were just like the Democrats, they spent too much, expanded the power of Gov. Co. and basically gave Bush unlimited control, so yea they were bound to lose Congress.

You seem to actually believe that conservatives are really for small government. They're not.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that shows people can be boxed into "liberal" and "conservative".

You seem to actually believe that conservatives are really for small government.

Paleoconservatives are. Neoconservatives and fascists masquerading as paleoconservatives (i.e., Council of Conservative Citizens) are not.

Last time I paid attention to the media the right was calling us "Intellectual elitists" almost as much as anyone on our side claimed such a thing.
Only in America called "intellectual" be used as an insult.

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack Liberals.
Does this mean doing just one of the above options is okay?

Foam at the mouth or attack Liberals.

C'mon, Neocons! You choose!

Only in America called "intellectual" be used as an insult.


Does this mean doing just one of the above options is okay?

Foam at the mouth or attack Liberals.

C'mon, Neocons! You choose!

Yeah go figure we are having failing grades in a country where smart kids get their ass kicked in school and institutions of higher learning get slammed all around by people it kind of sickens me

Paleoconservatives are. Neoconservatives and fascists masquerading as paleoconservatives (i.e., Council of Conservative Citizens) are not.

I am a Paleoconservative.

"Not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative.

165? Really now? 100 is "average", 135 is mensa material. 150 is extraordinarily bright, genious level basically.

But seriously, 165? Your girlfriend pushing Einstein levels? Most IQ tests won't even record above 160...

Yeah go figure we are having failing grades in a country where smart kids get their ass kicked in school and institutions of higher learning get slammed all around by people it kind of sickens me

Times like this I envy India...

Only in America called "intellectual" be used as an insult.

Proud to be ignorant. No wonder only Turkey has more people who don't believe in evolution. Sigh.

And am I alone in reading the OP as though it were from a seven-year old stamping his feet and yelling "I am too smart! Yuh huh!"?

I am a Paleoconservative.

I know.

Only in America called "intellectual" be used as an insult.

Only in America can one of the intellectual elite attack the intellectual elite with a straight face.

Yeah go figure we are having failing grades in a country where smart kids get their ass kicked in school and institutions of higher learning get slammed all around by people it kind of sickens me
To be fair to the US, it seems to be getting that way everywhere.
Let's all celebrate mediocrity, and disparage those who try!

Proud to be ignorant. No wonder only Turkey has more people who don't believe in evolution. Sigh.

And am I alone in reading the OP as though it were from a seven-year old stamping his feet and yelling "I am too smart! Yuh huh!"?

^^^ Thank you for proving my point.

165? Really now? 100 is "average", 135 is mensa material. 150 is extraordinarily bright, genious level basically.

But seriously, 165? Your girlfriend pushing Einstein levels? Most IQ tests won't even record above 160...

Well that what she tells me, and so far she has not given me any reason to distrust her.

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.
...

Once again I agree completely with Wilgrove. That's two in a row. Good job, buddy.

Now, I'm a libertarian socially and a moderate economically, so the way I see it I don't fit into either Liberal or Conservative, especially not the American definition. But he's right. Your political ideaology does not determine your intelligence, nor is someone of the other ideaology likely to be stupider or smarter than you. He says it in a confrontational way, but he's still right.

Well that what she tells me, and so far she has not given me any reason to distrust her.

has she written any ground breaking work in the field of biochemistry or subatomic physics?

No?

Then the chick aint got 165 IQ, sorry. 165 isn't "hey, I'm smart", 165 isn't "I was my school valedictorian", 165 isn't "I was always the bright one in my family".

165 is "hey, I think I cured cancer" levels. 165 is in the range of Einstein, Newton, Descartes kinda shit. Like, Nobel Prize winners and ground breaking theorists. Basically "high genius" levels.

And I'm sure your girl is very bright and all, but 165? Bullshit.

Proud to be ignorant. No wonder only Turkey has more people who don't believe in evolution. Sigh.

And am I alone in reading the OP as though it were from a seven-year old stamping his feet and yelling "I am too smart! Yuh huh!"?
Seven?
You flatter him, you really do.
I teach seven year-olds and haven't had any of them do this. I was picking 4 yr-old. 5 tops.

I'm reminded of Violet Elizabeth Bott from the "Just William" series here.

No wonder only Turkey has more people who don't believe in evolution. Sigh.

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly4.jpg

^^^ Thank you for proving my point.

You wrote it. Personally, I think the entire discussion is ludicrous, but hey, I'm one of those "intellectual elites." The fact is that there are plenty of very smart people of all political stripes, and to make sweeping generalizations about classes of people is foolish--which is why I try to stay away from doing it.

But of course, in my post, I wasn't talking about groups. I was talking about you and the tone of your writing.

...

Once again I agree completely with Wilgrove. That's two in a row. Good job, buddy.

Now, I'm a libertarian socially and a moderate economically, so the way I see it I don't fit into either Liberal or Conservative, especially not the American definition. But he's right. Your political ideaology does not determine your intelligence, nor is someone of the other ideaology likely to be stupider or smarter than you. He says it in a confrontational way, but he's still right.

Yea it's amazing, so far I've managed to get you, The Nazz, and UpwardThrust to agree with me on something lol. I know it's a bit confrontational, but that's just the way I am. I hate beating around the bush and try to put things in a "nice" way. I've been told that I am brute, brutally honest, and sometimes my words can be like billy clubs. That's just who I am and I don't see any reason to change.

You wrote it. Personally, I think the entire discussion is ludicrous, but hey, I'm one of those "intellectual elites." The fact is that there are plenty of very smart people of all political stripes, and to make sweeping generalizations about classes of people is foolish--which is why I try to stay away from doing it.

But of course, in my post, I wasn't talking about groups. I was talking about you and the tone of your writing.

I was making the same statement, but in a different manner. I tend to be more brute with my words I realize this. No I won't change that style either. Just once I would like to see a study that says "Hey theres idiots on both sides, so all previous studies saying this side is smarter or this side is smarter is complete bunk!"

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly4.jpg

Yup (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19125653.700-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html)

Yea it's amazing, so far I've managed to get you, The Nazz, and UpwardThrust to agree with me on something lol. I know it's a bit confrontational, but that's just the way I am. I hate beating around the bush and try to put things in a "nice" way. I've been told that I am brute, brutally honest, and sometimes my words can be like billy clubs. That's just who I am and I don't see any reason to change.

You want to know why you should change? Because when you sound off without putting a single bit of thought inot your words, without wondering for a moment if you might be correct, or how others might perceive what you are saying, you end up making claims on a public forum that your girlfriend is slightly smarter than Einstein.

has she written any ground breaking work in the field of biochemistry or subatomic physics?

No?

Then the chick aint got 165 IQ, sorry. 165 isn't "hey, I'm smart", 165 isn't "I was my school valedictorian", 165 isn't "I was always the bright one in my family".

165 is "hey, I think I cured cancer" levels. 165 is in the range of Einstein, Newton, Descartes kinda shit. Like, Nobel Prize winners and ground breaking theorists. Basically "high genius" levels.

And I'm sure your girl is very bright and all, but 165? Bullshit.

She's more into astronomy, and no she hasn't she's still learning and is still working on her school work.

She's more into astronomy, and no she hasn't she's still learning and is still working on her school work.

at a 165 IQ, at her age, she'd be teaching it. I don't think you quite understand just how high a 165 IQ actually is.

You want to know why you should change? Because when you sound off without putting a single bit of thought inot your words, without wondering for a moment if you might be correct, or how others might perceive what you are saying, you end up making claims on a public forum that your girlfriend is slightly smarter than Einstein.

Meh, I like my straightfoward cut the bull crap writing style, so no. Thanks for the advice though.

Well that what she tells me, and so far she has not given me any reason to distrust her.

But how are we supposed to trust you? I mean for the love of god for most of the tests 140 qualifies you for research scientist

Stephen Hawking is usually estimated at 160 (depending on test some put him closer to 200 but most of those are not the standard tests)

Yea it's amazing, so far I've managed to get you, The Nazz, and UpwardThrust to agree with me on something lol. I know it's a bit confrontational, but that's just the way I am. I hate beating around the bush and try to put things in a "nice" way. I've been told that I am brute, brutally honest, and sometimes my words can be like billy clubs. That's just who I am and I don't see any reason to change.

Fair enough. You're honest, which I respect. It's why I like you and respect you despite our political differences.

Yup (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19125653.700-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html)

Scary. :(

I'm a Christian, but I believe in it. Why can't others? :confused:

has she written any ground breaking work in the field of biochemistry or subatomic physics?

No?

Then the chick aint got 165 IQ, sorry. 165 isn't "hey, I'm smart", 165 isn't "I was my school valedictorian", 165 isn't "I was always the bright one in my family".

165 is "hey, I think I cured cancer" levels. 165 is in the range of Einstein, Newton, Descartes kinda shit. Like, Nobel Prize winners and ground breaking theorists. Basically "high genius" levels.

And I'm sure your girl is very bright and all, but 165? Bullshit.

Yes, because it:

1) Never happens

2) Couldn't happen to Wilgrove

Besides, IQ is bullshit. If I did an IQ test, I'd probably get in the 90s. But I'm pretty smart in my specific fields.

Ok, this will be the last post regarding my girl's IQ, all I know is that they gave her a test back when she was a freshman in high school, and this is what she was tested. No I didn't know her then, no I don't know what kind of test is it, and until she takes another test to prove it, I really have no reason to distrust her because so far she has been completely honest with me in this relationship.

Now, back to my rant, and what I talked about.

Scary. :(

I'm a Christian, but I believe in it. Why can't others? :confused:

Beats the shit out of me. But it scares me, no question.

Yea it's amazing, so far I've managed to get you, The Nazz, and UpwardThrust to agree with me on something lol.
What are their political views anyway?

What are their political views anyway?

Nazz is a college professor who supports the Demmies. I don't know about Upward Thrust, but I'm a libertarian socially and a moderate economically, as I already said, though that doesn't really get to the heart of the matter.

Yes, because it:

1) Never happens

2) Couldn't happen to Wilgrove

Besides, IQ is bullshit. If I did an IQ test, I'd probably get in the 90s. But I'm pretty smart in my specific fields.

Considering an IQ if 160 is only .01% of the population its a fairly safe bet

What are their political views anyway?

Usually libertarian

Nazz is a college professor who supports the Demmies. I don't know about Upward Thrust, but I'm a libertarian socially and a moderate economically, as I already said, though that doesn't really get to the heart of the matter.

Usually libertarian

I like to keep track of political opinions. Pure curiosity (and a preventive measure to avoid misunderstandings). :)

Nazz is a college professor who supports the Demmies. I don't know about Upward Thrust, but I'm a libertarian socially and a moderate economically, as I already said, though that doesn't really get to the heart of the matter.

Libertarian socially (which often brings me into the field of the dems normally but I am a lot more ficaly conservative then the "republicans" party in actuality)

I also teach collage course on top of being the head of the networking department (though I am adjunct faculty as I am just starting on my doctorate, two masters though)

What are their political views anyway?

I am Conservative when it comes to government, and how big it should be physical size and in powers. I believe that the government is too big nowadays, and that it interferes too much with our private lives. I am also Conservative when it comes to our taxes, I believe that not only are our taxes too high, but the tax system with the IRS is just too damn complicated. You get tangled in all of this red tape it's like being trapped in a spider web. That's why I am a big supporter for the Fair Tax plan. Now socially, I am liberal. I really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home with yourself, one or more consenting adult(s). I don't care how you run your business, and I don't care what you do to your body. I believe Gov. Co. intrudes too much in the private life of it's citizens. I also believe that the private sector and public sector should be separate. That's basically the gist of what I believe.

Hey, to all those who are hassling Wilgrove for his 'my g/f is a genius' statement, lay off.
I just asked my Dad - who's a former heavyweight boxing champion of the world, and a research scientist for NASA - whether it's possible for Wilgrove's g/f to have a 165IQ and he said yep.

So there you go.
It is possible.
And everything ppl post on the internet is the truth.

I like to keep track of political opinions. Pure curiosity (and a preventive measure to avoid misunderstandings). :)

No worries it helps against "Air boxing" when you misread someone POV and end up completely missing their point or actual stance.

Hey, to all those who are hassling Wilgrove for his 'my g/f is a genius' statement, lay off.
I just asked my Dad - who's a former heavyweight boxing champion of the world, and a research scientist for NASA - whether it's possible for Wilgrove's g/f to have a 165IQ and he said yep.

So there you go.
It is possible.
And everything ppl post on the internet is the truth.

Ha ha... :rolleyes:

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.I think the point of the study was that there were more dumb conservatives than there were dumb liberals, not that being conservative automatically made you dumber than if you were liberal.

I am Conservative when it comes to government, and how big it should be physical size and in powers. I believe that the government is too big nowadays, and that it interferes too much with our private lives. I am also Conservative when it comes to our taxes, I believe that not only are our taxes too high, but the tax system with the IRS is just too damn complicated. You get tangled in all of this red tape it's like being trapped in a spider web. That's why I am a big supporter for the Fair Tax plan. Now socially, I am liberal. I really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home with yourself, one or more consenting adult(s). I don't care how you run your business, and I don't care what you do to your body. I believe Gov. Co. intrudes too much in the private life of it's citizens. That's basically the gist of what I believe.
One of the fabled paleocons. :)

No worries it helps against "Air boxing" when you misread someone POV and end up completely missing their point or actual stance.
As I did the other day with Smunkeeville. :p

One of the fabled paleocons. :)


Yep we're still out there. :D

I like to keep track of political opinions. Pure curiosity (and a preventive measure to avoid misunderstandings). :)

A good idea. Europa Maxima knows what he's doing.

Hey, to all those who are hassling Wilgrove for his 'my g/f is a genius' statement, lay off.
I just asked my Dad - who's a former heavyweight boxing champion of the world, and a research scientist for NASA - whether it's possible for Wilgrove's g/f to have a 165IQ and he said yep.

Well according to this one contestant on Beauty and the Geek, she had 3000 IQ or something. So you never know. :) That'd make her 30 times more intelligent than your average Joe.

I like my straightfoward cut the bull crap writing style

You don't have a "straightforward cut the bull crap writing style."

Well according to this one contestant on Beauty and the Geek, she had 3000 IQ or something. So you never know. :) That'd make her 30 times more intelligent than your average Joe.

Well she is def. smarter than your average Joe. ;)

Well she is def. smarter than your average Joe. ;)

heh, with a 165 she's smarter than your average nobel prize winner...

How about we compromise, and say we're all idiots.

See, problem solved!

heh, with a 165 she's smarter than your average nobel prize winner...
I shudder to think what a religious Republican could do with an IQ that high... :eek: Imagine Ann Coulter with double her current IQ.

I shudder to think what a religious Republican could do with an IQ that high... :eek: Imagine Ann Coulter with double her current IQ.

This rant would not exist because none of the studies would've existed. :p

You don't have a "straightforward cut the bull crap writing style."
Yes. That, I would attribute to BAAWAKnights - to the point he even does away with the arguing, let alone the "bull crap". A true master of parsimony.

Yes. That, I would attribute to BAAWAKnights - to the point he even does away with the arguing, let alone the "bull crap".

No kidding I have trouble agreeing with him on things where we philosophically agree.

I shudder to think what a religious Republican could do with an IQ that high... :eek: Imagine Ann Coulter with double her current IQ.

What horrors could she reek with 120 IQ points? Had to be said.

No kidding I have trouble agreeing with him on things where we philosophically agree.
Prove it.

What horrors could she reek with 120 IQ points? Had to be said.
Oh, well make that 2.5x her IQ then. :)

Prove it.


Oh, well make that 2.5x her IQ then. :)

Lol yeah you got the impression down cold :)

Prove it.


Oh, well make that 2.5x her IQ then. :)

I thought you liked Ann Coulter.

I thought you liked Ann Coulter.
Oh I do, and I don't really think she's stupid. However, with the junk she publishes her IQ might as well have been in the range of 60 (if she honestly believed in it). She'd still be well above Bush, if that would be any consolation. And most of her patrons who take her work seriously.

I shudder to think what a religious Republican could do with an IQ that high... :eek: Imagine Ann Coulter with double her current IQ.

An IQ of 0 is still, well, 0.

She'd still be well above Bush, if that would be any consolation.

Thats over 99% of the population.

Yep we're still out there. :D

Wow. I thought I was alone on this board.

Lol yeah you got the impression down cold :)
Prov...

:)

I've yet to have the pleasure of having to argue against him. When he does argue, he is good - otherwise it turns into gainsaying.

How about we compromise, and say we're all idiots.

See, problem solved!

:D

Meh, I like my straightfoward cut the bull crap writing style, so no. Thanks for the advice though.

The problem is, from what I've observed, you don't have a "straightforward cut the crap" writing style.

You have a "I haven't really thought this point trough so I'm just going to fling it out there without really checking to make sure I know what I'm saying or figure out how I'm going to count the obvious deficiencies of my argument" style.

There's a very thin line between "straightforward" and "lack of forthought". One has value, the other doesn't. Unfortunatly most who fall into the second tend to think they fall into the first.

This whole point for instance was basically a long string of "people say we're dumb, but we're SMART damn it! My girlfriend says so!". That's not a way to win an argument. That's not even a way to MAKE an argument. In fact it's not really a way to do anything constructive at all. And as much as you might think it's you being "straightforward bull crap cutting" really to most of us it just looks whiney, childish, and less "cutting of the bull crap" and more just plain old bull headed immaturity.

:D

Tell me I'm wrong, man, tell me I'm wrong!

Tell me I'm wrong, man, tell me I'm wrong!
Well some of us are just bigger idiots than others. :)

Well some of us are just bigger idiots than others. :)

No. I have come to the conclusion that we are all equally idiotic. Just some are idiotic in different ways.

No. I have come to the conclusion that we are all equally idiotic. Just some are idiotic in different ways.
Yep, we're one diverse collection of morons, that is true.

has she written any ground breaking work in the field of biochemistry or subatomic physics?

No?

Then the chick aint got 165 IQ, sorry. 165 isn't "hey, I'm smart", 165 isn't "I was my school valedictorian", 165 isn't "I was always the bright one in my family".

165 is "hey, I think I cured cancer" levels. 165 is in the range of Einstein, Newton, Descartes kinda shit. Like, Nobel Prize winners and ground breaking theorists. Basically "high genius" levels.

And I'm sure your girl is very bright and all, but 165? Bullshit.

You overestimate both the degree to which an IQ score is an accurate measure of intelligence and/or ability and the practical difference between an IQ of 165 and an IQ of 150. My IQ is a fair amount higher than that of Wilgrove's girlfriend, and I'm sure as heck not likely to cure cancer anytime soon. Come to think of it, Marilyn vos Savant, who has an IQ of something like 215, has, as her great accomplishment, the ability to write a newspaper column in which she solves riddles. IQ just doesn't have as much significance as you seem to think it does.

The problem is, from what I've observed, you don't have a "straightforward cut the crap" writing style.

You have a "I haven't really thought this point trough so I'm just going to fling it out there without really checking to make sure I know what I'm saying or figure out how I'm going to count the obvious deficiencies of my argument" style.

and yet, this has been rolling around in my head for a few days.


There's a very thin line between "straightforward" and "lack of forthought". One has value, the other doesn't. Unfortunatly most who fall into the second tend to think they fall into the first.

Granted it was a bit confrontational, but I do believe I got my point across.

This whole point for instance was basically a long string of "people say we're dumb, but we're SMART damn it! My girlfriend says so!". That's not a way to win an argument. That's not even a way to MAKE an argument. In fact it's not really a way to do anything constructive at all. And as much as you might think it's you being "straightforward bull crap cutting" really to most of us it just looks whiney, childish, and less "cutting of the bull crap" and more just plain old bull headed immaturity.

Good job on concentrating on one sentance instead of the entire passage. You know it's good to analyze things, but you got to put things into context. The only reason I even put that example in there is to show that the studies can be false and suspect.

and really, if this was "whiny" and "childish" I would resort to the Rush Limbaugh tactics, of saying that "I'm always right and you're always wrong because I'm Conservative and you're a dirty liberal" but I did not do that.

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack Liberals.

Then again, if they HAD, the Congress wouldn't have changed hands, would it?

That's all you guys have been doing for six years. Apparently when you get it blasted into the public consciousness by every television, newspaper, and magazine news source for that long, it works. We don't have that advantage.

Yep, we're one diverse collection of morons, that is true.

Indeed we are. Weather black, white, yellow, red, arab, jew, eurotrash, ameriKKKan, ******, wetback, chink, cracker, fag, fascist, stalinist, jihadman, fundimentalist, or Irish, we're all morons.

Only in America called "intellectual" be used as an insult.

Being called an intellectual isn't an insult, being called an intellectual elitest is. No one likes a person who acts snobby and better than others. Saw this early on in the thread and had to comment.

Personally, to me it doesn't seem like the conservatives or liberals in my area are dumb, just that most haven't taken the time to think about their political stances, that they just follow what they were raised on, but are intelligent people otherwise. Kinda odd being a agnostic centrist in Bible Belt, you get strange points of view on stuff.

I'd like to see conservatives, here and abroad, prove their collective "intelligence" to me before I believe that rant.

I'd like to see conservatives, here and abroad, prove their collective "intelligence" to me before I believe that rant.

How are we to do that?

How are we to do that?

Well, i'll be honest - it'd be pretty hard when most self-proclaimed adherents of the ideology ignore reason completely. The majority of conservatives are against abortion, gay marriage and evolution and resort to the "The bible says it's bad - therefore it must be bad - our religion is absolute truth and should apply to everyone" justification. The moment a conservative can justify their opinions to the contrary without resorting to their gut feelings of revulsion (ie. personal bigotry) or centuries old religious texts and argue why the rights of a potential life are worth more than those of an actual life, explain exactly how gay marriage is going to destroy society and provide factual evidence against evolution, i'll concede and say that they might well harbour some signs of intelligence.

But even then, i'd have to:

Stop hearing fallacies of the "liberal media conspiracy" (or the Australian version, "left-wing bias")

Stop hearing how "political correctness" is destroying society (or at the least, stop hearing instances that have nothing to do with political correctness described as evidence of the fact.)

Stop hearing lamentations on how "real men" have disappeared (and stop being called a "fakkin long haired poofter" - and on that note, have them explain to me exactly why I must act in a certain way.)

Stop hearing thinly veiled racism.

See them stop with the attitude that violence is always an effective solution to problems.

And I could go on. This isn't addressed at you personally - this is addressed at "most conservatives". In my experience, most conservatives do think these things. So i'm not really expecting my opinion to change anytime soon.

heh, with a 165 she's smarter than your average nobel prize winner...

IQ does not measure intelligence. It measures how well you can take an IQ test. Hell, last time I took an IQ test I scored around 220. Did that mean I'm some freakishly intelligent person? No, it means that I'm really damn good at tests.


By the way, as to your earlier comment about most IQ tests not going above 160, that's completely false. Most IQ tests don't bother to measure above 200.

That's all you guys have been doing for six years. Apparently when you get it blasted into the public consciousness by every television, newspaper, and magazine news source for that long, it works. We don't have that advantage.

Kat's not a liberal.

Come to think of it, Marilyn vos Savant, who has an IQ of something like 215, has, as her great accomplishment, the ability to write a newspaper column in which she solves riddles. IQ just doesn't have as much significance as you seem to think it does.

Marilyn vos Savant has an IQ of 228 and the social insight of a brick.

Yeah go figure we are having failing grades in a country where smart kids get their ass kicked in school and institutions of higher learning get slammed all around by people it kind of sickens me

You all realize that the origin of "intellectual" as an insult was a veiled way of attacking Jews, right?

You all realize that the origin of "intellectual" as an insult was a veiled way of attacking Jews, right?

What does it matter now? at least to the intellectual levels in this country. Sure it is interesting to know the history of the insult but either way nowadays being smart is a bad thing or perceived in a negative way by many in school

and yet, this has been rolling around in my head for a few days.

Just because you've been thinking about it doesn't mean you've been thinking about it in a proper way.


Granted it was a bit confrontational, but I do believe I got my point across.

Frankly I don't think so, because I think your "point" is rather "pointless", or at very least, blatantly obvious, see below.

Good job on concentrating on one sentance instead of the entire passage. You know it's good to analyze things, but you got to put things into context. The only reason I even put that example in there is to show that the studies can be false and suspect.

Ah, now here we're getting to the meat of it. I have yet to see, and don't believe at all, that there is a single study, or has it been stated by anyone with a straight face that all liberal voters are smarter than all conservative voters.

What may have been suggested (I really don't know to be honest, don't care) is that on average liberal voters are smarter than, on average, conservative voters.

And guess what, you didn't do a damned thing to disprove that. All you said was "that's not true, my girlfriend and I are smart!". Which again, does't do a damn thing to discount averages. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but you didn't do anything to show one way or another.

Even if conservative voters are ON AVERAGE less intelligent than liberal voters ON AVERAGE, this doesn't in any way discount the existance of smart conservatives, or stupid liberals. It's an average, nothing more. Your existance, or the existance of your girlfriend, doesn't disprove jack shit all. You haven't cast a study into doubt at all, all you have demonstrated is "an average isn't true for the whole". Well...no shit.

So once again, I'll ask. What, exactly, was your point? Because frankly...I'm not so sure you got it across so well. That is, unless your point was to do nothing more than go "hey, look at me! I'm smart! S-M-R-T!", which coupled with your "how to fix Iraq" bs and your great "real men" insight of the past, along with your tinly veiled racism, really comes across as nothing more than intellectual masturbation to your own supposed superiority.

So I'll ask again, what do you think your point actually was, and do you think you did a thing to "prove" it? Because as I see it, you talked about "studies" without either supplying those studies or doing anything to refute them.

and really, if this was "whiny" and "childish" I would resort to the Rush Limbaugh tactics, of saying that "I'm always right and you're always wrong because I'm Conservative and you're a dirty liberal" but I did not do that.

So what have you done differently? "it's not true on average conservatives are less intelligent than liberals because my girlfriend and I are smart"? I'm not saying i believe it one way or the other, but you've done nothing to disprove the concept. And either you think you do, in which case you've disproved your entire point, or again, you just took the opportunity to talk about how smart you are.

That's all you guys have been doing for six years. Apparently when you get it blasted into the public consciousness by every television, newspaper, and magazine news source for that long, it works. We don't have that advantage.I can't wait until there's a Democrat President so we can prove that that whole "Liberal Media Conspiracy" bullshit is bullshit, and that the news are just reporting about what they think the people want to hear: that politicians, especially those in power, suck.

I can't wait until there's a Democrat President so we can prove that that whole "Liberal Media Conspiracy" bullshit is bullshit, and that the news are just reporting about what they think the people want to hear: that politicians, especially those in power, suck.
Why wait? Take a look back to the way the press treated President Clinton and Candidate Gore in 2000, and then compare that to the kid glove treatment Bush got until about a year ago. Anyone who's willing to look at it honestly will admit, at the very least, that there is no left-wing bias in the news media as a whole.

IQ means diddly squat.

Why wait? Take a look back to the way the press treated President Clinton and Candidate Gore in 2000, and then compare that to the kid glove treatment Bush got until about a year ago. Anyone who's willing to look at it honestly will admit, at the very least, that there is no left-wing bias in the news media as a whole.I didn't get any American television at the time, so I'm not in any position to call that.

I didn't get any American television at the time, so I'm not in any position to call that.Extends past television, though they were egregious. But you can look at the way the papers covered the non-scandal of Whitewater, and if you want a good look at the way they lied about Gore, go to the archives of The Daily Howler, by Bob Somerby.

I think I read somewhere some statistic that democratics or liberals are more likely to have a 4 year degree than conservatives....just throwing that out there, doesn't mean they are smarter, but a higher percentage are college educated.

I think I'm the one who cited a study about the coralation between conservative political leanings and mental instability/psychosis. Of the patients surveyed in that study, the more unstable they were, the more likely they were to vote for GWB. And, another study done years before also yielded similar results in leanings for Nixon.

Science is science, and maybe I'm not exhaustive enough in my searching, but
Im as yet unable to find anything like this that shows an opposite trend.

I think I'm the one who cited a study about the coralation between conservative political leanings and mental instability/psychosis. Of the patients surveyed in that study, the more unstable they were, the more likely they were to vote for GWB. And, another study done years before also yielded similar results in leanings for Nixon.

Science is science, and maybe I'm not exhaustive enough in my searching, but
Im as yet unable to find anything like this that shows an opposite trend.

The key word in that study was correlation, which is a tricky path to go down. Wilgrove got twisted because either he or someone else took that study and said "all conservatives are retards!" or something else the stuy didn't say. What it argued, if I remember correctly, was that the mentally ill in that study tend toward the authoritarian model, and that that model is currently best represented--among the major parties--by the Republicans. I would imagine that if you took the same people and offered them a choice between the policies of Bush and Stalin, and took the names off, they might go for Stalin, because the tendencies were toward greater authoritarianism.

But what Wilgrove said here was "liberals say conservatives are stupid, and we aren't!" and he did it in that seven-year-old voice as well, which just added to the hilarity. If he'd wanted to talk about the study, that would have been one thing, but he didn't.

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.

That's interesting. I don't know if those studies were accurate, but regardless...

So what if there are more well-educated high-IQ folks that are liberal? There have been periods of history when there were more well-educated high-IQ folks that were Catholic Church officials, but that hardly means they were inherently more intelligent.

The key word in that study was correlation, which is a tricky path to go down. Wilgrove got twisted because either he or someone else took that study and said "all conservatives are retards!" or something else the stuy didn't say. What it argued, if I remember correctly, was that the mentally ill in that study tend toward the authoritarian model, and that that model is currently best represented--among the major parties--by the Republicans.
Don't Asperger's Syndrome individuals usually tend toward more right-wing parties, be they individualist or authoritarian? I remember Kievan-Prussia brought this up when he was still on the boards, and it matches articles I've read in magazines. However, I'm not sure if AS is a mental illness.

Don't Asperger's Syndrome individuals usually tend toward more right-wing parties, be they individualist or authoritarian? I remember Kievan-Prussia brought this up when he was still on the boards, and it matches articles I've read in magazines. However, I'm not sure if AS is a mental illness.

It's basically a light form of autism, which causes them to have trouble picking up on social cues and causes a lack of empathy. I'm not sure how that translates to their politics, but I wouldn't be surprised, given the recent articles I've read about the connection between low numbers of mirror neurons and autism/Asperger's.

It's basically a light form of autism, which causes them to have trouble picking up on social cues and causes a lack of empathy. I'm not sure how that translates to their politics, but I wouldn't be surprised, given the recent articles I've read about the connection between low numbers of mirror neurons and autism/Asperger's.

Interesting theory, I wonder to what degree this would really play out, or whether the population, even if true, is large enough to have any appreciable affect on politics, althought it does give a chuckle to picture Karl Rove et. al. gathered around the table talking about how to "get out the autistic vote".

Though, judging by last months results...they might have to.

It's basically a light form of autism, which causes them to have trouble picking up on social cues and causes a lack of empathy. I'm not sure how that translates to their politics, but I wouldn't be surprised, given the recent articles I've read about the connection between low numbers of mirror neurons and autism/Asperger's.
I wouldn't be surprised either; one of my acquantainces is somewhat of an Aspie, and exhibits the predicted political tendencies. Needless to say we get along. :) I might be a slight Aspie myself, but I'd need to see a psychologist to know that.

Interesting theory, I wonder to what degree this would really play out, or whether the population, even if true, is large enough to have any appreciable affect on politics, althought it does give a chuckle to picture Karl Rove et. al. gathered around the table talking about how to "get out the autistic vote".

Though, judging by last months results...they might have to.

I doubt that it would have an appreciable difference politically, but if mirror neurons really are the reason we have empathy, and if the number we have as individuals determines our empathic responses to things, it might go a long way toward explaining why we have such a spread of responses to things like authoritarian--why some are drawn toward it and others are repelled.

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.

Since when did right libertarian = conservative? And why must you proffer to elitism?

I have Asperger's Syndrome and I'm libertarian. Take it as you will.

As long as Maragret Cho has any sort of airplay in the US, liberals have absolutely no higher ground in intellectualism to hold.

I have Asperger's Syndrome and I'm libertarian. Take it as you will.

As long as Maragret Cho has any sort of airplay in the US, liberals have absolutely no higher ground in intellectualism to hold.

aw hell I could say the same thing about Rush.

Actually...I have...many times...

aw hell I could say the same thing about Rush.

Actually...I have...many times...

And there are plenty of them out there who make Rush look reasonable.

Then the chick aint got 165 IQ, sorry. 165 isn't "hey, I'm smart", 165 isn't "I was my school valedictorian", 165 isn't "I was always the bright one in my family".

165 is "hey, I think I cured cancer" levels. 165 is in the range of Einstein, Newton, Descartes kinda shit. Like, Nobel Prize winners and ground breaking theorists. Basically "high genius" levels.
Um, no. I believe I have an IQ of something over 160, possibly over 170. That would imply that I'm a genius, whereas I make dozens of stupid mistakes every day. All it proves is that I know how to take tests and answer difficult questions correctly with ease, nothing more. It's like drawing conclusions on Einstein from his grade point average.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

I'm sorry, what?

(P.S I don't knwo if this has already been posted, so yea)

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.

Not all intelligent people are liberals, not all stupid people are conservatives, but from my experience stupidity and ignorance is more prevalent among those who hold conservative views.

-A Conservative is just a Liberal who's been mugged.:)
-A Liberal is just a Conservative who's been arrested.:)

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

I'm sorry, what?

(P.S I don't knwo if this has already been posted, so yea)

Posting that doesn't bode well for the "Liberals are intelligent" argument.

Posting that doesn't bode well for the "Liberals are intelligent" argument.

You ever see the methodology for that thing?

Believing that garbage is pretty retarded.

Forgive me if I say it, but I've seen far more unintelligent Liberals than I have Conservatives. Not all conservative people are necessarily for President George W. Bush - a thing spread by liberals which, with just that, doesn't help much for their reputation. However, a pervading amount of people in the United States are liberal and also uneducated and ignorant.

Of course, there is no doubt that conservatives also have their pairs of idiots, but you can't stereotype an entire political view on the fanatical ones of a few rednecks. I can say, however, that every single liberal I have observed is quite flawed in their thinking.

Another misconeption, now that I think of it, is that all conservatives believe in God. Increasingly, when you consider stereotypical things like this, you can see more and more how liberals have a habit of being more hateful than the supposedly "God Fearing, Intolerant, Racist" right wing. It annoys the hell out of me, to be honest.

Beats the shit out of me. But it scares me, no question.

Ya. Didn't you hear? That's the subject for the next big horror movie. It goes something like this:

"Wait... You mean... You don't believe in evolution?"
"Nope."
*insert very loud scream here*

scary, no? :rolleyes:

Of course. But fewer than there are on yours.

Oh, no, the numbers are about equal. 99.5% of each "side", to be exact.

Ya. Didn't you hear? That's the subject for the next big horror movie. It goes something like this:

"Wait... You mean... You don't believe in evolution?"
"Nope."
*insert very loud scream here*

scary, no? :rolleyes:

Well, when your health care is reduced to the laying on of the hands and prayer, don't come bitching to me about it.

I can tell you all one thing: Canadian Conservatives are better then Liberals or Conservatives from any other country.:( :sniper:

Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence,
Sometimes it is what you write that determines you intelligence. :p

Um, no. I believe I have an IQ of something over 160, possibly over 170. That would imply that I'm a genius, whereas I make dozens of stupid mistakes every day. All it proves is that I know how to take tests and answer difficult questions correctly with ease, nothing more. It's like drawing conclusions on Einstein from his grade point average.

frankly, you've probably never taken a real, professionally evaluated IQ test. Hint, if it's done over the internet and completed in 30 minutes..it's not a real test.

Mensa, the "high IQ society" on accepts scores from proctored, timed, professionally done exams. And the minimum number to get into Mensa is I believe 135.

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.


You are demonstrating your lack on intelligence with your flawed logic.

It's not that there's about liberalism that excludes the stupid. It's that there's something about conservatism that excludes the intelligent. There's also something about it that excludes the compassionate, thoughtful, and empathic.

Namely that it's based on fear and anger being manipulated to the benefit of the ultra-elite.

If you are well-informed and rational then it is difficult to manipulate you because you see through such logical falacies as "we need to take away your civil liberties to protect your freedom," or "they didn't give us a plan, they gave us an agenda of actionable items." That's why it appeals to the scared, angry and uninformed. It appeals to their emotions, but slips under the radar of their limited rationality. That is not to say that they are incapable of reason, it's just that the more intelligent and aware they are, the more hateful, angry and scared they have to be to rationalize their conservative politics.

If you're just dumb you can be told that "increasing the minimum wage hurts workers," and you'll believe it.
If you're an employer who hates that he has to write checks to get people to come make him money then he'll be eager to tell himself that even though he knows that when minimum wages go up business and jobs grow.

The politics of liberalism is based on doing what works for the majority of the people, especially those who aren't able to do for themselves. That's why it appeals to the thoughtful and caring. They don't have to be intelligent. They can just think "hey! let's be nice to people," and they won't be impressed by emotional rhetoric like "they're taking our jobs!" or "it's your money!" because they'll think "they need jobs and that money can do good things."

It just so happens that such thinking almost always coincides with what makes the country a better place, so anyone intelligent and well-informed will have to agree. Even if they are angry people who like to cause suffering they have to admit that anger-appeasing policies increasing the penalties on non-violent drug offenders aren't worth it. They cost too much. It's more sensible to enact a treatment program and go rent a Chuck Norris movie.

Look at it this way. There are intelligent people and stupid people who use AOL. It's easy to use, so you'll see a broad spectrum of people using it. Intelligent people won't stop using it just because it's easy to use. Unix-based chat servers are more difficult to use and require a certain amount of training, so you'll hardly ever talk to dumb people there, because they won't know how to get there. It's not that Unix has anything special to appeal to the intelligent. It's that it repels the stupid just like conservatism repels the intelligent or thoughtful.

It's that there's something about conservatism that excludes the intelligent. There's also something about it that excludes the compassionate, thoughtful, and empathic.
Of course you should know that people who lack these qualities may often be highly intelligent, and due to lacking these qualities may often want nothing to do with "liberalism". I consider an emotional idiot every bit as bad as a callous, emotionless one.

It's that it repels the stupid just like conservatism repels the intelligent or thoughtful.
How utterly one-sided.

If you're just dumb you can be told that "increasing the minimum wage hurts workers," and you'll believe it.
If you're an employer who hates that he has to write checks to get people to come make him money then he'll be eager to tell himself that even though he knows that when minimum wages go up business and jobs grow.
Look, what is so difficult about doing an intro course in economics? It's gonna serve you well all your life.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21157/pub_detail.asp

http://www.duke.edu/~munger/bc.htm

This will be my first post, though i have oft considered writing dessenting opinions before. First I would seriously doubt anything anyone says is going to change anyone's opinions, though active debate often fosters a more critical look at ones own reasoning behind belief. It is inherently foolish to claim all conservates or all liberals are idiots. Most of my friends are very left leaning and find it hard to believe I could be conservative, which leads to active debate, which fosters intellectual growth. From reading many of these threads i surmise a great portion of NSers are not leaning on the right side of the line which is probobly why the False Consensus Effect seems so extreme here. I have much I could go on about and though i doubt many here will consider the aei publication as anything but right leaning rhetoric a study from a nonpartisan group has more bearing in any argument than "i read somewhere once" that i find is given far to much creedance on these threads. If you can not prove it, it does not count.

*Wades into this thread and ends up with mud up to knees*

Indeed we are. Weather black, white, yellow, red, arab, jew, eurotrash, ameriKKKan, ******, wetback, chink, cracker, fag, fascist, stalinist, jihadman, fundimentalist, or Irish, we're all morons.
lol :)

Also, the same can be applied to Liberals attacking Conservatives Kat. ;)
Who started this thread? Oh, right.

You guys do of course know how dumb this makes you all look. lets face fact: Bush Dumb! Very very DUMB!!!! now you stop the argument and get on with your lives.

Bush :sniper:

Tarsus :cool:

Look, what is so difficult about doing an intro course in economics? It's gonna serve you well all your life.

Don't make useless appeals of authority to a doctrinal field that is both elitist and biased towards centers of private power.

Don't make useless appeals of authority to a doctrinal field that is both elitist and biased towards centers of private power.
You make me giggle. Attempt, then, to corroborate the statement NL quoted. He will probably tear the weak reasoning to pieces. I'll relish that.

What a nice thread. . .
You are aware that Libertarians (not Liberals) tend to be the most formally educated, right?

What a nice thread. . .
You are aware that Libertarians (not Liberals) tend to be the most formally educated, right?

The interesting thing I find is that there are a large number of NSers who claim to be liberatarians, and yet there are an extraordinarily small number of liberatarian office holders in the US. I'm aware of only two seantors who claim niether of the two major parties, and I don't know how many congresspersons (though by pure numbers there have to be a few). If liberatarians are so well represented here, why not in the US government?

You make me giggle. Attempt, then, to corroborate the statement NL quoted. He will probably tear the weak reasoning to pieces. I'll relish that.

Funny, California has the highest real minimum wage and has the lowest unemployment.

The interesting thing I find is that there are a large number of NSers who claim to be liberatarians, and yet there are an extraordinarily small number of liberatarian office holders in the US. I'm aware of only two seantors who claim niether of the two major parties, and I don't know how many congresspersons (though by pure numbers there have to be a few). If liberatarians are so well represented here, why not in the US government?

two senators, no house reps.

Used to be a independant house rep from vermont but he is now a senator.

two senators, no house reps.

Used to be a independant house rep from vermont but he is now a senator.

Wow. I'm actually shocked that there isn't a single rep that claims and indy party. But that makes my question all the more relevant.

Funny, California has the highest real minimum wage and has the lowest unemployment.
Correlation does not prove causality. In addition, I'd like you to demonstrate that the additional capital that had to be expended in California in order to pay the higher wages did not drive marginal producers out and did not drain investment from elsewhere in the nation.

Ok, I've seen studies showing that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and that they are more up to date than the Conservatives. One such study was covered in the thread about Conservatives or Bush supporters being mentally unstable or whatever the term with. My message to Liberals is that they need to get off of their high horse. I know plenty of smart Conservatives, and I know plenty of dumb Liberals. Hell my girlfriend has an IQ of 165, and she's right wing Republican Conservative. Let's face it, both side has it mixture of smart and dumb people, and to say that your side is smarter than the other is just simply silly. Just because you believe in one political ideology over another doesn't determine you intelligence, and some of these studies that compares Liberals to Conservatives are a bit suspicious. Finally, people also like to say that Liberals are more accepting than Conservatives. While that may be true when you talk about the Neo-Cons, it doesn't apply to real Conservatives like myself. It's not that we're not less accepting, it's just that we don't think we need the government in every part of our daily lives. We believe that people are smart enough to get along without the government holding their hands all the way.

So Liberals, the next time you feel the need to tell us Conservative that you're smarter than us, or you're more accepting. Just remember you have some stupid people on your side too.


If you pick a side like that, your just as dumb, no matter what you're IQ is. Intelligent people don't see lines, or sides, or colors, they see people, they see issues, they see problems that need to be solved, and work to solve them, try thinking about other people for once. Try thinking about reality, not made up shit.- btw, I do realize there is grammar mistakes, so if you want to shoot back in a childish grammar nazi way, don't, grammar is something I do proudly acclaim to be remedial in.

My message to Conservatives is that they should really, REALLY think of something better to do than foam at the mouth and attack Liberals.

Then again, if they HAD, the Congress wouldn't have changed hands, would it?
Ooooooooooooooooooooh Snap! (and by a mod!)

^^^ Thank you for proving my point.
That was a comment on you more then conservatives.

What horrors could she reek with 120 IQ points? Had to be said.
I actually think she's pretty smart, I completly disagree with everything she says but look and how much money she has got doing it. Her ideas are stupid but she presented herself the right way(bad pun anyone?) at the right time and we are talking about her right? I really don't think that when there is money involved that people believe their own b.s. so I'll go for she is a troll for a living.

Indeed we are. Weather black, white, yellow, red, arab, jew, eurotrash, ameriKKKan, ******, wetback, chink, cracker, fag, fascist, stalinist, jihadman, fundimentalist, or Irish, we're all morons.

For a mminute there I read morons as mormons....

Correlation does not prove causality. In addition, I'd like you to demonstrate that the additional capital that had to be expended in California in order to pay the higher wages did not drive marginal producers out and did not drain investment from elsewhere in the nation.

All I really have to say to that is, "who cares?" Why stand against paying people enough to be able to live on a forty hour a week job? Why should we care about mere investment? Why do we place that above actual work? Labor should be rewarded more than mere financing, no?

I actually think she's pretty smart, I completly disagree with everything she says but look and how much money she has got doing it. Her ideas are stupid but she presented herself the right way(bad pun anyone?) at the right time and we are talking about her right? I really don't think that when there is money involved that people believe their own b.s. so I'll go for she is a troll for a living.

I agree.

All I really have to say to that is, "who cares?" Why stand against paying people enough to be able to live on a forty hour a week job? Why should we care about mere investment? Why do we place that above actual work? Labor should be rewarded more than mere financing, no?
Corporations provide employment. If marginal corporations are forced out of production, employment decreases. If corporations are forced to hire labour at a cost which exceeds their marginal revenue, they will again cut employment. If the entrepreneurial sector of society finds itself with less funds and incentives to invest, employment decreases, ergo unemployment increases. A person willing to work at a lower wage-rate is now forced to accept a higher one. What of the unemployed? Oh, they are merely put on the dole! Problem? Unemployment benefits will be lower even then the wage-rate they might have gone for. Put it as high as the current wage-rate, and you'd have to be insane to work. In competitive job-markets, getting a reasonable wage should not be too hard; in non-competitive ones, unionization is an appropriate measure.

That should answer your question why one ought to care. Without investment there is nothing.

The interesting thing I find is that there are a large number of NSers who claim to be liberatarians, and yet there are an extraordinarily small number of liberatarian office holders in the US. I'm aware of only two seantors who claim niether of the two major parties, and I don't know how many congresspersons (though by pure numbers there have to be a few). If liberatarians are so well represented here, why not in the US government?

To address your question:
1. There are several varieties of Libertarians, everything from Ayn Rand-like objectivist types to the fervently religious who just want the government out of their lives, so this presents a problem to the organizating of Libertarians into an actual, cohesive party. That, and try actually organizing people in to a major machine when they stand against the biggest machine of all, the government.
2. Being educated people, for a goodly portion, Libertarians tend to know about the two party system. In response they vote for "the lesser of two evils," so the other "evil" does not gain control. It's like shooting yourself in the foot to not vote for the party you can tolerate. (But this last election was a rough one... so was 2004).
3. Remember 1992? Perot was reasonably close to an economic libertarian, and took away a substantial portion of the Bush (the First) vote. As a result, Clinton was elected and his first move as president was to approve a tax raise. (A similar election scenario occurred in 2000 when Nader took Florida votes away from Gore.) I think third parties have learned their lesson in the last 15 years.
4. There was talk about 2 years ago of making a push for a formal Libertarian Party in New Hampshire. However, I'm not really sure what happened with that movement, but NH would be the most likely place to have an actual (NH-L) representative to the federal government.

About the independent congresspeople:
1. Bernie Sanders (VT-I): is a self-proclaimed socialist. Only in Vermont. . .
2. Joe Lieberman (CT-I): was a Democrat until the last election. The only reason he could win in Connecticut is that he has a long record with the voters of that state and is a locally trusted politician. His party wouldn't have mattered. (Also, Lowell Wiecker was a recent governor of Connecticut who was also an Independent. Connecticut does have a political history of electing more Democrat-leaning Independents).

Anyone who relies on IQ as a measurement of competence deserves to be shot.

What a nice thread. . .
You are aware that Libertarians (not Liberals) tend to be the most formally educated, right?
Out of curiosity, are you a libertarian Hjaertarna? I rarely encounter female ones, unfortunately.

Out of curiosity, are you a libertarian Hjaertarna? I rarely encounter female ones, unfortunately.

Yes, I am, indeed a libertarian and female. Stunning combination, I know. And I take it you are at least a libertarian as well, Europa Maxima?

frankly, you've probably never taken a real, professionally evaluated IQ test. Hint, if it's done over the internet and completed in 30 minutes..it's not a real test.

Mensa, the "high IQ society" on accepts scores from proctored, timed, professionally done exams. And the minimum number to get into Mensa is I believe 135.

RAR, YOU CONTRADICT MY PATENTLY FALSE BELIEFS ABOUT IQ SO I ARE GOING TO BE A CONDESCENDING ASSHOLE AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT MENSA THAT ARE FALSE!

I'm sorry, but that's the vibe that I'm getting from you.

IQ measures how well you take a test, nothing more. I dare you to find a single study that shows otherwise.

Yes, I am, indeed a libertarian and female. Stunning combination, I know. And I take it you are at least a libertarian as well, Europa Maxima?
That I am. :) It's rare to see female libertarians on the board - about the only one other than yourself I know of would be Smunkeeville.

RAR, YOU CONTRADICT MY PATENTLY FALSE BELIEFS ABOUT IQ SO I ARE GOING TO BE A CONDESCENDING ASSHOLE AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT MENSA THAT ARE FALSE!

I'm sorry, but that's the vibe that I'm getting from you.

IQ measures how well you take a test, nothing more. I dare you to find a single study that shows otherwise.
This man is one of the foremost IQ experts to have lived. I haven't gotten down to reading his work, but if anyone can assert the importance of IQ, it is him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_intelligence_factor

That I am. :) It's rare to see female libertarians on the board - about the only one other than yourself I know of would be Smunkeeville.

There's one more!
*does a small victory dance*
But there should be more. . . ;)

There's one more!
*does a small victory dance*
But there should be more. . . ;)
I'm sure. Welcome to the boards then. :) Always good to have more of our sort around.

RAR, YOU CONTRADICT MY PATENTLY FALSE BELIEFS ABOUT IQ SO I ARE GOING TO BE A CONDESCENDING ASSHOLE AND MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT MENSA THAT ARE FALSE!

I'm sorry, but that's the vibe that I'm getting from you.

IQ measures how well you take a test, nothing more. I dare you to find a single study that shows otherwise.

One thought about that, there is also Gardiner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (there are the standard 7, but I think he's working on an 8 and a 9). This throws the whole IQ debate into another realm altogether, as these intelligences have no real numerical measure. And, yes, Gardiner's theory is widely used in the American public schools, especially in Gifted education. It may even overtake the standard IQ test in another generation. Then this debate would be pointless.

The interesting thing I find is that there are a large number of NSers who claim to be liberatarians, and yet there are an extraordinarily small number of liberatarian office holders in the US. I'm aware of only two seantors who claim niether of the two major parties, and I don't know how many congresspersons (though by pure numbers there have to be a few). If liberatarians are so well represented here, why not in the US government?

And neither of the Senators are Libertarians. One is basically a Socialist--Bernie Sanders of Vermont--and the other is, well, a Democrat who ran as an independent after he lost his primary, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Neither is Libertarian by any stretch.

Philosophically smart? Academically smart? Astutely smart?

Perot was reasonably close to an economic libertarian

:confused:

Perot practically ran on a protectionist ticket.

Oh, no, the numbers are about equal. 99.5% of each "side", to be exact.

I wasn't being serious. I couldn't resist, sorry.

But I will say that it seems to me that there is a correlation between social liberalism and intelligence - mainly because the mainstream arguments for social conservatism are so awful.

:confused:


I wasn't being serious. I couldn't resist, sorry.
I am almost taken aback when you use a smily or make a joke. Quite unusual for you to do so.

But I will say that it seems to me that there is a correlation between social liberalism and intelligence - mainly because the mainstream arguments for social conservatism are so awful.
On this I'll agree.

:confused:

Perot practically ran on a protectionist ticket.

True, but the point is that the people who would most likely vote libertarian party split the vote. Also, although one of the key tenets is to have free trade, the idea with NAFTA is that it could cause more problems in the internal economy and that it added more rules and regulations to trade (over 900 pages worth of guidelines and restrictions). So it is quite arguable that NAFTA is not free trade of the Adam Smith variety.

I am almost taken aback when you use a smily or make a joke. Quite unusual for you to do so.

Use a smiley, maybe. Make a joke, not at all - well, maybe on the Internet.

Off it, my sense of humor is very pronounced.

What does it matter now? at least to the intellectual levels in this country. Sure it is interesting to know the history of the insult but either way nowadays being smart is a bad thing or perceived in a negative way by many in school

True, I suppose, but really "intellectual" as an insult has so many layers. It's bad to be smart, "Intellectuals" are the new "Jewish Conspiracy", they're all commies, he's smarter than you, so he's going to try to tell you what to do. It's a very versatile diversion tactic.

Use a smiley, maybe. Make a joke, not at all - well, maybe on the Internet.

Off it, my sense of humor is very pronounced.
I will not complain - if anything it's a good incentive for me to sharpen up my arguments and focus on the matter at hand.

What a nice thread. . .
You are aware that Libertarians (not Liberals) tend to be the most formally educated, right?

There is no correlation between formal education and intelligence. Many of the smartest people I know of have little formal education. I also know plenty of well educated airheads.

On a side note, intelligence is a piss poor means of determining an individual's worth. Hitler was intelligent, but he certainly wasn't a good person. Intelligence without integrity and compassion is a vice, not a virtue.