Are liberals and atheists smarter?

Originally posted by ventian
My belief though is that the super smart generally lack any common sense. This is why they don't believe in God or generally believe that the government is better for us than we are because people in the government have the same high IQ and a lower margin of common sense.

As one who has spent half his life working...note I say working at a large university, I can attest to the fact that there is a reason for the stereotype of the dotty academic. In fact, it is said that an expert is someone who is ignorant in all subjects but one.

For the most part, though, university professors are just folks. Maybe broader in their mental landscapes, maybe more cultured in some ways because of their rich surroundings, but just folks. They can just as easily be sports nuts or play in a pick-up band.

But yah...some, you just gotta wonder...

Oh, and I threw this thread out there to generate some discussion...not to slag those of a different socio-political persuasion from mine, btw. Just so's ya know, eh?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Umm...the piece of paper attests to the fact that they have successfully completed studies that teach critical thinking...which is the most valuable part of a university education. It also speaks to the discipline of the student.

And it states that they passed the entrance requirement.

LOL, thanks for proving my point Johnny. So just because someone finished college it makes them smarter than everyone else? There are plenty of people who did just fine without it. So I guess Bill Gates is worse off for quitting Harvard?

I have a college degree, but I also have the good sense to realize it doesn't make my positions on things any more brilliant than the guy who quit in the tenth grade. In fact, one of the smartest, most successful, most common sense people I know quit school in the tenth grade.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
For the most part, though, university professors are just folks. Maybe broader in their mental landscapes, maybe more cultured in some ways because of their rich surroundings, but just folks. They can just as easily be sports nuts or play in a pick-up band.

Which gives cold-hard-credence to the phrase "Those who can, do and those who can't, teach!"

Oh, and I threw this thread out there to generate some discussion...not to slag those of a different socio-political persuasion from mine, btw. Just so's ya know, eh?

Actually I disagree, but I'm still with you because I am one that believes that TROLLING can be OK, if done correctly and in a sneaky way, ...aye.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by Alxandro]

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
For the most part, though, university professors are just folks. Maybe broader in their mental landscapes, maybe more cultured in some ways because of their rich surroundings, but just folks. They can just as easily be sports nuts or play in a pick-up band.

Which gives cold-hard-credence to the phrase "Those who can, do and those who can't, teach!"

I disagree. Having done very well with a number of undergrad courses, I can attest to the fact that teaching is a calling. Also, being associated with a research university, it is the very best conducting their life's work while passing the knowledge along. Your quotation is glib...at best.

Oh, and I threw this thread out there to generate some discussion...not to slag those of a different socio-political persuasion from mine, btw. Just so's ya know, eh?

Actually I disagree, but I'm still with you because I am one that believes that TROLLING can be OK, if done correctly and in a sneaky way, ...aye.

C'mon...you know me better than that.




[edit on 1-3-2010 by Alxandro]

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
I have a college degree, but I also have the good sense to realize it doesn't make my positions on things any more brilliant than the guy who quit in the tenth grade.

Not to be impudent, but might I assume that your nickname holds a nautical reference?

Because in this world, one is judged, for better or for worse, on the presentation they bring forward. If you are looking to hire somebody for critical thinking, a degree at least gets you in the door ahead of one who lacks that piece of paper.

Of course a degree isn't the final proof of intelligence...nor is one's political stripe.

reply to post by pplrnuts



Oh sure your location on this planet surely determines Intelligence. You clearly proved this by your "intelligent" comments.

Let me guess the most intelligent folks believe as you? Clearly this thinking is Intelligent!

what defines intelligence?

Book smarts or street smarts?

Making it big or playing it small?

Common Sense v.s. Common Decency


While i agree that it might not be very smart to walk around screaming from the mountain tops that the planet was created 7000 years ago, i will also say that I've known quite a few idiot liberals in my day as well, and the things they believe range from magical spells to the most outlandish government conspiracies imaginable.

Stupidity knows no bounds...especially when it comes to political and religious views. Mainly because, in the truest definition of intelligence, anyone who openly supports one side over the other and plays my-team politics, or claims that they've figured it all out, really isn't that smart to begin with.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Snarf]

Originally posted by Snarf
While i agree that it might not be very smart to walk around screaming from the mountain tops that the planet was created 7000 years ago, i will also say that I've known quite a few idiot liberals in my day as well, and the things they believe range from magical spells to the most outlandish government conspiracies imaginable.

Hell yes...Canada's Liberal Party included!!

I always thought that being a liberal was the easiest choice anyone could ever make. It takes no thought whatsoever, only feelings.

It seems like they always fall for catchy slogans too....Save the Whales, Rock the Vote, Hope and Change etc.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Carseller4]

reply to post by Carseller4


same brush can be used to paint a republican/conservative as well:

"Noahs Ark"
"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"
"We must bring democracy to the world"
"All men are created equal (except for those n-words over there picking cotton)"

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by Carseller4

 

same brush can be used to paint a republican/conservative as well:


"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bush didn't lie. He was listening to Dems.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Bergler, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

That's funny.....not one Republican on this list?

reply to post by Carseller4


Wow, so i suppose he was just regurgitating talking points from the DNC in all those press conferences he gave?

I suppose he was going off of old intelligence reports & didn't bother to get an updated dossier on the situation?

Even *if* all of that were true (which its not)

Its still his fault.

and i quote

Intelligence gathered by this, and other governments, leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised

George W. Bush. (The Decider) Not Bill Clinton.





I agree, our entire government failed on this...but to say Bush is innocent is just laughable.


[edit on 1-3-2010 by Snarf]

Originally posted by Carseller4
I always thought that being a liberal was the easiest choice anyone could ever make. It takes no thought whatsoever, only feelings.

No...it means having the ability to live a life functioning on both levels. News flash for you...they aren't mutually exclusive, eh?

And a quick self-edit to reiterate that this thread was not opened to generate a slagfest. The lines are clearly drawn...what matters here is intellectual response to the report.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

I dont believe any groups such as those would be smarter. Im sure some may think so. It just isnt logical.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I disagree. Having done very well with a number of undergrad courses, I can attest to the fact that teaching is a calling. Also, being associated with a research university, it is the very best conducting their life's work while passing the knowledge along. Your quotation is glib...at best.

Sure, teaching may be a calling for some, but at some point even Professors become complacent and choose instead to start brain washing their students with their own idealogies.
Much like the miltary is constantly accused of doing, at the opposite end of the "brain washing" spectrum.
The end result, bohemian/barbaric kids that may not be able to function in society.
Therein lies the balance.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

anyone that belives in imaginARY sky gods that do miracles may not be the sharpest tool on the block

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

Are liberals and atheists smarter? Psychologist links teen IQ levels with adult views on religion, politics and family

Because it's bound to engender some debate, I've taken the liberty of posting this item from the Toronto Star on this board. Don't blame Canada, though...yes we took golds for hockey, but this tid-bit comes from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

In new research bound to irk conservative geniuses, people with high IQs are deemed more likely to be liberal, monogamous non-believers than those who are less intelligent.
Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, says it makes sense biologically. In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Kanazawa lays out facts based on U.S. data to support his theory.
According to that research, young adults who identify as "not at all religious" had an average IQ of 103 as teens, while those who identified as "very religious" had an average IQ of 97. Similarly, young adults who called themselves "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had average IQs of 95.
Kanazawa believes there are evolutionary reasons behind this. www.thestar.com...

Not that I'm trolling...but conservatives will delight in following news:

Meanwhile, he expects the average intelligence of all western populations to decline slightly in the 21st century, because more intelligent people tend to have fewer offspring.

Perhaps most telling is the final comment...

Interestingly, describes himself as a married atheist libertarian with a strong distaste for liberals. But, as a scientist, he says he is bound to report the facts.

...don't know if this wants to make me laff or cry. Let the Games...uh, Flames...begin!

Define liberal.

neoliberal or classical liberal.

Libertarians are extreme liberals.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I really don't like when these comparisons are made. It really doesn't help with the division we are facing these days... Plus for the side that comes out "smarter" when these studies are made just uses these things to rub it in the face of the other side, which isn't very smart.

It depends on the person. There are good liberals and atheists out there. But then are corrupt liberals like Michael Ignatieff who serve the corporate oligarchy and unfettered capitalism. You have these corrupt liberals advocating for war. Then there are repugnant atheists known as the New Atheists. They rant about religion yet they support war, American Empire, and all manner of evil. Their New Atheism sounds like a radical religion.

a reply to: KevinIsZebraman

Corrupt liberals and New Atheists are not intelligent because they are brainwashed.

Chris Hedges write two books on these two types of evil people: 'Death of the Liberal Class,' and 'Why I Don't Believe in Atheists.'