"Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives" - Psychology Today Magazine

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
This is what would be the more interesting discussion - what can or can't be proven in the field of psychology/psychiatry to begin with?

I posted a link a couple of days ago about "Schizophrenia has yet to be shown to be a proven disease."
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If this is true, then psychiatry could very well be scoured to the foundations and still be found lacking in factual evidence.

Go make a thread for that purpose, and see how long it takes to drift into complete chaos.

chaos is built in here :-)

I can't fault anyone for trying to understand how the human mind does - or doesn't - work. How can we not try?

In the grander scheme of things - these sciences are brand-spanking new - and this is how science works...learn, unlearn, relearn - it might be one step forward two steps back then a thousand steps forward - 500 back. There's nothing wrong with this - at all.

The problem with people who aren't scientists (and no doubt even with some scientists) is once you accept something - it's hard to un-accept it

but things change - knowledge changes

I agree - schizophrenia is a good example. If you really start reading, you'll find that some traits in ADHD are shared with autism - which has links to schizophrenia - which has some things in common with bi-polar or uni-polar depression...the lines really blur. I'm sure the variables involved are endless. Then there's bias and expectations - we see what we think we'll see. Or of course - what we want to see

That's why these some people are smarter than other people themes aren't useful - I've never known a single liberal or conservative (if that's our only choices in this thread) that thinks all one way or all the other - even within a category there are so many possibilities

but everyone enjoys a good nyah nyah thread once in a while :-)

reply to post by The Revenant


Hardly worth the argument, look at what Liberals have done to this Country over the years.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by The Revenant

 

Meh...nothing to see here. Just more lefties telling each other what great people they are to each other. It might as well be a audience of one talking to himself in the mirror.

No real scientific research done here at all. Just opinion. One which I will ignore as I know better.

By the way. how much do you get paid an hour? I need a job and can post inflammatory stuff like this at half your wage....

I'll even do it for the left!

edit on 24-8-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

they love to tell each other how good they are, now they found a way to give each other a virtual reach-around!

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Actually a recent study shows that the more educated you're in the US the more likely you'll be religious. So before blurting out things, please site your source(s). I'd like to see.

Here is the study I'm referencing:
religion.blogs.cnn.com ...

Sorry Liberals, the game is up. Here is a Dr. of Psychology who rips Kanazawa's study to shreds.

Dr. Shawn Smith

Kanazawa repeatedly refers to IQ in his paper.

There’s a problem: he never measured IQ.

The PPVT, at best, provides a quick and dirty estimate of verbal intelligence.

It is not a test, or even an indicator, of general intelligence, despite his assertions to the contrary.

Here is the PPVT test, which is not remotely an IQ test.

Here’s how the PPVT works.

The examiner says a word, then shows the examinee four drawings.

The task is to identify the drawing that goes with the word.

Examinees do not need to speak during the test, they can simply point to the drawing they believe to be correct.

The test takes about 20 minutes to administer and score.

It is rather perfunctory, as verbal tests go.

So Kanazawa's IQ tests are nothing of the sort!

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Obama is not a liberal, he is a conservative democrat...actually far more conservative than Bill Clinton overall (whom was also a conservative).
I am actually not even sure who the last liberal POTUS was...perhaps kennedy. Before that, you must go back quite a ways to FDR

That's gonna come as a HUGE shock to most in the Democratic Party. John Kennedy wouldn't even recognize the Democratic Party, it's become so left leaning.

I wasn't going to get sucked into this, but hey ho...

Someone near the beginning of the thread mentioned there being no such thing as 'left' and 'right', and that 'progressive' and 'regressive' are more relevant terms. This person was onto something, but let me tweak it slightly.

Human beings generally lean towards a generally progressive political and social outlook, or a conservative one. 'Regressive' is unfair and innacurate, for conservatives, patriots, nationalists, libertarians etc (people generally considered 'right-wing') are actually interested in preserving the last healthy status quo, NOT regressing beyond it.

The only dichotomy that actually exists is: the desire for something entirely new versus the desire to return to tried and tested prosperity. I've occassionally used the following allegory to describe the conflicting mindsets of 'Liberals' (notice the capital L) and 'conservatives':

We stand in a garden, overgrown and neglected. It is littered and cramped. It stinks. Nothing will grow and every shoot that emerges from beneath the junk seems to get stomped on before it can flower. There are fences either side, and we know there are gardens beyond those fences because we can hear our neighbours going about their business. The fence to our right has a small hole in it through which we can see a garden healthier than our own, but by no means perfect. The neighbours still argue, but they often seem to be having a great time too. They seem to grow vegetables with ease and their children are smart and polite. The fence to our left is tall and has no holes or gaps through which we can nose. We hold our ear up to the wood but we can't make out the state of the garden or its inhabitants. It could be a shining paradise - better than the garden we've glimpsed to our right; or it could be even more rotten and oppressive than our own. We want to jump the fence, but we don't know which.

The garden to the right represents the past and appeals to conservatives - it is tried and tested, imperfect but acceptable. The garden to the left represents something new and appeals to Liberals - it is a gamble which they are convinced is going to pay off. Conservatives see tradition and convention as a safe choice for preserving liberty and prosperity for their children. Liberals see the opportunity for something better than anything we've known before, optimistic that it can't be worse than anything we've known (though it can).

I'm thinking about putting my thoughts on the left/right paradigm into a new thread and expanding on this.

With regards to the OP of this thread - I've known smart and dumb people from both 'camps' (having been socially active within both, so to speak). The real difference is not in intellect, but in realism. Conservatives seem to be less reactionary and more considered in their beliefs whereas Liberals tend to get more emotional and let a warped sense of compassion rule their decision-making. Ultimately, I think this classic saying sums it up well:

"If you're not liberal at the age of 20 you have no heart, if you're not conservative by the age of 40 you have no brain"

A big LOL at those trying to use the whole "LULZ SORRY LIBERALS! HERE ARE SOME STATS TO SHOW YOU'RE NOT SMART!" and then throw in some biased chart made by a conservative bigot.

Love you ATS. Love what you have become

Originally posted by Cythraul
are actually interested in preserving the last healthy status quo, NOT regressing beyond it.

We are interested in going past this current unhealthy status quo, in a forward direction.

Unions to Medicare... All these things were born of past circumstance, there was a catalyst
for most of the things done in the name of "progress". Now I am not saying that all progress has
been without horrible detriment as a result, but I can say that if you initiate policies from days gone
by, you will see the OLD PROBLEMS re emerge, which will eventually initiate a campaign to
change them again.

I do not buy that conservatives are less intelligent, I think the two camps are wired differently.

I think you can see the same basic tendencies in school -

the people who champion the under dog
the people who look at reward as a deadly science
the people who think authority should be respected

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Obama is not a liberal, he is a conservative democrat...actually far more conservative than Bill Clinton overall (whom was also a conservative).
I am actually not even sure who the last liberal POTUS was...perhaps kennedy. Before that, you must go back quite a ways to FDR

That's gonna come as a HUGE shock to most in the Democratic Party. John Kennedy wouldn't even recognize the Democratic Party, it's become so left leaning.

explain in what way?

Obama is WAY to the right of his base, hence the dissatisfaction.

I am interested to hear your assertion quantified a bit.

I understand the liberal/conservative intellect thingy.

But what about the postulation that Mad Magazine exceeds Psychology Today Magazine in common sense?

I find this very interesting.

Liberals just might be more intelligent... and better educated.... but I don't know a one of them with any common sense.

Originally posted by Janky Red
Unions to Medicare... All these things were born of past circumstance, there was a catalyst
for most of the things done in the name of "progress". Now I am not saying that all progress has
been without horrible detriment as a result, but I can say that if you initiate policies from days gone
by, you will see the OLD PROBLEMS re emerge, which will eventually initiate a campaign to
change them again.

Way to prove my theory!

Just to put balance to your assertion - a conservative/preservationist would say that policies from days gone by have been corrupted by some malevolent force, perhaps even the ghost of 'progression' itself. There is no doubt in my mind that the world is on a whole less happy than it has ever been. Regression to the last healthy era still sound so bad, or do we keep pushing through the quagmire in the hope of emerging out in some sun-drenched haven?

reply to post by The Revenant


Wow... really?... You feel better now?...

As a general trend liberals tend to go into liberal arts, they are mostly artists, and if you watch what sort of paintings and artistic tendencies they have it is for the most part just what they themselves call "abstract art", which imo has nothing to do with art since even preschoolers, and animals are able to paint abstract art...

Now, as a general trend conservatives tend to go into engineering, try to see how many preschoolers or even animals can be engineers.

BTW, I am not saying all, there are some exceptions, but as a general rule this is true.

Not to mention the fact that as a general rule Liberals love big government, that is that the government does almost everything for them, meanwhile conservatives, Republicans, and others tend to like smaller government, which leaves more room for the individual TO THINK FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF...

As a general rule also liberals who are professors tend to be socialist, or lean towards socialism very heavily, which shows how ignorant they are on world history. Meanwhile for the most part conservative professors, as well as libertarians, and some others tend to back the Constitutional Republic which is what the United States is.

As a general rule most, if not all Liberals still think the United States is a Democracy, that's how intelligent they are...

So who is really more intelligent... The group where most people are artists which even animals and preschoolers can imitate, and the professor who leans to socialism and ignores history or those who for the most part tend to lean to engineering, and back a smaller government, a Constitutional Republic?... Hummm... that's a tough one huh right?... maybe if you are a liberal...

As a general rule from time to time we still see liberal members go so far as making threads and posts claiming that conservatives, and Republicans don't have any compassion, and in fact such members are so backwards that they think liberals invented compassion, and that every social program that exists only came into existance because of liberals, when the fact is social programs similar to most that exist today existed before "liberals' even came to the scene of U.S. politics...

BTW, if you want to see how smart liberals/progressives are, their politics gave more rights to criminals than to law abiding citicens to the point that in ALL liberal/left leaning cities the citizens can't defend themselves against criminals, pretty smart huh?...

Liberals/progressives are also so smart that their politics have allowed the government to have more control over our lives, and our kids' lives than we have, or parents have...

Liberals, and in general the left is so smart that they need bigger government, must be because they can think for themselves well huh?...

Liberals are so smart that they actually think they were the ones who liberated slaves, when in fact most slave owners were DEMOCRATS, and it was Republicans and a Republican president who helped liberate slaves. But don't tell that to Liberals because most of them are ignorant of real history even of the nation where they were born and where they live...

In fact the Feds, and the IRS as it exists today is a creation of Liberals/Democrats/Progressives. After all it was Woodrow Wilson, a Progressive Democrat who signed into law the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and the IRS...

So yeah, keep telling yourself that Liberals are so intelligent...

Originally posted by KennibleLecter
I find this very interesting.

Liberals just might be more intelligent... and better educated.... but I don't know a one of them with any common sense.

Really? Anti war isn't common sense?

reply to post by Cythraul


I always figured the Left and the Right have both been patsies for the elite. Both are used to advance the elites agenda another increment.

Starting in the 1970's with "Civil Rights" OSHA, EPA, Environmentalism, Animal Rights, "No Child Left Behind" the release of the mentally ill from hospitals.... the "Left/Progressives seem to be imposing more and more laws on US citizens and more and more bureauracies were created until we now have about 25% of the work force working for the State Local or Federal Governments.

We also, thanks to Bill Clinton's intervention, have NAFTA and the WTO.

These are the results of "Going Forward" to the "Brave New World" of the Progressives.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c03212bb3959.png[/atsimg]

Negative is export of money and jobs

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e419473c7f7b.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by Janky Red
Unions to Medicare... All these things were born of past circumstance, there was a catalyst
for most of the things done in the name of "progress". Now I am not saying that all progress has
been without horrible detriment as a result, but I can say that if you initiate policies from days gone
by, you will see the OLD PROBLEMS re emerge, which will eventually initiate a campaign to
change them again.

Way to prove my theory!

Just to put balance to your assertion - a conservative/preservationist would say that policies from days gone by have been corrupted by some malevolent force, perhaps even the ghost of 'progression' itself. There is no doubt in my mind that the world is on a whole less happy than it has ever been. Regression to the last healthy era still sound so bad, or do we keep pushing through the quagmire in the hope of emerging out in some sun-drenched haven?

edit on 25/8/2011 by Cythraul because: (no reason given)

I was talking about things like Slavery, Native reparations, women's rights, poverty stricken seniors, slum lording, child labor abuse,voting rights, lending and housing discrimination, usury, Contractual Rescission* etc, etc,... I am not sure how slavery or making a kid, who should be going to school, work in a factory for 20 is the mark of modern progress... Those were institutional facets of society, arguably, most existed since before the time when you would burn a woman to alleviate anxiety in a community.

Since you are kind and very reasonable, here is an example of what spurs attempts to progress beyond the current status quo.


A modern example is healthcare

Do you know how much premium cost has increased in the last decade?

A; 180%


Here is a source from Kaiser

Health care costs have been rising for several years. Expenditures in the United States on health care surpassed $2.3 trillion in 2008, more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, and over eight times the $253 billion spent in 1980. Stemming this growth has become a major policy priority, as the government, employers, and consumers increasingly struggle to keep up with health care costs. [1]

www.kaiseredu.org...

I can sit here with a calculator and do a fairly accurate actuary of cost in 10-20-30-40 years

Do you know how much it will cost in 40 years at its current rate of inflation?

MORE THAN THE GDP OF AMERICA.

It would not be a problem if the trend were reversing,
but the trend is becoming run away in the wrong direction.

*For this, or any argument I will not entertain the idea that healthcare is a luxury or some frilly
thing wimps seek out. I will assume that humanity has progressed this far that doctors are an
established part of modernity.

So the recent attempt to address healthcare was born of a REAL PROBLEM, it is too bad that
the entire national debate turned into a political soccer match, it is too bad the the
bill that was passed was passed. I have very strong opinions of that, but I digress

If ANYTHING equating the GDP of the US per year is not a fiscal issue, I am not sure what is.

(just to get the idea of tort reform out of the way as a viable solution) www.washingtonpost.com...

Point is, "progress" does not appear to screw up conservative sensibilities, it is born of circumstance.


Let us say you had your wish, what would you re initiate specifically?

reply to post by Janky Red

I think we may have reached an important juncture already. Many 'Liberals' genuinely believe all conservatives harken to the days before slavery reparations, Native reparations, women's rights, poverty stricken seniors, slum lording, child labor abuse,voting rights, lending and housing discrimination, usury. This isn't always true, but I suppose some conservatives do see those things as eggs that must be cracked to remake their once glorious omelette .

You've got me thinking now. Perhaps there are two types of conservative - divided by the era to which they wish to return: conservatives and paleo-conservatives perhaps?! Speaking for myself, I believe in the origins of human society there was tribal separation but equality and fairness within the tribe. So things like womens rights, slavery, child labour etc were not an issue. We can see this in the worship of the feminine among neolithic pagans. This was also an era of harmony with nature, inalienable rights and liberty. This is what I want to return to.

Originally posted by Janky Red
Let us say you had your wish, what would you re initiate specifically?

So I suppose my views could best be described as liberartian tribalism. I'd like to return to cultural homogeny, harmony with nature and the freedom to do as one wishes so long as it harms no other. A near-form of anarchy (in the true sense of the word, not the hijacked 'youth-angst' type nihilism).

Originally posted by Cythraul
With regards to the OP of this thread - I've known smart and dumb people from both 'camps' (having been socially active within both, so to speak). The real difference is not in intellect, but in realism. Conservatives seem to be less reactionary and more considered in their beliefs

Based on how conservatives react to issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, healthcare, religion, and gay marriage, I find that pretty hard to take seriously, especially with their opposition to gay marriage (and homosexuality in general really), which is fueled by nothing but emotion. Don't interpret as me saying that liberals aren't reactionary, I'm just saying that conservatives are in the same ballpark so to speak. Ultimately, i think this saying sums it up well: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" which I believe describes your quote to a t.

reply to post by The Revenant


Well to be honest.

What defines conservative and liberal?

That's why I cannot believe any such research. For everyone defines it differently. I am a liberal to some, but conservative to other generations.