New Study: Liberals Tend to Have Higher IQ

[AZGrizFan]

But it's not "political", right?

How do you explain the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon dichotomy, then? When it comes to war?

Kennedy was a complete Dunning–Kruger example - most politicians are..!!!
He almost started WWIII

And yet he was liberal (minded).

[Chizzang]

Kennedy was a complete Dunning–Kruger example - most politicians are..!!!
He almost started WWIII

And yet he was liberal (minded).

No actually he was decidedly NOT Liberally minded... he was described as:
"Crucial to any evaluation of JFK as President and statesman, this electrifying report portrays a cunning and wily, stubborn, conflicted leader with a decisive manner and..."

This report on Kennedy reveals that he was not so ready to learn from others - thought he knew everything he needed to know and was defiant about it when proven wrong...

So I would say he was conservatively minded yet politically liberal...

(are you starting to catch on little fella..? it's about MIND SETS not political affiliations)

[AZGrizFan]

And yet he was liberal (minded).

No actually he was decidedly NOT Liberally minded... he was described as:
"Crucial to any evaluation of JFK as President and statesman, this electrifying report portrays a cunning and wily, stubborn, conflicted leader with a decisive manner and..."

This report on Kennedy reveals that he was not so ready to learn from others - thought he knew everything he needed to know and was defiant about it when proven wrong...

So I would say he was conservatively minded yet politically liberal...


(are you starting to catch on little fella..? it's about MIND SETS not political affiliations)

Then I guess that makes me a liberally minded conservative.

[Chizzang]

I think Ursus and OL FU are clearly...
You Mr. AZGF - have shown no tendency towards this feature (at all)

You wouldn't change your mind if your life depended on it... so far as I can tell

[AZGrizFan]

I think Ursus and OL FU are clearly...
You Mr. AZGF - have shown no tendency towards this feature (at all)

You wouldn't change your mind if your life depended on it... so far as I can tell

Well then, you haven't been paying attention.

And if it's all about "changing your mind", John "Flip Flopper" Kerry must be the PERFECT example...

[travelinman67]

Great spin, Cleetus.

What does your crystal ball tell you about political accountability?

While you label transigence as being a liberal or conservative trait, where does one's cowardice for failing to take responsibility for their indecision fit in?

I will assert that this transigence/intransigence categorization is as valid as the liberal trait of cowardice of indecision, or worse, refusal to accept responsibility for failed policies/(in)decisions since abandoned.

Seeing some issues in absolutes isn't necessarily wrong if the person has extensively studied the issue (and exhaustively tested their theories). The alternative, one of perpetual indecision, rarely results in progress.


...also...

...don't dismiss that one's "intransigence" often mirrors the "intransigence" of those who oppose his predisposed views (hint...AGW consensus... ).

[YoUDeeMan]

Chizzang is nocking this thread out of the park.

If you're an *******, no problem...as long as you know you're an *******. It's the one's who don't that cause most of the problems.

The world is gray.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though
checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt

[houndawg]

But it's not "political", right?

How do you explain the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon dichotomy, then? When it comes to war?

Kennedy was a complete Dunning–Kruger example - most politicians are..!!!
He almost started WWIII
I just use Churchill because he's been used so frequently - he was exceedingly arrogant while failing

A large part of the study is about failed efforts supported by arrogance and presumed success...
"So stupid he didn't even know he was failing.."
The presumption of prowess and knowledge while proving to all - that you're not that bright
Example: Mission Accomplished... Classic

Dead or Alive......

[kalm]

Chizzang is nocking this thread out of the park.

If you're an *******, no problem...as long as you know you're an *******. It's the one's who don't that cause most of the problems.

The world is gray.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though
checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray
twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt

Well played Cluck, well played.

See my post from earlier in the thread about conservatives and leadership.

The problem with open minds in indecisiveness and as Tman pointed out, a failure to get anything accomplished. We're witnessing that right now with the Democrats.

That TR quote is not surprising and yet we was very progressive when it came to a living wage, national healthcare, and monopolies.

I don't think it's better to be decisive than correct, but I also believe that actions speak louder than words.

Perhaps a hybrid like TR is what's needed.

[JohnStOnge]

Since I brought it up I thought I'd come back and say that the IQ estimates were indeed based on an abbreviated version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT); the Ad Health Picture Vocabulary Test (AHPVT). I got an e mail back from the Ad Health Data Manager confirming that. I've been looking up what I can on the issue of the PPVT as a measure of IQ and it appears to me that it was not designed as an IQ test but is widely viewed as a proxy for, at the least, a verbal intelligence test and to some extent a general intelligence test. Here's an example of somebody suggesting using it to save time:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _63365183/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It looks to me like it's reasonable to believe that if you have estimates of differences in mean IQ scores such as described in the study you can say it's likely that a real IQ test would've given you the same general answer. A little bit of caution is necessary because they're not actually using the PPVT. They're using an abbreviated version about which I can find very little information as regards whether or not it has the same associations with IQ tests. And I think it probably would've been better for the investigators to state it something like, "scored higher on a test of verbal skills" than "IQ." Saying something like that would be absolutely and unquestionably accurate. But overall I suspect that the measurement technique does not compromise the overall conclusions. Not unless I somehow find out that the AHPVT gives results significantly different than those of the PPVT. And I've got to believe that the people who did the survey tested the AHPVT to make sure it corresponds closely to the PPVT in terms of results.

[JohnStOnge]

The world is gray.

The world is not gray. With respect to most issues, if you have established principles, you can work through the situation and find a clear answer. Take the issue of abortion. Suppose you adopt the principle that every member of our species whose existence has been established has a right to continue its life without interference.

Conception marks the beginning of life for a member of our species. There is no gray there. That is an objective reality. Now, that reality may be difficult to deal with if you've adopted the principle that every member of our species has a right to continue its existence. But there is no gray. An abortion is the termination of the life of at least one member of our species (unless it's already dead and you don't know...but that's still not a matter of "grayness.")

So what if the life of the mother is in danger? Well, clearly established principles come into play. If the life of the mother is in danger you're choosing between two lives. One must be chosen lest both die. That is a principle. Either choice is acceptable if both have a comparable probability of survival. Or you might be in a situation where it's clear that the mother is the only one with a chance. If you don't end the pregnancy both will die. That would make no sense, so abortion is directed.

Liberals, I think, like to cast many things as gray that are not gray. There is no such thing as "gray." There is only "uncertain." If you have all of the information and have established principles, there is always a decision that is clearly in line with the principles.

Uncertainy? Yes. "Grayness?" Usually not. "Gray" is usually just a justification for doing what you feel like doing at the time. The easy way out. Maybe being able to rationalize and cast it as "gray" means you're smart. But it's still not gray.

[CID1990]

The world is gray.

The world is not gray. With respect to most issues, if you have established principles, you can work through the situation and find a clear answer. Take the issue of abortion. Suppose you adopt the principle that every member of our species whose existence has been established has a right to continue its life without interference.

Conception marks the beginning of life for a member of our species. There is no gray there. That is an objective reality. Now, that reality may be difficult to deal with if you've adopted the principle that every member of our species has a right to continue its existence. But there is no gray. An abortion is the termination of the life of at least one member of our species (unless it's already dead and you don't know...but that's still not a matter of "grayness.")

So what if the life of the mother is in danger? Well, clearly established principles come into play. If the life of the mother is in danger you're choosing between two lives. One must be chosen lest both die. That is a principle. Either choice is acceptable if both have a comparable probability of survival. Or you might be in a situation where it's clear that the mother is the only one with a chance. If you don't end the pregnancy both will die. That would make no sense, so abortion is directed.

Liberals, I think, like to cast many things as gray that are not gray. There is no such thing as "gray." There is only "uncertain." If you have all of the information and have established principles, there is always a decision that is clearly in line with the principles.

Uncertainy? Yes. "Grayness?" Usually not. "Gray" is usually just a justification for doing what you feel like doing at the time. The easy way out. Maybe being able to rationalize and cast it as "gray" means you're smart. But it's still not gray.

also sodomy.

[kalm]

The world is gray.

The world is not gray. With respect to most issues, if you have established principles, you can work through the situation and find a clear answer. Take the issue of abortion. Suppose you adopt the principle that every member of our species whose existence has been established has a right to continue its life without interference.

Conception marks the beginning of life for a member of our species. There is no gray there. That is an objective reality. Now, that reality may be difficult to deal with if you've adopted the principle that every member of our species has a right to continue its existence. But there is no gray. An abortion is the termination of the life of at least one member of our species (unless it's already dead and you don't know...but that's still not a matter of "grayness.")

So what if the life of the mother is in danger? Well, clearly established principles come into play. If the life of the mother is in danger you're choosing between two lives. One must be chosen lest both die. That is a principle. Either choice is acceptable if both have a comparable probability of survival. Or you might be in a situation where it's clear that the mother is the only one with a chance. If you don't end the pregnancy both will die. That would make no sense, so abortion is directed.

Liberals, I think, like to cast many things as gray that are not gray. There is no such thing as "gray." There is only "uncertain." If you have all of the information and have established principles, there is always a decision that is clearly in line with the principles.

Uncertainy? Yes. "Grayness?" Usually not. "Gray" is usually just a justification for doing what you feel like doing at the time. The easy way out. Maybe being able to rationalize and cast it as "gray" means you're smart. But it's still not gray.

Uncertainty = gray. Nuance = gray.

You can take a principled stance that killing is wrong and apply it to abortion. But then for principle's sake you better apply it to capital punishment and War as well.

But life beginning at conception is an opinion, so the legality of abortion is totally a gray area.

I would submit that often times rigid, black and white world views are far easier to take and require less intellect.

The world is full of gray.

[D1B]

The world is not gray. With respect to most issues, if you have established principles, you can work through the situation and find a clear answer. Take the issue of abortion. Suppose you adopt the principle that every member of our species whose existence has been established has a right to continue its life without interference.

Conception marks the beginning of life for a member of our species. There is no gray there. That is an objective reality. Now, that reality may be difficult to deal with if you've adopted the principle that every member of our species has a right to continue its existence. But there is no gray. An abortion is the termination of the life of at least one member of our species (unless it's already dead and you don't know...but that's still not a matter of "grayness.")

So what if the life of the mother is in danger? Well, clearly established principles come into play. If the life of the mother is in danger you're choosing between two lives. One must be chosen lest both die. That is a principle. Either choice is acceptable if both have a comparable probability of survival. Or you might be in a situation where it's clear that the mother is the only one with a chance. If you don't end the pregnancy both will die. That would make no sense, so abortion is directed.

Liberals, I think, like to cast many things as gray that are not gray. There is no such thing as "gray." There is only "uncertain." If you have all of the information and have established principles, there is always a decision that is clearly in line with the principles.

Uncertainy? Yes. "Grayness?" Usually not. "Gray" is usually just a justification for doing what you feel like doing at the time. The easy way out. Maybe being able to rationalize and cast it as "gray" means you're smart. But it's still not gray.

Uncertainty = gray. Nuance = gray.

You can take a principled stance that killing is wrong and apply it to abortion. But then for principle's sake you better apply it to capital punishment and War as well.

But life beginning at conception is an opinion, so the legality of abortion is totally a gray area.

I would submit that often times rigid, black and white world views are far easier to take and require less intellect.

The world is full of gray.

God bless you Kalm.

[kalm]

Uncertainty = gray. Nuance = gray.

You can take a principled stance that killing is wrong and apply it to abortion. But then for principle's sake you better apply it to capital punishment and War as well.

But life beginning at conception is an opinion, so the legality of abortion is totally a gray area.

I would submit that often times rigid, black and white world views are far easier to take and require less intellect.

The world is full of gray.

God bless you Kalm.

That's an excellent point D1B.

Despite the black and white principles of the ten commandments, in practice christianity and most religions are full of gray.

[JohnStOnge]

Uncertainty = gray. Nuance = gray.

You can take a principled stance that killing is wrong and apply it to abortion. But then for principle's sake you better apply it to capital punishment and War as well.

But life beginning at conception is an opinion, so the legality of abortion is totally a gray area.

I would submit that often times rigid, black and white world views are far easier to take and require less intellect.

The world is full of gray

The fact that life, as a biological matter, begins at conception is not an opinion. It is a fact. Before conception, you have sex cells that are each part of a larger organism. At conception, when genetic recombination is complete, the life of a new organism is established. As stated by the embryology textbook I used way back during the 1970s:

"The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual."

Developmental Anatomy Leslie Brainard Arey, W.B Sanders & Company 1974.

That embryology textbook also includes a schematic of "...the life span in man..." that depicts life as divided into a "Prenatal Life" that begins with "Fertilization" and a "Postnatal life" ending...of course...with death.

The idea that there is doubt about when life begins for a member of our species is an excellent example of the way in which many in our society try to claim that there is gray when there is none. The question of when life begins for a member of our species has a very definite and well understood answer. There is no doubt at all about it. If it were not for the abortion issue...for the wish by society to maintain a policy it finds convenient...there wouldn't even be any debate about it.

As for principle and abortion vs. capital punishment and war; they are completely different circumstances. Capital punishment involves a circumstance in which it is at least SUPPOSED to have been established beyond "reasonable doubt" that somebody created a capital crime. Abortion is the taking of a completely innocent life. There is absolutely no inconsistency between the anti abortion and pro capital punishment positions. Similarly, war is justifiable in some circumstances. Usually, there is at least an attempt to portray it as a reaction to an unjust action on the part of some other entity. An unborn member of our species can take no unjust action. No way to argue that.

See? No gray at all.

Sticking to "black and white" in principle is not "easier." It means you don't adjust your approaches based strictly on what is most convenient for you at the time.

I do not consider uncertainty and "gray" to be the same thing. While there may be uncertainty, there is always an underlying "black and white" reality. Even in dealing with uncertainty, you can proceed according to black and white principles. There is risk of being wrong in one decision vs. potential benefit of being right as opposed to risks and benefits associated with other decisions.

I'm not saying that there is NEVER gray. But I think it is truely encountered with far less frequency than many "progressives" or "liberals" or whatever one wants to call them like to suggest. Most of the time, I think, it's just a way of justifying doing whatever one feels like doing at the time or doing something one knows isn't really justifiable.

[kalm]

The fact that life, as a biological matter, begins at conception is not an opinion. It is a fact. Before conception, you have sex cells that are each part of a larger organism. At conception, when genetic recombination is complete, the life of a new organism is established. As stated by the embryology textbook I used way back during the 1970s:

The idea that there is doubt about when life begins for a member of our species is an excellent example of the way in which many in our society try to claim that there is gray when there is none. The question of when life begins for a member of our species has a very definite and well understood answer. There is no doubt at all about it. If it were not for the abortion issue...for the wish by society to maintain a policy it finds convenient...there wouldn't even be any debate about it.

As for principle and abortion vs. capital punishment and war; they are completely different circumstances. Capital punishment involves a circumstance in which it is at least SUPPOSED to have been established beyond "reasonable doubt" that somebody created a capital crime. Abortion is the taking of a completely innocent life. There is absolutely no inconsistency between the anti abortion and pro capital punishment positions. Similarly, war is justifiable in some circumstances. Usually, there is at least an attempt to portray it as a reaction to an unjust action on the part of some other entity. An unborn member of our species can take no unjust action. No way to argue that.

I'll repeat: "Thou shall not kill". You just painted that principle gray.

Is the innocent child killed in a war zone as collateral damage worth less than the zygote?

I get what you're saying about conception, and don't neccessarily disagree. But some people's reality of being occurs when they first find out about the pregnancy, other's occur when they view the first ultrasound, still others occur when the child is born. Reality is relative. Who are you to determine reality for others?

Sticking to "black and white" in principle is not "easier." It means you don't adjust your approaches based strictly on what is most convenient for you at the time.

I do not consider uncertainty and "gray" to be the same thing. While there may be uncertainty, there is always an underlying "black and white" reality. Even in dealing with uncertainty, you can proceed according to black and white principles. There is risk of being wrong in one decision vs. potential benefit of being right as opposed to risks and benefits associated with other decisions.

I'm not saying that there is NEVER gray. But I think it is truely encountered with far less frequency than many "progressives" or "liberals" or whatever one wants to call them like to suggest. Most of the time, I think, it's just a way of justifying doing whatever one feels like doing at the time or doing something one knows isn't really justifiable.

You're guilty of a gross stereotype here and showing some deep naivete about people and the world around you.

[CID1990]

God bless you Kalm.

That's an excellent point D1B.

Despite the black and white principles of the ten commandments, in practice christianity and most religions are full of gray.

LOL.

D1B: "God bless you, Kalm"

Kalm: "That's an excellent point, D1B."

You guys' mutual virtual Internets suck-off fest is black and white.

[kalm]

That's an excellent point D1B.

Despite the black and white principles of the ten commandments, in practice christianity and most religions are full of gray.

LOL.

D1B: "God bless you, Kalm"

Kalm: "That's an excellent point, D1B."

You guys' mutual virtual Internets suck-off fest is black and white.

You either lack any sense of humor or...

You are jealous.

Regardless, take you interests elsewhere.

[YoUDeeMan]

Actually, there is no doubt about when a new human life begins. People can pop out excuses any way they want, but a separate human life form begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is no way to dispute that.

Now, people can argue about when a baby develops a mind of it's own (I am sure JSO would not argue that a sperm and an egg immediately develop a brain in the first two additional cells), but people can't argue that a sperm and an egg don't create a new life form once they start to grow together.

[kalm]

Actually, there is no doubt about when a new human life begins. People can pop out excuses any way they want, but a separate human life form begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is no way to dispute that.

Now, people can argue about when a baby develops a mind of it's own (I am sure JSO would not argue that a sperm and an egg immediately develop a brain in the first two additional cells), but people can't argue that a sperm and an egg don't create a new life form once they start to grow together.

Oh they can and they do. I'm probably on the same side as you and JSO on this one, but it's still an area of gray.

[AZGrizFan]

Actually, there is no doubt about when a new human life begins. People can pop out excuses any way they want, but a separate human life form begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is no way to dispute that.

Now, people can argue about when a baby develops a mind of it's own (I am sure JSO would not argue that a sperm and an egg immediately develop a brain in the first two additional cells), but people can't argue that a sperm and an egg don't create a new life form once they start to grow together.

Oh they can and they do. I'm probably on the same side as you and JSO on this one, but it's still an area of gray.

How is it a "separate life form" when it can't survive outside the female body?

[Chizzang]

Ah... Well that's better
I'm glad things are back to normal - A completely unrelated topic turned into a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice thread, it's good to see things falling back into place around here

Oh..!!! Double bonus Points: John the Saint chimes in on the black and white nature of the universe... wait... what..? Oops except where God and religion are concerned because scientifically speaking fuzzy gray is acceptable there... what.. there's more..? When is it acceptable to screw a teenage girl..? Oh, that's a gray area too... gosh John with all that science being tossed around up there how could there possibly be so much gray out there... Surely drunk driving is black and white.. Oops (Game show buzzer sound) Wrong again.. shucks you mean there's a gray area there too (crap)

Triple bonus: Cluck U chimes in with some "me too" pointing out that the most argued topic in North America simply "can't be argued"...

[JohnStOnge]

I'll repeat: "Thou shall not kill". You just painted that principle gray.

Is the innocent child killed in a war zone as collateral damage worth less than the zygote?

I get what you're saying about conception, and don't neccessarily disagree. But some people's reality of being occurs when they first find out about the pregnancy, other's occur when they view the first ultrasound, still others occur when the child is born. Reality is relative. Who are you to determine reality for others?

I did not make anything "gray." I did not allude to an absolute principle "Thou shalt not kill." I alluded to a clear set of distinctions between different situations. An abortion is an intentional attack on an innocent individual targeted specifically for that individual. An innocent child killed in war is not killed intentionally per se. The action resulting in the death is not taken for the purpose of killing an innocent child and, in fact, nowadays our country tries to avoid it.

Reality is not relative. That is something that I've heard often in the past that seems to be associated with the "progressive" point of view and it's nonsense. Reality is what it is. It does not change depending on what somebody thinks about it. It could be that there is no intrinsic right or wrong so that it's not wrong to kill an innocent child. If so the fact that I think there is intrinsic right and wrong makes no difference to the reality. And the fact that someone doesn't know of the existence of something doesn't eliminate the reality of that something. When genetic recombination is complete, a living member of our species exists. Whether its existence is perceived by the person carrying it or not is irrelevant. If the mother's "reality of being" perception doesn't come until the child is born, it doesn't change the fact that the organism that just emerged from their womb existed for quite some time (normally around 9 months) prior to that emergence.

Perception is not reality. Perception affects the way we respond to reality. But reality is reality regardless of perception.

[kalm]

I'll repeat: "Thou shall not kill". You just painted that principle gray.

Is the innocent child killed in a war zone as collateral damage worth less than the zygote?

I get what you're saying about conception, and don't neccessarily disagree. But some people's reality of being occurs when they first find out about the pregnancy, other's occur when they view the first ultrasound, still others occur when the child is born. Reality is relative. Who are you to determine reality for others?

I did not make anything "gray." I did not allude to an absolute principle "Thou shalt not kill." I alluded to a clear set of distinctions between different situations. An abortion is an intentional attack on an innocent individual targeted specifically for that individual. An innocent child killed in war is not killed intentionally per se. The action resulting in the death is not taken for the purpose of killing an innocent child and, in fact, nowadays our country tries to avoid it.

Reality is not relative. That is something that I've heard often in the past that seems to be associated with the "progressive" point of view and it's nonsense. Reality is what it is. It does not change depending on what somebody thinks about it. It could be that there is no intrinsic right or wrong so that it's not wrong to kill an innocent child. If so the fact that I think there is intrinsic right and wrong makes no difference to the reality. And the fact that someone doesn't know of the existence of something doesn't eliminate the reality of that something. When genetic recombination is complete, a living member of our species exists. Whether its existence is perceived by the person carrying it or not is irrelevant. If the mother's "reality of being" perception doesn't come until the child is born, it doesn't change the fact that the organism that just emerged from their womb existed for quite some time (normally around 9 months) prior to that emergence.

Perception is not reality. Perception affects the way we respond to reality. But reality is reality regardless of perception.

So the prior knowledge of collateral damage isn't a reality?

Again, you are entitled to your own opinion on the meaning of life, but not anyone else's reality.

Another example of gray would be the phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. Many of those bad guys we are trying to kill in Af-Pac were referred to as freedom fighters in the 1980's.

Despite "dead or alive", "they hate us for our freedoms", and "axis of evil" there's lot's of gray areas in the war on terror.