Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

[MarcATL]

Anyone that supports Hitlery and the Clinton crime family have fallen for the ultimate in bullshit.

"BUT BUT BUT BUT....But HILARY!!!"

Don't like the counter to your argument? Tough shit......I know more than you....infinitely more.

Can you name a USMB member who knows more than you?

MisterBeale comes immediately to mind....he is simply more subtle about things than I am. JimBowie1958 is another peer. There are others that I believe possess the knowledge I have that simply don't want the hassle of dealing with trolls. I don't mind dealing with it because I am confident in what I have researched and the information that I have vetted. Totally going "cold turkey" off of TV has been a monumental help.

Awesome. Peers. Nobody superior?

LoLing!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, yes...the liberal belief that THEY are smarter than anyone who doesn't agree with them!

Funny how you folks have people like R-Derp, Rshermr and Lakhota posting yet you claim to be intelligent.

 

[Tresha91203]

"Liberal" in these studies does not mean "progressive." Classic liberals (libertarians) consistently rate higher. They generally vote republican.

Religion is considered dumb, but so is big government. The smart ones want government out of our businesses (less regulation and freedom of association) and our bedrooms.

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?

"Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter. Carl further reports that those who endorse both social conservatism and economic statism also have lower verbal IQ scores.

"Overall, my findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans," concludes Carl. If the dumb, I mean socially conservative, Republicans keep disrespecting us classical liberals, we'll take our IQ points and go home.

As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom."

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Anyone that supports Hitlery and the Clinton crime family have fallen for the ultimate in bullshit.

"BUT BUT BUT BUT....But HILARY!!!"

Don't like the counter to your argument? Tough shit......I know more than you....infinitely more.

You sure do like to talk a lot about how much you "know." You also like to talk about how high your IQ is. You love talking about how much "more" you know than other people, and you always sound like Trump when you write..."I know more than you...infinitely more."

You are nothing but a know-nothing muppet.

And you like to just spew Liberal propaganda and pretend it has any form of merit. Do you lack the ability to actually debate with facts, or are you just too lazy to even try to become informed?

What I would like is for the OP to make a convincing argument as to why Hitlery is fit to serve as CEO of USA.INC and why people should ignore the fact that she used her private server to sell diplomacy and the lifting of trade sanctions in exchange for donations...they did the same thing with china back in the 90's when they were in the WH. Chinagate has never been given it's proper due. The Clintons gave them access to the patent office much like Truman did with Russia...these are facts and not disputable.

No Liberal can actually provide a convincing argument, that's why when someone points out she isn't fit, they just scoff and pretend that questioning her is ridiculous. It's also why they try to claim that everything is a "Right wing witch hunt".

 

[SYTFE]

What I would like is for the OP to make a convincing argument as to why Hitlery is fit to serve as CEO of USA.INC and why people should ignore the fact that she used her private server to sell diplomacy and the lifting of trade sanctions in exchange for donations...they did the same thing with china back in the 90's when they were in the WH. Chinagate has never been given it's proper due. The Clintons gave them access to the patent office much like Truman did with Russia...these are facts and not disputable.

I missed this post. I do not think Hillary is fit to serve as "CEO" of the USA, though I do find your use of "CEO" to be amusing. Conservatives seem to think the USA is a business.

 

[Dale Smith]

"Liberal" in these studies does not mean "progressive." Classic liberals (libertarians) consistently rate higher. They generally vote republican.

Religion is considered dumb, but so is big government. The smart ones want government out of our businesses (less regulation and freedom of association) and our bedrooms.

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?

"Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter. Carl further reports that those who endorse both social conservatism and economic statism also have lower verbal IQ scores.

"Overall, my findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans," concludes Carl. If the dumb, I mean socially conservative, Republicans keep disrespecting us classical liberals, we'll take our IQ points and go home.

As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom."

What I would like is for the OP to make a convincing argument as to why Hitlery is fit to serve as CEO of USA.INC and why people should ignore the fact that she used her private server to sell diplomacy and the lifting of trade sanctions in exchange for donations...they did the same thing with china back in the 90's when they were in the WH. Chinagate has never been given it's proper due. The Clintons gave them access to the patent office much like Truman did with Russia...these are facts and not disputable.

I missed this post. I do not think Hillary is fit to serve as "CEO" of the USA, though I do find your use of "CEO" to be amusing. Conservatives seem to think the USA is a business.

Your beloved "gubermint" is a corporation and it has 185,000 subsidiaries that you can find on the Dun and Bradstreet website....I have proved this to ad naseum. I proved that the IRS is actually a Puerto Rican Trust #62 and is actually a collection arm of the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950 after the internationally owned federal reserve bankers bankrupted us yet again.........lots of history that you have no clue about....shit I know that you don't....deal with it.

 

[Vigilante]

PROOF the OP's title should be
Liberals More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Conservatives

 

[oreo]

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley
Ronald Bailey|May. 17, 2016 12:36 pm

The new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded.

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.​

​

Hilarious. Love it!

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

Personally I think Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are tied when it comes to the political ignorance of their supporters. They both exploited their supporters ignorance.

They both have campaigned on issues that wouldn't have a snow balls chance in hell of ever getting through congress.

1. Sanders continually campaigned on breaking up the big banks, and I am certain his supporters do not know that he nor the Federal Government has the authority to do that. The Federal Reserve banks and the Federal Government have always operated separately and independently of one another.
Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break Up Big Banks, Among Other Things | VICE News

2. Trump--anchor babies or the 14th amendment. To change or repeal the 14th amendment would require 2/3's of the Senate, and 2/3's of the Congress, and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. No way that would ever happen.

So they have both been very good at exploiting the political ignorance of their supporters for donations and votes.

Republicans got suckered in and now they're stuck with the Chimpanzee. But Democrats were much smarter to kick Bernie Sanders to the curb. Hillary Clinton is going to win in a Landslide.

 

[Lutroo]

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley
Ronald Bailey|May. 17, 2016 12:36 pm

The new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded.

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.​

​

Hilarious. Love it!

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

So, who gets to decide if the statements are bull shit? Obviously just another biased study. Not to mention a bunch of bull shit.

 

[OKTexas]

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley
Ronald Bailey|May. 17, 2016 12:36 pm

The new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded.

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.​

​

Hilarious. Love it!

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

Yet we didn't vote for the liar of the year, twice.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley
Ronald Bailey|May. 17, 2016 12:36 pm

The new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded.

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.​

​

Hilarious. Love it!

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

Personally I think Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are tied when it comes to the political ignorance of their supporters. They both exploited their supporters ignorance.

They both have campaigned on issues that wouldn't have a snow balls chance in hell of ever getting through congress.

1. Sanders continually campaigned on breaking up the big banks, and I am certain his supporters do not know that he nor the Federal Government has the authority to do that. The Federal Reserve banks and the Federal Government have always operated separately and independently of one another.
Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break Up Big Banks, Among Other Things | VICE News

2. Trump--anchor babies or the 14th amendment. To change or repeal the 14th amendment would require 2/3's of the Senate, and 2/3's of the Congress, and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. No way that would ever happen.

So they have both been very good at exploiting the political ignorance of their supporters for donations and votes.

Republicans got suckered in and now they're stuck with the Chimpanzee. But Democrats were much smarter to kick Bernie Sanders to the curb. Hillary Clinton is going to win in a Landslide.

Democrats voted Trump as the nominee, and neither party actually wants him to be president.

 

[oreo]

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley
Ronald Bailey|May. 17, 2016 12:36 pm

The new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded.

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.​

​

Hilarious. Love it!

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

Personally I think Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are tied when it comes to the political ignorance of their supporters. They both exploited their supporters ignorance.

They both have campaigned on issues that wouldn't have a snow balls chance in hell of ever getting through congress.

1. Sanders continually campaigned on breaking up the big banks, and I am certain his supporters do not know that he nor the Federal Government has the authority to do that. The Federal Reserve banks and the Federal Government have always operated separately and independently of one another.
Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break Up Big Banks, Among Other Things | VICE News

2. Trump--anchor babies or the 14th amendment. To change or repeal the 14th amendment would require 2/3's of the Senate, and 2/3's of the Congress, and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. No way that would ever happen.

So they have both been very good at exploiting the political ignorance of their supporters for donations and votes.

Republicans got suckered in and now they're stuck with the Chimpanzee. But Democrats were much smarter to kick Bernie Sanders to the curb. Hillary Clinton is going to win in a Landslide.

Democrats voted Trump as the nominee, and neither party actually wants him to be president.

Yeah in the open primary states there was a lot of operation Trump voting going on by Democrats. But operation Bernie was also going on by Republicans. Both were looking for the weakest candidate to beat in the General Election.

Bernie Sanders a master of smoke and mirrors-while exploiting political ignorance

 

[Clementine]

Anyone that supports Hitlery and the Clinton crime family have fallen for the ultimate in bullshit.

Yup, they think they aren't affected by bullshit because they've been trained to accept it as fact. Like believing that Bill met with Lynch to talk about grandkids. Yes, they think they're smart for believing that. And they believe that even though Hillary admitted using a personal server for all her emails that somehow no classified emails were on it. And they don't even ask about the $6 Billion in missing money because they are sure Hillary spent it wisely. Yes, they are so smart that they believe anything told to them by liberals. Now, some of those liberals have rewarded them by writing a fictional article about how smart they are.

Intelligence isn't blindly following and believing what is told to you by your leaders. Liberals never question their leaders even when wading through deep bullshit. They could be drowning in it and would still believe what Hillary says.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley
Ronald Bailey|May. 17, 2016 12:36 pm

The new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded.

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.​

​

Hilarious. Love it!

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

Personally I think Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders are tied when it comes to the political ignorance of their supporters. They both exploited their supporters ignorance.

They both have campaigned on issues that wouldn't have a snow balls chance in hell of ever getting through congress.

1. Sanders continually campaigned on breaking up the big banks, and I am certain his supporters do not know that he nor the Federal Government has the authority to do that. The Federal Reserve banks and the Federal Government have always operated separately and independently of one another.
Bernie Sanders Can't Explain How He'd Break Up Big Banks, Among Other Things | VICE News

2. Trump--anchor babies or the 14th amendment. To change or repeal the 14th amendment would require 2/3's of the Senate, and 2/3's of the Congress, and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. No way that would ever happen.

So they have both been very good at exploiting the political ignorance of their supporters for donations and votes.

Republicans got suckered in and now they're stuck with the Chimpanzee. But Democrats were much smarter to kick Bernie Sanders to the curb. Hillary Clinton is going to win in a Landslide.

Democrats voted Trump as the nominee, and neither party actually wants him to be president.

Yeah in the open primary states there was a lot of operation Trump voting going on by Democrats. But operation Bernie was also going on by Republicans. Both were looking for the weakest candidate to beat in the General Election.

Bernie Sanders a master of smoke and mirrors-while exploiting political ignorance

This is one of many reasons Open Primaries should not exist.

 

[Muhammed]

The majority of Democrats believe in ghosts and that space aliens are visiting earth.

 

[SYTFE]

"Liberal" in these studies does not mean "progressive." Classic liberals (libertarians) consistently rate higher. They generally vote republican.

Religion is considered dumb, but so is big government. The smart ones want government out of our businesses (less regulation and freedom of association) and our bedrooms.

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?

"Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter. Carl further reports that those who endorse both social conservatism and economic statism also have lower verbal IQ scores.

"Overall, my findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans," concludes Carl. If the dumb, I mean socially conservative, Republicans keep disrespecting us classical liberals, we'll take our IQ points and go home.

As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom."

What I would like is for the OP to make a convincing argument as to why Hitlery is fit to serve as CEO of USA.INC and why people should ignore the fact that she used her private server to sell diplomacy and the lifting of trade sanctions in exchange for donations...they did the same thing with china back in the 90's when they were in the WH. Chinagate has never been given it's proper due. The Clintons gave them access to the patent office much like Truman did with Russia...these are facts and not disputable.

I missed this post. I do not think Hillary is fit to serve as "CEO" of the USA, though I do find your use of "CEO" to be amusing. Conservatives seem to think the USA is a business.

Your beloved "gubermint" is a corporation and it has 185,000 subsidiaries that you can find on the Dun and Bradstreet website....I have proved this to ad naseum. I proved that the IRS is actually a Puerto Rican Trust #62 and is actually a collection arm of the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950 after the internationally owned federal reserve bankers bankrupted us yet again.........lots of history that you have no clue about....shit I know that you don't....deal with it.

Source?

Right wing nutjob sites aren't reliable sources.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Liberal" in these studies does not mean "progressive." Classic liberals (libertarians) consistently rate higher. They generally vote republican.

Religion is considered dumb, but so is big government. The smart ones want government out of our businesses (less regulation and freedom of association) and our bedrooms.

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?

"Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter. Carl further reports that those who endorse both social conservatism and economic statism also have lower verbal IQ scores.

"Overall, my findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans," concludes Carl. If the dumb, I mean socially conservative, Republicans keep disrespecting us classical liberals, we'll take our IQ points and go home.

As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom."

What I would like is for the OP to make a convincing argument as to why Hitlery is fit to serve as CEO of USA.INC and why people should ignore the fact that she used her private server to sell diplomacy and the lifting of trade sanctions in exchange for donations...they did the same thing with china back in the 90's when they were in the WH. Chinagate has never been given it's proper due. The Clintons gave them access to the patent office much like Truman did with Russia...these are facts and not disputable.

I missed this post. I do not think Hillary is fit to serve as "CEO" of the USA, though I do find your use of "CEO" to be amusing. Conservatives seem to think the USA is a business.

Your beloved "gubermint" is a corporation and it has 185,000 subsidiaries that you can find on the Dun and Bradstreet website....I have proved this to ad naseum. I proved that the IRS is actually a Puerto Rican Trust #62 and is actually a collection arm of the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950 after the internationally owned federal reserve bankers bankrupted us yet again.........lots of history that you have no clue about....shit I know that you don't....deal with it.

Source?

Right wing nutjob sites aren't reliable sources.

You mean like the blog you started this string with? You really aren't very bright...are you?

 

[SYTFE]

"Liberal" in these studies does not mean "progressive." Classic liberals (libertarians) consistently rate higher. They generally vote republican.

Religion is considered dumb, but so is big government. The smart ones want government out of our businesses (less regulation and freedom of association) and our bedrooms.

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?

"Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter. Carl further reports that those who endorse both social conservatism and economic statism also have lower verbal IQ scores.

"Overall, my findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans," concludes Carl. If the dumb, I mean socially conservative, Republicans keep disrespecting us classical liberals, we'll take our IQ points and go home.

As gratifying as Carl's research findings are, it is still a deep puzzle to me why it apparently takes high intelligence to understand that the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom."

What I would like is for the OP to make a convincing argument as to why Hitlery is fit to serve as CEO of USA.INC and why people should ignore the fact that she used her private server to sell diplomacy and the lifting of trade sanctions in exchange for donations...they did the same thing with china back in the 90's when they were in the WH. Chinagate has never been given it's proper due. The Clintons gave them access to the patent office much like Truman did with Russia...these are facts and not disputable.

I missed this post. I do not think Hillary is fit to serve as "CEO" of the USA, though I do find your use of "CEO" to be amusing. Conservatives seem to think the USA is a business.

Your beloved "gubermint" is a corporation and it has 185,000 subsidiaries that you can find on the Dun and Bradstreet website....I have proved this to ad naseum. I proved that the IRS is actually a Puerto Rican Trust #62 and is actually a collection arm of the IMF that took USA.INC into receivership in 1950 after the internationally owned federal reserve bankers bankrupted us yet again.........lots of history that you have no clue about....shit I know that you don't....deal with it.

Source?

Right wing nutjob sites aren't reliable sources.

You mean like the blog you started this string with? You really aren't very bright...are you?

It's not a "blog."

Reason is the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets." It covers politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews. Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity.

Reason.com is updated daily with articles and columns on current developments in politics and culture. It also contains the full text of past issues of the print edition of Reason.

Reason and Reason.com are editorially independent publications of the Reason Foundation, a national, non-profit research and educational organization.

You really aren't very bright...are you?

 

[Oldstyle]

It's called "Hit & Run Blog" you moron! That's about as descriptive as it gets.

 

[SYTFE]

It's called "Hit & Run Blog" you moron! That's about as descriptive as it gets.

Except THEY didn't create the study. They're only commenting on the findings. Is this stuff confusing to you, old fart? Have a problem with the study? Then take it up with the conservatives who are more susceptible to bullshit than liberals.