Research: The intellectual differences between liberals and conservatives

[alan1]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

That must explain why only liberals own computers, only liberals post on the internet, only liberals own "smart" phones, only liberals invest in medical technology.
<end sarcasm>

Conservatives do those things.

But when it comes to "only liberals invent smart phones, the Internet and Medical Technology", then we might be a little nearer the mark. After all, Republicans slash education and smear scientists.

I'm sure you enjoy your fantasy world and probably even believe it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

That must explain why only liberals own computers, only liberals post on the internet, only liberals own "smart" phones, only liberals invest in medical technology.
<end sarcasm>

.....Not to mention the whole literacy-factor (explaining the White Wingers' preference for.....)

....PORK Radio.

(i.e......no reading required.)

 

[Photonic]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

That must explain why only liberals own computers, only liberals post on the internet, only liberals own "smart" phones, only liberals invest in medical technology.
<end sarcasm>

Conservatives do those things.

But when it comes to "only liberals invent smart phones, the Internet and Medical Technology", then we might be a little nearer the mark. After all, Republicans slash education and smear scientists.

That isn't entirely true.

Gov. Jerry Brown is using the California education system like a bank, making withdraws to shore up his budget deficit. He has cut 1 billion dollars from the public education system and caused a Crisis. At the same time he is giving public money to illegal immigrants to go to school.

 

[Listening]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

That must explain why only liberals own computers, only liberals post on the internet, only liberals own "smart" phones, only liberals invest in medical technology.
<end sarcasm>

Conservatives do those things.

But when it comes to "only liberals invent smart phones, the Internet and Medical Technology", then we might be a little nearer the mark. After all, Republicans slash education and smear scientists.

Those who work in engineering (mostly conservatives) realize the limited value of a scientist when it comes to actually putting something in place that both works and is cost effective.

So what was your problem ?

 

[Photonic]

That must explain why only liberals own computers, only liberals post on the internet, only liberals own "smart" phones, only liberals invest in medical technology.
<end sarcasm>

Conservatives do those things.

But when it comes to "only liberals invent smart phones, the Internet and Medical Technology", then we might be a little nearer the mark. After all, Republicans slash education and smear scientists.

Those who work in engineering (mostly conservatives) realize the limited value of a scientist when it comes to actually putting something in place that both works and is cost effective.

So what was your problem ?

Those who work in engineering should also understand that their jobs wouldn't exist if it wasn't for those same scientists.

 

[Listening]

Conservatives do those things.

But when it comes to "only liberals invent smart phones, the Internet and Medical Technology", then we might be a little nearer the mark. After all, Republicans slash education and smear scientists.

Those who work in engineering (mostly conservatives) realize the limited value of a scientist when it comes to actually putting something in place that both works and is cost effective.

So what was your problem ?

Those who work in engineering should also understand that their jobs wouldn't exist if it wasn't for those same scientists.

That is certainly not true all the way around.

And let's be very clear that many so called scientists spend lifetimes chasing research that is both poorly planned and of little value.

 

[Photonic]

Those who work in engineering (mostly conservatives) realize the limited value of a scientist when it comes to actually putting something in place that both works and is cost effective.

So what was your problem ?

Those who work in engineering should also understand that their jobs wouldn't exist if it wasn't for those same scientists.

That is certainly not true all the way around.

And let's be very clear that many so called scientists spend lifetimes chasing research that is both poorly planned and of little value.

I agree with you on that, I am referring to physicists/chemists/biologists, etc. The "hard sciences."

 

[Listening]

Those who work in engineering should also understand that their jobs wouldn't exist if it wasn't for those same scientists.

That is certainly not true all the way around.

And let's be very clear that many so called scientists spend lifetimes chasing research that is both poorly planned and of little value.

I agree with you on that, I am referring to physicists/chemists/biologists, etc. The "hard sciences."

Sure.

But, the point is (and this was never challenged by the left) that when people claim on 6% of scientists are republican or conservative (about 40% being independent), that this somehow supports the idea that liberalism is more intellectual.

When countered with the fact that most engineers (the people who deal in the real world and not in test tubes) are conservative.....the room suddenly gets very quiet.

 

[Crackerjack]

That is certainly not true all the way around.

And let's be very clear that many so called scientists spend lifetimes chasing research that is both poorly planned and of little value.

I agree with you on that, I am referring to physicists/chemists/biologists, etc. The "hard sciences."

Sure.

But, the point is (and this was never challenged by the left) that when people claim on 6% of scientists are republican or conservative (about 40% being independent), that this somehow supports the idea that liberalism is more intellectual.

When countered with the fact that most engineers (the people who deal in the real world and not in test tubes) are conservative.....the room suddenly gets very quiet.

I'm still trying to figure out why all this dick measuring is supposed to matter. I don't particularly trust a scientist to inform me on politics than I would think a scientist would trust me to build a suspension bridge (not being an engineer). Hell, Jimmy Carter had a science degree from Annapolis and ran nuclear subs, and he's hardly in anyone's top ten for greatest presidents.

 

[francoHFW]

Wow, is this like that "Bell Curve" book that stated blacks were stupid because they were the ones that got caught? Is this written by the same author?

I knew Dr. Hernstein and he concluded nothing of the sort. Pure academe. LOL

I read last night that the Brits in Ireland 1650 were called Toriadhe by the Irish guerillas ("pursued ones"), - now "tories", for any who are against progress, like anti-rebels in the colonies or conservatives in the UK.

 

[francoHFW]

Just another reason for the dupes to snap out of it, change the channel, and vote the interests of the people and the country rather than the greedy rich/corporations...Haha.

 

[Photonic]

That is certainly not true all the way around.

And let's be very clear that many so called scientists spend lifetimes chasing research that is both poorly planned and of little value.

I agree with you on that, I am referring to physicists/chemists/biologists, etc. The "hard sciences."

Sure.

But, the point is (and this was never challenged by the left) that when people claim on 6% of scientists are republican or conservative (about 40% being independent), that this somehow supports the idea that liberalism is more intellectual.

When countered with the fact that most engineers (the people who deal in the real world and not in test tubes) are conservative.....the room suddenly gets very quiet.

What happens in those test tubes is the real world. What happens in engineering is what humans perceive to be the real world.

But to be fair, you are right on all counts except physics. But I have known very few physicists who actually adhere to any set ideology on the political spectrum.

 

[daveman]

Deanie, in the dictionary definition of "untruthful" is your picture. You are the textbook definition of a lying scumbag.

False accusation from you. Bearing false witness from Windbutt.

I smell "flames". Remember, a mortal sin is for "all eternity".

I hate to break it to you chum but I'm an agnostic. Don't believe in God or any other deity. However, I fully support those who do. That's what made this country great.
You, on the other hand make a mockery of all that made this country what it is. You benefit from the sacrafice of those you mock. And that makes you a troll.

No, no, Westie. Derp has determined by looking at polls primarily composed of the numbers 6% that you are indeed a fundy Dominionist.

The polls don't lie, and neither does derp.

Or so he claims.

 

[Unkotare]

What a surprise that a troll thread like this would turn out to be nothing but an exercise in partisan douchebaggery ~

 

[Crackerjack]

What a surprise that a troll thread like this would turn out to be nothing but an exercise in partisan douchebaggery ~

I've noticed that Billy000's threads do tend to follow a certain progression. Usually it starts at stupid and eventually winds up somewhere beyond full retard, ending up around puddles-of-drool vegetative-state stupendous idiocy.

It's better than anything on television though, so I ain't complaining.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not so sure. If you pass intelligence tests with high scores but believe in "magical creation" or see "Noah's Flood" as a historical event or believe science is a faith and climate change a conspiracy, are you really that intelligent? Or just good at fooling a test?

I have to admit, I keep coming back to this thread because there is nothing more entertaining than right wingers discussing "intellectualism".

Are you trying to say Leonardo Da Vinci was stupid? C.S. Lewis? J.R.R Tolkien? Galileo Galile? Rather than believe all those people were less intelligent than they proved themselves to be I prefer to believe you are full of shit.

By the way, the guy that is called the smartest man in America, with an IQ of somewhere around 200, believes in God. Does that prove you are an idiot, or will you simply deny his existence?

If you mean this guy?

Chris Langan:

People who wanted to have children would apply to make sure they have no diseases. Why do we have to do it through genetic engineering? Well, we have to let only the fit breed…. Freedom is not necessarily a right. It is a privilege that you have to earn. A lot of people abuse their freedom and that is something that people have to be trained not to do.

Interviewer:

But who? Who does this training?

Chris Langan:

Well, I’d be perfectly willing to do it myself. Just put me in charge.”

He sounds like he's smart like Hitler. Yea Godwins law and all that aside sometimes a comparison is actually valid for fucks sake.

Source: Smartest Man in the World Espouses Virtues of Eugenics

Really, I've read this guys work and it is pathetic, he may be fairly intelligent but he knows next to nothing about reality.

Quick edit, Einstein was 163.

When asked, Stephen Hawkings had this to say;

Hawking was asked about his IQ in a 2004 newspaper interview, and replied, "I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." Yet when asked "Are you saying you are not a genius?", Hawking replied "I hope I'm near the upper end of the range."[56]

Lesson of the day: Having a high IQ does not make you smart in the traditional sense. It just means you're better at taking tests.

I was mocking rdean, not trying to prove anything. I actually read his theories myself, my thought was that I could do a better job. He obviously prefers to fit the facts into his theories rather than the other way around. If his IQ is actually as high as people think he is he might just be insane. Doesn't make him wrong, as I am smart enough to know I don't know everything.

 

[Photonic]

Are you trying to say Leonardo Da Vinci was stupid? C.S. Lewis? J.R.R Tolkien? Galileo Galile? Rather than believe all those people were less intelligent than they proved themselves to be I prefer to believe you are full of shit.

By the way, the guy that is called the smartest man in America, with an IQ of somewhere around 200, believes in God. Does that prove you are an idiot, or will you simply deny his existence?

If you mean this guy?

Chris Langan:

People who wanted to have children would apply to make sure they have no diseases. Why do we have to do it through genetic engineering? Well, we have to let only the fit breed…. Freedom is not necessarily a right. It is a privilege that you have to earn. A lot of people abuse their freedom and that is something that people have to be trained not to do.

Interviewer:

But who? Who does this training?

Chris Langan:

Well, I’d be perfectly willing to do it myself. Just put me in charge.”

He sounds like he's smart like Hitler. Yea Godwins law and all that aside sometimes a comparison is actually valid for fucks sake.

Source: Smartest Man in the World Espouses Virtues of Eugenics

Really, I've read this guys work and it is pathetic, he may be fairly intelligent but he knows next to nothing about reality.

Quick edit, Einstein was 163.

When asked, Stephen Hawkings had this to say;

Hawking was asked about his IQ in a 2004 newspaper interview, and replied, "I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers." Yet when asked "Are you saying you are not a genius?", Hawking replied "I hope I'm near the upper end of the range."[56]

Lesson of the day: Having a high IQ does not make you smart in the traditional sense. It just means you're better at taking tests.

I was mocking rdean, not trying to prove anything. I actually read his theories myself, my thought was that I could do a better job. He obviously prefers to fit the facts into his theories rather than the other way around. If his IQ is actually as high as people think he is he might just be insane. Doesn't make him wrong, as I am smart enough to know I don't know everything.

Ahh, I see, my apologies then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This isn't the first time you've been so dishonest. You make a statement you falsely attribute to me and then argue against what is a ridiculous position that you completely made up. You have no shame. Seriously, you are damaged goods. The worst part is you know it and don't care.

Just because I make statements that contradict your beliefs does not mean I am dishonest, it just means your beliefs are wrong.



You have always said a lot of things, none of which are true. Everyone is welcome in the Republican party, even blacks, (Alan West, Herman Cain) Hispanics, (Marco Rubio, Joe Araaio) and gays (The Log Cabin Republicans who just forced Obama to finally get rid of DADT).



You should tell all these people that they are not Republicans, they might join your coalition.

What is the Secular Right? · Secular Right

Skeptical Conservatives

Muslim Republicans Muslim Conservatives GOP Islam Moslem



Fundagelic, that is a neat word. Tell me the truth, who did you steal it from?



Waiting for what? Your denial of the truth?

The poll was conducted through telephone calls using land lines. The vast majority of those using land lines are much older and less educated. I use Skype. I don't even own a phone.

What your links did point out was the incredible diversity within the Democrat Party that simply doesn't exist within the Republican party. Of course, to a party that is 90% white, "diversity" is a "bad" thing.

Once again you printed everything except your "false statement". Here, let me help you:


I already showed you numbers that prove that Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans, yet you continue to insist that only Republicans believe it.

I continue to insist? Of course you can prove that, right. It's OK. We both know you can't.

You see. You're a lying sack of....well, you know. We ALL know.

I have to admit the part about the Log Cabin Republicans were the reason DADT finally ended was "inspired". How you make this stuff up shows you are a very creative person. Hilarious.

If all these minorities were welcome in the Republican Party, that party would look more like the Democrats and not 90% white.

Then all these Perry, Paul, Santorum, Bachmann and so on quotes pop up and Republicans, such as yourself, say, "That's not what they said" or "That's not what they meant".

Well, try as you might, you can't put lipstick on a pig.

Are you denying that whenever you talk about "magical creation" or the flood making the Grand Canyon you are talking about Republicans?

Please, make a fool of yourself here and tell me you are mocking Democrats when you say things like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is also the point that every technophile I have EVER known has been conservative. (Not necessarily republican)

Also if we don't work on things like the light rail now, the technology will never advance to the point where it would be better than the old shit it is replacing.

Imagine if they had never build the car because at first it was more trouble than a horse and far more costly?

At what cost.

The twenty miles we got in Seattle cost a billion. Ridership not meeting expectations.

See, that's where things get messed up, they should have done a research on the population that it's meant for.

Los Angeles has a massive car culture, so naturally the roads are packed 10 hours out of the day. If you have never been to Southern California imagine if your rush hour was 3 times more packed and lasted 5 hours in the morning and 5 hours in the evening.

I spent years in SoCal and usually discovered that it avoiding rush hour parking lots simply meant taking an alternate route. That was in the days before GPS, but I bet you can still avoid the worst of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals also generally accept new technology while conservatives, by definition, want nothing to do with progress.

Hence the conservative title.

I do not see liberals being more intelligent, just more open minded.

What?? you couldn't be more wrong. You really don't know any real conservatives do you?
The acceptance of new Tech !!! that's just plan a laugh. Total lack of understanding.

You would not be conservative if you were accepting of change.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term has since been used to describe a wide range of views.

Not changing society does not mean not accepting new technology. If you were half as smart as you think you are you would know that.