It never gets old! Have you read this one? http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml Yeah, a full standard deviation. What i really liked about the article you posted, is that the author practically confessed the bias her statistics represented: How interesting that the correlated statistics show that those of college age (the ones they interviewed) predominantly lean liberal, especially if they actually had the grades(IQ) to get into college. Wouldn't it be interesting if they were to run the same study amongst 40 year old men? No..... those acedemia folks probably wouldn't enjoy publishing those findings. Even better is the intellectual dishonesty of the CNN "journalist" who cooked up the article in such a way as to represent the data without pointing out the obvious flaws in it. It doesn't speak well to her IQ, or her editor's. It goes on: In other words, even after we seeded the survey pool with people who were more likely to be liberal in their age group, we further distorted the data calling anyone a liberal who supports private charitable organizations. Reading the bio of the self-proclaimed "strong libertarian" from the UK who put together this idiotic survey, it turns out he is a big supporter of blacks being a less intelligent race of people. I find it amuzing that the liberals on this forum are so eager to embrace the findings of such a person when they would probably label many of his other beliefs as racist. I guess its just a matter of who you are calling an idiot, which demonstrates the usual liberal hypocrisy. Regarding the author of that article, Elizabeth Landau, I can only shake my head and laugh. I was watching the "straight news" CNN anchor this morning explaining with a straight face why medical malpractice reform would have almost no effect on cutting the costs of health care. The saddest part is, CNN is probably the closest thing to journalism we have in cable news, and they are still completely in the tank. It actually makes them more dangerous than MSNBC as a liberal propaganda outlet. From another blog:
It doesn't have to mean that conservative people are less intelligent, unless they are right wing extremists. I am conservative in a way and I don't feel less intelligent than any liberal, but that's just my opinion. Liberal people have open mind about anything, so they don't judge and discriminate so they may seem like more intelligent, but they are for real just open minded.
Are you over 28? If so your opinion doesn't count according to this study. Are you in favor of private charitable giving? If so you are a liberal according to this study. They aren't going to let the fact conservatives give more to charity get in the way. (the link is one study amongst many) You wouldn't call the publishing of a cooked study that calls conservatives a more stupid breed of people, an attempt at judgement or discrimination? I think what you meant to say is that they proclaim to be less judgemental and less discriminatory. The facts seem to indicate there are as many bigots amongst liberals as there are amongst conservatives. See affirmative action, otherwise known as liberally institutionalized racial discrimination in the modern era. The liberals sell it as a fight against racial discrimination. Of course they also sell trillion dollar entitlement packages as "fixing the economy". It would be funny if it weren't so darkly cynical and hypocritical. Anyone see the interpretation machine in "Mars Attacks"? We come in peace.
I think I hooked one Billy... Feels like a large mouth to me!! Looks like your pole's a movin' too. Is that another one already? So good to know things haven't changed around here in my absence. Geesh, this post even spawned a neg rep on a 4 year old post of mine over in another area of the forum (Is that you Mia?). Just like old times... Now, if conservatives are of equal intelligence to libs (or independents for that matter), why is it so darn easy to go trolling and actually catch something...and quickly at that? Sayonara. I got to get back to the paying work again. Just thought I'd stop by to say hello.
Clever. The old "I was just trolling" excuse. Personally, I think you switched your tune when you had a chance to read the other bile your source of information was putting out. Did he catch you in his trolling net? Just so you know, I didn't neg rep you, though you probably deserve one just for repeating stupidity. If I do feel outrage, it is directed at CNN for green journalism. Even there, I would call it more jealousy than outrage. Fox has recently been slipping into the trap MSNBC fell into long ago, with bias frequently appearing from a select few of their "straight news" people. Its lowered their journalistic credibility, in my opinion, though they still carry more weight than MSNBC (like thats hard to do). That leaves CNN being preceived to be the most unbias source of information on cable news, and god knows they are anything but. No better way to get people to buy your propaganda than when they treat it as gospel, double entendre intended. Yeah, its definitely jealousy.
Shame they didnt have internet where you were. Maybe the liberals will get around to that in the next prison reform bill.
Now that was a good one! Touche' Actually, with the economy picking up I have been busy with some paying work and have far less time to lounge around in these forums. Never thought is was you 'bama. I only know one person in these parts that plays that particular juvenile game, and I called him on it. Trollin' excuse? Hardly. There was little doubt that someone would take the bait in these forums. I just choose to catch a red fish rather than a religious one. With grammar like that I suspect there may be something to this study. Looks like something I read in a fortune cookie the other night...
So if you admit the CNN article was troll bait, what do you have to say about CNN's presentation of it?
Strikes me as a bit of "faux news" FWIW, I smoke, have for 40 years (which is stupid, I freely admit) yet still qualify for membership in Mensa. Go figure...
The difference with the fox article you linked was that the author made inroads to debunk the study. Its called presenting both sides of an issue. It may have made use of bogus statistical information, though it wasn't apparent on the first read through. It also had nothing to do with politics, so unless the author was a nazi non-smoker, he/she probably didn't have a horse in the race. Smoking has also been scientifically proven to cause an early death, where as liberal or conservative leanings have no such negative consequence, making a correlation with intelligence nonsensical. I could go on, but I think you get the point. One other BS statistic to throw on the bon-fire. If you breathe air in the US, you are more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican.