"Conservative" can't be used as an insult because the word has solid connotations, liberal can because it doesn't. Conservative : nice girl saving herself until marriage :: liberal : whore. Liberals use other words or other implications that mean the same thing as the political right as insults.Mekstizzle wrote:
i hardly ever see the word conservative thrown around as an insult as badly as people throw around the word liberal. I don't identify myself as either, but I always see self-identified conservatives constantly bashing things, liberal this, liberal that, blah blah blah
The typical american/british/anglo world self-identified conservatives (the populist type) always act like that
don't just say' no' like a stupid idiot, it was my opinion on how shit is... you can't just say no to an opinion.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Liberalist and atheist? You're the smart one!
Six points is not statistically significant no matter what the author may say. To those that understand baseball, it's the equivalent of someone hitting .265 rather than .270. It's a matter of two batted balls falling into play instead of being caught. The difference between an IQ of 97 and 103 is so miniscule that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart if you had a conversation with them. Dumb article is dumb.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Over time, it can. If you live in a culture without much formal education and where breeding puts an emphasis on traits that aren't related to I.Q., then this can result in a population with lower I.Q.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
p.s. IQ has nothing to do with level of education.
So, in the short run, education and I.Q. aren't the same. In the long run, the two tend to favor each other because of culture and selective breeding.
I think Mek's incorrect to an extent. I know quite a few people that use conservative as being synonymous with "closed minded" or "stuck up."Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"Conservative" can't be used as an insult because the word has solid connotations, liberal can because it doesn't. Conservative : nice girl saving herself until marriage :: liberal : whore. Liberals use other words or other implications that mean the same thing as the political right as insults.Mekstizzle wrote:
i hardly ever see the word conservative thrown around as an insult as badly as people throw around the word liberal. I don't identify myself as either, but I always see self-identified conservatives constantly bashing things, liberal this, liberal that, blah blah blah
The typical american/british/anglo world self-identified conservatives (the populist type) always act like that
don't just say' no' like a stupid idiot, it was my opinion on how shit is... you can't just say no to an opinion.
There isn't a culture in the history of the world (outside of Southern California) that didn't/doesn't value intelligence. Silly argument.Turquoise wrote:
Over time, it can. If you live in a culture without much formal education and where breeding puts an emphasis on traits that aren't related to I.Q., then this can result in a population with lower I.Q.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
p.s. IQ has nothing to do with level of education.
So, in the short run, education and I.Q. aren't the same. In the long run, the two tend to favor each other because of culture and selective breeding.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-27 11:36:28)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Incorrect... many cultures value a different form of intelligence from I.Q.JohnG@lt wrote:
There isn't a culture in the history of the world (outside of Southern California) that didn't/doesn't value intelligence. Silly argument.Turquoise wrote:
Over time, it can. If you live in a culture without much formal education and where breeding puts an emphasis on traits that aren't related to I.Q., then this can result in a population with lower I.Q.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
p.s. IQ has nothing to do with level of education.
So, in the short run, education and I.Q. aren't the same. In the long run, the two tend to favor each other because of culture and selective breeding.
Again, if you look at the 8 intelligences model, you'll see what I mean.
EDIT: Or rather, you are correct, but in a different way than you're probably intending. Every culture values intelligence, but just not always I.Q.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-27 11:42:16)
Of course it's statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. Your baseball analogy is woefully off, as two units in a sample of "national U.S." size would have no appreciable impact on the final results. Statistical significance increases with sample size, and in a sample of the size suggested, a difference of six points is very significant.JohnG@lt wrote:
Six points is not statistically significant no matter what the author may say. To those that understand baseball, it's the equivalent of someone hitting .265 rather than .270. It's a matter of two batted balls falling into play instead of being caught. The difference between an IQ of 97 and 103 is so miniscule that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart if you had a conversation with them. Dumb article is dumb.
tea partyJohnG@lt wrote:
There isn't a culture in the history of the world (outside of Southern California) that didn't/doesn't value intelligence. Silly argument.Turquoise wrote:
Over time, it can. If you live in a culture without much formal education and where breeding puts an emphasis on traits that aren't related to I.Q., then this can result in a population with lower I.Q.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
p.s. IQ has nothing to do with level of education.
So, in the short run, education and I.Q. aren't the same. In the long run, the two tend to favor each other because of culture and selective breeding.
Tu Stultus Es
Generally people from better backgrounds go to better schools and so forth and then end up with a more liberal viewpoint. I would say its generally unrelated to intelligence.
Liberals think the government is the solution to everything. That is beyond stupid, it is insanity.
"If you're young and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are old and not a conservative, you are stupid"h4hagen wrote:
Generally people from better backgrounds go to better schools and so forth and then end up with a more liberal viewpoint. I would say its generally unrelated to intelligence.
Think Churchill said that lol.
What a stupid concept. Such broad categories as "religious" and "atheist" (which certainly is not nonreligious) are supposed to account for these statistical correlations (which as we all know, does not imply causation), and they are presenting the IQ test as a good form of measuring intelligence?
Bullshit. There's just no point to.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
"Conservative" can't be used as an insult because the word has solid connotations, liberal can because it doesn't. Conservative : nice girl saving herself until marriage Prude :: liberal : whore Liberated. Liberals use other words or other implications that mean the same thing as the political right as insults.Mekstizzle wrote:
i hardly ever see the word conservative thrown around as an insult as badly as people throw around the word liberal. I don't identify myself as either, but I always see self-identified conservatives constantly bashing things, liberal this, liberal that, blah blah blah
The typical american/british/anglo world self-identified conservatives (the populist type) always act like that
don't just say' no' like a stupid idiot, it was my opinion on how shit is... you can't just say no to an opinion.
It's because the term as used in the US is completely different than the classical definition of the term. And liberals do vice versa, Mek. Conservatives just aren't ashamed of being conservative.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I find interesting is that american (and increasingly british) conservatives often use the word liberal as an insult whereas liberals don't really do vice versa
once you do get someone using conservative in a derogatory manner everyone gets all defensive, even people who i wouldn't really identify as conservative
maybe it's just the natural human psyche
this thread will be closed in proof
Last edited by FEOS (2010-02-27 12:17:14)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This is no more stupid than believing the market is the solution to everything.ATG wrote:
Liberals think the government is the solution to everything. That is beyond stupid, it is insanity.
Neither are liberals. There are a lot of people who pretend to be liberal though.FEOS wrote:
It's because the term as used in the US is completely different than the classical definition of the term. And liberals do vice versa, Mek. Conservatives just aren't ashamed of being conservative.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I find interesting is that american (and increasingly british) conservatives often use the word liberal as an insult whereas liberals don't really do vice versa
once you do get someone using conservative in a derogatory manner everyone gets all defensive, even people who i wouldn't really identify as conservative
maybe it's just the natural human psyche
this thread will be closed in proof
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-27 13:00:06)
Correct. Modern liberalism has no resemblance to Classical Liberalism which is where my views lie.FEOS wrote:
It's because the term as used in the US is completely different than the classical definition of the term. And liberals do vice versa, Mek. Conservatives just aren't ashamed of being conservative.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I find interesting is that american (and increasingly british) conservatives often use the word liberal as an insult whereas liberals don't really do vice versa
once you do get someone using conservative in a derogatory manner everyone gets all defensive, even people who i wouldn't really identify as conservative
maybe it's just the natural human psyche
this thread will be closed in proof
Besides, look at the age groups of those that were tracked. The majority of 20 year olds in any country are vastly more liberal than any other age group and the same people generally become more conservative with age. I bet the results will be different ten years down the road with the same group.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What's that saying about if you're in your twenties and you're not a liberal then you don't have a heart and if you're in your forties and you're not a conservative then you don't have a brain...something like that.JohnG@lt wrote:
Correct. Modern liberalism has no resemblance to Classical Liberalism which is where my views lie.FEOS wrote:
It's because the term as used in the US is completely different than the classical definition of the term. And liberals do vice versa, Mek. Conservatives just aren't ashamed of being conservative.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I find interesting is that american (and increasingly british) conservatives often use the word liberal as an insult whereas liberals don't really do vice versa
once you do get someone using conservative in a derogatory manner everyone gets all defensive, even people who i wouldn't really identify as conservative
maybe it's just the natural human psyche
this thread will be closed in proof
Besides, look at the age groups of those that were tracked. The majority of 20 year olds in any country are vastly more liberal than any other age group and the same people generally become more conservative with age. I bet the results will be different ten years down the road with the same group.
Last edited by FEOS (2010-02-27 13:37:46)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Do you know what statistical significance means?JohnG@lt wrote:
Six points is not statistically significant no matter what the author may say. To those that understand baseball, it's the equivalent of someone hitting .265 rather than .270. It's a matter of two batted balls falling into play instead of being caught. The difference between an IQ of 97 and 103 is so miniscule that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart if you had a conversation with them. Dumb article is dumb.
IQ is supposedly a measure of one's ability to learn, not one's learning. A toddler can have the same IQ has a college grad. Saying that IQ and education are related is like saying level of education and political preference are related. Some level of correlation doesn't mean they are linked in any meaningful way.Turquoise wrote:
Over time, it can. If you live in a culture without much formal education and where breeding puts an emphasis on traits that aren't related to I.Q., then this can result in a population with lower I.Q.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
p.s. IQ has nothing to do with level of education.
So, in the short run, education and I.Q. aren't the same. In the long run, the two tend to favor each other because of culture and selective breeding.
Think churchill said that.FEOS wrote:
What's that saying about if you're in your twenties and you're not a liberal then you don't have a heart and if you're in your forties and you're not a conservative then you don't have a brain...something like that.JohnG@lt wrote:
Correct. Modern liberalism has no resemblance to Classical Liberalism which is where my views lie.FEOS wrote:
It's because the term as used in the US is completely different than the classical definition of the term. And liberals do vice versa, Mek. Conservatives just aren't ashamed of being conservative.
Besides, look at the age groups of those that were tracked. The majority of 20 year olds in any country are vastly more liberal than any other age group and the same people generally become more conservative with age. I bet the results will be different ten years down the road with the same group.
Then why are they changing the nom du jour to "progressives" and away from "liberals"?Turquoise wrote:
This is no more stupid than believing the market is the solution to everything.ATG wrote:
Liberals think the government is the solution to everything. That is beyond stupid, it is insanity.Neither are liberals. There are a lot of people who pretend to be liberal though.FEOS wrote:
It's because the term as used in the US is completely different than the classical definition of the term. And liberals do vice versa, Mek. Conservatives just aren't ashamed of being conservative.Mekstizzle wrote:
What I find interesting is that american (and increasingly british) conservatives often use the word liberal as an insult whereas liberals don't really do vice versa
once you do get someone using conservative in a derogatory manner everyone gets all defensive, even people who i wouldn't really identify as conservative
maybe it's just the natural human psyche
this thread will be closed in proof
Stupid idea, btw. That just links them more tightly to Wilson. And if they're OK with that, then they're not very good students of history.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The percentage differences are small and the number of other factors are large. I'd put very, very little faith in these findings.
The difference between the former and the latter is that a focus on education through generations is more conducive to the ability to learn itself.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
IQ is supposedly a measure of one's ability to learn, not one's learning. A toddler can have the same IQ has a college grad. Saying that IQ and education are related is like saying level of education and political preference are related. Some level of correlation doesn't mean they are linked in any meaningful way.
I.Q. is partially genetic, but it is also partially conditioned. You can improve your I.Q. over time just the same that you can improve the other 8 intelligences.
They're changing the name because the conservatives have successfully made the word "liberal" look negative among moderates.FEOS wrote:
Then why are they changing the nom du jour to "progressives" and away from "liberals"?
Stupid idea, btw. That just links them more tightly to Wilson. And if they're OK with that, then they're not very good students of history.
It's not a matter of how liberals feel about themselves. Then again, the percentage of people who are actually liberal is considerably lower than the percentage of people that are moderate or conservative.
By our very nature as a species, we are more inclined to be conservative or moderate. Being liberal overall requires a certain amount of tolerance and counterintuitive thinking.
And yes, by that definition, the so-called liberals who aggressively demonize conservatives are not actually liberal, because they are being intolerant.
That is exactly what IQ is not...IQ is completely natural ability to learn, it has nothing to do with actually learning. It is nothing more than potential, and as such it can't be improved or conditioned.Turquoise wrote:
The difference between the former and the latter is that a focus on education through generations is more conducive to the ability to learn itself.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
IQ is supposedly a measure of one's ability to learn, not one's learning. A toddler can have the same IQ has a college grad. Saying that IQ and education are related is like saying level of education and political preference are related. Some level of correlation doesn't mean they are linked in any meaningful way.
I.Q. is partially genetic, but it is also partially conditioned. You can improve your I.Q. over time just the same that you can improve the other 8 intelligences.
That's why IQ tests are categorically shit. You can't measure something that has nothing to do with practical experience without practical experience.
I guess we define IQ and its potential differently then.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That is exactly what IQ is not...IQ is completely natural ability to learn, it has nothing to do with actually learning. It is nothing more than potential, and as such it can't be improved or conditioned.
That's why IQ tests are categorically shit. You can't measure something that has nothing to do with practical experience without practical experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
"Musical training in childhood also increases IQ. Recent studies have shown that training in using one's working memory may increase IQ."
"In the developed world, personality traits in some studies show that, contrary to expectations, environmental effects actually can cause non-related children raised in the same family ("adoptive siblings") to be as different as children raised in different families. There are some family effects on the IQ of children, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance; however, by adulthood, this correlation approaches zero. For IQ, adoption studies show that, after adolescence, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0). However these results make no correction for the social and emotional effects frequently associated with adoption."
So, essentially, once someone reaches adulthood, changing I.Q. is either very difficult or simply not possible, but as a child develops, I.Q. can be greatly affected by many factors.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Liberalist and atheist? You're the smart one!