Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-02-27 15:57:00
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

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.
They're changing the name because the conservatives have successfully made the word "liberal" look negative among moderates.

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.
Well, the irony here is that modern 'liberals' are conservative, while 'conservatives' are half liberal.
"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
2010-02-27 16:00:00
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6907|London, England

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

p.s. IQ has nothing to do with level of education.
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.

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.
There isn't a culture in the history of the world (outside of Southern California) that didn't/doesn't value intelligence. Silly argument.
Intelligence based on what they perceive as intelligence. Cultures that don't like evolution and prefer creationism will think of someone who believes in evolution as unintelligent/misinformed/wrong and that their idea of an educated person is someone who is creationist. Or there's a billion variations of Intelligence depending on the culture.

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.
I wasn't arguing about being ashamed or anything, I bet liberals don't care if they're called a liberal all the time by a conservative who's trying to use it as an insult. All I was saying is that conservatives often use the word liberal as an insult compared to the other way round, and I think it's quite stupid, and it's funny how when someone tries to use the word conservative in an insulting manner, there's often a strong reaction like this topic proves. And how conservatives tend to get quite offended about it all, like this topic proves.

Compare that to millions in the media who always use the world liberal as an insult and often nobody even notices or they don't care.
2010-02-27 16:05:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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.
They're changing the name because the conservatives have successfully made the word "liberal" look negative among moderates.

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.
Well, the irony here is that modern 'liberals' are conservative, while 'conservatives' are half liberal.
I'm using the modern terms to decrease confusion.

Think of it like this....  If we use modern terminology, then it becomes easier to separate Libertarians from liberals and conservatives.  The same goes for populists.

So, to sum things up...

Liberals are economically restrictive and socially permissive
Conservatives are economically permissive and socially restrictive
Libertarians are economically and socially permissive
Populists are economically and socially restrictive

There are some exceptions to the rule among those stances, but in general, this summary is accurate.

This way, there should be no confusion.

The irony of modern liberals isn't particularly shocking when considering that the freer a system is economically, the easier it is for private elements to restrict individuals.  Therefore, the government must act as an arbiter in the market.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-27 16:07:11)

2010-02-27 16:15:05
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

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.
I guess we define IQ and its potential differently then.

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.
Yeah because as a child is socialized they learn how to think in the way that the IQ tests want them to think. A white middle class kid that grows up in the suburbs is going to continue to improve his IQ score while an identical twin that grows up in the country helping his dad tend the fields isn't. Environmental effects account for the differences in the white middle class definition of intelligence, but that is no basis to say that the ability of that kind of person to learn completely new material is any different from a poor ethnic kid.

Succinctly, you can't do well on an IQ test you if you can't read. That doesn't mean you can't learn.
2010-02-27 16:19:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah because as a child is socialized they learn how to think in the way that the IQ tests want them to think. A white middle class kid that grows up in the suburbs is going to continue to improve his IQ score while an identical twin that grows up in the country helping his dad tend the fields isn't. Environmental effects account for the differences in the white middle class definition of intelligence, but that is no basis to say that the ability of that kind of person to learn completely new material is any different from a poor ethnic kid.
I think we're miscommunicating here.  I'm defining I.Q. as only the ability to learn in mathematical and logical ways.  Using the multiple intelligences theory, I.Q. has no bearing on other forms of intelligence.

Therefore, the kid working the farm will be improving his naturalistic intelligence rather than his I.Q.

Both activities are productive and reflect intelligence, but they are different facets of intelligence.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Succinctly, you can't do well on an IQ test you if you can't read. That doesn't mean you can't learn.
Perhaps, we then agree that I.Q. tests are not a perfect measure of mathematical/logical intelligence.
2010-02-27 17:23:07
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

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.
They're changing the name because the conservatives have successfully made the word "liberal" look negative among moderates.

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.
Interesting that you imply that being conservative or moderate means one is less inclined to be tolerant or be able to think counterintuitively.

How very...close-minded.
“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
2010-02-27 18:05:23
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7002
Liberals are elite and they know what is good for everyone else... they'll tell you every chance they get lol.
and to ruslepmunition... I thought you hated everything to do with the US, even liberals... are you going soft on us 
Love is the answer
2010-02-27 18:27:39
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

So, to sum things up...

Liberals are economically restrictive and socially permissive
Conservatives are economically permissive and socially restrictive
Libertarians are economically and socially permissive
Populists are economically and socially restrictive
I know what all the definitions mean. I don't know if it's because I see only in black and white on the subject or if it's because of where I lie... but to me there are only two logical outcomes and they are either Libertarian or Populist. In my eyes, the other two outcomes are illogical because you can't be economically free without a free populace and you can't be economically restrictive without being socially restrictive.

While the current political parties are indeed of the Conservative/Liberal dynamic, they are aberrations because they are illogical. The natural stance is somewhere along the Z axis from Populist to Libertarian and because of this, it is where the natural drift occurs. An Authoritarian (or Populist) stance socially will necessarily drift to and lead to an Authoritarian stance economically over time. Make sense?
"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
2010-02-27 19:37:11
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yeah because as a child is socialized they learn how to think in the way that the IQ tests want them to think. A white middle class kid that grows up in the suburbs is going to continue to improve his IQ score while an identical twin that grows up in the country helping his dad tend the fields isn't. Environmental effects account for the differences in the white middle class definition of intelligence, but that is no basis to say that the ability of that kind of person to learn completely new material is any different from a poor ethnic kid.
I think we're miscommunicating here.  I'm defining I.Q. as only the ability to learn in mathematical and logical ways.  Using the multiple intelligences theory, I.Q. has no bearing on other forms of intelligence.

Therefore, the kid working the farm will be improving his naturalistic intelligence rather than his I.Q.

Both activities are productive and reflect intelligence, but they are different facets of intelligence.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Succinctly, you can't do well on an IQ test you if you can't read. That doesn't mean you can't learn.
Perhaps, we then agree that I.Q. tests are not a perfect measure of mathematical/logical intelligence.
IQ means Intelligence Quotient. In the multiple intelligences theory IQ is not involved. You might be confusing them because in the logic and reason section it says "It correlates strongly with traditional concepts of "intelligence" or IQ.", but that does not mean they are related. You can improve your logic skills, but you can't improve your IQ.
2010-02-27 19:58:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Interesting that you imply that being conservative or moderate means one is less inclined to be tolerant or be able to think counterintuitively.

How very...close-minded.
Then defend the two.  Liberal, by definition, is being more tolerant than the norm.  Being tolerant is counterintuitive -- as is putting a greater emphasis on the good of society over a more straightforward sense of what is good for your own interests.

So, if you think my definition is wrong, by all means...  refute it.
2010-02-27 20:00:04
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Interesting that you imply that being conservative or moderate means one is less inclined to be tolerant or be able to think counterintuitively.

How very...close-minded.
Then defend the two.  Liberal, by definition, is being more tolerant than the norm.  Being tolerant is counterintuitive -- as is putting a greater emphasis on the good of society over a more straightforward sense of what is good for your own interests.

So, if you think my definition is wrong, by all means...  refute it.
Conservative is more tolerant of the norm...liberal is tolerant of social change (arguably for the better).
2010-02-27 20:04:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Interesting that you imply that being conservative or moderate means one is less inclined to be tolerant or be able to think counterintuitively.

How very...close-minded.
Then defend the two.  Liberal, by definition, is being more tolerant than the norm.  Being tolerant is counterintuitive -- as is putting a greater emphasis on the good of society over a more straightforward sense of what is good for your own interests.

So, if you think my definition is wrong, by all means...  refute it.
Conservative is more tolerant of the norm...liberal is tolerant of social change (arguably for the better).
Aha...  alright, I can go with that.  Tolerance is relative too then, I suppose.

So, I guess this leads to the fact that liberal, conservative, libertarian, and populist are all relative as well.
2010-02-27 20:05:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, to sum things up...

Liberals are economically restrictive and socially permissive
Conservatives are economically permissive and socially restrictive
Libertarians are economically and socially permissive
Populists are economically and socially restrictive
I know what all the definitions mean. I don't know if it's because I see only in black and white on the subject or if it's because of where I lie... but to me there are only two logical outcomes and they are either Libertarian or Populist. In my eyes, the other two outcomes are illogical because you can't be economically free without a free populace and you can't be economically restrictive without being socially restrictive.

While the current political parties are indeed of the Conservative/Liberal dynamic, they are aberrations because they are illogical. The natural stance is somewhere along the Z axis from Populist to Libertarian and because of this, it is where the natural drift occurs. An Authoritarian (or Populist) stance socially will necessarily drift to and lead to an Authoritarian stance economically over time. Make sense?
I disagree.  It's all relative.  You might be more libertarian than most people, but for the few that are more libertarian than you, you are populist by comparison.
2010-02-27 20:08:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

IQ means Intelligence Quotient. In the multiple intelligences theory IQ is not involved. You might be confusing them because in the logic and reason section it says "It correlates strongly with traditional concepts of "intelligence" or IQ.", but that does not mean they are related. You can improve your logic skills, but you can't improve your IQ.
Very well then.  I will simply say this then.  I believe I.Q. is mostly irrelevant when compared to the more comprehensive approach of the multiple intelligences theory.
2010-02-27 20:56:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

I believe I.Q. is mostly irrelevant
tee bee aych
2010-02-27 21:25:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Interesting that you imply that being conservative or moderate means one is less inclined to be tolerant or be able to think counterintuitively.

How very...close-minded.
Then defend the two.  Liberal, by definition, is being more tolerant than the norm.  Being tolerant is counterintuitive -- as is putting a greater emphasis on the good of society over a more straightforward sense of what is good for your own interests.

So, if you think my definition is wrong, by all means...  refute it.
Show where the line is so definitively drawn. It is not binary.

One can be conservative and still be tolerant of others' views. One can be liberal and be completely intolerant of others' views. We see examples of this every single day.

One can be conservative and think "outside the box" (ie, counterintuitively). One can be liberal and be unable to do so. We see examples of this every single day.

One of the most conservative institutions in the country avidly promotes both tolerance and counterintuitive thinking. Can you guess which institution I am referring to?

But again, this is using US-flavored terminology.
“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
2010-02-27 21:29:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I believe I.Q. is mostly irrelevant
tee bee aych
indeed...
2010-02-27 21:32:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Show where the line is so definitively drawn. It is not binary.

One can be conservative and still be tolerant of others' views. One can be liberal and be completely intolerant of others' views. We see examples of this every single day.

One can be conservative and think "outside the box" (ie, counterintuitively). One can be liberal and be unable to do so. We see examples of this every single day.

One of the most conservative institutions in the country avidly promotes both tolerance and counterintuitive thinking. Can you guess which institution I am referring to?

But again, this is using US-flavored terminology.
No argument here.  It's all relative.
2010-02-27 21:33:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Show where the line is so definitively drawn. It is not binary.

One can be conservative and still be tolerant of others' views. One can be liberal and be completely intolerant of others' views. We see examples of this every single day.

One can be conservative and think "outside the box" (ie, counterintuitively). One can be liberal and be unable to do so. We see examples of this every single day.

One of the most conservative institutions in the country avidly promotes both tolerance and counterintuitive thinking. Can you guess which institution I am referring to?

But again, this is using US-flavored terminology.
No argument here.  It's all relative.
It's not relative. It's just not binnable. Hell, just look up "conservative" and "liberal" on wikipedia.
“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
2010-02-27 21:39:16
rdx-fx
...
+955|6877

ruisleipa wrote:

So the religious and conservative are stupid. Or at least, less intelligent. I can't help but agree.

article wrote:

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism[...]
2010-02-27 21:40:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Show where the line is so definitively drawn. It is not binary.

One can be conservative and still be tolerant of others' views. One can be liberal and be completely intolerant of others' views. We see examples of this every single day.

One can be conservative and think "outside the box" (ie, counterintuitively). One can be liberal and be unable to do so. We see examples of this every single day.

One of the most conservative institutions in the country avidly promotes both tolerance and counterintuitive thinking. Can you guess which institution I am referring to?

But again, this is using US-flavored terminology.
No argument here.  It's all relative.
It's not relative. It's just not binnable. Hell, just look up "conservative" and "liberal" on wikipedia.
No, it really is relative.  For example....  you're liberal compared to an Islamist.  I'm conservative compared to Code Pink.

Tolerance is also relative.  As Flaming pointed out, someone can be tolerant to the status quo but not tolerant to change, and vice versa.
2010-02-27 21:50:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


No argument here.  It's all relative.
It's not relative. It's just not binnable. Hell, just look up "conservative" and "liberal" on wikipedia.
No, it really is relative.  For example....  you're liberal compared to an Islamist.  I'm conservative compared to Code Pink.

Tolerance is also relative.  As Flaming pointed out, someone can be tolerant to the status quo but not tolerant to change, and vice versa.
Valid point. But that's comparing the terms outside the US phraseology and along the political spectrum, which is different than the actual topic of discussion, I think. The thing is, conservative and liberal are intermingled within a single person's views on just about everything. Except for your extremists, hardly anyone is fully conservative or fully liberal. Thus, not "binnable" and thus making this study a complete pile of shit. Just in case we're still wondering.
“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
2010-02-27 21:52:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


It's not relative. It's just not binnable. Hell, just look up "conservative" and "liberal" on wikipedia.
No, it really is relative.  For example....  you're liberal compared to an Islamist.  I'm conservative compared to Code Pink.

Tolerance is also relative.  As Flaming pointed out, someone can be tolerant to the status quo but not tolerant to change, and vice versa.
Valid point. But that's comparing the terms outside the US phraseology and along the political spectrum, which is different than the actual topic of discussion, I think. The thing is, conservative and liberal are intermingled within a single person's views on just about everything. Except for your extremists, hardly anyone is fully conservative or fully liberal. Thus, not "binnable" and thus making this study a complete pile of shit. Just in case we're still wondering.
I can agree with that.
2010-03-02 16:52:20
Ticia
Member
+73|5621
It's not so much about the people with the higher intelligence,those have a choice.
But the ones who are more “simple minded” usually go with the simpler point of view because it is easier to understand. Religion is about right or wrong and politically conservatism follows the same scheme. Whereas liberal stances and secular ethics are more philosophical and subjective and more difficult to grasp by the common people. 

Plus your stance on politics and religion are still very much associated with the way you were raised, some accept what their parents teached em others go the opposite direction, I like to think the more intelligent ones are the ones who question everything and refuse to follow a creed or vote like their parents just to avoid conflict but maybe that's only because i was raised in a family of hardcore catholics where i'm the only renegatus.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard