Saturday, February 27, 2010

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

Of course.

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

32 comments:

John Jost said...

As far as atheism goes, that was known without a new study. IQ average and religiosity % (2008) for selected states:

Mississippi......... 93.3 - 85%
Alabama............ 94.4 - 82%
Massachusetts... 101.5 - 48%
Vermont.......... 101.2 - 42%

Anonymous said...

It'll be interesting to see that peer reviewed.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

When the article said this, I became completely skeptical about their definitions.

"It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people."

That's a conservative.

Liberals want "public" vs. private resources for causes like this. (State responsibility vs. private responsibility)

I'd have to give this article a 10 on the scientific "bunk" meter.

Mpeterson said...

Kevin, you've been a liberal all this time?

Free Lunch said...

Wouldn't it be nice if smart people were reliably wise. I'm not sure that any meaningful conclusions should be drawn from the data.

Kevin, your definitions are laughably self-serving and inaccurate. It's nice to see that you stay in character.

Rich Kasten said...

Based on this study - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html , Kevin is not laughable at all but instead right on.

Mpeterson said...

I'm still dizzy from the same data that suggests liberals, on average, have higher incomes than conservatives.

The only reason I can imagine for this is that liberals tend to be unionized -- but if that's the case, then that would mean conservatives are poorer *and* don't want the unions that would improve their incomes -- which would support the lower IQ finding. :^)

More seriously, how could it be the case that conservatives as whole have lower incomes and yet repeatedly vote for the party that grant the oligarchies, dug in like ticks, even greater opportunities to take away what little incomes they have?

That's a poser Rich. How would you account for it?

Mpeterson said...

Although I have to say, looking over their data, that an even more frightening possibility has occurred to me: it is possible that the definition of conservative in this country has swung back and that I am now a conservative.

Boy, that would explain a few things.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

Let me help you clarify. (I know you will enjoy it.)

Conservative- by the grace of God go you. Private charity, individual responsibility to help one's fellow man.

Liberal- by the grace of government go you. Public charity. Collective charitable alienation, resulting in a feeling of no individual responsibility to help one's fellow man. ("Its the governments job...")

Did I stir the pot enough?

So...gasp...you are a conservative?

Rich Kasten said...

"More seriously, how could it be the case that conservatives as whole have lower incomes and yet repeatedly vote for the party that grant the oligarchies, dug in like ticks, even greater opportunities to take away what little incomes they have?"

Maybe they believe, like I do, that they would rather work hard than take handouts from unions and the government. After a while, those handouts become unsustainable economically or become ineffective due to bureaucracy.

Being able to direct contributions to private organizations that work and are effective, instead of public funded organizations trying to be everything to everybody, makes more sense. But what do I know, I am one of those IQ challenged conservative Christians.

Anonymous said...

"it is possible that the definition of conservative in this country has swung back and that I am now a conservative."

Maybe the North and South poles reversed prior to 2012?

Mpeterson said...

As I've been saying for about 10 years now, these definitions have been sufficiently muddled to be meaningless.

Mpeterson said...

Rich. Nope, speaking historically nothing you've said makes any sense.

You're suggesting that people would rather not be protected from the unbridled capitalism that's landed most of the country in terrible debt (including, apparently, Kevin) while stuffing money into the pockets of fewer and fewer people.

I think you're conflating your own sense of pride in your work with economic self-interest. A sense of personal self worth, like you have, has never been a constant in the equations that make sense of a truly free market.

People who have been put out of work by the excesses of the past 30 years have every good reason to distrust the government -- mainly for failing to protect from fraud in the market... at the very least -- but it's difficult to imagine that they'll refuse Medicare or unemployment compensation when they need it.

This is especially true when worker have recourse to changing the government, but not to changing the boards of directors (something even stockholders have a tough time doing nowadays).

Fiscally conservative, perhaps, but socially?

Why would the poor side with the very people who've made them poor?

DanBack said...

"As I've been saying for about 10 years now, these definitions have been sufficiently muddled to be meaningless."

No kidding. I've been told I'm a bleeding heart liberal just because I don't think creationism should be taught in a public school science class. It amazes me how the people who call me that talk about how they hold the Constitution is such high regard, then just ignore it when it doesn't further their goal. Look at our own CSCWC (http://www.cscwc.com/). They list the Constitution as their #1 "Core Value", yet endorse their own members for public office who think the Christian version of creationism ought to be taught in science class.

I listen to Belling often and it's just amazing how anyone who disagrees with him on anything is instantly tagged as an evil liberal.

I'll stop rambling.

Free Lunch said...

Kevin,

You may feel good about being helpful through charity while whining about taxes, but your scattershot charity allows people to suffer or die. It's pure selfishness. Government works better than private charity if it is allowed to. Of course the GOP has done all it can to break the government.

People who claim to be Christian but complain when the government helps people have completely missed the concept.

DanBack said...

Speaking of the CSCWC, anyone know what this means?

"1) Dave Weingand – Dave is running for the West Bend School board. The board meeting indicates at the meeting on how much money is sent out. A large amount of studies that cost money are sent out in numerous amounts."

How about editing the minutes before posting them for the world to see?

Nanette said...

Dan, go ahead and ramble away. But not about Belling. Every time I accidentally catch a few moments of his show I wonder how the heck such an uninformed bore could stay on the air as long as he has. His popularity makes absolutely no sense to me. Sykes and Wagner, irritating as they are, at least occasionally use logic and seem to put some thought into their views. Belling just blathers about whatever pops into his head.

Not surprised at all about the possible link between high IQ and atheism. Most of my favorite writers were, and are, non-believers.

Mpeterson said...

Dan, editing? You elitist bastard.

Anonymous said...

"Conservative- by the grace of God go you. Private charity, individual responsibility to help one's fellow man.

Liberal- by the grace of government go you. Public charity. Collective charitable alienation, resulting in a feeling of no individual responsibility to help one's fellow man. ("Its the governments job...")"

I agree--when individuals feel responsible to help one's fellow man, there is nothing greater. And what a lovely idea it is that every individual should feel this responsibility. The result would be something like heaven on earth.

Alas, not everyone feels this way. Or, if they do, they do not act on it. This is when the government steps in and enforces the values of a nation, perhaps reminding those reluctant helpers what it means to be a United nation.

The fact is that the people who actually DO help can't give enough, and the people that DON'T help (not can't, don't) can't have enough. Someone has to step in and play referee.

Rich Kasten said...

Free Lunch -

Can you explain the "Government works better than private charity if it is allowed to"?

One only needs to look at Milwaukee and its corrupt social programs to know that is not the case.

Mpeterson said...

Government works better than private charity?

Let's see: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Japan, and Canada. There are other examples.

Oh, Minneapolis.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I thought for sure you would say Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Venezuela.

None of the countries you mention can sustain the crushing bill of "mandated" government charity.

Their birth rates are far below the replacement rate and it will end in crushing social and economic disaster (aka Greece this past week). No one is left to work to support the crushing welfare state. Those that can work, have no incentive to work because they are nothing more than a peasant to the government plantation.

I'm a little shocked you advocate this kind of indentured servitude. You are a brave academic, advocating economic societal slavery.

Distance Relative said...

Dear Anonymous:
"Someone has to step in and play referee."

Let us not forget, that that blessed whore of capitalism is not content with cops in cars, or cops in parks, or cops at the corner, or cops in the schools, or cops at the crack house, or the cops at the nuthouse:

So, just what is capitalism content with?:




A police man inside.

Mpeterson said...

The countries I mentioned were democracies. The countries you mentioned were authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships... although based on your comments lately, that distinction seems to have been lost to you.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

A Democracy with heft tax rates is not a "totalitarion/authoritarian" regime?

If I can't keep what I work for, I fail to see how one is nothing more than a slave to the government masters.

Mpeterson said...

Troll troll troll.

Free Lunch said...

A Democracy with heft tax rates is not a "totalitarion/authoritarian" regime?

No, it is not. It takes a special kind of misanthrope to make such a silly statement. People who understand cultures realize that they do not make the money themselves. They got the money from the community they live in and sharing some of it through taxes is a very fair way for the community to recover some of that income for other needs.

If you don't want government, Kevin, try Somalia. That seems to be the ideal of the teaclowns.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free Lunch,

So human beings are nothing more than worker units for society to dispose of their time, talents, and effort as government dictates? (under the guise of "democracy")

If that isn't slavery, what on earth would be slavery?

Mpeterson said...

Kevin, that's how you treat your workers, not how a democratic government treats people.

Free Lunch said...

So human beings are nothing more than worker units for society to dispose of their time, talents, and effort as government dictates? (under the guise of "democracy")

OF course we all know I never said that. Aren't you busy enough telling lies about what Republicans and Democrats do? Do you really need to try to lie about what I said?

You are sadly ignorant and appear to be very proud that you know nothing. It's a shame. It's fools like you who allow authoritarians to flourish, Kevin.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I have a sales tax audit story that completely begs to differ on your completely absurd statement!

When is one a slave to the state? 50% taxation? 70%? 90%? 100%?

At some point you are a slave to the government...given that you have no choice to pay taxes, what is your point?

I dare you to name it.

But much like shying away from listing favored vs disfavored liberal religions for selective free speech oppression, I don't think you are brave enough to make the distinction.

Mpeterson said...

I was talking about federal taxes.

On a lot of the state taxes on business I actually agree with you... or rather, I usually agree with John Torinus anyway. I liked his column about cutting corporate taxes to 15%.