Not saying that I believe this guy is right or wrong but really his premise here is simply that:
"A willingness to go against ones evolutionary instincts shows intelligence"
I pretty much completely disagree with this premise.
Except the study has nothing to do with the number of people that are liberal or conservative. The intelligence of the group is averaged, not summed.
Now as I view conservatives, this definition is not that far off. Ask yourself this:
What policy do you support as a conservative that doesn't DIRECTLY BENEFIT YOU OR YOUR PALS.
Conversely, ask liberals that same question.
Actually, that is pretty much the definition of intelligence. Rational thought and logical capacity is completely in contrast to physical and instinctual reactivity.
Our intelligence defines us and allows us go against virtually EVERYTHING that has been the natural way of the world. We dominate and mold nature to our whims. We let the weak live and we have "morals". We create, not only life in test tubes but also have the destructive capabilities to lay waste to the entire world.
Sounds like you're viewing conservatives more along the way how "progressives" tell us we should view conservatives.
Now as I view conservatives, this definition is not that far off. Ask yourself this:
What policy do you support as a conservative that doesn't DIRECTLY BENEFIT YOU OR YOUR PALS.
Conversely, ask liberals that same question.
I'm sorry, but contrarian != intelect.
Additionally, a large number of early scientific discoveries were discovered by members of the clergy. Hell, the entire field of genetics was conceived of by a monk. To say that people who adopt the morals, ethics, or overarching beliefs of any particular religion cannot have the same capacity for inteligence as an atheist is stupid and rids that argument of anything remotely resembling credibility.
As a conservative, I support policy that does NOT directly benefit ANYONE. That is the definition of true conservatism.
Popular misconception: the left- and centrist-leaning republicans of today are conservatives. Not true. Republican != conservative, anymore. Don't look at the policy of the republicans and expect to find many conservative ideals in it. Instead, look at the policy pushed by libertarians. Those are the true conservatives in today's world.
If you're not progressive, what are you? A laggard?
So what should we view conservatives as?
So you are a "progressive" then.
Yea, this alone pretty much cuts off any further meaningful discussion.
Well, for one, stop getting your news from "progressive" sources. Maybe you'll start to understand things better. But for now, it's clear you don't want to listen to anyone else's opinion.
So you are just wasting everyone's time then? You support policy that is pointless?
Also, did you realize the study was conducted by a self professed Libertarian scientist and a self-professed conservative scientist?
It absolutely does not mean being conservative means YOU are stupider than I am. It suggests that on average, this is the case. I do not have any qualms about this because frankly, as I see it most of the stupid conservatives are really stupid. While the educated and intelligent conservatives are just stubborn or ingrained with their own self-righteous or self-centered ideals.
It is PURELY on the subject of consideration for others vs consideration of oneself.
Then it is a worthless study, as those are the most minor of matters of political and social ideology.
Once again, this study is psuedoscience bullshit.
^^^
No, your views are not correct.
But you have no willingness to listen to others, to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong.
I am just judging you as one person, while you are judging a wide range of people based on a very small & limited sampling of experiences.
This is AT P&N, there just is no point in discussing any of this further with you
Except that works won't get anyone into heaven according to their stupid and backwards notions. Many do it because they see it as an "love thy neighbor as thyself"act, but it doesn't buy "Jesus Points" for admission. Then again, this world believes that self is the reason for the world being here. Perhaps they are fools indeed.
OK, so you are questioning the scientific method of this study and the credibility of those who conducted the research. Fair enough, but can you prove it instead of just yelling about it?
Actually, that is pretty much the definition of intelligence. Rational thought and logical capacity is completely in contrast to physical and instinctual reactivity.
Our intelligence defines us and allows us go against virtually EVERYTHING that has been the natural way of the world. We dominate and mold nature to our whims. We let the weak live and we have "morals". We create, not only life in test tubes but also have the destructive capabilities to lay waste to the entire world.
YOU should try reading what is actually written, not what you want to believe was said.
Even the study authors didn't claim that "concern for non-related others" was a comprehensive definition of a liberal. And anyone who really thinks about the definition being used in the study recognizes it does NOT mean that liberals are "concerned more about others" than they are "concerned about their relatives."
No, the "definition" actually being used is that - for the purposes of the study - a "liberal" is one whose RATIO of "concern for others" to "concern for relatives" is high; and conservatives are those whose ratio is low.
This is an abstract definition, and it's a fair one. Clearly, no one factor can differentiate all liberals from all conservatives - there's way too much overlap. So a simple test is being used as a proxy. Pick it apart all you want, but you can't get away from its validity.
Pointing out there are conservative individuals or conservative groups that are "liberal" by this test is just playing the anecdotes game. Surely you're intelligent enough to see the flaws in your own reasoning.
Completely depends on how you want to take a look at it.
Self preservation for example is the most basic instinct and the highly intelligent have it just as much as a cockroach does.
I do not consider a suicide bomber to be more intelligent because they conquer that instinct.
So depending on how you want to look at any given situation his premise can be absolutely correct or horribly flawed.
Of course it is, however the reason things get posted like this it to illustrate how superior the OP and those who think like him are.
Remember the other thread that said that those with a lessened sense of self were religious because of it and that was due to brain damage? Well if one is less self centered, then they are more likely to be aware of the needs of others. If a liberal is defined as someone who is concerned about those needs then he is also less self centered, and that means he's brain damaged.
Science is awesome!
I'm not sure of the merits of THIS particular study, but the wholesale rejection of the basic premise is kind of confusing. Does it seem logical that intelligence plays no part in forming political opinions, or that all political ideologies are equally attractive to intelligent people?
However, I will say that it's fairly common in political discussions to hear the word "intellectual" used as a slur, which is probably not a great way to attract intelligent people to your cause.
Last year I paid a grand sum of $50 in federal income taxes under the current system.