Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chilipepper





Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 391
Reputation: 95.2Reputation: 95.2
votes: 1
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:38 am    Post subject: 'scientific' study showing higher IQs for liberal, athiest Reply with quote

Not sure where this belongs so putting it in here.

This little gem is doing the rounds as the left wing gleefully latches onto it. The study is seriously flawed, but it doesn't matter to them... It's a 'scientific' study showing higher IQs for liberal, athiest, monogamous subjects sure...

http://www.thestar.com/living/.....arter?bn=1

Quote:
In new research bound to irk conservative geniuses, people with high IQs are deemed more likely to be liberal, monogamous non-believers than those who are less intelligent.

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, says it makes sense biologically.

In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Kanazawa lays out facts based on U.S. data to support his theory. According to that research, young adults who identify as "not at all religious" had an average IQ of 103 as teens, while those who identified as "very religious" had an average IQ of 97.

Similarly, young adults who called themselves "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had average IQs of 95.

Kanazawa believes there are evolutionary reasons behind this.


cont...
potan





Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 582
Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3
votes: 2
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What exactly is a liberal? There are so many variations of those categories. I'm currently a person who believes in God and votes conservative. If I decide to stop believing in God and start supporting liberal causes, would that increase my IQ? Obviously not.

IQ tests are hardly objective since the scientists themselves tend to be white, liberal and atheist. They determine what a person of a particular age is supposed to know. It should be noted that African-Americans also tend to score lower on those IQ tests. I wonder what liberals will think of the validity of IQ tests if they are told that minorities score much lower?
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

potan wrote:
What exactly is a liberal? There are so many variations of those categories. I'm currently a person who believes in God and votes conservative. If I decide to stop believing in God and start supporting liberal causes, would that increase my IQ? Obviously not.

IQ tests are hardly objective since the scientists themselves tend to be white, liberal and atheist. They determine what a person of a particular age is supposed to know. It should be noted that African-Americans also tend to score lower on those IQ tests. I wonder what liberals will think of the validity of IQ tests if they are told that minorities score much lower?


:D LOL!

I like it!

"study's say......"

"Experts claim....."

"Reseach shows ....."

The left love their "studies" - as long as those studies support their beliefs.

Everyone knows psychology is such "an error free" discipline. :roll:
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who cares what an evolutionary psychologist thinks? It is hardly a rigorous scientific discipline.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Who cares what an evolutionary psychologist thinks? It is hardly a rigorous scientific discipline.

Without defending the article, I have a minor quibble with that. It is a relatively new field in pyschology, which is itself something of a soft science. But one researcher with an obvious leftist bias does not invalidate all of evo-psych. There are certainly aspects of it which a conservative might find intriguing, like it's general acceptance of actual, in born differences between genders. I've also read an evo-psych based theory of why socialism becomes impossible in population groups larger than hamlets.

In the long run, I think it has better potential for helping us understand human behaviour than sociology or cultural anthroplogy, which are (IMO) considerably more subjective.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Who cares what an evolutionary psychologist thinks? It is hardly a rigorous scientific discipline.

Without defending the article, I have a minor quibble with that. It is a relatively new field in pyschology, which is itself something of a soft science. But one researcher with an obvious leftist bias does not invalidate all of evo-psych. There are certainly aspects of it which a conservative might find intriguing, like it's general acceptance of actual, in born differences between genders. I've also read an evo-psych based theory of why socialism becomes impossible in population groups larger than hamlets.

In the long run, I think it has better potential for helping us understand human behaviour than sociology or cultural anthroplogy, which are (IMO) considerably more subjective.

Psychology has a 50% cure rate.
Placebo has a 50% cure rate.
Draw your own conclusions.
potan





Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 582
Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3
votes: 2
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I remember from the Introductory Psychology course I took in college is that for every subject, including IQ tests, there are a million theories from the humanistic viewpoint to the behavioural and cognitive perspective, all of which contradict each other. In Biology, Chemistry, Physics there is usually one dominant theory supported by hard evidence. That is the difference between psychology and science.
Alex Fernandes





Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 10
Reputation: 20.6Reputation: 20.6

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:27 pm    Post subject: What about Atheist Conservatives? Reply with quote

this is from the article:

"Interestingly, Kanazawa describes himself as a married atheist libertarian with a strong distaste for liberals."

Liberals probably don't know they aren't Liberals but constantly fall for the clever marketing coming out of the US and EU. You'll see statistics like this change as people begin to realize that Liberals actually stand for nothing (or anything for a vote).

I'm an Atheist Libertarian and we have a place in the Conservative tent. Unlike leftard Atheists we do no not seek to impose our religious views on anyone else, nor do we wish to be imposed upon.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that this study doesn't have worse findings for religious people and conservatives.

I don't think most people today, that are 40 or over, realize just how dogmatically liberal and anti-religion our modern institutions of higher learning are (and even many high schools are like this too now). There is a strong coercive force placed upon people to be liberal and secular once they enter most institutions of higher learning. People who don't bend to that, at least somewhat, will tend to be graded harder, and be ostracized more. This, of course, can be harmful to a person's educational and career aspirations in a post-secondary setting.

So, for sheer pragmatic reasons, many good students who want to do well will at least tone done their religious views (if they hold them) and will seek to lean left to curry favor with the Professor. Heck, it was a running joke amongst students in the University that I went to that a surefire way to get good marks was just to repeat, almost verbatim, some Marxist claptrap in your essays. People didn't really believe in it, but they knew it was better to seem like they believed in it.

So, come survey time, most of these top students will not call themselves "very religious" (even if they are very religious), because they want to keep up the image of being a desirable student to our modern institutions of higher learning. And these top students will not call themselves "conservative", even if they are.

So this skews the numbers, of course.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
FF_Canuck wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Who cares what an evolutionary psychologist thinks? It is hardly a rigorous scientific discipline.

Without defending the article, I have a minor quibble with that. It is a relatively new field in pyschology, which is itself something of a soft science. But one researcher with an obvious leftist bias does not invalidate all of evo-psych. There are certainly aspects of it which a conservative might find intriguing, like it's general acceptance of actual, in born differences between genders. I've also read an evo-psych based theory of why socialism becomes impossible in population groups larger than hamlets.

In the long run, I think it has better potential for helping us understand human behaviour than sociology or cultural anthroplogy, which are (IMO) considerably more subjective.

Psychology has a 50% cure rate.
Placebo has a 50% cure rate.
Draw your own conclusions.

I'm really going to need a source for that claim. Unless you're just making a generalization validated by your own 'gut check'. Specific treatments are studied in clinical trials, which include double blinding and other placebo controls. There are some treatments that do as poorly as you claim, and some that have very high success rates, and it varies widely from condition to condition.

Do you honestly think that the entire field of psychology is without value? I'll readily admit it's less robust than hard sciences like chemistry or physics, but that's not to say that it doesn't have uses.
Forward





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 293
Reputation: 59.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:

Do you honestly think that the entire field of psychology is without value? I'll readily admit it's less robust than hard sciences like chemistry or physics, but that's not to say that it doesn't have uses.


There are areas that have value and there are practitioners that are ethicl and disciplined.

Unfortunately as a social science it is open to abuse that is not possible in the hard sciences.

The few practitioners that do abuse the study go a long way toward creating distrust in the enitire field.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forward wrote:
Unfortunately as a social science it is open to abuse that is not possible in the hard sciences.

Abuse is possible in all endeavours that involve humans - look at how much the scientific method and peer review process was alternately ignored or manipulated by the people behind climate change. Physics, geology, biology, math - their status as 'hard' sciences did nothing to prevent the AGW sham.

It's always a good idea to be skeptical, regardless of which field you're dealing with. There's bad apples in every barrel - it doesn't mean the orchard should be abandoned.
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The school system have been taken over by leftists, there is little lee way to teach young people conservative values. Most young people go in not knowing where they stand politically, & when they come out the philosophy is one of a Liberal. No mention of the causes. But if our schools were stacked with conservatives the article would say that Conservatives who believe in God have higher IQ's then their Liberal atheist counterparts. Therefore the study is of a mute point since academic learning environments show a bias towards a specific ideology.
RedCloudWulf





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 152
Reputation: 12.1

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats interesting since both Obama and George Bush both have high IQs.So what are Lefties saying that Bush was smart after all?Of course it will be skewed in favour of the ruling establishment of the time.
The Liberal agenda is boring and hollow.Humanity needs a new direction.
hatrock





Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 489
Reputation: 73

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a lot of people confuse liberal with libertarian
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


'scientific' study showing higher IQs for liberal, athiest

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB