'Social Conservatives are less intelligent than social liberals?' Says Study

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

...And yet, somehow, this is run in England's equivalent to Fox News?

They still managed to mischaracterize the actual paper, which says nothing about non-social conservative values (free market, small government, etc.) but merely speaks of the dangers of social conservatism... The same social conservatism which has brought us such wonderful things as "Family Values" and "Abortion Clinic Bombers".

The actual paper can be found here.

I can't believe they ran that in a newspaper. Thats like something Glen Beck would talk about if he were a bit more crazy.

Really I don't expect anyone to take this seriously.

Nice job at getting it all wrong. They mention racism, anti-gay sentiments and being conservative. Uhm... those are all predominantly left wing characteristics. They're impossible to have together with liberalism, the defining characteristic of the right wing, and there's parties a plenty that have those things and are very left wing. The Dutch Socialist party for instance wants to deport all Eastern Europeans 'cuz they're stealing our jobs!'. The only right wing party in the Netherlands, in the form of minister Kamp, responded to the questions about that pretty much with a derogatory shrug.

American democrats whom they mention are a typical example of a right wing party. So the right wing is racist, but the right wing is not racist because they voted in the first black president of the US? It's getting seriously confusing now.

Sounds like that 'research' isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Blablahb:

Sounds like that 'research' isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Seems to be the case with most modern "research" be it on whether righties or lefties are smarter or on whether chocolate causes or cures cancer ("research" shows it does both! How would you know!).

As I said many times before, there are 2 kinds of studies:

1) "Here's the data, what conclusion can we draw from it?"
2) "Here's the conclusion we want, what convenient data can we dig up for it?

The type 1) studies are generally not found in mass media, but stay confined to academic circles, of course.

For what it's worth, the paper being referenced is available here.

I really wish online newspapers would dispense with the conjecture and just link readers to the paper itself.

My favorite was the study that suggested Ritalin makes people Conservative.

Blablahb:
Nice job at getting it all wrong. They mention racism, anti-gay sentiments and being conservative. Uhm... those are all predominantly left wing characteristics. They're impossible to have together with liberalism, the defining characteristic of the right wing, and there's parties a plenty that have those things and are very left wing. The Dutch Socialist party for instance wants to deport all Eastern Europeans 'cuz they're stealing our jobs!'. The only right wing party in the Netherlands, in the form of minister Kamp, responded to the questions about that pretty much with a derogatory shrug.

American democrats whom they mention are a typical example of a right wing party. So the right wing is racist, but the right wing is not racist because they voted in the first black president of the US? It's getting seriously confusing now.

Sounds like that 'research' isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Liberalism has completely been "detached" from the Left/Right political spectrum of today, for reasons I can't really fathom.

Being the Libertarian that I am (basically, for more freedom in all cases, weather it be gay marriage to gun rights), and my hatred of the current system I wonder where I would stand in this study.

Of course, for most of Europe, Libertarian=Anarchist, so I don't think they will bother.

Blablahb:
Nice job at getting it all wrong. They mention racism, anti-gay sentiments and being conservative. Uhm... those are all predominantly left wing characteristics. They're impossible to have together with liberalism, the defining characteristic of the right wing, and there's parties a plenty that have those things and are very left wing. The Dutch Socialist party for instance wants to deport all Eastern Europeans 'cuz they're stealing our jobs!'. The only right wing party in the Netherlands, in the form of minister Kamp, responded to the questions about that pretty much with a derogatory shrug.

American democrats whom they mention are a typical example of a right wing party. So the right wing is racist, but the right wing is not racist because they voted in the first black president of the US? It's getting seriously confusing now.

Sounds like that 'research' isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Or, you know, they're using "right wing" and "conservative" as defined by the primary parties of US politics. "Liberalism" a la traditional definition has as much to do with the Republican party as freedom has to do with the Chinese government.

But seriously, what?! Have you been paying attention at all for the last 30 years? Conservativism, racism, and especially homophobia have been hallmarks of, you guessed it, American Right-wing parties. I think you're mixing definitions here. Even looking at the abstract, it's clear that when they say "Right-wing" they're not talking about democrats, but republicans and libertarians.

Seekster:
My favorite was the study that suggested Ritalin makes people Conservative.

...

That explains EVERYTHING about me.

I wonder, what drug makes you liberal then?

CM156:

Seekster:
My favorite was the study that suggested Ritalin makes people Conservative.

...

That explains EVERYTHING about me.

I wonder, what drug makes you liberal then?

Here's how to become more liberal: take a dartboard, and stick various "natural" hallucinogens or similar (LSD, Peyote, Weed, Shrooms, etc.) on it. Then throw darts and ingest what you hit. Copius amounts of what you hit.

(AKA what they did in the 60s :V)

Stagnant:
But seriously, what?! Have you been paying attention at all for the last 30 years? Conservativism, racism, and especially homophobia have been hallmarks of, you guessed it, American Right-wing parties

That would mean the democrats and smaller groups like the Green party are the principal defenders of homophobia...

Like you suggested, the study seems to argue on the basis of terms only ever used inside the US. That's quite confusing. Actually it's very annoying when people write on a thinking basis of US = the world.


Especially because the next day, I get silly groups like the International Socialists waving studies like that while they call everyone less extremist than themselves nazis.

Vegosiux:
Seems to be the case with most modern "research" be it on whether righties or lefties are smarter or on whether chocolate causes or cures cancer ("research" shows it does both! How would you know!).

As I said many times before, there are 2 kinds of studies:

1) "Here's the data, what conclusion can we draw from it?"
2) "Here's the conclusion we want, what convenient data can we dig up for it?

The type 1) studies are generally not found in mass media, but stay confined to academic circles, of course.

If you'd like to attack the validity of the research, feel free to do so. Just keep in mind that it was published in a major peer-reviewed psychological journal while doing so: just flat-out claiming "It's obviously biased" isn't going to cut it. You're going to need to attack the methodology or the conclusions drawn from it in a more direct manner.

As "obvious" as this bias may seem to some of us, especially the more "conservative" among us, err... How should I put this... This isn't exactly news. The idea that attachment to American conservative ideals is often bound to racism, lower intellect, and homophobia is actually a fairly old prejudice - that we have some solid scientific backing for it now makes it pretty hilarious.

Blablahb:

Stagnant:
But seriously, what?! Have you been paying attention at all for the last 30 years? Conservativism, racism, and especially homophobia have been hallmarks of, you guessed it, American Right-wing parties

That would mean the democrats and smaller groups like the Green party are the principal defenders of homophobia...

Like you suggested, the study seems to argue on the basis of terms only ever used inside the US. That's quite confusing. Actually it's very annoying when people write on a thinking basis of US = the world.


Especially because the next day, I get silly groups like the International Socialists waving studies like that while they call everyone less extremist than themselves nazis.

Oh for fuck's sake, when I say "American Right-wing parties", does it really take a genius to realize that I'm talking about the republicans? That's, you know, generally what's understood under the concept. In America, Democrats are left-wing, Republicans are right-wing. Feel free to try to redefine the terms, but that is what most people mean when they speak about wings in American politics.

CM156:

Seekster:
My favorite was the study that suggested Ritalin makes people Conservative.

...

That explains EVERYTHING about me.

I wonder, what drug makes you liberal then?

Judging by how hard they fight for legalizing it I am going to say Pot.

Blablahb:

Stagnant:
But seriously, what?! Have you been paying attention at all for the last 30 years? Conservativism, racism, and especially homophobia have been hallmarks of, you guessed it, American Right-wing parties

That would mean the democrats and smaller groups like the Green party are the principal defenders of homophobia...

Like you suggested, the study seems to argue on the basis of terms only ever used inside the US. That's quite confusing. Actually it's very annoying when people write on a thinking basis of US = the world.


Especially because the next day, I get silly groups like the International Socialists waving studies like that while they call everyone less extremist than themselves nazis.

Stag is upset because he is trying to trash the Republican Party and you arent helping.

Stagnant:

Vegosiux:
Seems to be the case with most modern "research" be it on whether righties or lefties are smarter or on whether chocolate causes or cures cancer ("research" shows it does both! How would you know!).

As I said many times before, there are 2 kinds of studies:

1) "Here's the data, what conclusion can we draw from it?"
2) "Here's the conclusion we want, what convenient data can we dig up for it?

The type 1) studies are generally not found in mass media, but stay confined to academic circles, of course.

If you'd like to attack the validity of the research, feel free to do so. Just keep in mind that it was published in a major peer-reviewed psychological journal while doing so: just flat-out claiming "It's obviously biased" isn't going to cut it. You're going to need to attack the methodology or the conclusions drawn from it in a more direct manner.

As "obvious" as this bias may seem to some of us, especially the more "conservative" among us, err... How should I put this... This isn't exactly news. The idea that attachment to American conservative ideals is often bound to racism, lower intellect, and homophobia is actually a fairly old prejudice - that we have some solid scientific backing for it now makes it pretty hilarious.

What I'm saying is that such "conclusions" are begging to be interpreted as "Being conservative/right wing makes you less intelligent".

But what I want to question is, what's the purpose of such a study in the first place? What benefit can it give society as a whole? As much of a trivia freak as I am, I still think "researching" things just to push papers around is a waste of time and resources.

Stagnant:
Oh for fuck's sake, when I say "American Right-wing parties", does it really take a genius to realize that I'm talking about the republicans?

Oh, you I understand. The study however has no excuses for their crappy use of terms.
It's in every research manual that one is to show the geographical limitations of one's conclusions. Not doing that is quite simply a mistake.

I mean, that's like somebody from the Dutch province of Limburg, on the basis of the local political climate writing "It's been shown that socialists are xenophobic and resentfull about eastern Europeans. Thus it has to be concluded that Barack Obama hates all Polish people", making about as many generalisation and definition mistakes as the study the topic is about.

Let's be honest, somebody reasoning like that would be an idiot. Implicitly drawing the same kind of conclusions is a very very big error. Even for journalists it would be inexcusable, but for people aspiring to call themselves academics? Unheard of.

Seekster:
I can't believe they ran that in a newspaper. Thats like something Glen Beck would talk about if he were a bit more crazy.

It's more interesting because this is one of the major right-wing newspapers in the UK.

OT: it's a glorified questionnaire, not sure how valid this should be. It certainly hasn't been replicated across different countries, so I'm sticking on the fence for now.

Vegosiux:
What I'm saying is that such "conclusions" are begging to be interpreted as "Being conservative/right wing makes you less intelligent".

But what I want to question is, what's the purpose of such a study in the first place? What benefit can it give society as a whole? As much of a trivia freak as I am, I still think "researching" things just to push papers around is a waste of time and resources.

Well, what "purpose" does a study on, say, the big bang have? Even if it doesn't pose any specific purpose, you can hardly call it meaningless; it provides information for information's sake. In this case, for example, it helps offer possible explanations for the phenomenon of social conservatism, a side of government influence that has had a universally negative effect on our society as a whole, regardless of which party tried to use it, from slavery to McCarthyism to heteronormality to homophobia to the anti-abortion craze to censorship of various industries to all manner of other extreme detriments to American society. Call me crazy, but learning how to fight something like that seems like a positive cause, no?

Blablahb:

Stagnant:
Oh for fuck's sake, when I say "American Right-wing parties", does it really take a genius to realize that I'm talking about the republicans?

Oh, you I understand. The study however has no excuses for their crappy use of terms.
It's in every research manual that one is to show the geographical limitations of one's conclusions. Not doing that is quite simply a mistake.

I mean, that's like somebody from the Dutch province of Limburg, on the basis of the local political climate writing "It's been shown that socialists are xenophobic and resentfull about eastern Europeans. Thus it has to be concluded that Barack Obama hates all Polish people", making about as many generalisation and definition mistakes as the study the topic is about.

Let's be honest, somebody reasoning like that would be an idiot. Implicitly drawing the same kind of conclusions is a very very big error. Even for journalists it would be inexcusable, but for people aspiring to call themselves academics? Unheard of.

...So... it's... a formal error? No offense, but this doesn't seem like the kind of thing to completely demolish the credibility of an article, especially one published by people working from Canada in an American journal. You know how we Americans can get sometimes.

But even then... So what? So they used the definition of "Right-wing" that most people in their audience understands. If I were to try to define "Liberalist", would you criticize me for not specifying that it's the definition used in the west, rather than, say, a hypothetical Indian variant which means something entirely different? This is not a make-or-break issue for understanding the piece; they make very clear what they're talking about... In fact, they define the term right after using it:

[...]an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism)

That bolded part? That's them clarifying exactly what they mean by "right-wing ideologies", just in case those reading weren't paying attention. Even if this wasn't the case, this would be at best a nitpick. As such... This is just laughable.

And looking at your further comparisons... Did you even read the article in question before spouting out about how overgeneralized it is? I'm kinda guessing you didn't.

Thanks for telling us what even republicans already knew. When your base eats up all the fear mongering, hateful, misinforming BS that Fox spouts, its shows how ignorant they are.

IMO Democrat loyals are not that much smarter. The only political position that makes any sense at all is independent

Really? Something like this was published? Wow....okay! I am now leader of Humtydumpty land because I don't like the other parties.

Blablahb:
Nice job at getting it all wrong. They mention racism, anti-gay sentiments and being conservative. Uhm... those are all predominantly left wing characteristics.

That is a complete and utter falsehood. You are absolutely wrong in what you just said. It can simply not be further from the truth that racism and homophobia are characteristic of the left.

I think you know quite well that it is right-wing parties that perpetuate notions of hatred against homosexuals, immigrants etc. It is most certainly not the left that does so.

I'm shocked this even needed to be printed. Quite obvious, really.

CM156:

Seekster:
My favorite was the study that suggested Ritalin makes people Conservative.

...

That explains EVERYTHING about me.

I wonder, what drug makes you liberal then?

Pot?

Elcarsh:

Blablahb:
Nice job at getting it all wrong. They mention racism, anti-gay sentiments and being conservative. Uhm... those are all predominantly left wing characteristics.

That is a complete and utter falsehood. You are absolutely wrong in what you just said. It can simply not be further from the truth that racism and homophobia are characteristic of the left.

I think you know quite well that it is right-wing parties that perpetuate notions of hatred against homosexuals, immigrants etc. It is most certainly not the left that does so.

He's using definitions of "left" and "right" which are very, very different to what we imagine under them. He considers the democrats to be a "right-wing" party.

Skullkid4187:
Really? Something like this was published? Wow....okay! I am now leader of Humtydumpty land because I don't like the other parties.

Why? All it's pointing out is what most of us already knew anyways - socially authoritative, right-wing policies are connected to both bigotry and lower-than-average intelligence.

Also, lol@the two basic positions here in this thread:

1. "This is shocking! This is obviously biased! No, I'm not even going to go into why it's so obviously biased, because it's so obvious despite it being peer-reviewed that this paper is biased!"
2. "This is not news in any way, shape, or form. We've known this since, at the very latest, 2005."

This is amusing, left wing Americans arguing with center or center-left Europeans (I didnt name names) on the political alignment of the Democratic party.

Anyway Stag what you have here is a joke thread.

Seekster:
I can't believe they ran that in a newspaper. Thats like something Glen Beck would talk about if he were a bit more crazy.

Really I don't expect anyone to take this seriously.

The study, of course, only has the correlation and you never use definitive language with one study. The news article's headline is very deceiving. Like it always is when studies are brought up. I propose a ban on journalists covering studies.

Seekster:

CM156:

Seekster:
My favorite was the study that suggested Ritalin makes people Conservative.

...

That explains EVERYTHING about me.

I wonder, what drug makes you liberal then?

Judging by how hard they fight for legalizing it I am going to say Pot.

Blablahb:

Stagnant:
But seriously, what?! Have you been paying attention at all for the last 30 years? Conservativism, racism, and especially homophobia have been hallmarks of, you guessed it, American Right-wing parties

That would mean the democrats and smaller groups like the Green party are the principal defenders of homophobia...

Like you suggested, the study seems to argue on the basis of terms only ever used inside the US. That's quite confusing. Actually it's very annoying when people write on a thinking basis of US = the world.


Especially because the next day, I get silly groups like the International Socialists waving studies like that while they call everyone less extremist than themselves nazis.

Stag is upset because he is trying to trash the Republican Party and you arent helping.

Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Magichead:
Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Yes after all, the US is the Supreme Dictator of Verbs, and no definition used in the US can possibly be wrong, even if any other place on the globe (some 145 countries at least) it is entirely different. Also, the US is a faitfull representation of any place on the globe, from Ulaanbatar to Amsterdam.

Blablahb:

Magichead:
Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Yes after all, the US is the Supreme Dictator of Verbs, and no definition used in the US can possibly be wrong, even if any other place on the globe (some 145 countries at least) it is entirely different. Also, the US is a faitfull representation of any place on the globe, from Ulaanbatar to Amsterdam.

When the article is published in an American journal by Canadian authors, using the extremely widespread American definition is not a huge stretch of logic, especially when they explain what they're talking about right after using the term. Read the abstract again, and you'll notice that they took the time and went a step further to try to define what, exactly, they meant by "right-wing". They didn't expect for you to assume that right-wing meant republican and go on that to understand the rest of the article; they didn't even expect you to extrapolate the extremely obvious conclusion that that is what they meant with right-wing. They spelled it right out for you right after using it for the first time.

Seekster:
This is amusing, left wing Americans arguing with center or center-left Europeans (I didnt name names) on the political alignment of the Democratic party.

Anyway Stag what you have here is a joke thread.

Blahblahb is center-left in the same way you're independent. From what I've gathered, he's kind of a libertarian.

Magichead:

Seekster:

CM156:

...

That explains EVERYTHING about me.

I wonder, what drug makes you liberal then?

Judging by how hard they fight for legalizing it I am going to say Pot.

Blablahb:
That would mean the democrats and smaller groups like the Green party are the principal defenders of homophobia...

Like you suggested, the study seems to argue on the basis of terms only ever used inside the US. That's quite confusing. Actually it's very annoying when people write on a thinking basis of US = the world.


Especially because the next day, I get silly groups like the International Socialists waving studies like that while they call everyone less extremist than themselves nazis.

Stag is upset because he is trying to trash the Republican Party and you arent helping.

Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Well he does have a point, from what I understand the study is from Europe so applying it to the American political spectrum was a mistake on Stag's part. Of course I would imagine applying it to the European political spectrum is also a mistake because any study that says people of one political ideology are less intelligent than another probably has a number of problems with methodology and I would love to see where the funds for that study came from.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Seekster:
I can't believe they ran that in a newspaper. Thats like something Glen Beck would talk about if he were a bit more crazy.

Really I don't expect anyone to take this seriously.

The study, of course, only has the correlation and you never use definitive language with one study. The news article's headline is very deceiving. Like it always is when studies are brought up. I propose a ban on journalists covering studies.

I would second that if it wasnt for it being a muzzling on the press. I think a better idea would be for more care to be taken so that the headlines of stories are not misleading. All too often I have seen headlines that make you think one thing but when you read the story it says something different. A lot of people just glance through the headlines and if they see something and get the wrong idea, you have the spread of ignorance.

Blablahb:

Magichead:
Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Yes after all, the US is the Supreme Dictator of Verbs, and no definition used in the US can possibly be wrong, even if any other place on the globe (some 145 countries at least) it is entirely different. Also, the US is a faitfull representation of any place on the globe, from Ulaanbatar to Amsterdam.

What are you babbling about? It's not a US definition, it's a norm in the entire English-speaking world(and much of the rest as well), and since this was a paper published in an American journal, by Canadian scientists, using data from British and American studies, your objection to their use of the English norms and definitions of the terms is both ludicrous and completely invalid. Particularly so since, as has already been pointed out to you, the authors of the actual paper specifically defined what they meant by the term "right-wing".

If this study were reprinted in the Ulaanbatari Journal of Psychology without amendment to account for local norms, you would begin to approach the faintest shadowy outline of a point.

Not G. Ivingname:

Liberalism has completely been "detached" from the Left/Right political spectrum of today, for reasons I can't really fathom.

Being the Libertarian that I am (basically, for more freedom in all cases, weather it be gay marriage to gun rights), and my hatred of the current system I wonder where I would stand in this study.

Of course, for most of Europe, Libertarian=Anarchist, so I don't think they will bother.

I wonder too because we get lumped in with the Right Wing yet I find many of my views as offensive to both right-wingers and left.

What do you think Stagnant?

Stagnant:

Blablahb:

Magichead:
Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Yes after all, the US is the Supreme Dictator of Verbs, and no definition used in the US can possibly be wrong, even if any other place on the globe (some 145 countries at least) it is entirely different. Also, the US is a faitfull representation of any place on the globe, from Ulaanbatar to Amsterdam.

When the article is published in an American journal by Canadian authors, using the extremely widespread American definition is not a huge stretch of logic, especially when they explain what they're talking about right after using the term. Read the abstract again, and you'll notice that they took the time and went a step further to try to define what, exactly, they meant by "right-wing". They didn't expect for you to assume that right-wing meant republican and go on that to understand the rest of the article; they didn't even expect you to extrapolate the extremely obvious conclusion that that is what they meant with right-wing. They spelled it right out for you right after using it for the first time.

Seekster:
This is amusing, left wing Americans arguing with center or center-left Europeans (I didnt name names) on the political alignment of the Democratic party.

Anyway Stag what you have here is a joke thread.

Blahblahb is center-left in the same way you're independent. From what I've gathered, he's kind of a libertarian.

I am an Independent though.

Anyway though, when you start waving around studies that claim to show people of one political ideology are more intelligent than people of another political ideology, every little bullshit meter they give you in Journalism school starts going off. Its one thing to say that liberals are more likely to have post-graduate degrees or that conservatives are more likely to have four year degrees but its quite another thing to claim one of more intelligent than the other. Intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure with consistent reliability and that is why people tend to take IQ test results with a large grain of salt.

Seekster:
Anyway though, when you start waving around studies that claim to show people of one political ideology are more intelligent than people of another political ideology, every little bullshit meter they give you in Journalism school starts going off. Its one thing to say that liberals are more likely to have post-graduate degrees or that conservatives are more likely to have four year degrees but its quite another thing to claim one of more intelligent than the other. Intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure with consistent reliability and that is why people tend to take IQ test results with a large grain of salt.

Unless I've severely misinterpreted the study, the thing they were analyzing was not conservative trends overall - things like, say, small government, small market interactions, fiscal responsibility, and the like were not looked at. The study is, as far as I could tell, looking closely at social conservatism, which is a whole other kettle of fish entirely, and which actually seems to make a hell of a lot of sense: the dumber you are, the less likely you are to question the societal norms around you. At the same time, you're also less likely to reach logical humanistic claims, or to be able to accurately interpret the person who looks very different than you with different skin color and facial structures as actually just like you, or realize that homosexuality/disbelief in god isn't as huge of a deal as one would think it is. This isn't really news to anyone who has paid attention, nor is the causal logic involved a real leap of faith. It's only truly problematic if you misinterpret it.

Come to think of it, the title is misleading... But the title that's the problem is the one from the Daily Mail, not the actual peer-reviewed article in question. In fact, if anything, it seems like the title of the Mail piece is actually a fairly blatant false characterization of the issue at hand.

Seekster:

Magichead:

Seekster:

Judging by how hard they fight for legalizing it I am going to say Pot.

Stag is upset because he is trying to trash the Republican Party and you arent helping.

Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Well he does have a point, from what I understand the study is from Europe so applying it to the American political spectrum was a mistake on Stag's part. Of course I would imagine applying it to the European political spectrum is also a mistake because any study that says people of one political ideology are less intelligent than another probably has a number of problems with methodology and I would love to see where the funds for that study came from.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Seekster:
I can't believe they ran that in a newspaper. Thats like something Glen Beck would talk about if he were a bit more crazy.

Really I don't expect anyone to take this seriously.

The study, of course, only has the correlation and you never use definitive language with one study. The news article's headline is very deceiving. Like it always is when studies are brought up. I propose a ban on journalists covering studies.

I would second that if it wasnt for it being a muzzling on the press. I think a better idea would be for more care to be taken so that the headlines of stories are not misleading. All too often I have seen headlines that make you think one thing but when you read the story it says something different. A lot of people just glance through the headlines and if they see something and get the wrong idea, you have the spread of ignorance.

I was joking about the ban, but journalists need to practice self control and not just "My article needs more views". Have some professionalism.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Seekster:

Magichead:

Stag is upset because Blablahb is using archaic definitions and a handful of European anachronisms to twist his fairly self explanatory words into an unrecognisable farce. I'd say he's pretty well justified in that regard. EDIT: By which I mean Stag in his state of upset.

Well he does have a point, from what I understand the study is from Europe so applying it to the American political spectrum was a mistake on Stag's part. Of course I would imagine applying it to the European political spectrum is also a mistake because any study that says people of one political ideology are less intelligent than another probably has a number of problems with methodology and I would love to see where the funds for that study came from.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

The study, of course, only has the correlation and you never use definitive language with one study. The news article's headline is very deceiving. Like it always is when studies are brought up. I propose a ban on journalists covering studies.

I would second that if it wasnt for it being a muzzling on the press. I think a better idea would be for more care to be taken so that the headlines of stories are not misleading. All too often I have seen headlines that make you think one thing but when you read the story it says something different. A lot of people just glance through the headlines and if they see something and get the wrong idea, you have the spread of ignorance.

I was joking about the ban, but journalists need to practice self control and not just "My article needs more views". Have some professionalism.

I know, I am very critical of my own profession. The dirty little secret about journalism is, its a business and the truth often sell as well if you don't jazz it up a bit. A good journalist however will resist this urge. As a result a good journalist tends to lose their job and is replaced by someone who can write more interesting articles. Its really quite sad but in my estimation, good quality journalism all but died with Cronkite.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked