Maybe you should start paying reparations
What do reparations have to do with anything I posted other then you just changing the subject?
What does your link have to do with this thread?
I was just playing along with yours
Did you watch the video?
So a video on 2 people discussing race has nothing to do with a thread about race?
Almost as good as “you’re adding nothing to this thread” morphing into “well, you’re not making any argument, only an in-depth scientific breakdown of the science articles I’m posting to make my point.”
@oldstyle00, the article you posted in the anti-vax thread also applies here:
The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone won’t change minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the public might even backfire. Presenting facts that conflict with an individual’s worldview, it turns out, can cause people to dig in further. Psychologists, aptly, dubbed this the “backfire effect.”
2 Likes
Can you blame him for changing his position? You actually read the articles he posted then broke them down and it doesn’t fit his beliefs. Which like you posted caused him to dig in deeper, it fits raj to a T in most of these threads to be honest with you.
I disagree with what you are insinuating here. The three studies you point out all are valid but it doesn’t mean that the conclusion must be that everyone Conservative must be dumber than liberals.
This is a good article explaining what I mean.
He sums the article up in:
“Neither of the studies answer whether cognitive ability influences political orientation, or vice versa, or whether a third factor influences them both. Kemmelmeier notes that the first option makes more sense than the second, given that intelligence is more dependent upon genes than is political orientation.”
Out of curiosity did you read about what a Nobel Prize winning geneticist James Watson said about African intelligence?
“science is not controlled by the left”
@ActivitiesGuy @Aragorn @antiquity
Edit: For anyone who is too lazy to click, Watson was shunned by the scientific community for saying Africans were less intelligent than whites. As a result he sold his Nobel Prize in an effort to fund his scientific research.
We all get that.
Your mistake is taking nearly anything in this thread seriously at this point.
It’s turned into a work of performance art.
2 Likes
Per the link (which I was not too lazy to click), here is the gist of what got Dr. Watson ostracized from his previous sources of scientific support:
"In 2007, the Sunday Times ran an interview with Dr Watson in which he said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.
He told the newspaper people wanted to believe that everyone was born with equal intelligence but that those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
‘Those who have to deal with black employees find this not true’??!!
Note that he is not supporting his inflammatory claims with references to credible scientific literature; he’s simply an old white guy spouting ill-informed personal observations. Which goes to show, being a brilliant scientist does not prevent one from being a casual racist. And it is not surprising that major academic/scientific institutions would elect to sever ties with someone who very publicly espoused such views.
Edit: With regard to your (@therajraj’s) claim that this episode indicates ‘science is controlled by the left:’ If you want to argue that ‘right-controlled science’ would involve embracing poorly-supported racist views, all I can say is, If you say so…
2 Likes
“there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
-James Watson
He was stating a fact when he was speaking about African intelligence.
To be clear, I don’t really buy into any notion of “conservatives are dumber” or “liberals are dumber”, especially on the measuring stick of IQ. That jibes with my my general approach of not putting very much weight in an IQ measurement, a digression I haven’t gone down in this thread.
But for someone like @therajraj, who puts talismanic-like power to control destiny in what amounts to a written trivia quiz that might be affected by what the test taker may have had for breakfast that morning, any data that shows higher-IQ individuals tending to be more politically liberal facially eviscerates his idiotic theory that “it’s them low-IQ brown people bringing us liberalism and the high-IQ white people need to get serious about protecting their conservative, free-market societies from these dummy liberal interlopers.”
Also, @hugh_gilly - see this in response to your post.
3 Likes
As a matter of fact, he was NOT stating a fact. There is not a single fact in the quote you provided. The first sentence is speculative hand-waving; the second, a personal sociocultural observation. Not a fact in the bunch.
3 Likes
I know there is a genetic basis for political views but I’m not sure if it’s tied to IQ.
Asians and jews are ultra liberal and their IQs surpass whites. What is certain though is lower IQ populations will never vote for a small government because a lot of them will do better on welfare than operating in the free market.
What is not a fact?
A fact is an empirical observation (or an explanatory concept closely linked to a set of empirical observations) that has been found, through replication and converging evidence, to be so reliable that essentially every person with relevant expertise considers it indisputably true.
Now that I have defined it for you, please point out the facts I missed in the statements above.
Sure it’s an explanation for the observed results of testing of intelligence which he mentioned.