Uhuh... I have heard of forum trolls, but actual news article trolls? This is unexpected.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

I beg to differ --- start making celebrities of intelligent people the way NBA players are and add in the salary and my friend you will see the super smart will be a little more promiscuous when 10 girls are hiting on them at every bar and coffe shop it town.

These statistics may be true -- but it is a result of social behaviour -- inteligence is rewarded in middle adulthood (late 20's forward) and the social norm is that fame follows the media attention.

When Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Douglas McIlroy, and Joe Ossanna (the programmers who wrote UNIX ) become household names then noone will want to be a football player cause the cheerleaders are at the ACM conference.

with regards to social versus family protection, look at any herd animal, their behavior evolved towards protecting the herd often at the cost of the weak, slow, young, regardless of genetic link. So intelligent liberals are evolving toward cows? I think this is a pretty clear case of someone who wants to fit a curve to prove his preconceived notion. besides I thought the average IQ was renormalized to 110 some years ago which would make the bigger story not that one side or the other is smarter, but that either end of the spectrum falls significantly below the curve making moderate views across the board an indication of a higher intelligence to bring the overall average back up.

That's a pretty strong title there: "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent". At least tone it down to something like "Liberalism and Atheism Correlate with Higher IQ" or else ALMIGHTY LORD WILL SMITE THEE!

I'm liberal and atheist and all that progressive stuff but this is going over the top for an academic publication. It's just asking for a flame war.

"Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence."

ROFL I expect a army Bible-toting gonna crash this site's comment box!

My guess is that the author is a leftist progressive atheist and the problem with leftist progressives is that they need affirmation that they are smarter than everyone else.

I dont buy into either side conservative or leftist being smarter than the other.

I never thought i could type this but... I agree with Ralph Wiggum. (I guess it's ok since it's clear he's not THE Ralph Wiggum). Honestly though, that title, is asking for a fight. As if the political fights aren't bad enough already... jeez...
I do enjoy the fact that according to a nationally published scientific study, I am, in fact, more intelligent. Hah. You already can't get republicans to budge from their beliefs, do you think this will really help ANYTHING? Perhaps the writers are republican and trying on a little reverse psychology.

some of these posts just prove the article. ralph
stfu. title is dead on. you twisted it. article is appropriate. It sums up the experience and inclinations of those of us who are a little above average intelligence. Get the fk over it you all you who aren't. It's just the way it works. The dichotomy between preference of exclusivity between the sexes with respect to intelligence is interesting. Liberalism has nothing to do with cows or herd behavior. Its the inclination to foster concern for all of society instead of just your clan, and to a small degree, ahead of your clan, especially ahead of the short term benifits of your clan if they contradict long term planning. Progressives are just that and are Utilitarian. If you dont understand how it works, stop posting against it.

I actually think it's great that for once physorg has a BETTER TITLE than authors of a paper. Everyone always rags on this site for poorly worded headings, but in this case I think the choice was right!

Marjon, that's a little idiotic. People like Martin Luther King Jr. are leftist progressives (forget about the atheism that's too new). So you're saying they never got anything done? HAH.
and VOR, while I agree with you I think you're missing that ralph was quoting the ACTUAL ARTICLE as given after the "More Information:" section. You two are on the same team here.

Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.

Mind you after considering the fact that a lot of progressive leftists cant hold down a real job in the real world, and need to conservative religious people to support them, maybe they are smarter.

Royale, I dont know too much acout MLK jr. but didnt he say dont judge a man by the color of his skin, but by his character. That is a conservative belief, not a progressive leftist belief.

hmm.. since welfare was created through "progressive leftists" it's interesting for you to say they can't hold down a job since they obviously were in that position to CREATE welfare in the first place..

Don't just say most doctors, engineers, blah blah blah are conservative and religious. You can't just make up "facts" because you think they're so.

Let's not be silly here. You should be a little more freethinking with your ideas. :)

thanks royale. sorry ralph, my bad. (your name didnt help lol) I see that now, dont always read the more info part. We progressives tend to be more measured so our voice gets drowned by the ignorant absolutist noise, but sometimes I lose that restraint. yeah it's a stupid, backwards title. We are of course instead Liberal and Atheist because we're more intelligent. And that alone is obviously enough to start that flame war. Sadly there seems to be a relationship between one's intelligence and one's tendency to recognize and appreciate those even more intelligent. Maybe there's a threshold range.

That's a conservative belief? Not to judge by color of skin? Are you insane?
So lemme guess, next you're going to say that slave owners were progressive and leftist.
We're talking about moving away from the norm... thus PROGRESSING... think man.

It's not so much saying that it's stupid to believe in God. It's more saying that critical thinkers are more likely to challenge their parents'/society's beliefs/ideas while non-critical thinkers are less likely.

Less critical thinkers brought up in aetheist/liberal households, by this article's logic, are more likely to remain as such than be convinced otherwise.

Article should have left religion and politics out of it.

Royale, I dont know too much acout MLK jr. but didnt he say dont judge a man by the color of his skin, but by his character. That is a conservative belief, not a progressive leftist belief.

free u r without question the dumbest troll that regularly posts on this site. Of course racism is conservative trait. what u said is verifiably factually false. You stated the exact opposite of things. I pretty much think u just post to cause trouble and know how crazy you are posting. If you really believe what you post you need to go back for some more edumacation.

I know it's the internet and everything, but you should really try typing properly if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously.

Conservative, fundamentalist Religious Christians did fight slavery. A republican freed the slaves. etc. etc. However many high level democrats in the 1920-1970s were memebers of the KKK.(the numbers will suprise you) Racism is a leftist trait. Hitler was a socialist (read leftist). Stalin (again a socialst) was also a racist. Obamas rev. wright is also a racist socialist.

Come on now, please read history.

So is this one of those thing where people believe that if you don't think the way they think, you have a lower IQ? Like if you are taught lessons that have been shaped by liberals and they test you, and think you have lower IQ...Well, I think they will fail my faith IQ test too (not bible lesson. Just faith).

Anyway, it hardly ever easy for intelligent, highly educated, and wealthy people to have faith in God and even the bible mentioned this.

Revisionist history and anti-intellectual idiocy. That must be freethinking himself. Now if you guys can just get him to start in on bashing homosexuals, you'll have the trifecta!

Hahahaha. I know JayK, right, he says "please read history" like in the 10 minutes between posts he somehow educated himself on the topic. Once again free as in another post you had today, you can't just state something as true. That's great that you think that way, and you may truly believe it. Still doesn't make it fact.

liberals smart? theres never been a group of people more willing to be led around by the nose in the history of mankind. i guess if your idea of smart is being highly susceptible to every form of groupthink and letting other people run every aspect of your lives, jayk must be the smartest person in the world. freethinking is correct when he says racism is historically speaking the purview of democrats. the kkk was the terrorist wing of the southern democrats. Abraham Lincoln was a republican. i know your a good little leftist, zombie, parrot, jayk and rewriting history is generally what you automatons do. i guess we cant really hold you accountable for your worldview since you've been programmed to think that way. just like you shouldnt be held responsible for any aspect of your life. no the taxpayers and the government should provide you with health care, pension,union job,a house and car. now thats smart.

Another piece of liberal propoganda skewed to achieve the pre-determined result that confirms their biases. How convenient is it that the study stops at "young adults". It is well established that individuals become increasingly conservative as they age. So does the IQ of all the liberal converts to conservativism drop with age? Have these liberal progrssives not learned anything from the exposure of the fraud and perversion of science by the man made Global Warming zealots? Guess not. I have no doubt that a close examination of the instruments used, subject sampling and statistacle devices will expose many irregularities and selective bias.

I didn't realize they moved All Fools' Day to the 24th of February.

Just to have some fun:

Does East Germany's Democratic Republic discredit the theory of Democracy because of the name? Or maybe you've read and understood Germany's "Charter of Labor" and you still believe that Hitler was a socialist? Are you aware of the Dixiecrat revolution in America?

John Newton, slave owner, slave trader, After conversion to Christianity joined forces with Abolionist Willian wilberforce (another Christian) and fought for the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. - common knowledge -
George Wallace Jr. KKK member ran for president 3 times as a Democrat -common knowlege-

Democrats and the KKK all common knowlege for anyone who has studied history. Look it up.

JayK et al, Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a communist. KKK were the progressives of the 1920s. Look it up.

OK, so, politically speaking, if I believe there should be concentration camps for sociologists, what would that make me?

On the one hand, its a form of discrimination, so extreme right-wing stuff. On the other hand, it would eliminate any sources of discrimination and generally speaking people won't be given any "scientific" reason to think they're unequal, so pretty hardcore left-wing.

Honestly, what is the utility of this sort of research? All I see is a constant feedback loop. An actual scientific article usually requires prior knowledge and education. "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" only requires literacy to get the gist of it and form an opinion, which will become the data of a subsequent study. This is not science...

I've never read a more transparent piece of garbage in my life, except maybe that one time I dripped grease on the Boston Globe. That was fairly transparent as well, transparent enough where I could read something of substance through it in any event.

The only interesting pieces I could discern from this article are that societal pressures are now shaping evolution as greatly as natural pressures.

Social Darwinists around the word unite with me in saying "Duh."

And just an FYI: The KKK has at least one officer in the senate currently. Senator Byrd (Democrat) is a former high officer of the KKK, or as he refers to them a Knight of the Golden Circle.

And so JayK gives me a 1 rating on my light-hearted jibe at the obvious leftist bias of this article, then follows up with another rating of 1 on my suggestion that the Obamites' methods of punishing the poor/who can only afford cheaper foods, could be instead revised with tax credit or subsidies for healthier foods.

Seems like someone is butthurt that liberalism is unpopular in this forum.

My opinion of this article is that there may be some research of scientific merit regarding the correlation of higher IQ score to "progressive" thinking, but that the author of the article is very obviously biased against those who do not fall in line with their -isms of choice. Poor journalism, that's all.

This article is incomplete without a comment on the size of testicles and length of penis. Very sloppy, shoddy, and slack research!

what are you babbling about? nazi is short for national socialist. it wasnt germanys charter of labor it was italys charter of labor genius. the charter of labor was a vehicle designed to garner the support of rich industialists to hop on mussolinis fascist bandwagon. it did nothing but consolidate his power. oh and democracy isnt a theory smart liberal athiest guy it is a form of government. and not the form we live under in america. usually when you hear leftists talking about "democracy" what theyre talking about is socialism. orwellian style. like your heroes chavez and castro.

monogamist, male liberal atheists are more intelligent .... hmmmmm ...Science? ????!!!!

That's a good point Loodt. They definitely should have added that.

Many countries have had a "Charter of Labor". In this case, I specifically referred to East Germany's, which may have been difficult, as the post had over 2 lines, which can be very difficult for conservatives with a low IQ. Democracy is very much a theory on forms of government, and is most likely an unachievable perfection.

Since you think that Nazi = "National Socialist" means that socialism was the leading economical model for Germany, maybe you can then explain the German Democratic Republic and how "democratic" Germany was at the time of the German Democratic Republic. You can't say that the name defines the practice for one and not the other.

And for those that think this study is worthless, can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility... Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested - mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism."

-- Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny

History without context, next on marjonLive!

Come on in y'all- we're havin' us a Hootenanny!!!

Free- look again, my man- it was the Republican-Democrats. The Democrat Party wasn't formed until circa 1830- very near the end of the Slavery Era in America:

http://en.wikiped..._States)

Another Inaccuracy(this in the article itself).Female monogamy has not always been the norm, even in historical times.

I agree that this is some total Flame Bait as written. But I disagree with the central premise of the research that we can pinpoint traits as abstract as these and with any authority say that they have been evolutionarily selected either "for" OR "against" this is some crackpot hogwash.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@Caliban: I think you might have misread something:

In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women.

The article above does not say that women were monogamous. It says it is novel for men to be exclusive, but for women it was kinda indeterminate. The section that says "women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate." is actually poorly worded and may be what you have an issue with. I read it as the "social" expectation that women would be sexually exclusive.

Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.

What...the....F***
Wake up from whatever dream you've been living in and stop saying absolutely retarded comments like these. You're only proving either that:
A) you're an extremist on the right
or
B) your IQ is in single digit numbers.

Your statements are insulting and without any statistical references, proof or foundation. Please try again.

@JayK,
I did misread that. Vive La Difference! As our French brothers(and sisters) would say.

@Caliban:
I had to read it 3 or 4 times to make sure I understood it, it was incredibly poorly written. I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.

religious servey of doctors

http://chronicle....--.shtml

real easy to find if you look

I'll try and find the engineer study....

BTW I had my IQ taken several times...
at 15 my IQ was 131
at 17 my IQ was 125
at 25 my IQ was 129

But I dont hold much stock in IQ, If you ever see a mensa get together, they dont seem all that smart :)

Frenchie It does seem to go without saying, people who use foul language us it because theyre not smart enough to live without it.

I worked with a kid who was in grade one whose foul language was embarasing the teacher. I said to the kid I know your smart and I want others to know your smart so use smart words...He promised to use smart words.... been over a year now and hes proving to be a smart kid...

this is what leftists always do. change the subject, muddy the waters. but just for fun- the german "democratic" republic was ruled by the socialist unity party(SED). the SED was a marriage between the SOCIAL democratic party and the communist party. east germany was centrally planned from top to bottom, nothing democratic about it. did they have elections? yes. were the candidates hand picked by the communists and socialists ruling the country? yes. the economic model was called the "planned construction of socialism". complete with 5 year plans, industrial quotas,etc. this economic model evolved to the "new economic system" which led to some decentralization but not much. the next iteration was called the "economic system of socialism" which reinforced central planning but geared it toward higher technology. then the "main task" came along which refocused on marxism/leninism. all this came after hitler and the nazis so im not even sure what the point your trying to make is.

so im not even sure what the point your trying to make is

Yeah, I know you don't.

enlighten me o wise one. babble on a little more for me maybe you could open my eyes. my suspicion is you have no idea what your talking about so you substitute snark for cogent argument, which is fine with me. im definitely amused. at you not with you.

@Caliban:
I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.

They are one and the same. Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve. I think it's a bit more complicated than the author suggested. For example it's hard to be openly gay in an environment where one face "fag dragging" by predators. There are more environmental pressures to evolving social constructs than simply how efficient an individual's brain is.

We are primed for paranoia, there is an enormous body of evidence to support this. So imagined social violence to behavior change is enough stop many people from acting out. As Stalin said It's cheaper to put a policeman in everyones head than to put one on every corner".

What's not mentioned is sample size so all claims for or against are meaningless. It's just noise.

@freethinking, from your link:

Physicians are 26 times more likely to be Hindu than the overall U.S. population (5.3 percent of doctors vs. 0.2 percent of nonphysicians). Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent), six times more likely to be Buddhist (1.2 percent vs. 0.2 percent) and five times more likely to be Muslim (2.7 percent vs. 0.5 percent).

It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions. It also seems to hint that U.S. doctor population is biased toward immigrant sources. These two observations out to tickle you some, no? Here's a bit more to ponder:

The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife. ... We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine.

@RJB26, affiliations and definitions change over time. You can't use Stalin's definition of "socialism", to describe modern western socialists as somehow Stalinist. Here's an example from U.S. history: the so-called "party of Lincoln" today is dominated by people who resent Lincoln, still haven't recovered from the civil war, and still haven't forgiven the depredations of the Yankees. Similarly, the Democrats of the early 20th century aren't the same ideologically as the ones from late 20th century (in the midst of the Civil Rights movement, the so-called yellow-dogs defected, and joined the Republicans in opposition.)

Every modern Progressive would've stood beside MLK, would've marched for women's suffrage, would've protested the Vietnam war, would've fought for desegregation of the South, would've cheered Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting, would've supported FDR's New Deal, and would've been thoroughly disgusted by the destructive hypocrisies of Reaganites and Reaganomics.

I think @Javinator's first comment had an actually scientific response for this extremely ambiguous (and apparently, inflammatory) article. I just wish that politics was a system of thought (oxymoron?) having enough internal rigor to actually determine which answers are true or false. Of course, it doesn't. This means that politicos will be forever shouting (i.e., 'wars') at each other, ad nauseum.

It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions

What, you mean convert? That don't make sense.

Unlikely (though may be true in a few cases.) Rather, they do not convert. Those that come from immigrant families, simply retain whatever religion they were raised with (be it Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam.) Which is an observation that ought to make some rabid Christians on here wonder: what if they weren't indoctrinated with their faith from childhood, but with some other faith instead (or lack of faith altogether) -- would they still be Christians right now?

I think you might have had a better point if you had stuck to the statistics that say that American medical doctors are not symbolic of the general religious makeup of America, which is an interesting discussion, and while it may not have generated the amount of Christian vitriol as this wonderful thread.

"Freethinking."

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

1) First off, Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. Hardly anything about his regime is "socialist." This is something you could learn in a 100-level political science class.

Yes, I realize the Nazi's were "Nationalist Socialists," but that doesn't make them socialist any more than North Korea calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" makes it a democracy. Sorry bub.

2) Communism and Socialism are kindred ideologies (with a caveat being that one does not necessarily entail the other). Read Marx if you want to see why. Hitler's Germany was fascist. Communism (Stalin) and Fascism (Hitler) are mutually-exclusive ideologies. In fact, Mr. History, they even fought each other in World War 2. Fascism is a right-wing ideology. Communism is a left-wing ideology. Wishing it otherwise does not make it so.

3) Sure, some Democrats were KKK members. However, that was predominantly in the South--the conservative South. You simply cannot lay the misdeeds of the Democratic Party at the feet of modern liberalism. First off, the polarization of the parties is a relatively new phenomenon that did not solidify until the 1960's, when the Democratic Party's policy forever parted them from the South. Looking at a modern electoral map reflects the ongoing divide.

In short, the Democratic Party was not always associated with liberalism (again, read history). What racism has always been associated with, however, is conservatism. Even today there is a consistency between what I've just said and the common presence of conservative, blue-dog democrats in the South. Y'know, the red state south; the one dominated by conservatives.

---

Please, get an education, THEN have an opinion. Pretending to know what you're talking about does not impress those of us who actually do.

Education first, then opinion

That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.

"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
http://www.econli...Epilogue
Are you a fellow traveler?

Says the guy who quotes someone who also has no clue what he's talking about.

1) Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism." Fascism rejects capitalism as does communism. Having a "laissez faire" style of economy does not provide the kind of control totalitarian forms of government require.

2) Fascists had a more feudalism-styled economic system. Whoever you're quoting managed to misrepresent both totalitarian ideologies in a single sentence. Wow.

---

What was that about propaganda?

Like Frink and PinkElephant said the names change and allegiances waiver. Parties only hold certain views until they stop getting them votes. Right and left tendencies can be found in the stances of both parties currently. And to try to equate the status of a party today to when Lincoln was around is pretty meaningless.

All in all left still means left. Right still means right. Progressive and conservative still describe stances. Socialism, facism, communism, democracy, anarchy, monarchy, totalitarianism, and republics all describe systems of government. I believe that all of these systems can work and can be the best for a society. It just depends on the circumstances in that country at that time. Democracy wasn't some golden egg laid by god that should replace every other social contract ever made. It is a specific solution for governing. It works great for some groups. Others, no.

...Sigh. I know that everyone is, understandably, far more interested in the whole issue of whether or not this research is hideously flawed and biased or not. It strikes close to values, religion, and politics, and all three grab into emotions like grappling hooks. However, I can't help but wonder; SUPPOSING that this study is valid (whether you agree or not, please, just bear with me), then it has some very interesting evolutionary implications. If higher intelligence is associated with what are, basically, maladaptive traits (monogamy yields fewer offspring, a non-kin-centered world view hampers kin selection, and atheism...well, considering how prevalent religion is, I should be very surprised if atheism were adaptive), then...would that act as a ceiling on human intelligence? Perhaps it's not actually possible for us to evolve to be much smarter than we are now, because if our intelligence increases too much, we start resisting our own instincts

@Frink,

Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."

I think you misunderstand that thesis. The idea is that Fascism is an ultimate blending of government and mega-business. In a Laissez Faire system, lacking regulation, mega-monopolies eventually emerge through M&A and formation of Trusts -- this is basically the corporate form of organized crime (like Mafia), which is very stable and virulent; with their superior resources they eventually capture the press and the government (the latter through bribes, revolving doors, campaign financing, tailored legislation, etc.); the endgame is Fascism -- which, as you've put it, is similar to high-tech Feudalism, and can also be described as Plutocracy. Ironically, the process results in draconian curtailment of freedoms and competition, despite the fact that it begins with an ideally free and 100% competitive state.

(Continued from my earlier post): and select out that greater intelligence. Full disclosure; I'm very biased towards that idea, because in some of my fiction writing, I use a very similar idea of intelligence being, if carried too far, maladaptive--and of course, I'd be glad to see my science fiction held up by actual science.

...Alright, I know, compared to the other implications of this study and the arguments over its validity that's probably of little general interest. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Ronan - What's curious to me is whether or not these maladaptive traits are actually artifacts of living in a post-industrial society; in that these traits, even if they correlate with a higher intelligence, are expressed only through living in such a society, where otherwise they would not.

Ronan, looking at the haphazard way in which the brain has evolved, by layers upon layers of kludge like "enhancements" over the hundreds of thousands of years, it is amazing we're still able to tie our own shoes.

@Ronan,

monogamy yields fewer offspring

Not necessarily; look at Catholics... Also, as the world becomes overpopulated, the cost of offspring goes up dramatically, meaning the quality of their upbringing (and their chances in life) goes down.

a non-kin-centered world view hampers kin selection

Modern civilization does the same. Relatives no longer live in closely knit communities; estrangement is common.

and atheism...well, considering how prevalent religion is, I should be very surprised if atheism were adaptive

This can also change over time, as science continues to progress, and as scientific literacy rises, as it must, due to an increasingly technological culture and environment. Science literacy positively correlates with atheism.

If our intelligence increases too much, we start resisting our own instincts

Would that really be an intelligent thing to do?

@PinkElephant - I have no problem with that chain of events. What should be noted though is that Fascism, in the context we're discussing, did not (nor has ever, as far as I can tell) arise in that manner. It arose in a reactionary movement among the countries who lost World War 1; and, in violation of the Congress of Vienna, the winners placed further burdens upon the already physically, economically and psychologically-devastated countries. Here, with exceptions, things such as capitalism and the industrial revolution came late, which further wrecked their system, making it utterly impossible for the chain of events you've described to take place.

Mises was speaking from a McCarthyist point of view at the time and had no quantitative data to back up his claims. The rise of fascism did not culminate in the highest and most depraved stage of capitalism, but in a state of reactionary desperation. I think the forementioned sequence of events is plausible, but still theoretical.

Frink: You mean, take a highly intelligent human from today who is an atheist, progressive, monogamous feller, and plunk him down in, say, a Clovis village thirteen thousand years ago (that's, um, within the correct time frame for the Clovis culture, correct?), and he (or however many multiples of him you need to get a good representative sample size) wouldn't exhibit any of these modern maladaptive traits? I'm sure that's so, to some extent. The trouble, I'd imagine, is figuring out to what extent.

@Ronan

I'm reminded of conditions such as Stockholm syndrome which, for those unaware, is a condition through which an unwilling prisoner (of war or a hostage/kidnapping scenario) becomes sympathetic to his or her captors, and may decide to aid them.

The interesting thing about Stockholm syndrome is that it is VERY conducive to survival in these types of dangerous situations. Despite the hostage's otherwise independent nature prior to the abduction, psychologically, their brains overcompensate to increase chances of survival. Consider, for instance, the Patty Hearst incident in the 1970's.

What I'm suggesting is that the culture shock experienced by our hypothetical subject would be similar in many ways to the shock experienced by one who immediately goes from having freedom to not having freedom. The parallels between being held hostage and not being restricted in our behavior and the restrictions associated with being plucked up and put in an alien culture are worth considering

Pink Elephand

All good points, but nonetheless, I think a few of my original suppositions might still stand. Monogamy can produce a lot of offspring given the right cultural environment, true, but polygamy in general ought still to be able to beat it without too much trouble. Modern civilization, also, is...well, modern. It's probably had a very slight influence on our genes, but not much, and the forces that shaped us (favoring kin-selection, family-centered goals, etc.) could still be expected to be very much in effect. I may be misunderstanding your point there, though, so if so I apologize. I don't know enough about the history of atheism over time, and how common/uncommon it was in different cultures in the past, to really be able to defend my position there, I guess. And as for the last...Our instincts are there to fulfill evolution's goals, not our own, and they can act as both carrots and sticks. Resisting some of the sticks might lead to a maladaptive but happier life.

Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.

"Pink Elephant," I meant; sorry, typo.
And that wasn't quite what I had in mind, Frink (I was angling more for the effect of raising a very bright person in modern culture versus raising a very bright person in, say, a hunter-gatherer culture, with no culture shock involved), but that's an interesting thing to consider too. You're pondering the effect of a sort of cultural equivalent of Stockholm syndrome on the intelligent/"intelligent" maladaptive traits, correct? The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.

@Frink,

Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."

Whether you agree with that particular definition or not, there are definite signs that we might soon be experiencing the fact:

http://www.global...Id=17736

Food for thought.

@Ronan,

Regarding atheism over time, I would imagine it's an emergent phenomenon. Prior to the advent of modern science, and even prior to Enlightenment, there were too many mysterious and unexplainable things in the world, and it would have been very hard for anyone to get by without believing in some sort of spirits or magic. Superstition is the natural state of mind among the ignorant, and from superstition to full-blown religion it's a rather small and easy leap.

Concerning polygamy (and infidelity), consider also STDs. With growing population density, these become a real scourge; in such an environment monogamy gains extra advantages.

With respect to the last point, what I mean is that going against one's natural urges (such as socialization and procreation) is not an intelligent thing to do -- it leads to unhappiness and even depression. An intelligent person would aim to avoid such unfavorable outcomes...

The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.

Bingo. It's better to be a serf than to be burned at the stake. No amount of progressive morality or scientific understanding is going to stop a sword from chopping your limbs. Add a few years and the brain begins a process of synaptic pruning, then poof! It's as if our modern knowledge and sensibilities never existed.

Quote function didn't execute properly on my last post(3rd up from here.CHECK IT OUT.) Then delay for flood control. Sorry.

Quote function didn't execute properlyon my last post. Then delay for flood control. Sorry.

Use the "edit" function. The flood control prevents you from making another post within 3 minutes of a preceding post you've made. That's also the exact interval over which you're allowed to edit your last post once you've submitted it.

By the way, nice article.

@Caliban

Current trends in int'l relations suggest a consolidation of power of non-governmental organizations (NGO's), among them in particular are multi-national corporations (MNC's). There has been a continual trend since the Industrial Revolution in which MNC's and IGO's (Intergovernmental Organizations) have been ever-increasing in influence.

Being that the very idea of the State is one which is relatively new (400-ish years old) in human history, it is not expected that the State will exist in any form comparable to what we now have. What is expected are more conglomerations such as the European Union (EU). Smart money is on the Arab League eventually consolidating, despite their historic differences. With this, too, comes the increased prominence of MNC's. What I find most interesting are the projections of when this will happen--some estimates as early as 50 years!

Unfortunately, it's hard to talk about this without New World Order nuts polluting it with conspiracy theories

Pink Elephant: I hadn't considered the disease angle to polygamy; however, as you note, that would be more significant in denser populations, so perhaps its effects might only arise in cities, and not in less centralized cultures.

And oddly enough, your last point is my point, as well; that recognizing how one's instincts (or emotions, etc.; they don't have to be thought of as instincts by the person in question for the idea to hold) might be an intelligent course of action, in that one could recognize that indulging certain instincts just led to unhappiness (evolution's stick when you miss the carrot), and might therefore resolve to just avoid both carrot and stick, and find happiness in milder, less sternly-mandated behaviors. The strongest emotions, whether they be positive or negative, are tough to deal with, and can bring a lot of grief along with any joy. It might be intelligent to just steer clear of them and aim for less violent emotional waters.

But then again, I'm really being hideously conceited with that last point. I consider myself (like, I imagine, most people do) to be pretty intelligent, and that "tug against evolution's puppet-strings" philosophy is, well, my philosophy. The dots do not take much connecting, there. Perhaps that just boils down to personal preference: plenty of people, maybe most, certainly DO like a little or a lot of emotional spice in their life.

(continued) Anyway, it is conceivable that MNC's, which are asserting themselves in the process of globalization far faster than regulation is globalizing, could initiate the type of process PinkElephant describes. But, again, this is all highly theoretical.

Fortunately, we do have some facts on our side. Since the I.R., corporate entities have rarely willingly self-regulated. If they did, there would be no need for government regulation.

Second, it's a fact that businesses, during the post-civil war reconstruction period, were more powerful than the government. In cases such as the infamous Railroad Strikes, or the Pullman Strike, or the tumultuous 1890's, the national guard was actually used at the whim of private enterprise, at times with deadly results. What will their behavior resemble when the power balance between governments and MNC's shifts in favor of MNC's? Will precedent apply?

These are the types of things that come to my mind when broaching the topic.

@Frink.
The linked article takes a considerably different, and much more portentious view of developing Fascism. Have a read at some point. It's fairly lengthy, but well worth it.

Since when did IQ become a useful method for determining intelligence? I was under the impression that it tended to be quite culturally biased, as well as failing to recognize certain types of intelligence. I happen to be liberal in most aspects, religious, and smarter than the average (that sounds arrogant, but...). I'm a statistical anomaly, according to this study. Yay for me!

@Caliban - I'll give it a look, but I'm already skeptical at the sight of 9/11 Truthers and climate change denialist entries on the front page of the site.

I'll try to give it a fair shake and analyze it from the position of a political scientist.

Ronan, Pink Elephant-
You can just as easily say these "anti evolutionary traits" are the push, or purpose of evolution. They are an expression of variability, and could thus be selected for both now and in the future, as conditions change.

I would further suggest that this is what is actually happening, as these traits would tend to facilitate the process of acting collectively/cooperatively as a species to overcome the lethal variability of the natural world, which we are unlikely to do as individuals or even small groups(remember those human evolutionary bottlenecks).

Forward together!

And I mean that in an apolitical sense, and say it without a trace of sarcasm or irony.

@Frink-
Interested to hear your opinion- I'm sure that you are familiar with at least some elements of the case presented.

The debate should include whether this supposed higher intelligence is of any redeeming value to a society or simply an example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Hitler victimized an entire continent and killed millions in his search for a master race. But this idea originated in the USA and gained roots in California. Too much info for this post so just google "Roots of Nazi eugenics" But basically the smart elites decided to set the plan in motion.
actually the faked and twisted science they used to advance their theories are eerily similar to the recent global warming scandal involving "Fake Science"

poopiehead, as if this flame war wasn't heated enough without introducing AGW too :)

Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve

You contradict yourself. 'Social' constructs involve more than one brain. And being openly gay- or any such lascivious or intrusive behavior- naturally annoys most people. But you don't care... Or maybe you do?

Species occupy more than one individual but they evolve. Social constructs evolve.

BTW, I don't care if people are openly heterosexual or otherwise.

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

I am disappointed! Only 6 points? It should have been at least 25! Well, I assume that if the wording was a little bit different the IQ difference would have been huge. For example if the first one was 'I don't believe in any supernatural beings' instead of 'not at all religious' which might include deists as well as atheists, then it would filter only the atheists. If the second option was 'I believe the world is ~6000 years old' then it would get only the "elite" of the very religious people.

Then yeah, that would have been amusing! :)

I don't understand why so many people here want to censor the article. It's not taking a stance on religion or anything really, it's merely presenting a conclusion drawn from statistical data. You can disagree with the conclusion but you cannot disagree with the statistical data.

To tell you the truth I'm as surprised as anybody here, not about the conclusion and not about the data which it was based upon, but the way you people react to it. I'm going to go ahead and consider this paper factual, now you can choose to do whatever you want -- as long as you're not pushing to censor it, in which case you're actually fighting against liberalism and freedom.

In a paleolithic society, the scarcity of resources and high mortality would make "conservative" values make sense; do not deviate from the well-known and tested, or you might eat something toxic or thirst to death as you walk into a stretch of desert without a water hole.

In a more affluent society, we can afford to plan much longer ahead and maybe be more altruistic (I do not deny that "conservative" individuals have showed both consideration and generosity even in the impoverished old days). In regard to religion, if your situation is difficult, it will seem like a good investment to sacrifice to the spirits as a form of celestial insurance. When people feel secure and are affluent religious interest goes down -as can be seen in the Scandinavian countries.

Since we no longer live in a zero-sum society, "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values have become possible on a large scale which I personally welcome (although we of the older generation will get irritated sometimes

I see by the comments we are all racing to protect our status as 'intelligent'. I must admit, I too was hoping for the best as I read Kanazawa's article....until my 5 year old boy told me it was a beautiful day outside and I should come out to play.

can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?

Seeing as you started with statements about Nazism I figured you'd be able to taste and see the idiocy of the article.

Liberal Monogamous White Atheists are no more superior than Blonde Blue Eyed Germans.

Every one cannot be judged by a statistical average of intellect, especially when the only marker was IQ, which has little to do with actual intellect.

The reason why the hypothesis is false is two fold:
1) limited sample size from an overly diverse population.
2) The concept that what humans are doing is evolutionarily new is wrong.

Atheism- fairly sure all animals practice atheism
Nocturnalism- Seriously? Every teenager alive is partially nocturnal and has been for a LOOOOONG time.

This is an ad hominem projection of what the researchers find to be ideal in man. Junk science at its worst.

Seriously, people. Stop arguing over who's liberal, what's conservative, how socialists act, and especially stop defining yourselves by these labels. We're people. Most people on this site (I would hope) are intelligent by some or all measures. So think it out yourselves, don't just sign on with the closest label. Next time someone asks me what I am, I'm going to say "I'm a human being. Why, what are you, a fish?"

Thiebs - We're not talking about labels. We're talking about political ideologies and governing systems. Do keep up.

@fourthrocker, you have an insanely good point there. I think intelligent people have known this for awhile, and as you point out our forefathers did seem to realize what religion was. It's just like a band heading up on stage and saying, "this is the best crowd ever." You feed people what they want, and it's easier to get your way.

Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.

No, many here are aligned with those McCarthy was trying find.
It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society. Unless, they do know what they are doing. If so, the arrogance and hubris of the 'intelligent' are showing on this board.

Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.

I'm not referring to what political parties like to call themselves. I'm referring to the actual meaning of the words "liberalism" and "socialism", since this article was referring to "liberals" and not "republicans" or "democrats".

Why is everyone here discussing what liberalism, socialism and every other "ism" is? That isn't the point of the article. It was pointing out the correlation between how intelligence sways us as humans further from the path evolution has taken to bring us here. IE: Staying up at night, helping others outside our family unit (Liberalism), not believing in a god (Athiesm), etc. This article is not trolling, it is pointing out a fact that most of society doesn't see initially. How is this junk science? What proof do you have that "teenagers stay up, blah blah blah"? This is an article taking excerpts from a scientific journal. Because you disagree doesn't make it junk science, what proof is there to dispute the validity of intelligence counteracting the evolutionary process? I can postulate that the abundance of energy(oil, etc), modern medicine, and other technology is also counteracting evolution.

Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.

Liberalism and socialism have no bond. You can be both, one or the other, or neither. You can be a conservative socialist or a liberal socialist, etc.

The statement above is in regards to fiscal or social liberalism? I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberalist. What does that say about my intellect? Am I dumber than most because I like saving money or am I smarter than most because I recognize all humans as humans? Again, a very silly vague article speaking to a junk science point of evolutionary preference for a minority group.

Effectively non-populist propaganda.

You have missed the point of the article entirely.

Stuck in the clouds of your ego.

What minority group are you referring?

You have missed the point of the article entirely.

Stuck in the clouds of your ego.

What minority group are you referring?

No the point was that the "research" indicates that Liberalism, Monogamy, and Atheism are novel evolutionary traits in humans and are an indicator of superior intellect. Neither of which is true on the whole or on average.

Clouds of my ego, ha.

The minority group would be liberalists. In the 3 major thought processes of social responsibility there is Liberalism, Conservatism, and Isolationism.

Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally
Conservatism- spend the resources of society conservatively
Isolationism- withdraw from society and maintain locally controlled resources

The majority in the world is conservatism followed by liberalism followed by isolationism. Prior to the internet apparently isolationism was the majority,Evidenced by several UN social polls taken between 2001 and 2008 by the Integrated Social Policies group

Marjon,

Your idea of what liberal and progressive means in the context of the US is completely incorrect.

The "progressive" movement never had a bad name, nor was it ever considered liberal until after the 30's when the civil rights movements started.

Contrary to popular belief, MLK Jr. was a republican, and at the time the Republican party was considered the Progressive party partly due to the policies of TR but more due to the statements of "Societal Progress" and the expansion of rights.

How is this junk science?

Failures of method: Questionnaires and interviews with loaded questions which appeal to common stereotypes. Presumably small sample size, also culturally biased. Reference to IQ tests as infallible and complete measuring tools. Gross statistical data being used in rudimentary models relying on unquantifiable variables.

Failure of purpose: Think quantum observer effect. The act of measuring behaviour, especially by direct interaction, modifies it. This makes things hard with inanimate particles with limited degrees of freedom, how about something as volatile as human thought?

Real science offers virtual certainty and useful information. Social science is epistemologically futile and offers little to no practical benefit. Seriously, someone try to refute this last bit. Something good for society that came from sociology.

I think logic just jumped out the window, set itself on fire and then stabbed itself with a blunt stick as a political statement. How about you, Gandlaf?

You know, kasen, you had some good points until your conclusion.

Kasen modified his post after I had posed originally concerning his "conclusions" to ask the question what is something good that came from sociology. Despite it's tone and vagueness, I'll attempt to answer:

Advanced business practices, such as evolving program and project management. Understanding of class in societies and the psychological effects of class on economies. User interface design in regards to advanced technology and improvements on existing technology. Etc etc etc etc.

How many examples would you like, how granular and would you define "good for society" if you don't think my examples are enough.

@Marjon

In a free market, corporations are regulated by their customers and competition.

Only in theory. In practice, as you would be aware if you had any concept of American history, not so much. We essentially had a free market economy up until Teddy Roosevelt. Regulation was necessary because of the actions of private enterprise. Again, education.

It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society.

I'll refute this in a single word: Sweden. I'll send flowers to your argument's funeral.

@Objectivist

Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.

They share certain things in common, but are by no means identical. They are two distinct ideologies, but not opposites at all.

Only in theory. In practice, as you would be aware if you had any concept of American history, not so much. We essentially had a free market economy up until Teddy Roosevelt. Regulation was necessary because of the actions of private enterprise. Again, education.

Frink,

As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.

Ok, it wasn't one word, but still, give my regards at your argument's funeral.

@Skeptic Heretic

Liberalism and socialism have no bond. You can be both, one or the other, or neither. You can be a conservative socialist or a liberal socialist, etc.

1) Right, one does not entail the other. 2) You can only be a liberal or conservative socialist within the context of socialism, the same way you can be a Marxist socialist or a democratic socialist. Marxism, liberalism, conservatism and socialism are, otherwise, distinct ideologies.

"The minority group would be liberalists. In the 3 major thought processes of social responsibility there is Liberalism, Conservatism, and Isolationism.

Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally
Conservatism- spend the resources of society conservatively
Isolationism- withdraw from society and maintain locally controlled resources"

Wrong context. We were talking about political philosophies, not economic dispositions. As political philosophies, their preferred economic systems do not reflect what you said.

@Skeptic Heretic

As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.

Only if you ignore the government intervention to A) get the ball rolling, B) keep it rolling and C) give it a push when it stops rolling. Nice try, though.

Looks like marjon is putting that GED in copyNpaste technology to good use. Much like an ITT education, however, no understanding is needed in performing the actions.

What about male libertarians (believe that common interests are served by everyone serving their own self-interests) who are atheists and who are promiscuous? I fit all categories. Does that make me sort-of-smarter-than-average?

I define stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant.

If you are going to try to attack someone else's intelligence and then get the basic English incredibly wrong, you really make yourself look bad.

Yes, we all know you're a free-market whackjob with no education except for your ability to use google and copyNpaste. Did you actually have a point with all that nonsense, or were you just going for the new spam angle?

@Skeptic Heretic

As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.

Only if you ignore the government intervention to A) get the ball rolling, B) keep it rolling and C) give it a push when it stops rolling. Nice try, though.

And Sweden arose as a socialist republic with no government right? Wrong.

Capitalism doesn't concern itself with the government or the State.

Secular Leftwing Christophobes are literally looking for ways to demonize all of us who don't bow at the altar of Freud, Marx, Lenin & Nietzsche. What a better way to say that all of us who bow our knees to the Lord Jesus Christ are somehow "genetically/mentally inferior". This smacks of Darwinian racist attitudes of the 19th & early 20h centuries & laid the philosophical justification for both the Nazi & Communist Holocausts which collectively murdered more than 150,000,000 people!

Speaking as someone who is significantly beyond all of the mentioned scores (all of which are within normal range, actually - meaning none of them are even close to a standard distribution from the mean [statistical word for average] IQ of 100 {the first standard distribution is marked 15 point either direction from the mean}) who is BOTH conservative and a Deist, I suspect a particular level of what we in psychology call "confirmation bias." I'd like to have been able to peer review his research publication. Not necessarily that I doubt the stats, per say - considering these are all "normal" people. Simply that I suspect his conclusions are highly invalid and suggestive of his own bias. At 106 you may be just a bit more dimly aware enough than the average to have some issues, but no where near bright enough to come up with answers beyond the norm. (again, the norm, in terms of an abstract average, is 100, but "normal" is 85-115.)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

What unbridled atheistic communism does when left unchecked...

http://www.mindsz...b98.html

http://www.americ...ain.html

http://www.herita...l967.cfm

http://www.hawaii....ART.HTM

in other words Red = dumb Blue = smart

that bout sums it up for you fucktards lawl

You are an Leftwing elitist swine. I believe in God and am a conservative/liberatarian with a bacheolor of science in mechanical engineering & a measured IQ of 160. So what's your IQ?!

So what's your IQ?!

So who cares.

As I said above IQ is not an indicator of intellect.

We who would become the victims of a Leftwing Secularist Christophobic witchhunt care...we care about our liberties and constitution, which is being hijacked by socialistic morons who churn out pseudoscientific rubbish like this article with the experssed intent of demonizing all of us who "dare" to disagree.

@ Frink
"Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." proverbs 17:28
The Bible is a wise book indeed, paraphrasing of course.

So i wasn't going to post on this thread. Just reading, enjoying riding the flame train, but darn it if Frink's illiteracy didn't kindle my Grammar Nazi(Socialist) rage. Frink if you can't understand words and the inherit connotations therein, don't spout off like a liberal puppet. Look up "stigmatize", or what a stigma is for that matter, and then realize how asinine your comment was toward marjon. Honestly I could care less about what your point is, politics is a game for the obsequious and weak. Killing babies is wrong (yes I mean fetuses, I was born one), having better more strong and more equally distributed economic policies that favor the middle class and poor rather than the grotesquely opulent rich is right. Call me a Neo-conservative. Half liberal, half conservative. The best parts of both worlds.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Here is what got me so riled up.

---

Education first, then opinion.

That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.

"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
http://www.econli...Epilogue
Are you a fellow traveler?

Says the guy who quotes someone who also has no clue what he's talking about.

1) Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism." Fascism rejects capitalism as does communism. Having a "laissez faire" style of economy does not provide the kind of control totalitarian forms of government require.

2) Fascists had a more feudalism-styled economic system. Whoever you're quoting managed to misrepresent both totalitarian ideologies in a single sentence. Wow.

---

Advanced business practices

Not to sound too hippie, but how does that help the 80% of people who don't own stock portfolios? That is, assuming there is an actual increase in efficiency from these "advanced" techniques. Sturdier trade empires have been built w/o fancy buzzwords and corporate subculture.

Understanding of class in societies and the psychological effects of class on economies.

I've already argued why that understanding would be shoddy. And, again, even if it were scientifically sound, how would it help anyone other than those with the resources to act on such knowledge?

User interface design in regards to advanced technology

How does that pertain to sociology, or even psychology for that matter? Like all things aesthetic, it's entirely subjective and prone to trend. Are saying that fashion is a science, too, now?

Statistics alone a science doesn't make. Look up the word pareidolia.

Dear coffeedude,

Take your medication before hitting the "Submit" button.

Love,
The Internet.

@Skeptic Heretic.

And Sweden arose as a socialist republic with no government right? Wrong.

Capitalism doesn't concern itself with the government or the State.

Hello, non sequitur. This doesn't make sense in any context. What were you getting at?

--

@Marjon

Economic systems have been quantified and rated by Heritage and can be found here:http://www.heritage.org/index/

The Heritage Foundation is not a credible source. This is the equivalent of asking Sean Hannity whether Sarah Palin has better policies than Barack Obama. His answer is a forgone conclusion.

Regulation was not necessary. It was a way for political entrepreneurs to control their competition.

Now it's conspiracy theories? Honestly?

I've lost interest. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and cannot attempt to continue this discussion without the crutch of Google. Come back when you've gotten a basic grasp of reconstruction to pre-cold war history, thanks.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

In the experience of this Mensa level IQ, most low IQ people think they are alot smarter than they are, and most higher IQ people realize that there is alot that they don't know. I suspect the author of this article is in the former category, and not the latter.

I left the board to do some work and look what the crazy hateful left put on the board.

Anyone here who thinks this article and research was well done, is a hard wing leftist nut job with a very low IQ which no amount of facts can convince them otherwise.

Leftists are like spoiled children, they think they are the center of the world and need to be told they are the center of the world, they have an innate desire to bully, they have to show how smart they are by using foul language.

The major problem with the left is that they believe everyone one is like them, they think everyone is corrupt, lazy, and ignorant. (smart people can be all of these)

The major problem with conservatives is that they generally believe people are like them, honest, hardworking, etc. Conservatives want to be liked and they have a tendency to back down to bullies as they want to be liked.

Generalization I know, but seeing the reaction on this board and in my life, very true.

Stop feeding the troll.

Acknowledged.

AI3, how about we say most smart people realize that there is a lot they dont know, and dumb people dont know how much they dont know.

I am clapping for everyone who can pass tests and has designed all sorts of smart sounding stuff. I too have taken the magic potion that allows me to pass tests and use large words. That being said a school system may call me smart, however I have done many stupid things. There are tons of things that other people who are "dumb" just know way more about than me. For instance you can tell by my posts I suck at writing.

Everyone is interested in something and that is where most people's knowledge lies. Some people are interested on what celebrity's ex is doing what. They aren't really "stupid". They just spent their time reading about gossip. I think space is awesome. I read about it a lot. We both did the same thing but because the topic I was interested in is considered "smart" so am I.

And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. NO STYLE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST. They are all what you make of them. You may have a preference but it is just that.

Well lets consider this. On a previous post, it was stated doctors engineers scientists etc. were mainly conservative and religious, and another that Atheism was a new concept. The following people were atheists/agnostics. Confucius, Diagoras (500 bc approx), so not new.
Benjamin Franklin, Marquis de Sade, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Edgar Poe, Susan Anthony, Plato, Samuel Clemens, Thomas Edison, Sigmund Freud, Frank Wright, Albert Einstein, Ernest Hemingway all atheists or agnostics! So not all docs, engineers, scientist are over intelligent, nor are they conservative/religious. Most studied very hard for what they know and will never be exceptional as those listed. But there are those that stand out very notably from the crowd and all of them had one thing in common besides their brains. They all went against normal beliefs and gained notoriety in what they did. (and some were killed by religious leaders that most would now call outdated or primitive beliefs)

What on earth makes you think those people listed were atheist or agnostic?

@Frink

Socialism and liberalism are almost exact opposites (anarchy would be the exact opposite). This is not up for discussion, this is the very definition of the two ideologies. While the socialist wants a totalitarian government that governs all organs of society the liberal wants the government to be almost nonexistent and to only cover law enforcement, judicial system and national defenses and according to the liberal everything else should be controlled by market demands in a completely capitalistic system.

You're probably confusing liberalism with libertarianism or social liberalism. These are compromised forms of liberalism and are absolutely not to be counted as liberalism, because they fatally try to mix planned economy with market economy -- causing private entities to undermine governmental entities and vice versa -- back and forth, until the model breaks and one of the markets is finally dominant.

Only leftist can say NO Style of Government is the best. Therefore we cant say Hitlers government was bad, Stalins government was bad, Maos government was bad. Who cares if their government killed hundreds of millions.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

http://www.youtub...HJa5Vj5Y

Stop feeding the troll.

Acknowledged.

jews did 911

What a load of crap! This "study" stinks of "research" that is insultingly biased and based on an insecure personal agenda.

What a load of crap! This "study" stinks of "research" that is insultingly biased and based on an insecure personal agenda.

Take a breather everybody. These statistics show the case for the average person. If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person. This is not an attack on any one individual. The study shows that generally Atheistic liberals are smarter, GENERALLY, NOT ALWAYS.

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Wow, a whole six points difference. What's the margin of error on IQ tests again? More than six points? Well, I'll be damned.

@Marjon & Freethinking

Last time I checked Hitler's government, Stalin's government, Mao's government, North Korea, and South Korea are not types of government. They are specific examples of governments that are indeed a specific type of government. Coming up with an example of a government of a certain type which did bad things does not make the type as a whole bad. Its not like the U.S. hasn't done anything immoral EVER. Immoral people can get into positions of power and do immoral things. Even a pure democracy could vote to slaughter some children for fun.

So here it is again "They are all what you make of them." I guess there is also the possibility that you just can't Imagine a "good" government that isnt a republic or democratic.

@otto1923

A failed state can be dangerous. But it doesn't really matter what government was in place before it failed. I don't imagine I will want to be in the US when it collapses under its evergrowing debt and trade deficit.

Take a breather everybody. These statistics show the case for the average person. If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person. This is not an attack on any one individual. The study shows that generally Atheistic liberals are smarter, GENERALLY, NOT ALWAYS.

Dunning-Kruger.

Thanks JayK, that vid was great.

After reading most of the comments I've come to the conclusion that humans in general have a low IQ with a few outliers that make up an exception to the rule.

Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.

What...the....F***
Wake up from whatever dream you've been living in and stop saying absolutely retarded comments like these. You're only proving either that:
A) you're an extremist on the right
or
B) your IQ is in single digit numbers.

Your statements are insulting and without any statistical references, proof or foundation. Please try again.

Interesting how you say this individual has no statistical references, proof, or foundation, yet you show no statistical references, proof, or foundation to show he is wrong and to make your case stronger.

I was raised in a Christian, conservative home, yet throughout middle school and high school I participated in accelerated programs and gained college credits before entering any University. I got a 33 on my ACT and scored above the 80th percentile on my GRE. I am attending Baylor College of Medicine this fall to pursue my PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology.
It must be the fact that I'm a conservative Christian that kept me from that 36 on my ACT, the 100th percentile on my GRE, and from attending Harvard or UCSD.
Damn. If only I'd known.

PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology.
It must be the fact that I'm a conservative Christian that kept me from that 36 on my ACT, the 100th percentile on my GRE, and from attending Harvard or UCSD.
Damn. If only I'd known.

Uh, you're not gonna go into a staff meeting and shoot up a bunch of people are ya, 'cause I'd wanna call somebody then.

Uh yeah, thats exactly what I planned on doing. You called it.
Where did such a stupid comment come from?

Before I say BFD I should like to ask you: does god exist or not? And since I am also very freaking smart (but also flawed like you), and thus can anticipate your answer, my only comment would be that many people have far more brains than they can handle, that is know how to use effectively, despite their innate terror of the future and their own inevitable decline and conclusion. Grow up.


Just because I believe in God means I need to grow up? I don't insult you for your beliefs (or lack thereof). Whether or not God exists is not a question for me to answer-each individual must answer that. To me he does, do you he doesn't. The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists. Religion and political beliefs have nothing to do with it. Lets get back to the science-could genetics play an important role? Gee...I don't know. Crazy thought, huh?

Data suggests Amy Bishop, PhD, who murdered three professors and killed her brother, was a socialist.
What intelligence!

My apologies for the ignorance.
All I can say is, good thing I'm not a socialist, whew!

"Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,"
--
This article fails to mention that there were many people who didn't believe in GOD throughout history as well.

I think the matter involves more of thinking of what Economists call "externalities," the HIDDEN cost of something ("lurking variables" by a Statistician's verbiage).

Also, IQ cannot measure all types of intelligences (it is based on culture, religion, sex, creed, etc). IQ tries to quantify the unquantifiable; there will be lurking variables. IQ is a western standard used for western purposes; to claim that it does measure intelligence is a truth dependent on the CONTEXT of the environment.

Perhaps science and technology hasn't caught up to God's knowledge:
http://www.scient...ave.html
http://www.dailym...ist.html

First let me say that its almost impossible for one group of people to be exactly equal to another group of people in anything. One is going to be larger than the other. In this article, we aren't given much information on what the samples were or how they were taken, (if there was I didn't see it). Given that, an IQ test doesn't do a very good job of measuring all forms of intelligence, the can be easily seen in most of our greatest minds in history. Very few were without significant quirks. Each person has a fairly limited amount of neurons in their brain and limited time to reinforce their connections. Just because they don't devote their intelligence to something that would show up on an IQ test does not make them less intelligent. I score just below average on IQ tests, but score tremendously high on "visual IQ". So a person watching me do a 3d puzzle may think I have a high IQ simply because I have a high ability to visualize 3d space.

My views on God:
On an infinite timeline I can only see two probably outcomes for humanity.

1. We become extinct (by a large astroid, our sun going super nova, or the collapse of the universe, it doesn't matter) at which point (if there is no god) all our beliefs and decisions and morals will have had little if any influence on the universe and will eventually be completely forgotten. Meaning... there are no wrong decisions and the propagation of our species and our evolutionary chemical drive to continue will have been pointless.

2. We somehow manage to escape all catastrophes and continue to evolve over billions of billions of years to into beings that have near absolute knowledge and control of ourselves and our surroundings and thereby becoming god-like. Were this to happen it would indicate a fairly high probability of another being doing the same thing.

Summery: Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable. Regardless I hope for the latter.

"Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values"

Does that mean that unnatural people have intelligent preferences and values?
(Grins!)

@Embriette,

The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists.

So you're studying for a PhD? I hope somewhere along the line your department forces you to take basic statistics, whereupon you will learn the distinction between individual sample vs. population mean.

The study under discussion talked about average scores. Nowhere in the article did they claim that all samples within either population (religious or atheist) had identical values.

According to that study, in statistical parlance, you're an outlier. Whooptie doo.

@shadfurman,

Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable.

Some flaws in your analysis:

(1) Regardless of your two scenarios, your individual life is finite and will soon be over. To you as an individual, and even to your offspring, it doesn't matter what happens on an infinite timeline. To your actual life in the here and now, morals are very much important, because they help keep you alive and well amid a society of other humans.

(2) The ostensibly highly-developed beings you project don't meet the typical definition of "God" -- that being an entity which pre-existed the universe, created the universe, possibly planned everything out in advance, and gives the universe as a whole and all of its inhabitants an a priori anthropomorphic purpose.

(3) What do we know about what existed before the Big Bang, and what do we know about the ultimate destiny of the universe? Any infinite-timeline projections from such ignorance would be premature and pointless.

Shadfurman: Just pointing out, as well; a highly-developed, ridiculously intelligent, near-omnipotent being could end up being benign, but it could also end up being, basically, Cthulhu. So, if the option is being able to live out our lives and eventually allowed to lapse into quiet oblivion, or one day having to deal with/being messily obliterated by a Great Old One...I don't argue that that would happen, mind, I'm just pointing out that your thought experiment has alternate, and far less pleasant, interpretations.

Putting IQ in terms of a computer, what does it measure?
Memory? Processing speed? Algorithms?

Mostly algorithms, and to some extent processing speed.

IQ measures pattern recognition, logical thinking, cognitive inertia, and creativity.

IQ does not measure:

- interpersonal/communication skills
- rote memory
- coordination/agility/gracefulness/reflexes
- practical knowledge (how to fix a car, how to raise a chicken)
- artistic proclivity (the degree to which you are inspired, uninhibited, and expressive in any form of art)
- orientation/navigation
- leadership/organizational/mentoring abilities
- etc?

It can be argued that the things IQ does measure, play important roles in virtually any facet of human activity. But IQ is not by any means a complete assessment of a person's cognitive repertoire.

@ Pink Elephant

As a matter of fact, my program is "forcing" me to take a statistics course, and I have taken a statistic course in my undergrad. First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier. I never said I wasn't-but I also never said that Christians, in general, were more intelligent than non-Christians. I was just using myself as an example of the "other side"-simply because many people reading this article seem to take it out of context and use it as an absolute to justify their religious or political beliefs.
Second of all, if you want to talk statistics and the statistical basis of this article, can you tell me if the sample size was large enough and varied enough to be applied to the general population in any dependable way? How many people were sampled? Of what race were they? What parts of the world were they from? What types of societies were they from? Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing.

The article "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

Sounds more like the title of a blog than a scientific study.

most higher IQ people realize that there is alot that they don't know

Really? If true, you are the first I have heard to admit to this.

I guess I'm speaking more of people who do research. Why would they continue to do research if they know it all? At the same time, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil Jones and computer models you can feed junk data into and get hockey sticks... so maybe you're right.

AI3, how about we say most smart people realize that there is a lot they dont know, and dumb people dont know how much they dont know.

Works for me.

'Attribute'of existence is the only essential and permanent religion for all entities.It is the tendency of free energy in a given environment to get fettered to a unique location,&/or structure,&/or behaviour.'Human Religions' arose when the mind tumbled in to'choas'essential for freewill,and reacted to get located,&/or behaved, &/or structured predictably.So every entity is religious.

'Attribute'of existence is the only essential and permanent religion for all entities.It is the tendency of free energy in a given environment to get fettered to a unique location,&/or structure,&/or behaviour.'Human Religions' arose when the mind tumbled in to'choas'essential for freewill,and reacted to get located,&/or behaved, &/or structured predictably.So every entity is religious.

@Embriette,

First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier.

Your tone, if not your exact words, suggested you were using yourself as an example to dispute the findings -- as if that were a valid argument.

Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing

You forgot every planet, and every galaxy. Here's a hint:

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.

Which, after a simple web search, yields the following information:

http://www.cpc.un...#samples

I don't understand this article, What about me? I have an IQ of 130 and I recognize the possible existence of God. -I also exhibit all the unnatural tendency mentioned by the author.

I wish to add to the article; -the tendency to recognize the extra-phenomenal concept of God depends on cultural influence. If someone lives in cultural environment where religious dogma is used to ->rationalize irrational behaviour

@xponen: You are a prime example that IQ doesn't equal to "smart".

This is a study. It computes averages and variances (i.e. it uses _statistics_ ). You cannot use statistics to firmly predict what should happen in a singular case. One case that does not conform to the averages does not invalidate a study

(I guess this is what the anti-global warming guys don't understand when they say "but outside my door it was cold this morning - so global warming must be a hoax" )

@Marjon

"How do you make a socialist government system moral? It is systemically immoral."

The idea behind socialism is that all members of a society receive equal treatment. If the government is responsible for healthcare, everyone gets it. So remind me again how it is immoral for everyone to have access to the same service, protection, and status? I just don't see it. And If you bring up another communist dictator that did his job poorly that is not proof that socialism is immoral. Sweden is a democracy but it has socialized health care. Everyone in that country has it. Sounds fair to me. Go ahead complpain about how the healthcare would suck. Still everyone is treated equally therefore morally. Get this, I have private health insurance here in the states. I made an appointment with my doctor for Monday. I made this appointment Wednesday. In Sweden you are required to be seen by a primary care physician in 3 days. My appointment would be Saturday.

@ Marjon

"Socialist governments have the philosophy that the government grants rights to its victims. The only opportunity they have to 'make of them' is to try and survive."

What does this mean? I don't get what you are saying.

@antialias

Sometimes one case-studies can invalidate the whole statistical studies. Certain hypothesis; such as: cultural environment effect perception of god, is stronger if you focus on small group of people. For example; Galileo's free-fall experiment is not statistical, it use one special case to invalidate all Aristorelian statistical perceptions. (try to wiki "case-studies")

I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.

I wish to add to the article; -the tendency to recognize the extra-phenomenal concept of God depends on cultural influence. If someone lives in cultural environment where religious dogma is used to rationalize irrational behaviour, then no wonder people disbelieve god. The author must also check places where religious moral is in synchronicity with rational behaviour.

I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.

I was just pointing out that you were making the same mistake as the anti-global-warming-crowd, not that you were one of them.

Statistics are not ironhard predictions for every case. Outliers are possible and not all distributions are normal ones.

You cannot invalidate a statistical analysis with a 'counterexample' (only if the analysis is of the type "100% of all X are Y") - but this is not the case here.

All you could do is perform a census and show that your results deviate from the one presented AND that your census has a greater statistical power (or show some bias was present in the original study that isn't in yours).

@xponen: I'm constrained to agree with antialias on one point: the exception to a statistical rule does not defeat it. For example, the second law of thermodynamics is a _statistical_ law that is broken by billions of particles per second.

On the other hand, @antialias: your claim that IQ does not equate with intelligence undermines this case study, which does indeed equate IQ and intelligence. Though I do agree that the IQ of a person has surprising little to do with their intelligence.

My concern with this study is the margin of error. Most of these differences are on the order of 3%, which is not a lot. Depending on their sample size, that could be well within the error. Also, what backgrounds are people coming from? Religous/nonreligous families? Democratic/republican states? Etc.

Oh I'm not saying that IQ isn't somehow related to intelligence. It just doesn't mean that high IQ people will always make logical statements (or understand what they talk about) on any given subject.

E.g.: There are plenty of intelligent people who just don't know what statistics are, what they can tell you (and what they cannot tell you).

It all comes down how you do the tests (and sometimes even to what cultural background you administer the test. E.g. chinese people think more in terms of pictures than sound and will therefore score lower on phoneme related question while scoring consistently higher on picture related ones)

Overall intelligence is such a broad property that tests only ever evaluate a part of it.

@ Pink Elephant

You said my tone implied that I was using myself as an example. Isn't that exactly what I went on to say I was doing? Thanks for pointing that out for me again. You seem to keep missing the fact that I wasn't using myself as proof that the article is wrong, just as an example of the 'other side." Once again, I am not saying that all conservative Christians are smarter than all liberal non-Christians (I feel like a broken record).
As for your link to the statistics, remind me again why I was looking at that? All I found was info on adolescent whites and blacks in America. Certainly not a representation of the whole world.
And it would be hard to sample beings from other galaxies, when we don't even know if they exist, and even if they did, we haven't figured out how to communicate with them yet. Wasn't this a study of humans anyway?
Maybe we should have God take an IQ test, and see how He comes out?

Maybe, just maybe, the more intelligent people are liberal because more intelligent people go to college, and colleges are overwhelmingly liberal. Even if you're conservative it's difficult to get out of school without being converted. Even in highschool it becomes obvious that the teachers are almost all liberal and the pressure on a student to identify with the teachers is enormous. Ditto with atheism.

I say this as an athiest with liberal values on equality and human rights but who hates the "liberal party" because it's full of loud mouthed individuals that try to shove thier ideals down your throat... like... like the author of this article.

"I believe in global-warming"

Heh, I read this and expected to see god but got global warming.

The bloggers are entirely correct. AGW has become a religion.

@Marjon

"The US Constitution is designed to provide equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity."

So then why can't gays get married? It is unconstitutional that they are treated differently, yet the vast majority of states do so. This flaw does not make democracy inherently bad.

"What if there are not enough doctors? Will the state force people to become doctors?"

You are still missing the point. Sweden is a democracy with socialized medicine. If there were not enough doctors they would HIRE more. Lets just imagine though that Sweden was communist. There are many ways that a communist state could get the amount of doctors that they need some more desirable for people than others. Many of these systems could be designed fairly though, meaning that everyone goes through the same process. It could possibly be done similar to the US military where aptitude tests are taken and one must qualify for a job. It can be done morally even if you can't imagine it.

@Marjon

This is exactly where I was waiting for you to go.

"There is no incentive for anyone to work hard to 'get ahead' because the government punishes such efforts."

First of all the government would not necessarily punish someone for working hard. In fact the best system would still encourage it somehow.

This is the part that all of the greedy Americans miss. It is entirely possible that everyone gets paid the same yet the majority still tries to do their job well. You may be right that in a population the size of a major country it would be tough. However there are income sharing communities inside the US and elsewhere that cooperatively grow their own food, build their own houses, and live together. It works there. You say there is no incentive to work hard. What about making your country or community great and functional. That is a noble goal. Dollar signs are the most important thing in the US. That doesn't mean they have to be. That is just our culture.

@Marjon

It doesn't really matter how the government decides who can get married. If some people can and others can't thats immoral. Saying that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that all men in the untied states have the right to get a pap smear. Heterosexual marriage is useless to homosexuals. Pointing to this is more of a slap in the face than an expression of equality. We are getting away from the argument that socialism can be moral. I was just pointing out that there are immoral expressions in democracies too. Again this specific case of immorality doesnt mean that democracy is immoral just like it wouldnt mean socialism was.

"Where would they hire such doctors to work under such restrictions if they could choose to work in a less restrictive environment?"

I don't really know where they were hired. They apparently hired them somewhere, because Sweden does have doctors, and ranks highly in many health categories.

@Marjon

You are absolutley right

"The military recruits doctors just like any hospital or clinic. The military doesn't give aptitude tests and force a new recruit to medical school for 8 years."

A well set up socialist country also would not force anyone to go to 8 years of medical school. Believe it or not some people choose to be doctors for reasons other than money. Some people genuinely like to help others. Being a doctor is a great way to do this. Many doctors in ERs could make more money in a private practice yet stay in hospitals. Why? Because money isn't why they became a doctor. People can be motivated by other things than money. Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify. In a well set up system they would get recognition and honor for their effort, while recieving the same pay as everyone else. Recognition and honor are useless in the US culture where money drives most things.

@Marjon

"I prefer rewards based upon merit."

I know you prefer more money with jobs of "merit."
Thats why you are arguing with me. So socialism isn't your preference.

I do remember saying this,

"And people I said it earlier but i'll say it again. NO STYLE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE BEST. They are all what you make of them. You may have a preference but it is just that."

Liking democracy more or prefering it still doesn't make socialism immoral. I'll even grant that it is easier to have a moral democracy than a moral socialist country. Still doesn't mean either is impossible.

Anyone else shocked when they loaded this article and saw how long the trolling comments go on for? I'm gonna leave my mark too :)

"All thinking men are atheists."
-Ernest Hemingway

@Marjon

"What kind of recognition and honor? Government medals? Special titles? Three letters after their name like PhD?"

See you immediately dismissed the fact that being a hero to the state is worthless. In your mind if it isn't beneficial to only yourself it is worthless. But again thats your preference. I get it, you don't want to live in a socialist country. Some people do.

socialism is the preferred form of gov't for leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves and power hungry leftist douchebags who want to control the leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves.

@ RJB26

"socialism is the preferred form of gov't for leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves and power hungry leftist douchebags who want to control the leaches who cant or wont fend for themselves."

Thanks for your constructive comment. You have added a lot of class legitimacy to our discussion.

@Marjon

Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify.

Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wages.

Also, socialized medicine can't be all that good given how many come to the US from Europe and especially Canada for treatment. Hospitals in Detroit, including Henry Ford Hospital, have so many of them they've opened entire clinics just to treat them. Seems if you're over 50 or have a disease that's expensive to treat (esp. colon cancer) you get put on a waiting list that all too often waits until you're dead before your turn comes up.

Don't say it doesn't happen ... I spent 30 years in health care and saw it all too often once Canada instituted their system.

First you say that intelligent people like "novel" ideologies and then you say their ideology is "liberal" -- currently the most pervasive in the United States.

Which is it?

Even a dummy like me can see polemic disguised as science!!

Intelligent people can make rare-association better than average people, in other word, they're creative (this doesn't mean they're more logical). This is because; general intelligence is physically related to number of neurons and interconnections [1], but, generally, higher IQ adolescent loss more neurons than average people [forgot] hence their intelligence could based upon more interconnection. -Intelligent adolescence also like to disagree [2], which is probably because they DON'T find the obvious reasons[x]... to be convincing.

1- http://www.scienc...2117.htm
2- http://www.scienc...2500.htm
3- one paper says; adolescent do shed neurons, but hi-IQ do more, but thicker white matter (if my memory is right).
x- average people often try to convince dis-believer using obviously shallow reasoning, this make them sound idiot... (maybe they just lack communication skills?)

ops... I found this comment box to be too claustrophobic. Very confusing...

My point was; the dis-agreeable nature of intelligent people is caused by creative mind [1]. Because (imo) rare association were often made to explain one's experience rather than using the obvious "god did it" reasoning. -For example, one believer may find the evidence of god to be self-evident, whilst, intelligent people find it too ignorant.

1- http://en.wikiped...hibition

Ethinicity wasn't factored so the results are skewed. With that said, I personally suspect strongly the correlations are correct.

anyone miss that this was CHILDREN studied, and all they did was measure that children who test to be mo re intelligent are more willing to blindly accept what their biased teachers drum into them

All they had to do was change one aspect of this study for it to have merit.

Remove the politics.

If they said smarter people tend to innovate within society and personal activities I think we'd all agree.

I think that physorg was just down on its comment flame war traffic lately and decided to write such a poorly constructed article.

@DocM

"Hate to burst your bubble, but a large percentage of physicians in socialized medicine nations leave for places like the US where they can make a buck instead of working for mechanics wage"

You didn't burst my bubble at all. I don't care where anyone wants to practice medicine or what kind of government they want to have. All I'm saying is that Socialism can be moral. You said that a high percentage of doctors leave countries with socialized medicine, well that's not 100% is it? Obviously Sweden would not be the ideal money making place for a doctor, you are right. I kinda like money myself, all I'm talking about is that not everyone is as obsessed with it as US citizens. You guys can keep saying how terrible you think it would be allllllllll day but you are not affecting my argument or my bubble.

Then it wouldn't be a study. They asked people to describe their political ideologies, then did statistical analyses comparing their SELF ASCRIBED political positions to their INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED IQs. The results are shown above. If you want to complain about something, why not complain to the SELF DESCRIBED conservatives who got below average IQ scores?

How about we repeat the study on someone of voting age and see where the stats stand?

You have a very pretentious nick. Unless that's your real name? In which case you have a very pretentious name.


Haha, nice comment. That is my real name. I guess my parents are pretentious people.

@ otto1923

I'm sorry that your experiences with Christians have left you so bitter-which is why I don't like Christians. They are too pushy and they shove their beliefs down other peoples' throats. That is not what true Christianity is all about, and that is not what I am all about. I guess before I say I am a "Christian" I should define what "Christian" is to me. To me its not someone who sees themselves as a member of "an exclusivist group." To me a Christian is someone who believes in the existence of God and the gift of His son for salvation from sin. It is not my place, or any other Christian's place to judge those who don't believe. It says it right in the Bible. Christians are only to judge other Christians. So a Christian who judges a non-believer isn't following their own God (its in the book of James).
The problem with Christianity today is that it follows rules and traditions founded by men, not by God.
I guess that once again, I'm an outlier.

How do they do that?

Infecting the laws of society with abstract morality and social preference instilled in the race through 2 thousand years of indoctrination of the ignorant for one.

Governments have the power to force you to do what they want.

No, the people when attacked by their government have physical recourse.

Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen.

If only that would make them stop.

If people don't like what I write, ignore it. Apparently I hit a nerve or two with some as they can only respond with insults.

If you consider our directions into discovering what actually represents a hypothesis, theory, and construct bothers you, feel free to ignore it.

Seems to be a bunch of secular socialists writing laws in Uganda to slaughter homosexuals. Also a bunch of socialists writing new laws in a certain southern US state to rewrite science and history in order to support a religion and its uneducated lackeys.

The study specified that they looked at young adults (i.e. people who are at least 18) who had taken IQ tests as adolescents.

Young adult is from age 14-21 by most standards. IQ tests in adolescence do not equate to the results from contemporary IQ tests.

So what you're saying is either there's NO correlation or there's absurdly weak correlation.

I cant believe such a dumb study is causing such a fuss at physorg. Ive been thinking about this study and come up with a solution that should make everyone happy. This study facts are right but its conculsions are wrong.
Why?
Only the smartest liberal progressives who have mental disorders go into Psyscology, the rest either become congressmen, ACORN activists, inmates, or just go on welfare.

Only the dumbest christian or religious people, go into psychology as it is well known that Psychology professors are crazy leftwing progressives who hate christians, the USA, freedom and equality and will flunk anyone who disagree with their beliefs.

So in this study they took the brightest progressives who are just marginally smarter than average and compared them to the dumbest christians who are just marginally dumber than average.

If they would have studied the real sciences and engineering depts. where the intelligent christians hang out conculsion would have been different.

Intelligence although it should be, is not often an indicator of wisdom...

freethinking fails statistics, just like he fails at everything else that doesn't involve hating homosexuals.

JayK proves the point that crazy leftwing progressives project their hate and ignorance onto others. He hates homosexuals so he assumes conservatives hate homosexuals. He is ignorant so he assumes conservatives are ignorant.

If I as a conservative would do the same for JayK, I would consider him a nice honest, loving guy, who cared for his fellow man (person).

Yeah, good thing I'm unable to find your comments from previous threads, huh?

http://www.physor...975.html
http://www.physor...458.html

and the best one ever!

http://www.physor...459.html

go troll somewhere else, freethinking.

@ Marjon

"The only moral socialism is one with 100% volunteers."

Now you are thinking. No government can be moral UNLESS its citizens choose to participate. If they are forced to live there, that would be immoral.

"Demonstrate it."

How exactly do you propose I do that. I don't really have time to create my own sovereign nation to validate my argument. Although I do seem to have copious amounts of time, as I have been trying to champion the mere possibility of something for days now.

"Socialism practiced on the nation-state level must use coercion, taking from those that work and 'giving' to those that do not."

Willing participants of a governmental system would not feel very "coerced" when they followed the rules. By doing a job like being an engineer (one that you consider "real work") they are performing a necessary niche in that society. The man that collects the trash (apparently not working) also gets that stuff away from your house that rots.

Otto1923,
James was written most likely around A.D. 45. If history serves me, Rome was still purcecuting Christians at that time.

I agree with you that teaching the origins of Christianity is lacking in the schools. Either it is ignored or taught by professors who hate christianity. My kids have been taught more about the Muslim religion (none of the negative stuff), Buhdism, than Christianity. What little they have been taught about Christianity is laughably wrong.

Continued:

Just because you associate some jobs with small dollar amounts does not mean that they don't need to be done for society to function correctly and if you wanted to live in a socialist state you would understand this. You say this is a society that is for leaches but it is for a society much more ambitious than ours because if everyone does not work to perform their job the society can collapse. The people must have a sense of community and working towards a common goal. Much too hard for Americans. If they have to share with someone else, well there is absolutely no reason to try.

Jayk,
again you inner hate and homophobia is coming out. Just because I dont approve of smoking doesnt mean I hate smokers. Just because I dont hate smokers doesnt mean I will tell people smoking is good for them so not to hurt the feelings of smokers. Smoking like Homosexual behaviour is bad for you, and I disagree with. I have friends who smoke, and who are practicing homosexuals. They know I dont approve of either behaviour, but we still get along because unlike you, they understand disagreement doesnt equate to hate, unless your a radical progressive such as yourself.

Again, you and a lot of progressives take disagreement of opinions as hate. I believe you take disagreement as hate because you have such a low self esteem and confidence in your ideas.

You know I just got to thinking about it and trash men, sewer people, water treatment plant workers, food packagers, disinfectant manufacturers and bottlers, as well as many other non physician jobs probably PREVENT more sickness and disease than all of the doctors CURE or TREAT. Kinda strange to think about huh.

Innovation is probably the one trait that defined human development through the ages. A lack of it gave us the period popularly called the 'Dark Ages', for example.

If you are a conservative traditionalist, you would have to admit that originality of thought is not one of your strongest traits. You would most probaly spurn new thinking. You would cling to known ideas. Would the cream of scientists and thinkers be found in your grouping? Most likely not.

It does not make you redundant, just average. As the article stated.

etiennem,
Dark ages was caused by the collapse of the Roman empire, desease, and war. Not by the lack of new thinking.

Etiennem, if you actually looked into it you would realize that christians have been the leaders in Medicine, education, engineering, music, art, archetecture, exploration etc for the last 2000 years.

But if all you learned about christianity was in public schools, you can be forgiven for your ignorance.

@freethinking

I said nothing of religion. But, since you mentioned it, do you think of Leonardo da Vinci as a Christian? Just because the predominant religion of a certain society was Christianity, does not mean that the leading innovaters were followers of the Christian dogma, at all. You can use Galileo Galilei as an example, as well.

No really, everyone, just ignore that religious persecution and anti-intellectualism is readily apparent and easily verified, just trust freethinking, the great homosexual obsessed trolltastic wonder.

The Inquisition? That was just a frat prank that got a little out of hand. The constant religious persecution of scientists? Well that wasn't really because of religion, it was just the fault of liberals. Ugandan homosexual purge? It only looks bad if you think about it, so those nice xtians would prefer you just not think about it.

In fact, I struggle to think of any major historical scientist/artist/engineer/achitect (fill in the blank space) who was regarded as an extremely devout soul. I may stand corrected.

If you think really freely, you would see a correlation between the conversion to Christianity by Rome(321 AD) and the collapse of the Roman Empire(about 400 AD), resulting in the Dark Ages (exclusively Christian).

Just a thought.

Etiennem, you don't seem to be another JayK so I made a bit of a list for you. Its not nearly complete... but it gives you some idea.

John Philoponus, Bede, the Venerable, Pope Sylverst II, Hermann of Reichenau, Robert Grosseteste, Pope John XXI, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Theodoric of Freiberg, Thomas Bradwardine, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Micholas of Cusa, Otto Brunfels, Nicolas Copernicus, Bartholomaeus Pitisus, John Napier, Johannes Kepler, Laurentius Gothus, Galileo Galilei, Marin Mesenne, Anton Maria Schyrleus, Blaise Pascal, Issac Barrow, Robert Boyle, John Wallis, John Ray, Issac Newton, Colin Maclaurin, Stephen Hales, Thomas Bayes, Firmin Abauzit, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Augustin Louis Cauchy, Lars Levi Laestadius, Edward Hitchock, William Whewell, Temple Chevallier, John Bachman, Arnold Henry Guyot, Gregor Mendel, Asa Gray, James Dwight Dana, Louis Pasteur, Freeman Dyson, Allan Sandage...

Many.... Many... Many more...

@ Freethinking

"Etiennem, if you actually looked into it you would realize that christians have been the leaders in Medicine, education, engineering, music, art, archetecture, exploration etc for the last 2000 years."

You don't think that is just a little exagerated?

@ otto1923

"All state religions do, by Design."

You mean by INTELLIGENT design! Ahahahahahaha
hohohohohohohohohoho!

Sorry guys just had to. Not really knocking on that if its your belief.

'Throughout the Dark Ages and Medieval period the monasteries were practically the only repository of scholarship and learning...'

To complete the thought:

... as literacy and knowledge in general were deemed too dangerous in the hands of the rabble at large, and so were both actively repressed and strenuously persecuted.

It's funny to see the selfsame people rail against totalitarianism, then extol the virtues of Christian theocracy in medieval Europe.

Ah, there truly is nothing quite like accusing someone of Herecy. The poor substitute of Communist Sympathizer in the McCarthy days just didn't have the same lethal elegance...

Though Stalin certainly got the fear factor right with in his purges; but when Stalin does it, it's evil. When the Church does it, it's God's Work.

I like this thread. It keeps all the nutcases too busy to pollute the other threads as much as usual.

Ethelred

In fact, I struggle to think of any major historical scientist/artist/engineer/achitect (fill in the blank space) who was regarded as an extremely devout soul. I may stand corrected.

Max Planck.
Astronaut John Glenn.

Glenn was never regarded as particularly devout.

I would have to say that from what we can ascertain about him, Jesus appears to be one of the most anti-religious figures in human history.

@ everyone

"You mean by INTELLIGENT design! Ahahahahahaha
hohohohohohohohohoho!"

You guys really didn't think that was funny at all?
Meh.

Wasn't every ivy league school founded very religious and to today standards right groups ever(Calvinism,puritanism). In Deo Speramus
(In God We Hope)Browns University,Dei sub numine viget
(Under God's power she flourishes)Princeton University,In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
(In Thy light shall we see the light)Columbia Univerisy,Lux et veritas
(Light and truth)Yale. Don't forget about the University of Pennsylvania Quakers. How were the Best University founded by such unintelligent people

Modern Christian scientists,
Allan Sandage, Antonino Zichichi, John Polkinghorn, Owen Gingerich, r.j. berry, Michal Heller, Ghillean Prance, Donald Knuth, Eric Priest, Henry Schaefer, Robert Baker, Kenneth Miller, Francis collins, Simon Morris, John Barrow, Denis Alexander, Christopher Isham, John Lennox.

Is that a big enough lis for anonyfornt?

Are there ignorant Christians? Of course. Are there ignorant Athiests? Of course. As I said many times, IQ is independant of faith. You have smart christians you have dumb christians. This study is a dumb study and only dumb athiests or progressives think it is relevant.

Christians and Jews are exhorted to prove all things and hold fast to that which is true. Sadly too many Christians, Athiests and Progressives dont follow that advise.

otto1923, I think you are smart enough to know you are distorting scripture and even history.

From these posts what have we learned children?
We have learned from JayK that progressives hate, like to call names, and like to slur people by calling them homosexuals.
We have learned form Otto1923 that leftist either like to distort scripture and are completely ignorant of history.
We have learned from Etiennem and Mc3inosher that because of liberal activist progressive teachers and professors the true contribution to science and engineering from christians is being ignored.
We learned from the activist progressive scientists who wrote the study, the more prgressive and liberal the scientist, the less reliable their science.

What about atheist conservatives? How about atheist libertarians? I know I'm really interested in the moral relativity of atheist cavemen.

I have more in common and can have a civil debate with an conservative atheist than with a progressive agnostic.

Conservatism = logic and facts and truth
Progressivism = feelings and hate and lies

The end justifies the means is a progressive belief
Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true is a conservative belief

I have conservative atheist, Mormon, homosexual friends with whom I had debates about heaven and hell. Even though we disagreed with each other we were strong enough in our beliefs that we allowed the other to be wrong and not be upset by it. I also have friends in the Catholic and other Christian denomination and had debates on what we consider minor points of baptism, communion, Mary, Saints and such. We may disagree but we are strong enough in our faith and our beliefs to let the other be wrong and not be upset by the other errors.
But when talking to progressives and leftists, if I discussed and debated with them on their beliefs, they started to call names, insult intelligence, etc.
So the difference between a true conservative and a leftist progressive is that a conservative will allow the other to be wrong and not be upset. A Leftist progressive must make the other think right.

Otto1923 wrote:

… YOU KNOW religion was the only game in town. Where'd the money come from? What was the main message they were all sewing? 'God is on OUR side, the side of good and right.' Stop em-bare-assing yourselves.

Otto, in my opinion there is something strange and genuine that can happen in a sincere venture into christianity. But to keep the venture pure, the true spirit of Jesus should be sought. Jesus embodied a religion of action, not a religion of satisfying yet ineffectual words. Paul was a force to recon with who relayed Jesus to the world, but must the writings of any scholar necessarily either be taken in uncritical totality or total disregard? No matter how inspired, in my opinion Paul at times ventured into a religion of words (such as focus on faith) rather than actions and establishing enriching environments (which can interact well with faith, yet faith may not be necessary). The book of James makes this clear...

Jesus seemed to embody a constructive anarchist, and brought to light the stench within institutions claiming a monopoly on all the truth that could and should ever be known. Do you really think he’d overlook the stinking christian institutionalism and tribalism of today that he fought against in his day?

Otto, Im sure your smart enough to know what I mean by allowing others to be wrong. We all know smoking is bad for you. A conservative will tell you that. A progressive will prevent you from smoking. Its all about respect for the person.

Also for your venture into christianity you didnt go very far if all you hauled out was booty. Also you seem much to smart to believe what you are saying. No credable person doubts that Jesus, Paul, or James existed or that the things that happened in the new testament happened. The only resonable questions is how, not if, certain things occured.

tee heee

Let's see if freehating has the wherewithal to follow his own political theogony, and just let otto "be wrong". Or perhaps he'll insist on making otto "think right"?

Thanks to you both; I am genuinely amused.

@freehating,

We all know smoking is bad for you. A conservative will tell you that. A progressive will prevent you from smoking. Its all about respect for the person.

So, as a self-anointed "conservative", what's your position on Heroin? Cocaine? LSD? Pot? Ecstasy? Meth?

Shall we respect the person-hood of addicts and pushers, and legalize all drugs regardless of how addictive and destructive they might be?

Personally, as a hated "atheist progressive", I happen to think that all drugs ought to be legalized and regulated, just like tobacco and alcohol. I happen to believe that the "war on drugs" is just as much of an abysmal failure as the "war on terrorism".

Will you join me in my progressive stance, or will you retreat into hypocrisy?

(By the way, WRT smoking, I'm fine if you do it -- just as long as you do it away from where I and my family dwell, sleep, eat, and play. I just don't want to have YOUR smoke in MY lungs. As a "conservative", can you understand that??)

If the Bible is fiction, it is historical fiction in that the places in the Bible do or did exist.

Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey? How about Mahabharata? Are magic, monsters, spirits, gods, demons, witches, and miracles an objective historical fact?

Considering His humble beginnings and word of mouth advertising, Jesus has quite a reputation.

Word of mouth, edict of Rome, despotism of kings, torch of the Inquisition, and sword of colonial conquest. Yes, Jesus has quite a reputation. Just try to see it through otto's eyes...

The state becomes addicted to the money and can't be taken seriously in any claims such drugs are dangerous.

What? You'd rather trust the claims of the state, than some mere objective scientific facts? I'm SHOCKED at you, marjon. SHOCKED.

Those drugs SHOULD be taxed though, because they do produce a cost that society at large must bear. They make people ill, and they make people accident-prone. Both of which impacts emergency rooms, mortality rates, and general costs of care -- which ultimately you and I must pay out of pocket in the form of insurance premiums and taxes. So, either you charge yourself and everyone indirectly for someone else's transgressions, or you make the transgressor pay up on the spot in the form of tax. IMHO, tax is a much simpler, fairer, and neater solution.

Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey?

How is it doing on Amazon?
How many people have a copy or two at home?
When did Gutenberg print it for the masses?

Don't play the village idiot, lest we all start to believe you. You know perfectly well what I meant. Namely, with regard to the Odyssey (or the Mahabharata, or pick your favorite ancient epic), does the following statement of your own authorship apply:

If the [name of book] is fiction, it is historical fiction in that the places in the [name of book] do or did exist.

@freehating,

How predictable! Name calling and accusing someone of hate in one word.
You must be a real smart 'progressive'.

See, freehating imagines he can insult progressives by calling them hateful, irrational, emotional liars. He actually seems to think that we'd care for his considered opinion, or that we'd derive our self-worth from such. Well, I thought I'd gratify him by living up to his own preconceptions. He ought to be extremely pleased in so being confirmed. As such, I'm paying him a compliment, don't you see? Just like he does for me with nearly every post.

After all, the world's what we make of it, innit?

I'd like to see one quote where I have ever called anyone a homosexual. An idiot, maybe, but unless they are a homosexual, I'm not going to call them one, especially unfreethinking, I respect homosexuals too much to do that.

Great reason to end government subsidy for health care and hold people accountable for their actions.

How shall marjon reconcile "personal accountability" with the tale of the Good Samaritan? Shall we send a gravely ill stranger for emergency care at our own expense, or let him die on the side of the road? Shall we police our own neighborhoods lest drug-induced crime shoots the moon and makes our neighborhoods uninhabitable? Shall we fund rehab clinics, drug treatment research, drug education, and recovery support programs, to minimize relapse and crime? Shall we abandon the children of drug addicts to their doom?

Well, you don't really need to answer. I already know what you think, and I already know you've managed to reconcile Randian ideology with your religion. Hypocrisy is a wonderfully universal glue that can hold just about anything together. Remember though, don't think too hard...

You are totally right Pink Elephant. Jesus wouldn't want us to help anyone else unless they work hard and deserve it because everyone should be able to do that!

A 'god' as in reality or the natural forces who acts exactly the same whether you worship it or not has to be preferable. It is DEPENDABLE. It is the only one honest enough to let you learn from it. It enables you to take better care of yourself, to enhance your chances for survival on your own.

Point well taken Otto. And to add to that, a person that is able in social dynamics to put other’s interest above their own may help other people learn and grow. The influence Jesus had in advancing this idea in the ancient world is large. And of course besides the efficacy of one’s “god” in their life, the unrelenting, ever self examining, never accepting givens, quest of truth for truth itself is also nice.

What would you say if I told you a sentient God loved you, regardless of anything you did, even if your actions have repercussions far beyond anything we can see and imagine? Where do you think love and concern for others come from (you don’t have to answer that). I don’t worship God because this author of all asks of it, but because God must be something really special, in overcoming the utter impossibility for God and everything, energy, matter, information, to exist. Who am I to question the source of everything, without which I would not be here at this moment or any other. I question everything, but the sovereignty of God. And peace at you Pinkelephant, many have overcome their cycle of pink elephant trips, finally saying enough is enough. But many others could not muster the will to overcome their trips of life, until undeniable supernatural providence intervened.

@jjurbanus,

What would you say if I told you a sentient God loved you, regardless of anything you did, even if your actions have repercussions far beyond anything we can see and imagine?

I'd say this: why should I take you seriously, regarding something about which you're no more knowledgeable than I, for which you have no evidence, which is laughably childish and incredibly improbable, and of which you'd be ignorant yourself had you not already taken someone else's word on equally nonexistent grounds? Or perhaps I'd simplify, and simply say you're a gullible fool and a victim of happenstance: were you born into a Hindu culture and/or family, you'd be Hindu and the number of gods you extoll would greatly exceed just the one.

But many others could not muster the will to overcome their trips of life, until undeniable supernatural providence intervened.

From where I stand, superstition and mysticism are traps avoided by only a lucky few.

You're addressing a fundamental problem of existence, that of belief in a higher power interrupting further thought and experimental inquiry. Thus thunder is thor's hammer, not heated gas expansion, or celestial formation directly by the hand of God. However I would venture that what has moved us along is insatiable curiosity, not exclusively of atheists, but anyone who is easily captivated, and uninhibited and/or willing to ask and pursue the question: Why? Such a quest, although enjoyable and satisfying, at full bore is one of struggle. Many struggles have been won and implemented and published, yet other struggles are more fundamental and inherently subjective and personal but may lead to a deeper understanding of deducing the necessity, from our immediate probe-able reality, of God--nothing more and nothing less.

And Jesus, although in a separate undeducable category with all other religious establishments, did say (supposedly) it best regarding this ultimate quest, truly pursued ceaselessly by few, and full of pitfalls: I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Now I admit that does sound corny and may not make sense to you, but it is the endless open mindedness and curiosity and potential of a child, that often gets shaded over by anything else, including that unending drive to get to the bottom of something, to map out all the possibilities. A child does this instinctively in marinating in native language, and can be an annoyance to us adults with the question why. Thankfully they often quickly grow out of such childish ways.

Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey? How about Mahabharata? Are magic, monsters, spirits, gods, demons, witches, and miracles an objective historical fact?

The indisputable fact of history among all reputable scholars (those that aren't Christophobic Leftwing Secular Fundamentalists with a theological ax to grind)is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who lived & taught in 1st Century AD Judea. His miracles and all resurrection are a matter of faith for those of us who are Christians and are out of the realm of empirical science.

Word of mouth, edict of Rome, despotism of kings, torch of the Inquisition, and sword of colonial conquest. Yes, Jesus has quite a reputation.
Let's see, feeding the poor, freeing the captives, healing the sick...the followers of Christ certainly have a reputation to follow...the one laid on Matthew 25:34-40. ;-)

Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey? ((How about Mahabharata? Are magic, monsters, spirits, gods, demons, witches, and miracles an objective historical fact?))
The indisputable fact of history among all reputable scholars (those that aren't Christophobic Leftwing Secular Fundamentalists with a theological ax to grind)is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who lived & taught in 1st Century AD Judea. His miracles and all resurrection are a matter of faith for those of us who are Christians and are out of the realm of empirical science.

((Word of mouth, edict of Rome, despotism of kings, torch of the Inquisition, and sword of colonial conquest. Yes, Jesus has quite a reputation))
Let's see, feeding the poor, freeing the captives, healing the sick...the followers of Christ certainly have a reputation to follow...the one laid on Matthew 25:34-40. ;-)

No credable person doubts that Jesus, Paul, or James existed or that the things that happened in the new testament happened.

Hi,

Skeptic Heretic here. I have serious doubts about Jesus actually existing, and I have a strong doubt that Paul actually was Paul and not a group of people including Paul, that all the writings were ascribed to.

And there are many credible writing style experts who agree with me on the latter, and credible historians who agree with me on the former.

And global warming is just God hugging the world too tight.

When leftist radical prgressives stated that religious people have low IQ are proved wrong, they insult and lie and misstate badly christian beliefs.

Sorry Otto, Jayk, and others. You lost badly on this point.

The truth is, Athiests and Religious people average out to have the same intelligence (IQ if you want to use that).

Also the truth is that religious people by in large(christians if you want to be specific) are more curious and generally are into hard sciences more so than leftist progressives for many reasons.

The truth is I can find ignorant hateful conservative christians, just as I can find ignorant hateful progressive Athiests. (JayK and Otto come to mind)

The truth is that those that are conservatives genernally are more compasionate and need less prompting by government to do the right thing and care for their neighbor.

The truth is that leftist progressives are by in large more hateful and need to be forced by their government to do the right thing.

The most hilarious thing about this thread? There are some that have posted impugning the intelligence of others while their posts contain horrible misspellings and multiple errors in English grammar. If you're going to attempt to call someone unintelligent, wouldn't you want your post to look intelligent?

As for religious vs. atheists on an intelligence scale? I'll bet there is a graph for that:
http://lifelovean...gion.png

Otto, I'm not saying that I'm perfect, or that all of my posts are perfect, only that when someone is going to directly assault the intelligence of another person or persons, that the post itself would benefit greatly from a little extra attention to details, like spelling and grammar, in order for it not to just be laughed off as an uneducated lout attempting to play testosterone fueled games. unfreethinking nor marjoke probably won't get the humor in it, but the rest of us can have some enjoyment at their expense.

Oh marjoke, I'm not here for a debate or to discuss the merits of this article, at least not anymore. I'm just here to watch unfreethinking and yourself make continuous fools of yourselves trying to act like you know what you're talking about. The science left this thread a long time ago, now it is just about entertainment at your expense.

But please, do continue, I love watching you flail wildly. By the way, you might want to watch the hypocrisy about name-calling and flinging insults. You've done a lot more than anyone else, other than unfreethinking.

Hey JayK and I agree... the debate on the sciece of this article is long over. It was poor science.

Im not sure, but I have the make a living between these posts so I dont have a lot of time. JayK unless you own your own business you must be stealing your employers times, or you are unemployed.

BTW, the great thinkers and orininators of the modern Porgressive movement are:
Margaret Sanger - a proponent of eugentics
Vladimir Lenin
Benito Mussolini
Karl Marx
Joseph Stalin
Hitler
Mao Zedong

Great bunch of guys you have for your movement. Between them your great thinkers have killed over 100 million people. I wouldnt dare consider these people dumb. They were smart enough to rise to power, fool a lot of people, and destroy a lot of nations.

I only say this because you made special note of it.

Eugenics has little to nothing to do with progressivism. I'm a proponent of eugenics and far from progressive in thought or political inclination. That being said, I am against forced eugenics and breeding programs, however, at some point in time genetic manipulation will make eugenics the social norm and make natural births the stigmatized "barbaric" practice.

@unfreethinking:

do you type with your face or the stump of a hand that you lost to a moon-shining accident?

@marjon

Troy was once thought to be a legend.

And it was once thought that the world sat atop a great turtle.

It's amazing what happens when you add perspective to a discussion. Perhaps you need to open yours up a little bit.

The point is many legends are based upon facts.

True!

Take the chronicles of Harry Potter, for example. There is indeed such a place as England, and even such a city as London. Moreover, the city of London has a King's Cross station in it.

So who dares dispute the existence of Hogwarts, and the reality of Magic? If you do, marjon, you're nothing but an ignorant little Muggle...

What about Ron Wyatt? By the time of his death in August 4, 1999, his claimed discoveries included:

Noah's Ark (the Durupınar site, located 18.25 miles south of Mount Ararat)
Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark
The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife
The location of Sodom and Gomorrah
Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Tower of Babel site (in southern Turkey)
The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea
Chariot wheels and other relics of the army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
The site of the biblical Mt. Sinai
The rock at Mt. Horeb from which water flowed when struck by Moses
A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's Temple

And many more...
And was the pinup-boy for fundamentalist Biblical archaeology.
And was proved to be a total fraud.

Another revelation, hot off the press:

The amazing and magical creature, to which we refer as a Phoenix, and heretofore assumed nothing but a myth, had in fact been repeatedly and reliably documented by many ancient historians, including some of the founders of the Christian religion:

http://en.wikiped...#History

Indeed, there are many more historical references to the Phoenix, than there are to Jesus.

Phoenixes are real, folks!

skeptic H- Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism. For a conservative a downs sysdrom person is just as valuable as a normal person, who is just as valuble as a athiest, who is just as valuable as a Christian.

As for a person who stated he found x or y, if he is wrong and he is proven wrong good. Prove all things...hold fast to that which is true.

Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism.
...
hold fast to that which is true.

Noted. I shall hold fast to the conclusion that freehating doesn't know what he's hating on, when he's hating on "progressives".

Please explain to me how chemicals came together to make life, then it advanced to have the ability to reason, and become intelligent.

So intelligence comes by natural processes in nature? Is it survival of the fittest, or survival of the most intelligent?

Does an article qualify for the Evolution section of this website by just using the word "Evolution", and "millions of years" over and over again?

Do people actually get paid to write this nonsense? There is no proof for anything in this article, it is all conjecture. You are welcome to believe it. But it is not science. Can you perform and observe case studies of our ancestors behaviors? Can you prove they even lived millions of years ago? So let's study people from today, and say they "probably" did such and such
millions of years ago. Nothing like rock solid science like this, to convince me.

Many legends are based upon facts

A great many more are based upon superstition and control. The story of Troy didn't result in multiple genocides throughout history.

skeptic H- Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism.

Negative. I've never had a conservative tell me I have to pay for someone else because they're mentally retarded or sick. Only the progressives think we're all unique snowflakes. Second, eugenics is the belief that particular traits are preferential and as such should be more widely introduced into the human gene pool. Eugenics is a fancy term for objectively defined evolution. The reason why it's such a dirty word is because the "eugenecists" of the past were subjective, not objective. They went for appearance, not environmental merit.

"Is it survival of the fittest, or survival of the most intelligent?"

Neither it is survival of the best reproducing. Ultimately anything that goes extinct did not reproduce well enough.

Neither it is survival of the best reproducing. Ultimately anything that goes extinct did not reproduce well enough.

And then a single disease wipes out the entire genetically similar population...

It's survival of the most well adapted to their current environment.

Skeptic, I didnt say you have to pay for someone else because they're mentally retarded or sick. Just that the mentally retarded and sick have the same rights as you have, and are just as valuable.

When certain groups are deemed less valuable, eugentics leads to the final solution. The final solution in germany, started as the eugentics.

Just that the mentally retarded and sick have the same rights as you have, and are just as valuable.

Then why are they prohibited from owning and operating handguns? There's just one of many rights that I have and they do not because they are incapable of exercising those rights due to their conditions.

The final solution in Germany was subjective or appearance based genetics based on racial profiling. Eugenics can be ethical.

Skeptic, children are prohibited from owning and operating handguns, children are prohibited from driving a car. Blind people are prohibited from driving a car (or at least I hope so). But, they are still fully human and just as valuable as you are. The right to exercise some rights doesnt reduce their value. Eugenics is never ethical.

If a couple decide not to have children because of the threat of disease passed on to their children. Thats their choice, and is not eugenics. Government telling them they cant have children, or killing those deemed inferior is eugenics and is never ethical and always leads to final solution.

Thats their choice, and is not eugenics. Government telling them they cant have children, or killing those deemed inferior is eugenics and is never ethical and always leads to final solution.

Freethinking, your application of the term eugenics is based only upon WW2. You need to greatly re-examine what eugenics means and the multiple ways in which eugenics can be applied without killing or preventing the breeding of anyone.

GMO crops are an example of eugenics. Would you say that is an evil?

Skeptic: Huh?

http://en.wikiped...Eugenics

Eugenics is selective breeding of humans with various goals, mainly to improve the future gene pool. Nothing anywhere about eugenics for corn, or anything else.

The definition is from Galton:
"the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations"

From Galton's "Hereditary Genius":

I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.

I think your definition is more of an out-of-context quote.

No, JayK, I'm not being clear.

The view of Eugenics as a breeding program or racial science is inaccurate. I was stating that your definition is in line with Galton.

We've since proven Galton's statement of the races as being incorrect and based on scientific racism. This has stained the idea and promoted eugenics as an evil.

Eugenics includes pre-natal gene therapy, food crop manipulation in order to address digestive disorders, manipulation of the human genome in all forms is a subset of eugenics. Most of which we can all agree on being beneficial and not morally or immorally motivated.

Skeptic, eugenics applied to people is evil when it means killing, aborting, preventing people from having kids. Manipulating the human genome is something that should be left alone for now. But depending on what is being done and why there may not be a problem. (ie. curing blindness in an unborn child no moral issues here)

For animal and crops, if you want to apply the term eugenics be my guest, but I dont think it is the best term to use as eugenics is typically applied to humans. BTW I would have no problems with it if applied to crops and animals other than general safety issues.

Otto, again you show yourself a progressive. Skeptic a conservative stated his definition and it appears we agree for the most part once the definition was cleared up.

Poor otto, religion has always been with us, and always will be with us. Athiests will always be a minority. Communist (Progressive) Athiests in the Soviet Union with all its power couldn't wipe Christianity out. Neither could the Communist (progressive) athiests China. Even in the middle east, where bibles are banned, where conversion leads to death sentences, people still convert.

The most ruinous pathological anachronism we have had in 100 years has been progresivism. Wipe that out you will be free to enjoy your athiesm, and I my religion in peace.

freethinking,

The term Eugenics arose when we didn't know what DNA was. We thought by killing unwanted children and breeding "perfect" people we'd have a more perfect race. We now know a lot more about human reproduction and the things that make a person's trait beneficial or detrimental.

Of course the popular definition of eugenics is garbage, similar to the popular definition of socialism.

The meaning is in the interpretation. If the interpreter is ethical, the interpretation will most likely be a reflection of those morals.

@marjon:

honest Truths

What are those?

The ones that aren't in the bible.

Trading one deity for another, that isn't progressive or conservative, that's just a continuation of stupidity.

otto wrote:

You godders expose the true nature of your institution every time you post: The church is based uopn lies, subsists by theft, and exists by bribing weak minds with outrageous promises and the threat of eternal damnation if one of you dares to ask 'why?' and entertain any answer which is not part of Official Doctrine.

This is also more proof that you serve Darkness and not Light.

i like to think of myself more as a do gooder.

I used to take a similar hard line on religion and christianity (but not on God), but have since lightened my stance on positive/constructive christianity, and i hope you do the same.

since we're all so gung ho, we should have a real "discussion" somewhere, preferably multimedia based.

Hang loose brodos

@freehating,

The correct spelling is "atheist", not "athiest". The word originates from Greek "a-theos", meaning "without gods".

Progressivism has nothing to do with Communism. "Progressive" is the evolution of "Liberal", with a regulated market platform and fiscal conservatism thrown in.

I meant a real discussion, but if locality prevents, multimedia baby. Honestly your guy's slung insults lack efficacy (booya, spelled that sucker right) without visualization impact.

Comown guys, try something different, out of your norm.

ski clubs not a bad idea. However what we have here is a failure to find a find the earplugs at a rock concert, or the superconductivity in the lead, the gold under the oxide.

so what time will showdown, uh, I mean hoedown be?

Bah, forget you guys forever. I just knew i was among the pansies

See, I proved my own preconception. LOOK AT ME MAW!!!

@jjurbanus,

Intelligent people fight with words and ideas, not fists and weapons. Unnatural? Yeah, probably....

;)

I'll tell you what's unnatural. First the number of comments that have to load every frggen time I refresh. Second fighting words, literally, fighting words. Like all that's going on here is a bunch of words, no, symbols, fighting on a screen. ain't that cool?

Not really. I much prefer fleshly bodies fighting. with words and ideas.

BuuuuuT you know, in these here modern times, fleshly bods can fight, virtual styl like. YEEEEHAW!!!!!!!!! We get to see one another via electrons, and photons, and phonons shootn' themselves around the world. YEAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's right, examine thyselves biteches.

"Oh my spaghetti, we've been sitting petrified like wood wasting our lives"

"Let's go start a circus. For the quadriplegic. Hamsters!"

All of which leaves only one unresolved question:

jjurbanus, what are you on?

Whatever it is, you should STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER. Seriously.

Making dumb posts on physorg is one thing, but you might end up sending some email or posting something elsewhere, that you might REALLY regret in the morning...

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Thanks for your considerable perspective from a wide body of information and experience. I will be most certain to watch the video and learn, for I am young and green.

--gentlemen i bid farewell

Oh look, another link from marjoke that is full of anti-intellectualism. How sweet and wonderful it must be to hate those you envy.

@marjoke: It was your link, I offered my opinion. In general, that link was very anti-intellectual and in general, useless. But you know what it is like to be useless, don't you, troll?

It is very revealing how quickly 'illiberals' begin accusing others of 'hate' and flinging insults.

I'm certainly not a liberal and I think your link was garbage as well.

In science we call this independent peer review. Jayk has submitted a hypothesis based on his observations "Your link is anti-intellectual".

I've reviewed his statement and the link and I think that JayK has proven his hypothesis. Would you care for further evidence to the uselessness of your statement and link or would you prefer to offer a counter hypothesis?

Hypocrisy thy name is marjon. If you want to whine about people calling you names then call them names in the same instance, then you are a hypocrite by the very definition of the word.