Welcome to PatsFans.com

Study Shows Conservatism And Cognitive Ability Are Negatively Correlated

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Phokus, May 28, 2009.

  1. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Abstract:

    ScienceDirect - Intelligence : Conservatism and cognitive ability

    Copy of full study:

    http://www.mediafire.com/file/mxzhn2g4l1j/conservatism.pdf

    Growing up, i always knew this was true. The most ignorant and bigoted kids at my school were always of the conservative persuasion (especially the socially conservative kids).

    Edit:

    Hilariously enough, on the same site, intelligence and semen quality are positively correlated, so hopefully conservativism will be bred out of existence

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=56011aaf1e1384785d085b749d5d38f6
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 42 / -31

    #24 Jersey


    Well wow ... a group that in 1984 called for the strengthening of liberal learning on campus came up with those results ... amazing how that happened. Look ... blue states traditionally are states robust with higher education. But to think a political opinion of a human is correlated to intelligence is in a way very racist in a round about way. i'd like to think all humans are capable of great things regardless of politics, race or gender. I've often thought far left liberals to be a bit looney but i never questioned their intelligence ... just how they use it at times.;)
     
  3. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm not sure you understand what 'liberal arts' means

    Liberal education and the ... - Google Book Search

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

    "The term liberal arts denotes a curriculum that imparts general knowledge and develops the student’s rational thought and intellectual capabilities[vague], unlike the professional, vocational, technical curricula emphasizing specialization. The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying art, literature, languages, philosophy, politics, history, mathematics, and science."
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  4. resnor

    resnor Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I guess when you talk about bigoted and ignorant, you're not referring to people, like yourself, who completely dismiss a whole segment of society's views on government. I mean, liberals like to tell everyone that they are so open-minded and tolerant...unless, of course, you have an opposite opinion of them...then they call you bigoted and ignorant.

    Classic.
     
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 42 / -31

    #24 Jersey


    I understand wtf liberal arts means ... these people believe in liberal education and there is a distinction between liberal education and liberal arts. There's nothing wrong with liberal arts ... not is there anything wrong with a liberal education in high school or college. But a liberal thinking institution is not going to do a study and back a conservative method or mentality of anything ... it's not what they do that's all i am saying.
     
  6. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It's not our fault that you guys believe the earth is 6000 years old, that you think evolution is a myth, and that you actually want to incorporate Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Perhaps the ignorance of conservativism isn't so much rooted in genes as it is in willful ignorance.
     
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,692
    Likes Received:
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,016 / 42 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    Well there you go ... now we agree at least. Intelligence and ignorance are distinctive. Intelligent people don't always use their intelligence for the greater good of others. Also ... are any institutes of any kind ever in the middle? Aren't most of them biased to their cause?
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Hmmmm...I have less than 30 posts on this board, and haven't said anything anywhere about the age of the earth, evolution, or Intelligent Design. Yet, because I'm conservative, you think that you can jump all over me about something? We're discussing intelligence, and the lack of respect of opposing viewpoints, and you go and demonstrate exactly what I was talking about. Anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot to believe the things that they believe.

    I'd be interested to hear your defense, though, of teaching only ONE theory of the earth to students. What's your reason for wanting to indoctrinate students in what you believe, instead of exposing them to all the beliefs that are out there? Is it because you're afraid that students might use their free will to choose to believe something other than you?

    Honestly, could you be any more closeminded and ignorant?
     
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,746
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,152 / 5 / -10

    Liberal Arts=(a$s holes)

    Liberal building brick tent>>>>:bricks:
     
  10. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I have no qualms about teaching intelligent design... in a philosophy class. The reason teaching intelligent design in a SCIENCE class is dumb because it fails the scientific method:

    Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Perhaps the minority of conservatives who don't believe in garbage should stand up and say something then, because you guys look awfully dumb associating with the majority who believe in this garbage.
     
  11. resnor

    resnor Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^LMAO @ "liberal building a brick tent"!!!!!!!!!
     
  12. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    In the google books search link (which references your NIE/1984 comment), it seems they use 'liberal education' and 'liberal arts' almost interchangeably. I was under the impression that you meant 'indoctrinate students with the political liberal ideology' when you said 'liberal education.
     
  13. resnor

    resnor Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    First of all, I don't believe that you specified "in a SCIENCE class" in your initial response to me. Evolution doesn't exactly follow the scientific method either, as it's neither observable, nor reproducable.

    Secondly, I don't think that the Big Bang Theory should be taught in SCIENCE class, as it violated many different scientific LAWS, and requires a good amount of faith when it comes to that super-compressed ball of all matter and energy contained in the universe.

    Thirdly, why is something that someone believes in that goes against what you believe in determined by you to be "garbage?" It's not a very educated, or open-minded, position to take.
     
  14. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    First, the controversy about ID has ALWAYS been conservatives wanting to teach it in science classes.

    Second, Hahahaha, what?

    Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Observational evidence

    The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos[37] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

    Hubble's law and the expansion of space
    Main articles: Hubble's law and metric expansion of space
    See also: distance measures (cosmology) and scale factor (universe)

    Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:[3]

    v = H_0 D \,

    where

    v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object
    D is the comoving proper distance to the object and
    H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.[26]

    Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican Principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedman in 1922[10] and Georges Lemaître in 1927,[11] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.

    The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the proper distance, v = dD⁄dt, and v, H, and D all vary as the universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size of the observable universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.[38]

    That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous,[3] supporting the Cosmological Principle that the universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions.

    Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican Principle, that the Earth is not in a central position, on a cosmological scale.[notes 5] Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.

    Cosmic microwave background radiation
    Main article: Cosmic microwave background radiation
    WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiation

    During the first few days of the universe, the universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early universe was opaque to light.

    When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 379,000 years after the Big Bang. These photons make up the CMB that is observed today, and the observed pattern of fluctuations in the CMB is a direct picture of the universe at this early epoch. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity.

    In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories.[22] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

    In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and in 1992 detected for the first time the fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105.[23] John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded Nobels for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the universe to be almost spatially flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. (See shape of the universe.)

    In early 2003, the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy satellite (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. This satellite also disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general,[24] it confirms too that a sea of cosmic neutrinos permeates the universe, a clear evidence that the first stars took more than a half-billion years to create a cosmic fog. Another satellite like it, scheduled for launch in April 2009, the Planck Surveyor, will provide even more accurate measurements of the CMB anisotropies. Many other ground- and balloon-based experiments are also currently running; see Cosmic microwave background experiments.

    The background radiation is exceptionally smooth, which presented a problem in that conventional expansion would mean that photons coming from opposite directions in the sky were coming from regions that had never been in contact with each other. The leading explanation for this far reaching equilibrium is that the universe had a brief period of rapid exponential expansion, called inflation. This would have the effect of driving apart regions that had been in equilibrium, so that all the observable universe was from the same equilibrated region.

    Abundance of primordial elements
     
  15. Phokus

    Phokus Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    [continued]

    Abundance of primordial elements
    Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis

    Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H.[31] All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons, which itself can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10−3 for ²H/H, about 10−4 for ³He/H and about 10−9 for 7Li/H.[31]

    The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and a factor of two off for 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by BBN is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium.[39] Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than ³He, and in constant ratios, too.

    Galactic evolution and distribution
    Main articles: Large-scale structure of the cosmos, Structure formation, and Galaxy formation and evolution
    This panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the distribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The galaxies are color coded by redshift.

    Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[40][41]

    Other lines of evidence

    After some controversy, the age of universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with (i.e., slightly larger than) the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars.

    The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of temperature-sensitive emission lines in gas clouds at high redshift. This prediction also implies that the amplitude of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on redshift; this seems to be roughly true, but unfortunately the amplitude does depend on cluster properties which do change substantially over cosmic time, so a precise test is impossible.

    Also:

    Understanding Evolution: Misconceptions about evolution and the mechanisms of evolution

    "Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable."

    Response:
    Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  16. resnor

    resnor Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Nice cut and paste job. Do you understand any of what you posted? The question I have, is this: is the "Big Bang" the ONLY thing that could have produced the effects that we see today? The answer is "No." Therefore, you have scientists who believe evolution, who interpret effects and processes that we see today, through the eyeglasses, if you will, of evolution. So, anything that they see, they explain it through evolution. That's not science. I took a course in college called Philosophy, Science, and Superstition. One of the things I remember from that course, was that for anything to be scientifically true, it had to have the option of being false. Now, my teacher was an evolutionist. I asked him to explain how evolution could be scientifically true if it didn't have the option of being untrue. He couldn't answer me, and said he'd never thought about it.

    Fact is, there are other explanations of the processes and effects that we see today. Evolution and Big Bang are ONE way of explaining them...but doesn't make them the right way. Also, evolution is big money. That is, scientists that don't support evolution don't get the big funding that evolutionary supporting scientists get. I wonder why so many scientists support evolution.:rolleyes: Truth is, evolutionary scientists are not impartial. They don't find things in our world, and then look at what could have caused them. They start with the idea of evolution, and they start with what they think things should be like, then they make things fit with what they believe happened.
     
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,929
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +786 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    I'm agnositc so I have no horse in the race but it's just as illogical for non believers to think the universe is everywhere and we just happened to evolve into these incredibly complex creatures as it is to believe in a God. Neither one of them is believable to me but one of them is true.

    As for the thread, yeah, right, LMAO. The Liberal base couldn't pass a college entrance test let alone beat Conservatives in cognitive ability.
     
  18. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -0

    :trolls: 10 chars
     
  19. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,332
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ratings:
    +576 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    Now this is as good a trolling effort as I've seen in a while! I'm proud of you!
     
  20. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    ditto.......
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>