Make a friend!

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

  1. Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?


    #648282013-10-22 19:59:23 *PigBoss said:

    From what I gathered from the link I posted above:

    • 1st postulate: lower intelligence during childhood (presumably measured by IQ tests)
    • 2nd postulate: People of lower intelligence tend to conform to socially conservative ideology
    • 3rd postulate: conservatives are more likely to be easily provoked

    Curious, I surfed around the comments and didn't find much in the comments except for liberals and conservatives arguing. Not surprising.


    There were links posted, so I tried my luck.

    The first link from Huffington Post stated that

    • I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
    • People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice...
    • [conservative] ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world...
    • "Reality is complicated and messy," he [Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist] told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."
    • But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones.

    Despite the last sentence, liberals are quick to state that science proves that conservatives are dumb, and conservatives jump to why the research has been wrongly analyzed.


    There was a link in the comment section that attempted to find the correlation between

    • People with liberal views tended to have increased grey matter in the anterior cingulated cortex, a region of the brain linked to decision-making, in particular when conflicting information is being presented. Previous research showed that electrical potentials recorded from this region during a task that involves responding to conflicting information were bigger in people who were more liberal or left wing than people who were more conservative.
    • Conservatives, meanwhile, found increased grey matter in the amygdala, an area of the brain associated with processing emotion. This difference is consistent with studies which show that people who consider themselves to be conservative respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions.
    • Taken together, the findings suggest that, at least to some extent, political persuasions are encoded in the structure of the brain. However, given that the structure of even the adult brain can be altered with training, it is not clear whether these differences would affect a person's political choice or vice versa.

    Additional reading from livescience.com.


    My 2 cents: Everybody has prejudices, no exceptions. Whether one expresses them outwardly determines whether he/she is "socially conservatively" inclined.

    Also, there was some discussion in the comment sections of all of those links I posted in regard to how the Republican party and the Democrat party have switched ideologies somewhere in US history. Therefore, for the sake of semantics, please do not group Republicans = conservative and Democrats = liberal (though it seems that it is largely the case now).

  2. #648292013-10-22 20:34:37InsaneBoredGame said:

    So, what you're saying is "I saw this thing on the Internet, it's mostly bullshit, but hey let's talk about it cause the forum is dead as fuck."

  3. #648342013-10-22 20:48:49 *PigBoss said:

    Such vitriol. I just wanted to throw something into CL for discussion. It might go somewhere. It might not. I-I-It's not like I like CL!

  4. #648352013-10-22 20:53:19InsaneBoredGame said:

    @PigBoss

    Vitriol? You misunderstand. I am a Good Girl, the Goodest of them all, actually.

    Anything I say or do should not be taken as my personal feelings, but rather as the voice of justice itself.

    That said, this is fucking bullshit.

  5. #648322013-10-22 20:44:36 *Taro_Tanako said:

    Well, the idea of low IQ being linked to racism and conservatism is kinda bullshit. The article above appears to draw more on sociology more than any scientific method or proper psychology using quantitative data. The two papers referenced are effectively subjective academic studies with a weighted hypothesis at the start, like a lot of bullshit psychology masquerading as science. They probably never even tried to find exceptions or look at different cultures (the research was conducted in the USA and UK).

    The main point of the article also seems to be conveying that dumb people are more prone to holding entrenched opinions learnt in childhood. Well duh, of course that figures. I dare say that if these lower IQ people were raised in a very libertarian environment then they would probably also turn out to be more liberal, albeit with less actual understanding of the cultural/political range.

    It would have been interesting if they'd looked at the genetic and epigenetic associations with some of these issues. Proclivities for one "psychological" trait or another have been identified in genetics, although it's pinch of salt time since they do mostly just indicate a slight bias. Nature vs nurture I guess.

    Still, it's an interesting read...but still bullshit.

  6. #648392013-10-22 21:25:58 *PigBoss said:

    The idea of IQ is hotly debated because it is a philosophical construct on an individual's cognitive abilities. Erm... this tid-bit explains it better than I do:

    Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, is a theoretical construct used by psychologists within standardized tests as a means of describing one’s intelligence level. In the most commonly-administered IQ test — the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) — an average score is 100; about 95% of IQ scores fall between 70 and 130. It is important to note that IQ is not real — is simply a philosophical construct psychologists have created to describe a subset of human functioning they believe to be subjectively important in modern society. (Because of this, unless an IQ test has been specifically adopted for a different culture or country — and the most popular one has — IQ tests are very culturally specific and may be invalid when used in other cultures.)

    Source


    I guess we can agree that "dumb" people will follow whatever they are raised to believe. However, we are influenced by our surroundings and what we experience and interact with will indubitably shape who we are. It is important to stress that one should seek to stay away from living a passive life. I guess this what we can ultimately apply to our lives.


    Directed to CL general:

    How will the likelihood for teenagers and young adults of various backgrounds/cultures to rebel against the norm comes to play here? Or the influence of an abrupt change in guardians during childhood (parent deaths/orphan/raised by relatives with a polar opposite ideology from his/her parents)?

    There are a lot of questions that needs to be answered. However, in order to use the scientific method, complex systems must be simplified and divided into manageable chunks. While having vague (and to some) "pseudo-science, bullshit" psychology to analyze something as intricate as the human mind is frustrating. But keep in mind that having a test with multiple variables does no good to a scientist. Psychology is a pretty young science so it is expected that much of the water is untested and that the early theories might be complete bullshit.


    Since I do not have much knowledge in the advancement of genetic research, so if anyone has any information that will point us in the right direction, that would be great.


    Also agree that we have much to learn and little to learn from. I hope that bullshit turns into some fertilizer. :/

  7. #648382013-10-22 21:25:03 *--Jack-- said:

    Reminds me of the God thread....good times.

    tl;dr

    Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

    I can see how ignorant people and complete idiots can be easily consumed by the ideas that come with racism, and other idiotic things like conservatism. That being said, I feel that it most likely comes from the people's exposure to their environment.

    @Taro_Tanako: ...nature vs. nurture

    Mhmm...

    When examining people, I'll deduce @PigBoss means all humans, but most likely Americans since both of us live in the US. Americans are particularly easy to persuade, and are particularly dumb. When families live scattered in culturally different areas such as the "sweet tea south" and the "yankee north", customs differ and are almost entirely based on the environment (By that I mean customs...such as slavery/inequality having been okay).

    That means generations of people with their misguided ideas have been allowed to teach them to their kids, and so on (especially in the US...freedom!). This basically lets people practice the art of being an ignorant idiot and also those they influence.

    Being tolerant and politically correct are different, imo. Political correctness treats us like children that need kindergarten rules in order to function. Most people, sadly, act like children and deserve it. But those with a relatively useful level of brain functions understand how real tolerance works.

    In conclusion: You can't generalize humans; humans are typically followers; humans are each an individual, even if they have almost the exact same influences.

    Really if you take a look at religion, genetics, and history, the reason humans act the way they do is about as easy to trace as following a line of fallen dominos to where they first started.

  8. #648422013-10-22 21:40:53 *PigBoss said:

    Not all of conservatism is idiotic. I think being socially conservative is. I want to see your take on this. Also, what are traits that more "intelligent" persons show when they are exposed to the environment?


    implying Americans are human

    hue. joking.maybe

    Could you define what "misguided" means? Also, is it absolute truth that slavery and inequality are wrong? Maybe define those words too. We might have a battle of semantics. Oh! Define freedom :3.


    Political correctness treats us like children that need kindergarten rules in order to function. Most people, sadly, act like children and deserve it. But those with a relatively useful level of brain functions understand how real tolerance works.

    So that basically means political correctness is a necessary evil :/. Do we need political correctness on CL if tolerance is present?

  9. #648412013-10-22 21:33:21Taro_Tanako said:

    @--Jack-- In conclusion: You can't generalize humans; humans are typically followers; humans are each an individual, even if they have almost the exact same influences.

    Err..isn't that kinda an oxymoron since you start by concluding that you cannot generalise and then generalise? The article specifically references papers where the subjects were in the USA and UK (I was bored so I read the abstracts).

    Really, this is bullshit though and just an easily and sloppily written publication for the person who wrote it.

  10. #648442013-10-22 21:42:43--Jack-- said:

    @Taro_Tanako

    LOL yeah, I see what you mean. And I didn't bother to read that article. In my experience, most humans just have a terrible time trying to explain how humans work. Really everything above what you quoted was more or less my opinion through an inference.

  11. #648432013-10-22 21:42:10InsaneBoredGame said:

    @PigBoss

    I guess we can agree that "dumb" people will follow whatever they are raised to believe.

    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to become insufferable about how wonderfully intelligent they are. It's hasn't even been an hour since this thread was made...

    Some day, you're going to look over this stuff and hide your self in shame. You’re going to look over this and wonder "was I really this obnoxious?" (The answer is yes, by the way. Yes, you are.)

    Just because someone is slower to grasp concepts doesn't mean that they'll ever grasp them. Just because someone can question what they were taught doesn't mean that they will deviate from it. In fact, it could lead them to believing it even more strongly.

  12. #648482013-10-22 21:54:31 *PigBoss said:

    If learning a concept and truly deviating from the norm means a sign of intelligence that pulls the person in question away from the "dumb" category, then only a handful of people are not "dumb."

    If we can visualize this as a sliding scale or a metaphorical thermometer, then at one point, there will be a boiling point where that handful of not "dumb" people are present. No one from CL is part of that group.

    I am not that deluded or egocentric to find myself in that group so soon :V

  13. #648462013-10-22 21:47:59 *--Jack-- said:

    The element in one's brain or persona that allows them to look around, and at themself, saying "This is who I am, I am aware that I can change" while seeing all the influences usually doesn't kick into gear until the person learns aspects of psychology, sociology, biology and other explanations. This typically occurs far after the key developmental stages of a human's brain/habits/fixations are over. The ability to break away from the norms you have is very abstract to a young mind, and isn't much more than a fleeting dream.

    You don't usually have a knack for understanding the function of human brains...at least not as a toddler.

    @PigBoss @InsaneBoredGame

  14. #648492013-10-22 21:59:35 *PigBoss said:

    So, what you are saying is... people can change!?


    Also, is it really necessary to learn psychology, sociology, biology and other explanations? Can't we just try our best with what we have and aspire to become hokage? C-c-can't I be just like those main characters in my Japanese animes?!!

  15. #648552013-10-22 22:29:51InsaneBoredGame said:

    You lost all credibility when you brought up psychosexual development.

    Because people just can't choose to be different by understanding the effects of their actions.

    No, they must understand Freud's theories of anal fixation and whatnot before they can change in response to external stimuli aka "learning".

    You must learn all this sciency shit before you can learn anything.

    Don't expect a child to understand that hitting other people is wrong, wait till they've got a Masters Degree!

  16. #649352013-10-24 18:11:08 *--Jack-- said:

    yes everyone, another bump to this

    @InsaneBoredGame

    I've been debating on whether or not to simply ignore this thread.

    Decided against it.

    I didn't lose my "credibility", and I didn't bring up "psychosexual development" at all, unless you mean the single word "fixation" which I used along with habits and brain formation to state the idea of how a person's brain gets "Set in it's ways" as you age.

    No, you don't have to have a "Master's Degree" to understand cause and effect, but you don't inherently know what's what until you experience things through trial and error. That's where reinforcement and punishment come into play.


    You hit someone, you get punished, you learn. =

    Cause, effect, impact on brain (learning).


    ...until the person learns aspects of psychology, sociology, biology and other explanations.

    All that entails is at least 5 minutes worth of meaningful words, such as a description of cause-and-effect, like most of us were told in the first years of school. ring a bell? A simple description of how the process works is enough to let someone apply it's functions to their own existence. Until you know it, you don't.

  17. #648472013-10-22 21:52:29 *Kirn said:

    As a private individual of extremely high intelligence, I came here to announce that I am quite conservative and I hate every race there is both generally and each of them specifically based on their numerous flaws. Are you basically saying that someone with high IQ is more likely to like niggers and faggots? This is a fucking bullshit. Higher IQ person would just as well be the one to reasonably understand why these people (or other arbitrary groups, actually) should die for the greater good. Just like the creator of this thread should die by means of putting a poisonous snake up his ass for making a dumbass thread consisting of more pictures than text and with no real sustenance.

    Remember the fucking god thread? It consisted of one phrase, and is was a great thread. This? This is shit and you should already be killing yourself for making it.

    You fucking twat.

  18. #648522013-10-22 22:08:35 *PigBoss said:

    +1 for post by Kirn, because I love him. And because he tells it as it is and is a different and highly "intelligent" person.


    Just like the creator of this thread should die by means of putting a poisonous snake up his ass for making a dumbass thread consisting of more pictures than text and with no real sustenance.


    Remember the fucking god thread? It consisted of one phrase, and is was a great thread.

    you got 2 motherfucking pictures for this motherfucking comment.

    MOTHERFUCKING_TWO


    You fucking twat.

    Love you too Kirn :3 <5

  19. #648512013-10-22 22:02:50hellstorm901 said:

    As it's already been pointed out IQ is a difficult area to look at as IQ is judged based on a particular standard which is a general breaking down of intelligence. You have a high IQ if you are exceptional in pretty much everything that you are tested against and if you drop in one area then your IQ as a whole goes down. This isn't how you can correctly measure intelligence as it neglects people who are intelligent in particular things but dumb to others.

    But that's detracting so lets get back on topic.

    From a Sociological perspective we are taught that views and opinions are motivated by a number of factors in society some you are aware of and others you may not so much be aware of. These are broken down into two areas, Primary Socialization and Secondary Socialization although many other people will refer to this as "Nurture versus Nature."

    Primary Socialization is anything relating to your Family. This means your beliefs about something, Ethnicity, Social Class, Lifestyle, are all inherited as you grow up from your parents and family members. If you live in a family where your mother and father have strong views regarding Blacks, Asians etc. You will naturally have them too.

    Secondary Socialization is where your "Media is evil" rants come into play. This is where your attitudes and beliefs are created by your reaction to society and institutions within it. If you read a particular newspaper you will conform to the views expressed in it.

    So how does this all fit in with whether a person is a racist or not? Well this means that "IQ" plays less of a role in the topic as your beliefs are not created by how smart or dumb you are but rather how you are led to view the world. You can be smart and still be a racist, God we call Winston Churchill brilliant and look behind the scenes at how he viewed everyone in the British Empire who wasn't White, on the other hand we have people with low "IQ" who will treat everyone as an equal.

    But we also reach an interesting point of where individuality comes into play. We all have the ability to believe whatever we want, along with picking and choosing things that suit of interests.

    Human beings are each unique and we can't understand Human beings by generalising them as individuality prevents us from doing, so which brings the conclusion that regardless of Scientific, Sociological or Psychological understanding we will never really be able to understand Human beings.

  20. #648532013-10-22 22:12:48 *Taro_Tanako said:

    Actually, I think there is the possibility of understanding human behaviour based on a comprehensive scientific understanding. Problem currently is that it is an incredibly complex issue of understanding all the neurochemistry and biology behind this. It is not, in any way, a reductionist approach but essentially people and their actions and thoughts are just electrical/biochemical in origin.

  21. #648542013-10-22 22:20:12 *PigBoss said:

    I like how you included stuff that was from non-personal sources. You rock, sir. I may post some other examples beside Churchill to bring to light that you don't have to be "dumb" to be racist or whatever. How to legitimately quantify various assigned characterizations of each person is right now up to science-fiction, but hopefully, we may be able to see that type of technology during our lifetime. :D


    For Secondary Socialization, is it guaranteed that you will more likely than not conform to what you experience?


    A question for you: can a person change his/her mindset by willpower alone?

  22. #648972013-10-23 14:44:23hellstorm901 said:
    For Secondary Socialization, is it guaranteed that you will more likely than not conform to what you experience?

    Well Primary Socialization comes first so depending on what happens in your family will usually harden you against things that don't conform to the views of your family but over time or with drastic events in the world around you your opinions and beliefs about things are created based on what you're exposed to. It's not guaranteed you will conform to what your exposed to but the "Media is evil" thing usually helps to ensure you are in some way. It is the job of institutions in society to try and change your points of view about things so unless you can completely block out everything around you then you will in some way conform.

    A question for you: can a person change his/her mindset by willpower alone?

    You could if you tried really hard, although the easiest way is to just open yourself up to opposing views and ways of seeing things. If you read one particular newspaper then go a week reading one of its rivals instead. If you view someone differently then speak to them and understand them more or live as they do for some time.

    Secondary Socialization is affected by what factors in Society you're exposed to. The more things you are exposed to the more your opinions and attitudes will widen and in reverse the less things you're exposed to the narrower your beliefs will be.

    This is where your racists fall into. A person is more often than not racist due to their lack of exposure to alternative ways of viewing the people they hate.
  23. #648562013-10-22 22:31:04 *PigBoss said:

    Alright. I've got some stuff to do. Since not being on the thread 24/7 is srs CL code violation, I will lock the thread until I am done with work.

    cya~

    Edit: Lol. Onwards~

  24. #648932013-10-23 09:01:52Kirn said:

    @Ecstasy fucking hell, that's like filling the room full of farts with fresh clean air. Being here doesn't burn my eyes anymore. Well done!

  25. #648942013-10-23 11:13:07Rune said:

    Ugh... I hate to say this but this thread is pretty idiotic to say the least. I don't know whether it's reading too much into things or rather an attempt to stir up discussion based on whatever I just read and then make up like a million things about it that are clearly assumptions...

    Anyway, IQ or whatever, I'm just gonna say that despite using the word 'study', this is probably one of the stupidest 'study' kind there is. Basically, what those guys were doing was that they looked at some charts of I.Q. test score results and a chart of liberals and conservatives and just went "Wow, I.Q.'s for conservs are lower than libs, must be fact!".

    Science? Yes... Accurate? Debatable... I mean... it could be true but let's say there's another chart of Burger King and McDonald's customer correlated with the I.Q. and for argument's sake, let's say that people who go to McDonald's have a lower I.Q. than Burger King patrons. Are McDonald's customers dumber than Burger King's?

    It's arguable but it's not exactly a strong claim. I mean, sure everyone sort of agrees that Burger King > McDonald's but does that automatically make people who eat inferior food dumber? Oh and would you dispute that and want a data saying that Burger King really is better than McDonald's?

    Then there's this thing about racism and conservative/liberals. Well, all I'm gonna say is that there are flaws in the reasoning of all of this. First of all, what is liberalism/conservatism? Are those two really the two political spectrum ever existed? Hell no!

    There are other ideologies that even today, people still believe in and even able to vote into office that doesn't quite fit within the liberalism/conservatism slider. Communism for example, is actually really not like either of those things. Is it liberalism? Sort of because they champion equality and justice for all. Conservative? Very, I mean, just look at how long it took for Soviet Union to fall... No, look at how Soviet Union kind of imploded because some stupid liberal (Gorbachev) was all glasnost and perestroika-ing the joint.

    How about Reactionaries? You know, those people who wants things to change back to the old ways rather than having them staying the same or even... reformed D: These people exist and are they dumb? Well, I suppose wanting it today makes it seem like it is; what with democracy being so common and all but back during the French Revolution? Yeah... not so dumb... not so dumb making that Napoleon dude Consul for life and later Emperor...

    Then you also have... fascists whose ideologies aren't about whether everything stays the same or whether they change but rather it's more like WE'RE #1!!! To hell with everyone else, we are superior than everyone else is subhuman. They're ultra-racists. Dumb? Well, say what you want about the aftermath but the trains did run on time (something that hasn't been replicated in modern society since).

    But that's not all! There are also other ideologies like... Theocracy (Vatican City and SMOMA), Anachro-liberals (which is actually what Libertarian is), Social-liberals (liberals wanting a bigger government control, probably Thomas Jefferson), Anarchy (the Internet as a whole), Anarcho-syndicalist commune (Britons, yes, that Monty Python sketch is actually historically accurate), and like a million others that have been tried.

    Now, how would intelligence look like when applied in graph form over all of these other ideologies? I doubt it would be as straightforward as Conservatives = dumb, Liberals = smart. Now then, if you're talking about the political "Left" or "Right" on the other hand...

    Still dumb because generally speaking, universal suffrage is rather new and not all of the ideologies, even when they fall under the same spectrum, even allow voting at all! The bottom line is, correlating intelligence by political preference is a moot point because the reality is, people want whoever is in power to be beneficial to them regardless of ideology. Lastly, nobody even votes despite being given the right to do so... (which is dumber than either being liberals/conservative imo)

  26. #648962013-10-23 13:46:11 *PigBoss said:

    I don't know whether it's reading too much into things or rather an attempt to stir up discussion based on whatever I just read and then make up like a million things about it that are clearly assumptions...

    None of the above. If the thread stays on a very narrow topic ("Is this test legit or stupid?), there won't be much to discuss after the nth reply.My first post was there to lay the foundation for discussion, which may branch out into other fields of knowledge, many of which I do not have a firm grasp on. This is where the importance of user activity comes in.

    Once somebody replies to the thread, I will respond with questions in the hope that the user being questioned will reply with alternative views that may help me understand how the world works. If the user does not respond, I haven't lost much. If the user responds, and with important knowledge, bueno.

    Keeping the thread simple at its inception encourages discussion more than introducing a topic that only very few people know about or care about. I gambled with psychology not only because it left many people with differing opinions/views but it is a relatively new science (if you are willing to even call it a science) that can be supplemented with education from more established disciplines.


    So, what I gather from this post is

    • correlation does not imply causation
    • I.Q. and the study of the I.Q.'s of liberals and conservatives does not hold weight on the measurement of intelligence
    • intelligence is measured by success, not by political affiliation

    yay! common sense~


    Going off on a tangent, do you think most countries today should be ruled by people that aren't elected by the public? And if so, how should they be placed into office? Should money "talk" in politics?

  27. #648982013-10-23 14:54:26Kirn said:

    Going off on a tangent, do you think most countries today should be ruled by people that aren't elected by the public? And if so, how should they be placed into office? Should money "talk" in politics?

    For fuck's sake... first of all, how is that even relevant to the 'topic'? And second of all, how the fuck did you come to a conclusion that countries are ruled by the people elected by the public?

  28. #649062013-10-23 21:00:35PigBoss said:

    For fuck's sake... first of all, how is that even relevant to the 'topic'?

    The topic has shifted since I am no longer interested in the legitimacy of IQ tests and its relationship with racism and intelligence. Since Rune has expanded into various forms of government, I decided to ask these questions. If you want to divert the thread's course, go ahead. You can ask those questions and others may or may not reply.

    Keep in mind that

    • Information is best learned when taught to others
    • New sources of knowledge may spark other questions and break assumptions
    • I will phrase questions in such a way so that other users may have a voice in the matter. I want to incite other users to speak their opinions and state their reasoning.

    The questions may be basic in nature ("is the IQ test legit or BS?"), laden with misdirected ignorance (fallacies), and/or purposefully written in a crude, tasteless manner. CL members have a special aptitude for reacting strongly to them. If I had resorted using solely the "correct" ways of discussion, this thread would be even more "dead as fuck."


    Time to drink the truth serum.

    The truth of the matter is, CL does not have intelligent people. We have a handful of pseudo-intellectual users, some that like to use their time on the internet to bash each other's ego. If an intellectual posted on CL (which is highly unlikely) you would insult him/her with pseudo-intellectual BS rhetoric rather than actually discussing things with him/her. Or you'd simply ignore his/her thread because the topic went over your head.

    We live in an age of posing stupid people who have learned the art of language as parrots do; through repetition, and as such they parrot familiar talking points and nothing more.

    Our pseudo-intellectual conversation is comprised of hearing repeated lines which users don't even fully think through before regurgitating. If it's vaguely identifiable as whatever label you pose as and spoken by someone popular who you happen to like, you're going to repeat that shit whenever you think it's relevant. For the most part, you're unable to explain it, show belief in it, expand on it, and most of all understand it.

    It's a culture of faux-intellect. But really it's the same moronic tendencies people have always had throughout the ages. It's OK. Almost all people are stupid. We can find comfort in situating ourselves among other parrots.

    Why am I here? I want to have some fun and learn a thing or two.


    And second of all, how the fuck did you come to a conclusion that countries are ruled by the people elected by the public?

    "Should money "talk" in politics?"

    I'll rephrase that question. Do you think most countries today should be "ruled" by people that aren't elected by the public?

  29. #649082013-10-23 21:49:42Rune said:

    Going off on a tangent, do you think most countries today should be ruled by people that aren't elected by the public? And if so, how should they be placed into office? Should money "talk" in politics?

    Well...

    We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    -- Nuremberg Diary pg. 278-79

    tl;dr, it doesn't matter either way. As Hermann Göring said above, it's rather easy to sway people into supporting a cause as long as you tell them that they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists. In fact, I have a recent example in the drama of the CL purchase where this was employed full force...

    But when it comes to the governing itself, I don't think humanity has an idea on how to correctly pick the right people into office, voice or no voice. There is no way to prove whether or not somebody is a better leader than others simply by merit of a political campaign or divine right to rule by god. It's always been a huge gamble and sometimes, we get JFK lucky and other times, we get Francisco Franco lucky, y'know...

    I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question honestly. All I know is that democracy, whether or not the result is rigged, should be taken advantage of by everybody who has the right to vote by you know... voting. I believe that political apathy is probably the dumbest thing anyone could ever do to themselves.


    Oh and another thing, do you know that in history, liberals would usually become more conservative once the reforms they vouch for passed? If that is correlated with this study, would that mean that these liberals suffer a drop in I.Q. once they become conservative?

  30. #649212013-10-24 06:12:00Kirn said:

    The topic has shifted since I am no longer interested in the legitimacy of IQ tests and its relationship with racism and intelligence.

    http://www.netmeister.org/blog/images/implied-facepalm.jpg

    So, not only you can't present a picture-free opening, or stand people actually having any sort of discussion without you, you also can't support your own topic, easily shifting (or should I say escaping?) to other themes. And somehow I am pretty sure you won't be able to support that discussion too.
    Not to mention that the part of your big-ass post that I quoted is the only part worth reading because the rest of your post is pretty much just pseudo-semantical shit.

    Well, now I have to say to you what I usually say to the newfags who think the site should revolve around them - no, fuck you, doesn't work like that.

  31. #649382013-10-24 18:50:58PigBoss said:

    So, not only you can't present a picture-free opening, or stand people actually having any sort of discussion without you, you also can't support your own topic, easily shifting (or should I say escaping?) to other themes. And somehow I am pretty sure you won't be able to support that discussion too. Not to mention that the part of your big-ass post that I quoted is the only part worth reading because the rest of your post is pretty much just pseudo-semantical shit.

    A picture-free opening does not hinder the message of the posts, unless you have some kind of mental illness, in which case, I suggest the use of pharmaceutical drugs to cope with .

    The topic was about the legitimacy of IQ tests. I concluded it was not legitimate. The reasons were already stated by other users on the thread and I supported their views. If you want the thread to stay on topic, no one is stopping you. Give us your oh so intellectual insight. I love that.


    Well, now I have to say to you what I usually say to the newfags who think the site should revolve around them - no, fuck you, doesn't work like that.

    Keep on posting in my thread. I like the attention :3

  32. #650782013-10-28 09:08:00 *Blacklight said:

    Speaking completely out of my ass, so excuse if my facts are wrong, but no.

    All of those things can also be attributed to the struggle for power in society. If a group has power, they will become conservative in order to preserve it. See the Democratic party right after the Reconstruction Era.

    The use of racism also doesn't have any linkage to being conservative either. It just so happened that the old whites in the South attained power through slavery and have sadly gotten the term "racist" slapped along side them because they were conservative. No way in hell they were going to abolish slavery and become progressive because their power came from plantation owners having slaves.

    Also, Hitler used "racism" (not really being Jewish isn't a race) in order to get the Nazi party to the forefront of German politics. It was a tactic to arouse German nationalism, and made most Germans "racist". They weren't dumb either as German scientists made the first jet plane and one scientific breakthrough I cannot remember right now, and probably a whole bunch of other stuff I don't know. So did those scientists have low IQ? Probably not if they discovered all of that. But if they did, then that IQ test surely has a new definition for "intelligence".

    Low IQ - well that's just dumb lol.

    tl;dr history says no, so no.

  33. #650792013-10-28 10:01:16 *DarkChaplain said:

    Just sayin', Hitler didn't even invent the jew-stuff. It has been done throughout history, poisoned wells and all. The whole region in central europe was tense as fuck at the time, even before WW1. Adolf was just as shaped by his surroundings and history as PigBoss is by 4chan and shitty memes, so to say. If the suspicion hadn't been widespread already, that particular thing would most likely have failed. Hitler only amplified what was already in people's minds, and played to their fears. He did a pretty good job, all things considered.

    http://i.imgur.com/ipsFU8m.gif

    Just as topic-related as the bullshit @PigBoss posts in reply to @Kirn.

  34. #652902013-11-02 21:49:07PrettyPinkPastel said:

    I think you would have to be some what stupid because if you are going to just believe what one group of people says about another with out getting to know people then to me at least you are stupid but i don't think an iq score has anything to do with that.