Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive, 10/30/10!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by jinx

liberals like to think they are smarter than conservatives. I just see the Daily Show as catering to that.

Fixed that for ya, and I agree.

I'm still pondering on how watching a dog play in the snow is political and comparable to this at all. My conclusion thus far is FAIL.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Fixed that for ya, and I agree.

I'm still pondering on how watching a dog play in the snow is political and comparable to this at all. My conclusion thus far is FAIL.

Smart people are more likely to be Liberals than conservatives.

The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics.

[Spexxvet]

Here's another study

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.


Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm still pondering on how watching a dog play in the snow is political

Who said it was?

and comparable to this at all.

Jinx originally said Stewart's arrogance was displayed by making fun of people doing stupid things, which is the premise of AFV. It only came later that the arrogance is actually in liberal people making fun of conservatives doing stupid things, which added politics rather than just style into the equation, and explains why Limbaugh doesn't get saddled with arrogance as well as outrage.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Who said it was? ~irrelevant~

You entered it into the discussion.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Do you also view "America's Funniest Home Videos" as arrogant?

That show has NOTHING to do with politics nor those that were being discussed (Stewart & Limbaugh)
Enjoy your game of semantics.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

You entered it into the discussion.

I never said it was political. I said that it was comparable, in the context that Jinx had set up as her objection to Stewart. Which is why the "who said it was?" was addressed explicitly to the "political", and I addressed the "comparable" separately.

And then you deleted that explanation as irrelevant, repeated the false implication that I had said AFV was political, and complained about semantics.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I said that it was comparable,

I understand your logic. It doesn't matter.
We just disagree and thats ok.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I never said it was political. I said that it was comparable, in the context that Jinx had set up as her objection to Stewart.

Uh huh, and again, what SIDE am I on if I say I don't like the stupid video show?

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by jinx

Uh huh, and again, what SIDE am I on if I say I don't like the stupid video show?

I'm guessing "the other side"

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by jinx

Uh huh, and again, what SIDE am I on if I say I don't like the stupid video show?

Huh? I asked whether you thought its premise was arrogant, not whether you liked it. I was curious what exactly Stewart was doing that placed his arrogance as equal to Limbaugh's outrageousness, but didn't place Limbaugh's arrogance at the same level.

SIDEs were more along Pico's thread than mine, and in that thread you clarified that it was Stewart as a liberal making fun of conservatives doing stupid things that you thought was arrogant. It seems to me that in your effort not to take a SIDE, you may have allowed your definition of arrogance to do so.