study shows liberals are "smarter" than conservitives

[lucas marcone]

http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436

they gave liberals and conservitives a test where they press a button when givin one signal but not to when givin another. conservitives made more errors so it was concluded that liberals see the need for change more redily than conservitives.


not sure if i agree it corolates with brains, but i think liberals do see the need for change faster. though this may be because conservitives are as stubborn.

[Fuyudenki]

take 2.

I dunno, I'm not happy with the status quo at all, but my solution involves large-scale tear-out and rebuild of large parts of the government.(the Colorado public school system, for example, is more religious indoctrination facility than education center, and far less effective than just letting kids figure things out on their own.)

[superluser]

I conclude the test was designed by libs.

To quote Coca Cola: They're not that smart, and they're not that dumb.

The study would seem to show something else, namely that muscle memory and reaction time are different for the two groups.  I've seen terrible studies before.  I'm no neurologist, so I have no clue if this is right or wrong, but it doesn't seem generalizable to me.

And I'm a Libertarian, so I have no stake in this, except to say that both sides are dumb.

[Fuyudenki]

you can delete that quote of mine.  First version of my post sucked, so I replaced it with something less stupid.

[edit]Zorro, you can...nevermind.  Comment, stupid, fixed.[/edit]

[Zorro]

Actually, I read in an article that Conservatives have been behind nearly all of the leading political movements, including rights for homosexuals.(which I won't get into, since it's a really touchy topic, and I don't want to offend some particular members of this board.)

I conclude the test was designed by libs.

True.

The same way tests are designed to always say whoever designed it is smart.

This is why the Idea that became FedEx was given a grade of "C"

Thing you have to admit in Business and the Military is that you either succeed in business or not and in the Military you succeed or die.

Academics hate both business and the military because it shows them to NOT be so intelligent EVERY SINGLE DAY!

[Fuyudenki]

Academics hate both business and the military because it shows them to NOT be so intelligent EVERY SINGLE DAY!

You mean I don't have to be perfect to succeed?

Man, is that a load off.  I guess sometimes, "Good enough" really is?

[superluser]

This is why the Idea that became FedEx was given a grade of "C"

Actually, that has more to do with the American Letter Mail Company and the fact that FedEx had no legal authority to operate until 1979, when the USPS allowed private carriage of extremely urgent material.

[Zorro]

Are you seriously trying to say FedEx isn't a success and the guy who thought it was a "C" idea isn't still grading papers?

You are proving my point.  FedEx wins, professor loses.

[bill]

I think this thread has a very bright future in store for it.

[Alondro]

I'm a Republican.  I have a degree in biology and work in a renowned research facility in one of the best hospitals in the country.

Tom Cruise is a liberal.  He believes in Scientology.  Nuff said.   

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

ooo, slapped -down-.

Your sample size is a tad small, though, Alondro. Statistically, you're on thin ice....

[Jim Halisstrad]

Politics.
My solution to every political problem is Kill It With Fire.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Politics.
My solution to every political problem is Kill It With Fire.

I think Bush used that, too, didn't he?

[Jim Halisstrad]

No, no, no. 
That's the complete and total mismanagement leading us into a quagmire strategy.
It's close to the Kill It With Fire strategy, only with a higher Fail/Fire ratio.

[Alondro]

Shawn Hannity is an evil right-wing radio talk show host.  He can manage his affairs extremely well, support his argument with facts and figures, and now hosts TV shows as well as radio.  His audience is quite large and he never resorts to childish taunts and name-calling.

Rosie O'Donnel is a mega-liberal who rants wildly, decalres everyone who isn't like her 'delusional', and manages to constantly keep losing her talk shows because she doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut.  She's also mentioned breaking her own bones deliberately when she was young.  All she ever does is respond with childish taunts and name-calling.

Nuff said.  

[superluser]

Are you seriously trying to say FedEx isn't a success and the guy who thought it was a "C" idea isn't still grading papers?

No, just that FedEx is much more complicated than an idiotic professor.

The Postal Service still goes around occasionally demanding to see if the mail you send through FedEx is really urgent.  They did that to Equifax, and determined that some of the mail that they sent was not urgent, and fined them $30,000 for using FedEx instead of the USPS.

[Alondro]

The Postal Service still goes around occasionally demanding to see if the mail you send through FedEx is really urgent.  They did that to Equifax, and determined that some of the mail that they sent was not urgent, and fined them $30,000 for using FedEx instead of the USPS.

And boy does that ever prove how power-hungry a government-controlled entity becomes!  Who cares if it's urgent?  Some people would just rather be sure their mail actually makes it to its destination without being stolen or looked through by some sociopathic deviant who only got his postal job because his uncle works there.  I had several things vanish in the mail and decided enough was enough.  Now I only use the USPS for things of little to no value or importance... like my taxes.   

[Valynth]

Politics.
My solution to every political problem is Kill It With Fire.

I think Bush used that, too, didn't he?

No, no, if he had done that, Iraq would be a glass bowl rather than a quagmire.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

No, no, if he had done that, Iraq would be a glass bowl rather than a quagmire.

What, he wasn't using Friendly Fire there? ;-]

[lucas marcone]

Shawn Hannity is an evil right-wing radio talk show host.  He can manage his affairs extremely well, support his argument with facts and figures, and now hosts TV shows as well as radio.  His audience is quite large and he never resorts to childish taunts and name-calling.

Rosie O'Donnel is a mega-liberal who rants wildly, decalres everyone who isn't like her 'delusional', and manages to constantly keep losing her talk shows because she doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut.  She's also mentioned breaking her own bones deliberately when she was young.  All she ever does is respond with childish taunts and name-calling.

Nuff said.  

Here you point to a politial conservitive


Here you point to hollywood.

Truth is there are just as many articulate fact pushing liberals as conservitives.

Both democrats and republicans have the wrong idea... a two party system is flawed in so many ways and needs to be changed. I belive in a multi party system so that a impartial person gets in the office.
Personally when i look at the republicans makeing claims about the democrats the democrats typically start morphing into how the republicans view them and vice versa untill you get two equally useless parties that are more conserned with getting in the whitehouse and beating the other party than actually DOING A GOOD JOB! The sad part is America will never get rid of this system because the population too entrenched in it to even try to change it.

[Kamunt]

Both democrats and republicans have the wrong idea... a two party system is flawed in so many ways and needs to be changed. I belive in a multi party system so that a impartial person gets in the office.
Personally when i look at the republicans makeing claims about the democrats the democrats typically start morphing into how the republicans view them and vice versa untill you get two equally useless parties that are more conserned with getting in the whitehouse and beating the other party than actually DOING A GOOD JOB! The sad part is America will never get rid of this system because the population too entrenched in it to even try to change it.

You, sir, win at this thread. *face-in-paw* George Washington himself said, after his time as President was completed, that America should never fall into a party system, along with one other thing that I completely forget right now. Looks like he was right, though. Party loyalties before personal beliefs, corruption and greed, one certain Republican presidential candidate's disbelief of evolution and belief of "devolution" into monkeys (see Senate). In fact, this seems like the right place to post these two cartoons:

THE WHOLE WORLD IS GOIN' TO WAP-UH-JAW!!
...and...
Reagan Reagan!

[Valynth]

Both democrats and republicans have the wrong idea... a two party system is flawed in so many ways and needs to be changed. I belive in a multi party system so that a impartial person gets in the office.
Personally when i look at the republicans makeing claims about the democrats the democrats typically start morphing into how the republicans view them and vice versa untill you get two equally useless parties that are more conserned with getting in the whitehouse and beating the other party than actually DOING A GOOD JOB! The sad part is America will never get rid of this system because the population too entrenched in it to even try to change it.

Show me an impartial person and I will show you a person in a coma.

Seriously, have you ever seen these mysterious "multi parties?"  Yes, yes I have and I can tell you that 90% of them are fruit-loop crazy.

And honestly, the only way to get into the Whitehouse is by claiming to do a good job which is, in fact, the only thing you CAN do to get into the WhiteHouse.

Even in a multi-party system you have party loyalties conflicting with "what's right."  Hell, if anything in a multi-party system you have ten times as much bureaucracy as you would in a two party system with all the same problems.

Whats more, the parties never remain the same as you've noted.  They change when their constituents decide to change themselves.  Have we always had republicans and democrats?  No.  We had a whole melody of various parties in America, it is just more efficient to draw and maintain a single line rather than then different lines that form shapes with one side always touching a different party while touching all parties.  Hell, just imagining it makes my head spin.

That also leaves way for more corruption as a singl party will generate multiple "branch" parties to gain seats in the government all the while having each party strive for the same goal.

[lucas marcone]

When I say impartial I mean independant. Some of us actually have some decent ideas. I just prefer not to have ANY party loyalties so that I could do my job to my fullist.

[Fuyudenki]

I'm a registered Republican, and I've done some things for the Republican party, but I vote Republican because they happen to agree with my ideals.  I'd vote for a Democrat if I thought they were going to pass laws the way I think they should be done, but I've yet to see that happen.

Honestly, the Republican party is a bit liberal for my tastes right now.  I'm getting quite dissatisfied with how a lot of things are being done in Washington.

In short, I've concluded the following.

1: ALL governments are inherently corrupt.  No exceptions.
2: No government(anarchy) is worse than any government, including totalitarian fascism.(actually, most anarchies devolve into totalitarian fascist states.)
3: Therefore, choose the lesser of two evils, and have a government, rather than no government.
4: While you need it to keep the peace, your government will be evil.  No exceptions.
5: Evil things should have as little power as reasonably possible.  The Articles of the Confederation are an excellent example of this, but they were maybe a little too weak.
Conclusion:  Have a government, but force it to work with both hands tied behind it's back and in shackles, and make sure the rules are simple so that everyone can tell when the government gets out of line.

[Reese Tora]

A statistically significant number of tornadoes strike in the bible belt, should that mean god hates religious people?

People conducting polls/experiments, repeat after me:

correlation does not equal causation.

[Zorro]

First of all it isn't "conservitives" it is spelled conservatives!

Mainly almost all out current problems are a result of all the GROOVY new Liberal Ideas from The '60s' Man!

Drugs?  Yes they existed but they didn't really get started until the hippies were "Expanding Their Minds" through ODing and killing lots of their musicians.  Lead directly to Cocaine, crack wars and crystal meth problems.

That is just one 1960s success stories of liberalism, there are others like losing a war for no military reason and creating racial divisions merely to virtually enslave certain parts of the population for votes.

This is all more or less about doing unproven things because your Grandparents were obviously stupid evil white people!  Stupid fucks should have never bothered to build a nation!  THINK OF THE SQUIRRELS!  THINK OF ALL THAT LACK OF MALARIA!

AFRICA is the best way to live!  But AMERICANS are too STUPID to appreciate.....EBOLA!!  

[Fuyudenki]

Actually, my grandparents were all finished procreating by the time the '60s rolled around.

My parents weren't too happy living through them, though.  They were glad when the 80s finally rolled around.

[Alondro]

My mom hated the 60's.  She thought all the pot-heads and free-love crap was moronic.  My dad, I've come to learn, was creeping intot he drug scene from peer pressure back then, but then I always knew he was weak-willed and cowardly.  That's why I control the home now!    

First my home... then the WORLD!!  The new Earth-wide supreme Empire of Decharlakstan!     And I will create mutant blobish things in war machines that will be my merciless soldiers to dominate the universe!  The Decharleks!   

[lucas marcone]

we did poorly because the communist countries in that era were war machines bent on spreading their form of government.


were doing poorly in Iraq because we can't become a war machine bent on spreading our government with the constitution in place. that's why bush want's to use it as toilet paper.

[Valynth]

we did poorly because the communist countries in that era were war machines bent on spreading their form of government.


were doing poorly in Iraq because we can't become a war machine bent on spreading our government with the constitution in place. that's why bush want's to use it as toilet paper.

*laughs*  Oh Lucas, Lucas, Lucas.  We can become a war machine just as easily as they can.  Just look at World War 2 Japan and the fact we've outlasted the major communist countries.

The key problem with spreading our type of government is that it requires the acceptance of the people, and most people in the middle east want a totalitarian dictatorship.  Of course, each group wants it's own dictator and thus violence ensues until all other sides except the dictator's are suppressed and/or killed off.