Conservatism Linked to Lower IQ and Racism in Peer Reviewed Study

[Rusk]

I am sure that leftism can be linked to low testosterone and cuckold.

but what do i care...

 

[Thames]

You would agree that quality stamps are not facts tho right?

No of course not. Fact is a term that is very rarely used in academic studies.

Well not necessarily. How much opinion and judgement does it take to demonstrate and observe gravity for instance?

It takes a lot more. Evolution is a much better understood concept than gravity.

Why do you keep pretending that you're interested in natural science? It's obvious to anyone with even an elementary understanding of natural science, that you're just a hack. Just admit that you're desperately clinging on to your holy book, and that any discovery that could potentially contradict it, you will refute no matter what.

How come you guys always back down when challenged? If you believe in the theory and the process then defend it.

But alright, fair enough.

Do you actually think you're posing scientifically challenging questions? Are you this much in denial?
You have been through this process a thousand times. But of course posters are not going to waste time on you anymore because (A) you can't comprehend the structure of scientific discovery and (B) you're not able to look objectively at the issue, because you have taken your faith in your religion to the extreme.

If you're actually interested in macroevolution. Then here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

And if you're interested in the entire subject of evolution, then here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Every question you will ever be able to formulate is answered on that website (in quite impressive detal might I add).

I am sure that leftism can be linked to low testosterone and cuckold.

but what do i care...

Can someone explain to me this recent spike in popularity for the term "cuckold"? I literally see it in every post about "left vs right" or immigration subject.

 

[TheComebackKid]

No of course not. Fact is a term that is very rarely used in academic studies.

Right but when you reference "quality stamps" you are implying fact or truth. Just appeals to authority when you can't articulate an argument for or defense against.

It takes a lot more. Evolution is a much better understood concept than gravity.

But we're not talking about concepts. We are talking about processes that can be demonstrated. We may not have a full grasp on every aspect of gravity but we can repeatedly observe and demonstrate it. Can't do that with evolution. Like @Work Play says...you just have to "imagine it" and then its real lol.

Why do you keep pretending that you're interested in natural science? It's obvious to anyone with even an elementary understanding of natural science, that you're just a hack. Just admit that you're desperately clinging on to your holy book, and that any discovery that could potentially contradict it, you will refute no matter what.

I just think you guys are incapable of thinking about evolution with an objective mind. That is why you guys always treat someone who challenges evolution as a "hack" or "religious nut". Truly open minded people don't respond that way.

Do you actually think you're posing scientifically challenging questions? Are you this much in denial?
You have been through this process a thousand times. But of course posters are not going to waste time on you anymore because (A) you can't comprehend the structure of scientific discovery and (B) you're not able to look objectively at the issue, because you have taken your faith in your religion to the extreme.

If you're actually interested in macroevolution. Then here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

And if you're interested in the entire subject of evolution, then here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Every question you will ever be able to formulate is answered on that website (in quite impressive detal might I add)..

Sorry but those answers are wholly inadequate and unsatisfying. I would say we could address them but you would just accuse me of being in denial, or of being a religious nut, or just having a low iq. You would then shutdown and run away.

So I suppose we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Thames]

Right but when you reference "quality stamps" you are implying fact or truth. Just appeals to authority when you can't articulate an argument for or defense against.

No, I'm not implying that. When I say peer reviewed, I imply that the article meet certain required standards for it to be cited furtherer.

But we're not talking about concepts. We are talking about processes that can be demonstrated. We may not have a full grasp on every aspect of gravity but we can repeatedly observe and demonstrate it. Can't do that with evolution. Like @Work Play says...you just have to "imagine it" and then its real lol.

I just think you guys are incapable of thinking about evolution with an objective mind. That is why you guys always treat someone who challenges evolution as a "hack" or "religious nut". Truly open minded people don't respond that way.

Sorry but those answers are wholly inadequate and unsatisfying. I would say we could address them but you would just accuse me of being in denial, or of being a religious nut, or just having a low iq. You would then shutdown and run away.

So I suppose we can just agree to disagree.

No, it's not about not having an open mind. If you don't have an open mind you are useless in science. The thing is, you don't need to have an open mind for false elementary level reasoning. Which is what you're putting forth. You need to keep an open mind for questions that can evolve our scientific understanding of the world. Not for hackish blabbering.

Yes, of course they're unsatisfying to you. They're scientific arguments, and you reject that with all your being. As I said earlier, you're not equipped to handle natural science, so drop the pretenses.
Here's the part that explains how we observe and demonstrate macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Sure.. Agree to disagree. I'm not going to spend more time on this.

 

[TheComebackKid]

No, I'm not implying that. When I say peer reviewed, I imply that the article meet certain required standards for it to be cited furtherer.

What is the point of citing something if you are not trying to imply truth or fact?

No, it's not about not having an open mind. If you don't have an open mind you are useless in science. The thing is, you don't need to have an open mind for false elementary level reasoning. Which is what you're putting forth. You need to keep an open mind for questions that can evolve our scientific understanding of the world. Not for hackish blabbering.

You haven't actually refuted one thing that I've argued. I don't think you can hence the hostility.

Sure.. Agree to disagree. I'm not going to spend more time on this.

Whatever makes you feel better

 

[Cmart]

This kind of thing gets trotted out a few times a year. A liberal finds a derogatory article on the GOP, and trolls with it. Threads like this used to be dumped immediately, because that's where troll threads belong.

By the way, I know it's just anecdotal, but of all the liberals on this site I've ever spoken to, I don't recall ever seeing an intelligent one post a troll thread like this.

 

[leto1776]

Crickets.... Surprised the right wingers haven't gone apeshit here yet.

Probably because this exact study has had a thread before, and people put it down quickly as being a quack.

 

[barehanded]

Why Smarter People Are More Likely To Be Mentally Ill

More than 30 studies have linked higher intelligence to mental health disorders including major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and others.

Like the Sword of Damocles, higher intelligence may in some ways curse its beneficiaries. Aside from the usual desire to self-medicate, smarter people tend to drink alcohol and do drugs more than average — perhaps seeking to drench a burning sense of curiosity described by the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. Long before the Agricultural Revolution brought alcohol to humankind, life on the African savannah during the Pleistocene helped design the modern mind. “The human brain has difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment,” evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, of the London School of Economics, says of his theory.

Other research supporting a link between intelligence and mental health problems shows bipolar disorder may be four times as common among young adults who’d earned straight-A’s in school. Though long suspected, evidence for this connection was found by researchers at King’s College London, in a collaboration with the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden by comparing Swedish national school records to diagnoses for the disorder. “We found that achieving an A grade is associated with increased risk for bipolar disorder, particularly in humanities and to a lesser extent in science subjects,” lead researcher James MacCabe, wrote in a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. “These findings provide support for the hypothesis that exceptional intellectual ability is associated with bipolar disorder.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-smarter-people-are-more-likely-be-mentally-ill-270039

 

[Thames]

What is the point of citing something if you are not trying to imply truth or fact?

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Probably because this exact study has had a thread before, and people put it down quickly as being a quack.

"But but but that's just because they don't agree with the conclusion".... In the words of the dopey TS.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Interesting you should bring this information up when you consider that:
IQ can be increased or decreased based on a number of variables such as education, access to clean drinking water and quality food and so on. And that because black people are a marginalized people with much higher rates of poverty that would be reflected in their general IQ.

That real factual narrative I just described above is much different than the false one you tried pushing in the above quoted that is trying to establish that black people are genetically dumber than white people. Your loose understanding of IQ was your undoing here.

Lol, IQs now apply to one group and don't count for anther? You really must have a load of dog shit for brains. Awesome thread.