Leftists confirmed as mentally challenged by scientific study

This is literally absurd. One the studies posted regarding right wing and intelligent didn't use academia as a standing point, they measured cognitive behaviour, such as the ability to identify shapes (similar to the study in the op), but also other methods to test cognitive ability.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Your ramblings indicate you haven't actually measured the studies referenced. Or if you have that you didn't understand them


A second study found that liberals were more able to deal with complex ideas and are more likely to base their response on irrational fear.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

And a third found that Low effort thought promoted political conservativism.

http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/low-effort-thought-promotes-political-conservatism-2012.pdf

Also not sure if you are trying to reference Kant, if you are I would like to point out he was a liberal.

The first and most obvious point to make is that objectively, the shape was not a circle, nor anything very much like a circle — so the liberals were factually wrong. I think this makes them stupid.

Lefties would identify the shape as a triangle if their leader told them to.

1. Why you're invoking the circle study I have no idea. I've already derided it as simplistic.

2. Liberalism is not progressivism. Do not call these people liberal. You probably don't want to tug at this thread.

3. If you want to raise a point then raise it, then cite relevant source material. If you're lecturer asked you to back something up would you simply hand him a book and say 'it's all in there'? No, you'd reference the page. I'm not going to read through hundreds of thousands of words, nor does my lack of willingness to do so validate your desire to confirm your own bias.

4. Don't describe my points ('my ramblings?'), debate them.

1 I wouldn't describe what I did as invoking the circle study. I referenced it and simply stated that one of the methods used in one of the studies to calculate cognitive ability w similar to the circle study in the op. Though to clarify that method wasn't the only one and was different and not identical.


2 I take it your suggesting the people that identified as liberal were not actual liberals but where progressives. If that is the case what reason do you have for concluding so?

3 okay, I assumed that the abstracts on the first pages would be enough but I will quote them then

Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures [ 1 ]. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors [ 2, 3 ]. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex [ 4 ]. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring [ 4 ] and recognition of emotional faces [ 5 ] by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [ 4, 6 ] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults
Ryota Kanai, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth, Geraint Rees
Page 1

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism
Scott Eidelman, Christian S. Crandall, Jeffrey A. Goodman, and John C. Blanchar.
Page 1

I cannot take any study which places 'liberalism' at odds with 'conservatism' seriously. It's an absolute fallacy.

Here's one I made earlier:

However, would you please…please…stop conflating what the perpetual adversaries to any notion of the status quo, identity ideologues and manufacturers of oppression narratives stand for with ‘liberalism.’ PLEASE.

Liberalism was never a tenet of left-wing politics, the bastardisation of liberalism was. Progressivism (a modern-day euphemism for 'socialism’, more intent on cultural deconstruction to enforce socialist economics) - often conflated with 'liberalism’ - hates individual liberty. 'Progressivism is about outcomes, NOT opportunity (much like socialism) - it, like many of the newfangled lefties, loathes equality of opportunity.

It perceives society as made up of groups with different rights and responsibilities, with only certain groups in society conferred default victim status, and other groups default perpetrators. It’s the very definition of prejudice, it perpetuates own-group biases, and believes in fallacious notions like 'white privilege.’

Progressivism actually has roots in the fascist movement. Back in the 30’s fascism - not necessarily Nazism, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party - was universally accepted within left-wing circles as a progressive movement; they dubbed it 'liberal fascism.' Goebbels was a devout, self-avowed socialist and much of Nazism and Stalinism - despite the fact Hitler and Stalin loathed each other - was formed around a hatred for two core tenets of right-wing political theory, as espoused by Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott: a hatred for individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism.

The Fascist Manifesto is one long homage to modern left-wing politics: lower the voting age, introduce a minimum wage, abolish the upper chamber, pander to the unions, manufacture hatred for individualism, determine the worker’s output is the property of the state, afford rights to groups not individuals and, most importantly, change something…anything.

Individual liberty is more often than not concerned with preserving the status quo, particularly in the face of radical change.

Modern progressivism is spurred by the politics of self-loathing and shaming and it’s ultimate cultural ambition is to manufacture a 'guilt society’, where all behaviours are controlled (well, particularly white male behaviours which, in the case of progressivism, is 'the other’), for the benefit of conferring preferential treatment to 'groups.’

For examples from popular culture, see manspreading (an offence two men were recently arrested for), see world-class scientists accomplishing the unthinkable only to be reduced to quivering wrecks on live television for wearing the wrong type of garment, see smoking bans at bus stops, see male-only groups = sexist (St Andrews golf club) and women-only groups (political party conferences, business conferences, gyms, taxi firms, networking groups, etc.) = empowering, see unequal distribution in favour of men = discrimination, see unequal distribution in favour of women = equality of opportunity, etc.

The list is endless. The more pernicious example recently was the perpetrator of the Virginia shootings being appeased under a narrative of 'mental disability’ or being a victim of 'racism.’ Invariably, such victimhood was never conferred onto the white perpetrator of the Charleston shootings, he was the perpetrator of, I quote, a 'hate crime’ (a term which featured in every item of coverage the BBC created).

As with all forms of 'left-wing politics', they seek to re-brand themselves on an incessant basis and identity (i.e. ' equality for women' is always prioritised over principle (i.e. 'equality'. Gender, sexuality, religion and ethnicity are treated like proxies for the class war - they invoke the very prejudices they seek to erode on an incessant basis, largely to accrue political capital.

It’s the precise definition of ethnocentric group behaviour - his group (ethnicity) shielded him from being tried in the court of public opinion, at least on MSM sites. You can support the usurpation of western civilisation if you must, but don’t for one second do it under a smokescreen of 'liberalism.’ It’s anything but.

Are you going to reference anything to support what you have put here.


1 On what grounds do you find the position conservative vs liberalism an absolute fallacy. Particularly which study are you referring to, the self identifying study or the study that positioned people in political camps irregardless to their personal political Identification.

2 I'm a bit confused by what you are saying are you saying "true" liberalism isn't left wing or that it isn't Inherent to left wing. Regardless how are you defining left wing

3 your statements about facism are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I asked you to explain why you have come to the conclusion that the people in the study weren't actually liberals but were progressives. You have spoken about the origins of progressivism (rightly or wrongly. Assuming you have read the book liberal facism and that's where most of what you have said has come from)

1. Okay, prove to me conservatives oppose liberalism. Your study stipulates the two are polar opposites, so prove it. You can't, because they aren't. The burden of proof is on you. You made the accusation.

2. Yes. Left-wing, in the classical sense (as it derived from the French Revolution), is opposed to orthodoxy.

3. Are they? Why? Because it doesn't confirm your bias? Fascism wasn't 'liberal' (I think we can agree on that), your version of 'liberal' supported fascism in the 20's and 30's. Hitler (and Stalin for that matter!) has stated, unequivocally, he was opposed to liberal individualism.

1 I'm not claiming they are opposites nor that is the study. It is using a previous scale that has demonstratable accuracy when compared to voting patterns. I.e people who identify as liberal will vote for and support liberal ideas.

2 that doesn't clarify what your saying, though I will point out French Revolution left was more about personal freedom and equality than its right counter part. It was influenced by and support the ideas of democracy and anti monarchy that the right opposed.

3 no they are irrelevant because they have no part in the question I asked you. What reason do you have for concluding that those identifying as liberals were not actually liberals but progressives. Instead you talked about the bbc and facism, i ask you again what reason do you have for your conclusion.

And as a final mention you have no idea what my type of liberalism is, you dont even know if I adhere to any form of liberalism.

Of course they are defined as polar opposites! We have a 'conservative' group and a 'liberal' group. They are two groups; they are defined as opposites.

it doesn't matter how they self-identify. What was the purpose of the study? To suggest that these people who self-identify' as liberal are predisposed to x level of intelligence? No. The purpose of the study was to draw conclusions about the relative intelligence of 'conservative' and 'liberal' voters. As the two ideologies are not in opposition, there's not a study. There's just an outright fallacy.

Why do we poll? For the purposes of determining how a sample of 1,000 people will vote? No, the data is weighted, deemed representative and projected onto the whole population. As above, it's fallacious to put conservatism and liberalism at opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are conjoined!

No study such as this has any validity until you first determine how people self-define and how that aligns within the confines of social liberalism, classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, socialism, progressivism, etc. So many of these ideologies have been co-opted, and bastardised beyond all recognition.

The problem is lefties are more likely to do non-STEM related subjects like Art, history, sociology, humanities and so on. So the disciplines that tie in with mathematics are not exactly their forte

At what age is the concept of "a circle" introduced to people, not sure about you, but I definitely came across it well before starting my degree, in a state school none the less, they are getting rather exciting these days I'll have you know, and they do actually teach real things sometimes, such as what a circle is.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If I told you I was from Mars would you believe me? I suspect yes as TSR is where you find the most gullible of students

Says the christian.