Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
I know there are are some smart conservatives who have rightist views. But my point is, OVERALL, the more educated you get, the more you travel and see the real world, the more liberal you get. The data is overwhelming.
The right wing has NEVER done anything to help working people. Name an example.
I know there are are some smart conservatives who have rightist world views. But my point is, OVERALL, the more educated you get, the more you travel and see the real world, the more liberal you get. The data is overwhelming.
Give it up! You are simply attempting to "bootstrap" your self-perception.
The mere fact that you would bring it up shows your insecurity with your reality.
I know there are are some smart conservatives who have rightist world views. But my point is, OVERALL, the more educated you get, the more you travel and see the real world, the more liberal you get. The data is overwhelming.
really? you keep saying that. yet in the article you posted, the same author refuted what he said. your reply? idiot?
While it is consistent with the prediction of the Hypothesis, the conclusion in my previous post that liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives may not resonate with most people’s daily observations and experiences. If they are more intelligent, why are liberals – especially those in Hollywood and academia – so much more likely than conservatives to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous beliefs and ideas that stretch credibility?
Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation. In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals and other intelligent people may be “clever sillies,” who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning to social and interpersonal domains. As I explain in an earlier post, general intelligence – the ability to think and reason – likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems, whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems, there are other dedicated evolved psychological mechanisms. Everyone – intelligent or not – is evolutionarily equipped with the ability to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems in the social and interpersonal domains as mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal relationships, with the other evolved psychological mechanisms. Charlton suggests that the totality of all the other evolved psychological mechanisms (except for general intelligence) represents what we normally call “common sense.” Everyone has common sense. Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result get things wrong. In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are supposed to feel. In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
I personally dislike Charlton’s term “clever sillies” – I don’t like the British usage of both words: “clever” and “silly.” But otherwise I completely agree with his analysis substantively. As Charlton points out, common sense is eminently evolutionarily familiar. Our ancestors could not have survived a single day in their hostile environment full of predators and enemies if they did not possess functional common sense. That’s why it has become integral part of evolved human nature in the form of evolved psychological mechanisms in the social and interpersonal domains. Because common sense is evolutionarily familiar and thus natural, the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent people may be less likely to resort to it. They may be more likely to resort to evolutionarily novel, non-common sensical, stupid ideas to solve problems in the evolutionarily familiar domains.
I know there are are some smart conservatives who have rightist world views. But my point is, OVERALL, the more educated you get, the more you travel and see the real world, the more liberal you get. The data is overwhelming.
Hardly....
Started as a conservative at 15 years of age. Joined the navy, saw 33 different countries, got my masters, and I'm more conservative now. FYI, you won't believe this but my IQ is 147.
I refer to Winston Churchill now, he said those who are not liberal when young have no heart and those who are conservative when they are older have no brain.
Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange. The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought.
Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange. The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought.
Why do modern day conservatives oppose this?
here's why .. idiot ..
what's your astrological sign? Uranus rising? ahahahaha
see how stupid you are? yeah .. we knew that. now go away
In current events, primarily because Liberals keep providing examples of failed applications of their self-perceived intellectual superiority .... example:
....."Obamacare"!
(Although there is beginning to be some evidence even the Liberals believed it would not work in the long run ....It would have implemented sooner. If not, they are less than "less intelligent"! The Federal regulation of health care coverage is a disaster!)
Gruber pretty much nailed the Liberal ignorance. The Conservatives knew it wouldn't!
Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange. The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought.
Why do modern day conservatives oppose this?
That's a false premise, sucker. Your erroneous conceit that all change is for the better is both bogus and wrong, sucker. Nazism and communism were "revolutions in human thought" that were successfully resisted by conservatives who didn't want that version of "hope and change", sucker. Meanwhile, "hope and change" suckers like you abandoned both their reason and their liberty to find succor in embracing an Orwellian state.
Started as a conservative at 15 years of age. Joined the navy, saw 33 different countries, got my masters, and I'm more conservative now. FYI, you won't believe this but my IQ is 147.
I refer to Winston Churchill now, he said those who are not liberal when young have no heart and those who are conservative when they are older have no brain.
That's a false premise, sucker. Your erroneous conceit that all change is for the better is both bogus and wrong, sucker. Nazism and communism were "revolutions in human thought" that were successfully resisted by conservatives who didn't want that version of "hope and change", sucker. Meanwhile, "hope and change" suckers like you abandoned both their reason and their liberty to find succor in embracing an Orwellian state.
Meanwhile, his fellow lyin libs like EKIM, assup piggy mamboolah and flighty seek SUCKEES for succor and sucking !
That's a false premise, sucker. Your erroneous conceit that all change is for the better is both bogus and wrong, sucker. Nazism and communism were "revolutions in human thought" that were successfully resisted by conservatives who didn't want that version of "hope and change", sucker. Meanwhile, "hope and change" suckers like you abandoned both their reason and their liberty to find succor in embracing an Orwellian state.
+1
Too bad sucker is not intelligent enough to reply. She has no understanding of the history of Nazism or communism - or how similar those two "isms" were. People like sucker are just waiting like suckers for the next totalitarian to swoop in and seduce them with false promises and lies. Sucker is not intelligent enough to have read Orwell. She will wake up one day in Big Brother's embrace and won't even know what happened.
Poor sucker likes to start ignorant threads but she lacks the intelligence to engage in rational debate. She claims conservatives oppose science and reason. When she is refuted by examples of how liberals ignore science, notice how she is unable to reply at all:
Poor sucker is too stupid to see that her own posts (and her failure to post when confronted with controverting evidence) refute the title of her own thread!
Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange. The Enlightenment was a revolution in human thought.
Why do modern day conservatives oppose this?
I believe it is liberal college students who demand safe places so that they can avoid different points of view. Liberals also support political correctness to shut down dead debate. It is the liberal that hides from enlightenment.
Whether you are conservative, progressive, centrist, theist or atheist, we are all people who should care about one another. We cannot have a President Trump, who purely cares for himself and no others. (That being the first of his numerous disqualifications.)
Presidents from both major parties, whether you agree with policies or not, have all tried to serve the people. Trump is a unique case of extremely dangerous narcissism. Time to put politics aside and be real human for a moment.
Whether you are conservative, progressive, centrist, theist or atheist, we are all people who should care about one another. We cannot have a President Trump, who purely cares for himself and no others. (That being the first of his numerous disqualifications.)
Presidents from both major parties, whether you agree with policies or not, have all tried to serve the people. Trump is a unique case of extremely dangerous narcissism. Time to put politics aside and be real human for a moment.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but you haven't thought everything through. Here is just one obvious example - who do you think CARES more about us - the candidate who would continue to allow drugs to flood our country and ravage and kill our young people, or the candidate who wants to curtail it by building a wall and deporting illegal gangbangers and Mexican drug cartel thugs?
Or try this one... who do think CARES about our national security? Is it the candidate who admitted she let politics guide her opposition to the surge in Iraq (see Bob Gates' memoirs)? Is it the candidate who knowingly lied to us and blamed Benghazi on a youtube video to protect her boss' political hide? Is it the candidate who handed over control of much of the world's uranium supply to Vladimir Putin in return for donations to her foundation (see link)?
