[Kanazawa's study] showed that young adults who identified themselves as "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had an average IQ of 95.Evolutionary psychologists certainly have a lot of leeway to explain anything that they see in the data and to pick the explanation that pleases them the most.
"The ability to think and reason endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions. As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognise and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles," Dr Kanazawa said.
Humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends. Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
The study is of young adults. Intelligent young adults might be liberal because they are going to better schools, and schools promote the liberal world view. What happens when these intelligent folks — and they're not that intelligent! — get a little older?
The linked article summarizes the material in the book "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters: From Dating, Shopping, and Praying to Going to War and Becoming a Billionaire-- Two Evolutionary Psychologists Explain Why We Do What We Do." I read that book a while back. It's pretty interesting.
Posts
137 comments:
Gee...I wonder how this evolutionary shrink votes?
Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
Except liberals don't really care about an "indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers".
Christians do. But liberals only pretend to care so they can feel righteous about something.
And I'm always amused that the libtards feel a need to remind everyone that they are smarter.
The liberal credo:
1. IQ is just a social construct. Attempt to suggest that IQ exists, and you're suggesting that there can be innate IQ differences between racial and national groups. You're a racist.
2. Liberals are smarter than conservatives, as evidenced by their higher IQs.
The Left=Smart/Right=Dumb meme is nothing more than masturbation. And unlike the other kind, it actually does cause blindness.
Liberals have few if any children.
If being liberal (or atheist) is genetically determined, the next generation of non-immigrant Americans is going to overwhelmingly conservative.
"What happens when these intelligent folks — and they're not that intelligent! — get a little older?"
First they are indoctrinated for a minimum of 4 years by our society's least wise. Then if they manage to gain some wisdom in spite of that, they evolve into conservatives. Some don't evolve. They deem themselves elites.
What happens when these intelligent folks — and they're not that intelligent! — get a little older?
Churchill said it best. I'm quite sure everyone here knows the quote.
Okay, let's assume a basic validity of the data.
But that only shows how a person percieves themselves. not how they really are.
i mean over at patterico right now i have quote stating that obama considers himself a fiscally conservative blue dog. so one's political self-perception is not the same as one's politics.
Anybody who thinks Lefties are smarter should surf the comment boards at Kos or Puffington or just stop here and read Alpha, Montagne, HD, PB&J, Ritmo, ...
PS It depends on the better school. If they look for good teachers, regardless of political cant, worldview is pretty much up for grabs. If it's someplace that wants to make sure the kid is loved at Haavahd, then they'll push Father Karl and Uncle saul.
What was that last post about arrogance being our doom?
The "intellectual elite" congratulating themselves for how smart they are.
"What happens when these intelligent folks — and they're not that intelligent! — get a little older?"
The smart ones become conservative, 'natch.
The key phrase is "young adults." The brighter ones smell the scent of success: the right attitudes to have and the right things to say to the right people in order to get ahead. You could almost say that that's all young adulthood is about for bright young things. Without a doubt the IQ differential flattens out post age 30.
Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel.
That's enough to make you spit your morning coffee out in laughter.
It is rather endearing to watch these "smart" people write imbecilic things.
Good thing IQ is meaningless.
Else, in a meritocracy, conservatives would be shut out of all the good schools.
Unless there was AA for conservatives.
Liberals have few if any children.
Keep telling yourself this.
Those are very low IQ's. I cannot see that those spreads in scores means anything that the author then speculates so freely upon. A cross breeding of ideas in a border region does seem to select the best methods from many cultural traditions...in other words people adapt by copying others. In the isolated hills, little new ideas take root, while in a city such as NYC much creativity is released by mixing of cultural traditions. Maybe the really smart do that mixing better, but these IQ spreads prove nothing. His argument actually is a complement to the American culture that has absorbed so many so well.
(The Crypto Jew)
When I read “Science” like this I am reminded of the “Scientific Study” in the 19th C. that “Proved” Negro skulls were, on the average, less capacious than Caucasian skulls, and hence Negroes were, on the average, less intelligent, and it was genetic.
Later studies, involving the SAME skulls, and the SAME methodology proved NO SUCH THING, but it made the French dood conducting the experiment and all the little Cedarfords who read it very happy, at the time.
Is it Smug Self Esteem Day again already?
"Being liberal" and "caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers" are not the same thing, much as Kanazawa would like to delude himself otherwise.
and caring about
Spending other people's money is not "caring" no matter how many times you assert it is.
I think it is because in high school being intelligent is not cool, and high schoolers whose identity is centered around their intelligence are under-appreciated in high school, compelling them to form their identities in college, where the prevailing ethos is liberal. An interesting study would be to see if the intelligent cool kids are more liberal or not (only somewhat tongue in cheek).
Doesn't Kanazawa start about the same time as Christmas?
Intelligent young adults might be liberal because they are going to better schools
I cry foul on this one too Ann.
The "better schools" really are nothing but a hotbed of grade inflation and liberal indoctrination.
If liberalism is a *sign* of intelligence then intelligence is overrated. Naturally the good professor massages his data to conform to his delusions. Otherwise how can he explain the gloriousness of North Korea, Cuba and the Soviet Union which after all liberalism taken to it's final conclusion?
Perhaps he ought to study the correlation of liberalism and sanity versus conservatism and sanity. I believe that most people would rather be governed by sane people of average intelligence than by insane people of slightly higher than average intelligence. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Well, at least he didn't say "liberal's."
By the way, if liberals are so smart and conservatives so dumb, how did that hick, stupid, cowboy trick them into voting for the AUMF for Iraq?
How did he trick them into supporting NSA's warrantless surveillance program (remember that brave Sen Rockefeller wrote a letter and stuffed it into his desk?)???
What ricpic said. Try again at age 40 and you'll get a different result.
Scott: Kanazawa is on the west coast of Japan.
"Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel."
Apparently, however, they are not smart enough to notice that their "caring" policies are actually harmful to the intended beneficiaries.
How smart can they be if they can't balance a budget?
Thanks Ann, I needed a good chuckle to start my day!
Um, liberalism, by definition, is an openness to new ideas, is it not? And you can't learn without opening yourself to new ideas. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Scott: Kanazawa is on the west coast of Japan.
Really?
(Note: not "really" as in, 'oh, I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out', but rather, "really", as in, 'wtf did you bother trying to make that correction to an obvious joke')
are you intelligent or stupid if you think your liability insurance covers collision damage to your own car?
Otherwise how can he explain the gloriousness of North Korea, Cuba and the Soviet Union which after all liberalism taken to it's final conclusion?
Similarly the Spanish Inquisition was just the ultimate form of putting Christ's teachings into practice.
Never question your premises and you'll do fine.
Similarly the Spanish Inquisition was just the ultimate form of putting Christ's teachings into practice.
You really are on a roll today. Please show anywhere in "Christ's teachings" where he advocated using the rack, iron maidens, hot pokers, comfy chairs, etc etc.
an obvious joke
Its lameness overwhelmed whatever humor content it had.
Throwing a bone to your libtard readers huh. They will appreciate it.
BTW just the other day, Seven Machos [who is not a libtard] was adamant that IQ can not be measured.
wv= pusna
(The Crypto Jew)
“Caring” is NOT “doing.” I can “Care” a lot, but you could still starve…the point is the doing, and in the doing, on the average-in the US, Conservatives “do” more…for both parochial AND secular charities. Now Dr. Kanazawa might CARE about the hungry and homeless in NYC, or LA, or Seattle or SanFran, but the odds say that it is the Conservative that is DOING something about it…. Again please note, that is ON THE AVERAGE.
Its lameness overwhelmed whatever humor content it had.
Quite possibly as humor is subjective. Your objective attempt at intellectual superiority and the smugness therein is right off the lameness scale.
Scott:
Sure, if you could please show me any liberal prescription for mass extermination, e.g. starving the peasantry.
Ah yes, those caring liberals who cared around 100 million "genetically unrelated strangers" to death in less than a century.
The comments, particularly on threads with the tag "Sarah Palin," provide a counterexample to the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.
A counterexample exists, ergo the conjecture that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives is incorrect and must be rejected.
QED
Otherwise how can he explain the gloriousness of North Korea, Cuba and the Soviet Union which after all liberalism taken to it's final conclusion?
Hey now. Don't be dissing the Bromance the Right has with Vladimir Putin. He's a hunk! He shoots whales from boats, while our leader rides bikes in Moms jeans.
Vladimir Vladimir he's our Man. If he can't do it, NOBODY can!
Comrade X asked:
"are you intelligent or stupid if you think your liability insurance covers collision damage to your own car?"
Could be either- intelligent but uninformed or stupid and uninformed.
I think the President falls in the probably inteligent but definitely uninformed category when it comes to insurance.
(The Crypto Jew)
Um, liberalism, by definition, is an openness to new ideas, is it not? And you can't learn without opening yourself to new ideas. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
“But the point of the story is NOT “liberalism” but “intelligence.” So, indeed, being “liberal” may mean being open to new ideas, HOWEVER, that does not equate to “intelligence” either:
1) Within the frame of the story; and
2) Within the idea of intelligence. It may be a new and novel idea to drink Bleach, and Liberals may be open to new and novel ideas, HOWEVER, it does not follow that drinking Bleach is an INTELLIGENT thing to do.
I read evolutionary pscyhologist (???) and wonder how many x studies course the person took.
I don't know, why do 'progressives' advocate for policies that don't promote 'progress'?
(The Crypto Jew)
Hey now. Don't be dissing the Bromance the Right has with Vladimir Putin. He's a hunk! He shoots whales from boats, while our leader rides bikes in Moms jeans.
Oh, poor Garage, no, the Right does NOT have a “bromance” with Putin…what the Right recognizes that our POTUS wears Mom jeans, and looks like a dork, whilst the Putin Character APPEARS “tougher.” That’s an OBSERVATION, not a Bromance….
Sure, if you could please show me any liberal prescription for mass extermination, e.g. starving the peasantry.
I thought Joe Stalin did that for you already, FLS.
(BTW, good one about Kanazawa.)
No coffee today, FLS? Is that why you're answering my challenge with one of your own?
Weak failsauce.
By this late date, are there any liberal ideas that are really new? Greater state control of the economy and income redistribution are ideas have been around for over 150 years now, why should liberals get credited with "openness to new ideas" for supporting them?
@Scott, I hope you aren't trying to equate conservative with Christian.
What happens when these intelligent folks — and they're not that intelligent! — get a little older?
An IQ of a 106 would make you the dumbest person in my family. (My IQ is more than 30 points higher.) When I was a young adult, I probably would have identified my self as "very liberal" or something like that. But, then I got wiser.
Yes, Fen, the libtards seem to have a tremendous need to boost their self-esteem by claiming to be smarter.
I love the "Being liberal and caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers is evolutionarily novel." piece of crap. How is forcefully taking money from one group and giving it to another group all that "caring"? Look at who gives the most to charities. It's conservatives.
Being a liberal means breaking you arm patting yourself on the back for something you didn't do.
I think the data is likely accurate.
Liberals are more prone to think they know best for others than conservatives, and it may be based on the hubris from having a higher IQ.
They are special don'tchaknow.
Trey
Yea, yea - a bunch of real geniuses you got there.
Hilarious.
@Scott, I hope you aren't trying to equate conservative with Christian.
Not at all. I'm not sure I wrote anything that would lead to that conclusion, but, no.
Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
John Stuart Mill.
Wake me up if evolutionary psychology manages to stumble its way into the 20th century.
FLS, the lefty baby bust has been well documented with good data since at least 2006. Check out reality.
Trey
Um, liberalism, by definition, is an openness to new ideas, is it not?
Is it? Why just new ideas? Do liberals stupidly reject many of the great ideas from the past? Obviously, some do.
Somewhat more seriously, I expect that this is like aptitude for mathematics in men and women. Liberals are smarter on average, but both extremes are conservative.
Also, there are sampling problems with most studies focusing on young adults because college students are almost always over represented in these types of studies. They are very, very easy to find!
Trey
(The Crypto Jew)
Sure, if you could please show me any liberal prescription for mass extermination, e.g. starving the peasantry..
Margaret Sanger certainly had a “Final Solution” for Blacks, Jews, Italians, Poles, and Catholics, didn’t she? It wasn’t just Conservatives that believed in Eugenics or the sterilization of “Mental Defectives.” But if it makes you feel better, by all means ignore your social/intellectual history. Cetainly Liberals had a degree of SYMPATHY for those who DID have a prescription for mass extermination, Anthony Lewis supporting the Khmer Rouge, Noam Chomasky supporting the Khmer Rouge, or Ted Kennedy conspiring with the Soviets in the 1984 Elections.
Use the following words in a sentence:
liberal
humility
Oh, poor Garage, no, the Right does NOT have a “bromance” with Putin…
Au contraire. They love the ex-KGB'er Putin.. Sure you could say conservatives just love a thug like Putin because of their intense burning hatred for the office of President of the United States...
When I was a young adult, I probably would have identified my self as "very liberal" or something like that. But, then I got wiser.
I also got married. I think the only reason I identified as liberal in my youth was to get laid - "hey baby, I believe in world peace too, lets hook up".
I think most youth who identify as liberal are the same - its a brand, a badge for the "cool" tribe that values John Stewart over Barry Goldwater.
Sure you could say conservatives just love a thug like Putin because of their intense burning hatred for the office of President of the United States...
I'd grant you only a severe dislike for the policies he advocates and the perception of what he may believe but doesn't say. I'd likewise grant, on a personal level, severe dislike for a man (president or not) that makes a huge stink about something involving one of his cane-bound friends, then is photographed walking away from helping him down the steps while the very guy he called "stupid" is helping said friend.
That last bit pretty much tells me all I need to know about him personally.
How smart can they be if they can't balance a budget?
Well, they believe in this "Laffer curve" in which if you tax people 0% you get no revenue, but if you tax people 100% you get no revenue, because all the rich people move from Manhattan or Malibu to Ouagadougou. Nobody can draw the Laffer curve, and there is no real data to support it -- it is just part of the Conservative credo.
When people say Conservatives have faith they're not kidding.
(The Crypto Jew)
Well a set of Althouse postings on “Drudgedies” certainly PROVES the point, I guess to YOUR satisfaction…of course you’d probably agree with the “scientific findings” of the good Dr. under discussion. Sorry, short answer BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT, wrong….
But thank you for taking the time to contribute. Please remember o buy something from the Althouse shopping list on your way out.
(The Crypto Jew)
Well, they believe in this "Laffer curve" in which if you tax people 0% you get no revenue, but if you tax people 100% you get no revenue,
Really, so if we tax people at 100% we get revenue? Rich people DON’T migrate, so the examples of NYC, NY and CA are irrelevant. And YOU guys are the smart people?
Well, they believe in this "Laffer curve" in which if you tax people 0% you get no revenue, but if you tax people 100% you get no revenue, because all the rich people move from Manhattan or Malibu to Ouagadougou.
So how much revenue do you get if you tax people at 100%?
As shouting thomas observed, intelligence is just a social construct except in cases where it demonstrates the superior ability of liberals.....I think nearly everyone argues their own self interest and proceeds from there to demonstrate how their argument is a sign of superior intelligence and/or morality.....Capitalists know that they are greedy, but teacher unions think that their contracts are negotiated for the betterment of all humanity. Why are liberals more self deluded than conservatives is the more interesting question?
Use the following words in a sentence:
liberal
humility
A liberal lacks humility.
A liberal lacks humility.
See...you have to have a buffer word in between there. Otherwise, the two anti-words rush together at nearly the speed of light and obliterate each other in a radioactive cloud of non sequitur.
At age 45 the most intelligent liberals would have become conservatives and the least intelligent remained liberals. There is no greater proof of this than the liberals commenting on this blog.
Sure, if you could please show me any liberal prescription for mass extermination, e.g. starving the peasantry.
Sure. History is replete with self described liberals who heaped laurels on the Socialist Paradise that was the Soviet Union. Last time I checked, Walter Duranty's Pulitzer is still there and there are no shortage of liberals who still coo over Castro or proudly wear Che t-shirts.
"former law student said...
Otherwise how can he explain the gloriousness of North Korea, Cuba and the Soviet Union which after all liberalism taken to it's final conclusion?
Similarly the Spanish Inquisition was just the ultimate form of putting Christ's teachings into practice.
Never question your premises and you'll do fine.
12/2/10 9:45 AM"
First, I am not a Christian so I won't comment on Christ's teachings. However to the best of my knowledge Torquemada never claimed that his *version* of Christianity was indicative of higher intelligence unlike the good professor's claim regarding liberalism. As best as I see it, The Inquisition was to insure 'la limpieza de la sangre", the purity of the blood, to insure that Jews and Muslims would not remain in Spain as a sort of counterweight to the Church and as a potential source of problems for the Crown. Pure politics disguised as theology. Just like AGW minus the violence.
The good professor ought to read a book by Ernest Van De Haag published in the late sixties where he argues that European Jews acquired a higher average level of intelligence by encouraging the wealthy to have their daughters marry poor, pious but intelligent religious scholars and be fruitful and multiply. Truly religious people tend to be conservative both then and now.
Religious people tend to be charitable. Liberals, not so much. Liberals believe in compulsion since apparently when given the opportunity to be charitable they need to be compelled to come up with the scratch. You may have heard the term "projection". Thieves think everyone else is a thief. Liberals are really not all the caring and need to be compelled to do so so and therefore they believe everyone else is not capable of being charitable on their own but must also need to be compelled.
They cannot fathom the difference between charity and compulsion or between compassion and compulsion. Apparently generosity is not an inherit part of the liberal soul hence the need to be compelled to be good and do good.
Speaking of never questioning your premises you have beautifully proved my point. Thank you.
I've read portions of Kanazawa's writings and found it to be dreadful science. He takes a thesis that is contrary to the popular opinion and then proceeds to cherry pick research to support that thesis.
In this case, he purpose is even more vain--he's liberal and wants to prove that he's smarter than anyone else. (It becomes a circular argument that he's right because he's smart and he smart because his research shows that he's right.)
The man's a fraud.
Oversimplified explanation of the 'Laffer' curve; increased taxation on an activity tends to blunt that activity or send it underground, resulting in revenue loss to the taxing authority (tax avoidance activities). Decreased taxation (incentive!) tends to increase activity and decreased tax avoidance. Its really a concept that takes human behavior into consideration. Today, we have elites that whine about how to 'pay for' tax cuts...of course, when the time comes to spend, they always know what the real costs will be (cough).
I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to continue to work at a 100% income tax rate, but I guess it's possible that there are liberals who would.
Sure you could say conservatives just love a thug like Putin because of their intense burning hatred for the office of President of the United States...
Or you could say the same thing about liberals love of a thug like Saddam so intense they went to Bagdhad offering themselves as human shields because of thier intense burning hatred for the office of President of the United States
and aren't the liberals saying that the best and the brightest will quit their jobs if you merely freeze their pay for 2 years? no laffer curve there.
@FLS, do you believe that tax revenues will be nonzero at a 100% rate? Then, fine, set the rate to 101%. Even a liberal would not be so stupid as to try to earn taxable revenue when he or she pays out more than is taken in.
After that, the Laffer curve is merely an application of Rolle's Theorem. Please go look up the word "theorem." It cannot be wrong!
The question is where that maximum revenue point lies? If one examined the federal rates in absence of state and local rates, which you seem inclined to do, then the reality that revenues from people earning the top rate when up after the Bush rates went into effect suggests that the maximum is probably about where the Bush administration established them. Counting in state and local taxes, it comes in right around 50%, and sometimes (in deep blue states) well above that for the top taxpayers.
"So how much revenue do you get if you tax people at 100%?"
They'll get none from me, because (being of high IQ) I would not work under those conditions. They'd have to try to force me to at gunpoint, and they would then have a gunfight on their hands. My 12 ga. Remington Model 11 is a real beast.
Only someone of a low IQ (or a communist, many of which have fairly high IQ's but apparently no common sense) would work under a 100% tax rate.
Or you could say the same thing about liberals love of a thug like Saddam so intense they went to Bagdhad offering themselves as human shields because of thier intense burning hatred for the office of President of the United States
Yep, you are right. Peas in a pod.
The study is of young adults. Intelligent young adults might be liberal because they are going to better schools, and schools promote the liberal world view. What happens when these intelligent folks — and they're not that intelligent! — get a little older?
Bingo. I'd also be interested in seeing his sampling methodology.
FLS asked"
". . .show me any liberal prescription for mass extermination."
Right here, pally - "I asked 'well, what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?' and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say 'eliminate,' I mean kill. Twenty-five million people."
That was FBI informant Larry Grathwohl. He was chatting with two creatures calling themselves Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
Who they, you ask? Nobody special. Just dear friends of a politico on the make named Barry Soetoro (I wonder whatever happened to that old racist windbag, anyway?)
But I look forward to your coming explanation of why Ayers and Dohrn aren't liberals.
What kind of article is that? Just a bunch of say-so statements and if you want to know anything about evidence, you have to buy the book?
The most common type of "journalism": Press releases printed as articles.
When I read “Science” like this I am reminded of the “Scientific Study” in the 19th C. that “Proved” Negro skulls were, on the average, less capacious than Caucasian skulls, and hence Negroes were, on the average, less intelligent, and it was genetic. ...
Referring to some possible shenanigans that may have occurred over 100 years ago doesn't refute or prove anything - except desperation on your part. Does it bother you that those things turned out to be true?
'A review of the world literature on brain size and IQ by Rushton [Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: a life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] found that African-descended people (Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3. These brain size differences, containing millions of brain cells and hundreds of millions of synapses, were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106.'
Michael said...
At age 45 the most intelligent liberals would have become conservatives and the least intelligent remained liberals. There is no greater proof of this than the liberals commenting on this blog.
12/2/10 10:21 AM"
Thread winner.
Various people have made the observation about liberalism in youth and conservatism in middle age.
Clemenceau said it best (in my opinion) when he said "if my son is not a communist at eighteen he has no heart, if he is not a conservation at forty he has no brain". Whenever a particularly obnoxious middle age liberal irritates me with the usual tripe I quote them Clemenceau and ask them what is their excuse for being brainless.
In one of the comments above some silly leftists prattles on about the manliness of *former* KGB and communist Vladimir Putin and and goes on with some rant about conservatives hating the unfortunately elected and seemingly metro-sexual current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Actually he doesn't seem to understand the conservatives see communism as a mental imbalance of which there is overwhelming evidence to support such a position. They do however hate the evil the communist bastards do. Che was a masculine man in addition to being a psychotic murderer. Yet liberals think its *cool* to wear T shirts with that bastards likeness on them. Just shows you the moral character and intelligence of liberals. However if one is forced to choose between a masculine communist bastard or a poofy communist bastard, go for the masculine one.
The sissy ones are always in the end the nastier and crueler bastards. They need to be that way to compensate and show their toughness. The manlier ones are more secure in their manhood and can occasionally let a charitable act pass as they won't feel it as an affront to their masculinity. Notice how bitchy some of the more liberal commenters tend to be wherever they post?
(The Crypto Jew)
Referring to some possible shenanigans that may have occurred over 100 years ago doesn't refute or prove anything - except desperation on your part. Does it bother you that those things turned out to be true?
I’m desperate, who knew…I all know is that the guy who packed mustard seeds into skulls “found” that Negro skulls held fewer seeds, but about 100 years later same skulls, same tests showed that the results were clearly UNTRUE.
were hypothesized to underlie the race differences on IQ tests, in which Blacks average an IQ of 85, Whites 100, and East Asians 106.'
So, in YOUR study Blacks have an AVERAGE IQ of 85? So the “average” Black is MILDLY RETARDED to SEVERELY RETARDED? Where do you get your hood dry-cleaned? And do they do a good job? How much does it cost? Is it a Jewish or Chinese laundry?
Nobody can draw the Laffer curve, and there is no real data to support it --
Hysterical.
Do you just enjoy being the buffoon of the comments section?
Nobody can draw the Laffer curve, and there is no real data to support it
Um, the "real data" would be that when taxes are cut, revenues rise.
This has happned every single time it has been tried in American history.
Other than that, there is no data.
Here is an image.
You are a silly joke.
Yep, you are right. Peas in a pod.
Only if you could show any American conservatives hanging out with Putin on his hunting grounds.
Only if you could show any American conservatives hanging out with Putin on his hunting grounds.
Not only would they have to be with Putin on a hunt to make the analogy work, they would need to be right there next to him with a harpoon making sure the evil imperialistic whales don't harm him.
Interesting curve. Can you tell me where we're currently operating on it? I mean in terms of independent and dependent variables.
This curve would be easier to take seriously if Laffer knew that the horizontal axis conventionally was used for the independent variable -- here, tax rates -- while the vertical axis was used for the dependent variable -- here, tax revenues. His swap leaves the impression he's not experienced in plotting data.
Where are the data points on this graph, by the way? Or if the graph is generated by an equation, what's the equation, and how did Laffer derive it?
Of course, Laffer could have simply pulled it out of his ass, but why would conservatives continue to believe in it? For thirty years we've learned that deficits grow when tax rates are cut.
That was FBI informant Larry Grathwohl.
If Larry Grathwohl had any credibility, Ayers and Dohrn would have been prosecuted over thirty years ago for the SF police station bombing. Find another source.
Lets see...
435 House reps
100 Senators
1 President
9 Justices
-or-
The first 545 names in the Boston phone book.
(Buckley used a derivative of this to illustrate his preference for being governed by regular people rather than Harvard elites)
Navin Johnson for Office!!!
For thirty years we've learned that deficits grow when tax rates are cut.
Actually deficits grow when spending increases. Federal revenue increased under the Bush tax cuts. Unfortunately federal spending increased in excess of the increased revenue.
Find another source.
Again, check out the photos from any anti-war protest from the last decade and you won't see any shortage of hammer and sickle flags and Che t-shirts.
(The Crypto Jew)
FLS, I believe that Ayers admits he was guilty but released on a technicality….
For thirty years we've learned that deficits grow when tax rates are cut.
Really?
Do you mean like this?
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
Or would you like me to post the article on revenues surging after Clinton signed the cap gains tax cut?
Again, you must enjoy being the resident buffoon.
Your ignorance is comical and tragic.
For thirty years we've learned that deficits grow when tax rates are cut.
Actually, what we have learned is that in order for tax cuts to pass, the Democrats need to be bribed with more spending programs.
Spending programs which baloon the defiict.
This curve would be easier to take seriously if
I love how you've gone from pretendnig there was no drawing to this.
Again, you're a buffoon.
"Except liberals don't really care about an "indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers".
"Christians do."
Which is one reason why Christianity, as practiced and preached by Jesus Christ, was and is such a radical philosophy, and why Christianity, if actually practiced (as preached by Christ) by all those who claim to be Christian, would be reviled as a far left theology by the arch right.
I can't claim we liberals are smarter than the average (conservative) bear--lacking as I do the necessary statistical modeling and analyses and what not even though I'd like to believe it's so--but I will claim we're better looking and snappier dressers.
And we smell better.
And we're stronger.
And have better taste in...everything!
That whole study is specious. I have an IQ of 153, Don Imus has one of 164, and Richard Feynman, generally regarded as the world's greatest particle physicist after Einstein, had one of 127. ("To think I have done so much with so little!") Don and I will be discovering the ultimate secretes of quantum mechanics any day now....
Fen:
"And I'm always amused that the libtards feel a need to remind everyone that they are smarter."
Yes, as in sharp as a tack but dumb as a door-knob.
FLS - you ask for liberals advocating mass murder. I gave you an example. I expected you to waffle with a "well, they're not REALLY liberals because blah, blah, blah. . ." Instead, your blithe dismissal is that because Bill "guilty as sin, free as a bird" Ayers is still walking the streets, it impeaches Granwohl's recollection? Since he "wasn't prosecuted," it naturally follows that he couldn't have made the 'kill 25 million' comment?
THAT's the best you've got? Really?
Thank you. Now I can add you to Jeremy, Garage, Ritmo and the rest of the gang whose comments can be scrolled by without missing anything substantive.
Libertarians are vastly more intelligent on average than either Liberals or Conservatives.
That's why the obviously biased Mr. Kanazawa chose to exclude them from his study.
Liberals are idiots too, they're just idiotic in different ways from Conservatives. Both feel the atavistic need to control others that is the hallmark of persons with lower intelligence. This proves that Libertarians are clearly intellectually superior.
Okay, deep breath, the above is PARODY, but then so are these foolish "studies" that show Liberals to be more intelligent, more wise, more emotionally balanced, et cetera. And Libertarians really are more intelligent than Liberals, something which as a non-Libertarian I nonetheless get a real kick out of.
What these studies really show is that Liberals are narcissistic and insecure, which is why they feel the need to constantly publish these ridiculous academic totems to reinforce the myth of their intellectual superiority.
I apologize in advance if I repeat someone above, but in a hurry and won't get to read the thread until later.
The author made a classical mistake by claiming that liberals are smarter than conservatives based on self-identification of young people taking a test for him.
One bit problem off the top is that even given his statistical results, the conclusion he drew is not supported by his data. He is generalizing too much. At best he could say that young people who self-identify as liberal are smarter than those who don't. Nothing more.
Why? For one thing, many people become more conservative as they age. Winston Churchill had a famous quote along this line. Some of my most liberal friends from decades ago have moved significantly to the right, esp. after the election of President Obama.
Secondly, let's look at those young adults. College education is highly correlated these days with IQ, and college campuses are one of the most liberally orthodox locations in this country. There is significant peer and adult pressure on most college campuses to watch Stewart and Colbert, and back all the liberal causes. Hasn't changed much since I was in college, and many of my school marched against the war in Vietnam.
But, does that mean that many of us am less intelligent because we are now fairly conservative? Hardly. An awful lot of people, including many of the brightest, move right as they age and discover that actions have consequences, that governments by men are inevitably corrupt and corrupting, and that the ruled are always smarter than the rulers as a group because there are so many more of them.
I'm very conservative and I have an IQ of 142. So there.
/it obviously doesn't matter
"This curve would be easier to take seriously if Laffer knew that the horizontal axis conventionally was used for the independent variable -- here, tax rates -- while the vertical axis was used for the dependent variable -- here, tax revenues. His swap leaves the impression he's not experienced in plotting data."
The one and only time I saw Laffer explain the curve he drew it according to your tastes. He also pointed out that the only thing he was sure about this "curve" were the values of the endpoints. But if it'll make you feel better, switch the axes (Einstein would understand) and call it the Crimso curve. How is it now different?
So, if IQ tests are valid now, can we use them in regards to race?
Well, they believe in this "Laffer curve" in which if you tax people 0% you get no revenue, but if you tax people 100% you get no revenue, because all the rich people move from Manhattan or Malibu to Ouagadougou. Nobody can draw the Laffer curve, and there is no real data to support it -- it is just part of the Conservative credo.
Working backwards, there is some empirical data, and it looks like the optimal rates is likely below, and not above, where we are right now.
Getting back to the assertion above. It starts with an admission that the Laffer curve exists, but then makes fun of it.
When you set the marginal tax rate at 0%, you will get no tax revenue. And, not surprisingly, 100% doesn't bring in much more. Some will be willing to work soley for the government, but not most. And, so, I think that most would agree that 10% tax rate will bring in more money than a 0% tax rate (and likely more than a 5% rate). Ditto with a 90% rate over a 100%, because at least they get to keep ten cents on a dollar. So, we have four relative points on the curve. And, it is likely at that a 50% rate will bring in more money than either a 10% or a 90%. It is likely that the disincentive effect of leaving someone with 50% instead of 90% of his earnings is swamped by the 5x difference in tax rates.
So, we probably have 5 points, with the result that it is likely that tax revenue in relation to tax rates is likely:
0% < 5% < 10% < 50% > 90% > 100%
Sure looks to me like there is a curve there underlying those data points.
The other reason that I think that many of those who deny the Laffer Curve most vociferously, are just as willing to utilize tax incentives for things that they want to push, such as, for example, green energy, recycling, owning a home, hiring the disadvantaged, etc. And, that is an admission that tax policy can, and does, affect behavior. But they never bother to explain why they believe that tax incentives and disincentives work, but not overall marginal tax rates.
Um, liberalism, by definition, is an openness to new ideas, is it not?
It is not, at least not politically. By it's traditional meaning, it was championing the individual's rights. From "liber", meaning free.
It's been perverted in the last century to mean the exact opposite: championing the state's right to enslave the individual.
There was a window in there where liberals were actually radical free-thinkers, like Jefferson, but it's not inherent.
Nor is there any inherent aspect of conservatism that makes one closed to new ideas, just wary of implementation.
This "caring about others" is simply drivel. It's the same old tyranny that has afflicted human civilization for 10,000 years. Liberals just think their tyranny is somehow better.
if you tax people 0% you get no revenue, but if you tax people 100% you get no revenue
Not "no revenue"; less revenue than you would get at a lower tax rate. This isn't disputed by any credible economist on either side of the aisle; the debate is over what the revenue-maximizing tax rate is before the rate of tax evasion and refusal to work cancels out the marginal gains from higher rates. Most credible economists agree that we aren't past that point yet, as so raising taxes will raise revenue too.
Consider, for example, that if you raise taxes from 98% to 99% that's a 1.02% marginal increase in revenue... but a 50% reduction in take-home pay for the person you're taxing.
liberalism, by definition, is an openness to new ideas
If that's true, why hasn't the political left had a new idea in our lifetimes?
Where are the data points on this graph, by the way? Or if the graph is generated by an equation, what's the equation, and how did Laffer derive it?
Laffer's curve doesn't need a functional form to be valid. Quantum mechanics would be true even if Shroedinger never developed his equation.
Not "no revenue"; less revenue than you would get at a lower tax rate.
...at 100% taxation.
I've often wondered about this part of the argument. Not having much in the way of economics chops beyond lay understanding, it doesn't seem plausible that anyone would work at 100% taxation. Why would you? You get absolutely zero $$$ for your labor. If you're a government employee, they may as well not even pay you because the exact same amount of money goes from being an accounts-payable directly to an accounts-receivable.
If you tax 100%, you leave nobody any money on any check to cash or deposit. Thus, there is no money to pay back. How do you make "less money" at 100% taxation?
Most credible economists agree that we aren't past that point yet, as so raising taxes will raise revenue too.
I don't think that's true. I mean about most credible economists (as opposed to "most people who call themselves economists."
For thirty years we've learned that deficits grow when tax rates are cut.
Really?
In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was signed by President Clinton
The bill:
---Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
---Created a new $500 child tax credit;
----Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
And what happned?
By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.
And what happened?
The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000
And what happened?
September 27, 2000
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion
Look, you don't like capitalism. I get it. And you clearly don't like facts.
But your drivel is nothing but that. Drivel.
If that's true, why hasn't the political left had a new idea in our lifetimes?
Well, I don't know how old you are, but they did go from preaching doom about global cooling, to preaching doom about global warming, to preaching doom about "climate change."
Does that count?
Kanazawa likes to yank chains. NTTAWWT. E.g., his recent stuff on Asians' lack of creativity. On the other hand...
"The ability to think and reason endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions. As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognise and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles," Dr Kanazawa said.
...does this even make sense? In what way is the ability to recognize the novelty in "novel entities and situations", and coming up with non-innate solutions, the same thing as "recognizing" novel "preferences, values, and lifestyles"? Huh? Is anybody out there, smart or stupid, having trouble "recognizing" the novelty of certain preferences, values, and lifestyles?
Caring about an "indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers" may be evolutionarily novel, but it's only one unusually question-begging "solution" to a "problem" that can be approached from any number of conflicting viewpoints, any of which could be supplied with an equally plausible Darwinian justification.
And as Fen pointed out, Christians came up with it first, and I thought they were the stupid ones.
I'm tired of people who think they are smart because of their beliefs.
I believe I'm smart. My mommy says so too. What do you say to that?
Hah. My mom can beat up your mom.
Doubtful. My mom beat up Chuck Norris' mom. thhppt
Oh, uh...
I got nothin'.
If liberals are the ones so quick to insist they are more intelligent, why is the only the conservative commenters here who are posting their IQs?
I think the only reason I identified as liberal in my youth was to get laid - "hey baby, I believe in world peace too, lets hook up".
Geez Fen. How can anyone be sure that your penis isn't still telling you how and what to think?
Well, I don't know how old you are, but they did go from preaching doom about global cooling, to preaching doom about global warming, to preaching doom about "climate change." Does that count?
No. Firstly because the Earth really does appear to be warming, and human activity really is the most likely culprit, and these things are true even if you aren't left-wing.
Secondly, because "humans are destroying the Earth and massive government intervention is necessary to stop it" has been shibboleth of the political left for over a century. When science agrees that humans are doing harm, they seize on that as support. When science disputes their claims, they condemn the scientists.
why is the only the conservative commenters here who are posting their IQs?
Anyone smart enough to locate the number keys on their keyboard can claim whatever IQ they want. For example, my IQ is 448, so you should probably all just admit I'm right about everything and stop arguing.
"...preaching doom about global cooling..."
@Jay, I challenge you to back this up. However, before you do, I'll just paste a response to one of Pat McIlheran's similarly poorly researched suppositions:
"There was never a scientific consensus of global cooling in the '70s. This is another of those denier tools that has been resoundingly debunked and just refuses to die. The coming ice age story was one put forth by popular media, specifically alarmist articles in Newsweek and Time magazines, not the scientific community. According to a survey of peer-reviewed papers on the subject (Peterson 2008: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) there were a total of 68 papers published in scientific journals from 1965 through 1979 dealing directly with the subject. Of those, 7 predected (sic) cooling, 42 warming and 19 were neutral. I'm pretty sure I spot the consensus. I strongly encourage you to follow the link; it's an easy read and the stats are grade-school level."
jimspice--
There's no scientific consensus now, either. Just media hype backed by a lot of people who receive a lot of money to come up with answers supporting this theory.
@Blake -- I could point out literature reviews of peer-reviewed articles for the '90s and '00s similar to the one referenced above that would demonstrate the clear consensus for AGW, but I'm fairly certain that would not convince you.
See, that's how science works. You have to state what condition, if met, would invalidate your theory. I'm pretty sure you have no such condition for your stance.
I'm pretty sure you have no such condition for your stance.
You'd be wrong. I basically only need good, repeatable prediction.
AGW is meaningless. "The whole world is getting warmer and it's because of Man and it's bad so we have to have governments clamp down on human activity" is not a scientific statement. It gets no more scientific if you replace "is getting warmer" with "climate is changing".
That four part statement:
1. The world is getting warmer
2. It's because of Man
3. It's bad
4. Governments need more power
is only part of the zeitgeist at all because of #4.
I find the data for #1 suspect. I find the conclusions for #2 somewhat dubious and significant only for setting up #3 and #4.
#3 is the kicker. It's a value judgment. Science says "It is." never "It's bad." That's a philosophical argument. And I think it's wrong. The world could stand to be several degrees warmer, at least for human comfort and prosperity.
Even so, #4 is the point. It's always the point. That's why you have Manhattan under 20 feet of water, worst hurricanes ever, and other ridiculous statements that no real scientist would agree with.
Meanwhile, you want to debate #1 or even #2, okay. Be prepared to document the conditions under which the data was collected, and to rigorously justify the modifications done to the data. It'll be boring and pointless much like this comment, because without points #3 and #4, who cares?
But until these guys successfully predict something, we might as well be discussing phrenology or astrology.
Liberals aren't more intelligent--only more delusional. I would say to be a liberal one would have to suspend all logic. As for evolution, ask the non-believer in a supreme being where the matter came from if we're all made of matter. Even matter has to have an origin.
Post a Comment