• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

are conservatives dumb?

of a quarter million results, here are the first few unique results from the query "liberals smarter than conservatives?":

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818 (number 2)

based on responses in this thread, conservatives just want to dismiss the question itself rather than address it's substance and the implications of it. if you reverse the phrase, you still get basically the same results (on page one at least), except for one op-ed piece by WordlNetDaily, which i skimmed and contains fallacies.

that said, even with the data showing what they show, there are a number of grounds you could attack the results of these studies on...
 
Last edited:
dmcheatw said:
of a quarter million results, here are the first few unique results from the query "liberals smarter than conservatives?":

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818 (number 2)

based on responses in this thread, conservatives just want to dismiss the question itself rather than address it's substance and the implications of it. if you reverse the phrase, you still get basically the same results (on page one at least), except for one op-ed piece by WordlNetDaily, which i skimmed and contains fallacies.

that said, even with the data showing what they show, there are a number of grounds you could attack the results of these studies on...
Click to expand...

Being a Gump-level simpleton, my head went to 'scoreboard' while reading this thread (e.g., if one were to proxy comprehensive intelligence with income, net worth, job level, etc.), which got me wondering what such a scoreboard would show if used to compare the average Dem voter with the average 'Pub voter (adjusting for factors such as age, etc.). I truly have no idea. But I did query the web goodle about Tea Party intelligence, income, etc. and this interesting Times article popped up. (which actually led to another question... why is the web goodle the same on both the Firefox web and the Chrome web... are they the same web somehow??!? Maybe I'll drop that into the Pit and see if anyone can help me understand it better) --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
 
and based on the split of red/blue states, i'd guess you'd find that libs earn more on the whole.
 
deacphan said:
and based on the split of red/blue states, i'd guess you'd find that libs earn more on the whole.
Click to expand...

You'd have to somehow adjust for COLA-based income differentials.. but the larger point was to link the Times article. Evidently the TP has experienced a significant demographic downgrade since 2010...
 
deacphan said:
and based on the split of red/blue states, i'd guess you'd find that libs earn more on the whole.
Click to expand...

I'd take that bet, and probably win it on the median, if not also the mean.
 
beatrix said:
You'd have to somehow adjust for COLA-based income differentials.. but the larger point was to link the Times article. Evidently the TP has experienced a significant demographic downgrade since 2010...
Click to expand...

adjusting for cola kills libs.
 
Something I've been thinking about lately is that I see a large number of Republicans using buzz words which have subjective meaning in an attempt to support their arguments. There really isn't much being provided in the way of substance from the Republican party these days. I realize that it's easier to just sit back and obstruct the other party from achieving anything, but at the end of the day that's not really constructive, nor does it help get you back into a position of power where you can again begin to make policy.

I touched on this on another thread, but a popular talking point right now with Obama is that he doesn't know how to lead. "Leadership" is a completely subjective term where the metrics for it can be changed entirely depending on who you ask. JMHD brings up another good one on this thread with "effort." We need people to "try harder" to get what they want to pick themselves up. If people are poor it must be because they aren't trying hard enough. As if effort is a perfect proxy for employment status, income, and socio-economic status.

Lowering taxes is another decent example of this but more to the extent that it's such a broad comment that it doesn't really specifically address, well, anything. We need more jobs created in America, well it's simple - lower taxes. And then what happens? What happens after we lower taxes? We can't get taxes low enough to compete with outsourcing a job. Same with the minimum wage argument. We need lower minimum wage! Or we need to keep the minimum wage the same (without adjusting for inflation) otherwise jobs will go overseas! Or even better, we should let the market determine what the lowest wage earners should be paid so we can compete internationally. The truth is that we can never get the costs of domestic jobs low enough to compete with outsourcing to Bangladesh. Regulation is necessary because industries simply do not or will not self-regulate.

These buzz words make it easy to sound like there are solutions: "try harder," "lead better," and "lower taxes" for a better American economy, government, and society. But let's be honest, these aren't actual solutions, these are just subjective terms which can be altered by Republicans so that any plan offered by a party that is not the Republican party can be shot down as not meeting these metrics. Let's call a spade a spade.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Something I've been thinking about lately is that I see a large number of Republicans using buzz words which have subjective meaning in an attempt to support their arguments. There really isn't much being provided in the way of substance from the Republican party these days. I realize that it's easier to just sit back and obstruct the other party from achieving anything, but at the end of the day that's not really constructive, nor does it help get you back into a position of power where you can again begin to make policy.

I touched on this on another thread, but a popular talking point right now with Obama is that he doesn't know how to lead. "Leadership" is a completely subjective term where the metrics for it can be changed entirely depending on who you ask. JMHD brings up another good one on this thread with "effort." We need people to "try harder" to get what they want to pick themselves up. If people are poor it must be because they aren't trying hard enough. As if effort is a perfect proxy for employment status, income, and socio-economic status.

Lowering taxes is another decent example of this but more to the extent that it's such a broad comment that it doesn't really specifically address, well, anything. We need more jobs created in America, well it's simple - lower taxes. And then what happens? What happens after we lower taxes? We can't get taxes low enough to compete with outsourcing a job. Same with the minimum wage argument. We need lower minimum wage! Or we need to keep the minimum wage the same (without adjusting for inflation) otherwise jobs will go overseas! Or even better, we should let the market determine what the lowest wage earners should be paid so we can compete internationally. The truth is that we can never get the costs of domestic jobs low enough to compete with outsourcing to Bangladesh. Regulation is necessary because industries simply do not or will not self-regulate.

These buzz words make it easy to sound like there are solutions: "try harder," "lead better," and "lower taxes" for a better American economy, government, and society. But let's be honest, these aren't actual solutions, these are just subjective terms which can be altered by Republicans so that any plan offered by a party that is not the Republican party can be shot down as not meeting these metrics. Let's call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

woah dude. that's racist.

also, methinks you put in far too much effort on a post in the "are conservatives dumb?" thread.
 
Yeah I don't know if an obsession with buzz words while providing no substance qualifies as dumb or not. It's smart to the degree that they don't have to do anything and will continue to get elected, but dumb to the degree that they don't ever get anything passed, aren't likely to stay in power for long periods of time, and will never have full control of Congress until they actually propose substantive legislation.
 
have you heard of the essay/book "don't think of an elephant?" that's what it's basically about. here's a brief synopsis from amazon:

Don't Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.

In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.

Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests.

Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.

Read it, take action—and help take America back.
 
I haven't read that book by Lakoff, but have read Metaphors We Live By (which I believe is by Lakoff). That looks really interesting though and well worth a read.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Something I've been thinking about lately is that I see a large number of Republicans using buzz words which have subjective meaning in an attempt to support their arguments. There really isn't much being provided in the way of substance from the Republican party these days. I realize that it's easier to just sit back and obstruct the other party from achieving anything, but at the end of the day that's not really constructive, nor does it help get you back into a position of power where you can again begin to make policy.

I touched on this on another thread, but a popular talking point right now with Obama is that he doesn't know how to lead. "Leadership" is a completely subjective term where the metrics for it can be changed entirely depending on who you ask. JMHD brings up another good one on this thread with "effort." We need people to "try harder" to get what they want to pick themselves up. If people are poor it must be because they aren't trying hard enough. As if effort is a perfect proxy for employment status, income, and socio-economic status.

Lowering taxes is another decent example of this but more to the extent that it's such a broad comment that it doesn't really specifically address, well, anything. We need more jobs created in America, well it's simple - lower taxes. And then what happens? What happens after we lower taxes? We can't get taxes low enough to compete with outsourcing a job. Same with the minimum wage argument. We need lower minimum wage! Or we need to keep the minimum wage the same (without adjusting for inflation) otherwise jobs will go overseas! Or even better, we should let the market determine what the lowest wage earners should be paid so we can compete internationally. The truth is that we can never get the costs of domestic jobs low enough to compete with outsourcing to Bangladesh. Regulation is necessary because industries simply do not or will not self-regulate.

These buzz words make it easy to sound like there are solutions: "try harder," "lead better," and "lower taxes" for a better American economy, government, and society. But let's be honest, these aren't actual solutions, these are just subjective terms which can be altered by Republicans so that any plan offered by a party that is not the Republican party can be shot down as not meeting these metrics. Let's call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

Not sure it will be easy to outmaneuver the Dem's accusing the opposing party of committing "domestic terrorism" and "hostage-taking". That's a pretty solid effort at rhetoric that outkicks its factual coverage.
 
beatrix said:
Being a Gump-level simpleton, my head went to 'scoreboard' while reading this thread (e.g., if one were to proxy comprehensive intelligence with income, net worth, job level, etc.), which got me wondering what such a scoreboard would show if used to compare the average Dem voter with the average 'Pub voter (adjusting for factors such as age, etc.). I truly have no idea. But I did query the web goodle about Tea Party intelligence, income, etc. and this interesting Times article popped up. (which actually led to another question... why is the web goodle the same on both the Firefox web and the Chrome web... are they the same web somehow??!? Maybe I'll drop that into the Pit and see if anyone can help me understand it better) --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

i never argued that the TP was less educated than the general public...

if you guys could frame what i wrote correctly, we could then discuss its merits.

Intelligence =/= to education, and besides, I'd bet major money the education the TP has is not in social sciences, at all. these fields include politics, economics, communications, and sociology...the fields most relevant to governing and informed voting.
 
How is domestic terrorism a buzz word? It's very easily explainable: the Republicans are holding Congress hostage by refusing to negotiate in good faith. The result is that we cannot reach an agreement on the debt ceiling and we cannot reach an agreement on the partial government shutdown. As a direct result, America is suffering economic harm intentionally at the hands of the House GOP. That's not a buzz word at all.

Obama showing a "failure to lead" is a buzz word. By what metric do you judge someone's "leadership?"
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
How is domestic terrorism a buzz word? It's very easily explainable: the Republicans are holding Congress hostage by refusing to negotiate in good faith. The result is that we cannot reach an agreement on the debt ceiling and we cannot reach an agreement on the partial government shutdown. As a direct result, America is suffering economic harm intentionally at the hands of the House GOP. That's not a buzz word at all.

Obama showing a "failure to lead" is a buzz word. By what metric do you judge someone's "leadership?"
Click to expand...

"hostage-taking" isn't a buzzword? "failure to lead" is, "not negotiating in (subjective, subjective, subjective..) 'good faith'" isn't? Funny, your definition of what is and what isn't hinges directly on whether your side is using it (or defending it).

I'm pretty sure there is a reasonable case (known to some of us as "math") for not spending more money when you're $17T in a hole without a plan to even begin to pay it back. That's not an unreasonable position to take (frankly, the opposing position is far less reasonable). There's plenty of good faith to be found if you're honest enough to look for it.

If.
 
Last edited:
i like this "if" thing you do. it's very clever.

it's.
 
jhmd2000 said:
"hostage-taking" isn't a buzzword? "failure to lead" is, "not negotiating in (subjective, subjective, subjective..) 'good faith'" isn't? Funny, your definition of what is and what isn't hinges directly on whether your side is using it (or defending it).

I'm pretty sure there is a reasonable case (known to some of us as "math") for not spending more money when you're $17T in a hole without a plan to even begin to pay it back. That's not an unreasonable position to take (frankly, the opposing position is far less reasonable). There's plenty of good faith to be found if you're honest enough to look for it.

If.
Click to expand...

Well the reason terms like "negotiate in good faith" are being used by the left in this case is because Republicans are framing the discussion around Obama's willingness to negotiate period. The battle cry is "Obama won't negotiate." The counter is that Republicans are negotiating, but they are not negotiating in good faith, meaning that they are coming to the table just to say LOOK WE'RE HERE, but have absolutely no plans to reach an agreement with compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top