Posted on August 30, 2011 by Benjamin David Steele
I was hanging out with a friend and chatting about important issues of life… such as the existence of Men In Black and the nature of Fortean realities. Ya know, important issues.
My friend mentioned an author he had come across who described his own supposed experiences with Men In Black. He portrayed them as being not all that troublesome. He apparently thought one’s relationship with them could be managed. Just tell them to quit causing trouble and they’d settle down or something like that.
As I recall, this wasn’t how John Keel portrayed the Men In Black. Keel didn’t necessarily see them as dangerous or at least not intentionally dangerous, but they could really mess with one’s head and turn one’s world upside down. However, maybe they can be ‘managed’ in the sense that the less you pay attention to them the less they tend to pay to you.
That is the theory, anyway… not that I have any personal experience of the Men In Black. But in other ways, I’ve had my share of weird experiences in my life. I don’t speculate about it much beyond accepting that the world is a very strange place. If you’re lucky or unlucky (depending on your perspective), the strangeness might peek out at you at some point in your own life. When such happens, it does make one question one’s assumptions about reality.
My friend was explaining that reading about such things just makes him feel disoriented and it seems he didn’t see this as a good thing. I understood where he was coming from. I responded by explaining my own view. As I see it, the universe is vast. Most of the universe is alien to and indifferent to us humans. We are a minor species on a tiny planet in one insignificant corner of the universe. Even on the planet earth, we humans aren’t as important as we like to pretend. For the most part, the vast world beyond human society serves no purpose for human society. There might be little if anything to gain from interacting with Men In Black or exploring Fortean realities. No matter how hard you try, you probably never will understand any of it. Besides, most people don’t seem to care about the world beyond their private little world of family, friends and co-workers… nor are there many good arguments for why they necessarily should care.
On the other hand, if you’re a curious person, it’s hard to ignore curious things. And if the Men In Black come knocking at your door, they apparently can be very hard to ignore. Sure, all things Fortean may not serve any human purpose. But then again, one could argue that nothing in life serves any ultimate purpose besides the purpose we give it. I guess it comes down to each person having to figure out their own purpose, their own priorities and motivations. If your purpose is to be a rational scientist or a good Christian, then maybe you should just ignore all the weird stuff if possible. Just carry on as if everything were normal. But for some of us, we just aren’t good at ignoring the inconvenient and uncomfortable details of existence.
I’m such a person. I agree that it all can be disorienting. But so what? Life is disorienting. We all go along confused in our own heads. Some of us admit to this confusion and others spend their whole lives denying it. At some point in my life, I learned to embrace the confusion. I don’t know that it does me any good, but it’s gotten me this far. As Popeye famously said, “I yam what I yam.”
Those thoughts are interesting enough, but another issue was motivating my putting this all down in words. Just yesterday, I wrote about IQ and about how people are different, specifically in their learning styles. One thing I brought up is the research showing a correlation between liberalism and high IQ. Also, there has been research showing a correlation between liberalism and openness to experience. I was thinking about the relationship of intelligence and openness, and how both would relate to the paranormal.
I’ve written about this a bit in the past. Research confirms the distinction between religiosity and spirituality. People who have spiritual experiences are less likely to go to church, especially after having had their experience(s). That is massively intriguing in its implications, but it does make sense when you think about it. It easier to conform to beliefs of things you’ve never personally experienced. However, once you’ve had experiences, your experiences might not conform to the beliefs which would force you to make a choice between experience and belief.
Liberalism correlates to thin boundary types, a psychological category similar to openness. A thin boundary type experiences less distinction between things: waking and dreaming, reality and imagination (or imaginal), self and other, etc. This relates to openness to experience in that the thin boundary type feels less repulsion and fear toward that which exists outside of their normal sense of self and of their normal sense of reality. This obviously connects with intelligence in terms of curiosity. Intelligent people tend to be people who like learning new things: testing the known and exploring the unknown, questioning beliefs and pushing the boundaries of knowledge. As such, a thin boundaried liberal is more likely to be curious about the paranormal and more willing to entertain possibilities that don’t seem commonsense or don’t seem to have any practical application.
The conservative asks, “Why?” And the liberal asks, “Why not?”
The liberal may be intelligent as measured on IQ tests, but that doesn’t mean they are smart in the everyday sense. Being open to experience doesn’t always lead to ‘smart’ results. For example, intelligent people drink more and do more drugs. As Satoshi Kanazawa concludes in the second link:
“People – scientists and civilians alike – often associate intelligence with positive life outcomes. The fact that more intelligent individuals are more likely to consume alcohol, tobacco, and psychoactive drugs tampers this universally positive view of intelligence and intelligent individuals. Intelligent people don’t always do the right thing, only the evolutionarily novel thing.”
Liberals are more likely to engage in behaviors that are evolutionarily novel. Such novel thinking correlates to IQ. The conservative impulse is to stick closely to what has proven to work in the past. Sometimes that leads to the best results in the present and sometimes not. We have, through technology, created a society that is constantly changing and doing so at an ever faster rate. This gives the liberal mindset an edge in the modern world. Even so, human nature remains fundamentally the same and hence the conservative impulse remains valid probably more often than not.
“…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.
“This, incidentally, is the reason I never use words like “smart” and “clever” as synonyms for “intelligent.” Similarly, I never use words like “dumb” and “stupid” as synonyms for “unintelligent.” “Intelligent” has a specific scientific meaning – possessing higher levels of general intelligence – whereas “smart” and “stupid” have more to do with common sense than intelligence. From my perspective, more intelligent people like liberals are more likely to be “stupid” (lacking common sense), whereas less intelligent people like conservatives are more likely to be “smart.””
Whether or not liberal intelligence is healthy or beneficial, it does allow for discovering the new and so increases the probability of improvement (even as it threatens the stability of the traditional social order). Liberals, for whatever reason, have less respect for the argument that something is best simply because it worked at some point in the past. To the liberal, things can always be improved. Plus, it’s just fun and exciting, inspiring even, to adventure forth. Every advancement of civilization can be credited to this liberal impulse.
Why did Galileo feel such a need to scientifically challenge the religious views of his day? Why did the many explorers in the past get in ships to go to places that no one knew existed? Why do we send men to the moon? Why does anyone do anything new and different? What is the point? Does there have to be a point?
The liberal may not be able to explain why any given thing is worthy, but it is worthy to the liberal because it satisfies their liberal impulse. This liberal impulse, afterall, is a human impulse. It’s part of what makes us humans. It’s the reason we didn’t remain naked primates wandering the plains of Africa. Even conservatives have this liberal impulse, although to a much lesser degree of course.
Nonetheless, it can’t be denied that this liberal impulse can get us into trouble. Civilization itself is a evolutionarily novel behavior relative to most of human evolution. Civilization is definitely nice in many ways, but it has also led to massive problems for the species such as destruction of the environment we require for our survival. Likewise, the liberal impulse can lead people to be so open to the new that the liberally-inclined person may meet dangers they can’t overcome or escape from. Sometimes you can explore the Fortean and come back with tales of adventure and at other times you go insane or worse.
From the conservative position of practical commonsense, it might be ‘stupid’ to explore the Fortean and it might be unhealthy to explore such bizarre things. But if humans were able and willing to thwart the liberal impulse, I wouldn’t now be here writing about such things. In a purely conservative world, there would be no civilization or culture. Instead, we would be ‘traditional’ primates doing what all other primates do.
My friend was wondering if there was any good reason to explore areas he finds disorienting. No, there is no good reason in terms of rationality. A person seeks out the disorienting because, if they are liberally-inclined, that is what they feel compelled to do. In fact, it’s what all humans feel compelled to do, just some people feel this compulsion to a lesser degree.
This post was inspired by the first two quotes below the videos. The view expressed is one I’ve often considered. There is a distinction between conservatives and liberals which demonstrates a different way of looking at ideology. In my past writings, I tended to analyze this distinction in terms of psychology (and, fundamentally, psychology is a liberal view):
In this post, I want to merely emphasize the difference. And, by doing so, I’m arguing for the practical worth of the liberal mindset and of liberal policies.
“I don’t mean to suggest that conservatives are irrational, or that there is no merit to the (Burkean) conservative suspicion of radical change. If a reform that promises greater aggregate well-being conflicts with religious beliefs and/or tradition (say gay marriage), liberals will be more likely to embrace the reform than conservatives. Liberals tend to focus more on the practical effects of providing clean needles to drug addicts, or condoms to high school students, whereas conservatives focus more on the “message that society would be sending.”"
“…I can’t think of any real world policy disputes facing Congress, now or in the past, where liberals did not take what they saw as the roughly utilitarian position. And I can see lots of cases where conservatives, dogmatic libertarians, or econ-nuts took non-utilitarian positions.”
“The other story was about bans on abortion, which leads to dangerous procedures that kill 67,000 women every year. Latin America has the most restrictive abortion laws and it also has the highest abortion rate, 31 per 1,000 women age 15-44. Africa and Asia also has a lot of restrictions and there the rate is 29. Western Europe, with the most liberal laws, had the lowest rate – just 12 per 1,000 women.”
I could add many other examples and data. For example, here are factors that tend to have strong correlation:
liberalism
atheism
homosexuality
higher education
high IQ
academic professions
scientific professions
low teen pregnancy rate
low abortion rate
low divorce rate
high monagamy rates (among men)
low imprisonment rate
low crime rate
low homicide rate
low poverty rate
low illiteracy rate
higher income
Of course, some of that correlation is just situtational. If conservatives don’t like atheists and homosexuals, then atheists and homosexuals are less likely to self-identify as conservatives. If conserves make anti-intellectual arguments, then people who are intelligent and well educated will find conservative arguments unappealing and unconvincing. However, the situation of the conservative movement excluding these people is very significant. The situation wasn’t always this way.
During Reagan’s administration, intelligent people were actually attracted to the Republican party and it was the only time since the data was recorded when Republicans had an average IQ higher than Democrats.
The 1970s were bad years for Republicans. Only 22.2% of respondents identified as Republican compared to 41.9% as Democratic. Although they were bad years for winning elections, they were good years for the Republican Party’s IQ. As respondents move into the more intellectually capable bracket, their likelihood to identify as Republican increases significantly.
REAGAN/BUSH SR. YEARS
The Reagan Revolution vastly increased the number of respondents who identified as Republican. This is the only time span in the analysis in which high IQ respondents are more likely to be Republican than Democratic. However, Reagan was even more successful attracting average IQ Americans to the Republican party, so overall the average IQ of the Republican Party decreased slightly.
CLINTON YEARS
Even though Clinton was in the White House, the Democratic Party continued to lose support. 34.9% of respondents identified as Democratic compared to 37.6% in the Reagan/Bush Sr. years and 41.9% in the 1970s.
But even though the Republicans gained overall compared to Democrats, among those in the high IQ bracket the story was the opposite; Republicans lost high IQ respondents to the Democrats. Once again, the average IQ of the Republican Party decreased compared to the previous period.
GEORGE W. BUSH YEARS
Unfortunately, there are only 1,419 respondents in this analysis, so the results aren’t as reliable. Nevertheless, we see a huge drop in the percent of high IQ respondents who identify as Republican and an even bigger increase in the percent of high IQ respondents who identify as Democratic.
At the same time, average IQ respondents flocked to the Republican Party, and now a greater percent of this bracket identifies as Republican than identifies as Democratic. (It should be noted that this is not the first time this occurs for a single year. It also happened in 1989, 1991, and 1993.)
CONCLUSION
Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was the party of the less intelligent and the Republican Party was the party of the more intelligent.
But today, the Democratic Party is the party of both the less intelligent and the more intelligent while the Republican Party is the party of the middle.
To an extent, liberalism as a psychological trait (FFM openness, MBTI intution, Hartmann’s thin boundary type) makes one more likely to have academic intelligence and success, but liberalism as a psychological trait isn’t identical to liberalism as a political ideology. So, it would seem that the Reagan’s Republican party was attractive to the liberal-minded. This makes sense when you consider that Reagan was very liberal on many social issues: as president, he had the first openly gay couple sleep over at the White House and he fought against gay discrimination; as governor, he signed into law before Roe vs Wade the most liberal abortion statute at that time.
As for abortion, I find it strange that many conservatives promote illegalizing abortions even though it means people will still take dangerous risks to get abortions. It doesn’t seem to matter that this would increase injuries and deaths of many women. Liberals didn’t invent abortion. Women have been getting (or giving themselves) abortions for as long as humans have been around. Even indigenous people are aware of plants that act as abortifacents and use them for that purpose. Furthermore, the data shows abortions are more prevalent in countries where it is illegal.
This reminds me of the rates of pregnancy and STDs among teens. In states where abstinence only is taught, they have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. Also, these conservative states tend to have higher abortion rates (partly because of poverty but also because the high teen pregnancy rate). Also, these states have a negative perception of women’s clinics and family planning clinics because of their association with the abortion issue. And, so, women in conservative states get less quality health care which leads to high rates of low birth weight and high rates of infant mortality.
“When Red States get their social problems under control, and things such as teen pregnancy down to nationwide lows, then they can try and foist their solutions on the rest of the country.
But as things currently stand, on this issue (as well as others like divorce), the Red States have no ground to stand on. Those crazy New Englad liberals are running circles around them in this tangible measure of their residents’ “values”.”
- – -
The rhetoric of conservativism is that of pragmatic realism, of sticking with what works. The idea of tradition is that it worked in the past and so it will work now, but I haven’t seen any clear evidence for their argument that it worked better in the past. The world didn’t used to be a better place for most people. Just because upper class white males used to in certain ways have life easier in the past doesn’t mean the rest of us want to return to the good ol’ days.
This all relates to moral issues. Beyond the ideological rhetoric, there is no evidence that people used to be more moral. Why do conservatives assume rates of moral beharior and societal health were higher in the past? The data shows the young generation has higher rates of certain moral behaviors than previous generations. Anyways, it isn’t fair or valid to compare the present to the past because many basic factors have changed.
For example, age of sexual maturity has been getting younger. Indigenous people sexually mature around age 18 and there typically was little passage of time between the beginnings of sexual desire and marriage. You desired, you had sex, you were married. A very simple system. With agricultural diet, sexual maturity came a few years earlier and that remained about the same up until around the middle of the 1900s when hormones began to be used in cattle. The increased hormone intake led to the most recent generations (GenX and GenY) sexually maturing even ealier (early teens or even several years younger). At the same time, college has become a requirement to get a good job and support a family and so the average age of marriage has shifted to the late 20s or early 30s. What this means is that the young generation now typically has two decades between the beginnings of sexual desire and marriage.
How can the morality developed in an agricultural society apply to the reality of modern industrialization? The older generations don’t understand because they didn’t experience the hormone-induced early sexual maturity and they didn’t experience a difficult economy that forced them to delay marriage. It’s easy for them to talk about abstinence. The reality, however, is abstinence only programs have been proven to fail. Why should we promote programs that result in high rates of pregnancy and STDs among teens? It isn’t pragmatic to consider ideology as more important than reality. I’d argue it isn’t even moral and certainly isn’t compassionate. What is the point of morality, of religious dogma that doesn’t actually help people to live better lives?
I do think there are values within the conservative tradition which can be applied pragmatically. However, ever since the religious right took over the GOP, the culture wars has blinded mainstream conservatives from looking objectively at the facts. And now with Fox News the rhetoric on the right has been amped up even further. How can reasonable discussion happen under these conditions?
Furthermore, these pragmatic conservatives love to promote the military. They want government to shrink and the military to grow. If this were followed to the inevitable conclusion, eventually a military leader would take over the country. Ignoring that, people who identify as fiscal conservatives often support the military which is the largest part of Federal spending.
Beginning with Reagan, Republican presidents have increased spending and increased the deficit. Liberals, according to Pew, are the demographic most interested in balancing the budget and decreasing the deficit. The result of Reagonomics is that the rich have become richer and the poor poorer. The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 95% which is the highest wealth disparity in the developed world. Reagonomics destroyed the middle class. The problem is further complicated because seemingly reasonable ‘progressive’ politicians don’t challenge the rightwing rhetoric. So far, Obama has continued most of the policies of the Bush administration (bailouts for the rich, Gitmo, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Conservatives like to make anti-intellectual arguments against the so-called intellectual elite. Yes, liberals are more well educated and have higher IQs. Yes, academics and scientists tend to be liberals. Yes, reporters who study and analyze the details of politics are liberals. From my perspective, that isn’t an insult towards and criticism of liberalism. If liberals are the intellectual elite, does that mean conservatives are the anti-intellectual populists? No. Even though liberals have the highest rates of education, the Democrat party includes those in our society with the lowest rates of education. Most of the poor (especially the poorest of the poor such as the below-the-poverty-line working class) vote Democrat.
Anyways, my point is: How is an intelligent discussion to be had between liberals and conservatives when a vastly disproportionate number of the most intelligent people identify as liberals? How can a reasonable person (including reasonable conservatives) respond when the most vocal conservatives rant about just getting rid of the government? Like many liberals and progressives, I agree with some of the Tea Party complaints of Obama and I understand the libertarian critcism of the government… but, beyond the radicalism, where are the pragmatic solutions? The government isn’t going away and so there is no point in fantasizing about it. I look at the policies promoted by Ron Paul, by the Tea Party, by Fox News and by Republican. What seems obvious to me is that most likely these policies would benefit the wealthy upper class and big business. That is a practical solution for one small segment of society, but what about all the other Americans who would like a small sliver of the American pie?
“Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded? like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.”
“Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions.”
“…researchers computed a Child Health Index that ranked each state in the U.S. according to five routine indicators of physical health in children: percentage of low-birth-weight infants, infant mortality rate, child death rate, teen death rate, and teen birth rates… 8 of the 10 states with the poorest child health outcomes in the nation… are in… the Deep South. Living in the Deep South proved to be the best predictor of poor child health outcomes, more so than any other factor commonly used to describe health differences among groups of children, including poverty, parents’ employment status, or single-parent households.”
“Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.”
““Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated”. How’s that for a provocative opening sentence in an academic paper! Lazar Stankova of the National Institute of Education in Singapore reports this finding in a paper published earlier this year in the Elsevier journalIntelligence.
I’ve only scanned the paper, but it looks like a serious study. Here’s the abstract:
“Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.”
“The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and mens (but not womens) value on sexual exclusivity.”
“”General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions,” says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles.”
An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.
In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans’ tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see “the hands of God” at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. “Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,” says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. “So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”
Young adults who identify themselves as “not at all religious” have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as “very religious” have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women’s value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa’s analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.”
“Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal… most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more)… Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%).”
One commenter responded to the commenter who linked to me. She was challenging his viewpoint, but all of her claims were either wrong or based on old data.
Becky wrote:
The only sheep here are the ones like you who actually believe the crap the liberal media and your precious president are shoving down your throat. [...] I am curious you really think that dumb people are republicans. Our military is 75% republican so by your reasoning you think that 75% of our military is un-educated and from rural low income families?
Studies show the media isn’t dominated by liberals.
By the way, could you rightwingers please quit repeating your talking points that you learn by watching too much Fox News?
“shove it down our throats” “ram it through”
I think it was Jon Stewart that did a great humorous analysis of that particular talking point, but I found another video of Bill Maher which is hilarious.
“Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.”
“I previously wrote that Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. It seems that may have been a hasty conclusion based on looking at the entire General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, and ignoring the trend. It seems that the Republicans used to be the more intelligent party, but that may no longer be true.”
According to Pew, liberals are the most well educated.
The most well educated demographic are liberals (19% of registered voters, 59% Democratic, 40% Independent, socially liberal). Liberals are the fastest growing demographic, but they already represent the largest sector of the Democratic party and the largest sector of the entire population.
And liberals tend to be attracted to intellectual fields such as science.
56% of scientists perceive scientists as liberal.
52% identify as liberal including 14% as very liberal.
55% identify as Democrat, 6% identify as Republican, 32% idenitfy as Independent (w/ 81% of Independent scientists leaning towards Democrat).
“Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).”
“A far smaller share of scientists (40%) than the public (57%) agrees with the statement when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful.”
“Scientists also are less likely… to say that business strikes a fair balance between profits and the public interest: Just 20% of scientists… compared with 37% of the public. And while 78% of scientists say that the government has a responsibility to care for those unable to care for themselves…”
Just 14% of scientists agree that we have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country. That compares with 41% of the public. Just a third of scientists but a majority of the public (53%) agrees that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength.”
83% of Americans believe in God.
33% of scientists believe in God.
82% of Americans have a religious affiliation.
48% of scientists have a religious affiliation
There is one last point in your comment. You claim the military is 75% Republican. What is your source for that data? Is it new or old data? I came across a report on studies that supposedly debunk this myth.
“New research on political opinions of U.S. service members suggests the stereotype of the military as uniformly conservative and Republican doesn’t hold true.
“Instead, the research portrays America’s troops as more moderate and less party-oriented than the population as a whole, and they are more likely to avoid the extreme ends of the conservative-to-liberal political spectrum.
“Younger enlisted personnel, the least-studied service members, mostly reflect their civilian peers. But at least one researcher says they also are much more likely to vote.”
[ . . . ]
“The perception of service members as heavily Republican and conservative is long-standing.
“A 1998 survey by political scientist Peter Feaver of Duke University and Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina that focused only on officers augmented that stereotype, finding that officers called themselves “conservative” versus “liberal” by an 8-to-1 ratio and Republican instead of Democrat by roughly a 6-to-1 ratio. But Feaver said it was wrong to extend his findings to enlisted personnel. “It’s a lot more likely to be more true of a colonel than a private,” he said.
“Feaver said the military is somewhat more conservative and Republican-oriented than the general public, but also tends to shift along with broad trends in society and likely has become somewhat less conservative since he did his research. “There may be a return to the historical position of the military as more politically independent,” he said.”
Becky wrote:
Half of your statistics mean nothing unless you are stating that unmarried people with no belief in anything beyond life are smarter people. If that is your definition of smarter people then hell yeah I’d rather be stupid.[...] I work in a green company in a green industry started by (guess what) republicans not democrats. I run into more Republicans in our industry than democrats. And it is the leaders in this industry (that’s right all republicans) at the capital trying to pass legislation to help our environment and our economy (not using government funds for solar panels on gyms).[...] The highest age group that is democratic falls with 18-29 year olds. SO not a whole lot of life experience there-a lot of them believe anything the media tells them.
Liberals tend to be younger, but that isn’t simply that younger people are Liberal. Other research shows that Millennials are more Liberal than past generations at the same age. Liberals are the largest demographic in the Pew study and they’re the fastest growing which makes sense when you consider Millennials are the largest generation in US history. In general, the US population is becoming more liberal.
Also, higher educated people tend to get married later and so there is a higher percentage of unmarried Liberals. On the positive side, Liberals (who tend to be atheists) have the lowest divorce rate and have the highest monogamous rate of any demographic.
I’m not surprised that most people in your industry are Republicans. First, your field is technological and Republicans are attracted to engineering. Second, Pew Enterprisers (equivalent to Neocons) have the highest percentage of business owners (but Liberals have the next highest percentage of business owners).
Yes, Liberals are young and all young people by definition have less life experience. Even so, they’re going to be Liberal as they age and gain experience. Once generations come of age, they don’t tend to change their ideologies for the rest of their lives. According to Strauss and Howe, the next generation will dominate the political landscape with their Liberalism.
Anyways, don’t mistake their youth for ignorance. They’re the more well educated than those older than them. Also, they follow the news closely and they tend to seek out multiple sources.
I actually had to develop a love of the disordered & puzzling, viewing reality as a vast riddle to be joyfully tackled, not in fear but with tireless fascination. What has been most needed is reality testing, & a willingness to face the possibility of self-negating experiences: i.e., real contradicitons, with something being both true & not true.
The enigma is alive, aware of us, & changing. It is partly created by our own minds: we alter it by perceiving it, since we are not outside it. As our views shift, it shifts in a sense it is not there at all (acosmism). In another sense it is a vast intelligence; in another sense it is total harmonia and structure (how logically can it be all three? Well, it is).
Page 91 (1979) In Pursuit of VALIS: Selections from the Exegesis
by Philip K. Dick, edited by Lawrence Sutin
———
This deeply touches upon my experience. I also had to develop a love of the disorderd & puzzling… for I never felt capable of denying these or distracting myself from their effect upon me. If I didn’t learn to love the puzzles that thwarted my understanding, then seemingly the only other choice would be to fear them.
I was just thinking about the several years after my highschool graduation. For most people, this time of life is filled with a sense of bright opportunity and youthful fun. But, for me, it was the darkest time of my life. I felt utterly lost with no good choice available to me. I questioned deeply because my life was on the line… quite literally… because it was during these years that I attempted suicide.
I don’t remember exactly when I discovered PKD, but it was around that period of my life. PKD’s questioning mind resonated with my experience. The questions I asked only exacerbated my depression, but I did not know how to stop asking them. So, to read someone who had learned to love the unanswerable questions was refreshing. Plus, I was inspired by the infinite playfulness of his imagination.
Imagination was what I sorely needed during that time of feeling stuck in harsh reality. To imagine ‘what if’ was a way of surviving day by day, and the play of possibilities brought a kind of light into my personal darkness. I won’t say that PKD saved my life, but he did help me to see something good in it all.
Then, I became interested in other writers for quite a while. I had even given away most of my PKD books. I’d forgotten why I had liked him so much until A Scanner Darkly came out. I watched it twice in the theater and was very happy to be reacquainted with PKD. That movie really captured his writing like none other.
Those years spent away from PKD’s work, I had been seeking out various answers(such as those provided by the great Ken Wilber). But now I feel like I’m in a mood again to simply enjoy the questions.
———-
I’ve been taking notes on another book and came across some lines that resonate with my sense of what PKD was about:
“Mercury is the trickster, happiest when he is at play. Playing he is able to achieve the double consciousness of the comic mode: the world is serious and not serious at the same time, a meaningful pattern of etenrity and a filmy veil blocking the beyond.”
Page 77 The Melancholy Android: On the Psychology of Sacred Machines Eric G. Wilson
i used to think when people talked about the teenage and university years as being the best part of our lives that i might as well kill myself then too. it wasn’t that i was as depressed as you, because my depression was only mild, but i was confused and searching. getting married and having kids was very challenging at times and i really only feel that i am beginning to enjoy my life as fully as i always wanted. i know what i want, i have some idea about how to be fulfilled and happy, i have a satisfying career and many friends, i am pursuing depth with God and meaning… everything is falling into place.
I hear ya. I do enjoy my life now even though my depression probably isn’t any less than back then. I have perspective now and I know what I like. I focus on what I like and I do my best to ignore the rest. I can now enjoy the questions but without as much angsty desperation.
that’s really positive! though i do hope that somehow the depression can lift. That must be challenging always to come back to that. Reminds me of a book I enjoyed years ago called Father Melancholy’s Daughter
about a priest who couldn’t shake his tendency to deep depression no matter how hard he tried. very moving… here is something else by the author about it
Thanks for the mention of that book. I liked this last part from the first link:
One of the answers lies in the words of Margaret’s father to a fellow priest: “The Resurrection as it applies to each of us means coming up through what you were born into, then understanding objectively the people your parents were and how they influenced you. Then finding out who you yourself are, in terms of how you carry forward what they put in you, and how your circumstances have shaped you. And then … and then … now here’s the hard part! You have to go on to find out what you are in the human drama, or body of God. The what beyond the who, so to speak.”
“And then … and then … now here’s the hard part!” lol
There is a movie about depression that I watched back then: Ordinary People. I haven’t come across another movie that captures better my sense of my depression, but my situation was and is a bit different from the character.
The story is similar to the Stephen King story The Body(made into the movie Stand By Me). A younger son has to live with the memory of his dead older brother who had been the perfect son. The mother is entirely into image and the son tries his best to fit in.
The most insightful part of the film is where a depressed girl he had befriended in the psych ward had killed herself after convincing everyone(including herself) that everything was normal. It shakes the boy to the core because if even someone who deals with their depression so ‘positively’ falls prey to hopelessness, then what hope is there for him. However, the point is that he is less likely to try to kill himself again because he doesn’t repress his valid feelings.
The message of the movie is that we all are just ordinary people, no one is perfect. The movie presents the mother as less together than the son despte her trying to put up a positive front.
another book I have found important in terms of many of these themes – finding yourself, working out who you are in your family, understanding your mission in God, dealing with the death of a sibling – is mystical_paths_by_susan_howatch
Actually, it’s part of a long series about this psychic but though it speaks casually of paranormal abilities it is very real and goes deep into our day to day lives.
Posted on February 11, 2010 by Benjamin David Steele
Internet discussions more often than not drive me bonkers. I’ll mention some data and immediately someone will question and criticize the data. If they’re a more worthy opponent, they’ll ask for specific sources. I usually comply and then add even more data just to further support my argument. The other person may offer data too, but they rarely cite the data and it’s even more rare for them to offer multiple sources. Most “debates” never get past mere opinionated nitpicking.
I mentioned one example in a previous post. I gave specific data and quotes from specific sources and framed it within the larger context of scientific consensus… and the other person acted like it meant nothing at all. As a person who respects facts, I find it odd that many adults (who are potential voters) have such a dubious relationship to facts. If someone shares facts with me that prove I’m wrong, I accept my being wrong and I do further research to better inform myself. This attitude of intellectual humility and curiosity seems not to be shared by many people… or at least not many people I meet online which may or may not be a representative example of the American public (but if I had to guess, I’d think that the average internet user is more intelligent and better informed than the average non-internet user).
I just experienced another example. This one was on Youtube and it was also about the scientific consensus of climatology experts. Youtube has very limited word count for comments which makes intelligent debate a bit constrained, but I was up for the challenge. I first mentioned some facts withou citing them, partly because Youtube doesn’t allow comments with url addresses in them. Some person questioned the validity of my data and offered some other data which they didn’t cite either. I felt lazy and didn’t want to try to figure out where he was getting his data, and I wasn’t in a mood for debating to any great extent. So, I just offered the url addresses (by replacing the “.” with “DOT” which Youtube allows) of several scientific articles and Wikipedia articles (and the Wikipedia articles cited many scientific articles).
My “debate” partner responded by saying that what I was referring to wasn’t peer reviewed and I assumed he must be talking about the first set of data I mentioned. I had been looking at this data recently and I knew it came from the University of Illinois, but I didn’t know if it was or wasn’t peer reviewed. I did a quick websearch and found it had been peer reviewed. This is so typical. If you look at people’s nitpicking, it is often unfounded. I suppose people like this just hope you won’t actually check it out for yourself. Why would this person lie to me just to try to win a debate? It only took me maybe a minute or so to disprove his claim. Does this person normally get away with such lies? Are most people unwilling to check the facts for themselves? Do most people not know how to use a search engine to find information quickly?
The ironic part was this person said the media is always lying. So, I pointed out to him that, whether or not the media was lying, it appeared that he was lying or else uninformed. He never responded back to further challenge me nor to admit to being wrong. His only objective was to “win” the debate at all costs. When it became apparent he wasn’t going to “win”, he simply abandoned ship.
I have an online “debate” like this probably on average of once a week (sometimes less when I’m not in a commenting mood). I don’t go looking for idiots. It’s just that the idiots are often the ones most willing to brazenly challenge any opinion (no matter how factual) that disagrees with their opinion. To be fair, there are also many reasonable people online. My experience, though, that the line between idiotic and reasonable often becomes rather thin when it comes to political and religious ideology. Even when faced with the facts, few people are willing (or able?) to change their mind.
Why is this? I’ve studied psychology enough to realize that humans are mostly irrational creatures, but I’m constantly amazed by how irrational certain people can be. I seem unwilling and unable to accept the fact that most people aren’t capable of intelligent debate. Part of me thinks that if I present the facts in a fair manner and make a reasonable argument that I can expect the same in return. Apparently, I’m the irrational one for feeling frustrated by the inevitable irrationality of human nature.
But I do have reason for my irrational hope for rationality. I occasionally have very intelligent debates with people online and these people even sometimes change their minds when offered new information… I even change my mind sometimes when presented with new information by an intelligent person. Most often these people seem to be more liberal, libertarian or independent-minded.
I’ve found that the only subjects that regularly attract intelligent conservatives are economics and sometimes philosophy/theology, but these are subjects that aren’t as easily determined factually according to scientific research (including psychological research). Conservatives tend to argue more from a perspective of principles that they support with historical examples. To conservatives, the past is where they look to verify a theory or claim. I guess that is fine as far as it goes, but it makes for difficult debating because the attempt to understand principles and history is easily swayed by subjective biases.
For example, many libertarians and fiscal conservatives like to talk about free markets. The problem is that it’s almost impossible to ascertain what this means. The idea of a “free market” is highly theoretical if not outright idealistic. No free market has ever existed. Furthermore, no free market could ever exist because it’s merely a relative label of a market being more free than some other market. There is no ultimate freedom of markets. So, these debates lead off in all kinds of directions such as referencing “experts”. The issue I have with experts in fields such as economics is that expertise is much more subjective in that there is less hard data. Many of the economic models that have been relied upon have been proven wrong. It’s almost impossible to scientifically study markets in that confounding factors can’t be easily controlled.
But even intelligent libertarians sometimes are wary of actual scientific data. Libertarians don’t trust government. Since scientists sometimes get government grants, scientists can’t be entirely trusted either. For some reason, libertarians think corporate sponsored scientists would be more trustworthy.
Conservatives in general are more mistrusting of objectivity. I’m not quite sure what is the reasoning behind this. Some intelligent conservatives I’ve met actually agree with me about humans being irrational and that seems to be their reason for mistrusting objectivity, but this is a more intelligent argument and probably doesn’t represent the opinion of average conservatives.
To be fair, the smartest people of all probably are independents. From the data I’ve seen, independents (and the American public in general) are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The question is which is the cause? Do smart people tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? OR do social liberals and fiscal conservatives tend to be smart? Or is there a third causal factor? MBTI iNtuition and FFM “openness to experience” correlate with testing high on intelligence and correlate with high representation in college. Also, these psychological functions/traits correlate to liberal attitudes, but I’m not sure how they may or may not correlate to fiscal conservatism. (There is a nice site about politics and psychological types: http://www.politicaltypes.com.)
Some of the most intelligent debaters will be the MBTI NT types (iNtuition Thinking). I know that INTPs tend to be self-identify as politically independent and I suspect the same would be true for INTJs. NTs probably either vote with Democrats for reasons of social liberalism or with libertarians for reasons of it being a third party, but I some NTs might vote Republican for reasons of fiscal conservatism or else for reasons of principles. I’m not sure how many NTs vote Republican, but polls I’ve seen show that ENTJs are more conservative (probably because TJ – Extraverted Thinking – is their primary function).
So, I can presume that most often, when I’m enjoying an intelligent discussion, I’m probably interacting with a socially liberal iNtuition type. I don’t know what good this knowledge does for me. Maybe it helps me to be more forgivng (this person sure is stupid… it’s too bad they were born that way).
To be more optimistic, psychological research doesn’t show that most people fit in absolute categories. Most people can learn non-preferred thinking styles and learn to develop weak traits. Education should teach people how to use all parts of their mind. The fact that so many people lack critical thinking skills is a failure of our education system and shouldn’t be blamed on individuals. College favors iNtuition types. Most professors and college-level teachers are iNtuition types and most of the coursework is more appealing to iNtuitive types. It’s hard for a strong Sensation type to do well in traditional schooling. Who can blame them that they don’t go to college or have bad experiences at college? Who can blame them for falling prey to the notion that college is controlled by liberal elites?
Considering that the MBTI shows Sensation types represent the largest portion of the population, it is quite sad that our education system has the hardest time reaching this category of person. Sensation types don’t have as much natural talent for abstract thinking and critical thinking. Sensation types are better with concrete information and concrete learning. Too much of higher education deals with abstractions and theories. Dumbing down higher education isn’t the answer. I think we should have more alternative routes of education.
When I was in highschool, my best friend was very much a Sensation type who took many alternative classes involving technology. He was good working with machines and with computers, but he wasn’t extremely smart in terms of intellectuality. Alternative classes served him well in terms of preparing him for a job in the real world. The potential criticism, though, is whether he was prepared for being a well-rounded and well-informed citizen. I suspect not. The highschool I went to didn’t require students take classes in logic and critical thinking. The classes in general seemed rather dumbed down. Unless you were taking college prep classes, you wouldn’t be intellectually challenged.
I feel frustrated. I don’t want to blame the average person for not being well educated, but I do feel pissed off that our education system has failed these people and so created an intellectually inferior society. Even news reporting seems dumbed down for the masses. Shouldn’t the education system and the media, instead, serve the ideal of uplifting the masses by informing them?
Even with intelligent people, I think the education system has often failed. College is less focused on providing a liberal education and created well informed citizens. College has merely become a career path. Many have talked about the problem of specialization of knowledge. People go to college only to become isolated in some particular field and outside that field they may be largely ignorant.
People, whether well educated or not, seem less capable of understanding the larger context. Maybe it’s always been that way. If so, I hope it’s changing. I probably shouldn’t expect the education system to do anything more than create good workers… as that seems to be its primary purpose. My hope is more in the realm of media technology. The traditional media has been failing for a long time, but the new media has been very successful. The most well informed people are those who use the new media to inform themselves. And, because of the new media, the uninformed (be they the average public or the average politician) can no longer spout misinformation without being challenged.
So, to return to the original topic of online debates, maybe a purpose is served by all of the ideological conflict found in the forums and comments sections around the web. The people who weren’t educated well in school get confronted, whether they like it or not, with new information and with actual critical thinking skills. Some people might just become even more ideological in response, but many others will learn to be more intelligent debaters. Even debates where people deny expert opinions may serve a purpose in that a discussion then ensues about the definition of ‘expert’. The question about the new media is whether the positives will outweigh the negatives. The uninformed have the opportunity to become even more polarized and entrenched in their views by isolating themselves in forums of the likeminded, but those who want to be informed have more opportunity than ever to do so… and there are many in the middle who are neither extremely ideological nor extremely motivated to learn.
My hope is that the internet remains an open resource and open platform for public debate. My other hope is that the internet my force the education system to improve by offering both teachers and students to become more well informed. Students now no longer have to solely rely on the information given by teachers, and teachers no longer have to solely rely on the information that was given to them when they were students.
Posted on January 8, 2010 by Benjamin David Steele
It is amazing research, but it isn’t surprising. Other research has shown similar psychological responses. Immediately after boxing matches, people who look like the losing fighter are more often beat up. So, I wonder if whites did worse on tests after Obama’s election. It would be truly interesting, however, if both blacks and whites did well after Obama’s election.
The most interesting part about this research is the relationship between culture and psychology. What it demonstrates is how racial prejudice is internalized. However, the reason racism is internalized in this way is because it’s already predominant in the culture. Change the culture even slightly such as by electing a black president and the internalized racism changes as well.
This is a great example of how subtly racism influences people… without the individual necessarily even being aware of it. There has been much research along these lines. Most people aren’t overtly racist and would deny being racist, but racism is so powerful because it is so hard to detect in one’s own attitudes and behavior. Unconscious prejudices become established because the prejudices are a part of the way society is structured. I just wrote about a recent court case involving this: Institutional Racism & Voting Rights.
Awhile ago, I wrote another post satirizing the ideal of success in our society: How to be Successful. But my satire was based on actual data. One set of data was about IQ. Minorities are more likely to experience malnutrition and undernourishment and more likely to be grow up in areas with high pollution. Those factors are directly correlated with lower IQ. However, in the US, these factors are less extreme than would be found in developing countries and so minorities here are better off than other places. Anyways, my point is that IQ is influenced by many different external factors that the individual doesn’t control.
What all of this reminds me of is one of the most popular racist books written in recent decades: The Bell Curve by Richard J. Hernstein and Charles Murray. The conclusions from that book were refuted fairly quickly after it was published. Research such as from the above video just further disproves such attempts to make racism intellectually respectable.
Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a “neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics.” The fund’s mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that “genetically unfit” individuals or races are a threat to society.
The Pioneer Fund was set up in 1937 by Wickliffe Draper, a millionaire who advocated sending blacks back to Africa. The foundation’s charter set forth the group’s missions as “racial betterment” and aid for people “deemed to be descended primarily from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.” (In 1985, after Pioneer Fund grant recipients began receiving political heat, the charter was slightly amended to play down the race angle–GQ, 11/94.)
The fund’s first president, Harry Laughlin, was an influential advocate of sterilization for those he considered genetically unfit. In successfully advocating laws that would restrict immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, Laughlin testified before Congress that 83 percent of Jewish immigrants were innately feeble-minded (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94). Another founder, Frederick Osborn, described Nazi Germany’s sterilization law as “a most exciting experiment” (Discovery Journal, 7/9/94).
The fund’s current president, Harry Weyher, denounces the Supreme Court decision that desegregated schools, saying, “All Brown did was wreck the school system” (GQ, 11/94). The fund’s treasurer, John Trevor, formerly served as treasurer for the crypto-fascist Coalition of Patriotic Societies, when it called in 1962 for the release of Nazi war criminals and praised South Africa’s “well-reasoned racial policies” (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94).
One of the Pioneer Fund’s largest current grantees is Roger Pearson, an activist and publisher who has been associated with international fascist currents. Pearson has written: “If a nation with a more advanced, more specialized or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide” (Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party).
Posted on December 17, 2009 by Benjamin David Steele
My calico kitty, Stella Blue, approves of this video. I played it for her and she watche it with rapt attention. I think she may have had a contact high.
By the way, I think it’s fascinating that my cats like to watch videos of cats. They especially love cat fights. They seem to recognize the sounds and movements, and yet they also seem to realize that the cats portrayed in the video are of no threat to them as they watch in rather relaxed fashion (exept when a twittering bird or rodent shows up on screen).
Cats are fairly smart creatures.
For example, my cats can be in front of a mirror while I’m sitting next to them. If I put my hand behind their head without touching them, they’ll look at the image of my hand in the mirror and then turn around looking at my actual hand.
As another example, I used to have a 3-legged black kitty (Agape, may he rest in peace) who loved my pet rodents I had (well, he loved the dwarf hamsters but not so much the rats or the un-neutered rabbit… that is another story). It’s true that all kitties love rodents, but Agape’s interest demonstrated some form of intelligence. He knew that he shouldn’t mess with the rodents. I’d let the rats run around and he hated them, but still he tolerated their crawling about.
The male dwarf hamster I’d also let out a lot because he had tons of energy and I’d put him in this massive plastic running ball (that was large enough for the rats). The lid to the ball sometimes came loose and so the dwarf hamster would run loose. In order to find the hamster, I just had to find Agape because he’d be falling it around. He never messed with the little guy… except when it was in it’s cage (aquarium actually). When the dwarf hamsters scurried about their enclosed home, Agape would attack the glass apparently understanding it was fine to attack them when he couldn’t actually hurt them.
Satya: I’m just worn out. I debate with social conservatives and traditionalists, and provide the strongest peer reviewed evidence I can to back up my assertions and I provide reasoned arguments supported by age old philosophical propositions but it is not enough. I’m told it is all “biased”. It doesn’t matter how perfectly objective and analytical the study is or how well it follows the scientific method, it is biased unless it supports their viewpoint. If is it particularly damning to their worldview, then it is “PC” the sweet and short way to dismiss everything as politically correct, and thus somehow not true. I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me the reasoning behind this, but it seems sufficient to them.
Has thinking become a value? When I was a child, I never would have thought that there would exist a group of people who are proud that they don’t think. In fact, not only are they proud that they don’t think, but they are proud that others can’t make them think. Now I’m not trying to stereotype here, but it seems whenever I push anyone from these particular right wing groups on the facts that they take a position that reasoning and logic are inferior to their religious faith and internal moral compass. How on earth can they reduce thinking to a value?
I’m notorious for being a smartass, and occasionally just an ass, but nothing I can ever say or do could ever demean a person as much as them tossing their own ability to think and reason for themselves.
The more I study human beings, the more I realize humans like to follow a script. Religious beliefs and political ideologies simply serve as a way for human beings to mindlessly serve as actors in this world, fulfilling roles that were written for them by directors who may have lost touch with reality themselves.
Everyday, I find myself challenging every label that I have felt ascribed to myself. INFJ, gay, liberal, social worker, etc. it all seems like the labels have become more important than the being. I am who I am, too complex to be narrowed down and pidgeon holed into some convenient category for others to stereotype in some misguided attempt to control or pass judgment. It’s not like I don’t do the same. But I’m tired of it. Maybe I just need to view the world holistically. That seems to be the only thing that people on opposite sides of the religious and political spectrum agree on. Love your neighbor.
Comments:
Sithious: Calling you biased ain’t exactly a valid argument, but you have to remember when most people are cornered they will resort to personal attacks and logical fallacies rather than logic and reasoning. People don’t like it that you’re attacking their ego, which you are by questioning their beliefs and ideas.
Most people don’t have the knowledge nor mental capacity to refute well constructed arguments. [...]
Satya: Level of education and field of study is the only difference I have perceived within individuals that would lead them to challenge this aspect of human nature. Based on what I have seen, I estimate that maybe 10% of the general public has critical thinking ability, and of that 10% I estimate that only 1% of those make a concerted effort to shape their own metacognition by challenging their cognitive and emotional biases. The number of individuals who seem to have any degree of awareness of their own patterns of thinking is incredibly small. Even I have trouble considering myself a member of that group because I often give into my passion despite knowing it is a fruitless endeavor and usually the equivalant of ego masturbation.
Duty:
Originally Posted by Raccoon Love
You have your own views and opinions and if others are not willing to compromise that does not give you the right to change their ways of thinking
So we don’t have the right to try to educate a racist? We should just accept their way of thinking?
Originally Posted by Raccoon Love
Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean their wrong, we all have our different opinions and beliefs, and in reality truth is relative so there’s nothing absolute.
What makes people wrong is when they hold a belief that a) does not conform to reality. What makes people “unjustified” (or “thoughtless”) in their belief is when they don’t have enough evidence or knowledge to warrant believing it.
And as we’ve discussed in many many threads, there are things that are absolute: objectively true. If you say “there is nothing that is absolutely or objectively true” then you contradict yourself, because if that statement was true, it would be absolutely/universally/objectively true, and so contradict itself.
Because there is an objective truth, we try to find what facts fit into that truth. When someone holds a belief opposite of that, or in opposition to the most reliable and effective methods to determine objective truth, we say they are just plain wrong or thoughtless, respectively.
Knowing this, and combining it with a true desire to enlighten, educate, and help the minds of others develop, and it becomes a much more complicated issue then just, “You have no right to try to change others.” It almost becomes a duty to try.
I know where Satya is, I was just there not long ago. I still have much of that desire in me. The best solution I’ve found is to just abandon the thoughtless to their self-chosen fate, but be there for when they are ready. Surround yourself with those that are ready/have already traversed. That’s all you can really do.
Satya:
Originally Posted by myst
How do you prove that truth is objective? With facts? How do you prove they’re true? More facts? And so on to infinity. Is it possible to prove truth is objective? If not, how do you know it is?
This is what pisses me off. People have no idea what the scientific method does. They think the purpose of science is to prove things, but the reality is that science exists as a constant quest to disprove whatever the evidence indicates is likely to be true.
You don’t prove anything! Anyone who says they can prove anything is a liar. You present evidence that indicates that something is more likely true than it isn’t. Science is about probability, about disproving, not proving. In science, the law of gravity can be disproved, but it can never be conclusively proven. The probability that the law of gravity is true is astronomically high due to the huge amount of evidence that supports it, but it could easily be disproved with the addition of new evidence against it. Physicists don’t strive to prove the theory of relativity, they strive to disprove it. Biologists don’t strive to prove the theory of evolution, they strive to disprove it. That is why such theories have such high certainty. People have been gathering evidence in the pursuit to dispove them for so long, and have failed to do so, so the probability that they are true remains very high. It doesn’t mean that the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution have been proven, only that they have yet to be disproved and so they remain viable theories.
When I provide evidence to disprove something you say, and you can’t provide an alternative explaination, then you have failed to uphold your theory. It has been invalidated. I’m not trying to prove that anything is objectively true, I’m simply disproving whatever subjective belief you hold to be true. I could never prove that God does not exist, but I can disprove your version of God by coming up with evidence or reasoning which invalidates your explaination.
Posted on September 28, 2009 by Benjamin David Steele
The first video is commentary about Glenn Beck.
Some people think this proves that Beck is a liar, but I think he simply is inconsistant. It isn’t even that he is necessarily irrational but that his rationality is swayed by his emotions. As such, it would be smart to not to rely too heavily on his analysis for objective reporting. Beck, as I see it, is somewhat hit and miss. He says things that others won’t say in the mainstream media, but sometimes there are good reasons why respectable journalists stay away from particular topics.
Anyways, emotional as he is, his emotions do resonate with the emotions of many people and so I think it’s unwise to dismiss his view. It’s important to understand the raw nerve he is touching upon.
More to my taste, these next videos are of Bill Maher. His comments about America’s stupidity reminds me of Jon Stewart’s criticisms of the low quality of mainstream news reporting and the uninspiring ideal of average joe politicians. And his criticisms of Bush jr remind me of Steve Colbert’s roasting of the former president.
Maher is what I consider a liberal libertarian which is a stance I respect even when I may disagree with particular opinions. I think he is almost too easygoing sometimes. It’s not that he doesn’t have strong opinions, but that he isn’t prone to judging others even when they deserve harsh judgment.
I was a bit surprised that he considers Ann Coulter a friend. From this position, he strongly defends her right to an opinion. That is fine as far as it goes and is a very liberal attitude. However, Coulter’s opinion is far from being equal to that of the opinion of Maher. Coulter preaches bigotry, she constantly makes slanderous accusations, she is very loose with her facts and never admits she is wrong even when it’s obvious to everyone else. Coulter lacks intellectual humility which is bad when combined with her lack of intellectual insight. She doesn’t treat others with the patient listening and understanding that someone like Maher offers to her.
The one weakness of this kind of libertarian liberal stance is that it’s easy for someone like Coulter to take advantage. What saves Maher from being taken advantage of is that he isn’t afraid to challenge any claim, but unfortunately neither does he often hold a person’s feet to the fire. It seems that he’d rather not be confrontational to the point of being an asshole. Unlike Coulter, he isn’t a blustery ideologue nor does he want to compete on that level. However, he has a very sharp mind and incisive wit that he could compete on that level if he wanted to.
Posted on September 25, 2009 by Benjamin David Steele
I want to speak about intellectual ability. Some of it’s inborn intelligence and some of it’s learned habits such as memory tricks or reading comprehension. However, those aspects aren’t necessarily the most central or most important. Without intellectual curiosity and a desire to learn, all the ability in the world is useless.
In online discussions, I’m surprised how often someone asks a question when a five second websearch would’ve given them an answer. So much time gets spent on explaining (sometimes very basic ideas and facts) to people who lack any motivation to learn.
I’m surprised how often people don’t read a link when I post it explaining what it is and why it’s relevant. I’ve even cited a link as a basis of an argument and the argument itself was straight from the article, but the other person disagrees with me demonstrating they didn’t even read the article. If I’m citing an article by an expert or which quotes an expert, then any disagreement anyone has should be with the expert or the article. But do they quote another expert or link another article? No. They just disagree with some magical power of intuition. They just know your wrong.
It’s a rare person who goes to the effort of actually backing up their opinions with logic and facts. And I really hate it when people pull the ‘experience’ card. Someone may be a mother but it doesn’t mean they understand every mother. Certainly, a survey or scientific research of thousands of people has at least equal or greater worth than the anecdotal experience of one person. Another stupid tactic is when someone argues, for example, that since you take a liberal position that therefore you don’t know what it’s like to be fighting on the frontline… as if all soldiers are conservatives.
Then there are the nitpickers who either are trolls or simply lack inter-personal skills. There comments can seem stupid as the person never adds anything of intelligence, but the person might actually have some hidden intelligence. It really annoys me when I sense or suspect they’re intelligent because I keep waiting for an intelligent response which never comes. What is the point of having intelligence if you don’t like using it? I’d rather deal with a well-intentioned idiot than a halfway intelligent troll… a little bit of intelligence can be a dangerous thing.
The most typical variety of intellectually challenged debater is the person who simply repeats the same statement or belief or supposed fact. They’ll rarely back up what they say with any cited source and if they offer a link it’s probably a ranting blog, a conspiracy website, apologetics or whatever. If this person is also a nitpicker, they can be extremely annoying because they’ll demand that you cite sources for every minor statement. This kind of person if they’re subtle enough (as some intelligent apologists are), they can lead you on for hours. They make you think they actually care about the discussion, but they just want to make you run around. They already have their mind made up before you wrote your first word.
It’s not that most people are stupid, but most definitely the average person tends to under-utilize their intelligence to an extreme degree. What is lacking is curiosity. How sad!
I realize people are busy with more “important” things, but I still think it’s sad.
Access: Public 
Nicole said
i used to think when people talked about the teenage and university years as being the best part of our lives that i might as well kill myself then too. it wasn’t that i was as depressed as you, because my depression was only mild, but i was confused and searching. getting married and having kids was very challenging at times and i really only feel that i am beginning to enjoy my life as fully as i always wanted. i know what i want, i have some idea about how to be fulfilled and happy, i have a satisfying career and many friends, i am pursuing depth with God and meaning… everything is falling into place.
Marmalade said
I hear ya. I do enjoy my life now even though my depression probably isn’t any less than back then. I have perspective now and I know what I like. I focus on what I like and I do my best to ignore the rest. I can now enjoy the questions but without as much angsty desperation.
Nicole said
that’s really positive! though i do hope that somehow the depression can lift. That must be challenging always to come back to that. Reminds me of a book I enjoyed years ago called Father Melancholy’s Daughter
about a priest who couldn’t shake his tendency to deep depression no matter how hard he tried. very moving…
here is something else by the author about it
Marmalade said
Thanks for the mention of that book. I liked this last part from the first link:
One of the answers lies in the words of Margaret’s father to a fellow priest: “The Resurrection as it applies to each of us means coming up through what you were born into, then understanding objectively the people your parents were and how they influenced you. Then finding out who you yourself are, in terms of how you carry forward what they put in you, and how your circumstances have shaped you. And then … and then … now here’s the hard part! You have to go on to find out what you are in the human drama, or body of God. The what beyond the who, so to speak.”
“And then … and then … now here’s the hard part!” lol
There is a movie about depression that I watched back then: Ordinary People. I haven’t come across another movie that captures better my sense of my depression, but my situation was and is a bit different from the character.
The story is similar to the Stephen King story The Body(made into the movie Stand By Me). A younger son has to live with the memory of his dead older brother who had been the perfect son. The mother is entirely into image and the son tries his best to fit in.
The most insightful part of the film is where a depressed girl he had befriended in the psych ward had killed herself after convincing everyone(including herself) that everything was normal. It shakes the boy to the core because if even someone who deals with their depression so ‘positively’ falls prey to hopelessness, then what hope is there for him. However, the point is that he is less likely to try to kill himself again because he doesn’t repress his valid feelings.
The message of the movie is that we all are just ordinary people, no one is perfect. The movie presents the mother as less together than the son despte her trying to put up a positive front.
Nicole said
yes, Ben. Yes!
another book I have found important in terms of many of these themes – finding yourself, working out who you are in your family, understanding your mission in God, dealing with the death of a sibling – is mystical_paths_by_susan_howatch
Actually, it’s part of a long series about this psychic but though it speaks casually of paranormal abilities it is very real and goes deep into our day to day lives.
Marmalade said
I checked out your review of Mystical Paths and sounds like a strange story.
Have you read the whole series?
Nicole said
it’s a very strange story! i’ve only read a couple of the books, and while i’m mildly interested in the rest, you know the mantra! so many books…