Wow! Talk about right on the money! A recent study by University of Arkansas psychologist Scott Eidelman makes that suggestion. So, without further ado, let’s examine Eidelman’s methodology and interpretations, as well as some practical applications of higher IQ liberal policies.
Definition of Intelligence Quotient (IQ):
The Intelligence Quotient, a measure of one’s intelligence, is often abbreviated as IQ. The question, then, is: What is intelligence? It is the ability to learn, or understand, or to deal with new or trying situations. It is also the skilled use of reason.
Some components of intelligence, measured by IQ, include:
- Reason is a term that refers to the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs. Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination. (Note: here is where all the Kool Aid drinkers have a problem)
- Learning is acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences and may involve synthesizing different types of information.
- Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.
- Problem solving is a mental process which is the concluding part of the larger problem process that includes problem finding and problem shaping where problem is defined as a state of desire for the reaching of a definite goal from a present condition that either is not directly moving toward the goal, is far from it or needs more complex logic for finding a missing description of conditions or steps toward the goal.
Research by University of Arkansas psychologist Scott Eidelman provides evidence that, when under time pressure or otherwise cognitively impaired, people are more likely to express conservative views. As any statistician (I am one) can tell you, “Correlation does not imply causation.” There is, for example, a high correlation between whales born each year and the Dow-Jones average on December 31 of that year. Does anyone believe one causes the other, or interpret study results to suggest causation? But Eidelman, not being a statistician, chooses to interpret his study results as liberals having a higher IQ, even in the face of much contradictory evidence. And, of course, the MSM reports his findings and interpretation, again in the face of much contradictory evidence.
What, exactly, did Eidelman’s study find:
- Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification).
- Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts.
- Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms.
- Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism.
Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases. That’s fine if Eidelman wishes to interpret his findings that way. But remember, “Correlation does not imply causation.” There has to be some evidence to back up the interpretation.
Next, we get to the hurdle of generalization. Any study, to be worthy of recognition (beyond the MSM), must be generalizable to the entire population. So if conservatives are drunk, and/or under cognitive load, and/or under time pressure, and/or considering political terms, then the results of these studies may be applicable. Any other conditions could negate or inhibit the results. But listeners to Rush Limbaugh are under all of these conditions, so the findings must be applicable.
Higher IQ Liberal Policies
If you spend more money than you earn, you will be in debt. That didn’t take much brain power, so I must be a conservative. Liberals will use a lot of brain power to argue that all you have to do to get more money to take care of a deficit is to print more pieces of paper or enter a few more zeros into a computer. I wish I had thought of that. Since I’m obviously less intelligent than a free-spending liberal, please explain to me why the fiscal mess our nation and the rest of the world is in is a good thing? Why are the people in Greece and Spain (and previously in England) rioting? I guess it takes being a liberal to know, since we conservatives are just too stupid, and have too low an IQ to know.
Lower IQ conservatives believe that the best way to grow an economy is to remove as many obstacles so that people will have incentives to work in order to make a profit. High IQ liberals believe that the best way to grow the economy is to tax the most productive members of a society and give the money taken from these people to people who are less productive, even though they can offer no evidence that their policies work. Since this methodology has never worked in any country in which it has been tried (the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba), continuing to do something that does not work in the real world is the work of someone with a low IQ. Einstein (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results) called it insanity. But because liberals with higher IQs propose and repeat and repeat such nonsense, it must be the smart thing to do.
It doesn’t take much brain power to conclude that if you pay people to do something, they’ll do more of that thing to get more money. If you pay people not to work or you pay women to have babies out of wedlock, you are going to get more people who don’t work and more women who have babies. So if you want to get people to look for jobs and women not to have babies outside of marriage, you stop paying them. Contrary to all the bad effects of people not working and women having babies so they can get paid more money, liberals continue to support paying people not to work and women to keep having babies. And all it took were higher IQ liberals to come up with that policy. Wow!
Have you all you higher IQ liberals noticed that I am making fun of you?
I now turn this forum over higher IQ liberals (y’all know who y’all are) for specific examples of (1) how I am wrong, and (2) how liberal policies have, in the long run, benefited mankind.
But that’s just my opinion.