[FoRK] FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin
geege4 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 12 06:57:26 PDT 2008
<The ideological left is no different. As a favorite hobby horse, they are
willfully and grotesquely ignorant of economics even when the actual math
could be used in some cases to support their preferred ideological
Now that's one religious belief I'd like to see examined in full rational
light. Under the trifecta of rightist leadership: Large tax breaks during
time of war. There's a laundry list of other weird reallocations, but let's
start with this.
The right applies the same fundamentalist approach to economics as they do
to faith, and actual math has little to do with it. Trickle down theory is
their Bible, regressive tax is their God, and progressive tax is their
Antichrist. Good vs evil, no middle ground.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:32 AM, J. Andrew Rogers <
andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2008, at 12:16 AM, Reza B'Far wrote:
>> Does anyone know if there is a study somewhere of IQ vs. various political
> I doubt there is much in the way of significant correlation in any kind of
> useful sense on the left-to-right axis, and anecdotally I have not noticed
> any. There are a number of relevant dimensions to somewhat irrational
> authoritarianism that could be independently evaluated.
> It seems that would answer your questions Andrew. If the claim is that
>> Educational Instutions are inherently "lefty" (possible... I have no
>> on this),
> To make it clear, I do not make this claim.
> then a study of IQ vs. various political positions should show if
>> the right is more anti-intellectual or the left. In other words, the LCD
>> for "intellect" is (at least IMHO) IQ (removing all environmental
>> variables). So, if people with higher IQ's arrive at the same political
>> positions (statistically so), then can one conclude that those positions
>> "more evolved"?
> No, this does not really follow. Intelligence is orthogonal to
> rationality, strictly speaking. While a person with a higher IQ is more
> likely to arrive at a (slightly) more reasonable conclusion, frankly most
> people of all IQ's readily believe such patent nonsense in the absence of
> credible evidence that it drowns out most other factors. A retard that was
> reliably rational would make better decisions about the nature of reality on
> average than your typical middling genius. And there are plenty of examples
> of supposedly highly intelligent people believing truly stupid and
> irrational arguments; see Roger Penrose for a moderate case or Noam Chomsky
> for an extreme one. I frequently doubt that most people can help it.
> Most people that believe in evolution believe in it in the same sense that
> most creationists believe in creationism -- dogma that they parrot without
> grokking. There is no virtue in either position, as both are deeply
> ignorant and one just happens to be probabilistically more likely to be
> correct than the other per Occam's Razor as a matter of pure chance that
> does not reflect any knowledge on the part of the believer. If you put the
> same evolution-believing ignorant in a different social context, they would
> be creationists just as easily. The vast majority of people have a
> creationist's understanding of evolution, a significant percentage of which
> choose the winning team for all the wrong reasons.
> The ideological left is no different. As a favorite hobby horse, they are
> willfully and grotesquely ignorant of economics even when the actual math
> could be used in some cases to support their preferred ideological
> conclusions. The same goes for the ideological right, but their economic
> stupidity tends to be more subtle. And the left's record on science is as
> bad as the right's record, they just pick different areas to proudly display
> their militant ignorance and irrationality. Go team.
> I have no interest in this whole reality denial thing, but it seems to be a
> popular past-time. As an anecdote, people that put a pox on all those
> political ideological houses seem, to me, to be more rational and
> intelligent even when I disagree with them. But that is probably just a
> reflection of my own preferences.
> J. Andrew Rogers
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK