Saturday, October 03, 2009
Inverse Social Darwinism: Selection for Stupid
This has to be the funniest thread I have ever read at Secular Right (well...except for HeatherMac on how poofy weddings will make afro-americans avoid marriage).
Thus the persistance of the birther meme in a “memetic" deme that exhibits all three traits.
Visiting HotAir Commenter: Telling people they are stupid won’t change their minds —especially if they are stupid.David Hume: this is a very good, and depressing point.
Wow.....yah think? The GOP has selected for people-too-stupid-to-understand-ToE for years, and it's a Big Surprise to these guys that the base is homogeneously IQ-challenged?
lulz, gotta love the Right.
Even their smart people are retards.
Oh, come on, Andrew.
The GOP has downselected for reps that don't have the substrate to understand ToE for 40 years.
That is a pretty simple selection gradient.
The reason birtherism persists is because the republican base is "low information"...read low IQ.
There is a big IQ gap between the parties. Low IQ correlates with high levels of religiousity, low levels of education, and low levels of cognitive structure.Thus the persistance of the birther meme in a “memetic" deme that exhibits all three traits.
Sarah Palin is simply the end-game result of 40 years of "selection for stupid."
Lissen to razib.
“i think there’s a reason that the IQs of fundamentalists in the USA is so much lower than moderate, and especially liberal, religionists. ”
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 7:19 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Bear in mind that none of this is a problem in Europe, where even low-IQ persons are becoming secular, and generally accept Darwinism.
So I don't know that this is really a "stupidity" issue. It's got more to do with, why is religion still so persistent in the USA?
So I don't know that this is really a "stupidity" issue. It's got more to do with, why is religion still so persistent in the USA?
I just wanted to raise another point here. Vaguely related.
You are probably aware that Rio has been awarded the 2016 Olympics, beating out Chicago.
I have been reading in a number of places that there is speculation, that one of the factors that tipped the Olympic Committee's hand, is the perceived onerous border controls that the USA has in force.
While I am not really personally interested in the Olympics. (I did watch it once on TV, in the 1970s, I seem to vaguely recall. Haven't bothered with it since).
However, it does worry me that similar forces might be negatively impacting US science. (The interesting graphic still works for me if I click on it)
h/t Barry Ritholz
USA has to either import science talent, or it has to train sufficient of its own. So I believe a super-science-friendly culture is going to be critical for the future of the West. As the competition continues to heat up.
You are probably aware that Rio has been awarded the 2016 Olympics, beating out Chicago.
I have been reading in a number of places that there is speculation, that one of the factors that tipped the Olympic Committee's hand, is the perceived onerous border controls that the USA has in force.
While I am not really personally interested in the Olympics. (I did watch it once on TV, in the 1970s, I seem to vaguely recall. Haven't bothered with it since).
However, it does worry me that similar forces might be negatively impacting US science. (The interesting graphic still works for me if I click on it)
h/t Barry Ritholz
USA has to either import science talent, or it has to train sufficient of its own. So I believe a super-science-friendly culture is going to be critical for the future of the West. As the competition continues to heat up.
You can see that this is not just an intelligence issue.
If you look at Razib's chart, even graduate and bachelors degrees have only about 50% belief in Evolution.
The same is true for persons ranked as smart by the WORDSUM variable.
I think it's reasonable to infer that hostility to evolution is a proxy for hostility to science in general. Since evolution as a general principle cuts across biology, astronomy & astrophysics, geology, cosmology & general relativity.
The only variables that are highly predictive are the explicitly religious ones, like Bible is the word of God and No religion.
So the most important conclusion I draw from that chart is that literalistic religion seriously rots your brain.
If you look at Razib's chart, even graduate and bachelors degrees have only about 50% belief in Evolution.
The same is true for persons ranked as smart by the WORDSUM variable.
I think it's reasonable to infer that hostility to evolution is a proxy for hostility to science in general. Since evolution as a general principle cuts across biology, astronomy & astrophysics, geology, cosmology & general relativity.
The only variables that are highly predictive are the explicitly religious ones, like Bible is the word of God and No religion.
So the most important conclusion I draw from that chart is that literalistic religion seriously rots your brain.
Think about it Shams.
It's not conservatism that is the problem. In USA, religious liberals have the same problem with evolution. Also conservative Europeans don't have such a problem with evolution, because Europe is not so religious.
It's not intelligence that is the problem, except when it is linked with religion. Even high intelligence people reject evolution at a high level if they are religious literalists. Also Low IQ secular Europeans accept evolution.
Conclusion: The problem is not conservatism as such. It is not intelligence as such. It is religion and only religion that is the problem.
Conservatism or low intelligence are not a problem unless they are linked with religion.
I'll bet if you did a multiple regression on the three variables: religiousness, intelligence and political conservatism, you would find that by-far the strongest predictor of hostility to evolution (science) would be religion.
It's not conservatism that is the problem. In USA, religious liberals have the same problem with evolution. Also conservative Europeans don't have such a problem with evolution, because Europe is not so religious.
It's not intelligence that is the problem, except when it is linked with religion. Even high intelligence people reject evolution at a high level if they are religious literalists. Also Low IQ secular Europeans accept evolution.
Conclusion: The problem is not conservatism as such. It is not intelligence as such. It is religion and only religion that is the problem.
Conservatism or low intelligence are not a problem unless they are linked with religion.
I'll bet if you did a multiple regression on the three variables: religiousness, intelligence and political conservatism, you would find that by-far the strongest predictor of hostility to evolution (science) would be religion.
Serge Brunier has done a wonderful full screen panorama of the night sky. Galactic plane view.
Click on F11 to make it full screen.
Arrow keys for navigation or mouse drag.
A-Z keys for zoom or mouse scroll.
Serge's Website is here.
Click on F11 to make it full screen.
Arrow keys for navigation or mouse drag.
A-Z keys for zoom or mouse scroll.
Serge's Website is here.
Dude.
Razib's own words.
“i think there’s a reason that the IQs of fundamentalists in the USA is so much lower than moderate, and especially liberal, religionists. the system is rigged so that any deviation from “orthodoxy” means the whole system collapses and one sees nihilism as the only valid alternative.”
IQ is negatively correlated with religious belief
Razib's own words.
“i think there’s a reason that the IQs of fundamentalists in the USA is so much lower than moderate, and especially liberal, religionists. the system is rigged so that any deviation from “orthodoxy” means the whole system collapses and one sees nihilism as the only valid alternative.”
IQ is negatively correlated with religious belief
Correlation doesn't prove causation. And certainly not the direction of causation.
Also I see only 5.89 IQ points between Atheists and Dogmatics in your link.
And on this you explain the difficulty of accepting evolution???? 6 IQ points?
When only 50% of the Bachelors and Graduate subcategories of the conservatives believe in evolution vs 30%-40% for the less-educated???
Also look how small the variation is across the different WORDSUM subcategories.
When low IQ people in Europe accept evolution?
I repeat: "by-far the strongest predictor of hostility to evolution (science) would be religion".
To really prove the IQ thesis, you would have to do a multivariate study that separately controlled for religious conservativism/political-conservatism/intelligence.
Because that is the only way you could unravel how strong the 3 influences were, after allowing for strong covariances in the data.
That's the impression I get eyeballing the data. And particularly the variations across the subcategories.
There is just not that much variation in the beliefs, conditional on intelligence. Look at Razib's chart.
In fact it's so small that you could explain it as second-order effects.
e.g. Low IQ people avoid science degrees. Don't get exposed so much to evolutionary thought.
The only really strong effect I see in Razibs chart is the deep antipathy between religion and science. It's like matter and antimatter.
Also I see only 5.89 IQ points between Atheists and Dogmatics in your link.
And on this you explain the difficulty of accepting evolution???? 6 IQ points?
When only 50% of the Bachelors and Graduate subcategories of the conservatives believe in evolution vs 30%-40% for the less-educated???
Also look how small the variation is across the different WORDSUM subcategories.
When low IQ people in Europe accept evolution?
I repeat: "by-far the strongest predictor of hostility to evolution (science) would be religion".
To really prove the IQ thesis, you would have to do a multivariate study that separately controlled for religious conservativism/political-conservatism/intelligence.
Because that is the only way you could unravel how strong the 3 influences were, after allowing for strong covariances in the data.
That's the impression I get eyeballing the data. And particularly the variations across the subcategories.
There is just not that much variation in the beliefs, conditional on intelligence. Look at Razib's chart.
In fact it's so small that you could explain it as second-order effects.
e.g. Low IQ people avoid science degrees. Don't get exposed so much to evolutionary thought.
The only really strong effect I see in Razibs chart is the deep antipathy between religion and science. It's like matter and antimatter.
I think its IQ...look at the birtherism phenomenon....like over 50% of the "low information" base manifest.
Two digits are are more capable of maintaining cognitive dissonance.
Think about it Spock.....40 years of downselection for ToE denialists.....people that don't have the substrate to understand ToE.
Two digits are are more capable of maintaining cognitive dissonance.
Think about it Spock.....40 years of downselection for ToE denialists.....people that don't have the substrate to understand ToE.
How about 40 years of deliberate disinformation by the conservative elite leadership pandering to the gullibility, trust and dependency of the low-IQ base?.
I actually preferred your earlier argument: "You may not be book smart but you are God-smart." Deliberate self-esteem boosting as a trick in salesmanship.
40 years of psychological warfare by the rich tax-exempt churches against the low income groups that depend on them for social support. Encouraging them to mistrust science so that they won't be tempted to doubt religion.
Parasitism by the Churches' elites explains the correlations.
The problem is religion - Not low-IQ as a separate cause.
Even birtherism is a propaganda movement at it's core. You think the low-IQ dreamt that up? Decided hey that's a good idea we should use it?
Keep them in the dark, cover them with bullshit.
I also agree with this argument I have heard you make before: The liberals bribe the base, the conservative elites use propaganda, religious mumbojumbo, and memewar. Also racial anxiety, islamophobia, hispanophobia, you name it.
You see the dumb base. I see the rich elite religio-political leadership swanning around in their private jets.
I actually preferred your earlier argument: "You may not be book smart but you are God-smart." Deliberate self-esteem boosting as a trick in salesmanship.
40 years of psychological warfare by the rich tax-exempt churches against the low income groups that depend on them for social support. Encouraging them to mistrust science so that they won't be tempted to doubt religion.
Parasitism by the Churches' elites explains the correlations.
The problem is religion - Not low-IQ as a separate cause.
Even birtherism is a propaganda movement at it's core. You think the low-IQ dreamt that up? Decided hey that's a good idea we should use it?
Keep them in the dark, cover them with bullshit.
I also agree with this argument I have heard you make before: The liberals bribe the base, the conservative elites use propaganda, religious mumbojumbo, and memewar. Also racial anxiety, islamophobia, hispanophobia, you name it.
You see the dumb base. I see the rich elite religio-political leadership swanning around in their private jets.
well.....truedat......the conservo leadership has evolved the low information/low IQ base over the past 40 years.
Not just selection for people too stupid to understand evolution, but for people too stupid to realize they are being scammed into supporting programs that hurt them.
I like this nation article from pre-election last year...
Instead, an Obama victory would simultaneously be comeuppance to a forty-year-old conservative strategy of scapegoating minorities and the realization of long-term demographic trends that finally allow those minorities collectively to achieve majority status. Relative to his national levels of support, Obama will receive pretty much the same percentage of support from virtually all demographic groups that previous, defeated Democratic nominees such as Michael Dukakis and John Kerry received. The difference will be that, in 2008, those groups will be large enough to win a national election.
Since 1968 American presidential elections have been defined as a competition over fundamentally conservative identity groups. Even though they are not precisely congruous, a direct lineage exists from the Nixon-forged Southern Strategy of the 1960s and ’70s, to the Reagan Democrats of the ’80s, to Mark Penn’s Bubbas of the ’90s and on to the Values Voters of this decade. These swing voting groups are overwhelmingly white, not very urban, heavily blue-collar, generally Southern and always socially conservative. Even though the labels have changed, these four criteria have been the genetic code of swing voters for nearly forty years. In every case, the decisive swing voting group has been hostile to impending social change brought on by various civil rights movements and resentful of the cultural predilections of an urban, bicoastal “liberal elite.” The quest to capture these voters has created an entire generation of pundits, strategists and party leaders who will do everything possible to appear not-liberal, not-elite and in touch with the values of small-town America, whatever those values happen to be at any given moment.
Not just selection for people too stupid to understand evolution, but for people too stupid to realize they are being scammed into supporting programs that hurt them.
I like this nation article from pre-election last year...
Instead, an Obama victory would simultaneously be comeuppance to a forty-year-old conservative strategy of scapegoating minorities and the realization of long-term demographic trends that finally allow those minorities collectively to achieve majority status. Relative to his national levels of support, Obama will receive pretty much the same percentage of support from virtually all demographic groups that previous, defeated Democratic nominees such as Michael Dukakis and John Kerry received. The difference will be that, in 2008, those groups will be large enough to win a national election.
Since 1968 American presidential elections have been defined as a competition over fundamentally conservative identity groups. Even though they are not precisely congruous, a direct lineage exists from the Nixon-forged Southern Strategy of the 1960s and ’70s, to the Reagan Democrats of the ’80s, to Mark Penn’s Bubbas of the ’90s and on to the Values Voters of this decade. These swing voting groups are overwhelmingly white, not very urban, heavily blue-collar, generally Southern and always socially conservative. Even though the labels have changed, these four criteria have been the genetic code of swing voters for nearly forty years. In every case, the decisive swing voting group has been hostile to impending social change brought on by various civil rights movements and resentful of the cultural predilections of an urban, bicoastal “liberal elite.” The quest to capture these voters has created an entire generation of pundits, strategists and party leaders who will do everything possible to appear not-liberal, not-elite and in touch with the values of small-town America, whatever those values happen to be at any given moment.
See, that demographic argument of your's is an interesting one, except that I would expect that the conservative elite know it as well as you do.
So I think they are planning at some level, at some time, to move to a Eurostyle Christian Democrat party. So they are trying to figure out how to massage the Hispanic Catholic conservatives into the fold.
Don't you see that W was already like a trial balloon on this question? His domestic policy stance was CD not GOP.
So the grassroots spat the dummy, this time. Well I say it ain't going to go away. USA's immigration pattern is going to be hispanocentric from now on - even the legal immigrants.
Europe is ageing fast and about to enter the population crash from Hell.
So I think they are planning at some level, at some time, to move to a Eurostyle Christian Democrat party. So they are trying to figure out how to massage the Hispanic Catholic conservatives into the fold.
Don't you see that W was already like a trial balloon on this question? His domestic policy stance was CD not GOP.
So the grassroots spat the dummy, this time. Well I say it ain't going to go away. USA's immigration pattern is going to be hispanocentric from now on - even the legal immigrants.
Europe is ageing fast and about to enter the population crash from Hell.
See the thing you've got to remember about demography. Is that the population crash begins at the newborn-end of the demographic curve and works its way up.
So by now the crashwave has already passed the 40-50yo, after which few people emigrate unless it's for family reunions.
So Europa is already crashing as far as working-age people is concerned. The baby-boomers were the final wave of growth.
Après-eux la deluge.
So by now the crashwave has already passed the 40-50yo, after which few people emigrate unless it's for family reunions.
So Europa is already crashing as far as working-age people is concerned. The baby-boomers were the final wave of growth.
Après-eux la deluge.
_So they are trying to figure out how to massage the Hispanic Catholic conservatives into the fold._
But they can't, Spock.
At the first sign of hispandering the base will rage-log on them.
But they can't, Spock.
At the first sign of hispandering the base will rage-log on them.
Not necessarily.
The base objects to an amnesty that would allow the illegals to be regularized. But the proportion of legal Hispanic immigrants is likely to keep increasing too.
I don't think the base has any objection to legal Hispanic immigrants joining the GOP. At some point they'll have the numbers to outvote the current base.
Otherwise the amnesty has to take place under a Dem government.
The demographic trend is inexorable. From Europe you are mostly going to get declining numbers of older family-reunion type immigrants in the future. Even if they come, they're too old on average to have many kids.
You are only getting younger families from Latin America. LatAms population growth has only recently come under control, so they will still be a young population for many decades. Their demographic curve might flatten by mid-century.
Young families continue to have children after arrival, who grow-up, marry and have more kids. So first and second generation Hispanics will keep rising as a percentage.
The base objects to an amnesty that would allow the illegals to be regularized. But the proportion of legal Hispanic immigrants is likely to keep increasing too.
I don't think the base has any objection to legal Hispanic immigrants joining the GOP. At some point they'll have the numbers to outvote the current base.
Otherwise the amnesty has to take place under a Dem government.
The demographic trend is inexorable. From Europe you are mostly going to get declining numbers of older family-reunion type immigrants in the future. Even if they come, they're too old on average to have many kids.
You are only getting younger families from Latin America. LatAms population growth has only recently come under control, so they will still be a young population for many decades. Their demographic curve might flatten by mid-century.
Young families continue to have children after arrival, who grow-up, marry and have more kids. So first and second generation Hispanics will keep rising as a percentage.
Well, they become more accomodating to Hispanic members or they decline numerically.
Besides there will always be states with a higher Hispanic percentage, where most of the new recruits will have to be Hispanics, because there's less and less alternatives. Especially if you are looking for young recruits.
Besides there will always be states with a higher Hispanic percentage, where most of the new recruits will have to be Hispanics, because there's less and less alternatives. Especially if you are looking for young recruits.
The Hispanic population will fall victim to the duo of things that make one a GOPer that the Dem party has inoculated the Black population against with outlandish claims of GOP "racism" (literally in the 90s they were running ads that stated explicitly that if you vote for the GOP candidate "more black churches will burn"): that of a rising, socially conservative middle class.
The GOP is the party of the tax-hating middle class; the Democratic party is the party of resentful divided groups that the Democrats can pit against each other for power*. Both parties are pretty much a wash when it comes to the rich.
The GOP is the party of the tax-hating middle class; the Democratic party is the party of resentful divided groups that the Democrats can pit against each other for power*. Both parties are pretty much a wash when it comes to the rich.
I believe the problem is: Mary is uniquely virtuous among all the sinful women.
She had to be, to be worthy of being the bearer of the male God's, male Son.
But even so, she is in no way the equal of "God the Father", much less her Son.
Online Bingovilla
She had to be, to be worthy of being the bearer of the male God's, male Son.
But even so, she is in no way the equal of "God the Father", much less her Son.
Online Bingovilla
They are losing their homes that they overborrowed on, and overpaid on. They have lost heavily on their investments. Many have lost jobs.
Sightline Payments Kirk SanfordTop Casinos Online
Sightline Payments Kirk SanfordTop Casinos Online
You must have surely heard about free radicals, often in context with antioxidants.
novidades de pokerfinancial spread betting
Post a Comment
novidades de pokerfinancial spread betting
<< Home
