Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution

Royale, I dont know too much acout MLK jr. but didnt he say dont judge a man by the color of his skin, but by his character. That is a conservative belief, not a progressive leftist belief.

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.

Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.

so im not even sure what the point your trying to make is

@Caliban:
I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.

Physicians are 26 times more likely to be Hindu than the overall U.S. population (5.3 percent of doctors vs. 0.2 percent of nonphysicians). Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent), six times more likely to be Buddhist (1.2 percent vs. 0.2 percent) and five times more likely to be Muslim (2.7 percent vs. 0.5 percent).

The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife. ... We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine.

It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions

What, you mean convert? That don't make sense.

That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.

"It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
http://www.econli...Epilogue
Are you a fellow traveler?

Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."

monogamy yields fewer offspring

a non-kin-centered world view hampers kin selection

and atheism...well, considering how prevalent religion is, I should be very surprised if atheism were adaptive

If our intelligence increases too much, we start resisting our own instincts

@Frink,

Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."

Whether you agree with that particular definition or not, there are definite signs that we might soon be experiencing the fact:

http://www.global...Id=17736

Food for thought.

The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.

Quote function didn't execute properlyon my last post. Then delay for flood control. Sorry.

Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve

You contradict yourself. 'Social' constructs involve more than one brain. And being openly gay- or any such lascivious or intrusive behavior- naturally annoys most people. But you don't care... Or maybe you do?

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.

can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?

Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.

No, many here are aligned with those McCarthy was trying find.
It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society. Unless, they do know what they are doing. If so, the arrogance and hubris of the 'intelligent' are showing on this board.

Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.

You have missed the point of the article entirely.

Stuck in the clouds of your ego.

What minority group are you referring?

How is this junk science?

In a free market, corporations are regulated by their customers and competition.

It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society.

Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.

Only in theory. In practice, as you would be aware if you had any concept of American history, not so much. We essentially had a free market economy up until Teddy Roosevelt. Regulation was necessary because of the actions of private enterprise. Again, education.

Liberalism and socialism have no bond. You can be both, one or the other, or neither. You can be a conservative socialist or a liberal socialist, etc.

As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.

I define stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant.

@Skeptic Heretic

As you hastily dispatched Marjon's argument I can do the same for your argument against Capitalism: Hong Kong.

Only if you ignore the government intervention to A) get the ball rolling, B) keep it rolling and C) give it a push when it stops rolling. Nice try, though.

in other words Red = dumb Blue = smart

that bout sums it up for you fucktards lawl

So what's your IQ?!

Advanced business practices

Understanding of class in societies and the psychological effects of class on economies.

User interface design in regards to advanced technology

And Sweden arose as a socialist republic with no government right? Wrong.

Capitalism doesn't concern itself with the government or the State.

Economic systems have been quantified and rated by Heritage and can be found here:http://www.heritage.org/index/

Regulation was not necessary. It was a way for political entrepreneurs to control their competition.

Stop feeding the troll.

Stop feeding the troll.

Acknowledged.

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.

Take a breather everybody. These statistics show the case for the average person. If you are conservative and religious but are cruising physorg, you are probably smarter than the average person. This is not an attack on any one individual. The study shows that generally Atheistic liberals are smarter, GENERALLY, NOT ALWAYS.

PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology.
It must be the fact that I'm a conservative Christian that kept me from that 36 on my ACT, the 100th percentile on my GRE, and from attending Harvard or UCSD.
Damn. If only I'd known.

Uh, you're not gonna go into a staff meeting and shoot up a bunch of people are ya, 'cause I'd wanna call somebody then.

Data suggests Amy Bishop, PhD, who murdered three professors and killed her brother, was a socialist.
What intelligence!

The point of my comment was not to "spread my faith," but rather to show that even "Christian conservatives" can have high IQs and be just as intelligent as liberal atheists.

Morals are pointless or the existence of a "god" is probable.

Putting IQ in terms of a computer, what does it measure?
Memory? Processing speed? Algorithms?

The article "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

most higher IQ people realize that there is alot that they don't know

Really? If true, you are the first I have heard to admit to this.

AI3, how about we say most smart people realize that there is a lot they dont know, and dumb people dont know how much they dont know.

First of all, I never said I was anything other than an outlier.

Unless you sample peoples of every kind, nation, and background, the statistics mean nothing

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.

I believe in global-warming, you're commiting a logical fallacy by associating me with other fallacious logics.

@Marjon

Doctors in a socialist country would be people who wanted to help and also academically qualify.

Then it wouldn't be a study. They asked people to describe their political ideologies, then did statistical analyses comparing their SELF ASCRIBED political positions to their INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED IQs. The results are shown above. If you want to complain about something, why not complain to the SELF DESCRIBED conservatives who got below average IQ scores?

How do they do that?

Governments have the power to force you to do what they want.

Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen.

If people don't like what I write, ignore it. Apparently I hit a nerve or two with some as they can only respond with insults.

The study specified that they looked at young adults (i.e. people who are at least 18) who had taken IQ tests as adolescents.

'Throughout the Dark Ages and Medieval period the monasteries were practically the only repository of scholarship and learning...'

In fact, I struggle to think of any major historical scientist/artist/engineer/achitect (fill in the blank space) who was regarded as an extremely devout soul. I may stand corrected.

Max Planck.
Astronaut John Glenn.

… YOU KNOW religion was the only game in town. Where'd the money come from? What was the main message they were all sewing? 'God is on OUR side, the side of good and right.' Stop em-bare-assing yourselves.

We all know smoking is bad for you. A conservative will tell you that. A progressive will prevent you from smoking. Its all about respect for the person.

If the Bible is fiction, it is historical fiction in that the places in the Bible do or did exist.

Considering His humble beginnings and word of mouth advertising, Jesus has quite a reputation.

The state becomes addicted to the money and can't be taken seriously in any claims such drugs are dangerous.

Then what's your opinion regarding the Odyssey?

How is it doing on Amazon?
How many people have a copy or two at home?
When did Gutenberg print it for the masses?

If the [name of book] is fiction, it is historical fiction in that the places in the [name of book] do or did exist.

@freehating,

How predictable! Name calling and accusing someone of hate in one word.
You must be a real smart 'progressive'.

Great reason to end government subsidy for health care and hold people accountable for their actions.

A 'god' as in reality or the natural forces who acts exactly the same whether you worship it or not has to be preferable. It is DEPENDABLE. It is the only one honest enough to let you learn from it. It enables you to take better care of yourself, to enhance your chances for survival on your own.

What would you say if I told you a sentient God loved you, regardless of anything you did, even if your actions have repercussions far beyond anything we can see and imagine?

But many others could not muster the will to overcome their trips of life, until undeniable supernatural providence intervened.

The indisputable fact of history among all reputable scholars (those that aren't Christophobic Leftwing Secular Fundamentalists with a theological ax to grind)is that Jesus of Nazareth was a real rabbi who lived & taught in 1st Century AD Judea. His miracles and all resurrection are a matter of faith for those of us who are Christians and are out of the realm of empirical science.

No credable person doubts that Jesus, Paul, or James existed or that the things that happened in the new testament happened.

Troy was once thought to be a legend.

The point is many legends are based upon facts.

Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism.
...
hold fast to that which is true.

Many legends are based upon facts

skeptic H- Eugentics is based on the believe certain people are worth more than others, which is a part of progressivism.

Neither it is survival of the best reproducing. Ultimately anything that goes extinct did not reproduce well enough.

Just that the mentally retarded and sick have the same rights as you have, and are just as valuable.

Thats their choice, and is not eugenics. Government telling them they cant have children, or killing those deemed inferior is eugenics and is never ethical and always leads to final solution.

I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.

honest Truths

What are those?

You godders expose the true nature of your institution every time you post: The church is based uopn lies, subsists by theft, and exists by bribing weak minds with outrageous promises and the threat of eternal damnation if one of you dares to ask 'why?' and entertain any answer which is not part of Official Doctrine.

This is also more proof that you serve Darkness and not Light.

It is very revealing how quickly 'illiberals' begin accusing others of 'hate' and flinging insults.

How is "The Meaning of "Progressive" Politics" anti-intellectual?

Is it anti-intellectual to oppose a government system that crushes intellectual liberty?

Is it normal in a 'peer' review to accuse the author of hate or to intentionally mis-spell the name?

Is that how 'science' works today?

In your opinion, why was the entire article content anti-intellectual? Define 'anti-intellectual'.

If Big Business was the devil of Progressive rhetoric, it was nonetheless the beneficiary of Progressive policy.

Socialists demand fairness in an economy. How is it fair when some can live at the expense of others?

The Pilgrims thought they should live communally, but they discovered people would work harder, raising more food for all if they were appropriately compensated.

Nearly anyone can own shares.

Putting the company out of business will surely help their workers.

This is true. Big business has the money to lobby legislators and to absorb and influence regulations to control their competition.

@Caliban, check this out:

http://www.swarmusa.com/vb4/

I hope something like this can really take off and gain momentum. Though I'm not betting the farm: this country is stuffed to the gills with apathetic, anesthetized, brainwashed human vegetables with a raging case of the Stockholm syndrome.

Retail investing has worked out real well over the last couple of decades

Let's try government ownership of all corporations.
Maybe THIS time it won't result in food shortages and deprivation as it has done every time it was tried before.

Recipients hopefully had a sense gratitude for the help...

These volunteers belonged to churches, mutual aid societies, etc.

Government welfare takes, inspiring resentment...

and then 'gives' inspiring only entitlement and dependency in the recipients.

The foundation is constructed upon a faith in God.

Is that why you attack religion? That way you can advocate for more government control?

How many were Christian?
It is a Christian society that opposes the murder of babies before they are born.

I can have faith in God and the Bible without joining or participating in any religion.

So since otto your an athiest, could we accuse you of being guilty of all the murders (totalling now over 100 million) caused by athiests in the name of communism?

Yes, he is preaching communism.

When someone continuously attacks a philosophy that has led to the liberation of millions of people over several hundred years, what else should I assume except he prefers state tyranny.

Active ignorance of the tremendous positive contributions made by Judeao-Christian philosophy imply Auto does not desire such positive contributions such as liberty and free markets.

Skeptic Im suprised you are following Otto. Christian theology is about liberty and freedom.

Christ liberated the Jews from The Law.

The building of schools, the abolision movement being started mainly by christian.

Most of the work in the past 500 years regarding liberty and capitalism was written and advocated by Christians.

As I thought, a bigot.

in the same thread! Accusing others of name calling and turning right around and doing it yourself. Nicely done sir. Thanks for the entertaining read.

Pink -- so you agree a progressive is for big government and a conservative is for small government?

Pinkie, Puritan Christians escaped Europe for America to practice their religion free of the state.

...blame christians for all the evils in the world, think christianity should be banned, that christians should not be allowed to express their views in public.

And when conflict inevitably arises the veil quickly drops and godders show themselves for what they are, and what their religions are really for, in places like Nigeria.

How is expressing one's beliefs forcing them upon anyone?

Christians can only persuade. If their words make you feel bad, don't listen.
If people don't like what I write, ignore it.

The Christian cross represents pain, suffering and degradation. A sword is a common symbol of Islam. Fitting as Islam means 'submission'.

Atheist progressives seem to have no standards to live by except how they feel today.

"How do we teach them to desire the respect of the Protestant/Midwesterner over the sickening pity of the Left Coast Secularist? "

It is a Christian society that opposes the murder of babies before they are born.

Are you actively ignoring all this history or, like Auto, you are an anti-religious bigot?

As I thought, a bigot.

...which shows how pervasive tribalism is in the human psyche.

Tribalism is being successfully bred out of westerners.

The brightest removed from their incipient cultures to college and professions

professionals shuffled arround the country for work

best and brightest encouraged to emigrate to west

religious barriers to intermix mitigated by exposure to western culture

dregs left back home to attrition

the species is being rehomogenized, babel undone

One language

one culture

one govt

one world- sustainability

No reason to outgrow your enemies

And NO religion. There can never be just ONE religion.

Se parakalo - it's "Auge um Auge"/"Ed dem b'ed dem".

watch literality; Auge zur Auge, Zahn zum Zahn (idiomatische Wendung?)

I see, you love the German language. Unfortunately it doesn't love you.

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.

I don't see a problem with it.

If you don't know German you certainly don't have a problem with otto1923's wrong German grammar.

Then again, it's a southwestern dialectic he's using, along with a bit of google translate.

No, it's plain wrong grammar. Because "Auge" is of neuter gender ("das Auge") which never can be preceded by a feminine form of a preposition like "zur".

What are your disagreements with it?

I don't disagree with using wrong language. I'm just wondering why somebody would show off with a language he has no good command of.

but even for an athiest to say this proves Jesus was violent is stretching the truth to the breaking point.

A funny statement for Otto: If you claim God is dead, then youve admitted that God existed...

Otto, if killing a fig tree is violent, then Im guilty of mass murder for all the trees Ive cut down.

Again, Athiests speaking in ignorance and taking things out of context.

Pink and Skeptic you are way to smart to resort to those tactics.

Please quote from the bible how Jesus looked? Was he 5 10, white, blond hair blue eyes, with a nicely trimmed beard? There is no specific description of Jesus.

You don't spend much time in the Saarland.

Doesn't matter. Do you have any evidence for your implicit claim that there is any German speaking region in the world where people use idiomatically "Auge zur Auge"? Google? Publication? Book? Any public source?

Again, Athiests speaking in ignorance and taking things out of context. Doing this is beneith those who argue against chritiantiy in an intellectually honest way. Pink and Skeptic you are way to smart to resort to those tactics.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father...

Gummischwanz = dildo no dialectic there sir.

When examples are provided to prove scientists can be Christian and practice science at the same time, we get 'but they were of no great repute'. Most scientists are 'of no great repute'. But two Christian scientists that come to mind are Max Planck and William D. Phillips, '97 Nobel prize, physics.
The fact that scientists can be great and be Christian has been established.

AFAIK there is nothing in modern Catholicism which contradicts scientific theories

polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc.

What are the failure rates for condoms?
The only sure way NOT to contract HIV is to: NOT have sex, NOT use dirty needles and NOT have blood transfusions.

People may fail to abstain, but that is their fault.
What is the failure rate of condoms?

Condom users believe they are 100% safe.

Ignorance of reality seems to plague a lot of christianists. They also seem to blame a lot of problems on others instead of taking responsibility or helping. That story of the Jesus dude and the lepers? That just makes christianists mad.

Advocating abstinence is promoting individual responsibility.
It is people like you that blame others for limiting your behaviour. Reminds me of the whining of grounded teenagers.

Advocating abstinence is promoting individual responsibility.
It is people like you that blame others for limiting your behaviour. Reminds me of the whining of grounded teenagers.

JK: People can't support causes they believe in?
What is amusing about prop 8 is that those minorities the the liberals claim to adore voted overwhelming to oppose homosexual marriage.
MA denied citizens the right to define marriage. If the MA homosexual mafia ever allowed a vote in MA, homosexual marriage in MA would end.

The legislature refused to allow the people to vote. What were they afraid of?

What is amusing about prop 8 is that those minorities the the liberals claim to adore voted overwhelming to oppose homosexual marriage.

Its economy is not far behind CA.

...those who claim to be 'for the people' cheer when unaccountable state officials make laws...

minority blacks and Hispanics that voted against homosexual marriage in CA

homosexual marriage is weakening the family in Norway

And they won't be liberal atheists

When a Muslim or Mormon sues for this religious right to multiple wives, you must support that if you support judicial fiat.

That will accelerate the number of believers

You afraid of a little more freedom, marjon?

The people who are afraid of liberty are those who depend upon liberal judges to force their 'values' upon others.

1. I support the end of special government privilege or recognition of marriage.

2. If voters decide that the government has valid reasons to recognize and sanction marriage, then the people in that government have the right and obligation to define 'marriage'.

This path essentially makes the definition of 'marriage' whatever anyone wants it to be.

they have a long way to go to obtain social acceptance.

Was it fair for the WA teacher who had an affair and eventually married a student to go to jail for rape? Your argument is specious.

If marriage has no definition, then it ceases to exist as a concept.

Homosexuals may obtain some satisfaction that they have legal recognition of marriage, but they have a long way to go to obtain social acceptance

When was 'marriage' required for consenting adults to sleep together?

What value does or did it add to society and why should it be discarded?

Why is official recognition so important?

Why is official recognition so important?

That just looks like someone could dump a lot of time into something for absolutely no gain.

A discussion with intelligent sparring partners is always a gain for me.

Ever hear of civil unions?

If marriage is an absolute right, then it cannot be denied for any reason. Including age and current marital status.