Stupid religious, conservative people
I am stunned to learn that I must be a dummy because I am both religious and conservative. That's according to,
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science [who] correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.
There's a giveaway, though. Read this and see whether you can tell what it is.
"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
"Moving the species forward"? Prof. Bailey does not understand that there is no such thing as evolutionary progress. There is no such thing as "moving forward." Evolution has no objective or teleological end. The idea that the concept of progress or "higher" life forms was abandoned by evolutionary fundamentalists long ago. Species just are and that's that.
Then there's this:
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.
[Of course, the whole theme of the article is aimed at doing exactly that. ]
But they will. Bailey already did. And he just won't stop:
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.
Stereotyping? Nah, nothing to see here, move along. Then we encounter this self-contradiction:
Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.
"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.
Did you catch it? It's this:
1. Religion offers no survival advantage (did not aid survivaal or reproduction) but did make people paranoid.
2. Paranoism did confer survival advantage (suspicion that a noise denotes danger, "It helps life to be paranoid).
Well, which is it?
[ One has to question the intelligence of someone who writes something like this. Isn't amazing to see people make stupid illogical mistakes while obviously thinking of themselves as part of a cognitive elite? Its downright "koanalistic". ]
Finally, the definitions we have all been waiting for:
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
What? How is this entirely arbitrary definition of liberal and conservative "the American view"? Especially I object to this as defining "liberal:" "concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people." It is conservatives who support private resources and organizations and it is liberals who want to make government and public money the center of such things. Conservatives use their own money, liberals use yours and mine. Think not? Consider these data from September 2008:
Last Friday, Sen. Joseph Biden, the Democratic candidate for vice president, released his tax returns for the years 1998 to 2007. The returns revealed that in one year, 1999, Biden and his wife Jill gave $120 to charity out of an adjusted gross income of $210,979. In 2005, out of an adjusted gross income of $321,379, the Bidens gave $380. In nine out of the ten years for which tax returns were released, the Bidens gave less than $400 to charity; in the tenth year, 2007, when Biden was running for president, they gave $995 out of an adjusted gross income of $319,853.
That's liberal Joe Biden, btw. What about conservative (well, comparatively) John McCain?
In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.
The study's authors apparently did not consider that devout Jews and Christians are instructed by their religions to care for strangers, widows, orphans and other dispossessed persons. In fact, early Christians became notorious for doing so to the point that Roman Emperor Justinian complained in a still-extant letter to a pagan priest that it was bad enough that Christians were caring for their own poor, but they were caring for the pagan poor as well. It was scandalous!
If atheist liberals are so concerned about others, then explain why atheist Leftists killed almost 100 million people in the 20th century in just three countries alone: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Maoist China (source, I used the median assessment numbers). And that number does not include military deaths in warfare, but those deliberately killed in the name of ideology.
Jews and Christians have always insisted on charity and care for others without regard to bloodline kinship. See, for example, the entire book of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible and these examples:
Leviticus 19:33 - When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
Leviticus 19:9-10 - When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.
Exodus 23:9 - You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
In the New Testament there is no clearer example than Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. A man asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two day's wages and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
Understand that the ancient Jews and Samaritans were highly inimical to one another and the story has greater impact. The apostle Paul, a "Pharisee's pharisee," as he described himself, wrote, "The entire law [of righteousness] is summed up in one command, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
So it seems clear that to divorce religion from caring for others, as the study does, makes the study fatally, internally incoherent.
.......
senseofevents.blogspot.com |
