As a group, liberals are not smarter than conservatives.
swdowning said 08/29, 04:20 AM
Intelligence isn't positively or negatively correlated with political orientation. Neither the left nor the right has any more claim to brain power than does the other. It's fine to be in your particular niche's echo chamber and deride your political foes for their stupidity, but the fact is that there are brilliant liberals and brilliant conservatives, stupid liberals and stupid conservatives.
If we don't just accept the political persuasion into which we were born (as is the case with most of us), but if we instead forge our own paths, we choose our places on the political spectrum in some way other than intellectually (emotionally, maybe?), then we bring to bear whatever intellect we have in support of our choices.
It's fun to say "I don't think all liberals are stupid people, but I think all stupid people are liberals." It's fun, but it's wrong.
IamFry said 08/30, 02:53 PM
Ok, this is an interesting idea for a debate...
I guess I'm to assume the position that liberals ARE smarter than conservatives. First off, the word "smart" is kinda vague; people use it regarding mental aptitude, wealth of knowledge, or the ability to do complex calculations in one's head a la Rain Man.
Here's how I'll define my position: regardless of how one might perform on an IQ test, which I consider a relatively-sound-though-not-infallible measure of intelligence, conservatives USE their brains less with regard to political matters.
A man such as Carl Rove is clearly brilliant, but he doesn't use his intellect to learn and grow; he uses it to bully and to rationalize his malformed, emotion-borne positions. Conservatives of lesser intellect don't need Rovian grey matter to justify their emotion-borne positions; they simply parrot what they hear Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly say.
It's been my experience that conservatives are more governed by emotion than intellect - they start with an opinion and work backwards with the reasoning.
swdowning said 08/31, 02:09 AM
So you're saying that conservatives are more "feeling oriented" than "thinking oriented," and you place a higher value on intellect than on emotion. You don't mind if I show this to your girlfriend, do you? Just kidding. Seriously, though, one of the points of debate I've had with my liberal friends is that liberals are "open-minded and open-hearted, and that lineal, left-brained, thought-oriented conservatism is less open-minded, more constricted, and less flexible."
You say "conservatives USE their brains less with regard to political matters." I need some examples of issues on which you think liberals have used their brains more or better. I suspect you're thinking of cases where you agree with the liberal position, and so consider it more intelligent.
My point is that people of all political orientations start with an opinion and work backwards. Can you provide us with a case in which only conservatives did so, and show us how liberals didn't?
Also, I can't get in Rove's brain, so I don't know how he uses his intellect. Can you explain how you know, without working backwards?
Finally, how is conservative parroting of Limbaugh different from liberal parroting of Olbermann?
IamFry said 08/31, 05:19 PM
True, liberalism is usually associated with being "open-minded" and "open-hearted (or 'compassionate', if you will)", but it's important that we distinguish compassion from emotion.
For one, compassion stems from empathy, and empathy, in my humble opinion, correlates directly with intelligence. It's not emotion, but empathy that leads to compassion; emotion leads to some guy smashing in the windows of his ex's car before weighing the consequences -- or charging into ANY sort of physical conflict situation with the goal of getting back at someone who 'wronged' you without proper consideration for the long-term ramifications, expenses incurred, and potential damage to one's reputation.
Using the term "Socialist" to refer to the Dems isn't an appeal to hard-line reasoning; it's an appeal to the emotions evoked by the stigma of the word. In fact, the taxation policies of the DNC vs the GOP are virtually indistinguishable when compared to Socialism. By that measuring stick even, if the Dems are Socialist, then so is just about every other 1st-world country on Earth - even more so! But this absurdity is easily obscured by bumper-sticker language designed to stir emotion.
swdowning said 09/01, 04:38 AM
Your argument is off-topic in every respect; you haven't answered any of my questions or addressed my initial argument. How is it possible to win these face offs by simply changing the topic and writing about whatever you decide the topic should be changed to? In the spirit of cooperation I'll briefly address your argument, but I think that to win this f/o, you should actually address my arguments.
Empathy is an emotion, a feeling. You would no more say "I cogitate (or think) empathy toward you" than you'd say "I cogitate anger toward you." Anger and empathy are both emotions. You'd say "I feel empathetic," or "I feel angry."
How many 1st-world countries are there? I count one - the U.S. Much of the rest of the world is some shade of socialist. Is that a recommendation? When faced with the threat of an ongoing terrorist campaign, who is better able to address it?
Shall we get back to the topic? In order for you to win this face off, you should have to refute my claim that liberals are not smarter than conservatives, or, better, that there is a verifiable nexus between intellect and ideology that favors liberals. This is the topic; can you address it?
IamFry said 09/01, 03:44 PM
I've been addressing it; where have you been? It's my role in this debate, based on the phrasing of your title, to show that liberals are generally "smarter" than conservatives.
Here's a recap: I said that, in terms of IQ, we're equal across the board, so my argument will set out to prove that liberals are more 'intellectual' than conservatives. When I stated this in my first argument, you didn't seem to have a problem with it in you follow-up. The rest of what I've said plainly follows that tack. If you need further explanation, ask in the comments.
In fact, YOU haven't addressed MY argument in the previous entry suggesting that conservatives are more influenced by emotion than reason, which is the crux of my position, in a nutshell. Empathy is not an emotion - it's an understanding which *may* invoke any number of emotions, but it's not an emotion in and of itself.
Everyone experiences emotion when introduced to an idea - in varying degrees, depending on the idea, of course, and emotion is the first thing you experience. Thus, for our purposes here, by showing that conservatives lean toward positions based on emotion, I'm attempting to show that they 'use their brains less'.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Shdw, I think you mean to say that the "ideology" of liberalism and its stances on issues is not as intelligent, collectively, as conservatism. While you technically are NOT saying "All liberals are dumber than all conservatives" --- I wonder if you still mean the general ideology itself, rather than the individual promoters of said ideology. But if Fry accuses you of saying liberals are dumber, you can easily counter, as that's not what you said.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 08/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
Fry, conservatives are more emotionally driven than liberals? Fascinating.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 08/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
He isn't saying, "liberals are dumber", he's saying that there's intellectual equality on both sides of the aisle, and yes, he's talking about individuals, not their ideology, but I'll gladly have a spinoff debate about the inherent intelligence in each ideology - hopefully you'll have a better rebuttal to my arguments than an implicitly sarcastic "fascinating"; otherwise, you might as well vote for me in THIS debate! I'll start it tomorrow.
IamFry | 08/30/08
Report Offensive Comment
USA - Fry got it right: I'm not speaking of the ideology, although it stands to reason that if individual liberals were dumber, in sufficient numbers, than individual conservatives, it's likely that the liberal ideology itself would suffer. I think, however, that the liberal faith is impervious to ratiocination. In the American ideological discussion, every victory the left claims over the right moves our nation closer to being a socialist state. Every plank in the 1928 Socialist Party Platform for president has since been made law in the U.S. We've witnessed the systemic failure of socialism that has culminated in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, yet still it "feels better" to be liberal; and despite the costs to individual liberty and to political freedom, we still feel better when we turn the federal government into a Robin Hood that uses its power to redistribute wealth, even though every time it does so, it simultaneously transfers political power from the citizen to the state.
swdowning | 08/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
As far as the "redistribution of wealth" goes: I'll assume that you agree that the government should regulate SOME things and administer SOME taxes, otherwise, we're living in Mad Max' world. The argument then becomes- to what extent? The Republicans make it sound like a choice between total freedom and Soviet Russia, but really, the difference is fairly subtle. In my opinion, a failing of Republican ideology is the false mantra that "a rising tide lifts all ships", while it plainly doesn't. It's my personal belief that our economic prosperity under Clinton owes much to the raising of the minimum wage. Ultimately, I believe, what both parties want is to ensure the enduring prosperity of our economy and the right and ability of our citizens to succeed; I happen to believe that helping more people get better-educated and earn more money will be a boon to people in Barack's proposed tax-increase bracket ($250k+/year) in spite of his "modest" tax increase, as their assets will reap tremendous rewards, as under Clinton. Didn't mean to write a book here...
IamFry | 08/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
In short, people of my ideological beliefs are no less capitalistic than the "rising tide" people; what it boils down to is that I believe helping those who are struggling to attain financial stability creates more opportunity for those who are already financially secure in ADDITION to creating opportunity for the struggling ones themselves. But this message gets contorted by bumper-sticker politics and stupid catch phrases...
IamFry | 08/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
Somehow, you both seem to have misinterpreted what I said. Fry, you basically repeated my point that Shdw wasn't arguing that "liberals are dumber." And I wasn't trying to argue Shdw's case for him; nor was I arguing that the ideology of conservatism is inherently (or at least currently) more intelligent than liberalism, despite my own subjectivity. I was merely wondering what exactly Shdw was arguing, as it seemed unclear through the first few exchanges at the time I posted.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 08/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
Fry, if you were suggesting that I have better rebuttals to your arguments, I'm not sure why; I never posed one to you in the first place. So, that said, I'll assume you were alluding to Shdw when you posted that comment.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 08/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
Lastly, Shdw, while I understand your point about the federal government becoming like Robin Hood... bear in mind that Robin Hood was in many ways a conservative; after all, he fought an overbearing, tax-greedy government in order to give citizens tax cuts. (Somehow I suspect this will be twisted into the "95% of Americans getting tax cuts" nugget that Obama Elway had in his speech the other night---right after he said a bunch of stuff about making the country better for "all Americans.")
USA Pit Bull 63 | 08/31/08
Report Offensive Comment
Response to IamFry: The "rising tide raises all ships" comment came from JFK. This shows how far leftists have moved the political debate to the left. JFK was to the right of GWB on significant issues. If Kennedy were to run for president today on his 1960 platform, the Democrat party would not nominate him. He'd have to run as a Republican. Such is the fouling of the political water by the left. Most animals don't befoul their lairs. The American left is a sad exception.
mrelish | 09/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
His name is Karl Rove. And somehow I'm not surprised by a liberal claiming to be more of an intellectual than his conservative peers. The sad thing is that most of them truly believe it.
Skipper04 | 09/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Elish: You have no idea whether or not JFK would run as a Republican today - that's like me claiming that Lincoln would be a Democrat. Ideologically, JFK was close to his brothers - one of whom, you likely regard as being a Communist. Fouling of the water? You likely elected and re-elected the most corrupt administration in US history!
IamFry | 09/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for the spelling correction, Skip. And, for the record, I'm arguing this position for the sake of debate and for the exchange of ideas, not to put a claim on intellectual superiority.
IamFry | 09/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Don't worry Iam I've met plenty of liberals who didn't know there was a Washington State.
MorgMcA | 09/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
yeah, I was thinking more about a recent Bill Maher interview than you're comments Fry. That guy ticks me off. He thinks that in order to be an intellectual, you have to act incredibly arrogant (although arrogance is most usually a sign of close-mindedness and anything but intellectualism.) sorry if I reacted too emotionally, but I am somewhat of a conservative. =)
Skipper04 | 09/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Not to mention the fact that liberals who I meet generally seem to know more about politics and world matters. The other day, I met a self-proclaimed conservative who thought that Barack Obama was the Senate Minority Leader because he's a minority and a senator, lol.
IamFry | 08/30/08
Report Offensive Comment