Printable View
How can 'the paper' claim our political knowledge doesn't increase much after college, tho? Anyone who has to make a budget, hire or fire employees, apply for a grant, or follow federal and/or local laws eventually gets dragged into it.
How a bill becomes a law used to be standard fodder for kiddies, with a theme song and everything. Maybe things are just too dummied down now for entertainment value? :(
Erm, I said the exact opposite above. Knowledge increases, but it doesn't increase more for people who went to college. And people who go to college tend to be the ones that were more knowledgeable to start with.
It still is standard fodder for kiddies, without the song. 3rd grade social studies here, I'd assume in most other places as well.
I have a dvd of all of Schoolhouse Rock, though, my kiddies have gotten some use of it.
Incidentally, they knew the answers to all of Icky's 5 questions but Tito.
They then continued it by listing Supreme Court Justices.
They shouldn't bother going to college then. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You'd better hope college increases knowledge of Poli Sci if you're teaching Poli Sci!Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
As for other majors, you mean it's the same quantifiable RATE of learning outside their major as it is for just high school grads....huh?
School House Rock :up: Also, my younger son took that 'test' when he was in 7th grade (administered by his older brother, tho) and aced it. His social studies and history teachers love him, but the district wants him to be more into math and science.....:sour:
The point is that the people who'll major in poli sci are generally the ones who are already interested in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If people go to college with no knowledge of politics, they generally leave college with no knowledge of politics. :noob:
I think everyone should learn to their strengths, though it's slightly disconcerting when a majority of the chemistry and engineering students and professors here are not American. Also keep in mind that knowing facts is actually not particularly useful (assuming you could learn them when you need it); the point of the social sciences is to teach people how to think and express those thoughts.
Depends on the female. :mad:Quote:
The best negative indicators are being female and being black.
Black gurls don't get enough beef? :haha:
That's probably where culture comes in. It's just not "cool" for those groups to be interested in politics. Both groups make up a disproportionately small number of grad students, too.
I don't know about that....maybe the underlying difference is a Liberal Arts education vs specialized one?
In the US it can also mean the difference (for example) between an RN with an Associate Degree or an RN with a Bachelor Degree.
1) There are many dumb people. No amount of opportunity will change that. Ever.
2) Gullibility. A high number of moderately bright, and even some exceptionally bright people have no critical thinking skills. Either nobody ever tried to teach them, or they just don't have the requisite wiring.
3) Homo rationalicus is great at avoiding inconvenient truths.
Add these up and you get a profoundly ignorant population, many of whom will devote their lives to increasing the level of ignorance in our society. The truly amazing thing is that humanity managed to get as far as it has with that much dead weight.
"Now, i dont know anything about Afghanistan, but, speaking as a mother, i know its full of terrorists."
People LOVE ignorance, as long as it supports their gut instincts. See: anywhere that votes for far right parties like the BNP. "Its the darkies fault that you are poor and scared and your life can easily be summed up by one of Pink Floyds more depressing songs. THE DARKIES! RAAAAAAR!"
Or people just get tired with so many options and choices. So many opportunities to act on ideology that choosing becomes too energy-time consuming. Case in point--Choobs saying he wants the Easy Button for his health insurance.
Fun fact: Conservatism is linked to a lower average IQ :)
... and I always thought it was linked to age.
Atheism, liberalism, and male homosexuality are also loosely linked to higher IQ. Margins are fairly small, so aren't you glad about that when you check your testes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Male homosexuality, or admitting to male homosexuality? Don't buy the first, the second seems plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I would not consider Choobs, with his attitude towards learning, an example of an intelligent person who's desire to educate themselves being overwhelmed by too many choices... :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So is being black. If you're going to accept one, you're going to have to accept the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Male same-sex preference. Was a "study" linked in the news recently. Females and lesbians didn't skew the results. Some attempt to correlate changing social norms with neuroscience that didn't quite meet scientific muster (IMO), but was still interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
*whose*Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Just repeating what he's posted, don't shoot the messenger.
I don't know what more you want or expect from others, Illusions. Intelligent people are often very busy and have to balance many levels of "intellectualism" with their real lives. Some very smart people aren't Type A achievers, so it can look like a laziness. Some really stupid people have determination and social skills that make them appear committed to intellectualism, but they're really not.
Who or what, exactly, are you complaining about again? It got lost in translation. :(
It's a difference of 6 points when regarding religion, a difference of 11 points regarding left vs. right :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Uh, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Source please.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
not true at all. Having black skin is not the same thing as choosing to support selfish, hateful, short sighted and self destructive policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26...x.html?hpt=MidQuote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Are you actually denying the fact that there's a correlation? Hell, there are studies showing that the average IQ in developing countries is lower than in developed ones. Of course I don't buy the explanation for a variety of reasons, but those same reasons applying to not buying the BS about political ideology and IQ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Kanazawa is a fraud and has absolutely no idea what he's talking about or how to conduct proper research. He's the same guy who claims developing countries are poor because they have low rates of IQ. His most recent article claims that civil wars are fought to gain control over fertile women. His methodology is less sophisticated than that of someone who's taken one stats class.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Heh heh:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Nice disclaimer but that's the only interest I have in this story. :DQuote:
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. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.
You know you should post a source to back this opinion. So lets have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I've read his actual articles. Not too hard to find. I believe Wiki has the names of some of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Are you claiming authority as an expert to back your denouncements of his work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So what's the big deal here? Even the side panel of the CNN article says:
Could also argue if they defined conservative or liberal "properly". As I said, it was just interesting.....Quote:
None of this means that humans are evolving toward a future where such traits are the default
Yes, the articles I mentioned were published in a poli sci journal. I do have some experience reading and critiquing poli sci articles, being in grad school for 3 years and all. I've actually send one of his articles to several of my friends here, and all thought the guy is an incompetent idiot. The consensus was: how the hell did he get published.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Especially when "liberals" are twice as likely to believe in astrology than "conservatives". If that's not a sign of a lack of intelligence, I'm not sure what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT