Obvious and Ironic, wait, what the hell?

[The Fourth Nephite]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html?ref=mostpopular

[All-American]

The implication being that if you are smart, you will recognize the inherent superiority of liberalism over conservatism, and that if you aren't, you should accept it from those who know what's best?

Even if it were true that one political ideology were intellectually superior to the other, it would hardly justify imposing it upon the unwilling. What Buckley said about preferring to be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard University rings true here.

We know what it's like to take the (apparently) most qualified and have them decide how we should run our lives; we call that tyrrany. Government of "someone else" and by "someone else" has the inevitable tendency to be FOR "someone else" as well.

If this article shows that some people want one form of government and others want another, then that's a far better argument for federalism than for liberalism.

[myboynoah]

The implication being that if you are smart, you will recognize the inherent superiority of liberalism over conservatism, and that if you aren't, you should accept it from those who know what's best?

Even if it were true that one political ideology were intellectually superior to the other, it would hardly justify imposing it upon the unwilling. What Buckley said about preferring to be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston phonebook than by the faculty of Harvard University rings true here.

We know what it's like to take the (apparently) most qualified and have them decide how we should run our lives; we call that tyrrany. Government of "someone else" and by "someone else" has the inevitable tendency to be FOR "someone else" as well.

If this article shows that some people want one form of government and others want another, then that's a far better argument for federalism than for liberalism.

We also call it France or Japan.

[Moliere]

Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.

So social conservatives are more likely to resist change and be prejudiced? Shocker of the century!! Can someone forward this to Nadine Wimmer so she can have a good lead story tonight?

[Jeff Lebowski]

We also call it France or Japan.

It is also called America, as envisioned by the founding fathers.

[wuapinmon]

The real issue isn't the politics that go with low I.Q. I firmly believe that less intelligent people are highly susceptible to fearmongering about complex issues that they don't understand which come at them from all wavelengths in the political spectrum. I can easily imagine a similar article 30 years ago talking about the same segment of people in Warsaw Pact nations refusing to rise up against the Soviets out of fear of the West.

[creekster]

It is also called America, as envisioned by the founding fathers.

You think? I dont think that is a fair conclusion based on what AA said.

[creekster]

The real issue isn't the politics that go with low I.Q. I firmly believe that less intelligent people are highly susceptible to fearmongering about complex issues that they don't understand which come at them from all wavelengths in the political spectrum. I can easily imagine a similar article 30 years ago talking about the same segment of people in Warsaw Pact nations refusing to rise up against the Soviets out of fear of the West.

ANd yet . . . Some of the mosrt screwed up jury results I have seen in my career resulted from someone fo supposed high intelligence leading the group in some screwy direction. I more often find that a group of average joes get it pretty much right, even if they dont always articualte their reasoning very clearly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You think? I dont think that is a fair conclusion based on what AA said.

I am referring to the belief by the founding fathers that America would be best served by a benevolent aristocracy or noble elite that held all of the high offices in government. That is one of the reasons that US senators were originally selected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote, prior to the 17th amendment. They didn't believe that your average citizen was smart enough or capable of having too much power or influence in the governing process. The shift away from this philosophy picked up steam with with Andrew Jackson and the populist movement.

[creekster]

I am referring to the belief by the founding fathers that America would be best served by a benevolent aristocracy or noble elite that held all of the high offices in government. That is one of the reasons that US senators were originally selected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote, prior to the 17th amendment. They didn't believe that your average citizen was smart enough or capable of having too much power or influence in the governing process. The shift away from this philosophy picked up steam with with Andrew Jackson and the populist movement.

But to balance that impulse they also established the House with terms short enough to allow average people to serve and return to their lives. Moreover, AA referred to the el;ites telling us how to live or what to do; I think that is more descriptive of America now than it was as envisioned by our foundihng fathers. Their refusal to accept the constitution without the bill of rights, including its reserved rights provisions, is evidence of their concern with personal freedom which is no longer the case to the degree that our president prayerfully invokes the bible to justify greater wealth resditribution.

Now I am sounding more conservative than I should, but you get my point.

[cowboy]

I don't get it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

But to balance that impulse they also established the House with terms short enough to allow average people to serve and return to their lives. Moreover, AA referred to the el;ites telling us how to live or what to do; I think that is more descriptive of America now than it was as envisioned by our foundihng fathers. Their refusal to accept the constitution without the bill of rights, including its reserved rights provisions, is evidence of their concern with personal freedom which is no longer the case to the degree that our president prayerfully invokes the bible to justify greater wealth resditribution.

Now I am sounding more conservative than I should, but you get my point.

Sure.

Don't mind me, I am just trying to look smart.

[Moliere]

I don't get it.

[All-American]

I am referring to the belief by the founding fathers that America would be best served by a benevolent aristocracy or noble elite that held all of the high offices in government. That is one of the reasons that US senators were originally selected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote, prior to the 17th amendment. They didn't believe that your average citizen was smart enough or capable of having too much power or influence in the governing process. The shift away from this philosophy picked up steam with with Andrew Jackson and the populist movement.

There is a big difference between a system of government that says to the people "trust me, I know what's best for you," and one that says "trust me, I know what's best for you, and you can fire me if you disagree."

[myboynoah]

It is also called America, as envisioned by the founding fathers.

Well, I don't know much about that, but I do know that France and Japan have better enacted the principle through their systems of elite schools that systematically and more rigidly funnel the best and the brightest into the top echelons of government power.