The Liberal Blind Spot

[Bollocks]

There is a tendency to believe in naturalistic fallacies on the left and anti-GMO, anti-nuclear power, anti-vaccine beliefs are much more common there then in the scientific community. Interestingly, there are not many more young-earth in the Republican than Democrat party (39% R, 30% D http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/...-other-issues/).

Again, lots of people on both the right and left have a narrative in their mind and selectively fit data to that narrative.

Eh, your own data contradicts you bro.
Republicans have a higher percentage of people that do not believe in man-made global warming:



And democrats do not have a significant higher percentage of people that are anti vaccine beliefs:



In addition democrats almost double Republicans in members that do support stem cell research:



The only one you got right was nuclear power, which I disagree entirely with democrats:

About half (51%) of Americans favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 42% oppose this. Among the general public, a greater percentage of men (60%) than of women (43%) favor building additional nuclear power plants. More college graduates (59%) favor building nuclear power plants than do those with a high school education or less (46%). And larger shares of Republicans (62%) than independents (52%) or Democrats (45%) support expanding the use of nuclear power to generate electricity.

There is nothing mentioning GMOs though.

If anything your data has shown me that republicans oppose scientists more so than democrats.

[Sargerasraider]

Snip

That citation was for the young-earth creationists.

As I said, both the right and left pick and choose.

Try these:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ar-on-science/

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/t...-with-science/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-party/281219/

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Left-B.../dp/161039321X

[Adarian]

who owns the media? Well i know the koch brothers own fox news, but who are these mysterious left illuminati?

Rupert Murdoch owns fox news and news corp, the Koch brothers are the republican version of George Soros as they both own or fund a army of smaller sites intended to effectively scatter gun propaganda.
as for the other 5 of the big six media empires in the US you've got Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, and GE.

[Bollocks]

That citation was for the young-earth creationists.

As I said, both the right and left pick and choose.

Try these:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ar-on-science/

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/t...-with-science/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-party/281219/

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Left-B.../dp/161039321X

Its odd because this article (http://www.forwardprogressives.com/t...-with-science/) contradicts with these other article (http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/...-other-issues/). So I'm hard pressed to which one belive on this regard.

In regards to nuclear I'll play devil's advocate despite my disagreement with democrats on this isssue. With incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl its hard to be 100% in agreement of nuclear energy, despite that arguments could be made that Fukushima was and old nuclear power plant and similar incidents are unlikely to repeat. And from my knowledge nuclear wastes must be disposed with no flaws as one would cause an ecological disaster of either underground waters, wildlife on the surface, etc. Although I do recall Hillary advocating for nuclear energy.

In regards to GMOs, I fully agree with you that the attitude taken by some liberals falls under plain paranoia, though I do disagree with the article when it mentions that genenetic modification from the past is similar to GMOs, which is plain false. Genetical modification from the past was done through selective evolution, which is far slower than the process that GMOs go through. In addition our natural selection has shown the devastating effects it has on certain species, for example some breeds of dogs are plainly genetically weaker due to selective evolution.

Though once again I agree that science should not be a political thing and be fully supported by both parties.

[Adarian]

Fox news, Breibart and NY post come to my mind when talking about right wing media.

>fox news
>right wing
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...tics-2016.html
from their own mouth, never mind the gamergate episode of the simpsons.
that includes the new york post as a subsidiary of newscorp.

newscorp, providing you your daily scheduled programming.

[bergmann620]

Interestingly, this is basically the position of conservatives (and libertarians) - employers should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion.

In a perfect world, I would agree. We should all be able to freely associate as we choose. Thing is, to reach that point, we would need to greatly roll back the scope of government in business. As soon as those entanglements engage, the 14th Amendment plays hell on all parties.

[Bollocks]

>fox news
>right wing
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...tics-2016.html
from their own mouth, never mind the gamergate episode of the simpsons.
that includes the new york post as a subsidiary of newscorp.

newscorp, providing you your daily scheduled programming.

Eh when fox news calls themselves neutrals, it's pretty much as if CNN denied support to Hillary. And it even states that it fox news it's against liberals. Also you don't have to be a liberal to oppose gamer gate and the Simpsons (American dad included) parody everyone so I'd hardly call it either right wing or left wing.

[Garnier Fructis]

>fox news
>right wing
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...tics-2016.html
from their own mouth, never mind the gamergate episode of the simpsons.
that includes the new york post as a subsidiary of newscorp.

newscorp, providing you your daily scheduled programming.

How does Rupert Murdoch being fine with Hillary as president make Fox News not right wing?

[starlord]

It takes a strong mind to plagiarize and regurgitate liberal platitudes. There is a huge amount of delusional thinking on the left put forward as "reality" when it is nowhere close.

completely missed the point.

Please see the epic GMO discussion from a few days back where many on the left were espousing truly impressive conspiracy theories. People on both the left and right pick and choose which scientific theories they want to support when the conclusions of those theories fit the narrative they want to portray.

i don't see a lot of leftists denouncing science as "right wing propaganda." you'll always have a few nuts on the fringes, but its pretty indisputable that the right openly courts science deniers....

[Jason brookside]

completely missed the point.

i don't see a lot of leftists denouncing science as "right wing propaganda." you'll always have a few nuts on the fringes, but its pretty indisputable that the right openly courts science deniers....

So your saying just because someone doesn't support all of science they must be nuts?

[Bollocks]

I forgot to add that a 17% it's not as significant as 34% or 37% in difference

[Cthulhu 2020]

Except there is no compelling data to suggest that skin colour relates to intelligence.
There is however for gender.
Best example is Chess - You know there has never been a female world champion, virtually all grand masters are male, and Only one singular woman has been ever ranked in the top 10.
IQ testing consistently show male apex superiority - This is not without drawbacks, the dumbest people in the world is also largely male.
The male bell curve is simply broader.


Its not an argument, its reality - you are the one to suggest that reality is unrealistic - Because it does not conform to your desired outcome.

I mean we already knew this about you, but anyone who puts stock in IQ and IQ tests as some kind of a COMPETITIVE means, when IQ tests have a FUCKTON of bias built into them, doesn't really know what they're talking about at all.

IQ tests are good for measuring certain things, but is so misused by so many people it's just sad to see. We already know that men and women tend to think differently inherently, and that you can somehow pin some math, English, pattern recognition and associative questions as measurements of an objective intellect is just laughable. Smell is not tested on IQ exams, taste is not measured, sight is not measured, color recognition is not measured, a multitude of things that women are genetically predisposed to be better at and have to do with brain functionality are not measured, and yet you sit here and argue that because pattern recognition, and verbal reasoning are superior among men that that is the reason why women have not been acknowledged throughout history except in rare cases?

Get out of here.

Both sexes have different things they are genetically predisposed to be better at, and yet we even know that there is variance among individuals.

A few generations ago, women were told that they just simply could not be certain things, that they were not fit to hold a career as a doctor or as a lawyer because they were women, and now we are finding that they are better at both of those things.

If you can't acknowledge that society does play a HUGE role in all of this, then there is no reasoning with you. But then again, I realize who I am replying to.

[Nadiru]

Medicare expansions and Patriot Act may not have been as MANY as FDR, but the cost of both and the infringements of the patriot act are markedly the worst, in my opinion. This country would have been much better off without a loon like Bush (And let's be honest, Cheney basically pulling the strings).

The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1918 and Executive Order 9066 are things I came up with in just the first five seconds that are as vile as the Patriot Act, but you're playing into a dilemma of false choice, frankly. But then, you typically get caught up in that dilemma because you think teams matter, despite evidence that they don't.

[Masark]

The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1918 and Executive Order 9066 are things I came up with in just the first five seconds that are as vile as the Patriot Act, but you're playing into a dilemma of false choice, frankly. But then, you typically get caught up in that dilemma because you think teams matter, despite evidence that they don't.

"But we've done things even worse" is not an excuse to march backwards.

[Deleted]

Both sexes have different things they are genetically predisposed to be better at, and yet we even know that there is variance among individuals.

Endus would say you are wrong, its "all cultural" or something.
I do agree tho, and as long as everyone can get into a field no matter the sex then there is no problem if there are no equal numbers.

[Nadiru]

"But we've done things even worse" is not an excuse to march backwards.

I wasn't saying it was, merely that the US government doing really sordid and fucked up things to its citizenry is hardly a new phenomenon.

[Spectral]

This comment strikes me as so ignorant that I feel forced to answer it. From what I've read Endus is not rejecting the notion that genetics have no bearing into intelligence. Endus is rejecting the notion that just because someone is a woman or from a different skin colour or different physical traits it inmedietly means a reduction in intelligence. I'm sorry to tell you, but genetics don't work like that. In order to prove such claim first you would need to find specific genes associated to intelligence or the brain at least and then once again prove through experimentation that they are indeed affecting the type of intelligence you are investigating.

The bolded is explicitly false. It's kind of funny that you're telling me that I don't understand genetics in a post where you completely fail to grok how polygenic traits work. The first bolded piece is a failure to understand overlapping distributions. The second is a failure to understand that complex traits are usually polygenic. There is no "intelligence gene" in the way that you're writing about it.

Then you would need to prove the relation between other genes and that specific gene, specifically genes that code for being a woman or acquiring specific racial traits.

There doesn't need to be any relation between a pair of genes for there to be different distributions of alleles in two populations. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Until you do that every community is going to dismiss entirely that claim, due to precautionary priniciple, since you are advocating gender superiority or racial superiority and those claims would have a big impact in our society so yeah.

Here's the real heart of the matter - never mind what the best current evidence is, the hypothesis is one that's yucky, so it's rejected out of hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Medicare expansions and Patriot Act may not have been as MANY as FDR, but the cost of both and the infringements of the patriot act are markedly the worst, in my opinion. This country would have been much better off without a loon like Bush (And let's be honest, Cheney basically pulling the strings).

Just to look at those two specifically, these are minor compared to the creation of Social Security and interning Japanese-Americans. Seriously, comparing the Patriot Act (which in theory empowers the government to lock up citizens) to internment (which actually locked up thousands of citizens) is pretty absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

"But we've done things even worse" is not an excuse to march backwards.

That's not the argument. Not many people here are enthusiastic Bush supporters. Bush sucked. The Patriot Act sucks. The objection isn't that those things are actually great, it's that the idea that Bush did more to expand federal power than FDR (and others) is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

A few generations ago, women were told that they just simply could not be certain things, that they were not fit to hold a career as a doctor or as a lawyer because they were women, and now we are finding that they are better at both of those things.

Do you have a citation for the claim that women make better doctors? The evidence I've seen is that female doctors are less productive than their male counterparts. One example:

Female doctors work an average of 47.5 hours per week (giving 30.0 hours of direct patient care), compared with 53.8 hours worked by male doctors (35.0 hours of direct patient care) (P < 0.01, χ2 test). Female doctors tend to work less on call hours per week and see fewer patients while on-call. Female doctors are also more likely to take parental leave or a leave of absence (P < 0.01, χ2 test). The difference in current and predicted WHPWPP was found to be 2.6%, equivalent to 1853 fewer full-time female doctors or 1588 fewer full-time male doctors.

This seems like it's currently the most cited study on the matter, but it's entirely possible that I've missed something.

IQ tests are good for measuring certain things, but is so misused by so many people it's just sad to see. We already know that men and women tend to think differently inherently, and that you can somehow pin some math, English, pattern recognition and associative questions as measurements of an objective intellect is just laughable. Smell is not tested on IQ exams, taste is not measured, sight is not measured, color recognition is not measured...

I've seen some odd objections to the use of IQ as a proxy for intellect, but this is a weird one. The goal of IQ testing is generally to reveal aptitude for the cognitive tasks required for sophisticated work (or on the low end, to reveal if someone is mentally incompetent). Why in the world would this have anything at all to do with taste? If we're trying to figure out why men score higher on math SATs or are overrepresented in engineering, starting with differences in pattern-matching cognition seems like a much better thing to check than whether they can discern different tastes.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I've seen some odd objections to the use of IQ as a proxy for intellect, but this is a weird one. The goal of IQ testing is generally to reveal aptitude for the cognitive tasks required for sophisticated work (or on the low end, to reveal if someone is mentally incompetent). Why in the world would this have anything at all to do with taste? If we're trying to figure out why men score higher on math SATs or are overrepresented in engineering, starting with differences in pattern-matching cognition seems like a much better thing to check than whether they can discern different tastes.

The argument that many pages back was that "most" great people being men was some sort of weird genetic predisposition to being better at things, and yet most IQ tests measure things that for the most part are in fact at least statistically more dominated by men. But even then, the statistical variance is minimal at best between the two. Jobs and great deeds come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. As an American and growing up, I merely had to listen to the stories of the generation that was my grandparents and even to some degree my parents to know that America greatly discriminated against women in the work force at one point. Some like to pretend this sort of societal bias never existed and that men have just always been ultra superior, or some such nonsense.

[Bollocks]

The bolded is explicitly false. It's kind of funny that you're telling me that I don't understand genetics in a post where you completely fail to grok how polygenic traits work. The first bolded piece is a failure to understand overlapping distributions. The second is a failure to understand that complex traits are usually polygenic. There is no "intelligence gene" in the way that you're writing about it.
.

Bro, do you even read properly what you are writing? Polygenic means multiple genes that code for a trait, but usually each one of them don't contribute that significantly, and that is exactly what I pointed. So yeah intelligence or however you define intelligence is associated to a group of genes, as it is the skin colour as it is for any complex trait, not all genes code for everything. For your experiment to have conclusive data you would need to prove overlapping between these two group of genes in their roles. And while I'm aware of difference in distribution of alleles in populations, that refers to communities ,however the claim that you are making is that women (regardless of the community) are inferior in intelligence to men. And for that to be true you would need to prove a relation between the having an extra X chromosome or having a Y chromosome whatever genese are associated to intelligence in the way you define it, wheather be it mathematical skill, language, etc.

[Deleted]

The argument that many pages back was that "most" great people being men was some sort of weird genetic predisposition to being better at things, and yet most IQ tests measure things that for the most part are in fact at least statistically more dominated by men. But even then, the statistical variance is minimal at best between the two. Jobs and great deeds come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. As an American and growing up, I merely had to listen to the stories of the generation that was my grandparents and even to some degree my parents to know that America greatly discriminated against women in the work force at one point. Some like to pretend this sort of societal bias never existed and that men have just always been ultra superior, or some such nonsense.

I think you are purposely misrepresenting the other faction so you can continue your quest against some preconceived notion that just isn't there.
First thing is that it was about "intelligent" persons, and not "great" ones. Then you go on and lump it all together by saying that

some sort of weird genetic predisposition to being better at things

this claim was never made. The claim that was made is that males and females have different predisposition towards some fields, witch is true, you even said it your self, and i quoted you on it. Then you go on and make the claim that an IQ test mostly measures things that are statistically dominated by men. You are completely missing the point here, IQ doesn't go out and look what men can do better and make a test about it. We make an IQ test to test intelligence qualities, that those qualities happen to be dominated by men isn't some conspiracy but rather just having different predispositions between sexes. You are making it seem as if we grabbed a bunch of male traits, called it "intelligence" and then somehow made a big deal about this so called "intelligence". It tests things as logical thinking and spacial awareness, and other things, these are things we value because these are traits we want our employees to have, and not because they are male traits.
The next bit is you preaching again, tbf, im not American so i wont comment much on how things where done in America. But knowing you i'm pretty sure that you are misrepresenting the shit out off it.

There is a strong case against the IQ test, but that has to do with it only testing on "potential" or "dry knowledge". Meaning as much as, there is a difference between "knowing something" and "being able to apply what you know into different situations". Example: You might be perfectly be able to write down exactly how a computer network is supposed to work, but at the same time be unable to use this knowledge to find a problem within this network.

- - - Updated - - -

Bro, do you even read properly what you are writing? Polygenic means multiple genes that code for a trait, but usually each one of them don't contribute that significantly, and that is exactly what I pointed. So yeah intelligence or however you define intelligence is associated to a group of genes, as it is the skin colour as it is for any complex trait, not all genes code for everything. For your experiment to have conclusive data you would need to prove overlapping between these two group of genes in their roles. And while I'm aware of difference in distribution of alleles in populations, that refers to communities ,however the claim that you are making is that women (regardless of the community) are inferior in intelligence to men. And for that to be true you would need to prove a relation between the having an extra X chromosome and whatever genese are associated to intelligence in the way you define it, wheather be it mathematical skill, language, etc.

Intelligence is what we deem "handy to have" for our employees, this is why the test was made. The other forms of intelligence are covered by the tests aswell, just not as rigorously as the ones we deem more desirable.

Of course different communities will have different results, specially when you give every Amazonian culture that hasnt been in contact with the rest of us for millennia as much of a point worth as the whole of the western culture, but that would be dishonest. But generally speaking, the two sexes have different predispositions to certain fields. Yes, this started mainly as a cultural thing, but it did so with good reason (at that time of course). We all know how evolution works, traits that give you an advantage (in procreating) will multiply, traits that give you a disadvantage will die out. It would be silly to assume that this isn't the case for humans, so if you where to have a trait that would make it more easy for you to for fill your assignment (gender role, im talking the old ones, not wearing high heels and crap) then this trait will spread out. Because, by for filling your role better you have better surviving chance thus a better chance to spread your genes.

Males and females have different dispositions in cognitive skills, that doesn't make one better then the other, it just makes them different from each other. It is just that generally speaking that one sex will be better at doing one thing and the other sex will be better at doing something else. That isn't to say that there isnt an overlap in things or that you can't do something because of your sex, but, there will be a natural difference in the male to female ratio at positions where these predispositions matter. We really do not know how much of it is genetic and how much of it is cultural. This because we tend to do things we are good at, and when you find something you are good at you keep doing that. We tend to expose males and females to different things so there might be something there as well, but it is hard to say exactly how much each brings to the table.
Ultimately i think we should not nag about witch gender is better at whatever, but rather celebrate someone being good at something and try to learn from it. Because we really can do anything we want, its juts that sometimes someone is incredibly good at what they do, this can still be any gender in any field, but you will see a disparity of genders in every field that has anything to do with one of the gender roles.