An Open Letter to President-elect Donald Trump (from the "press"

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Where in the article does it say that "conservatives are more likely to be racist than liberals"? What source does it use to back up this claim?

Also, statistically, blacks have the lowest IQ's in the country. If what you are saying is true, how come blacks rarely identify as conservatives?

That's because their IQ correlate with education and not as ability to learn. Of course, people with a given amount of education tends to vote democrats, but that gap vanish as soon that a key number of yearly income salary is hit. Yet because they are more educated, they tend to score higher on IQ tests.

Plus, it's important to understand that the same way uneducated white people tend to vote conservative, uneducated afro-americans tend to vote for Democrats. It's not because they're not intelligent, it's because they didn't get the opportunity to learn how to learn. Thus, it's only logical that they vote for those that are "fighting for them", IE afro-americans for democrats, white for republicans.

But the claims that conservatives are "more likely racist" and have "lower mesurable IQ" are just completely void.

[RickJamesLich]

That's because their IQ correlate with education and not as ability to learn. Of course, people with a given amount of education tends to vote democrats, but that gap vanish as soon that a key number of yearly income salary is hit. Yet because they are more educated, they tend to score higher on IQ tests.

Plus, it's important to understand that the same way uneducated white people tend to vote conservative, uneducated afro-americans tend to vote for Democrats. It's not because they're not intelligent, it's because they didn't get the opportunity to learn how to learn. Thus, it's only logical that they vote for those that are "fighting for them", IE afro-americans for democrats, white for republicans.

But the claims that conservatives are "more likely racist" and have "lower mesurable IQ" are just completely void.

You jumped to the points I was planning on making before I had a chance to lol.

[Kryos]

http://www.press.org/news-multimedia...t-donald-trump
Hopefully Trump issues a resounding "Fuck you" to this letter.
The only access he should grant is to Breitbart News and Fox.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

[Celista]

That's because their IQ correlate with education and not as ability to learn. Of course, people with a given amount of education tends to vote democrats, but that gap vanish as soon that a key number of yearly income salary is hit. Yet because they are more educated, they tend to score higher on IQ tests.

IQ tests don't correlate with education, the reputable IQ tests like the WAIS are based on working memory, processing speed, perceptual organization, etc. Your educational level does not influence IQ outcomes.

[RickJamesLich]

You can go look it up, feel free to read the article. Maybe you're confused because the wording in the article, although it's rather straightforward. Maybe Fox News or Breitbart will have Cliffs Notes for you.

Here is one study. You can look up others. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early...21206.abstract

If that is true though, then explain why there aren't way more african americans that are conservative? Perhaps other factors are at play here?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

IQ tests don't correlate with education, the reputable IQ tests like the WAIS are based on working memory, processing speed, perceptual organization, etc. Your educational level does not influence IQ outcomes.

But it does. Less educated people have been less challenged on a daily basis about these exact same points. Processing speed will obviously be lower in someone who is not used to use that skill in their life, nor will their working memory be the same when they've never really been challenged in that regard.

Your educational level does influence your IQ outcomes - the only case where IQ is genuinely useful is to check if someone has "learning deficiencies". In other words, if someone equally educated underperforms severely from everybody else.

But to use it to determine bigotry and how someone can be "innately more likely" to believe in something is misusing the tool. There's a reason why these studies has been abandoned.

[Celista]

If that is true though, then explain why there aren't way more african americans that are conservative? Perhaps other factors are at play here?

I'm ignoring your implied commentary on African Americans but there are likely a lot of relevant factors that go into ideology. Cultural factors are likely relevant. Several articles have linked overall lack of exposure to individuals of different races/religions as one explanation as to why prejudice exists.

[RickJamesLich]

I'm ignoring your implied commentary on African Americans but there are likely a lot of relevant factors that go into ideology. Cultural factors are likely relevant. Several articles have linked overall lack of exposure to individuals of different races/religions as one explanation as to why prejudice exists.

No back tracking here brah. You said conservatives tend to have lower IQ's, yet african americans statistically have the lowest IQ's in the US. Would this not imply that there should be far more conservative african americans out there than what we actually have?

I suspect you are incorrectly trying to link IQ to political beliefs while ignoring a myriad of other factors, but let's have some fun and discuss this.

[sarahtasher]

We are supposed to ignore the blatant anti-intellectualism of the American right ? (FFS, someone made in 2015 a documentary arguing about [I]geocentrism/I]). It's the only place in the world were ''he speaks a language other than English'' is seen as a dangerous trait.

[Ifeanychukwu]

So, basically, only have a propaganda arm of the government then? Who would be nominated as Goebbels?

What about RT America, by the way? Would they fit on your list?

You think mainstream media doesn't promote propaganda? Even now they're scrambling to portray Trump as the devil, talk about moving forward and trying work together... The media was so blatantly biased throughout the election and even now, if you pay attention you'd see all the editing and cherry picking they do to demonize Trump, and that's coming from someone that doesn't particularly support Trump. Forget who you support, they should be trying to move forward, yet they're STILL trying to do the same bullshit that got Trump elected in the first place.

The entire media needs a big fucking shakedown, they're all panicking right now because they've been exposed as fucking liars and manipulative fuckheads and it's becoming obvious to more and more people.

There's a great video of CNN interviewing someone and the guest calling out CNN on their bullshit and asking what the fuck they're even doing, why they distract with stupid bullshit and they dismiss him and end the interview, immediately followed by one of those bullshit stories like "look at this cute video of a puppy!". It was fucking hilarious and proved the guys point in the most spectacular way.

[sarahtasher]

You think mainstream media doesn't promote propaganda? Even now they're scrambling to portray Trump as the devil, talk about moving forward and trying work together... The media was so blatantly biased throughout the election and even now, if you pay attention you'd see all the editing and cherry picking they do to demonize Trump, and that's coming from someone that doesn't particularly support Trump. Forget who you support, they should be trying to move forward, yet they're STILL trying to do the same bullshit that got Trump elected in the first place.

The entire media needs a big fucking shakedown, they're all panicking right now because they've been exposed as fucking liars and manipulative fuckheads and it's becoming obvious to more and more people.

There's a great video of CNN interviewing someone and the guest calling out CNN on their bullshit and asking what the fuck they're even doing, why they distract with stupid bullshit and they dismiss him and end the interview, immediately followed by one of those bullshit stories like "look at this cute video of a puppy!". It was fucking hilarious and proved the guys point in the most spectacular way.

Yes, one side says Trump policies are stupid, they are liars, the others says Hillary is a witch, they are not liars.

Because saying that Trump says one thing that contradict the other is demonize him, as opposed as saying that the Democrats worship Satan, which is accurate.

[Celista]

No back tracking here brah. You said conservatives tend to have lower IQ's, yet african americans statistically have the lowest IQ's in the US. Would this not imply that there should be far more conservative african americans out there than what we actually have?

I suspect you are incorrectly trying to link IQ to political beliefs while ignoring a myriad of other factors, but let's have some fun and discuss this.

Again, culture is likely a factor. It's why the South votes red and why African-Americans vote blue in most elections.

There are several influences on performance on cognitive testing. Racists like to use IQ differences between groups to imply that one group of people that is inherently more intelligent than another, when intelligence is really only 50% heritable. The other 50% is influenced by environmental factors. Low-SES groups (that minorities tend to be a part of, because they are a marginalized group) tend to have a poorer quality diet, is due to the fact that poor nutrition and being poor go hand in hand. Poor nutrition has a direct influence on overall health and cognitive performance. Poverty, particularly poverty at a young age, brings about it a variety of stressors that influence development, particularly cognitive development. Poor people are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods where crime rates are high, noise factors and safety concerns influence overall stress levels that influence the hormone cascade in the brain that influences the body's ability to regulate stress as well as attention span in even very young infants (PTSD and ADD are both higher in children and adults from low SES backgrounds; the hypervigilance and poor attention span may be rooted in the same poor nutrition/stressful environment that impacts brain/hormonal development). Children from poor backgrounds also tend to get less nurturing (usually because their parents tend to work longer hours, or be single parents) which also adversely affects development; poor people are also subject to more environmental pollutants that can adversely affect development.

[RickJamesLich]

Again, culture is likely a factor. It's why the South votes red and why African-Americans vote blue in most elections.

There are several influences on performance on cognitive testing. Racists like to use IQ differences between groups to imply that one group of people that is inherently more intelligent than another, when intelligence is really only 50% heritable. The other 50% is influenced by environmental factors. Low-SES groups (that minorities tend to be a part of, because they are a marginalized group) tend to have a poorer quality diet, is due to the fact that poor nutrition and being poor go hand in hand. Poor nutrition has a direct influence on overall health and cognitive performance. Poverty, particularly poverty at a young age, brings about it a variety of stressors that influence development, particularly cognitive development. Poor people are more likely to live in poor neighborhoods where crime rates are high, noise factors and safety concerns influence overall stress levels that influence the hormone cascade in the brain that influences the body's ability to regulate stress as well as attention span in even very young infants (PTSD and ADD are both higher in children and adults from low SES backgrounds; the hypervigilance and poor attention span may be rooted in the same poor nutrition/stressful environment that impacts brain/hormonal development). Children from poor backgrounds also tend to get less nurturing (usually because their parents tend to work longer hours, or be single parents) which also adversely affects development; poor people are also subject to more environmental pollutants that can adversely affect development.

Wait, weren't you just implying that one group is inherently more intelligent than the other yourself? You also said that racists do this, is this correct?

[sarahtasher]

When your primary education bans evolution, sex education and Harry Potter, no amount of hypothetical ''genetic IQ'' can save you.

[Celista]

Wait, weren't you just implying that one group is inherently more intelligent than the other yourself? You also said that racists do this, is this correct?

I said that racists try to explain IQ differences by stating that one race is inherently more intelligent than another group when that intelligence is only 50% heritable and our marginalization of other races likely explains IQ differences. The article I linked clearly pointed out that there are IQ differences between political groups, but it also clearly states that not EVERYONE who belongs to a particular political group is the norm for that group. It also stated that prejudiced beliefs might be partially rooted in lack of exposure to people different from themselves.

[sarahtasher]

Hey altrighters, if IQ is genetic, you should therefore surrender governement to a specific ethnic group that have repeatedly proven ''smarter'' than most other groups, by dominating outrageously Nobel prizes (even in STEM fields)....

What, that does not count ?

[LaserSharkDFB]

This is hilarious. Very little of what the MSM said about Trump was untrue; if they really wanted to sabotage him, they would have never put him on the air after he announced his candidacy. Instead, they gave him two billion dollars of free advertising. Yeah, they totally stood in his way.

Meanwhile, the right wing media has been outright slandering Clinton for decades, but I never saw anyone on the right complain about their lies. Hypocrisy really is the lifeblood of conservative America.

[Noradin]

IQ test mostly a measure how good the testee is at understanding the tester, nothing more.
And sometimes it is even worse--if you get idiots to grade them because you need either a lot of cheap manpower or computers to do it if you want to get statistically relevant sample sizes to compare populations. Both aren't exactly know for their insight, they compare the answers with a checklist and that's it.

[Zenotetsuken]

I am not saying he should bar them from covering him or anything like that, I just don't think he should cooperate and make it easy for them.

We don't need the press to cover the President anymore now that we have the internet.

Trump could just stream his speeches, appearances and meetings online and just cut out the middle man. We could watch it and decide on our own what we think without some "journalist" trying to spin it in some weak attempt to tell us how to think.

It could be like the modern version of the "fireside chat." (started by FDR).

I just don't see what Trump has to gain by working with a press that is so adamantly against him. They are just going to try to twist everything he says in some kind of desperate attempt to discredit him.

Also, most people that voted for Trump obviously got their news from somewhere other than the mainstream media.

If they were listening to the mainstream media they would have thought Trump was losing so bad that it wasn't even worth it to go out and vote. As one member of the mainstream media said on election day (paraphrased): it is almost impossible for Trump to win, it would be the most colossal failure of polling ever, it is just not possible. Why would he work with these people again? They are just sooo wrong......

Yeah, I agree. The media is still trying to remain relevant in a world where they no longer control the flow of information. That's why (as this election showed) everyday they lose more and more dominance over people's perception of information.
You are right, we should just cut the middle man out, and have the information streamed straight to the internet. That way the media can still get their money from spinning the information to the same out of touch people that they already do, because those people will likely not watch it for themselves, while the rest of us get the info "From the horse's mouth".

[May90]

To give the guy some credit, if your idea of a strong leader is a guy who always dominates the room and doesn't let anyone else tell him what to say or do, then Trump certainly came off as plenty strong in the campaign. I can imagine his rallies must've been quite the spectacle too, people may not have necessarily agreed with much of what he said but I can see them just getting swept up in the energy of it all. And honestly, the Democrats spent way too much time focusing on his sex scandals when, to be perfectly honest, all of that seemed fairly tame given the sheer amount of tabloid fodder we're exposed to these days and didn't really quite stick. The only thing that struck me about the "grab 'em by the pussy" line was how awkward and fake sounding it was, other than that it didn't really bother me even though it maybe should have, and I think most people, even liberals, felt this way.

Well, that's the reason any demagogue at all gets popular: due to the energy they bring with them. They say (without exaggeration) that Hitler's speeches, for example, caused actual orgasms in some people - even though the content of his speeches was almost non-existent.

I don't think it is a good excuse. If a person votes for someone due to the way they behave on the scene and not due to their policies, intentions, position, etc., then they are being extremely shallow.