The Liberal Blind Spot

[Deleted]

Care to name a single conservative politician that couldn't be argued to be eerily similar to Palin?

I am not to familiar with each individual right wing politician in the US, but there have to be saner/more educated people than Palin.

The whole conservative/liberal/leftist debate seems to have a lot of generalizations

And considering how different left/right is in the US when compared to Europe it gets quite confusing sometimes.

[alexw]

I am not to familiar with each individual right wing politician in the US, but there have to be saner/more educated people than Palin.

The whole conservative/liberal/leftist debate seems to have a lot of generalizations

And considering how different left/right is in the US when compared to Europe it gets quite confusing sometimes.

There are, I'm sure, some sane/normal republicans, but they are not currently the most high profile ones, and they seem to form an ever shrinking share of the total. The party has been kicking out its sane politico's and replacing them with batshit mental ones at quite a rate of speed.

It goes back a long way, years ago the party invited in with open arms quite a lot of cranks, nutters, and conspiracy theorists. The sane republican leadership harnessed their votes but denied them power and the ability to influence the party platform beyond token laws. But these assorted oddballs became angry at this blockading and so are taking power directly via nominating and electing their own into positions of power. Worse still, the majority of the remaining sane republicans being terrified that they are the next ones up to be kicked out and replaced, have been pretending to be batshit mental too so as to keep their jobs. And really, in terms of governance whats the difference between implementing batshit mental laws because you are batshit mental, and implementing batshit mental laws because you are pretending to be batshit mental? I see no difference.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This isn't really relevant to the snippet from your post that I was addressing. IQ really is a pretty good proxy for the sort of genius that we typically care about when thinking of science, math, and literature. The majority of extremely high achievers also have extremely high IQs. Talking about traits that don't have anything to do with this sort of cognition (such as taste) is just an jaunt that I've never seen before and hope to never see again.

I don't care very much about the gender politics of the topic - I'm just irritated by people that generally trust cognitive psychologists to do good science that suddenly find a new level of scientific rigor necessary when it comes to intelligence. On object level questions about female intelligence, I'll just say that my wife's a hell of a lot better scientist than I ever was - I have no male superiority complex.

And thus it comes full circle back to the entire original point (that I wasn't even replying to you but someone else), that people have somehow found justification in gender discrimination because they believe in some kind of male superiority, and that is wrong.

I put stock in IQ for measuring what it measures, but that's about it. The people who are putting stock in IQ to prove male superiority are the ones who seem to think IQ is a measure for every grain of success in our lives.

[Masark]

I am not to familiar with each individual right wing politician in the US, but there have to be saner/more educated people than Palin.

Not really. They might be more articulate, but the basic policies aren't much different.

[Deleted]

And thus it comes full circle back to the entire original point (that I wasn't even replying to you but someone else), that people have somehow found justification in gender discrimination because they believe in some kind of male superiority, and that is wrong.

I put stock in IQ for measuring what it measures, but that's about it. The people who are putting stock in IQ to prove male superiority are the ones who seem to think IQ is a measure for every grain of success in our lives.

What are you on about, no where did he even imply anything even remotely like "male superiority", that is totally on you, and only you. He is not trying to prove "male superiority", he is merely saying that IQ tests are accurate with what they test. All the rest is your weird convictions talking.