Intelligence and party choice is not a relationship.

avatar

image.png

After years of the assertions about a "party of science" or "which party is more intelligent" leading to nothing, I'm going to put in the futile request that we stop having this dumb conversation.

First of all, even if there were a party that clearly trended more intelligent, being a part of that party doesn't make you intelligent or right.

Even if you are an intelligent person, that doesn't make you right. Paul Krugman and Francis Collins are both intelligent people with awful ideas.

It seems that the only arguments that any of these people make are made by giving examples which are ill defined. Yeah, the majority of college professors are Democrats. I don't think there are many Republicans teaching lesbian dance theory. There are plenty of Republicans in economics and engineering.

Some claim that only 6% of scientists are Republicans. Other data show that it's closer to one in three. Still, what does this have to say about politics? Maybe a Paleontologist identifies as a Democrat because Democratic politicians have been less hostile to the theory of evolution while being ambivalent to everything else. There are different kinds of intelligence in different fields.

Really, in general, if you average everything out, you're not likley to find and statistically significant gaps in intelligence when separated among people's beliefs -- except, of course, with libertarians who are clearly smarter 😉.



0
0
0.000
2 comments
avatar

I've noticed that people who leave a party tend to be more thoughtful than those who stay with their party through thick or thin.

People who leave a party tend to do so because they engaged in introspection. Those who blindly cling to a party are less likely to engage in open and honest discourse.

The science is a bit perplexing. A century ago the Democrats were the ones who vehemently argued against evolution. The core Republican ideology was founded on logic and classical liberal thought.

Science is really just a subset of logic. The scientist concentrates on assertions the subset of questions that can be verified by observation of nature, while a person who studied logic applies reasoning to all questions.

I wouldn't identify as a scientist because I find an exclusive focus on subjects that can be verified by observation of nature to be narrow minded.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The parties all tailor their messages to lure whichever voters they think they can manipulate. No one party can be the party of anything, because they are always changing. Political parties all believe in just one thing, so at the end of the day, there is really only one party... the Control party.

0
0
0.000