/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11772733
Indeed

>>11254396
>According to which news media outlet?
It's just an observation, similar to the observation that academia is full of liberals. These are not coincidences.

Smarter people are more willing to spend the time collecting data and facts, and to spend the time reasoning about them, without being unduly influenced by baseless fearmongering and mandates from holy books.

Liberalism is not a specific set of values. It's a mindset. Take for example the founding fathers of America. They were high IQ liberals in their time (e.g., imagine suggesting something as radical as not answering to the King).

>>11138529
yes, and conservatism is strongly associated with lower cognitive ability.

>>10941549
IQ is genetic.
Lower IQ is associated with conservative values.
Hence, being conservative, like having reduced IQ, is genetic.
Inability to read an article from start to finish is associated with lower IQ and therefore with identifying as Republican.
Don't be a science-denialist, now.

>>10731793
>>10733214
>>10733225
b-but l-leftists... they're denying SCIENCE..

>>10727436
statistically significant genetic intelligence differences on the racial level are likely minor. if not, there would probably be less disagreement on the subject.
furthermore, populations are large enough that we would be mistaken to rely on such hamfisted evaluations. suppose, hypothetically, that american racists are correct, and (say) 50% of whites are "smart", but only 30% of blacks. even then, the policy of excluding "blacks" from education would wastefully exclude millions of people who are "smart", any one of which could be the one who cracks the next big problem.

on top of all that, we also have issues defining intelligence.
for example, we know that different individuals express intelligence differently; e.g., in mathematics, there is a definite divide between intuitive and rigorous thinkers, but both are extremely valuable in the field.
https://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Poincare_Intuition.html

in my opinion, there's enough uncertainty about the concept of intelligence itself to doubt the veracity of the "iq" metric.
i know a black guy who's married to a chinese girl; she's very rigorous, he's got a really strong intuition. they work as a team and they're both accomplished professors in their field, and in only a few years have published scores of noteworthy papers. which one is "smarter"? is it justifiable to exclude either one of them in spite of their prodigious abilities and achievements?

>>10727460
indeed. and yet we have pic related, who claim conservatives are genetically inferior. how far down the rabbit hole do we need to go before we realize it's just filled with shit?

>>10579318
Telling you to actually read the article before passing a snap judgment about its contents isn't ad hominem.

>Why?
You don't understand why high IQ achievers don't want to be saddled with idiocy in their places of work?

>I said on average.
Oh, an average? So that means you have some data to average. Please show it.

>Logic. Where did it go?
You can't recognize it when you see it? Read the papers, learn the facts, then come back. Or go back to /pol/ and just stay there.

>>10558985
>So its a flawed bias study that ought to be thrown out because of it being inherently not useful, we cannot trust his judgement
I didn't write the study, brainlet.

>>10538278
>>10538254
>>10538290
You seem upset. But the fact is your intelligence was passed down to you by your parents. That is why you are a conservative. Pic related. Finding increasingly inventive ways to try to insult me will not protect you from this basic truth.
Notice which one of us is posting peer-reviewed studies and which one of us is settling for sophistry and handwaving.
Your "cilantro" argument is idiotic on its face. A difference in one trait does not necessarily imply that all other traits must vary significantly. The vast majority of human traits are exactly the same between different races.