WaterMan Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Just Science? It is not science when the author has this education level. Education: University of California, Santa Cruz Graduate certificate in Science Writing, June 2009 [*] University of South Carolina, Columbia Bachelor of arts in psychology, minor in medical humanities, May 2006 Come on people, this might as well have been authored by Snooki. Rednecks and guidos don't pass college brah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I find it interesting that a poster with such ingrained beliefs that he has demonstrated an inability, yes inability not unwillingness, to process counterposing information and to evalauate it dispassionately should post this information in an obvious effort to butress his world view. That dynamic is the very heart of the mechanism through which prejudice survives and thrives. If this is aimed at BPW, it could with considerably more justification be aimed at Ice1, who posts Glenn Beck-like diatribes as opposed to any kind of buttressing argument backed by evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 If this is aimed at BPW, it could with considerably more justification be aimed at Ice1, who posts Glenn Beck-like diatribes as opposed to any kind of buttressing argument backed by evidence. It was, and it could. I also recognize that I am in no way immune to the condition. When it comes time for those without sin to start casting stones I am never in a position to fill my hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 Amusingly enough, I posted this as a joke. The title "it's just science" was a quote from anchorman, and is decidedly the opposite of science. Diktas response saddens me. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Amusingly enough, I posted this as a joke. The title "it's just science" was a quote from anchorman, and is decidedly the opposite of science. Diktas response saddens me. . Take solace in the fact that nobody cares what I write. Or was it the statement that I like the OP which saddens you? I could understand not wanting to be in that class of persons I like. Sort of the Groucho Marks thing of not wanting to belong to any club that would have you for a member. Edited January 29, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Amusingly enough, I posted this as a joke. The title "it's just science" was a quote from anchorman, and is decidedly the opposite of science. Diktas response saddens me. . You know what, you are correct. I actually had you temporarily confused in my mind with somebody else. I apologize. I am going to leave the post unedited so that the thread does not lose its context, but I do apologize. Edited January 29, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 This thread is the best... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 This thread is the best... There's an element of QED about it............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 29, 2012 Author Share Posted January 29, 2012 You know what, you are correct. I actually had you temporarily confused in my mind with somebody else. I apologize. I am going to leave the post unedited so that the thread does not lose its context, but I do apologize. I appreciate that. I was hoping to catch a real lunker with this fishing trip . . . . . ice1 didnt disappoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 There's an element of QED about it............ Ice1 may have been involved in the study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Interesting article I stumbled across somewhat related to what the OP discussed. What are the key social, demographic and economic factors underlying prejudice? What effect does prejudice have on the wealth and happiness of nations? First and foremost, prejudice is associated with economic backwardness. With a few notable exceptions, it clusters most heavily in places that are rife with substantial economic, political, and cultural stress. Prejudiced countries also tend to be poorer and less developed. It is hard to say which causes which – whether prejudice holds development back or retarded development engenders prejudice – but the connection is clear. Conversely, the most economically developed countries tend to be the least prejudiced. Most of Europe and North America show up pink on the map above. Canada, whose government once sought to erase every trace of its indigenous people’s cultures, is now the least prejudiced nation in the world. The United States, with its history of slavery and Jim Crow, is the fifth most tolerant. Luxemburg, Ireland, Spain, Uruguay, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand all show low levels of prejudice. Ronald Ingelhart’s World Values Surveys have traced the close associations between economic development and open-mindedness; studies by the Peterson Institute for International Economics show a correlation between a country’s tolerance of homosexuality, its levels of globalization and the quality of its economic performance. According to our statistical analysis, high levels of prejudice are associated with lower levels of income, less innovation and entrepreneurship and lower levels of happiness and subjective well-being. Conversely, high levels of acceptance and tolerance are associated with larger incomes, more innovation, higher human capital and happier populations. While prejudice of any kind is problematic, prejudice against gays and lesbians is by far the most prevalent and ingrained. According to the Gallup data, an average of just 26.3 percent of World Poll respondents said their city or area was a good place for gay and lesbian people to live, as compared to 57.7 percent for immigrants, 59.3 percent for ethnic and racial minorities, and 66.9 percent for religious minorities. It also appears to be the most economically damaging. Gay-friendly places are much more prosperous than homophobic ones. It makes intuitive sense. Places that are welcoming to different kinds of people are also likely to be hospitable to the kind of creative, out-of-the-box thinking that drives innovation and prosperity. Less prejudiced, more open-minded places benefit from their ability to tap into the talents of the whole spectrum of their population. At the same time, they are able to attract energetic and talented immigrants from across the globe. Gauging a country’s level of prejudice also provides unique insights into its economic potential. Consider the emerging BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Two of them, Russia and India, are beset by high levels of prejudice. (There is not enough data to adequately assess China). But Brazil is both racially tolerant and open to gays and lesbians (its GPI is on par with the United Kingdom). This will give it a substantial edge over its peers when it comes to attracting global talent. The bottom line? Prejudice is not just morally reprehensible, it's economically punishing as well. I am anxious to see Ice1 poke holes in the methodology and question the author's credentials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar Magnolia Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I will have a good night. For what it's worth my wife is working on PHD psychology so unfortunately I get more information than I really want on the discipline. When one sees politics injected as a conclusion based response it should cause anyone with an understanding of psychology to first look at the creator and their political agenda to determine the nature of the response. Further, when looks and studies IQ then the next variant relates to the belief in IQ being stagnant or something that can be improved. The author of this article injected far to much opinion merrily jumped on by the resident Liberals in this thread as some ultimate proof source that conservatives are somehow dumb. That assumption is foolish and simply shows a lack of understanding. This study will be blasted going forward and if you actually have it you will understand why if you analyze it. The conclusions are way out there and the the authors of the actual study have not even adequately defined conservatism as a starting point. If you really understand the study then equate it to Nazi Germany and you may start to understand the conclusions seem to be more ad hominem in nature in my view. I am through discussing it as it is not relevant, and certainly not scientific based or proven in the conclusions drawn and outlined by the author of the posted article. You might want to have your wife explain to you Pavlov conditioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.