Peer Reviewed Study Proves That Most Scientists Are Skeptical of Rightists Credibility When It Comes To Science
(too old to reply)
Polarized Vortex
2018-01-11 23:40:00 UTC
Most right wing retards believe science it's a big socialist cabal under
Al Gore. And when you point out that most major corporations are
endeavoring to reduce their GHG emissions or the insurance industry
(who most deniers strongly endorse in US health care) they start yammering
on about how they're in on the great conspiracy as well.

Then they continue to cite fabrications from dubious, amateur websites
like "c3headlines", anonymous uncredentialed bloggers, crackpots, right
wing think tanks and retired scientists turned fossil fuel
industry shills for their "facts".

Even more hilarious, the majority of the scientists they cite never worked
in the field of climatology in the first place, so it's like citing the
opinion of your dentist for a heart condition.

New Meta Study Proves That Rightist Rednecks Have Lower Intelligence.

This substatiates the anti intellectualism, gullibility and fear of
science as demonstrated by rightist peons from these newsgroups to Fox
News and the Right Wing Propaganda non-MSM media. Studies show that few
rightists are scientists and most of them think science is a socialist

Well, well, well, boy, howdy, gosh-o-golly and gee whiz, what a shock! A
new meta study of more than 20,000 young adults shows that people who
identify as liberal score well above average on IQ tests - 106 - while
their conservadolt maroon counterparts score well below average - 95.
Who'da thunk it!

A similar split in IQ was seen between those who identify as atheists -
averaging 103 - and those who identify as ignorant superstitious
imbeciles, er, sorry, very religious, who average only 97.

And before you rightarded boobs start whining about some imaginary "librul
bise," this study came from the anything but liberal London School of
Economics and Political Science and was conducted by libertarian Satoshi

These results confirm earlier research. This latest study corroborates the
results of earlier studies that have shown strong correlation between
liberalism and intelligence as well as conservadoltism and stupidity. Last
year a long term meta study tracking children to adulthood showed the
higher a child scored on standardized tests, the more likely that child
would grow up to be liberal. The inverse - the lower the score the more
likely to end up a conservadolt - was also found to be true.

So, there you have it, folks. Liberals really are a lot smarter than their
conservadolt counterparts. Liberals, of course, have been well aware of
this for some time. Conservadolts, OTOH, populate the risible depths of
those who are simply not smart enough to know they simply are not smart

Then again, from the continual conservadolt rightard angst over my sig
file, which doesn't even differentiate based on political identity, they
must at least suspect that they're just not very smart. And right they
are, in a world where right means stupid...

Why scientists are seldom Republicans

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without

Ask the Republican Party.

It lives in such a world.

Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table.

It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town hall
meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to believe
absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."

Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound reasoning
as the basis for public policy development.

The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't expect it
from their leaders.

They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue with a
cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.

Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
GOP's Hispanic deficit.

Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with
or lean toward the Republican Party.

But that's a full house compared with scientists.

Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew
Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while
fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean

We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based
thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.

The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global
warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement
the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious
agenda or corporate greed.

But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party
in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem
cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth
in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity
is warming the planet.

It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think
that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.

Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise and
create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and prosperous
middle class sits on the shoulders of people who understand and
practice the scientific method.

Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the physical
universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to professionals now
represented by only one of our nation's two major political parties ?
while the other party attempts to obstruct them.

Global warming is a prime example.

Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon is
warning that our national security is at risk if climate change is not

All Americans and politicians should be united for collective action.

Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring and
suppressing scientific concerns.

Even today, with the effects of global warming evident, Republicans in
Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade energy bill, the
nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough) to limit greenhouse
gas emissions.

Their alternative is to offer nothing.

Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?

Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership is
not wont to do.

Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists" with a
good education, complex charts and empirical data.

They see it to their political advantage to rally people to distrust

That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment ?
advancements that translate directly into economic progress and rising
living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with substantial

But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a GOP
resurgence could very well come.

Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
government better keep its hands off their Medicare.

Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
describe it.
2018-01-12 01:44:58 UTC
Well, I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn that your Satoshi Kanazawa has attracted the unfavorable attention of The Guardian: ☺

<< On Monday, Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, published an article on his Psychology Today blog that sent shockwaves across Twitter and the blogosphere and reminded many of us of just how dangerous this kind of "science" can be.

In his incendiary piece, which has since been taken down, Kanazawa discussed the scientific basis for "why black women are less attractive than any other women". Note that Kanazawa did not claim to have discovered why black women are perceived to be less attractive, or why he believed that black women are less attractive.

After bombarding the reader with colourful bar graphs and a set of numbers, he asserts that he has found the answer as to why black women are "objectively" less attractive than women of any other race, and it has something to do with testosterone and genetic mutations.

Following the backlash that ensued, the headline, "Why are black women less physically attractive than other women?", was first edited, before the article was taken down in its entirety. This is interesting, because it implies that the editors didn't initially accept that there was anything wrong with the article itself – only a headline that needed tweaking. However, even the poorest-performing psychology undergrad at a university at the bottom of any league table will tell you that the article oozes bad science.

From the article, the entire study appears to be based on the perspectives and opinions of adult respondents, Kanazawa reports his findings as "objective facts": that "black women are significantly less attractive than women of other races". He fails to provide information on the sample size for his research, or the social or economic factors (including race) that would have impacted on his findings so that readers can deduce for themselves as to what extent these findings can be generalised across time and space. As some tweeters have noted, it's a classic trick in which pseudoscientists blind you with multicoloured graphs and three decimal place figures to convince lay readers that their research was thorough and is conclusive. I mean, who can argue with three decimal places?

Pseudoscience and racism have a long history together. Many people who read Kanazawa's article were instantly reminded of Nazi claims to Aryan superiority. In his tome The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain claimed to have discovered biological evidence for Aryan superiority based on his deeply flawed concepts of human speciation. This text and others of its ilk were the basis for the attempted extermination of Jewish people under the Nazi regime but were unfortunately not without precedent. Before Chamberlain there was the likes of Georges Cuvier and his contemporaries, whose treatment of Saartjie Baartman – also known as the Hottentot Venus – early in the 19th century was premised on the apparent biological inferiority of people of African descent, once again "proven" by bad science. Could colonialism or slavery ever have been justified without these and other pseudoscientific claims?

In 2011, we have peer review and editors. So it is of great concern that Psychology Today let Kanazawa's awfully premised, poorly presented and racist article even slip through the cracks. Of course, many social scientists were quick to spot the fallacies in his argument, but these standards don't exist to protect those who work in the ivory tower. They exist to protect the general public that may have nothing more than a passing interest in learning more about the world in which they live.

Kanazawa's article insulted and denigrated women of African descent all over the world, insinuating that some inevitable genetic development forces them to the lowest rung of his imaginary rigid scale of "attractiveness". As if a world in which the images of the most beautiful have oscillated between Michelangelo's Creation of Eve and Iman's statuesque frame could ever have a rigid, scientific standard for "attractiveness".

For his folly, Kanazawa has been duly chastised. But what about Psychology Today? Will they escape censure for letting this offensive tripe go out in the first place? Recalling that this is the same Kanazawa who asserted that he had also "discovered what's wrong with Muslims" in the same rag that published this "attractiveness" study, isn't it about time that someone got hauled over the coals for letting this nonsense go out? Psychology Today has said the article was not specifically commissioned and hasallowed some of its other writers to come out and criticise Kanazawa but has stopped short of issuing an apology for its carelessness.

And will the LSE, still under the spotlight for the Gaddafi fiasco, send a clear signal that it will not tolerate its brand being associated with the kind of eugenic discussion that Kanazawa seems intent on engendering? After all, he has been here before. In November 2006, Kanazawa published a paper in the British Journal of Health Psychology alleging that African states were poor and suffered chronic ill-health because their populations were less intelligent than people in richer countries.

Or are we back to allowing science to be used to justify prejudice? >>

Eugene FitzAubrey