On Mar 1, 8:10=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 6:35 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> Twaddle ... mainly due to the fact that the most germane, basic
> definition in the premise goes completely unanswered - the _contextual_
> definition of "liberal" and "liberalism".
>
> Without that clearly defined upfront the entire premise is worth
> considerably less than a warm bucket of spit.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I don't have access to the journal (if anyone reading this does,
please let me know), but maybe the terms were clearly defined in the
study groups that the correlation was derived from. (Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys)
On 02 Mar 2010 11:44:58 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4b8cb435$0$5327
>[email protected]:
>
>> BTW, since when in the hell did living in Jersey make you a New
>> Yorker?
>
>To both Larry and Lew:
>After university in Holland I had a choice: Compulsory military service or
>go to the Boston area for graduate work.
I barely squeaked by going to Vietnam. I was moving back from school
in Aridzona when my Order to Report for Induction Physical came. I
called in and told them I was moving back to California and they told
me to go ahead and do so, then register at the local draft board
there. Luckily, the local board in San Diego had their quota and I was
put on hold. I missed going to Nam in the autumn of '72, just as the
Powers That Be were starting to NOT support the troops there. Hey,
maybe that was when I picked up on the damage which could be done by
liberals. They directly caused thousands of deaths in Nam by cutting
off funding. Without funding, the troops had no ammo, no air cover,
and no artillery cover, so they died.
>Spouse said she would come to the
>US as long as we didn't go to NY City or Texas <grin>. Yes we were both
>very liberal (Dutch version), and afraid of both lawless NYC and Texas
><grin>.
>
>After almost 7 years in Boston, the only job I could find was in Manhattan,
>and we are still here, and I will work in Manhattan for 10 more months.
>Since 1976, we have lived in Queens, Nassau, and now in North Jersey
><http://radburn.org>.
But you're -not- afraid of the vast and powerful Jersey mafia? Wow!
>We're still liberal, AND (very important) fiscally conservative.
Fiscally conservative? There's hope for you yet, Han. ;)
I'm a liberally moderate conservative.
>Yes, in many respects, we are New Yorkers in spirit. What's wrong with
>that? Have you visited New York and experienced the people?
I was there for one day in 1998. I went up the Empire State building,
traveled the subways down to Battery Park, took the ferry out to Ellis
Island and the Statue of Liberty (I looked up her skirt and was amazed
at how large her nuts were.) With the exception of the people working
in whatever place I went, nobody gave eye contact at all. My buddy
and I were laughing about it on the subway. The city was a lot
cleaner, less noisy, and less crowded than the movies show. But I far
prefer tiny cities and country living.
What NYC experience do you wish people to have?
--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
On Mar 1, 8:45=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> > FOUND IT. =A0 If interested snatch it while you can.
>
> >http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
>
> Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
> maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
>
> IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
> century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
>
> Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
>
> I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
> this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
>
> IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
> intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I haven't read the article yet and I doubt you have either :^) ---
Long freak'en article to digest.
But I plan on doing so. I'm actually more interested in the second
part of the manuscripts title.
On Mar 2, 6:44=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0Have you visited New York and experienced the people?
>
I know that question wasn't aimed at me, but I'm here to tell you that
I have had the pleasure of hanging with some new yawkers on their turf
on a few occasions and found it very pleasant. It truly is a great
city. One avoids known areas just like there is some human garbage
across the river at Port Huron MI and on this side of the river.
I love the cabbies in NY... what a different breed.
On Mar 1, 7:35=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill; Anyone who isn't liberal when he's
eighteen, has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative when he's thirty-
five has no brain.
Joe G
On Mar 1, 7:35=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
Abstract:
http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0190272510361602v1
On 3/3/2010 5:42 AM, Han wrote:
> and then return to Holland after ~5 years. That part didn't pan out. So
> far it has paid off for me and my family. I think I contributed to
> science too, for work performed in the US. The US got something too: Me
> and my Dutch education and training, plus my wife's contributions and now
> my childrens' efforts.
We're proud and honored to have you, Hans. All our roots are elsewhere.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mar 1, 7:35=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
FOUND IT. If interested snatch it while you can.
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:44:02 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 2, 3:36 pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:46:16 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course you would, Han. (A Nueva Jorker who's afraid of guns. Two
>> >> dead giveaways as to your leanings. ;)
>> >----------------------------------------
>> >Another one of Larry's piss poor attempts at humor by belching bull
>> >shit.
>>
>> So now we need liberal humor to make the grade here, do we? <snort>
>
>Is there another kind?
Sure, liberals are good fruit for fermenting (and fomenting) humor,
especially when they take themselves seriously.
--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
On Mar 2, 12:23=A0pm, GROVER <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:35=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> Paraphrasing Winston Churchill; Anyone who isn't liberal when he's
> eighteen, has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative when he's thirty-
> five has no brain.
>
> Joe G
Apparently this quotation is mistakenly attributed to Churchill.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=3Darticle&contentId=
=3DA43103-2001Jun8¬Found=3Dtrue
On 2010-03-01 20:23:38 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> said:
> Anyone who has had a kid in college recently will know what I'm talking about.
If you've got a kid in college, they probably aren't talking unless
they're asking for money. When they do talk, they're apt to tell you
"you just don't understand."
We just hope he can find a job, when all is said and done.
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> Of course you would, Han. (A Nueva Jorker who's afraid of guns. Two
> dead giveaways as to your leanings. ;)
----------------------------------------
Another one of Larry's piss poor attempts at humor by belching bull
shit.
Don't remember Han making any comment about firearms other than he
would rather not be bothered owning one.
BTW, since when in the hell did living in Jersey make you a New
Yorker?
Lew
On 2010-03-02 12:47:12 -0500, GarageWoodworks
<[email protected]> said:
> Apparently this quotation is mistakenly attributed to Churchill.
What's the Picasso quote? Something like "Good artists borrow; great
artists steal"?
Sorta like "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."
On Mar 2, 12:13=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> Uh, yeah. =A0Cases in point:
>
> =A0 1. Joe Biden
> =A0 2. Maxine Waters
> =A0 3. Barbara Boxer
> =A0 4. Barbara Miklulski
>
> =A0 Sure. =A0
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
I knew that would make your head explode.
Read the article. I just finished it. It's very good.
On Mar 2, 3:36=A0pm, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:46:16 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
> >"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
> >> Of course you would, Han. =A0(A Nueva Jorker who's afraid of guns. Two
> >> dead giveaways as to your leanings. =A0;)
> >----------------------------------------
> >Another one of Larry's piss poor attempts at humor by belching bull
> >shit.
>
> So now we need liberal humor to make the grade here, do we? =A0<snort>
>
Is there another kind?
On 3/1/2010 6:35 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
Twaddle ... mainly due to the fact that the most germane, basic
definition in the premise goes completely unanswered - the _contextual_
definition of "liberal" and "liberalism".
Without that clearly defined upfront the entire premise is worth
considerably less than a warm bucket of spit.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 3/1/2010 7:16 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:10 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2010 6:35 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>>
>> Twaddle ... mainly due to the fact that the most germane, basic
>> definition in the premise goes completely unanswered - the _contextual_
>> definition of "liberal" and "liberalism".
>>
>> Without that clearly defined upfront the entire premise is worth
>> considerably less than a warm bucket of spit.
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> I don't have access to the journal (if anyone reading this does,
> please let me know), but maybe the terms were clearly defined in the
> study groups that the correlation was derived from. (Longitudinal
> Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys)
And just maybe "liberals" aren't really known for believing their own
propaganda when it comes to "intelligence". :)
This is a tired, well worn, old argument ... I would say that I was
surprised to see it re-hashed, but it appears to be just more of the
current ivory tower academia mindset not being fully cognizant of
historical context.
... or, once again, someone is believing their own propaganda. :)
Anyone who has had a kid in college recently will know what I'm talking
about.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote in news:20e6155a-
[email protected]:
> On Mar 1, 8:45 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>>
>> > FOUND IT. If interested snatch it while you can.
>>
>> >http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
>>
>> Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
>> maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
>>
>> IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
>> century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
>>
>> Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
>>
>> I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
>> this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
>>
>> IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
>> intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> I haven't read the article yet and I doubt you have either :^) ---
> Long freak'en article to digest.
>
> But I plan on doing so. I'm actually more interested in the second
> part of the manuscripts title.
I'm always a little suspicious of psychologists, but I like to believe
the conclusion!!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4b8cb435$0$5327
[email protected]:
> BTW, since when in the hell did living in Jersey make you a New
> Yorker?
To both Larry and Lew:
After university in Holland I had a choice: Compulsory military service or
go to the Boston area for graduate work. Spouse said she would come to the
US as long as we didn't go to NY City or Texas <grin>. Yes we were both
very liberal (Dutch version), and afraid of both lawless NYC and Texas
<grin>.
After almost 7 years in Boston, the only job I could find was in Manhattan,
and we are still here, and I will work in Manhattan for 10 more months.
Since 1976, we have lived in Queens, Nassau, and now in North Jersey
<http://radburn.org>. We're still liberal, AND (very important) fiscally
conservative. We have 1 car, a 2005 Grand Caravan, bought second hand.
Yes, in many respects, we are New Yorkers in spirit. What's wrong with
that? Have you visited New York and experienced the people?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I'm curious--what was your objection to compulsory military service?
> It's not like you were going to go to Vietnam or anything.
At the time, it wasn't really thought a useful thing by many. It has since
been changed to a completely voluntary military.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> What NYC experience do you wish people to have?
>
Anything they want. I is a very vibrant place, and if you don't like it on
this block, or are just curious, it is different on the next block.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4b8d81df$0$32107
[email protected]:
>
> "Han" wrote:
>
>> Have you visited New York and experienced the people?
> ----------------------------
> Not in many years.
>
> At one time or another, spent time not only in NYC but also of all
> places Fairlawn, NJ.
>
> Lew
Hey Lew, what did you have to do in Fair Lawn, NJ??
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 3/2/2010 9:21 PM, Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I'm curious--what was your objection to compulsory military service?
>>> It's not like you were going to go to Vietnam or anything.
>>
>> At the time, it wasn't really thought a useful thing by many. It has
>> since been changed to a completely voluntary military.
>
> Being required to do something not useful doesn't seem to me to be a
> very good reason to leave one's country.
That was the alternative.
My reason for leaving was to earn a PhD in the area I had studied, while
getting paid as a tech at Harvard. The initial purpose was to do that
and then return to Holland after ~5 years. That part didn't pan out. So
far it has paid off for me and my family. I think I contributed to
science too, for work performed in the US. The US got something too: Me
and my Dutch education and training, plus my wife's contributions and now
my childrens' efforts.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4b8dd218$0$14670
[email protected]:
> "Han" wrote:
>>
>> Hey Lew, what did you have to do in Fair Lawn, NJ??
> -------------------------
> Was involved with the spin off of American Can for a few months.
>
> Lew
American Can?? Google is no help ... But I hope it was either or both
fruitful and enjoyable.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> FOUND IT. If interested snatch it while you can.
>
> http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:46:16 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> Of course you would, Han. (A Nueva Jorker who's afraid of guns. Two
>> dead giveaways as to your leanings. ;)
>----------------------------------------
>Another one of Larry's piss poor attempts at humor by belching bull
>shit.
So now we need liberal humor to make the grade here, do we? <snort>
>Don't remember Han making any comment about firearms other than he
>would rather not be bothered owning one.
Reread the thread, Lew. There's considerably more.
>BTW, since when in the hell did living in Jersey make you a New
>Yorker?
Huh? Manhattan is NY, isn't it?
--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
On Mar 1, 9:12=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 8:08 PM, Han wrote:
>
>
>
> > GarageWoodworks<[email protected]> =A0wrote in news:20e6155a-
> > [email protected]:
>
> >> On Mar 1, 8:45 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> >>>> FOUND IT. =A0 If interested snatch it while you can.
>
> >>>>http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
>
> >>> Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
> >>> maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
>
> >>> IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
> >>> century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
>
> >>> Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
>
> >>> I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
> >>> this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
>
> >>> IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
> >>> intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
>
> >>> --www.e-woodshop.net
> >>> Last update: 10/22/08
> >>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> >> I haven't read the article yet and I doubt you have either =A0:^) =A0 =
=A0---
> >> Long freak'en article to digest.
>
> >> But I plan on doing so. =A0I'm actually more interested in the second
> >> part of the manuscripts title.
>
> > I'm always a little suspicious of psychologists, but I like to believe
> > the conclusion!!!
>
> ROTFL! ... why am I not surprised! =A0:)
>
> Just kidding, Han, if we had to judge it on respective intelligence,
> you'd unarguably hold all the cards! <g>
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I really thought this thread would be on fire by now. Politics and
religion in the same post? WTF?? :^)
On Mar 2, 12:13=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
> Uh, yeah. =A0Cases in point:
>
> =A0 1. Joe Biden
> =A0 2. Maxine Waters
> =A0 3. Barbara Boxer
> =A0 4. Barbara Miklulski
>
> =A0 Sure.
I don't know their IQ's (nor do you), but I'll give u the benefit of
the doubt. The correlation coefficient is not 1. But highly
correlated and significant.
=A0
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham
On 3/2/2010 6:44 AM, Han wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote in news:4b8cb435$0$5327
> [email protected]:
>
>> BTW, since when in the hell did living in Jersey make you a New
>> Yorker?
>
> To both Larry and Lew:
> After university in Holland I had a choice: Compulsory military service or
> go to the Boston area for graduate work. Spouse said she would come to the
> US as long as we didn't go to NY City or Texas<grin>. Yes we were both
> very liberal (Dutch version), and afraid of both lawless NYC and Texas
> <grin>.
I'm curious--what was your objection to compulsory military service?
It's not like you were going to go to Vietnam or anything.
> After almost 7 years in Boston, the only job I could find was in Manhattan,
> and we are still here, and I will work in Manhattan for 10 more months.
> Since 1976, we have lived in Queens, Nassau, and now in North Jersey
> <http://radburn.org>. We're still liberal, AND (very important) fiscally
> conservative. We have 1 car, a 2005 Grand Caravan, bought second hand.
>
> Yes, in many respects, we are New Yorkers in spirit. What's wrong with
> that? Have you visited New York and experienced the people?
>
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:02:35 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> Forgot to mention an "interesting", to me, parallel that is mentioned in
> your first link ... belief in a "religion" was, way back when,
> supposedly the dividing line between the intelligent and the less
> intelligent, as liberal versus conservative was an almost unheard of
> distinction at that time.
Quote from ancient Roman (I forget who):
"Religion is believed true by the common people, false by the wise, and
useful by the rulers."
The more things change, ...
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 3/2/2010 9:21 PM, Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I'm curious--what was your objection to compulsory military service?
>> It's not like you were going to go to Vietnam or anything.
>
> At the time, it wasn't really thought a useful thing by many. It has since
> been changed to a completely voluntary military.
Being required to do something not useful doesn't seem to me to be a
very good reason to leave one's country.
>
On 02 Mar 2010 02:08:33 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote in news:20e6155a-
>[email protected]:
>
>> On Mar 1, 8:45 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>>>
>>> > FOUND IT. If interested snatch it while you can.
>>>
>>> >http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
>>>
>>> Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
>>> maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
>>>
>>> IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
>>> century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
>>>
>>> Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
>>>
>>> I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
>>> this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
>>>
>>> IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
>>> intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
>>>
>>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 10/22/08
>>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>>
>> I haven't read the article yet and I doubt you have either :^) ---
>> Long freak'en article to digest.
>>
>> But I plan on doing so. I'm actually more interested in the second
>> part of the manuscripts title.
>
>I'm always a little suspicious of psychologists, but I like to believe
>the conclusion!!!
Of course you would, Han. (A Nueva Jorker who's afraid of guns. Two
dead giveaways as to your leanings. ;)
--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
in 510686 20100302 172345 GROVER <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mar 1, 7:35=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>
>Paraphrasing Winston Churchill; Anyone who isn't liberal when he's
>eighteen, has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative when he's thirty-
>five has no brain.
>
>Joe G
Wasn't it a King of Sweden who said that about communism?
On 3/1/2010 8:08 PM, Han wrote:
> GarageWoodworks<[email protected]> wrote in news:20e6155a-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On Mar 1, 8:45 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>>>
>>>> FOUND IT. If interested snatch it while you can.
>>>
>>>> http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
>>>
>>> Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
>>> maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
>>>
>>> IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
>>> century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
>>>
>>> Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
>>>
>>> I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
>>> this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
>>>
>>> IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
>>> intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
>>>
>>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>>> Last update: 10/22/08
>>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>>
>> I haven't read the article yet and I doubt you have either :^) ---
>> Long freak'en article to digest.
>>
>> But I plan on doing so. I'm actually more interested in the second
>> part of the manuscripts title.
>
> I'm always a little suspicious of psychologists, but I like to believe
> the conclusion!!!
ROTFL! ... why am I not surprised! :)
Just kidding, Han, if we had to judge it on respective intelligence,
you'd unarguably hold all the cards! <g>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:02:35 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>> Forgot to mention an "interesting", to me, parallel that is mentioned in
>> your first link ... belief in a "religion" was, way back when,
>> supposedly the dividing line between the intelligent and the less
>> intelligent, as liberal versus conservative was an almost unheard of
>> distinction at that time.
>
> Quote from ancient Roman (I forget who):
>
> "Religion is believed true by the common people, false by the wise, and
> useful by the rulers."
>
> The more things change, ...
Opiate of the masses?
Dave in Houston
On 3/1/2010 7:53 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:45 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2010 7:30 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, GarageWoodworks<[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
>>
>>> FOUND IT. If interested snatch it while you can.
>>
>>> http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf
>>
>> Which relies upon the "Savanah Principle" as _its_ basic premise (or
>> maybe it's a theory, not principle?).
>>
>> IOW, it boils down to whether you believe your body is in the 21st
>> century and your brain still in the Savannah of ancient Africa?
>>
>> Now, that _is_ interesting ... lol!
>>
>> I had a professor in college, an economics professor no less, to whom
>> this was a pet theory, and it was cussed and discussed ad infinitum.
>>
>> IOW, I first heard the theory of the superiority of "liberal
>> intelligence" some 40 odd years ago. :)
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> I haven't read the article yet and I doubt you have either :^) ---
> Long freak'en article to digest.
Unless you've been there before ... :)
> But I plan on doing so. I'm actually more interested in the second
> part of the manuscripts title.
Forgot to mention an "interesting", to me, parallel that is mentioned in
your first link ... belief in a "religion" was, way back when,
supposedly the dividing line between the intelligent and the less
intelligent, as liberal versus conservative was an almost unheard of
distinction at that time.
AAMOF, I've always found it interesting that some of the most
intelligent folks I've ever known were either rabidly religious, or
rabidly agnostic/atheistic, with little wiggle room in between.
IOW, the "religious" argument, with regard to intelligence, may have a
better chance of standing on its own, IMOHO.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)