patrick.net

$100 says your IQ is lower than 130.

marcus says

liberals.atheists

I saw that word "atheists" in there and wasn't surprised as I would imagine most atheists are of the left as their god by necessity is no higher than the state from which in their minds flows all bounty.

marcus says

Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

Take the top 100 scientists at NASA...I'll be surprised if even 2 of them believe in God.
Same goes for the Noble Prize winners in economics, physics and medicine.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

How smart do you have to be to wear neon lime hot pants and jump around waving your limp wrist shouting, "Waysthiztht! Waysthiztht!" ?

As smart as a realtor named Jack Daniels.

No just more homely.

The more attractive a Liberal is the Dumber they get.
The opposite is true for Conservatives.

PM where you can mail the cash.

http://www.iq-test.com/free-iq-test/

control point says

PM where you can mail the cash.

http://www.iq-test.com/free-iq-test/

You are not Marcus.

dodgerfanjohn says

You are not Marcus.

But I am liberal.

control point says

dodgerfanjohn says

You are not Marcus.

But I am liberal.

Evidently!

Call it Crazy says

Or, could be even lower...

Ok, ok,..132.

Would be an interesting experiment for all pat.net posters to click the link and take the test. It is, at most, a 5 minute test.

Post the results. Lets test Marcus' hypothesis.

I got the same result (133 up to 149), but I'm a savant when it comes to that visual pattern type of thing. If that was truly THE measure of intelligence, then I am a genius. I do not consider my self a genius, or even an intellectual really. But I am gifted in certain areas, which includes the very limited type of intelligence represented on that test.

dodgerfanjohn says

$100 says your IQ is lower than 130

That may be true. I doubt it's much higher that 130, although if we just use that type of pattern test, it is. And it may be lower than 130. I wouldn't be surprised. If one has an IQ much above say 134, it puts them in the top 2%. I do not assume I'm up there. Nor do I care.

I don't really believe that intelligence is possible to measure well, because different people have different kinds of gifts. Certainly there are creative geniuses such as say famous musicians or painters that have or had IQs that aren't way up there. Wouldn't that be true for other types of geniuses as well ? Would Einstein have an IQ that's as far off the charts as you would expect by his breakthroughs ?

I guess it would be if IQ is some sort of absolute expression of intelligence that can't really be tested, and that only God knows. But if IQ is just a metric that comes from taking a test, then sure it has comparative value as an indicator of actual intelligence, but it doesn't represent ones actual intelligence.

One thing is for sure, liberals are a lot more smug.

You're specialty is trolling, but I wouldn't say you are anything like gifted at it. The gifted troll would have to be able to at least imitate someone who is able to comprehend and participate in the conversation. You're just an angry jerkoff looking for an opportunity to name call or provoke.

The closest you can do to giving evidence to back up your nonsensical attacks is to take some out of context phrase, that's irrelevant to the conversation. You come off even worse that the other dimbulbs with their impressive retort: "I know you are but what am I."

Piece of cake:

And I'm liberal too!

bgamall4 says

I know liberals were conned by the Zionists.

Therefore Zionists are smarter than liberals.
Thanks Gary, I already feel like a genius. :)

I can manage the test, but apparently not the picture of the result. Mine's garbled, a bit.

Seems like a very wide range. There's a big difference between 133 and 149.

bgamall4 says

Racism is rampant in conservative circles. For you to say liberals are racist proves you are the joke here

Racism is rampant in liberal circles. Their support for affirmative action proves it. That and everybody knows that blacks are the biggest racists in the US.

It's not a real IQ test. Far too easy. We can't all be in the top 2%.

control point says

Lets test Marcus' hypothesis.

Even if it was a real IQ test, it wouldn't test my hypothesis (if you want to consider it a hypothesis). My hypothesis isn't that liberals in general are smarter (although they may be).

My hypothesis, which I think can be proven from observable data, is that among the very intelligent, and extremely intelligent, a majority and maybe even a super majority are "liberals."

This is especially true if liberal is defined the way most people do thesedays as simply not a right winger.

Saying your are smart and actually BEING smart are two complete and distinct things. Only liberals don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

I haven't decided yet whether I think you were BEING smart when you said that.

Strategist says

marcus says

Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

Take the top 100 scientists at NASA...I'll be surprised if even 2 of them believe in God.

Same goes for the Noble Prize winners in economics, physics and medicine.

The subject is called Thomisms.
Actually Thomas Aquinas proved God exists through logic, and that there is only one.

indigenous says

The subject is called Thomisms.

Actually Thomas Aquinas proved God exists through logic, and that there is only one.

I don't think the scientists of NASA, and the Noble prize winners buy into his logic. They are still almost entirely atheists.

bgamall4 says

The Israeli division of the globalists can't even fix the Palestinian problem. That is proof intelligence isn't the issue.

To fix the Palestinian problem would require fixing the Islamic problem, which is a worldwide problem. The so called "smart liberals" think the best way to fix the problem is to be nice to cold blooded Islamist terrorists.

bgamall4 says

Strategist says

bgamall4 says

The Israeli division of the globalists can't even fix the Palestinian problem. That is proof intelligence isn't the issue.

To fix the Palestinian problem would require fixing the Islamic problem, which is a worldwide problem. The so called "smart liberals" think the best way to fix the problem is to be nice to cold blooded Islamist terrorists.

BS. Fixing the Palestinian problem is a question of justice. And Israel has proven justice is not important to them. That is why they can't rule the world.

What about the following problems?
Russia - Chechnya Islamic problem.
China - Xinjian (or however they spell it) Islamic problem?
India - Kashmir Islamic problem
Phillipines - Islamic problem
Thailand - Islamic problem
Rest of the world - Islamic problem

Don't you realize this is exactly same problem Israel has?

bgamall4 says

zzyzzx says

bgamall4 says

Racism is rampant in conservative circles. For you to say liberals are racist proves you are the joke here

Racism is rampant in liberal circles. Their support for affirmative action proves it. That and everybody knows that blacks are the biggest racists in the US.

Oh, really? That is a trollish comment. I know who the biggest racists are in Israel. Want to discuss it?

He has a point. Affirmative action is a form of racism. I think it is necessary at times, but it is still racism.

Strategist says

Take the top 100 scientists at NASA...I'll be surprised if even 2 of them believe in God.

Same goes for the Noble Prize winners in economics, physics and medicine.

Being an atheist or agnostic does not necessarily mean one is "liberal." Some people may even be smart enough to realize that religion or superstition is a necessity for organizing a society by putting most people who are not too bright under self-censorship: such as the superstition that crime will get caught and punished. Even though only a tiny percentage of criminals actually get caught in most human society, the society falls apart when a large cross-section of the people lose that superstition.

Reality says

Strategist says

Take the top 100 scientists at NASA...I'll be surprised if even 2 of them believe in God.

Same goes for the Noble Prize winners in economics, physics and medicine.

Being an atheist or agnostic does not necessarily mean one is "liberal." Some people may even be smart enough to realize that religion or superstition is a necessity for organizing a society by putting most people who are not too bright under self-censorship: such as the superstition that crime will get caught and punished. Even though only a tiny percentage of criminals actually get caught in most human society, the society falls apart when a large cross-section of the people lose that superstition.

That's a wonderful point you made, Reality. I would point out that in a well educated society you do not need religion, as the average person would be perfectly capable of deciphering the right from the wrong by using common sense.
Also, as religion is engraved in stone, it would be very difficult to persuade the average person that stoning a woman to death is not the way to go. (Islam)
The world needs what we have....democracy, and the ability to change the constitution with changing times. Religion does not allow us to do that.

"Common sense is little more than the set of prejudices that one has acquired before the age of 17" -- Albert Einstein

What is right for one person, may well be wrong for another. Value is subjective.

Women are by nature hypergamous. A wife has every incentive to suck resources from the Betabux husband while secretly getting genetic material from the Alphafux. It is the most advantageous strategy for her own genes if she is not caught or faces no consequences when caught. Allowing her to then divorce rape the husband in a no-fault divorce essentially condemning him to life-long slavery for someone who cheated on him and has produced an offspring for someone else vs. stoning her to death are just two opposite extreme societal responses to the same biological/evolutionary problem. Each extreme probably finds the other abominable.

There is no right or wrong answer to the issue per se but only feedback loops: in a society that allows a woman to ride cock carousel while she is young then grudgingly marry to a Betabux husband just before she hits the wall, neither partner is excited about family life or children; whereas in the other society/group, women's reproductive capacity during their peak years is put to effective use. The result is Muslims replacing Europeans today just like Christians replaced secular Neoplatonists like Hypatia 1500+ years ago. The ending for Hypatia was not pretty and the fundamental reason was simply that people like her were out-bred for about 400 years after Christianity started teaching wives submitting to husbands while the rest of the Roman society embraced sexual revolution. Over 400 years, the latter group were displaced by Christians. The "Romans" disappeared because they committed genetic mass suicide.

Evolution / statistical law of large numbers applies to biological organisms as well as to social memes. There is no "right" or "wrong" by design; only the feedback loop and statistical law of large numbers can be the ultimate judge; "fitness" and social "morals" (the basis for legal codes) are only rationalizations for that which proves to work.

I recommend going all in JCP.
Black friday next week.

IQ Test

Strategist says

I don't think the scientists of NASA, and the Noble prize winners buy into his logic. They are still almost entirely atheists.

Your odds of running into Thomism is about the same as running into Austrian economics. Which might explain a couple of things?

It has to do with the unmoved mover, potentiality and actuality. From Aristotle whatever is moved is exterior to the thing that is being moved. Therefore the only thing that is fully actualized is exterior to this universe and this is God.

Not discussing how the universe got started or the cause of things.

And that God is monotheistic because if there is more that one of anything they have to be distinguishable from one another IOW they have to have potential which means they are not pure actuality. If they do have potential they are distinguishable, if they don't they are pure actualization and since they are indistinguishable there is not more than one of them.

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66973

Reality says

The result is Muslims replacing Europeans today just like Christians replaced secular Neoplatonists like Hypatia 1500+ years ago.

Or Mexicans in the US?

Smart people never really pick a side.

Peter P says

Smart people never really pick a side.

Bingo. I really don't find the appeal of identifying yourself to either party and then defending them no matter what.

It's really not about defense of a party, more like a measure of how much shit you can manufacture and sling.
The former is boring, the latter, entertaining.

lostand confused says

Bingo. I really don't find the appeal of identifying yourself to either party and then defending them no matter what.

indigenous says

Reality says

The result is Muslims replacing Europeans today just like Christians replaced secular Neoplatonists like Hypatia 1500+ years ago.

Or Mexicans in the US?

The political establishment seems to have come to the conclusion that having the Mexicans filling the demographic hole created by post-modern 2nd/3rd-wave feminism is preferable to having the hole filled by native primitives (LBJ's great grand kids) or imported/converted muslims multiplying themselves. At least the Mexicans are Christians. The upper class is shifting to the happily breeding Mormons.

SoftShell says

I recommend going all in JCP.

Black friday next week.

IQ Test

This is damning evidence..

Ceffer says

Saying your are smart and actually BEING smart are two complete and distinct things. Only liberals don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

Hey, you just described Dan.

Peter P says

Smart people never really pick a side.

They follow the relevant issues, instead of the BS.

Reality says

indigenous says

Reality says

The result is Muslims replacing Europeans today just like Christians replaced secular Neoplatonists like Hypatia 1500+ years ago.

Or Mexicans in the US?

The political establishment seems to have come to the conclusion that having the Mexicans filling the demographic hole created by post-modern 2nd/3rd-wave feminism is preferable to having the hole filled by native primitives (LBJ's great grand kids) or imported/converted muslims multiplying themselves. At least the Mexicans are Christians. The upper class is shifting to the happily breeding Mormons.

When this occurs does the country technologically regress?

Good question, Indigenous. It is important however to keep in mind what is the means vs. what is the end. Technology progress, religion, arts and music are all means to an end: eggs reproducing eggs. . . just like peacock eggs use a beautiful bird to reproduce eggs.