Many of us on the conservative side of life often accuse our liberal friends of being arrogant elitists. They believe that they are somehow superior to the rest of us and thus have a responsibility to run our inept lives for us.
Well, now we have a college professor who claims to have scientific evidence to back them up. Professor Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, has published a paper in which he proclaims that liberals and atheists are more highly evolved than the rest of us.
Kanazawa argues that intelligence arose to help us deal with unexpected events. And that those people who most likely to find new answers to these sudden problems are the more advanced. In other words, those of us who believe in sticking with what we know works, are somehow dimwits who are falling behind the elites. Kanazawa published his theory in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
Now a couple of thoughts entered my mind when I read this. First, I have an inherent suspicion of many academics. It appears to me that they are more interested in promoting a social and political agenda than finding and teaching the truth. One of the reasons I dropped out of UGA and devoted myself to self education was my encounter with certain professors who had that attitude. That was particularly true in the study of history and cultural events.
Second, this attitude is in total opposition to the idea of government by the people. It suggests that only government by the liberal elite can solve our problems and give us a better life. I find that idea to be a major insult to the majority of people.
Kanazawa used a questionable intelligence test to judge the abilities of a group of teenagers. Then he followed them through their social and political development. All those he deemed to be superior in intelligence became left-wing liberals. That causes me to think he may have used left-leaning tendencies as the basis of his original intelligence ratings.
And he is not revealing anything new. The left-wing elitists have deemed themselves to be superior and thus deserving of power over the rest of us for a long part of our history. You can find their arrogance in newspaper editorials, famous quotes, and various academic publications going back to the beginning of this nation. For example, here is a quote from General Sherman justifying his vicious attacks on women and children in Georgia and South Carolina:
“There will soon come an armed contest between capital and labor. They will oppose each other, not with words and arguments, but with shot and shell, gun-powder and cannon. The better classes are tired of the insane howling of the lower strata and they mean to stop them.”
Hundreds of thousands of women, old men and children had their homes and livelihoods destroyed to satisfy Sherman’s arrogance.
Finally, I wondered what would happen if our present economy were to collapse and we were forced to fall back on our ability to grow our own food, sew our own clothes, and build our own homes. Which would most likely survive, we dimwitted rednecks, or the educated elites? I go with Bocephus — A Country Boy Will Survive.
Frank Gillispie is founder of The Madison County Journal. His e-mail address is frank@frankgillispie.com. His website can be accessed at http://www.frankgillispie.com/gillispieonline.
Second off good job boasting about how you dropped out of UGA for "self-education," because of liberal professors spreading some sort of agenda. While, I've been going to college I've dealt with plenty of professors who have promoted their conservative views. Even in high school when I took AP Econ I was required to read a book on the Fair Tax written by such Socialists as John Linder and Boortz.
I do believe the guy was a bit off trying to scientifically prove that one's religious or political beliefs determine the person's intellect, but there's really no need to deliver some sort of blanket McCarthy-esque statement condemning all of us.
Finally Frank, if what we did know, worked, then we would not be looking for any alternatives to get out of this disaster we're now in.
How many of these "liberal" Policies are YOU currently benefiting from,Frank?
Social Security Act 1935 - Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
Employment Act(unemployment check) - Harry S. Truman (D)
Social Security Act 1965 (Medicare)- Lyndon Johnson (D)
Healthcare Reform Act 2010 - Barrack Obama
All liberal policies. All passed after failed conservative presidencys that nearly bankrupt our country.
Guess we should have just let the market place decide where the chips would fall on these issues,agree?
Surely Insurance companies would be flooding your mailbox with low cost offers for benefits.
Age,existing conditions -NO PROBLEM!!!
And there is no doubt that you would have stashed away a comfortable nest egg that would pay you a nice check every month,probably as a result of your savvy Wall Street investments.
What if Bush had gotten his way and put our Social Security money in the hands of his thieving Wall Street buddies, Frank. Lol.
I really wish you would answer these questions for me.
You, like every other Neocon, use fear and hate to deflect from the truth. Your example of Sherman killing women and children is one of the best I have seen. You should have been a politician Frank, you're certainly full of what it takes to succeed in that profession.
As far as Atheism goes, I maintain that I cannot have a truly intellectual discussion with anyone that believes in God.I view the person as someone who is naive,and easily influenced.
200 years from now kids will be studying Christian Mythology alongside the Greek and Roman versions.
I wish you wouldn't use your editorial commentaries to skew the facts and incite fear and hate,but I guess that's just what conservatives do,and expect,and relate to best.
As far as Athiesm goes, I maintain that I can have an intellectual conversation with someone who disbelieves in God. Simply because they choose to ignore the truth that is evident in so many ways around them, doesn't devalue them as a person. I simply makes them wrong and willfully ignorant.
You may be right about the 200 year prediction. The forces that currently be in the legislative and exectutive branches of this country and the financiers that put them in power would certainly hope to make it so. However, if we, as a country, continue down the road we are choosing, this country will in all likelihood discontinue to be a country in the sense that it is now.
In reference to your question "What if Bush had gotten his way and put our Social Security money in the hands of his thieving Wall Street buddies", please make sure you have the facts about his program. The bill would have allowed the "People" , thats you and me, to take a mere 2% of our forced payment to the gov't, I mean contribution to the Federal Government, and invest it in funds from no risk to high risk. It was not mandatory but voluntary. I'm sure that you and the rest of the left are adamantly opposed to letting the people make decisions for ourselves and thats why you oppose this bill. "To each according to their need", right? I am also sure that you knew how this bill worked before you asked this asinine question. At least I hope you did.
Years ago the CAO said that SS would be solvent until around 2018. Guess what? They were wrong. In this year of 2010, the SSA will start paying out more than is taken in.
Social Security was never meant to be a major source of income but just a supplement. If you have not saved enough money for retirement, are one of the many that were able to save but chose not to, then you should be on your own. There were once repercussions for bad decisions. Though, in our brave new world too many of us rely on the Feds for our lively hoods when bad decisions are made. Sad but true and even pathetic.
As for the health care reform, the producers of this country are the real victims of this political travesty. If the Democrats were really, really concerned about the masses health and costs associated with it then they would allow selling of insurance of policies across state lines and institute tort reform (where the lawyers are the real winners) to name a few.
I know that liberals, in general, use emotion to reason through problems as conservatives, in general, use logic. As historical data goes, I was once a "liberal" in my early twenties but grew out of the Utopian non-sense once I had to provide for my self and take responsibility for my actions and rightfully so.
I know, I know, facts can get in the way of a good emotional rant and can be pesky at times but none the less necessary to understand and be intelligible (and honest) about issues.
What would you have invested your 2% in that would still be there today?
Do you realize Bush(WHO I VOTED FOR) let his Wall Street buddy/investors steal this country's wealth,and walk away free as a bird?
I lost money in the stock market,did you? Are you a banker?
The gov't will always fund Social Security,and you can bet your last penny on that one.
If the poor don't receive their check for food and rent on May 1st, there will be mass chaos and crime in the streets by the 15th. I think New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Katrina showed us all that. People would be starving within a week.
Next comes revolution.
"As for the health care reform,"
Why didn't the Republicans (THAT I VOTED FOR) do something to improve this situation while they were in control? Which by the way, was 20 out of the last 30 years.
I will assume that you did not read my earlier reply completely. I could have invested that money into a guaranteed bond (meaning no risk of losing the money). Without relevance to what I would invest it in, it is MY money, not yours, not the gov't but mine. In essence, I gave up part of my life for that 2%. I consider my time as extremely valuable and precious. I cannot get it back nor create more. So once I trade it for my wages, I should be able to do as I please with it. I really think it should be 100% instead of the 2% offered. That's where the issue is for me.
Spare me the Bush's wall street buddies talking points. If you were really paying attention to the downhill spiral of wall street and the economy it stemmed from the mortgage scams from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Country Wide and then spread to the banking industry. You know this and I know this. Please be honest with yourself for once. Also an odd note to ponder, what businesses that received the buyouts were exempt from "bonus restriction threats" and verbal lashings from the current administration? Any guesses? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Strong Democratic donors.
Don't believe anything I say but research it for yourself. A phrase that you will never hear a lefty say with a straight face.
No, I am not a banker, just a VESTED producer that believes that I can save and spend my money better than a social science educated government hack. Of course I lost money in the market. If you know ANYTHING about the stock market you know that it has "hills and valleys" some small and some large. YOU are supposed to be investing (for retirement) for the LONG haul and not for the short term. I plan to retire in less than 30 years. Basic common sense of the stock market tells me that there is a good chance of this happening again before I retire. That's called RISKS. Again, you know this and I know this. Who are you kidding here?
As for the health care issue? I couldn't agree with you more that the republicans had the chance and done nothing. This and the out of control spending by the republicans of the last term were disheartening to say the least.
I don't affiliate myself with any political parties but lean heavily conservative/libertarian on most issues. ANYTHING that will restrict my liberties and freedoms, both financially and socially, I will vehemently oppose. Anything less, you are a slave to the government.
Just one person's opinion.