Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#196018
This "research" seems to be drawing a link between right wing and racism, thats like linking left wingers to communism. Anyway, if its stupid to be anti EU and anti benefits and anti capitalist then so be it... I'm stupid but happy!
- Carlos, Queretaro, Mexico, 2/2/2012 20:37 15
Hang on, so the right are anti-capitalist now? When did that happen?
#196067
spoonman wrote:having six degrees/diplomas is either a non-entity as most people of above average intelligence could over time accumulate that
I seem to remember reading that Robert Mugabe has 7 or 8 undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. He's not exactly your local Green party candidate.

Then there's Raj Persaud, the struck-off former TV psychologist and confirmed plagiarist conman, who holds about 8. Or used to anyway. He's a bit of a reactionary-nutjob, lying, self-serving cunt.
#196068
845 comments now! They've given up and are posting any old shit. Newest one is this:
I'm just looking at the headlines at the side of this piece. My IQ had dropped 20 points, along with my will to live. Although I hope Kirsten Dunst can find her p ussy. Am sure her boyfriend will help her look...
- Clee Torres, Wembley, UK, 3/2/2012 15:37
I give that one 1/2 an hour tops!
#196070
Doesn't the "but I'm clever and right wing" argument kind of prove the point.

A meta analysis of several studies shows that on average, people with right wing views tend to be less intelligent than those with left wing views (or less intelligent people tend to be more likely to hold right wing views). It also finds that those who are less intelligent tend to have stronger homophobic and racist views.

Right wingers the world over, including our expat friends in Pattaya and Bangkok, rush to say "That's rubbish because I've got X degrees and I'm right wing". Which shows that they don't understand what the study is showing. It's not saying "all right wingers are too thick to get degrees", it's saying less intelligent people gravitate towards right wing views.

This is also reflected in the comments saying "you can't make these claims based on a study from the US because the US is a strange country with abnormal people". For a start, that's prejudice right there! Once you're past the irony of someone saying "you can't base a finding of 'people are prejudiced' on research done in one country, because all of the people in that country are stupid", you're onto the second point. Which is that the article refers to two British studies, pulled together by Canadian researchers. The findings are then compared to a US study, but it's not the main focus.

So the person saying "I'm a right winger and I'm clever, you obviously only found right wingers weren't clever because it's based on the USA" is missing the point of the study, what it found, how it was done and where it was done! Which doesn't do much for the "I'm clever" argument.
#196074
bluebellnutter wrote:
This "research" seems to be drawing a link between right wing and racism, thats like linking left wingers to communism. Anyway, if its stupid to be anti EU and anti benefits and anti capitalist then so be it... I'm stupid but happy!
- Carlos, Queretaro, Mexico, 2/2/2012 20:37 15
Hang on, so the right are anti-capitalist now? When did that happen?
Depends what the benefit system in Mexico is like also...Not sure why he is Anti EU, not really a hot topic in Mexican social life surely?
#196079
Bails wrote:Right wingers the world over, including our expat friends in Pattaya and Bangkok, rush to say "That's rubbish because I've got X degrees and I'm right wing". Which shows that they don't understand what the study is showing. It's not saying "all right wingers are too thick to get degrees", it's saying less intelligent people gravitate towards right wing views.
I'm afraid I think you're in danger of making the same mistake as them Bails, i.e. confusing academic performance with intelligence. The two things are completely separate. I have a 1st and a Masters but I'm no more or less intelligent than I was before I took them, I merely know a lot of stuff I didn't know before. There were plenty of 'thickos' on both my courses who also passed.
#196084
I'm not totally convinced of that. A first degree, even a good one, is a very different thing from a Masters, which requires a more analytical and questioning form of thinking.

On the 200IQ boast - anyone with an IQ that high (better than Einstein [160] or Newton [190] or Stephen Hawking [160]) wouldn't take degrees. There'd be no point... They'd be up with JS MIll and Goethe. You'd have heard of them...
#196087
I can't see that it's any sign of massive intelligence to have several degrees anyway. All it shows is that you have ploughed your way through a number of courses at undergraduate level. Are we supposed to be more impressed by the person who has, say, got undergraduate degrees in medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, plant sciences, maths, pharmacology, and statistics; or by the person who has "only" got a degree in medicine but has gone on to work as a doctor actually putting the degree to use?
#196090
This is obviously great sport, but I too am baffled as to why they would call themselves out as halfwits. I can only assume that someone on the newsdesk was getting mightily pissed off at the mods being rather thin on the ground on Friday afternoons and decided to give them something to do. Like let this gem through, for example;
bluplaned - I may well be an idiod, but at least I don't make factually accurate observations about the innate intelligence of other posters. Now how many of us on this page can claim that?

- Ichabod, London, England, 3/2/2012 16:38
Quite...
#196108
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:I'm not totally convinced of that. A first degree, even a good one, is a very different thing from a Masters, which requires a more analytical and questioning form of thinking.
Well I can only speak from my own experience but my "analytical and questioning form of thinking" came partly from experience (I was 38 when I started it) and partly from training on the course. Lots and lots of excruciating one-to-one tutorials with my tutor methodically demolishing every argument I had put forward. He taught me and I learnt. I don't think it wasn't some innate ability already lurking within me that he drew out.
#196110
My old tutor said to me, "It's a knack, Masters'" and he was right. The knack is looking for underlying causes, applying analytical and critical skills, going beyond and beneath the surface, synthesising.
You know, the old thing that a BA is investigative and descriptive, an MA is analytical and synthetic and a PhD is original and creative.
#196111
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:My old tutor said to me, "It's a knack, Masters'" and he was right. The knack is looking for underlying causes, applying analytical and critical skills, going beyond and beneath the surface, synthesising.
You know, the old thing that a BA is investigative and descriptive, an MA is analytical and synthetic and a PhD is original and creative.
Precisely and a knack is something needs to be learnt, through practice and experience. People without that knack aren't all thick because no-ones shown them how to do it.
#196112
I have a Masters degree in biomolecular research. Grade-wise, I outscored a couple of people who got starred firsts from Oxford and Cambridge. And yet in my first degree, I got a third and had to grovel my way onto the course (and it helped that my tutor was running it, it was a new course, and they wanted to pump up the numbers - i.e. I was a lucky git). The latter degree was a lot more about interpretation and investigation which is why I felt I did better, whereas the former was a lot more traditional fact recall.

What does that prove? Probably I was pissed too much as an undergrad and can blag it better than I can remember stuff*. The funny thing is, I now correct the work of Doctors and Professors of international reknown - and a lot of them can't count to 10 or follow a simple style guide.

In summary: breezes.

*actually, I think it proves the study quite well. You can be "clever" as in have lots of degrees, or thick as in no qualifications, but a lot of whether you end up being small c conservative comes down to whether you have the ability to look objectively at things and think about stuff without just jumping to simple assumptions and black and white conclusions.
#196114
oboogie wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:My old tutor said to me, "It's a knack, Masters'" and he was right. The knack is looking for underlying causes, applying analytical and critical skills, going beyond and beneath the surface, synthesising.
You know, the old thing that a BA is investigative and descriptive, an MA is analytical and synthetic and a PhD is original and creative.
Precisely and a knack is something needs to be learnt, through practice and experience. People without that knack aren't all thick because no-ones shown them how to do it.
I was agreeing with you!
#196116
crabcakes_windermere wrote: *actually, I think it proves the study quite well. You can be "clever" as in have lots of degrees, or thick as in no qualifications, but a lot of whether you end up being small c conservative comes down to whether you have the ability to look objectively at things and think about stuff without just jumping to simple assumptions and black and white conclusions.
Are we coming back to Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences? I've always been wary of the concept (preferring to think of a multi-faceted or multi-dimensional g) but it seems to have some application in this sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_ ... elligences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Boris Johnson

"Fantastic year" obviously defined as […]

The Tories, Generally

I can't think of any other politician whose repu[…]

Priti Patel

Gammon with crushed nuts? Edit: :D https://[…]

Roll Call

Where they do that come dancing? The sequined[…]