Lefties proven (again) to tend smarter than right-wingers

[PorkChop96]

Evidently, since you seem to have no idea what jobs left-wing people actually do in 'your' country – or anything else about them, really. You're hallucinating, concocting hateful made-up fantasies about what left-wing folk must be like. Your conception of a left-winger sounds like it was dreamed up by some meth-smoking, porn-addicted, gun-toting, gay-bashing, god-bothering, red-baseball-cap-wearing fool. I'm sure you're nothing like that, of course. But take care or you will be mistaken for one.
 

Addressing me as 'you people' means you have placed me in a category and have assigned various traits and values to me based on nothing but your imagination. That is the very epitome of prejudice.

Evidently, you are unaware of what jobs leftists actually carry in the real world, shown by your delusional belief that your articles are 100% truth based. 

Are there leftist who hold the jobs you posted, sure, but there are also right wingers that hold those jobs in as high, if not higher realms. Just because your article says it is fact does not make it so, you need to learn how to discern a bias from someone's "published" articles. 


Paint me in whatever light makes you feel better about yourself, it will undoubtedly be incorrect. As, I have shown, you know nothing about actual the reality that is living every single day in the US. 


"you people" is a generalization for those of you who do not live in the US, and therefore do not live in the same reality that you are trying to be experts on. Facts are not prejudice. Feel free to try again if you'd like

[quintessentone]

For those of us who still need it proved to them (not the brightest tools in the woodshed, these).

But hardly news: previous studies have also indicated the same thing.

Click the link below for the full article, peer reviewed and open-sourced on PubMed.

Before replying, kindly note that I am a political centrist.

I just went down the rabbit hole of that 'previous studies' link. Do you believe that this psychology rings true for conservatives? I am not one for painting with broad strokes.

2003:

"Abstract

 Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12784934/

A more recent look - 2026:

"Ideological Rigidity and Political Conservatism in Relation to Death Anxiety and Reactions to Those With Different Beliefs"

"Abstract

This research tested the assumptions of Terror Management Theory (Pyszczynski et al., 2015) and conservatism as motivated social cognition (Jost et al., 2003) regarding how belief systems relate to existential anxiety. Conservatism as motivated social cognition posits that politically conservative ideologies are uniquely capable of minimizing fears about death. In contrast, TMT asserts that ideological rigidity is associated with less fear of death but it also promotes aggression and intolerance against those with different beliefs. The relation of ideological rigidity and political conservatism to death anxiety and intolerance of those who have differing worldviews was explored in a sample of American university students (n = 134) and of American respondents from the Prolific crowdsourcing platform (n = 199). The results from both samples supported the hypothesis that ideological rigidity was associated with more negative reactions to people with different beliefs. The results regarding death anxiety were more complicated. In the student sample, personal need for structure was the best predictor of death anxiety, with higher scores on personal need for structure being associated with more death anxiety. In the crowdsourcing sample, social conservatism was the best predictor of death anxiety, with more conservatism being associated with less death anxiety."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39066491/

[chr0naut]

Incorrect.

You really shouldn't jump into other peoples conversations.  
You have no idea what you are talking about.

I never said anything about BIOLOGICAL males.   I simply said 'males'.
Morons think that women, pretending to be men, are actually really men.
And  those 'men' can get pregnant.

So, are you saying that those with biological female organs who are pretending to be men, should not be allowed or should not want to get pregnant, or are you saying that they are incapable of getting pregnant?

It seems to me that our creator made a more complex universe than fits with much dogma. There is, in the real world, a spectrum of biological sexual expression, as there is a spectrum of gender ideation. And not to mention the spectrum of sexual drive. These things are actually encompassed in the Bible, if you care to read it without filtering it through opinions which are usually concerned with grading sins with variable 'badness' (Thinking along the lines of; 'any sin that I'm not likely to do is worse than any I might do, or have done). The truth is that all sins are equal before God ("The wages of sin is death" - that's fairly absolute).

The sexual sin is actually being unfaithful to a single partner. In the Bible, sex is allowed, if not encouraged, within married unions, as is abstinence from sex. Someone who is promiscuous is a sinner - it doesn't matter who they are promiscuous with - promiscuity is the sexual sin because it is unfaithfulness to a single partner and damages the bond of love. It makes true intimacy un-intimate.

And, in the Bible it says that homosexuality is inflicted on a society as a punishment by God. That is because it makes for a society with an excess in promiscuity and a deficit of true intimacy and love.

But, ask yourself, what about all of this 'biological variability of expression' is directly relevant to you and your life, that you should have such concerns about it?

[FlyersFan]

So, are you saying that those with biological female organs who are pretending to be men, should not be allowed or should not want to get pregnant, or that they are incapable of getting pregnant?

  See .. this is why you shouldn't jump into other people's conversations.   You are totally lost.

No, genius.   The left are saying that women, who pretend to be men, are REALLY MEN and that since they can get pregnant that  means that men can get pregnant.

The rest of your post was irrelevant drivel.   Nothing to do with the conversation I was having with another poster.

I'm not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore.    Bu-bye.

[chr0naut]

  See .. this is why you shouldn't jump into other people's conversations.   You are totally lost.

No, genius.   The left are saying that women, who pretend to be men, are REALLY MEN and that since they can get pregnant that  means that men can get pregnant.

The political left are not saying that biological males can get pregnant nor that biological females cannot get pregnant, nor that sexual ideation overrides biological function.

Look, the political left tends to have more people who are academics, intellectuals, and have higher IQ's than those on the political right. That was the very point of the paper under discussion.

Thinking about things rationally, people like academics, intellectuals, higher IQ's tend not to be stupid and believing that biological females cannot get pregnant, or that somehow a sexual preference overrides the constraints of biology would be pretty stupid. It just isn't something that those people are likely to do.

The political right has many pundits who outright denigrate academics, intellectuals and those with publicly acknowledged high IQ's, merely for having those capabilities. The political right wouldn't do that if they felt that they had affinity with those 'smart' people. LOL.

So, some right wing pundit has told you that the clever people believe something stupid. It doesn't make it true, but when you repeat it, it looks like you accepted what they said without any critical reasoning or evaluation.

You may well be a very clever person, but if you subjugate rational thought just to feel membership in a group that features ultra-conformity and anti-intellectualism, you are doing your capability a disservice.

The rest of your post was irrelevant drivel.   Nothing to do with the conversation I was having with another poster.

I'm not going to bother to respond to you on this anymore.    Bu-bye.

What I posted was on-topic debate in response to what you posted.

[FlyersFan]

The political left are not saying that biological males can get pregnant.

No shit. 
I never said that.
My God you are dumb.

I said WOMEN are PRETENDING to be men.
And the left are CALLING them real men.
And they can get pregnant.
So the left are saying men can get pregnant.

It's very simple.
Yet you fuck it up each time.

Go away now.
You are boring me.

[chr0naut]

No shit. 
I never said that.
My God you are dumb.

I said WOMEN are PRETENDING to be men.
And the left are CALLING them real men.
And they can get pregnant.
So the left are saying men can get pregnant.

It's very simple.
Yet you fuck it up each time.

Go away now.
You are boring me.

The political left aren't saying "real men" can get pregnant. They aren't saying men can get pregnant.

You are accusing them of saying something that they are not, and have not, said.

In doing so, you have emphasised the point being made by the paper linked in the original post.

[DBCowboy]

The evil communist left HAS to say they are smarter because their platform doesn't make any sense unless you're an evil communist leftist.

[Astyanax]

Do you believe that this psychology rings true for conservatives? I am not one for painting with broad strokes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12784934/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39066491/

Yes, of course I do. It fits in well with the existing body of psychological knowledge and also rings true to our intuitive understanding of human nature.

‘Motivated social conditioning’ is a fancy psychological term for wishful thinking. Here’s a simple but expert description:
 

When people think and reason, they sometimes have a vested interest in the outcome of their thinking and reasoning. For example, people engage in wishful thinking about whether or not their favorite sports team will win, or whether a relative will survive a risky surgical procedure. In these situations, people may be less open-minded than they might be in other situations in which they do not have a preferred outcome in mind.
 
Motivated cognition refers to the influence of [our] motives on various types of thought processes such as memory, information processing, reasoning, judgment, and decision-making. Many of these processes are relevant to social phenomena such as self-evaluation, person perception, stereotypes, persuasion, and communication. It is important to understand the influence of motivation because such research explains errors and biases in the way people make social judgments and may offer ideas about how to offset the negative effects of such motives.

Encyclopaedia of Social Psychology

Conservative folk whom I have met in my own life tend to have a few similar traits. They feel more comfortable in any situation when they have clear guidelines to follow. They like it when these guidelines are strictly enforced on others as well. They feel warmth toward the enforcers and are keen to see wrongdoers punished.

They are uncomfortable with uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction, and therefore inclined to reject anything that does not fit with what they already believe or think they know. On the other hand, anything that does seem to fit is likely to be accepted without a great deal of critical inquiry – although that is true of many people, regardless of politics.

Conservatives prize loyalty and obedience as great virtues. Not surprisingly, many are religious (clear guidelines), and the concept of divinity among them is usually authoritarian and violent. 

A conservative mind is essentially a closed mind. The shutdown is brought about by strong feelings of discomfort or fear (often felt as disgust) created by unfamiliar situations, people, ideas and physical surroundings.

[Astyanax]

your delusional belief that your articles are 100% truth based. 

If my belief is delusional, it should be easy to disprove.

Simply repeating your opinion over and over again convinces no-one.

Post some facts.