Brains and bias?

atomiclauren

This just in from LiveScience - in short:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

and the Psychological Science article it references: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
(I'm not sure if everyone has access to the full PDF version of the article (should be linked on the right side of the page) - it may be subscription only).

We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology.

Thoughts?

Marig0ld

Pretty cool that there's actually a study that supports my theory...

TheRoadDog

Pretty cool that there's actually a study that supports my theory...

Don't get too excited. You can pick any subject and find a survey/poll/report/study to support it.

Then you can find another site that opposes it.

adrian_indy

I didn't need a study to tell me this. I think if you have limited mental capablities, it's probably easier to just assign predjudices to entire groups and then alter perceptions of individuals rather than actually use intellect on a one on one basis. However, you have to consider that dipsticks are more likely to have crap jobs and be competing with other minorities for positions. That combined with misery usually bolsters hatred of another race. I've never heard a happy, successful, well adjusted person be a racist. Sure there might be some generational influences, but this survey is probably misleading because if you think of it, aren't ignorant morons responsible for most problems?

Regmama

The thing I find funny is that if you scroll around internet forums, you'll see plenty of prejudice by liberals against different groups of religious believers. They do not see their own hypocracy on "open-mindedness". Not saying that everyone is like that, but most people hold some bias, hostility, or stereotype at least toward another group in which they are not a member.

atsteele

Well, it's in writing. So it MUST be true.

MikeSEA

Whether or not you can find a study to support any position is irrelevant. The point of citing sources is to have a discussion about the validity of the information as it's coming from the source. Citing a source is the beginning, not the end.

By the same token, If people think that the process of citing something automatically validates the conclusions, then they don't quite understand how the process works.

Back on topic, though. It's a mildly amusing correlation from a partisan perspective, but I'm not sure it means much. I mean, is it really that big of a shock to state that people who are supposedly less capable of certain types of rational thought are more likely to trend to extremely irrational ideologies (e.g racism)? Doesn't really shock me.

If people want to get prickly because the study is associating irrational thought to social conservatism in a general way, then you're going to need some other argument apart from "Liberals do it too!"

Regmama

Whether or not you can find a study to support any position is irrelevant. The point of citing sources is to have a discussion about the validity of the information as it's coming from the source. Citing a source is the beginning, not the end.

By the same token, If people think that the process of citing something automatically validates the conclusions, then they don't quite understand how the process works.

Back on topic, though. It's a mildly amusing correlation from a partisan perspective, but I'm not sure it means much. I mean, is it really that big of a shock to state that people who are supposedly less capable of certain types of rational thought are more likely to trend to extremely irrational ideologies (e.g racism)? Doesn't really shock me.

If people want to get prickly because the study is associating irrational thought to social conservatism in a general way, then you're going to need some other argument apart from "Liberals do it too!"

Seriously, dude, not prickly at all. The study is a joke and lacks some serious evidence and life experience. Just like you, I could not count all the people I have encountered in my life, but I would say that 90% of them have some form of bias against another group. Bias and prejudice does not favor one IQ or political view over another. You're failure to see that is not my problem but I suggest you open your eyes and ears and pay closer attention. And I'm from a very liberal area, I don't live in a conservative state nor are most of my friends and relatives conservative.

MikeSEA

Seriously, dude, not prickly at all. The study is a joke and lacks some serious evidence and life experience. Just like you, I could not count all the people I have encountered in my life, but I would say that 90% of them have some form of bias against another group. Bias and prejudice does not favor one IQ or political view over another. You're failure to see that is not my problem but I suggest you open your eyes and ears and pay closer attention. And I'm from a very liberal area, I don't live in a conservative state nor are most of my friends and relatives conservative.

I dare you to articulate why it's a joke. Do you even know the rationale behind their conclusions? It's talking about very specific types of bias. As it turns out, their work seems to indicate that lower IQs do favor a particular world view (political or otherwise). You're asserting that they happen to be incorrect because it doesn't match up with your life experience? Nope, gonna need to do a better job than that, but I won't hold my breath for it. I'm sure all you've got to back yourself up is more commentary on how blind I am.

The area you're from and the leanings of your friends are both irrelevant; I can't imagine why you'd bother mentioning it. Quite frankly, your experiences are irrelevant to the discussion.

VegesaurusRex

This just in from LiveScience - in short:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

and the Psychological Science article it references: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
(I'm not sure if everyone has access to the full PDF version of the article (should be linked on the right side of the page) - it may be subscription only).

We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology.

Thoughts?

Horsefeathers! This is liberal claptrap. I refer to Winston Churchill : "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Conservatism equates with wisdom and an understanding of how things really work.

Liberalism equates with idealism and immaturity.

VegesaurusRex

Seriously, dude, not prickly at all. The study is a joke and lacks some serious evidence and life experience. Just like you, I could not count all the people I have encountered in my life, but I would say that 90% of them have some form of bias against another group. Bias and prejudice does not favor one IQ or political view over another. You're failure to see that is not my problem but I suggest you open your eyes and ears and pay closer attention. And I'm from a very liberal area, I don't live in a conservative state nor are most of my friends and relatives conservative.

I dare you to articulate why it's a joke. Do you even know the rationale behind their conclusions? It's talking about very specific types of bias. As it turns out, their work seems to indicate that lower IQs do favor a particular world view (political or otherwise). You're asserting that they happen to be incorrect because it doesn't match up with your life experience? Nope, gonna need to do a better job than that, but I won't hold my breath for it. I'm sure all you've got to back yourself up is more commentary on how blind I am.

The area you're from and the leanings of your friends are both irrelevant; I can't imagine why you'd bother mentioning it. Quite frankly, your experiences are irrelevant to the discussion.

Abstract of study:

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

Shame on you. This is a secondary study of an existing data set from the UK. Although its conclusions are sensational, methodolgy (at least not in the abstract you linked to) is not disclosed, and it clearly wasn't controlled for other causal factors that would influence this conclusion. It also points out that there was a correlation between the low IQ group and "low levels of contact with out-groups." Again, since this was not a study properly controlled for contact with out-groups, I could easily and justifiably claim that even high intelligence groups who have little or no contact with out groups would exhibit more prejudice. In fact I do claim that. Prove me wrong.

Then of course, this is a study of 15 thousand people from the UK. How much, if any relevance does this have for Americans?

This study proves nothing except that P.T. Barnum was correct. "You can fool some of the people all of the time." I could add, "especially if they are not statistically savvy."

adrian_indy

Seriously, dude, not prickly at all. The study is a joke and lacks some serious evidence and life experience. Just like you, I could not count all the people I have encountered in my life, but I would say that 90% of them have some form of bias against another group. Bias and prejudice does not favor one IQ or political view over another. You're failure to see that is not my problem but I suggest you open your eyes and ears and pay closer attention. And I'm from a very liberal area, I don't live in a conservative state nor are most of my friends and relatives conservative.

I dare you to articulate why it's a joke. Do you even know the rationale behind their conclusions? It's talking about very specific types of bias. As it turns out, their work seems to indicate that lower IQs do favor a particular world view (political or otherwise). You're asserting that they happen to be incorrect because it doesn't match up with your life experience? Nope, gonna need to do a better job than that, but I won't hold my breath for it. I'm sure all you've got to back yourself up is more commentary on how blind I am.

The area you're from and the leanings of your friends are both irrelevant; I can't imagine why you'd bother mentioning it. Quite frankly, your experiences are irrelevant to the discussion.

Abstract of study:

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

Shame on you. This is a secondary study of an existing data set from the UK. Although its conclusions are sensational, methodolgy (at least not in the abstract you linked to) is not disclosed, and it clearly wasn't controlled for other causal factors that would influence this conclusion. It also points out that there was a correlation between the low IQ group and "low levels of contact with out-groups." Again, since this was not a study properly controlled for contact with out-groups, I could easily and justifiably claim that even high intelligence groups who have little or no contact with out groups would exhibit more prejudice. In fact I do claim that. Prove me wrong.

Then of course, this is a study of 15 thousand people from the UK. How much, if any relevance does this have for Americans?

This study proves nothing except that P.T. Barnum was correct. "You can fool some of the people all of the time." I could add, "especially if they are not statistically savvy."

I think constantly quoting other people constantly is a sign of true intelligence. Also, good job dismissing the study because it was British and not American........and using Winston Churchill quotes to strengthen your case.

adrian_indy

I find it intersting that people who align them selves with the conservatives somehow thought this article was targeting them. Nice to know that you think of yourselves as dumb. "Nuh-uh, I thinks the smarts peoples are ways mores prejudiced than me!"

VegesaurusRex

I find it intersting that people who align them selves with the conservatives somehow thought this article was targeting them. Nice to know that you think of yourselves as dumb. "Nuh-uh, I thinks the smarts peoples are ways mores prejudiced than me!"

Excuse me?!!!

I was hoping for intelligent debate, not name calling. Do you have point? If so, make it. If not, leave thebattlefield.

adrian_indy

I find it intersting that people who align them selves with the conservatives somehow thought this article was targeting them. Nice to know that you think of yourselves as dumb. "Nuh-uh, I thinks the smarts peoples are ways mores prejudiced than me!"

Excuse me?!!!

I was hoping for intelligent debate, not name calling. Do you have point? If so, make it. If not, leave thebattlefield.

I thought my point was quite clear. This article was about people of low intelligence being biased. In the snips I saw, there was no mention of liberals or conservatives. Then, two people who align themselves conservative show up slamming all liberals and making generalizations about them. I think you all are doing a pretty good job of proving the article right. You call the article a liberal claptap, as if it was targeting conservatives......then claim that more intelligent people are MORE biased. Sounds like an open admition that you know conservatives are dumb.

And just for the record, you don't get to pick and choose when or how I decide to debate on these forums. If you don't like it, ignore me, block me, report me, but please don't try and tell me what to do. And the fact that were so dramatic as to call the MFP debate forums a "battlefield" is hilarious.

VegesaurusRex

I thought my point was quite clear. This article was about people of low intelligence being biased.

Okay, Mr Sig Sauer, I can see how you approach debates.

The ARTICLE was based on a study. If you go to the study, you will find only the abstract. In the abstract you will find certain sentences stating very clearly that although there was a corellation between the low IQ group and lack of contact with out groups, it was not controlled for that. Thus, my conclusion that there could be a correlation between high IQ groups and prejudice due to lack of contact with out groups is justified. Prove me wrong.

Based on your previous response, however, I am not sure you understand what I just said.


In the snips I saw, there was no mention of liberals or conservatives. Then, two people who align themselves conservative show up slamming all liberals and making generalizations about them. I think you all are doing a pretty good job of proving the article right. You call the article a liberal claptap, as if it was targeting conservatives......then claim that more intelligent people are MORE biased. Sounds like an open admition that you know conservatives are dumb.

This is so nuts I am not even going to comment on it.

And just for the record, you don't get to pick and choose when or how I decide to debate on these forums. If you don't like it, ignore me, block me, report me, but please don't try and tell me what to do. And the fact that were so dramatic as to call the MFP debate forums a "battlefield" is hilarious.

Alright. Make an *kitten* out of yourself. You are already in way over your head. If you want to continue, I will be happy to oblige you, but don't expect to call people "dumb" and be acknowledged as a great debator.

adrian_indy

I thought my point was quite clear. This article was about people of low intelligence being biased.

Okay, Mr Sig Sauer, I can see how you approach debates.

The ARTICLE was based on a study. If you go to the study, you will find only the abstract. In the abstract you will find certain sentences stating very clearly that although there was a corellation between the low IQ group and lack of contact with out groups, it was not controlled for that. Thus, my conclusion that there could be a correlation between high IQ groups and prejudice due to lack of contact with out groups is justified. Prove me wrong.

Based on your previous response, however, I am not sure you understand what I just said.


In the snips I saw, there was no mention of liberals or conservatives. Then, two people who align themselves conservative show up slamming all liberals and making generalizations about them. I think you all are doing a pretty good job of proving the article right. You call the article a liberal claptap, as if it was targeting conservatives......then claim that more intelligent people are MORE biased. Sounds like an open admition that you know conservatives are dumb.

This is so nuts I am not even going to comment on it.

And just for the record, you don't get to pick and choose when or how I decide to debate on these forums. If you don't like it, ignore me, block me, report me, but please don't try and tell me what to do. And the fact that were so dramatic as to call the MFP debate forums a "battlefield" is hilarious.

Alright. Make an *kitten* out of yourself. You are already in way over your head. If you want to continue, I will be happy to oblige you, but don't expect to call people "dumb" and be acknowledged as a great debator.

Cool, two posts in a row without quoting someone, good job. You've taken and article about bias, inserted political philosophy for no good reason, the take some half century old quotes about liberals being naive and immature, and then get offended when someone calls you on your own BS.

Second, as far as the points you make about high intelligent groups being more biased when there is a lack of contact than low intelligence....maybe you are right. But since your view is this article was useless to begin with because it was British, I find your theory that more intelligent people would be more biased bunk since in an american society, there is little to no chance of not coming into contact with different people.

atomiclauren

I had a feeling only the abstract was available - if anyone wants to read the full paper let me know and I can get it to you (fair use, right? )

VegesaurusRex

Cool, two posts in a row without quoting someone, good job. You've taken and article about bias, inserted political philosophy for no good reason, the take some half century old quotes about liberals being naive and immature, and then get offended when someone calls you on your own BS.

I have taken an article that relates bias to embracing Conservative principles and, I believe, have shown its conclusions to be suspicious. And the quote from Winston Churchill was around a half century old, but the one from PT Bartnum was much older.

Second, as far as the points you make about high intelligent groups being more biased when there is a lack of contact than low intelligence....maybe you are right. But since your view is this article was useless to begin with because it was British, I find your theory that more intelligent people would be more biased bunk since in an american society, there is little to no chance of not coming into contact with different people.


Really? I live in a town which is almost 100% white. Outside of my business, I RARELY come in contact with those of another race. I don't try to avoid them, but there just are not that many of them in the area. And I don't believe I said that the study was "useless." I thought I said it may have limited relevance to the US. First of all, it appears to be a sloppy study, not properly controlled, but then with secondary analysis of data, you get what you get.

Different cultures have different mores and conduct. If you don't know that then you have not had much contact with other cultures.

VegesaurusRex

I had a feeling only the abstract was available - if anyone wants to read the full paper let me know and I can get it to you (fair use, right? )

I don't think the study is worth reading in toto, however, if you can provide a link to it (and not have to pay for the study) I wouldn't mind having the link. If it is too much trouble or costs money, as I said, don't do it. It is not worth it.

adrian_indy

Cool, two posts in a row without quoting someone, good job. You've taken and article about bias, inserted political philosophy for no good reason, the take some half century old quotes about liberals being naive and immature, and then get offended when someone calls you on your own BS.

I have taken an article that relates bias to embracing Conservative principles and, I believe, have shown its conclusions to be suspicious. And the quote from Winston Churchill was around a half century old, but the one from PT Bartnum was much older.

Second, as far as the points you make about high intelligent groups being more biased when there is a lack of contact than low intelligence....maybe you are right. But since your view is this article was useless to begin with because it was British, I find your theory that more intelligent people would be more biased bunk since in an american society, there is little to no chance of not coming into contact with different people.


Really? I live in a town which is almost 100% white. Outside of my business, I RARELY come in contact with those of another race. I don't try to avoid them, but there just are not that many of them in the area. And I don't believe I said that the study was "useless." I thought I said it may have limited relevance to the US. First of all, it appears to be a sloppy study, not properly controlled, but then with secondary analysis of data, you get what you get.

Different cultures have different mores and conduct. If you don't know that then you have not had much contact with other cultures.

Most white people live in towns that are mostly white. Contact has evolved from just physical contact to radio, television, internet, and phone sex operators.

Azdak

This just in from LiveScience - in short:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

and the Psychological Science article it references: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
(I'm not sure if everyone has access to the full PDF version of the article (should be linked on the right side of the page) - it may be subscription only).

We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology.

Thoughts?

Horsefeathers! This is liberal claptrap. I refer to Winston Churchill : "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Conservatism equates with wisdom and an understanding of how things really work.

Liberalism equates with idealism and immaturity.

Gabby Johnson is RIGHT!!!

taso42

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

This is what I've always thought.

kapeluza

Let's keep the discussion civil shall we? Please refrain from name calling.

mikajoanow

The thing I find funny is that if you scroll around internet forums, you'll see plenty of prejudice by liberals against different groups of religious believers. They do not see their own hypocracy on "open-mindedness". Not saying that everyone is like that, but most people hold some bias, hostility, or stereotype at least toward another group in which they are not a member.

Everyone has some bias, some even for good reason. The bias that they used were homophobic and racist biases. I don't know that many homophobic racist liberals, not one actually. Not at all to say all conservatives are homophobic or racist, but some clearly are and those are probably the ones who are of lower intellegence on the right.

mikajoanow

This just in from LiveScience - in short:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

from LiveScience: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

and the Psychological Science article it references: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
(I'm not sure if everyone has access to the full PDF version of the article (should be linked on the right side of the page) - it may be subscription only).

We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology.

Thoughts?

Horsefeathers! This is liberal claptrap. I refer to Winston Churchill : "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Conservatism equates with wisdom and an understanding of how things really work.

Liberalism equates with idealism and immaturity.

Churchill had no heart, what good he did for the world was by coincidence as he actually was a racist. The worst kind of racist, a racist with powers over an army and influence over the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

Both conservatives and liberals have within their groups idealists, the rest I just simply disagree with.

VegesaurusRex

Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)

I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.

Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)

Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.

This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.

Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.

Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.

mikajoanow

Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)

I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.

Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)

Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.

This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.

Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.

Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.

Man of the times? I don't make excuses for peoples racism throughout history, by saying it was part of the times. He did far worse than make a few off comment remarks about a variety of indigenous peoples and their religious beliefs.

I have a few British friends that love to hate on America, because of many things from our racist past. (You can call it the times, I personally call them as I see them, without the need to sugar coat.) I find it quite humorous that they choose to ignore the great many, simply awful things that were done by their own government, and that included things done under Churchill. Many things glossed over by history, mostly because he was part of the victors. Ahhh If only the Bengal famine was held in the same regard as Holodomor. Anyone who scrapes the surface of Winston Churchill would see that he was a racist, of course apologists will disagree. I have no need for apologies where he is concerned, it doesn't hurt my feelings to call him a racist anymore than it hurts my feelings to call Andrew Jackson a racist.

Either way his quote and your assertions are completely ridiculous and unfounded, so ridiculous they're not even worth debating. So you can roll your eyes all you like, lawd knows I do everyday when I open my email and open the various idiotic forwards that come from the conservatives I know. Americans are being put into internment camps, Czars in the white house (lol), Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, the antichrist, you are not allowed to pray in school and the list goes on and on and on. If this is the group I am supposed to admire for their "wisdom of how things really work" we're all in a lot of trouble. Not that I believe all conservatives are this way, I judge people as individuals not by the groups they supposedly belong to. I believe that saying one group is smart and the other is stupid is pretty shallow and stupid in itself.

As far as you guessing what I am going to say to you, I am actually giggling. Thanks for the laugh. I have to say I really got a kick out of you building a strawman in regards to me, "Everyone I disagree with is a racist" What a moronic thing to say. But again, thanks for the laugh.

Azdak

Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)

I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.

Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)

Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.

This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.

Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.

Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.

Man of the times? I don't make excuses for peoples racism throughout history, by saying it was part of the times. He did far worse than make a few off comment remarks about a variety of indigenous peoples and their religious beliefs.

I have a few British friends that love to hate on America, because of many things from our racist past. (You can call it the times, I personally call them as I see them, without the need to sugar coat.) I find it quite humorous that they choose to ignore the great many, simply awful things that were done by their own government, and that included things done under Churchill. Many things glossed over by history, mostly because he was part of the victors. Ahhh If only the Bengal famine was held in the same regard as Holodomor. Anyone who scrapes the surface of Winston Churchill would see that he was a racist, of course apologists will disagree. I have no need for apologies where he is concerned, it doesn't hurt my feelings to call him a racist anymore than it hurts my feelings to call Andrew Jackson a racist.

Either way his quote and your assertions are completely ridiculous and unfounded, so ridiculous they're not even worth debating. So you can roll your eyes all you like, lawd knows I do everyday when I open my email and open the various idiotic forwards that come from the conservatives I know. Americans are being put into internment camps, Czars in the white house (lol), Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, the antichrist, you are not allowed to pray in school and the list goes on and on and on. If this is the group I am supposed to admire for their "wisdom of how things really work" we're all in a lot of trouble. Not that I believe all conservatives are this way, I judge people as individuals not by the groups they supposedly belong to. I believe that saying one group is smart and the other is stupid is pretty shallow and stupid in itself.

As far as you guessing what I am going to say to you, I am actually giggling. Thanks for the laugh. I have to say I really got a kick out of you building a strawman in regards to me, "Everyone I disagree with is a racist" What a moronic thing to say. But again, thanks for the laugh.

I salute your forebearance.

VegesaurusRex

Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)

I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.

Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)

Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.

This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.

Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.

Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.

Man of the times? I don't make excuses for peoples racism throughout history, by saying it was part of the times. He did far worse than make a few off comment remarks about a variety of indigenous peoples and their religious beliefs.

I have a few British friends that love to hate on America, because of many things from our racist past. (You can call it the times, I personally call them as I see them, without the need to sugar coat.) I find it quite humorous that they choose to ignore the great many, simply awful things that were done by their own government, and that included things done under Churchill. Many things glossed over by history, mostly because he was part of the victors. Ahhh If only the Bengal famine was held in the same regard as Holodomor. Anyone who scrapes the surface of Winston Churchill would see that he was a racist, of course apologists will disagree. I have no need for apologies where he is concerned, it doesn't hurt my feelings to call him a racist anymore than it hurts my feelings to call Andrew Jackson a racist.

Either way his quote and your assertions are completely ridiculous and unfounded, so ridiculous they're not even worth debating. So you can roll your eyes all you like, lawd knows I do everyday when I open my email and open the various idiotic forwards that come from the conservatives I know. Americans are being put into internment camps, Czars in the white house (lol), Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, the antichrist, you are not allowed to pray in school and the list goes on and on and on. If this is the group I am supposed to admire for their "wisdom of how things really work" we're all in a lot of trouble. Not that I believe all conservatives are this way, I judge people as individuals not by the groups they supposedly belong to. I believe that saying one group is smart and the other is stupid is pretty shallow and stupid in itself.

As far as you guessing what I am going to say to you, I am actually giggling. Thanks for the laugh. I have to say I really got a kick out of you building a strawman in regards to me, "Everyone I disagree with is a racist" What a moronic thing to say. But again, thanks for the laugh.

Of course you aren't going to debate with me. You can't. As I said, a one trick pony. If they disagree with you, call them a racist. Gee, it worked in high school.

Liberals have an extreme lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals. If it wasn't for "racists" like Churchill, you'd be goose-stepping to work and probably have a concentration camp in your neighborhood. That is what would have happened if the liberal Chamberlain had his way. (Google him. I really doubt you know who Chamberlain was. He was the "Peace in our times"guy.)

Again, I raise certain statistical criticisms and the liberals scratch their butts and play the racism card. That is all they are capable of. I thought this was a debating board, not home to a bunch of name-calling high school dropouts.

mikajoanow

Wow! You disagree? I guess I should say you just won the debate because you said, "I disagree." (rolling eyes!)

I love the simplemindedness of those who call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It certainly simplifies the whole world doesn't it? There are the racists, and those who agree with you. This is the simplemindedness of our times.

Winston Churchill was by no means a racist. He was a man of his times. He was born when Rudyard Kipling was alive, in the era of the white man's burden. Every great invention had been made by white men. All great advances in civilization had been made by white men. All great literature had been written by white men. It may seem racist to you, but it was logical to those who lived then. Other than Europeans and Americans, most of the world lived in pre-agricultural societies, and were ruled by shamans or despots. They seemed quite primative by comparison to European society. Churchill, for example, said the Indians had a primative religion. He was referring to the quaint custom in India of burning a wife on the funeral pyre of the husband when the husband died. (The wife, by the way, was still alive.)

Of course, my having said that, you will now start jumping up and down screaming, "Racist! Racist! Racist!" I was describing the world as it was, not as I would prefer it to be, nor, God forbid, the fantesy politically correct world created by simple minded liberals. World views change with different eras. People who held views central to their civilization during their time can hardly be considered outliers. Churchill was no more racist than Roosevelt, or Wilson, or anyone else who lived in those times. We now live in an era of reverse racism : white males are now considered evil, and nominees to the Supreme Court aren't the best candidates, but are nominated because they are Hispanic women. God forbid we have a WASP on the Supreme Court.

This is the biggotry of liberalism It no longer matters how good you are, but rather what kind of ethnic type you represent.

Okay, so you are a one-note singer. Everyone you disagree with is a racist. This is the level of debate today, and I have encountered it many times. I blame the dumbed down school system.

Now instead of a rant about what a racist I am, why don't you address the statistical claims I made which undermine the study. Oh, yeah, I know why. Analyzing statistical claims is hard. Calling someone a racist is easy.

Man of the times? I don't make excuses for peoples racism throughout history, by saying it was part of the times. He did far worse than make a few off comment remarks about a variety of indigenous peoples and their religious beliefs.

I have a few British friends that love to hate on America, because of many things from our racist past. (You can call it the times, I personally call them as I see them, without the need to sugar coat.) I find it quite humorous that they choose to ignore the great many, simply awful things that were done by their own government, and that included things done under Churchill. Many things glossed over by history, mostly because he was part of the victors. Ahhh If only the Bengal famine was held in the same regard as Holodomor. Anyone who scrapes the surface of Winston Churchill would see that he was a racist, of course apologists will disagree. I have no need for apologies where he is concerned, it doesn't hurt my feelings to call him a racist anymore than it hurts my feelings to call Andrew Jackson a racist.

Either way his quote and your assertions are completely ridiculous and unfounded, so ridiculous they're not even worth debating. So you can roll your eyes all you like, lawd knows I do everyday when I open my email and open the various idiotic forwards that come from the conservatives I know. Americans are being put into internment camps, Czars in the white house (lol), Obama is a Muslim, a Kenyan, the antichrist, you are not allowed to pray in school and the list goes on and on and on. If this is the group I am supposed to admire for their "wisdom of how things really work" we're all in a lot of trouble. Not that I believe all conservatives are this way, I judge people as individuals not by the groups they supposedly belong to. I believe that saying one group is smart and the other is stupid is pretty shallow and stupid in itself.

As far as you guessing what I am going to say to you, I am actually giggling. Thanks for the laugh. I have to say I really got a kick out of you building a strawman in regards to me, "Everyone I disagree with is a racist" What a moronic thing to say. But again, thanks for the laugh.

Of course you aren't going to debate with me. You can't. As I said, a one trick pony. If they disagree with you, call them a racist. Gee, it worked in high school.

Liberals have an extreem lack of knowledge about history. That, I suppose is why they are liberals. If it wasn't for "racists" like Churchill, you'd be goose-stepping to work and probably have a concentration camp in your neighborhood. That is what would have happened if the liberal Chamberlain had his way. (Google him. I really doubt you know who Chamberlain was. He was the "Peace in our times"guy.)

Again, I raise certain statistical criticisms and the liberals scratch their butts and play the racism card. That is all they are capable of. I thought this was a debating board, not home to a bunch of name-calling high school dropouts.

I brought up the fact that Churchill was a racist because YOU said that this study was biased because it was British, and then you quoted a racist Brit to dispute the study. effing brilliant.



And I am sorry but you having comprehension problems in regards to this study and then broad stroke brushing entire groups of people as either genius or mindless is beyond boring. Its quite obvious that with all your broad strokes and name calling you're just looking to bait people into personal arguments based on nothing more than opinions that have no factual basis. In your mind you believe all of these things about liberals and if they don't buy into your narrative you will pretend that they do anyway and then TRY TO argue with them based on nothing more than the story you built up in your own head. Seek help. You are dismissed.