Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

[Neil D]

Why is it that some are trying to tie up words and attach them to certain topics, religion or polotics? There is a whole world out there of language and thoughts, not everything revolves around religion or politics!!

Maybe for this forum but not everyone else!

Are we seeing the need for a different life around here? Just asking!

We are fix-ated on words, Coaspen...We quote EGW and think we know what she says...and when someone brings out something that changes what she says, we get out more quotes to emphasise what WE want...

we are more fixated than we know and we don't know that we are broken.....

[Woody]

Quote:

We are fix-ated on words, Coaspen...We quote EGW and think we know what she says...and when someone brings out something that changes what she says, we get out more quotes to emphasise what WE want...

we are more fixated than we know and we don't know that we are broken.....

Wow. This is the best post that I've seen in regards to Ellen White. Appreciate your post HB. You are right on.

[Gail]

We are fix-ated on words, Coaspen...We quote EGW and think we know what she says...and when someone brings out something that changes what she says, we get out more quotes to emphasise what WE want...

we are more fixated than we know and we don't know that we are broken.....

Bad exegesis...

[phkrause]

We are fix-ated on words, Coaspen...We quote EGW and think we know what she says...and when someone brings out something that changes what she says, we get out more quotes to emphasise what WE want...

we are more fixated than we know and we don't know that we are broken.....

I'm not sure what your trying to say here hb! Are you commenting on the OP? or what?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

We are fix-ated on words, Coaspen...We quote EGW and think we know what she says...and when someone brings out something that changes what she says, we get out more quotes to emphasise what WE want...

we are more fixated than we know and we don't know that we are broken.....

Bad exegesis...

but right conclusion....

I've always wanted to know about salvation from heaven's point of view...after all, EVERYONE is going to heaven...from thier perspective...But what about HEAVEN'S perspective? Do they want you there? What would be the thing that would keep you out of heaven, in thier view?

Surely, the messes down here dont need to be in heaven....After all, who would want sin, and all the effectual ramifications of that to rise up again in heaven?

Only those who are not safe to save would be rejected, don'tcha think?

So, those who are fix-ated on EGW and quoting her to the Nth degree to convince you that they are right and you are wrong would NOT be safe to save....right? After all, prelude to actual killing someone is a good emotional bible thumping...right?

I'm just saying....

[Bravus]

{pops his head in to the thread to see whether a sober discussion of the original paper might be possible yet. pops his head out again}

[phkrause]

Obviously not Bravus. The same old rhetoric of politics. Instead of what it really says about people in general.

[Tom Wetmore]

Exactly! And sadly...

[Tom Wetmore]

As Bravus' signature says, "The truth is important"

Of course the reaction of some does bring to mind a famous line -

[CoAspen]

The original article had a lot of truth. I immediately thought of places I have lived where such could be observed on a daily basis. I'm not so sure those individuals had lower IQ's, but they certainly seemed to exhibit such. I think it's more about the ability to broaden ones world that some either don't choose to do or can't.

[jasd]

Pop! goes the weasel...

Sometimes, sober is as soberly seen.

Indeed, “The truth is important”; however, it ought be axiomatic and have utility. Though one seeking to further an agenda may find ‘utility’ in the proffered “study” – ‘axiomatic’ is somewhat lacking.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:pkrause

The same old rhetoric of politics. Instead of what it really says about people in general.

Quote:Tom Wetmore

Exactly! And sadly...

Umm, before we drag sanctimony from the Sanctum Sanctorum, let's look at a couple of aspects of the “study” while remembering that “The truth is important” – not that this “study” per se, is important.

Re Study from the ”Psychological Science...” I don’t hold in high regard much of anything having to do with the Psy Sciences. Not admitting to low-brow tendencies, I suppose I simply am prejudiced. It’s all hoakum-croakum-heeber-jeebers.

Example. (Though one acknowledges the difference between the sciences Psychological and Psychiatric, I proffer the following, as it is the Bible of the vast majority of mental health providers and a majority of physicians)

Within the pages of ”The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM; American Psychiatric Association), is found this: ‘Hebephilia is to be recognized in DSM-V (due for release in 2013) as suffering a mental or sexual health condition, rather than as he is now looked upon - that is, a criminal.’

Another example: '...the manual puts normal emotions and reactions we display when grieving, at risk of being interpreted as a mental health disorder.'

Hoakum-croakum!

Given the data, the analysis employed, and the thesis advanced in the article ”Bright Minds...” – one may as well remark that ‘Vegetarians are proved to be less smart than those who eat flesh foods’. This, in fact, has been ‘studied’.

“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.” –Bright Minds...

Isn’t this, on the face of it, aberrant hysteria?—I mean, sounds like an indictment of Xtians who, in general, harbor – not so much “antihomosexual prejudice”, but a belief in what they believe is the written word of Gd. And though one might give the authors of the “study” the point “authoritarianism”, one certainly cannot concede “low levels of intergroup contact.”

One is hard-pressed to find others who participate in “intergroup contact” more than do Xtians. Methinks that the matter of adducement is lost upon these selfsame authors.

“Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice.” –Bright Minds...

”Our results suggest...”

Okaayy..., peer pressure, as well PC group-think plays an equally critical and ‘appreciated’ role in prejudice – probably moreso among the less aggressive and weaker-minded who are reticent to express themselves – constrained in their natural intelligence by the group-think of PC norms.

I’ve only pulled two clauses from the first paragraph. One might continue likewise, throughout the entire article...

I am that extreme-right-wing-conservative-knuckle-dragging-cretin who is unabashedly ‘prejudiced’ in the sense that I care first and foremost for my own [family, clan, and kind], as required by Holy Writ. That, however, does not allow me to heedlessly harm the innocent in any manner, but to provide for them equally but less so, than my family – who takes precedence.

I don’t give tuppence for him/her who does other than I re the matter – even were he/she a Sharia-abiding Muslim. Now, that screaming banshee of a Muslim who seeks only to destroy and to kill to purchase 70-72 sloe-eyed and willing virgins in the beyond... well, what can one say?—other than, “May Allah quickly give proper reward to that banshee and his fellows.”

Now, I ask, is this post more provocative than the OP? Would we rather, that issues be addressed more generally and less specifically?—or only upon shuttered boards? Should one be so mealy-mouthed that nothing discernible or helpful may be known?

It’s all in the perception, yes? In the Corporate world, it is not so much Public Relations anymore, as it is Perception Management.

[Bravus]

Since much of the study was about racial prejudice rather than antihomosexual prejudice, it appears you didn't read all *that* closely...

[jasd]

>>Since much of the study was about racial prejudice rather than antihomosexual prejudice, it appears you didn't read all *that* closely...<<

Read again. I pulled two clauses exactly from the first paragraph and addressed them particularly, as evident.

Matters of racial prejudice are found elsewhere than in the two clauses I commented upon. However, given the radical

influx of nonAngloSaxons into the British Isles - bringing and clinging to their own customs, mores, and religions - one can appreciate racial prejudice as it exists in the Isles.

That is not to condone it but to accept reality as it slaps one upside one's head.

Take a look at the posts here of a seeming expat from the Isles and note the preponderance of posts dedicated to racial matters. The racial sword swings willy-nilly and heartily, usually cutting both ways.

One is amiss to lay the issue to the white, the black, the sunburned, the yellow, the humble, or to the prepossessed. It is as it is, a scourge that will be with man until the earth is reddened by blood and blackened by hate.

95% of Blacks in this country voted for our POTUS. Why?--was it not the Democrats who most persecuted them?--and was it not Lincoln who sacrificed so many lives for their freedom? Even Nixon the Repbulican did more for the Blacks than any other President, Kennedy and Johnson combined. Yet,

they all voted for our present POTUS. Why?

[Bravus]

Um, because the Republican Party has shifted a long, long way since those honourable men (hmm, can't believe I just called Nixon an honourable man, but he was actually *far* to the left of any of the current aspirants).

[phkrause]

If it wasn't for the stupid Watergate situation, him and Kissinger were one of the few Republicans that had a pretty good rep in the world.

[lazarus]

influx of nonAngloSaxons into the British Isles - bringing and clinging to their own customs, mores, and religions - one can appreciate racial prejudice as it exists in the Isles.

That is not to condone it but to accept reality as it slaps one upside one's head.

If only they dumped their tandoori chicken and prayed once a month. Sigh!

[lazarus]

Take a look at the posts here of a seeming expat from the Isles and note the preponderance of posts dedicated to racial matters. The racial sword swings willy-nilly and heartily, usually cutting both ways.

I take that as a complement coming from you.

[jasd]

>>Um, because the Republican Party has shifted a long, long way since those honourable men<<

"There ain’t a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. And as everyone can tell you, a dime ain't what it used to be.” –Geo Wallace

Well, you and I know that a dime is worth even less today (thereabouts ’68, one could purchase a dime for $.25 – today, that same dime costs $3.50; slim and slimmer)

I vote Republican as the Dems like, so portend Apocalypse; whereas, the Rebubbas might get us there slower.

>>(hmm, can't believe I just called Nixon an honourable man,<<

Given the context and given the current crop, well..., I’ll abide a few chosen expletives. Besides, the world’s great leaders and statesmen did honour to him as well, at his funeral. Furthermore, he cannot have been more dishonourable than the man he succeeded.

>>but he was actually *far* to the left of any of the current aspirants).<<

OMG, please tell me you know Palin is, dink the MSM, jumpin’ in the race!—or that the Convention will draft her! Please, Mister, please, say it is so...

I am so dissuaded from voting for any of the current slate.

As the astute may have guessed - my last post was rhetorically flavoured, per:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Take a look at the posts here of a seeming expat from the Isles and note the preponderance of posts dedicated to racial matters.

It would be silly to suggest that he is deficient re cognitive abilities; however, he is colored by prejudice (no pun intended).

What’s that say re prejudice vis-à-vis lower intelligence, the forte and seeming raison d’être of the proffered “study”?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

95% of Blacks in this country voted for our POTUS. Why?--was it not the Democrats who most persecuted them?--and was it not Lincoln who sacrificed so many lives for their freedom? Even Nixon the Repbulican did more for the Blacks than any other President, Kennedy and Johnson combined. Yet,

they all voted for our present POTUS. Why?

Apparently, they are prejudiced, yes? To hear tell “Bright Minds...” – the stats present that 95% of our Blacks are of lower intelligence. Ridiculous. Non sequitur. Bell Curve redux.

The matter of the unbalanced vote would probably have been one of pride and fairness: “Listen here, y’all!—it’s our time, our turn!” Okay, who’da known? Sometimes, ___ just happens.

Proffered, is just one example of genius within the Black community: how else but by higher cognitive abilities was Jesse Jackson able to extort beaucoup buck$ from our major corporations without going to jail, as would have anyone else who extorted? Simply genius. (By-the-way, it was Nixon who nixed the Justice Dept’s intent to prosecute Jackson for extortion and racketeering)

Of course, Jesse Jackson is provided in lower-case recognition. There are many - worthier and more commendable examples within the community who put the kibosh upon charges within the “Bright Minds...” article.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

influx of nonAngloSaxons into the British Isles - bringing and clinging to their own customs, mores, and religions - one can appreciate racial prejudice as it exists in the Isles.

That is not to condone it but to accept reality as it slaps one upside one's head.

Quote:lazarus

If only they dumped their tandoori chicken and prayed once a month. Sigh!

Does not apply, as it is that the Natives hardly ever pray - in churches, at least. Hence the proliferation of Mosques where once there were churches.

The law of unintended consequences: Commonwealth and très laissez— coming ‘round to bite Empire in its fundament.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Take a look at the posts here of a seeming expat from the Isles and note the preponderance of posts dedicated to racial matters. The racial sword swings willy-nilly and heartily, usually cutting both ways.

Quote:lazarus

I take that as a complement coming from you.

Couldn’t be missed, eh?

You’re welcome. As I said, you are only colored by prejudice (no pun intended).

[doug yowell]

>>Translation - Conservatives tend to have lower IQ.<<

The above is politic, egregiously so. It begs a directed response; however, the censor abides only the extreme which oils his own cognition.

Exacto mundo, jasd. And who exactly supplied the translation? And how are we supposed to intuitively know that "conservatives" and "extreme right" are not synonyms?

[doug yowell]

I think you and others are taking this too personally. If you are not racist or homophobic than it doesn't apply to you.

I am conservative. You interpreted the study to mean that conservatives have lower IQ's. Perhaps my lack of higher IQ prevents me from understanding the obvious disconnect?

[olger]

>>Translation - Conservatives tend to have lower IQ.<<

The above is politic, egregiously so. It begs a directed response; however, the censor abides only the extreme which oils his own cognition.

Talking “about” politics, “to“ talking politics? That is indeed a crafted point and commendable were it not so much bulldust. It puts one to mind - a chintz cozy covering a cracked pot.

Not an ad hominem. My observaton.

HALL of FAME !!!!!

[doug yowell]

If one clothes their thin skin adequately and just stops to think objectively a bit about the premise, there is a bit of rational logic to it. Understand the basic definitions of both prejudice and conservative and there is a certain commonality of being adverse to change, progress or venturing far from the familiar, and a tendency toward fear of the unknown and unfamiliar.

Yet none of these attributes indicate a lower IQ. In fact the could be easily seen as a barrier to the willingness to jump on any passing bandwagon because it initially sounded or felt good.The assumption is the same that claims that conservatives haven't thought things thru or are unfamilar with the upcoming territory. Can't Tom's definition also be applied to "progressives" that refuse to rethink or renounce their own misguided ideology? Fact is that the conclusions of the study are both biased and shallow for at least two reasons: 1) It approaches bigotry from only a Scientific,DNA analysis when bigotry is a spiritual problem.2) It fails to address racism from all sides as if only right wing ideology promotes it. This assumes that racism among (for instance)blacks, who almost exclusively side with liberal/left wing ideology, does not exist. If the IQ factor was equally applied the study would probably not have even been published.3) It has no explanation why those who lead right wing ideology's cause have much higher IQ's? It only makes sense that right wing ideology doesn't make it's ascent from the bottom but rather from the top down. Are it's leaders (Buckley,Krauthammer,Dobson,Prager,Bennett,Coulter,ect...) and it's followers working with measurably inferior equipment? 4) It doesn't address how lower IQ fails to act properly in small children who, while they do poorly in school, know no racial barriers on the playground.5)It also fails to explain why so many who fell under Hitler's spell were the brilliant, and the creative.6)It's doubtful that it examined the reasons why the academic, entertainment,and legal communities (without going political)are themselves so reticent to the inclusion of conservatives in their own worlds. And more......

[Bravus]

The study is actually quite simple. It says:

1. There is an observed negative correlation between intelligence (not just IQ but a battery of cognitive function tests) and prejudice. That is, in generally, averaging all the numbers, the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be prejudiced. There will, of course, be exceptions as there are to anything in humanity. The studies that this study synthesised simply showed a negative correlation. That's not bias, and it's not poor quality evidence: there were large samples and well conducted studies.

2. This specific study was interested in whether that correlation means causation - does being less intelligent *cause* someone to be more prejudiced? While it initially looked like it, that link didn't end up holding up. The researchers tested a number of 'mediating' factors: things that were common to people of particular intelligences and prejudices. Again, it's a large scale study, drawing on a lot of data. They found that there are two important mediating factors - social isolation and membership of conservative organisations. When the analysis was done, it turned out that these mediating factors accounted for all of the observed effect. So it was not a direct connection between lower intelligence and prejudice, it was lower intelligence, mediated by social organisation and membership of conservative organisations, that caused the prejudice.

The study does not, at all, say that conservatives are less intelligent. What it does so is that less intelligent people who are conservative are more likely to be prejudiced.

It's very important to actually read and understand the paper to avoid making the kinds of errors that have filled the first 10 pages of this thread.