I think the real point is being missed.

Atheism is no more a religion than liberalism, conservatism, communism or capitalism. It is just a set of ideas that one can hold to.

The point that must be made is that atheists can think, act, and behave every bit as religious as any non-atheist. One of the most common and irritating religious statements I hear is that atheists are somehow specially immune to the host of human flaws inherent in religious and faith like behaviour. Meanwhile, atheists can be found alongside everyone else in the ranks of almost every nut bar conspiracy movement and personality cult out there.

I was just sitting here trying to figure out why this was in Science heh, now it all makes sense.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A recent study found links between conservatism, low IQ and racism. http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism
-racism.html
science?

A recent study found links between conservatism, low IQ and racism. http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

*science?

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?
None of the above? All of the above?
When are we going to get it our thick skulls that narrowminded idealology like this just creates problems instead of solves them.
No one philosophy has the answers to all situations. IT NEVER WILL. A wise person recognizes the positive aspects of any and all philosophies and applies them AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. There is nothing wrong with Conservativism/Liberalism/Libertarianism/<insert 'ism here> as long as they are used within reason. Who decides what is within reason? We all do. We practice that every day and sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't and maybe we learn something in the process. All ideaology does is attempt to remove the burden of thinking. Sorry, not interested in that.
Nothing describes idiocy better to me than some mindless moron who always votes the party line, regardless of what party that may be.


You nailed it.

It's everything history teaches us about organized religion dressed up in a new suit. When you stop thinking and just blindly play follow the leader or follow the ideology you create a large mass of people capable of doing truly horrifying and unconscionable things. Liberalism, Libertarianism, Communism, Capitalism, Atheism, Conservatism are all capable of being treated and used exactly as the religions used throughout history's wars. The problem is no the ideologies or religions but the people that misuse them to manipulate others AND the people who use them as a crutch so they can stop thinking.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

None of the above? All of the above?

When are we going to get it our thick skulls that narrowminded idealology like this just creates problems instead of solves them.

No one philosophy has the answers to all situations. IT NEVER WILL. A wise person recognizes the positive aspects of any and all philosophies and applies them AS THE SITUATION WARRANTS. There is nothing wrong with Conservativism/Liberalism/Libertarianism/<insert 'ism here> as long as they are used within reason. Who decides what is within reason? We all do. We practice that every day and sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't and maybe we learn something in the process. All ideaology does is attempt to remove the burden of thinking. Sorry, not interested in that.

Nothing describes idiocy better to me than some mindless moron who always votes the party line, regardless of what party that may be.

Of those three I think it's pretty clearly liberalism -- like I said before, the essential tenet of libertarianism is that you should never have to worry about anything that isn't directly related to your own self-interest. Conservatism largely claims it's about the same thing, but then gets pretty highly preachy about sex-related issues (marriage, homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc.).

There's sometimes a mention of religiously-tinged civic duty (you are your brother's keeper), but modern conservatism pretty much twists that around into the idea that your real duty is limited to yelling "get a job" at poor people.

For the most part, I feel like certain branches of Christianity actually get it right in terms of outlining your obligations to others, especially those who are less fortunate. It just doesn't seem to be consistent or reliable in teaching people to love thy neighbor instead of judging them.

I don't think the best answers have been found on the topic though. "Liberalism" is a pretty loosely-defined philosophy, and it's adherents are considerably less ideologically doctrinaire than the right. "Liberal values" often sound like libertarian ones -- people should be free to do what they like. I think libertarian laws would be fine, as long as socially people were raised on something quasi-communist like "my neighbor's problem is my problem too".

That's why I believe the whole premise of conservatism and libertarianism is wrong -- they start with the message that there is no such thing as "society", and then demand the laws be changed to fit that wrong-headed philosophy of selfish isolation.

We need to try to build stronger bonds of solidarity between people, not sever them entirely.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?
Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?
And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.
If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

So which breed promotes "citizens taking their duties seriously" the most? And what if one doesn't breed it at all?

Liberalism, Conservatism, or Libertarianism?

And yes, there is an answer to both of those questions--but I won't give it because I don't know it truthfully.

If you think it is Liberalism, then why? (The short version plz ) If you never questioned whether this was important, which belief breeds better citizens, then that is bad indeed, but most never do.

>> ^NetRunner:

@GeeSussFreeK there's a lot in here I like and agree with. Just going to randomly interject some thoughts I had as I read it:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
[Ron Paul] is an advocate of declaring war, not the president just going in willy nilly. We can never really answer the question of if a particular war is good or not morally for every person at once, but we don't want to leave that moral choice in the hands of one man for no good reason other than self defense.
But Congress declared the wars that Ron Paul, as one man, wants to end. Paul's adherence to the constitution is selective on quite a wide range of topics, this one included.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is one of the major dangers I see in Statism is when you outsource responsibility, you usually don't relegate much thought to it. The plumber fixes my pipes, I don't concern myself with how they work.
Except that's not "statism," that's division of labor. Specifically the kind that is the cornerstone of a market economy.
As an aside, you need to just remove the word "statism" from your vocabulary. No one is an advocate of "statism" -- statists only exist in the imaginations of right-wing ideologues.
Case in point, you're specifically talking about markets and the kind of "rational self-interest" inherent in the "free" market gospel of the right, but somehow think it's something entirely the opposite, even though your example is a purely market-based example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Likewise, when you place all sorts of powers in agents hands, you tend to concern yourself with the goings ons...till they break. I think a Statism and Libertarianism have the same net effect if the people don't take an active concern in all forms of domestic affairs.
Right, like investment banking.
Liberals/social democrats/European socialists are united in saying what you're saying: the system will never work unless people take their responsibility as citizens seriously.
From where I sit, it's the right who are saying the opposite. They say "freedom" is defined by how completely you can abdicate your civic duties. You should never have to worry about anyone or anything that doesn't directly relate to your own direct personal interest.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think that Statism markets might have a higher entropy, though, because it invokes an active outsourcing of all matters of life to agents. While that could work if you are always haggling your agent to make sure he is doing his best, and not up to shenanigans, why not just cut out the middleman and keep up with the basic concern yourself?
Agreed, once I correct the label.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the idea of the Democracy is starting to fail, not because of some flaw in it that wasn't already widely known, but the culture we find ourselves in. For a Democracy to exist in a healthy way, each citizen has to see his role as a citizen to provide enrichment for the body politic. In this way, the Wests focus on individual rights and Libertarian ethics sorts of causes entropy on this notion. We would much rather be watching a movie, or some other form of playboy recreation, then running down to our local City Council and partake of our duty (not only to others, but ourselves).
I don't mean to ramble, but I wanted to make that point, that it doesn't matter if you are a federalist, or a anti-federalist. If your voting body is poor in intellect, will, and a toxic cultural environment, then no matter of political philosophy will save you. I think Jefferson foresaw that this entropy, and the saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." comes from; that things have to get really bad enough for us to actually care about democracy for it to work again for us, and more importantly, us for it.
I totally agree with this, and it's very well put to boot.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sometimes, dare I say most times, it is actually better to let those whom are convicted on the goodness of something to take the risk themselves and not try and hedge everyone in with them.

I don't really want to wade into the debate about Libya in particular (I think it was all shades of grey, and what we did was neither commendable nor reprehensible), but I will point out that it seems you're expressing the very abdication of civic duty you were condemning a few paragraphs before.
It's exactly the same attitude people have about their pipes -- they don't think they should have to think about them unless it's creating a problem for them directly. Either that's their inalienable right to liberty that we're morally obligated to respect, or that's the apathy that's causing our whole world to crumble around us which we're morally obligated to condemn.
I think I've made it clear which one I think it is.

I wonder if they long decided to be conservative in their work place and politics to allow for their liberal lifestyle. I often see conservatism in the entertainment industry because of the lucrative pay. It is a sweet job, and with the millions they are thowing at you, you very much don't want to lose it.

Fair enough, looking forward to your responses.

I honestly think Obama is so fearful of being labeled racially biased that he hasn't stepped up and helped the black community enough. Although he has rolled back alot of the harmful DOJ policies that the Bush folks enacted.

Economically, this recession has hit black americans way harder than other segments. While I think some of the policies Obama has put in place to stem the recession has lifted all ships, I think there are things he could do to have a higher impact on a community that has twice the unemployment of white americans.>> ^quantumushroom:

Fair questions. Answers will require...a little digging. I can tell you right off that while 'workfare' in the 90s was a success, overall Newt was/is a blustery Big Talker, and the Rs barely changed things.
In the meantime, since Obama has been Prez for 4 years and Congress has been controlled by majority liberals (and still is) since 2006, what has been the net gain (or loss) for Black Americans? Hint: it can't ALL be Bush's fault.
>> ^longde:
@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.
QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.
Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?

Fair questions. Answers will require...a little digging. I can tell you right off that while 'workfare' in the 90s was a success, overall Newt was/is a blustery Big Talker, and the Rs barely changed things.

In the meantime, since Obama has been Prez for 4 years and Congress has been controlled by majority liberals (and still is) since 2006, what has been the net gain (or loss) for Black Americans? Hint: it can't ALL be Bush's fault.

>> ^longde:

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.
QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.
Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?

@quantumushroom So get rid of welfare and food stamps, despite the fact that it helps a shitload of unemployed white people maintain the semblance of "middle class" living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Every program that helps blacks that white people hate, helps whites many times more; that includes affirmative action. That's why the politicians who have been railing against these programs for your votes will never get rid of them; the backlash would be overwhelming.

QM, please answer this: Can you point to the gains that black Americans made as a result of the policy prescriptions put in place by the republicans when they had power, since the Newt House and the Bush administration? Even if they were race neutral policies. What has compassionate conservatism and the Contract with America yielded for African Americans? Newt's pretty silent about it, given his famous loquacity.

Hell, can you point the gains that white americans made, for that matter (1% excepted of course)?
>> ^eric3579:

Dont you think maybe these results may be more closely tied to money (poverty) and or education then your statistics which seem to infer that it has something to do with the color of your skin. ...or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
>> ^quantumushroom:
68.7% of Blacks are born out of wedlock
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr50_05tb19.pdf
62% of ALL black births are paid for by the US government
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/pubd/2319_69.htm [archived]
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38.3% of the total of all welfare payments. Whites are 72% of the population, and take 30.5% of the total.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm#fig1
Though only 12% of the population, Blacks take 38% of taxpayer-subsidized housing
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata96/descript.htm

What percentage of these stats are the direct result of the welfare state acting as a morality-free surrogate for Black fathers and husbands? A near-70% illegitimacy rate is unsustainable, and Whites are 'catching up' with a present illegitimacy rate of 40%.
How has being loyal Democrats "helped" Black Americans?

Quick and dirty answer: Duh.

Not so quick and dirty but still a little bit quick and dirty answer: Correlation is not causation. See also the third variable problem (which in this case is socioeconomics, and more). How are "conservatism" and "cognitive ability" operationalised? What is the size of the correlation? How well does the model explain the data? Is there a lot of variance? What are the alternative explanations?

Overall impression: Unsurprising and has been replicated in various ways for a while now, but isn't as simplistic as the title implies.


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What do you think of this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/15893285/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability

What do you think of this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/15893285/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability

This is interesting too: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15893285/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability

I wish the term "conservative" was properly used. Today's so called conservatives are right wing extremists who have abandoned any sort of conservatism in favor of what is essentially a fascist state - a partnership between concentrated capital and government.
Secondly, this leaves the democrats off the hook. It was Clinton who ultimately signed off on de-regulating the banks and dispensing with Glass-Steagal - a law that prohibited banks from also being investment banks. A law put in place after the Great Depression
Clinton also ushered in a new era of "globalization" - policies that really only favored the wealthy. True globalization would allow free movement of money, goods, AND labor. However, the free movement of labor has been excluded, meaning that corporations country-shop for the cheapest labor- thereby speeding the process of exporting our industry.