Quote:

---

Understanding of the Constitution and the ideals of freedom.

---

Quote:

---

That's where it should start,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Understanding of the Constitution and the ideals of freedom. That's where it should start, at least here in the U.S.

After that, it should be fairly simple.

---

Quote:

---

I would also add "his enemies." I tend to define myself negatively. For example, I would not have voted for Gore had I not loathed Bush. Sometimes, people are more against something than in favor of the alternative. But then again, this could fit under category 1 or 2, both of which are very broad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
What determines a person's politics?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Really, Chris? Wow! Another “me” out there, how neat! I don’t think there are many of us, or at least here weren’t in my day, but I had precisely the same experience. I didn’t learn karate or anything

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
and now being six feet is an ADVANTAGE...

---

Quote:

---

My interest in physical activity was much more folk dancing, which I adored, and now hiking/motorcycling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
So "stupid" doesn't work for me; perhaps "mentally lazy"

---

Quote:

---

Ironically, many scientific studies have found that Republicans in general have a higher IQ than Democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
So "stupid" doesn't work for me; perhaps "mentally lazy"

---

Actually, stupid works just fine for you. I'd go with hopelessly retarded, but OK too with you being mentally lazy.

---

Quote:

---

Mincing, I think “his enemies” isn’t quite right...I’m sick to death of doing exactly the same thing: voting for what I consider the lesser of two evils.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, I would think both religion and community would have something to do with it, too, depending on the religion and the community.

---

Quote:

---

One thing, and one thing mainly, a person's experience with authority & inequity in the formative years.

---

Quote:

---

Result? Liberal Libertarian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I think you have to know what you believe to be a member of the Green Party, Libertarians, etc. I think people were manipulated to join the Tea Party, but I think the others, including Socialist, Communist, etc., are things people might well come to by examinging the two main parties and comparing them to their own beliefs, and choosing neither of them as a result.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

"A Liberal, is a Conservative who just found themselves arrested."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
OOoo, excellent one, Frem!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Ironically, many scientific studies have found that Republicans in general have a higher IQ than Democrats.

---

With Republicans vs Democrats I think on average Republicans are richer, and can afford better education etc. So it's not as fair a test. Just my view though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Isn't this thread just a repost?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42472

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Ironically, many scientific studies have found that Republicans in general have a higher IQ than Democrats.

---

With Republicans vs Democrats I think on average Republicans are richer, and can afford better education etc. So it's not as fair a test. Just my view though.

---

An IQ test is not a measure of education. Any test measuring achievement or education is invalid for psychometry.
But I'm not surprised you would take the wrong view.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Isn't this thread just a repost?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42472

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
well one thing i notice is that the smarter and better educated someone is the more liberal they become, and the dumber and more ignorant they are, the more conservative they become.
there are exceptions of course but generally thats how it goes and most of the conservative people i meet are so dumb i wonder how they ever learned anything at all when they consider intelligence and education to be some kind of wrong thing, but then theyre hypocrites too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Isn't this thread just a repost?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42472

---

It's subtly different.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Ironically, many scientific studies have found that Republicans in general have a higher IQ than Democrats.

---

With Republicans vs Democrats I think on average Republicans are richer, and can afford better education etc. So it's not as fair a test. Just my view though.

---

An IQ test is not a measure of education. Any test measuring achievement or education is invalid for psychometry.
But I'm not surprised you would take the wrong view.

---

You don't think social situation and education contributes to a persons IQ?

---

Quote:

---

Conservatives need to get out of their heads that IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence, it seems to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

By definition IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Ironically, many scientific studies have found that Republicans in general have a higher IQ than Democrats.

---

With Republicans vs Democrats I think on average Republicans are richer, and can afford better education etc. So it's not as fair a test. Just my view though.

---

An IQ test is not a measure of education. Any test measuring achievement or education is invalid for psychometry.
But I'm not surprised you would take the wrong view.

---

You don't think social situation and education contributes to a persons IQ?

---

It makes no matter my thought.
The factual answer is no.
Psychometery does not measure social, situational, educational, nutured aspects of cerebral activity.
Aptitude is the sole criteria of a proper IQ test.
Not achievement.
IQ cannot be increased via education. If an test claiming to be for IQ or aptitude produces a different result for different education levels or social contexts, it is flawed (no test is perfect) or intentionally misleading (which started occurring in the early 1990's).
IQ test performance can be improved by better brain function (fully rested, nourished, adequate energy and oxygen levels) and sometimes cerebral practice - brain twisters, logic games - which merely allow the brain to fulfil more of it's potential.
IQ can be decreased much, much more easily and in varied ways. Most of these ways are irreversible with known data.
Because a difference of 15 IQ points prevents 2 people from ever fully communicating or relating to each other, genetic coupling often occurs within a specific range of IQ, producing offspring with higher potential for genetic IQ proclivity.

Once upon a time one common aptitude test was the SAT, and had a large enough sampling to be used as a measure of IQ. Due to liberal pressure it kept getting dumbed down again and again, until almost anybody could get a good score, and as it became an acievement test it was invalidated as an IQ test, and in fact was forced to change it's name from Scholastic Aptitude Test to Scholastic Acheivement Test.

Quote:

---

Conservatives need to get out of their heads that IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence, it seems to me.

---

By definition IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence.
Since you seem to be a liberal, I can understand how you would be deluded. If you intended to mean a word which does not refer to innate, genetic intelligence, you should not have used the one word which is defined as precisely that.
Redefining words as liberals are wont to do is not conducive to discussion. It has been several decades now that liberals have wanted to redefine IQ to mean something which is influenced by social, educational, situational context, but that does not make it so. If you choose to change the definition of words, please state so such that others know to ignore your ramblings.
I also understand that liberals are often deluded into assuming that the most accurate measure of IQ is to determine how often a person agrees with them or shares their view. Objective and intellectually honest folk are able to discern that this method is heaped in procedural error.
If you are trying to say that conservatives are the sole possessers of the ability to understand accurate, factual, correct definitions, then I am forced to agree with your sentiment.

---

Quote:

---

Main Entry: IQ
Pronunciation: \ˌī-ˈkyü\
Function: noun
Etymology: intelligence quotient
: a number used to express the apparent relative intelligence of a person: as a : the ratio of the mental age (as reported on a standardized test) to the chronological age multiplied by 100 b : a score determined by one's performance on a standardized intelligence test relative to the average performance of others of the same age

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Ironically, many scientific studies have found that Republicans in general have a higher IQ than Democrats.

---

With Republicans vs Democrats I think on average Republicans are richer, and can afford better education etc. So it's not as fair a test. Just my view though.

---

An IQ test is not a measure of education. Any test measuring achievement or education is invalid for psychometry.
But I'm not surprised you would take the wrong view.

---

You don't think social situation and education contributes to a persons IQ?

---

It makes no matter my thought.
The factual answer is no.
Psychometery does not measure social, situational, educational, nutured aspects of cerebral activity.
Aptitude is the sole criteria of a proper IQ test.
Not achievement.
IQ cannot be increased via education. If an test claiming to be for IQ or aptitude produces a different result for different education levels or social contexts, it is flawed (no test is perfect) or intentionally misleading (which started occurring in the early 1990's).
IQ test performance can be improved by better brain function (fully rested, nourished, adequate energy and oxygen levels) and sometimes cerebral practice - brain twisters, logic games - which merely allow the brain to fulfil more of it's potential.
IQ can be decreased much, much more easily and in varied ways. Most of these ways are irreversible with known data.
Because a difference of 15 IQ points prevents 2 people from ever fully communicating or relating to each other, genetic coupling often occurs within a specific range of IQ, producing offspring with higher potential for genetic IQ proclivity.

Once upon a time one common aptitude test was the SAT, and had a large enough sampling to be used as a measure of IQ. Due to liberal pressure it kept getting dumbed down again and again, until almost anybody could get a good score, and as it became an acievement test it was invalidated as an IQ test, and in fact was forced to change it's name from Scholastic Aptitude Test to Scholastic Acheivement Test.

Quote:

---

Conservatives need to get out of their heads that IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence, it seems to me.

---

By definition IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence.
Since you seem to be a liberal, I can understand how you would be deluded. If you intended to mean a word which does not refer to innate, genetic intelligence, you should not have used the one word which is defined as precisely that.
Redefining words as liberals are wont to do is not conducive to discussion. It has been several decades now that liberals have wanted to redefine IQ to mean something which is influenced by social, educational, situational context, but that does not make it so. If you choose to change the definition of words, please state so such that others know to ignore your ramblings.
I also understand that liberals are often deluded into assuming that the most accurate measure of IQ is to determine how often a person agrees with them or shares their view. Objective and intellectually honest folk are able to discern that this method is heaped in procedural error.
If you are trying to say that conservatives are the sole possessers of the ability to understand accurate, factual, correct definitions, then I am forced to agree with your sentiment.

---

Judging by all the typos and misspellings in that drivel, one can only come to the conclusion that your IQ must be exceedingly low, then. After all, you have proven yourself unable to learn how to properly use the English language, and you've been shown time and again. IQ isn't about what you know; it's about what you're capable of learning. For JSF here, I'd say he's hit his upper limits, and they represent a particularly low ceiling.

By the way, Merriam-Webster's doesn't say a thing about "innate, genetic" intelligence in its definition of IQ. Maybe those liberals who write the dictionary redefined it without bothering to let you know. Maybe you could post a definition from a peer-reviewed source that backs up your claims. I doubt it, but I'll give you the benefit of the "maybe"...

Quote:

---

Main Entry: IQ
Pronunciation: \ˌī-ˈkyü\
Function: noun
Etymology: intelligence quotient
: a number used to express the apparent relative intelligence of a person: as a : the ratio of the mental age (as reported on a standardized test) to the chronological age multiplied by 100 b : a score determined by one's performance on a standardized intelligence test relative to the average performance of others of the same age

---

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Because a difference of 15 IQ points prevents 2 people from ever fully communicating or relating to each other, genetic coupling often occurs within a specific range of IQ, producing offspring with higher potential for genetic IQ proclivity.

---

Quote:

---

Aptitude is the sole criteria of a proper IQ test.

---

Quote:

---

By definition IQ is a measure of innate, genetic intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

Background
Most researchers agree that genetic factors account for about 40-80% of the variation in IQ test results. If this is true, then environmental or other factors must account for 20-60% - which is a large range.

Factors Influencing IQ
Some environmental factors that have a large effect upon later IQ test results include prenatal ones, such as:

Whether or not, prior to the birth, mother drank large amounts of alcohol during her pregnancy (fetal alcohol syndrome).
The mother was exposed to large amounts of lead.
Factors that have an effect during the early years
Other factors that have their influence on IQ at a young age are:

Schooling.
The quality of toys used.
The amount of external stimulus the child was subjected to.
Prolonged malnutrition also has a marked negative effect on IQ test.
In contrast, babies who were breastfed have IQs up to 10 points on average higher than those who weren't.

---

Quote:

---

Once upon a time one common aptitude test was the SAT, and had a large enough sampling to be used as a measure of IQ. Due to liberal pressure it kept getting dumbed down again and again, until almost anybody could get a good score, and as it became an acievement test it was invalidated as an IQ test, and in fact was forced to change it's name from Scholastic Aptitude Test to Scholastic Acheivement Test.

---

Quote:

---

Redefining words as liberals are wont to do is not conducive to discussion. It has been several decades now that liberals have wanted to redefine IQ to mean something which is influenced by social, educational, situational context, but that does not make it so. If you choose to change the definition of words, please state so such that others know to ignore your ramblings.
I also understand that liberals are often deluded into assuming that the most accurate measure of IQ is to determine how often a person agrees with them or shares their view. Objective and intellectually honest folk are able to discern that this method is heaped in procedural error.
If you are trying to say that conservatives are the sole possessers of the ability to understand accurate, factual, correct definitions, then I am forced to agree with your sentiment.

---