/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8579401
Not sure. Guess high IQ people tend to be cucks?

Because both parties, in the US at least, have in recent history tended to differ more on social issues than they do on fiscal or authority issues with the exception of the past election. A lot of people vote with social issues in mind because they realize they're going to get the same result in the other fields from either candidate (more policing, more power to whoever is in the office, more bullshit), so they tend to go with whoever promises to be more socially liberal, something which is an objectively correct policy to have.

Democrats burn your money on failed social programs, and laundering efforts and Republicans burn it on Israel, funding their own businesses and growing the wealth gap between classes. Both groups have their clear cut crooks, and they have a firm unshakeable grip on our system. But we can at least try to get along with each other as we get closer each day to finally crashing and burning.

>>8579401
If that is true then why do niggers and spics lean left?

>>8579401
>Democrats
>Left
boy oh boy

>>8579401
Something to do with High IQ people being high in "openness", which is ordinarily a good thing but sometimes takes away from practicality and thus, when asked, many high IQ people will just say they're liberal without having given much thought to the implications of full equality etc.
It does seem paradoxical that usually smart people wouldn't look more deeply into their politics

>>8579418
Because they're smarter than you and have learned not how to win at the game of life, but make the game make them win. They vote in their best interests. And right now it is their best interest is to play dumb and collect a handout.

You'd know how smart some of these people are if you took the time to observe them in the highschool environment. A good amount of them pretend to be dumb.

>>8579401
Conservative ideas are just easier to grasp. If you are some redneck that didn't even finish high school it's hard to get why it's a good idea to pay for someone's college tuition or health care. To see the greater scale you are required to have at least some basic intellect. To appeal to idiots, the benefit of your politics for them needs to be as instantaneous and immediate as possible, otherwise you just lose them.

I'm not saying that makes conservative ideas inherently stupid, they are just simpler. Admittedly though, lately conservative politicians are specifically targeting stupid people, there's no doubt about that. But again, not really because they are themselves stupid, but because they just now how politics work. You gotta know who your audience is, whether you like it or not.

>>8579401
actually ugly people tend to lean left

>>8579441
Does that contradict what was stated in the OP?
How does it feel to have a low IQ?

>>8579401
There is absolutely no correlation between the IQ and the way a state votes in presidential elections.

>>8579467
>citation needed

>>8579401
Funding comes mostly from the left and media narrative is also.

>>8579401
A vast amount of scientists have spent their entire lives with a persona of intelligence and relishing in it. Media nowadays vilifies conservative policies and politicians for appearing stupid, which of course sometimes they are, and they subconsciously see any association with conservative policies as a threat to their intelligent persona.

This might not always be the case, but often most people who aren't moderates are psychologically/emotionally polarized to even consider the other sides viewpoints/claims. There's nothing wrong with it, and it isn't limited to scientists. It's a very human limitation that we must all deal with.

>>8579401
Same reason gays have higher IQs. It takes intelligence to overcome your primal impulses. In this case, compassion for poor people of different tribes requires conscious reason and not evolutionary instinct.

Reminder that national socialist is left wing.

>>8579467
>IQ

>>8579484
But typically right wing on authority politics, and definitely right wing on the concerns of welfare as it pertains to people different from you. A lot of people are turned off by those two precise aspects of it.

Politics is more than a 2D plane. It's a matrix.

>>8579484
>Reminder that national socialist is left wing.

Oh, we know. We know this very, very well.

Heil Bernie.

>>8579480
>implying compassion for poor people of "other tribes" isn't encouraged by anti-racist societal pressures

>implying the real issue isn't urban vs rural cultural differences and education

>implying homosexuality is influenced by intelligence and not environmental conditioning and hormones

B A I T
A
I
T

>>8579486
>Politics is more than a 2D plane. It's a matrix.

>2D plane
An uncountable infinite collection of points

>Matrix
A finite or countably infinite at best collection of points

So politics is less than a 2D plane?

>>8579489
A 2D plane concerns points on only two axes. A matrix considers countably infinite axes.

I know this was supposed to be bait, but please try harder next time.

>>8579484
>its a "Anon is altering the in-context-definition of an already vague word to suit his needs" episode

>>8579401
Because it is bullshit, liberalism isn't liberalism anymore. What you're thinking of is the humanitarian liberalism of the 1800s and early 1900s.

Reality has a liberal bias

>>8579475
>>8579475
I anticipated someone saying this so I got citations and as almost every single site that talks about state IQs is unreputable, it took me a while to find a reputable source. Anyway, using
[I had to remove this link as 4chan thought it was spam, to get to it just go to the WashPo link below and click on the link underlined in pic related]
which I found through the Washington Post which seems to be the only reputable news site to have a serious article about state intelligence right here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/13/actually-mr-trump-iowa-is-one-of-the-smartest-states-in-the-union/?utm_term=.d59fc6795a84
In this article they talked about how Iowa was one of the smartest states because they wanted to split hairs about Trump's speech in Iowa. (This was before their primary) They used IQ (gotten from the link above) ACT scores and SAT scores. I am going to completely ignore ACT and SAT scores as they don't show a state's IQ level very well, despite on an individual level being a pretty good gauge assuming its the first time taking it.
As an example I'll use my state, New York. We are pretty average intelligence-wise as far as the entire nation is concerned, with ~100 IQ. Our SAT scores are a bit below average, but our ACT scores are some of the best in the nation. This is because most kids take the SAT, with many of the smartest kids just skipping out entirely on the SAT (I was one of these kids, I massively prefer the ACT and got pretty close to a 36/36) and almost none of the stupid kids taking the ACT. This generally the case in the entire Northeast, as the SAT is far more popular than the ACT in the Northeast. The reverse happens in the Midwest except for Indiana (where the SAT is more popular), Minnesota, Iowa, and Ohio where for some inexplicable reason they do amazing on both tests, especially Minnesota.

I am continuing this into another post.

>>8579484
jup, "women to the kitchen" and "race determines worth" are classic lefty ideas.

don't be fooled by the subterm "socialist" in there. it doesn't mean left, it means populist in the sense of "politics for the majority of the populus", which is partly left (in that it tries to diminish the difference between rich and poor) and partly fascist (in that it discriminates minorities - that's the "national" part of the term).

tl;dr: "national socialist" is a standing term meaning "fascist with economic ideals focusing solely on the constituency", it has not much to do with "socialist".

>>8579456
Are you hitting on him?

>>8579503
Here is pic related by the way

anyway, the average IQ for red and blue states as by the last election's results is (ignoring Maine as it was split and I don't have data for the IQ of the individual districts):
Red States: 100.06
Blue States: 100.63 (with Maine its 100.77, but again it was split)
practically no correlation whatsoever, within margin of error.

>>8579526
kek
this is why I come back to this place

>>8579507
>liberalism is leftism

gas yourself

>>8579416
>socially liberal, something which is an objectively correct policy to have

Oh honey, why do you hate morals so much?

>>8579530
Looking at what people actually voted, it's pretty mixed anyway, so you wouldn't really expect a significant difference going by state.

>>8579542

>social conservatism is moral

HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8579544
I didn't want to make some wide claim about IQ and political leanings as I don't have the data to back that up while I have the data to back states up.

Regardless its almost assuredly not correlated anyway. Education and Church attendance are far more important, as well as job sector.

>>8579401
Because they're more intelligent.

>>8579484
>>>/pol/

>>8579551
Actually stop it, it is getting quite tiresome constantly seeing links to /pol/ just because someone said something you don't agree with. Look, if you want to go and virtue signal: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, plenty of platforms, just not 4chan /sci/.

>>8579550
Because people that work and make a honest living dont have time to fuck around in loonaversities.

>>8579555
Literally nobody ever in the history of anything calls Nazism left-wing except historically illiterate American right-wing retards who want to associate socialism with Nazism.

>>8579547
>changing the arugment to about morality

DO YOU WANT SHITPOSTING?

>>8579557
That still isn't a /pol/ issue, you want to educate them, right? Send them to /his/tory, okay?

>>8579556
Your "honest living" is socially worthless nothing, you're just a drain on the Earth's resources.

>>8579559
/his/ is loaded with ignorant right-wing retards who shout down actual history in favor of their ideologically loaded horse shit.

>>8579561
Are you serious? Why is 4chan infested with meat-heads?

>>8579564
Because anonymity makes it hard to be held accountable, so people can spew bullshit and never have to come to terms with how wrong they are.

>>8579557
It's actually a pretty established idea to look at the left/right spectrum as a ring that closes at the extremes. A lot of the ideas presented in the Third Reich were progressive at the time. And before you play that card: I'm German.

>>8579565
Well, I'd say direct them to Stack Exchange, but I enjoy that place being somewhat worthwhile. In that case, I guess I have to admit defeat.

>>8579564
4chan is infested with shut-ins who've accomplished little with their lives. Being neoconservatives or fascists gives them a way to feel superior/worthy to other people, since they obviously aren't going to get that through DOING ANYTHING.

>>8579570
Which brings to mind, what is the attraction of 4chan and why is it so successful?

>>8579530
That can't be true because then that would mean Southern whites have above average IQ ( never seen any evidence to support this, not even from /pol/ ) to balance out that the sizable minority of blacks have below average IQs.

>>8579567
it's almost as if attempting to chart people's political views on a 1-dimensional "left-right" spectrum makes no fucking sense if you think about it for more than 5 goddamn seconds.

>>8579574
look at the link I brought it to, most deep southern states are low. Its just that most Great Plains and Mountain states have extremely high IQs, and Great Lakes+Pennsylvania and Texas are average, so it balances out.

>>8579564
/pol/ has historically linked to stormfront and vice versa, and in the recent election cycle, /pol/ frequently made the news in rightwing media outlets, leading to many right wingers finding this place and leaking into the rest of the website. Theres also a large amount of people here who came here for the memes, especially after Pepe made the news cycle. Last but not least, there was the gamergate nonsense some other boards got heavily involved in.

I remember seeing data which showed that the traffic on this website nearly doubled over the past two years. 4chan has literally been flooded with legitimate nutjobs and kids posting memes in a way never seen before.

The old saying used to be that we were smart people pretending to be dumb to be funny, that this was a big game of satire. Its all come tumbling down. This place was doomed ever since Chanology and the Wall Street Protests were the knife that killed us. We've just been diving into deeper levels of hell since then.

>>8579573
Well, financially, 4chan isn't even really doing that well...

But it's so culturally influential online because of its structure. It's anonymous, it has topic boards which invite political echo-chambering, it has an extremely insular culture, and it has cultivated a large enough userbase to where it can export content to the mainstream.

It is a very attractive place for people with taboo views to come and congregate and organize.

>>8579573
The attraction is in the "anonymity", not having to register to post, and dank memes.

>>8579401
Because they know they're on the top 10% of the world and want to make everyone be in the 10% and be happy just like them despite they don't know shit about economics and just want "muh equality" shit despite not everyone can be as smart or rich as them.

Just look at the SJWs, they're mostly rich people that belive everyone should be as rich and happy as them but that's fucking impossible unless you want to kill the poor "a lo Stalin".

They're apparently "smart" but they don't know everything like they should, since if you taught the left why you cannot help the whole fucking world, they would stop leaning to the left.

t. not /pol/ bias, just from /adv/ anon

>>8579584
Well, I seem to have missed a lot. It is an honest to God shame, that anything started with noble intention can become the antithesis of its purpose.

>>8579585
Doesn't that make it a potentially dangerous tool if incentivised correctly?

>>8579589
Dank memes are always a good call, anon, that is true.

>>8579594
it makes it very dangerous indeed.

>>8579584
This. I don't even know why I come here anymore. Phone phosters are new level of cancer too.

>>8579590
You can make everyone "rich" by decreasing the costs of production so that every dollar goes further.

Through a method such as automated farming stacked with automated food manufacturing, food costs should go down to near insignificant costs and everyone should be able to eat like kings regardless of what we set our currency value to so long as the food is produced in house.

If you try to go the opposite direction and give everyone more money to buy the same limited amount of stuff with, then the people who are selling the stuff are just going to raise their prices.

A lot of new age liberals push this kind of innovation and they are really big on tech. A lot of old school neolibs and neocons resent this answer. Neolibs want to hand out more money because they think the working man deserves more capital, and Neocons want to limit that handout because the logic is that it convinces owners to invest if they pay lower taxes. Now we have to deal with shit like corn farmers being subsidized to grow corn from democrat govt handouts, and then burning off their surplus so they can play the market game and get more money in subsidies the next year, while claiming its under the guise of weed removal when in reality we have methods of removing weeds which dont involve destruction of product. Then they can cry that they pay too much in taxes when they make noticeable ROI when the Republicans are in office and then claim that's stopping them from being able invest in tools to get larger harvests. When its all bullshit and the problem is that we need to use technology to move forward.

Both parties are fucking blind and they are more focused on fighting each other than they are on fixing problems, and things have turned into a shitfest because of it.

>>8579628
Man, if we don't get out of this capitalist and even communist mindset, we're actually going to destroy ourselves over 'money'.

>>8579594
>dangerous tool
thats an understatement. At this point, this place could theoretically be datamined for detailed information on anonymous human communication and the echochamber boards could be easily be subverted and controlled by moderation and controlled, calculated meme forcing. This would then leak to other websites where a lot of people cross post and repost memes from here like wildfire, especially phoneposters.

It'd require one hell of a Machiavellian bastard to buy the website and get it done, but the pieces are in place for it to happen now and easier than ever, if anyone really wanted to do it.

>>8579567
The horseshoe theory isnt "well established", it's a goddamn meme for people who couldn't even finish 1984 tier political theory

>>8579573
Being anonymous helps.

>>8579616
>tfw 2008 4chan is gone forever
>tfw 2007 youtube is gone forever
Why

>>8579637
But if you dont want to go through the whole data mining nonsense, you could also just get together an analysis team and scientifically design memes with an agenda to force on boards with the intention of spreading those memes throughout the internet and into the mainstream.

>>8579648
>>8579637
I don't think it's a stretch to say that's happening in a more homegrown way now.

Are there larger "teams" using actual science, actual money, and analysis, to make these weaponized propaganda memes? Maybe. Wouldn't necessarily surprise me. I haven't seen evidence, personally, of an actual organized effort to subvert natural communication on the boards.

But people already use funny memes to force agendas. People already take a political concept they hold, boil it down into a simple setup-punchline or one-liner, stick it on some funny mspaint art, and it gets posted on /pol/ or /b/ and from there it makes it to facebook and twitter and it gets seen by the general public. And when you see enough of these fucking memes you start to identify with them and think along the lines they set.

>>8579425
>it's advantageous to perform poorly in high school.

>>8579437
>vative ideas inherently stupid, they are just simpler. Admittedly though, lately conservative politicians are specifically targeting stupid people, there's no doubt about that. But again, not really because they are themselves stupid, but because the

100% this. Conservative thoughts are incredibly simplistic and largely do not take into account the long-term and short-term effects of all actions. And right-wing tend to crazy as fuck when it comes to anything intellectual climate change deniers, world is 5,000 years old and vaccines cause autism.

>>8579660
This is such a retarded Conserative narrative "poor people want to be poor to collect welfare" nobody wants to be poor. Shit is actually retarded.

>>8579680
after many many generations of being poor you tend to not really believe that you can emerge from it and dependence just becomes a normal neutral thing. look up "learned helplessness". After being fucked for too long you stop trying to save yourself.

>>8579401

Love of the new and novel are common traits of the intelligent. This makes them susceptible to intellectualising ideologies such as marxism and left-liberalism, and less interested in (and thus less susceptible to) ideologies that promote traditional ideas.

>>8579594
The anonymity makes 4chan so pliable to any sort of purpose for anyone capable of pulling its levers. I'm under the impression that astroturfing and datamining is a large part of the posts you see on larger boards.

>>8579635
It's already inevitable anon, I'm sorry.

>>8579637
What the fuck do you think meme magic is, this is already happening.

>>8579680
Coming from an area with around 30% of the population below the poverty line, I can confirm that it's a stupid narrative, but what's worse is a lot of the people in these areas believe it. Many of them lean toward the far-right and were heavily [negatively] impacted by Reaganomics yet they still convince themselves it's the solution to their problems.

Smarter people tend to lose contact with reality.

>>8579672
>>8579437
You do realize this is generally exactly what conservatives say about liberal economics right?

>>8579672
>anything intellectual climate change deniers, world is 5,000 years old and vaccines cause autism.

Not all right wingers, just the americans, because burgers are inherently retarded.

>>8579781
Holy shit, you're right. I mean I knew people forced me me here but when you think about it the phrase "meme magic" and the concept of using repeating digits as numerical ouija pretty much works as a tool for memeforcing which bypasses many posters bullshit detectors unlike the traditional "reposting until you like it" approach. By making it into a game, other posters are more accepting when some other poster posts nonsense. Combining this with exploitable, reusable images revs up the community aspect and could probably allow you to force whatever you want, by attaching an underlying message to the design of exploitable, maybe a couple buzzwords, and some bot to predict when to best post the image you've created so that it falls on repeating digits. Complement this with some exploitable made yourself of the direction you don't want your meme to go in (an example of the opposite party using your meme), to create a meme strawman and then shit on that strawman to influence idiots into thinking the way you want them to think. Kids spread those memes to Facebook and twitter, and dear lord it's madness.

>>8579557
Why do people act like it would be an insult to imply that nazi's were left wing or right wing.

For one, they seemed to have done pretty damn well for themselves fighting off half of the world damn near single highhandedly.

For twosies, why do people give a shit whether or not some assholes agreed with parts of their political ideology or not? It's not like it actually means anything.

You want to know how I know they failed to properly sample minorities

>>8579884
How do you know?

>>8579884
It was probably a proper sample among voting citizens. 1/3 of black males have a criminal record, a lower amount are legally barred from voting and thus disenfranchised. That would leave the smarter ones among the minorities left to be included in the sample.

>>8579888
Well in that case it only goes to show that more intelligent people are more delusional if they actually think their vote counts for anything when global politics are being controlled by intergalactic minorities.

>>8579902
>being this tinfoil
Still doesn't explain why conservatives are under 100.

The only thing these studies show is that it is difficult to make it through college without being cucked by liberalism.

This shouldn't be a surprise since modern unis were modeled and founded largely by Marxists and socialists.

>>8579401
>using IQ as a measure of wisdom
There's your problem

>>8579887

They represent 30% of the American demographic and are 70-80% liberal, while being 80-90 IQ on average.

>>8579425

A smart person would know they need to learn how to be self sufficient or they will become the first person starving and dying in the street after shit hit the fan for everyone else and the gravy train ran out.

It isn't smart. It's complacent, and idiotic. And why countries largely populated by these people starve.

>>8579401

when you live in the academia bubble where nothing is ever really challenged, and people in power are pretty much immutable and immovable, they are in a sense eroded from the bottom up, by the students.

teachers are able to influence students. liberal teachers play to what they know children will fall for. things like more freedom, moral relativism (there's no right or wrong, things like that), and "encouragement" to do things that benefit them now, and not worry about the future because "it will all work out".

this stuff is very powerful, and is able to motivate a lot of people who have nothing to lose because they haven't yet earned enough worth defending.

they're willing to give things away for free because
A) they don't have much
B) they haven't worked to secure tangible things for themselves, in many cases, only intangibles, like reputation and status (within an ephemeral peer group)

the time is viewed as expendable, and not something that will affect their future (even though it could), so they have a higher tendency to engage in risky (read: degenerate) behavior.

the media calls anyone in academia a "scientist", and they know that most people will think of Edison or Einstein when they hear someone is a scientist, but aren't the people referred to more similar to a rowdy high schooler than a legendary person of science?

also mathematicians are pretty conservative by and large, and arguably mathematicians are in the highest standard deviation of "scientists".

>>8579503
>washington post
>credible

it's hilarious how they all pretend that they stopped writing fake news after they accused all the others of writing fake news

>whew, i sure am glad all that fake news stuff is behind us, right guys?

For your first point, scientists are idealists, products and reliants of the university academic system (which is liberal and dependent on a larger government), as well as specialized to a fault. They will focus entirely on their field of work and garble and ingest the New York Times on the side giving them a wholly liberal view of the world around them (that they fail to experience)

Your second question is bullshit and there is no source for that graph. I would put good money down on it either being totally false or obviously biased in its sampling. High and middle earners are conservative, I don't think stupid people wander into money and income (as we all know) is correlated with intelligence.

>>8579401
Science is pretty liberal and changes a lot, and cannot be locked into one simple view or tradition. It also requires lots of spending for new things/maintenance.

Scientists are people who study and practice science.

Gee I wonder why Scientists tend to lean left.

>>8579959
this made me think: I bet if the political views we consider liberal now were the norm and what we now see as conservative was the hipper and more "liberal" view, the data would still read the same. That is to say, it isn't these ideas that are inherently more intelligent but perhaps just how intelligent people interact with their social climates

>>8579423
its cause they know politics is a joke/a rigged game so they take no interest in it

>>8579558
Yet you brought up morals first. Guess'n you retarded.

Experience bias
People with high iq are people who were rised in at least an ok environment
People with high iq have much stronger domination over their ugres, for them things like knock out game are as alien as astrophysics are to people who play this game
Basically they cant relate to people who do bad things, they never wanted to do bad things, throughout most of their lives they never seen people do bad things, so they start to believe that people doing bad things is abnormality caused by something
Thus they believe that world can be fixed by just removing the discrimination, and everyone will be as smart and intellegent as they and everyone they know are

Intellectuals have always been more liberal than the average person. It's because intellectualism is intrinsically progressive. It almost requires being open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. This is directly opposed to conservatism.

>>8579948
> t. brainlet trying to justify his political views

Nah all those smart people are dumb. I swear!!

>>8579959
>>8580005
These two posts made /thread.

>>8579594
>noble intention
This site was created because some 15-year old wanted to talk about Japanese cartoons.

If this is true then how come so many geeks/STEMlords are right-wing?

Conservatives tend to lean towards what is known as "bodily-kinesthetic" intelligence.

>>8580050
Sperglords are right-wing. Real scientists are left.

>>8580050
Because focusing on things with right answers avoids the nuance of reality, and nerd-types have a tendency to miss forests for trees.

Actual scientists have to look at the forest when they focus on the bark of a specific tree, so the broadness helps them understand a left-style perspective.

>>8580005
This. It's basically
>well, it's true because those are the values I was raised with
versus
>maybe just the fact that seemingly everyone believes something is true, doesn't necessarily make it so

>>8579401
only an idiot would follow illogical social justice

Most of 4chan and similar sites used to be pretty liberal/libertarian until a bunch of sour-faced schoolmarms-in-training threatened to take away their porn and vidya.

>>8580073
What a dumb thing to become a nazi over though, you have to admit. It's childish.

>>8579868
This

Maybe it's because conservatives are generally anti-science? Trump for example doesn't believe in global warming

>>8580079
It's probably a factor. But as far as I know, it's always been that way.

>>8579401
Maybe people to lean towards conservative are more intelligent in a "bodily-kinesthetic" sort of way.

>>8580011
I know this is bait but yes.

You only have to look at your average leftist scientist(socialist and commies specifically). These "smart" people are actually retard losers that can't even get their basic ideologies to work IRL.

>>8580076
They can take our anime tiddies when they pry them from our cold dead hands.

>>8579503

political views have more to do with personal preferences than intelligence

>>8580084
so fucking butthurt you're literally trying to pretend there's more than one kind of inteligence

>>8580098
that's contrary to what OP said
OP gave his post evidence and you didn't

>>8579401
Perhaps it's because these somewhat-slightly-more-intelligent people have delusions of their grandeur, thinking "oh man I'm so smart I'm a special snowflake", thus believing in socialism and Occupy Wall Street and/or other "hip" political trends?

>>8580111
Kek has spoken

>>8580108
>trying to pretend there's more than one kind of inteligence

But there is.

Jews are skewing the results.

>>8579401
Because the right has completely 180'd and become extreme anti-intellectual and science-phobic over the last 40 years?

I think that'd be enough to explain it.

I'm sure if you looked back to the 50's and before, you'd find most scientists were right wing, for the reverse of the same reason. All the anti-science folks were on the left.

>>8580098
Sure, but personal preferences have plenty to do with intelligence.

I wouldn't say it's strictly raw IQ score. The style of intelligence is more important. Consider engineers vs. physicists. The engineer is intelligent because he can solve practical problems efficiently and creatively using the available tools. The physicist is intelligent because he can create (find) *new* tools using abstract reasoning. The engineer deals with the here and now while the physicist deals with the future.

Thus the physicist has to be more open about the future than the engineer does. It's no surprise then that engineers tend to be more conservative than physicists. In fact, more conservative than scientists in general.

>>8580108
It's pretty obvious there is, since from the graph anon posted almost every single occupation on the left side requires far less skill or intellect than the right

>>8580128
Exactly. I'd say the anti-illectualism has driven most of the educated people without any other interests (like doctors, people involved with oil or businessmen) off. Recently, the Republican party has nurtured a disgusting culture of ignorance and emotional argumentation. Everybody with half a brain can see right through it and recognize it as the bullshit it really is.

>>8580134
Both solve problems, the engineer is just way more specialized regarding what kind of problems he can solve. Engineers tend to be more conservative because it's in their interest. They are way more often self-employed or plan to or work in an industry that heavily profits from a less regulated environment.

>The engineer deals with the here and now while the physicist deals with the future.
What a load of shit, you have no idea man

>>8580128
But this is more about ideological lines than it is party lines. Most scientists are ideologically to the left.

>>8579401
Reality has a well known liberal bias

Most scientists can be rather conservative, but they will never question climate change, gender equality in general, or the non-existence of races.
Which probably makes them cucks or so for /pol/sters

>>8580148
I didn't know Reality was stupid enough to give all branches of government to the conservatives and lost to a manchild. I didn't even remember he was retarded enough to chimp out on major cities when his preferred candidate lost. Nope, he made the conservative won, weird.

>>8580148
>non-existence of races
You do realize there's entire industries of scientists who specialize in the difference between races for medical purposes and DNA research?

And there's no science involved with gender equality, that's entirely political. No sane scientist runs about saying gender differences don't exist.

>>8580148
>never question
sounds pretty dogmatic desu.

>>8580148
>gender equality
If they were then they'd all agree that E=MC^2 is a sexed equation and that Newton's Principia is a rape manual.

>>8579401
>high iq people tend to lean left
Incorrect
>high iq people currently tend to lean left
The concerns of the left will always change with time and the study cited gives no reason to believe that this trend will continue indefinitely

>>8579401
I noticed a few SJW-types have taken this opportunity to conflate liberal with their illiberal regressive ideology. This is the problem with these studies. They fail to account for the plethora of different ideologies and lump everyone into these two contrived labels.

I have no doubt the mean IQ of true liberals is being hampered by the retarded SJWs who get to piggyback through this lumping process. There is a reason why SJWs are more or less relegated to non-STEM while STEM is typically full of actual liberals, some libertarians and a few conservatives.

>>8579494
>matrix
>countably infinite axes
?

>>8579584
>>8579616

It fucking hurts.
I want to go back.
>right and left wing identity politics destroyed our identity
>our old nihilism has been replaced

>>8579401
This thread is proof that /sci/ is borderline retarded.

>>8580188
What's the difference between SJW's and an "actual liberal" though?

>>8580076
>>8580148
>>8579584

It's comments like these that make me fucking despise leftist so much. Little jackasses scared that 4chan is turning away from leftism and screaming about these big bad nazi meathead taking over the chans. I will tell you the real reason. That leftism is wrong, and that western civilization is dying, and 4chan main demographic are white males. White males are experiencing racial consciousness, and they all go far right. What a surprise.

>>8580208
Actual liberals don't trample over liberal principles like freedom of speech and equality of opportunity.

>>8579401
Two reasons:

1) Right-wingers generally used to hold the 'anti-science' views, so it used to be pretty obvious which side to take.
2) The more time you spend in education, the more likely you are to adopt the political views of the academics.

I could talk about ideological subversion and the lack of political diversity in academia, but that's closely linked with the two reasons I've already given.

>>8579401
Papa Hayek wrote a whole book for you, and yet you come on anonymous piss bottle enthusiast forum to ask your questions.

>>8580222
>Right-wingers generally used to hold the 'anti-science' views
I know that you said 'used to', but it's still funny to find this phrase in the same thread with
>>8580148
>never question climate change, gender equality in general, or the non-existence of races

>>8580110
>>8580134
How influential is intelligence as a factor?

How many members of the public understand anthropogenic climate change? Most I expect just have a vague notion of pollution and saving mother earth. Even if someone understands it they could still simply not care. Motives trump intelligence.

>>8579948
back to pol, scumbag
>>>/pol/

Reminder that if you are right wing and a scientist, your not really a scientist.

>democrat
>left

ayyyyyyyy

>>8580273
>democraft
>not leftr
whatre u onbout?

Science is a institutionalized rat race of people one uping each other with new ideas.

Often times those new ideas fall in conflict, if not outright challenging the status quo of traditional beliefs.

Because of this scientists will often find themselves going the opposite direction in terms ideology.

There's also the fact that those on the "left" will fund the scientists more on average than the "right" because of new ventures bringing out the potential for new money.

This is extremely true in a global economy where the need to appeal to different populations coincides with gathering new resources and money.

>>8579401
Scientists tend to be idealists with barely any connection to political life outside of their universities.

>>8580276
There is no left in burgerland,it's either right(democrats) or far right (repbs)

>>8580144
Engineers and physicists solve different problems in different ways. It's not simply about economic self-interest as the divide is social and religious too, and it exists in places much more socialist than the US. It is about the fact that engineering style of thinking is less abstract and less future-oriented than physics style of thinking.

The goal of the physicist is to create better understanding of the universe based on the assumption that assertions require evidence. That is, assertions without evidence cannot be considered true. To understand the universe, then, requires assuming popular thought can be incorrect, generating alternatives to popular thought, and determining which are supported by evidence the most. It is a style of thinking built on pondering about the future and logical consistency. He deals with the future.

The goal of the engineer is to make things. Math and physics are tools for the engineer same way a hammer and nail are tools for a carpenter. Like a carpenter, the engineer isn't concerned with how his tools were made as long as they work. He is concerned with the future in only a very particular kind of way: the conditions where his creation will fail. These are conditions he infers from his personal experience and the theories accepted by the physicist. Thus his concern with the future is really more a concern with the past, ie what has been true up until this point. He deals with the here and now.

Sure, this is a simplification as there are plenty forward-thinking engineers and there are physicists who slack on the scientific method. Further, we're talking more about a spectrum. That's beyond the point, though The point is that there is a different style of intelligence common in physics and engineering, one is more conducive to rejecting the status quo, and the divide is reflective of the liberal / conservative divide that exists between engineering and physicists.

>>8580254
>never question climate change, gender equality in general, or the non-existence of races
Well I guess the first question I have is which scientists never question that? What field are they in? I can understand a biologist having nothing to say on climate science, or a left-wing liberal social scientist buying into the non-existence of race.
Second question I have is; who says they don't question it? What does it mean to question it? Is publishing research that contradicts the consensus the only means of showing you're skeptical of a claim?
I also want to clarify my point about how right-wingers generally used to hold the 'anti-science' views.
I think in the US has more science funding when republicans are in power than when democrats are in power (but I need to check this again), and the increasing number of left-wing academics is only a recent development that seems to have begun with the cold war, which is when the US started to become super-religious in response to communist atheism. I feel like some of the right-wing anti-science sentiment might have stemmed from that, but I'm aware that religious science denial has exist for far longer. This is where I believe that ideological subversion has played a part in the rise of the left in academia.

>>8580259
Most don't really understand it and don't try to understand it because most members of the public have no issue with getting all of their knowledge from cable news, short news articles, fake news articles, 2-minute YouTube videos, 20-minute YouTube videos by conspiracy theorists, Facebook, and IRL conversations with equally uninformed friends / family.

>>8579437
Why is it conservative for me to not want to pay for college for other people?

I wouldn't really have a problem if it was only STEM, and not even that but hard STEM, not some bullshit BA in something.

I don't want to pay tax money for juan hernandez to get a BA in mexican-american poetry

>>8580002
That was a different guy, friendo. Yes, I believe traditional family values are moral.

I'm not saying I'm not accepting of gay people or for equal rights, but there is a ceiling to progressivism where it spins into degeneracy and it's not like it's theoretical anymore. This thread really isn't about that though.

Because universities are in general not a neutral ground but rather controlled by the left.

>>8580315
Republicans and Democrats spend similarly on science funding. The difference is where they put it. Republicans will gladly fund science when it feeds the military-industrial complex.

The stubborn hold of religion on Americans I believe is because of multiculturalism. Religion and ethnicity have been the main ways in which Americans have been able to differentiate themselves from one another and the way immigrants (especially those escaping religious persecution) have been able to maintain their ethnic identity.

It's funny how some people accuse SJWs of rationalizing "race realism" while they make the same desperate attempts to rationalize people being smarter (by their own metric; IQ) and leaning (american) liberal because of that.

Really makes you think.

>>8580210
>implying
4chan was never this bad prior to /pol/. There is no "us getting fed up". If we got fed up we would have joined our local political groups or did something about it in real life. As much shit as /pol/acks talk, /pol/ is a fucking safe space for right wing special snowflakes that's spilling over and ruining the rest of this website. I'd be cool with it if they kept /pol/ in /pol/, but we can't have civilized discussion on many of the other boards without someone coming along and trying to post political trite every other thread.

>>8580333
Its conservative because you want to conserve your money. Conservative implies a willingness to not change or spend/invest resources, liberal means you would rather spend/invest or try change.
You can be conservative on x, liberal on y, moderate on z and so on. Nobody with a brain picks a side and stays there.

because there is a higher amount of people on the spectrum in science who live in their own little bubble and care little about the common folk and how they are organized to keep society propped up.

>>8580148
>You're a good scientist if you never question anything, especially those concepts that are: questionable, objectively wrong, objectively wrong, in that order

I'm not convinced you aren't trolling, you already have enough replies, but not one has told you explicitly that you're a retard.

>>8580117
Will I level up my Existential Intelligence if I read Heidegger?

>>8580144
>engineer is just way more specialized regarding what kind of problems he can solve
Engineers fails to solve problem - people die.
Physicist fails to solve problem - lots of time lost.

>>8580333
It's conservative because your main argument is ignorance

Why are /pol/ users so self-righteous and obnoxious? Every post they make is written in such a shrill, hysterical, over-emotional tone.

We get it, you don't like leftists. Now go away and stop proselytizing and venting your emotions on a science and math board.

>>8579401
probably because scientists are good at filling in IQ tests?

>>8580300
You seem to have a bad idea of what physicist end up doing. Also you try too hard to see the reasons for the political views of groups of people somewhere deep inside the nature of those groups of people. Not only can't you see that this is a stupid approach to begin with as there's not a lot all physicist share personally, but it's also plain wrong. Political views are mainly determined by interests. It's really simple. Trying to connect some obscure ideas about the nature of physicists and engineers to their political views is simply ridiculous.

>>8580472
For example, this faggot: >>8580210

This loser is literally crying and having Turner Diary delusions as if anyone gives a literal fuck about what some NEET despises.

>>8579494
Do you know what a matrix is?

>>8580117
Except all of those highly correlate with a general intelligence factor.

>>8580507
Do you?
A matrix can be used to represent an infinite amount of axes in the political spectrum by having each row correspond to a facet of politics such as fiscal policy, authorian policy, social policy, etc. From there you can leave it as a vector with a single column corresponding to left-right lean and use real number values to gauge lean, or you can alternatively include a infinitely countable amount of columns ranging from far right to far left and then have values marked in the matrix with an X matching up political facet to left-right lean (thus making it more human readable if drawn and closer to the idea of a plane but not quite one exactly. It is also not as compact as a single vector matrix and thus inferior).

The matrix/vector approach provides a level of representation that a simple 2D plane just cannot provide by only offering authority policy vs economic policy like pic related does.

>>8580515
But they correlate better with socioeconomic status, wealth, past experience with test. The rest is all bullshit.

Similar results could be gotten if instead of taking an so-called "intelligence test" that people quit the bullshit and just split kids into different classes by finances, it would probably end up more accurate and kids could always be moved afterwards just as they are after standard "intelligence" tests.

>>8580484
>Political views are mainly determined by interests
You're illustrating the kind of surface-level reasoning that physics weeds out but engineering does not. Your personal and social "interests" are dependent on the way you see the world. Two people who see the world differently will probably have differing political views.

Of course there are things physicists tend to share and engineers tend to share. If they were the same thing, physics and engineering would be the exact same field. Someone does not just flip a coin to decide whether to go into physics or engineering, and the difference between the physicist and engineer are clear well before they get into grad school and have an immediate concern about how the political climate affects their ability to do research or work industry.

It is quite simple and not wrong to point out that physicists depend more on out-of-the-box, abstract, evidence-based thinking than engineers do. It is a fact that you become a physicist by discovering new things about the universe, while you become an engineer by using the ideas of physicists to build something. Clearly we are dealing with different kinds of thinking and "interests." If you don't agree, so be it, but unless you have something meaningful to say, I'll leave it at that.

8 chan lefty pol and all the reddit cucks trying to subvert the truly libertarian 4chan. fuck right off you internet jews

>>8579699
under8ed post

>>8580121
I'll say we are.

>>8580128
>the right has completely 180'd and become extreme anti-intellectual and science-phobic over the last 40 years
THIS. Asimov warned us back in 1980.
>There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

>>8580144
>people involved with oil
petroleum industry is turning against the conservatives too. the old guard is dying off/retiring, there are very few middle-aged petroleum geologists in industry (due to hiring freeze during oil crises) and the new ones coming into the industry have the education necessary to see just how stupid climate denialism is.
>the engineer is just way more specialized regarding what kind of problems he can solve
this isn't actually true. scientists tend to specialize in the workings of a fairly narrow band of something, whereas engineers are all about generalized problem-solving and design. their job usually requires more creative, open-ended thinking.

>>8580188
fucking THIS.
t. scientist, son of engineer

>liberals going hur the right wing is so stupid
>point out liberals being retards, such as every dumbass with large amounts of college debt or 80 IQ blacks/mexicans
>well they aren't TRUE liberals, so they don't count!

This is why the "uneducated" went for Trump in a landslide

>>8580269

Why are you on a science board if you're afraid of dissent, lol. Fuck off

>>8580011

They are smart. But they don't actually care to apply critical analysis to much other than what they are working on. I admit, liberalism is the "nicest" ideology as of now. In an ideal world, we can all be nice to each other, borders can be open, people can get "free" healthcare/college, and we are all of equal ability. That isn't the real world, conservatism is damage control and mitigation. That's how I view it. We live in soft times in the West and it has made us complacent to a fault. We are slipping and people won't realize it until it's too late.

>>8580208

SJWs are not operating out of principle. They are operating out of a distrust for white men, Christianity, and most traditional Western values. They pick and choose their flavor of racism/sexism/anyism rather than sticking to a principle like race blindness or real gender equality. It's in the name: Social Justice Warrior. They are dogmatic and ignorant fools as much as your common bible thumping fundie.

>>8579401
>[citation needed]

smartest man of all time, to ever live, in any time period, john von neumann, was a right wing republican

230+ IQ, 100% perfect eiditic memory, saved the world from russian nuclear domination, created the computer architecture we all use today, made a billion discoveries in math and science, and on and on and on

remember the quote "If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today?" guess who said that.

have a nice day :6)

>>8580689
>230+ IQ
Never took an IQ test
>100% perfect eiditic memory
Not possible
>created the computer architecture we all use today
Falsely attributed to him

Who is this board's next meme?

>>8580689
>230+ IQ

Imagine someone literally believing in IQ as a measurement of intelligence.

>>8580689
>230+ IQ
Anon, please don't do this.

>>8580689
Von Neumann was a not "man", he was a god and thus he doesn't count.

>>8580698
this is true

The prevailing theory among Mensa at the time was that he was born of the IQ, literally willed in existence by midi-chlorians. Another theory is that he was conceived by Darth Gauss and Darth Newton, who apparently were capable of creating IQ from IQlessness.

>>8580701

how does Jacob Barnett fit into this theory

>>8580689
But wait... if intelligence is genetic, as proven in many an IQ thread on /pol/... then why is his daughter Marina a liberal that advocates for regulation of corporations to ensure they maintain a level of social responsibility for the product they make, rather than letting the consumer do as they please, essentially pushing big government over small government? Also why does she advocate for corporate globalism and works as an integral part of global boards?
Did something go wrong, or does this mean John was an anomaly and his family's politics regressed to the mean for those with that IQ level?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN.

>>8580703
Always two there are, no more, no less. A master and an apprentice.

But which was destroyed, the master or the apprentice?

That is the question.

>>8580714
They say he had twins, and his son was separated during the cold war and went to a farmer family.

His IQ was split evenly between the twins, who are both IQ sensitive.

>>8580689
Was he? Wanting to nuke an evil empire version 2.0 isn't a right wing idea. Conservatives often hated Hitler too.

>>8580714
Because he probably was cucked by a dumber guy and has raised the other guys baby girl.

>>8580714

I have a belief that women, even smart women, have something in their nature, a gene or trait or just the hormones or whatever, that make them compassionate and empathetic to a fault, and it infects all of their politics.

My family is one of the closest examples. There are 4 of us children, all relatively smart (doctors and engineers), 2 men and 2 women. We were all raised in the same environment. Yet my brother and I are right-leaning while my sisters are liberals. I've talked with my sister at length about issues, I can get her to agree with things like unfettered immigration and the refugee influx are largely harmful for a modern economy, but she will fundamentally fail to care as in her own words she would rather operate out of charity than principle in that respect.

I don't want to call it "small-mindedness" but they can't reconcile their natural empathy with the objective, oftentimes "mean", principle necessary to participate in politics that have a greater impact than what is immediately apparent. If you aren't even fundamentally "for" the prosperity and common good of your own country alone (as opposed to the entire world) then how can you expect to vote in its best interests?

>>8580683
Most are just in it for the money or social success
They are totally insincere in everything they say or claim to value. Thats why they don't give a shit when blacks are worse off after decades of liberal policies, it doesn't matter to them.

>>8580731
its just women being women
This is why for thousands of years people knew to keep women out of politics, to let men run things

But of course we're "better" than that, and we can abandon the hard learned lessons of history.

>>8580689
>implying one man is statistically significant
nice bait desu

>>8580735

I do find it kind of funny that one of the reasons presented against suffrage around the time of the 19th amendment was that women were not capable of being emotionally detached from politics and it would harm them in that regard

then we saw this wailing, crying, suicidal shitstorm after Trump was elected

>>8580732
>blacks are worse off after decades of liberal policies
funny joke
you said something...and it wasn't true!
HILARIOUS

>>8580735
For thousands years we were also unable to properly feed our population or provide healthcare for them from common illnesses.

>>8580743

>homicides still skyrocketing
>70% rate of fatherlessness
>dependent on the state
>no end or improvement in sight

keep checking off that "D" though

>>8580745
that doesn't change biological realities

>>8579401
Look at all the right-wingers who genuinely believe the Pizzagate shit.

>top thread is a /pol/ thread
really makes you think

>>8580751
Empathy isn't something that should bare someone from politics, especially if it's just women being supposed to be more empathetic on average.

We've had plenty enough of failed real politics. Abandoning empathy doesn't lead you to some kind of enlightenment.

>>8580756
>Empathy
Cutting your own throat is not empathy

>>8580754
its also the dumbest thread

>>8580731
If that's the case, then why do women follow the overall trend for all humans where the dumber ones tend to be conservative? If it was the case that all women have a trait due to hormones which causes them to be more liberal, and they make up 50% of the population, then surely the absolute dumbest among the females would vote liberal since they would have less intelligence to counter hormones as compared to their more intelligent counterparts who are definitely liberal. In that case, liberals should always win all elections because they are guaranteed 50 percent of the vote minimum due to female voters. However we know this isn't the case, which means that the dumber ones must be conservative to act as a counter balance around the average IQ level (unless there is female voter suppression happening against female liberals to give conservatives a better chance, which can't be happening, because that would mean liberals are right about voter suppression).

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON.

SOMEONE EXPLAIN.

>>8580758
Males have higher suicide rates

>>8580751
According to this biological reality, Hillary Clinton is empathetic. We all know that isn't true, anon

>>8580764
Hillary Clinton is a walking disaster or incompetence that only got where she is through being a woman
The problem with women isn't that they are "empathic"
the problem is that THEY ARE WOMEN

>>8580754
This is more of an anti-/pol/ thread actually, it's funny watching these neckbeards try and make up reasons

>>8579484
It is unironically. Hasta la Victoria comrade adolf

>>8580760

I'm saying their intelligence is geared towards a different avenue, not that they are necessarily hampered. There are many parts of liberalism that have intellectual appeal. But you can fail by embracing sheer idealism and not tempering yourself with reality.

What I'm saying is that women err towards idealism. Even if something should logically not work out, and is tangibly not working out, they will continue to support it. Moral truth supersedes reality. Maybe it's a further symptom of our detachment in the West.

>>8580776

Reasons for what? No one ever actually posted evidence that liberalism is correlated with intelligence (measured by IQ). Just that scientists tend to lean liberal, a small fraction of our voting population.

>>8580748
>homicides still skyrocketing
SKYROCKETING, GUISE

>>8580748
DEFINITELY SKYROCKETING

>>8580793
>>8580795

>cutting off at 2010

hhehe

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/murder-rates-cities-fbi.html?_r=0

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-two-shot-to-death-in-uptown-marks-first-homicide-of-2017-20170101-story.html

wh-why are we going backwards??

>>8580798
>>8580795
>>8580793

also

>patting yourself on the back for having a Brazil-tier homicide rate

congrats on leaving El Salvador rates at least

>>8580756
It's not about empathy. It is about group-think.

Abandoning groups and losing groupthink allows you to think things you would not have been able to think otherwise.

>>8580756

the United States achieved a rise to power off of a minimally empathetic national policy

it's important for the community but not for your regard for out-groups if we're talking about being the best country you can possibly be

>>8580804
So women are more advanced because they don't think about their countries only?

>>8580814

Or actually harmful for their country and people, in the long run. I guess it depends on what you consider "advanced". I see it as a global extension of their natural predisposition to be nurturing.

>>8580784
Again, if women, especially the intelligent women, err towards politics of idealism and liberalism due to their intelligence being geared differently as a result of hormonal influences, then that would mean that all women must err in that general direction because the minds of the dumber ones must be getting influenced in a much harsher fashion due to the hormones and a lower level of ability for logical reasoning. This would mean that all dumber females should be guaranteed liberals, or at most a more significant population than the intelligent females should be guaranteed liberal. If the majority of the dumber ones are guaranteed liberals, and we say that the majority of the smarter ones are liberals due to hormones, that means that the supermajority of women overall must be liberal due to IQ scaling with ability for logical reasoning. If the supermajority of women overall are liberal with the majority on liberalism growing greater towards the lower end of the IQ scale as a result of hormones and a corresponding lack of reasoning, and they constitute 50% of the population, and we know men are split on libs and conservatism about 30 to 70 in favor of conservatism, then that means liberals should always win every election off of the female vote+minority male vote.
We know this isn't the case.
It would imply that either hormones don't correlate with political ideology, that voter suppression is actually occuring, or that the dumber females must be conservative to act as a counterbalance to the smart ones we know report liberal.

Somethings up, bro. The points don't add up.

>>8580798
>>8580801
STILL SKYROCKETING

>>8580820

Of course I am speaking very generally. This entire thread is about generalizations. There are still women outside of the "normal" box who are conservative due to some reason or another. Just like there are plenty of men who are liberal. But why are men majority conservative, while women are majority liberal? That is what I was addressing. There is a schism there, a decently large one, that begets a different explanation than simple environment. That is all I am saying. I think you're obfuscating this.

>>8580822

Now show the African-American one alone. Look at that bump in total homicide rate. Must have been a pretty decent shift in the black rate to register so highly in total since we know nothing changed in the white community recently. 2015 and 2016 have been deadlier than usual.

Is all you have semantics? You're happy that it's 2016 and black communities are shooting each other up for sport? To each their own I suppose, I just thought their lives might matter.

>>8580798
There's a blip as a result of gang warfare inceasing in chicago where gang members are killing other gang members. The overall homicide rate across the country is still on track for decline sans that blip and is way lower than in was in the 90s.

>>8580833

>a blip

It has been increasing in many major US cities, for two years now. I guess "blip" is a pretty subjective term but I don't think it's a good sign desu.

>>8580814
Women are more often than men parts of groups. As far as I know it is quite a bit rarer with female hermits than male.

>>8580829
>we know nothing changed in the white community recently
ah, nothing funnier than the /pol/ack who is so certain it must be the fault of Teh Negros and Teh JEWZZZ that he doesn't need evidence.

here's an idea: if you think the murder victimization of blacks in the USA is "skyrocketing" based on a small uptick in overall murder rate (after 23 years of steady decline) why don't YOU post the statistics showing so? do your own homework.

>>8580804

Name some classic examples of matriarchal groupthink

>>8580844

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/09/19/murder-rate-in-cities-up-13-1-in-2016-new-report-projects/

Two years of steady increase in homicide rate, nationwide.

I'm not the faggot putting his head in the sand and claiming there isn't a problem. I guess only /pol/ cares about the fact that there is a war going on within our country, then I'll gladly accept that label. I don't want to be associated with liars.

>>8580845
I'm kind of sure you can come up with some on your own.

>>8580844
It's probably not skyrocketing. It's been on the same level ever since slavery was replaced by for profit prisons in the american system.

>>8580845

I'd say fashion is bigger for them than men. Especially post-"liberation".

>>8580854
Not an example.

>>8580861
Groupthink != fashion

>>8579680

> talks about free will

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719091622.htm

>>8580865

>Groupthink != fashion

how not? They basically coerce themselves into ridiculous standards as a collective

e.g. shave your entire body, wear heels, makeup as obligatory

>>8580839
In a number of those cities, the homicide rate was already relatively low and thus reporting percentage increases is causing more hysteria than deserved.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/08/us/us-murder-rates.html

A place like Las Vegas saw the number of homicides rise 14 percent, but many outlets neglect to mention the fact that the overall number of raw murders for Vegas was already relatively low compared to other major cities to start with, and the corresponding body count from the percentage increase is nowhere near as big or as alarming as the number of murders which occur in cities like Chicago where the 2% increase corresponds to tens of more dead per 100,000 citizens. A 14% increase in Vegas could be attributed to a several random events due to low numbers such as meth lab getting blown up purposefully, a single incident of someone going postal at work, or group of tourists finding themselves getting involved with the wrong crowd. For all intents and purposes, a climb there could be considered a "blip".

Raw numbers on murders show the deadliest cities as being Chicago, Baltimore, etc. All places with known gang warfare problems. However we can see that the raw murder rate per 100,000 in cities like these drastically differ when you scale the black population across them. Baltimore has a 63.7 black population, Chicago has a 32.4 percent black population, and Vegas has an 11 percent black population. Chicago had a higher murder rate than Baltimore in 2015 and Vegas's overall murder rate doesn't scale with national FBI numbers like it should given the black population or either city mentioned. So we know it cant inherently be a black problem.

It's a gang problem, where the gang members happen to be black.

>>8580865
Fashion is definitely a form of groupthink. Basically any social measure of success is, and women seem to be a bit more susceptible to that than men.

>>8580865
My job is not to give you examples. My job is to teach you to think for yourselves.

>>8579401
because argumentum ad antiquitatem is more popular.

higher IQ people tend to be interested in trying new things out, whereas regular people don't want to rock the boat and say "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

>>8579544
>Looking at what people actually voted

>tfw to intelligent too vote

>>8580901

>If we remove gangs and blacks the homicide rate isn't actually rising

Wow, thanks for sharing man

The total, national homicide rate, was up 12% in the past year. It had risen the year before as well. No amount of your cherrypicking changes that.

>>8580933
>tfw no comfy professor position in a community college where i can find sneaky ways to help young people into more healthy and productive ways of thinking.

>>8580346
Traditional family values CAN be moral.... Non-traditional values can be moral too.

>>8580848
>Two years of steady increase in homicide rate, nationwide.
That article is about the 30 largest cities, not the nation as a whole. Now, I don't subscribe to WSJ, so if there's a bit from that article talking about the nation as a whole that supports your claim, I suggest you quote it directly, because the opening passage doesn't say what you're saying.
not to mention, the article's looking at overall murder rate, not murder victimization among blacks. which kinda undercuts what you're trying to say here.

the murder rate increased steadily for two years in 2004-06 too. and what do you know, it was just a blip in the steady decrease (that began, oh yes, under Bill Clinton).
keep going with the damage control. sure is SKYROCKETING in here, you betwetting alarmist.
>maybe if we tell the blacks that Democrats never did anything for them, they'll believe it?

>>8580959
Not cherry picking bro.
Heres a list of major cities, their homicide rates for 2015, and black population percentage of the cities.

>St. Louis, Missouri 49.91 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 49.2%
>Detroit, Michigan 43.52 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 82.7%
>New Orleans, Louisiana 38.75 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 60.2%
>Baltimore, Maryland 33.84 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 63%
>Newark, New Jersey 33.32 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 52.4%
>Buffalo, New York 23.22 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 38.6%
>Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 22.43 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 26.1%
>Memphis, Tennessee 21.38 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 63.3%
>Atlanta, Georgia 20.47 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 54%
>Cincinnati, Ohio 20.16 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 44.8%
>Chicago 15.09 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 32%
>New York 3.93 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 25.1%
>Los Angeles 6.66 per 100,000 -- Black percentage 9.8%

As you can see, homicide rate doesnt scale with the black population at all. There is a general trend where less blacks lead to less crime in major US cities, but there is ridiculous variation in the data sometimes showing crazy results, like a city with half as many blacks as another city having greater homicide rates than the other city. None of this data scales properly when you try to attribute violent crime to black people. It implies that the numbers produced on violent crime is not majorly due to anything inherent the black population, but rather, something affecting some of the cities. Its the gangs affecting the cities, not the black people. And violence scales with gang presence closer than it does to black population.

Tl;dr - Violent crime has seen an increase as a result of more gang members killing each other, and a few more incidents of bystanders getting caught in the cross fire. National homicide rate has gone up because more gang members are killing.

>>8580999
spics are about half as criminal as blacks, and even more of them are in gangs

Also calling this "gang violence" is totally false
It's like trying to blame muslim behavior on terrorists

>>8580999
trips for truth

>>8580933
Tuck in your powerlevels buddy.

>>8580989

No it isn't. If you'd read the entire thing you would have seen the points they made about the national rate as well. You accuse me of being non thorough and then want me to spoonfeed it directly to you because you can't be assed to make it past the opening paragraph? Ok, it's in those bullet points.

You're right, I am assuming the black rate rose as well. The fact that Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C. are leading the charge is what makes me assume the rise is driven by black inner city violence. I guess you could assume it is a sudden surge in white gangs but I'm not sure that would be predicated in reality. I know it isn't the reality in Chicago. What are Rahm Emanuel and Obama doing for their home city? Would Obama's son look like the children being shot in his city's streets for fun or do they need to be killed by a white man first?

>maybe if we tell the blacks that Democrats never did anything for them, they'll believe it?

All of this shit, the "cop brutality", violence, fucking trash city water, squalor, poorness, constant welfare, fatherlessness, can be majorly attributed to Democrat stronghold major cities. How, pray tell, do you attribute this failure to Republicans?

Only one party stands to benefit from the continued misery of blacks: Democrats. A scared, useless, dependent person will continue to vote for the hand that feeds them, and will never achieve independence.

>>8580959
Murder rate is climbing due to gangs in certain cities killing each other at a higher rate. Most likely turf war nonsense corresponding with the growing heroin epidemic in major cities.
We would see a decrease in violent crime with larger drug decriminalization so that illicit operations dont operate as efficiently or viciously due to a lack of cashflow from reduced drug trade.

>>8580999

Considering blacks are only 12% of our national population, I would say it scales just fine. They commit a disproportionate amount of murder. It isn't going to perfectly correlate with the amount of blacks in the city, that's true, but it's beside the point because I didn't say more blackness = more murder, culture by city can affect it.

It has always been about gang members. I never claimed otherwise. Why aren't you asking yourself why militant gangs continue to exist in Democrat cities? This shouldn't be a problem today.

>>8581012

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think being a part of a gang stops you from being an American, black, or part of the homicide epidemic.

Drug decriminlization could be a solution, true, there could be many solutions. I'm saying no one is pursuing solutions, not even their sworn leaders.

>>8581015
Using FBI statistics where blacks constitute 12% of the population and result in a homicide rate of 4.904 murders per 100,000 DEFINITELY doesn't scale with the black percentage in US cities (15,696 murders in 2015 with an estimated national population of 320,090,857). Some of these cities are way less violent than they should be while others are way more violent.

It doesnt scale fine at all.

>>8581021
>no one is pursuing solutions
I agree, that is the problem. We need solutions which correct the violent culture being casually accepted and taken on in the cities.

>>8581008
>If you'd read the entire thing
kinda missed the part where I pointed out I don't sub and therefore can't get past the paywall.

>The fact that Baltimore, Chicago, and D.C. are leading the charge is what makes me assume the rise is driven by black inner city violence.
so why isn't violent crime rising in every city with a poverty problem and a lot of black people? riddle me THAT. after all, if it's just about black people, shouldn't there be more violence everywhere they are?
could it possibly be that gang violence is the issue, rather than anything inherent about black people?

>What are Rahm Emanuel and Obama doing for their home city?
for one thing, pushing for universal background checks so yahoos can't drive to Indiana and buy twenty pistols at once without any sort of oversight.

>All of this shit...can be majorly attributed to Democrat stronghold major cities
there you go again with your stubborn insistence that things have gotten worse for black people. just because things suck for them now doesn't mean that they weren't worse before Democrats enacted things like anti-discrimination laws and sentencing reform.

again:
>maybe if we tell the blacks that Democrats never did anything for them, they'll believe it?
the /pol/ pitch to black people (and to a lot of white people too, honestly) rests entirely on this persistent fiction that things are worse than ever.

>>8581044
>the /pol/ pitch to black people (and to a lot of white people too, honestly) rests entirely on this persistent fiction that things are worse than ever.

No it rests on the objective fact that blacks will always lag behind every other race of human beings that aren't the pygmies and abos. And that their inability to properly function in a first world nation rests on the average genetics of blacks and its harmful to first world nations. If the USA would legitimately see huge jumps in standard of living measures just by having no blacks, then we have an obvious racial problem.

It's funny to see that your best argument is that cities don't "scale fine" at all. But that doesn't change the fact that there is NO black majority city in the United States that has a crime rate on par or below the US average. High black violence is a global phenomena.

>>8581096
I don't know that the problem is obviously racial on the part of the blacks considering that crime, poorness, etc. doesn't scale properly to the amount of blackness a city has across all cities in the nation. If it were totally a result of black people being unable to function in a first world society, we wouldn't have any statistics showing a one city that's blacker than another being less violent or not as poor.
If the discrepancy is attributed to culture differences by city, then that would imply blacks are in fact capable of adherence to a culture, and that the problem is that the wrong culture is being allowed to grow in some of these cities.

>>8581096
>objective fact
>unquantifiable and unsupported prediction
pick one and only one

>their inability to properly function in a first world nation rests on the average genetics of blacks
see that's the thing. you cloak your ideology in scientific terms by claiming that it's all just genetics, but there's no actual evidence (as I'm sure you're dimly aware) to support you.

>there is NO black majority city in the United States that has a crime rate on par or below the US average
cities, REGARDLESS of demographics or color, tend to have high crime. it's a well-known effect of population density.

>>8579561
it's also accurate to say that /his/ is loaded with ignorant left-wing retards who shout down actual history in favor of their ideologically loaded horse shit.

>>8579467
That doesn't actually refute the assertion that high-IQ individuals lean liberal.

>>8581430
The smart righties don't give a shit about IQ. They have more important things to bother with than stroking their own ego.

>guy points out that black homicides are high and rising again and a problem
>myriad of liberal posts explaining why they're not (when they are) and why it isn't a problem

The real leftist treatment, I'm looking forward to 50 more years of this.

>>8581608
You should visit /sci/ sometime

>>8581608
haha, funny joke.

>>8581614
only a /pol/esmoker could look at these figures
>>8580795
>>8580822
and conclude that black homicides are climbing precipitously and threatening the American way of life.

>>8581632

4.5 to 4.9 over one year isn't a joke for total. And it's even risen higher the past year so now we're looking at 5.5-6. That's just the total numbers.

Pretty steep rise considering we'd been plateauing for a while (not improving). Please put your head back in the sand and stop bothering us.

>>8579418
Self interest.

>>8581643
oh wow, a small two-year excursion is TOTALLY some crazy new factor upsetting the 20+ year trend. of course, you guys are also the ones who think that the increase in sea ice from 2012 to 2013 proves that AGW is fake.

(and yes it is a small excursion compared to recent history. it only looks big in comparison because the rate is so low; the early '90s saw MUCH bigger fluctuations.)

>>8580061
no, only people who base their opinions on "no true scotsman" logical fallacies are left

>>8579926
The question is about scientists, not the general population.

>>8580005
/thread

>>8581665

>even more hand-waving

please go on, this is compelling stuff

I don't personally think the children getting shot for sport consider it a small excursion, it may be so from your cushy middle class home

>>8580005
There's group-think in any institution and political direction. Doesn't have anything to do with being open to new ideas.

On the contrary: You are more open to new ideas the less invested you are in any one group.

>>8581677
>hand-waving
this from the guy who
>Must have been a pretty decent shift in the black rate to register so highly in total since we know nothing changed in the white community recently.
>there is a war going on within our country
>blacks will always lag behind every other race of human beings
>the USA would legitimately see huge jumps in standard of living measures just by having no blacks

>w-won't someone think of the children
>some kid got shot, therefore murder rates are SKYROCKETING
>muh anecdotal evidence

>>8581678
But ironically, the less invested you are in any group the more likely you are to be disregarded as a crazy hermit or outcast. Everything is a balance between social credibility and freeing your mind to think clearly. You can't have 100% of both of those at once.

>>8580689
>230+IQ
I don't even think the republicans were right wing at the time. He may have been conservative though, I can't find anything on him besides he was against the pacifism of the other physicists he worked with.

>>8580689
230 IQ, do you know how many standard deviations that is. It's very unlikely that anyone with such a high IQ has ever lived.

>>8579416
Hold the phone are u saying Democrats don't forget the shit out israel?

>>8579401
I don't understand this graphic at all. Are those supposed to be confidence intervals? Is it implying that literally everyone has at least a 90 iq? Why are there baby confidence intervals at the bounds?

>>8580050
Neets on the internet who think they are good with computers are not scientists.

>>8580689
Being anti-communist does not mean he is supportive of the social policies and anti-intellectualism of conservatives. Hillary is apparently socially liberal but wanted to be aggressive with China and Russia (no fly zone, but ships in the Far East).

>>8581678
>There's group-think in any institution and political direction. Doesn't have anything to do with being open to new ideas.
Being open to new ideas means being open to the old ideas being wrong, ie being more likely to question the status quo. This is obviously opposed to conservatism and groupthink.

The fact that conservatism and groupthink exist everywhere to some extent is not in dispute and is irrelevant. It's obviously a spectrum. We're comparing the extent they occur between two groups.

>>8580694
>230+ IQ, 100% perfect eiditic memory, saved the world from russian nuclear domination, created the computer architecture we all use today, made a billion discoveries in math and science, and on and on and on
4000 iq

>>8579628
It's all fucked up, we have invented the most powerful form of communication, and we are using it mainly for trading imaginary money, instead of helping people close to us.

I mean, historically the argument for having a government has been something like "some people are assholes, and without a government they would be free to have their way with you".

But that thinking is from before internet, it's outdated an just wrong. Today whole world knows if you're an asshat before you do.

We are at the moment so incredibly wasteful, throwing away useful shit left and right. What if instead we shared (pun intended) everything we don't need or use right now via internet.

People could live without money. Cyber anararchism is soon reality. This is what jews don't want you to know.

>>8579401
>Scientists tend to lean left
>High people tend to lean left

Why?

>>8579709
Underrated

>>8579948
Or maybe people with big paychecks don't want the enviroment they thrive in to change, thus adopting conservative views. Liberal-conservative axis is all about the question: "Is it possible for everybody be happy?". Liberals try to achieve this utopia, while conservatives see chasing this dream totally pointless, and potentially dangerous to our species. Of course a large percentage of the voters are idiots who subscribe one or other ideology just because they were taught to, having no understanding of underlying principles, making the distorted caricatures of both demographs we know and love today.

>>8579969
>It's liberal to want to chance liberal society to conservative one.
Dude you make no sense, are you sure you ain't just justifying yourself being a nazi?

>>8579401
Smart people are naive and dogmatic ideologues.
And they fail to realize not everyone is like them.
They've also lived their life in an academic bubble so they lack any experience that would show them otherwise.

Also these:
>>8579709
>>8579948

>>8580210
Kek'd

>>8580247
Politics isn't science...

Worst thing that ever happened to blacks was democratic policy.

Why do you call someone dumb for not sharing your subjective opinion?
Anyone who gets upset about politics has an inferiority complex.

>>8581727
No. Read up on groupthink.

>>8582028
Some people get more upset over others being wrong than themselves being worse off or looking bad in any sense.

>>8581973
People make up the government and some of those people can be assholes or assholes will at least strive to get in there. As the government has a violence monopoly then those people can force their way on you.

>>8582011
>Uneducated people are naive and dogmatic ideologues.
>And they fail to realize not everyone is like them.
>They've also lived their life in a rural small-town bubble so they lack any experience that would show them otherwise.
oops

>>8582024
t. Someone who knows 0 black people

idiots tend to think political alignment is as simple as left and right

>>8579401
Centrist highly conservative here.

>>8582170

Not him but I grew up in a poor, majority black neighborhood and I agree. AMA

>>8582001

>Totally pointless

No, it just needs to be tempered, and gradual. And people need to realize not all "progress" is positive and can cause new harm where there wasn't any.

>>8581682

I didn't say half of that you idiot animeposter.

>>8579868
Only the ones who don't have emotional intelligence

>>8580714
>then why is his daughter Marina a liberal that advocates for regulation of corporations to ensure they maintain a level of social responsibility for the product they make, rather than letting the consumer do as they please, essentially pushing big government over small government
Intelligence comes mainly from the mother. It matters very little whether your father is a genius or is Down's Syndrome-tier. You have to assess one's mother intelligence to have some notion whether they are smart or dumb.
(I am a Liberal myself, just trying to point this flaw in your bait)

>>8582588
>Intelligence comes mainly from the mother.

citations fucking needed

>>8579584
can this site still be a satire again? i've been avoiding 4chan since a cousin told me abou it (almost 5 years or so), but my curiosity kicked in and some of the content made me apreciate this comunity for the lack of care the posts were writen for the sake of laughs, irony and satire, but then i noticed the hotheads that really get salty and now i have a love-hate relation with 4chan

>>8580759
nice cuck comic

>>8582591
Google that yourself. It's a well known cientific fact. Even Tesla attributed his intelligence to his mother.

>>8582976
>Google that yourself.
LITERALLY THE VERY FIRST GOOGLE RESULT:
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/
YOU NITWIT

>>8583227
Ok