Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors

The world is being brought to you by stupid people.

Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.

The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour.

38 Replies to “Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors”

    1. I’ll take your word for it. I don’t read Binness Instigator normally and won’t disable my ad blocker for this item. The sample is very small. And, like all of these so called “personality studies”, I take it with a grain of salt. What is surprising is (1) it seems to an accurate assessment at least superficially, and (2) it’s on Binness Istigator, a site that is neither about business and certainly is not an insider for anything.

  1. Also, journalists appear to score higher than traders in coping with pressure, it seems. Counterintuitive. That said, it seems the mindfulness and thoughtfulness of the War Correspondents during the 1930s and 40s are now thoroughly absent, and we are poorly served by the current crop of “professional” “journalists”. I recall during my varsity days 20 years ago, taking on the grad students in J-school at Trivial Pursuit. We did this on a quarterly basis. There was not a single event where we did not KICK their @##e$ sixty seven ways to Sunday. We were the undergrad students of the mathematics department, just FYI… Beating the crap out of grad students in J-school… Sad… Just sad…

  2. Those who can’t … teach. Those who can’t teach … become journalists and lecture the successful on how to become failures like them.

    1. Like that “famous book” called “How to do it and not get it” written by “One who did it, got it and can’t get rid of it”

  3. “The results showed that journalists’ brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, particularly because of dehydration and the tendency … to self-medicate with alcohol, caffeine, and high-sugar foods.”

    Shit. I’m a journalist and didn’t even know it.

  4. This scientist/leadership coach was just taking someone’s money in doing this study.

    On this side of the pond: some great moments come from the foot journalists who are in the right place at the right time. Example, like FOX NEWS’ Ed Henry, who asked Hilary Clinton whether she wiped her computer. To which she asked him whether he meant, like “with a cloth?” It sank her. Of course it’s someone else’s fault.

  5. As fun as it is to turn the table on journalists, a general rule I have is to be skeptical of studies which valudate your biases, particularly anything coming from non-STEM studies. The replication success of these studies is not good, about only a 20-30% successful replication rate. This one looks weak.

    That being said, journalists (being overwhelmingly on the left) would not hesitate to gleefully report on studies that paint anyone to the right of them as inferior. Conservatives, libertarians/CL, rural, small towns, Christians, non-university educated, etc. are all fair game when a new “redneck hick studies” report is released. In a way, I suppose their blind acceptance of studies they agree with but don’t understand the weaknesses of the research methods kinda proves the conclusions of this post’s research. 🙂

    Journalists never question opinions or studies that validate their bigotry and biases so turnabout is fair play, I guess.

  6. “make connections where others might not see them. ” – FTA

    And where they might not even exist! RUSSIA!
    The drinking behavior certainly reflects my years in journalism. I thought they’d decided that was just an entitled white guy thing.

    1. I think the standard bearer for that is the Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman interview. That journalist was able to “make connections where others might not see them.” too. I guess that ability doesn’t mean that those “connections” are in any way accurate. What most people see is a journalist who completely ignores what a person she dislikes is saying and then substitutes her own interpretations of what she assumes they are saying. Substitutions and connections that always conform to the biases of leftists.

      Perhaps the ability to be able to listen, comprehend and then accurately report on opinions and people they dislike would be a better skill set for journalists if they want to have trust ratings higher than politicians and used car salesman. Journalists seem unable to see issues from perspectives that are different from their narrow(ing) point of view.

  7. I watch the local TV news about every morning while having breakfast. It is pellucidly clear to me that news readers have huge gaps in their knowledge and understanding of a great many things…many of them extremely important things. They merely parrot what’s written for them by ‘real’ journalists…who are equally ignorant. Then I listen to the weather forecast just before I go look out the window,

  8. I am not questioning the findings, but…

    I assume this also applies to journalists who work for Fox and Breitbart, too.

    It seems to me, an absolute lack of honesty and integrity are the biggest factors affecting today’s mainstream media. I submit that every damn one of them was at least smart enough to KNOW they were misrepresenting Trump’s ‘animal’ comment and outright LYING to Americans about what he actually said.

    I’d rather deal with a slightly stupid man who displays honor and integrity over a purposely deceitful brainiac any day of the week.

  9. Fox was aware last year that the UK had wiretapped Trump Tower, but they suppressed that information because it had come from inside the Justice Dept…. Judge was disciplined for his breaking of this News story.. We now know that the UK was wiretapping in the USA
    and Obama had authorized this unconstitutional action.. Little Fool.. Jeff Sessions is silent

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEALLDb0Mmw

    The Media have created most of the Russian nonsense, knowingly providing false information

  10. We have to remember that a journalist’s number one priority is making money for his employer, whether it be CNN, Fox News, the Washington Post.

    It doesn’t matter whether what the journalist writes is 100% true or she includes some fairy tale or a “the sky is falling” story line.

    In Donald Trump, the media have found a gold mine.

    I call this the “Megyn Kelly Phenomenon”. Remember how Megyn Kelly took one of Mr. Trump’s conversations with a woman out of context and twisted to make it sound salacious and even obscene? Remember how the first Republican debate – August 2015, I think – brought in 24 million viewers for Fox News?

    Fox News, CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times all got the memo. In fact, I suggest it was leaked to them.

  11. Hmm journalists are sociopathic, bigoted idiots. Like their shtick, this is not news.

    A prof at RMC once opined research to a “journalist” meant picking up the phone.

    That was the 80s and it’s much worse now.

    If only that was the standard now, which instead has deteriorated to reporting all the news fit to make up.

    The 4th Estate descends to the 5th Column via Frankfurt school addled ignoramuses bereft of life skills.

    Never ask a reporter about anything – politics, economics, sports, … the majority of them haven’t a clue.

    1. No,they are meteorologists, and some of them are damned good looking no matter what you call ’em!

  12. this study is bull$hit on so many levels. It’s fails to identify urnolists social character, and past studies have shown that social lefties function in a much more “emotional” level than right leaning people, and that there flaw negates the whole damn study.

    Hey Unthing you idiot, peer review is not needed to validate a study. Einstein’s theory of general relativity was never peer reviewed.

  13. Hmmm, this is almost funny. Can’t decide haha funny or stupid.

    Apparently some scientist (using the term very loosely) studied “journalists”.

    Heh, if they spent money on people that comment here or if they just looked up the comments they would have saved whatever money they spent on the scientist and they would find out those that are interested in the affairs of men know this by instinct.

    So, what’s the deal?

  14. I’m in aviation. Whenever some news story comes out about an aircraft accident, the journalists get the “facts” completely wrong. An aviation expert might say that the airplane “stalled,” and the journalist says that the engine quit, which is not what happened at all. Or they’ll say that a flight plan wasn’t filed, as if that guaranteed an accident. This sort of misinformation makes one wonder about articles on everything else, doesn’t it? Why can’t they simply report what the experts tell them, word-for-word, instead of putting their own spin and interpretation on it?

    1. Dan, I know what you mean. A number of years ago a report was filed declaring a plane had crashed because an engine fell off. Being a pilot I surmised the twin had “lost an engine.” It wasn’t long before a correction was issued declaring there had been an engine failure.

  15. Did it show they had a brain!!! Mark Kelly from CBC told it like it was one day, we (meaning CBC) decides what you should hear!! That was when I stopped listening to CBC. I read blogs and some News paper online that I know aren’t to bias you really have to do your home work to find out what is the truth. It’s like TRUMP said FAKE NEWS!!!

  16. …”Forty-one percent of the subjects said they drank 18 or more units of alcohol a week, which is four units above the recommended weekly allowance.”
    ============
    Can someone please define what a “unit” is ?, I fear I may not be getting my recommended weekly allowance.

  17. Who hires the journalists? Journalists whom we read or watch or listen to are not necessarily in their positions based on merit.

    They are there due to ego, in which case they will say whatever they have to say to get the job.

    Or they are fundamentally incurious and/or stupid and as such simply do what they are told.

    Or they are fellow travelers who know precisely what lies they are telling.

    Thanks to the net, there are more highly intelligent highly curious highly ethical individuals who are actually journalists who are able to now communicate directly to the masses.

    I would suggest that the sampling of journalists in this study contains few if any that do not fall into the first three categories I mentioned.

    Thankfully for the net we are able to see the charlatens for who they are. Unless your a Liberal.

Navigation