19 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Research?”

  1. Ahhhhhhh eugenics… where would we be without ya!
    It’s like communism…. it just hasn’t been applied right.

  4. The stupidity of the assertion is that conservatives have a negativity bias, well….all my liberal/left/Marxist aquantances are the ,most pessimistic people I know while my conservative friends are optimistic about most everything. When Saskatchewan started to throw off the doom and gloom, second class thinking fostered by the CCF/NDP ruling class [sic] our economy and society began to climb out the abyss that it had been in, in fact, instead of our brightest exiting the province, the brightest from other areas have been migrating here.

  5. Ah, so of course when a liberal swings to becoming a conservative, it must be – by definition – a genetic change that’s behind it. You, know, an increase in the activity of genes regulating “negativity bias” and all that.
    Likely caused by external factors, which must now be identified and regulated. Like Global Warming(TM), for instance. Nothing that governments cannot cure for their people. They just need more money and resources to stamp out this problem.

  6. I would respectfully disagree with the assumed ‘negativity bias’ with respect to conservatives.
    Conservatives believe:
    1. that less government is a net benefit to society, without self important busy bodies attempting to control ever more aspects of one’s life, it promotes freedom of action.
    2. hoplophobia is a mental disease. Guns are useful tools to control predators in farming communities, and are plain old fun at the shooting range.
    3. the science is never ‘settled’ as traditional scientists accept that every hypothesis is by definition ‘falsifiable’; which promotes actual ‘free’ inquiry.
    4. The ‘anti-women’ rhetoric of the ‘feminazis’ championing the Kermit Gosnells of the world, is an exercise in intellectual bullying. Having a healthy regard for nascent human life is a positive for human culture. Being pro-life is means you value women for their generative abilities to ensure the continuation of the human species and society has greater meaning than your own immediate gratification.
    5. God is not dead, life not just about accruing wealth and your life has more meaning than flotsam and jetsam in the ‘great cosmic stream’.
    6. The proposition that conservative or liberal bias is a function of biological determinism is completely unproven; and neglects the problem that humans can act freely despite physical, cultural, or political barriers and influences.
    In short, one could vote conservative even though one was raised in a liberal household. One could change parties, like Churchill did after suitable reflection. On this basis alone Hibbings ‘theory’ is falsifiable as it neglects human freedom. Further, there is nothing more arrogant than a liberal suggesting, ‘oh you poor little conservative, you just can’t help it you’re defective at the biological level, you shouldn’t be allowed to breed you might spread intolerance’.
    More of the same recast eugenic pulp fiction, based on figments of fevered liberal imagination.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  7. Eugenics works just fine. If you can stomach it.
    Unlike communism, which never works.
    If you take a 1000 grey dogs and are a little ruthless about which one gets to breed with which one ( and which ones don’t get to breed at all), you can pretty rapidly get black or white dogs within a few generations. ( or taller or shorter, or short or longer haired, nose length.. tail length)
    Closer to home, if you took a random human population and prevented the tall from reproducing, pretty soon you have a lot of shorter people. ( Or smart/Dumb, or etc…) the effect is well known, documented and common. ( e.g. The average height of men entering the army in France dropped significantly (several inches) during the Napoleonic wars, they killed off an entire generation or three of taller recruits and left the really short guys at home with the women.)
    Also if you prevent morons or criminals or the insane (pick whatever group you fancy or don’t) humans from breeding in a semi-closed environment (i.e. if you import/immigrate new ones it doesn’t help that much) your society will have fewer of the above in the future, but with Humans it’ll just take lots longer to be noticeable for obvious ( you have to raise the kids for 17 years ( at a minimum)) reasons and have some iterations of generations.
    Does anyone actually deny this as anything but observable reality ( as a general case)?
    Heck you can even go the full-on Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, or Adolf, and not just prevent them from breeding but actively hunt whatever you do not like down, and kill’em. One generation and you’ve pretty well eliminated your undesired type, +/- a some pruning in the future. this is common in tribal cultures: Conquer the tribe, kill all the men, enslave and impregnate their women, one generation to no more of conquered tribe ( for all intends and purposes.) Why do think history is full of losing tribes committing mass suicide when they lose some war, rather than surrender? The men knew they were going to be killed anyway, the women didn’t want to be part of their new reality.
    Those idiots above though were generally eliminating ideological ideas though and that’s actually much harder, hence the research above as bogus as it sounds.

  8. So a progressive/liberal would be less “attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli” and therefore less likely to “adopt tough, defensive and aversive ideologies”. So the lefties/progressives are more likely to be oblivious to that part of reality which does not fit their preconceived notions and less prepared to deal with adversity. Bring on the zombie apocalypse then, and we’ll be rid of the progressive voter base.

  9. I remember waaaaay back when Edward O. Wilson’s book Sociobiology came out. Much the same premise, that social behavior in humans has a (very) strong biological component because all lower animals are that way.
    Well, the Lefties went berserk, didn’t they?
    Then a little more recently there was The Bell Curve, and the Lefties went full-on psycho-chicken.
    JP Rushton dared enter the sociobiology ring as was subjected to the Lefty berserkers. Leading the charge, Dr. Fruitfly himself.
    Now we have a guy claiming to be able to identify a biologically based, hereditary “negativity bias” in a particular political group and we hear…
    [crickets]
    Wait, they’re a little slow. Any second they’ll go ballistic. In 3, 2, 1…
    [crickets]
    …
    Hey, is this thing on? Can you hear me now?

  10. Hans, regarding #5:
    A group of Mormons had a “free hot chocolate” table set up along the “walk” portion of my daily commute in Calgary yesterday. They just asked that you participate in a short survey. I passed on the hot chocolate, but enjoyed the survey. The first question was “do you believe that there is a God?” Yes.
    The second question was “What is the purpose of life?” I enjoyed this one. This is where I think the difference between liberal and conservative will be most obvious. My answer was “For an individual unit (cell or snail or human) there is none. The biological imperative for a group or species is survival of the group.” In other words, the individual’s purpose is subordinate to the purpose of the greater group (however one identifies the greater group). By this token (and on the topic of Kate’s post), those who live a hedonistic lifestyle are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool, so their beliefs should be allowed to expire when that individual does. Only by being parasitic can these anti-procreation groups survive. There are a variety of behaviors that I’m grouping together as hedonistic, but what they have in common is that those who follow them tend to not have and raise/train their kids themselves at the level of procreation that is needed to grow the society.
    On the eugenics front, actively trying to decrease the numbers of others to the levels that your group has voluntarily assumed is a losing proposition, long term, and should be avoided. I also think that destruction of the tried-and-true means of passing on our group’s ethics, morals, and drives (aka the nuclear family) fits into this as those who are well raised and secure in themselves are less likely to fall for the parasite’s garbage.
    The Mormon girl who was asking the questions’ eyes were a little crossed after the 2-3 minute explanation, I imagine she wasn’t used to people actually thinking about the answers to such vague and general questions. The third question had to do with which church I went to (and whether I would like a lot of follow-up visits to change the third answer). As much fun as I could have had with them with multiple visits, I declined to participate in follow up.

  11. Excellent post Commander.
    As I was reading the article I began to wonder about which slime pool each group evolved from. I concluded that Conservative thinkers evolved from the noble lion (Aslan) branch of the Tree of Life and the Liberals haven’t evolved past the slithering belly crawlers.

  12. Well, just like in Damon Knight’s classic science fiction story, “Idiot Stick”, lefties like to wield power over those whom they deride as idiots, but are acutely worried that they’ll find themselves on the wrong end of the stick.

  13. “Only by being parasitic can these anti-procreation groups survive.
    ……
    On the eugenics front, actively trying to decrease the numbers of others to the levels that your group has voluntarily assumed is a losing proposition, long term, and should be avoided. I also think that destruction of the tried-and-true means of passing on our group’s ethics, morals, and drives (aka the nuclear family) fits into this as those who are well raised and secure in themselves are less likely to fall for the parasite’s garbage.”
    BINGO!
    Ironically, the hedonist and feminazi element fail to recognize that it is the health and durability of the nuclear family, that permits a certain amount of excess baggage, before the parasite kills off the host society…
    Moreover, the whole notion of ‘same sex marriage’ is an element of this ideological bent, as it is biological fact that necessitates a ‘genetic cul de sac’. I wonder if all the ‘same sex marriage’ proponents would accept ‘scientific Darwinism’ in the context of ‘survival of the fittest’ for these purposes…?
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  14. I disagree with the notion that politics is hereditary. My mother is an NDP parasite who has never been able to hold a job and has a huge sense of entitlement. My father is also an NDP supporter and he was a unionized millwright in Ontario who couldn’t understand why the economy went to $hit under Bob Rae and why his job disappeared. I don’t get along with either of them and never will. They treated me as a black sheep because I think differently, don’t have a victim mentality, and went into the military. Because they treated me badly, I will never let either of them meet their grandchildren. I don’t want them infecting my children with their socialist filth mentality.

  15. Scientists study the physiology of the human brain as it pertains to political opinion and you guys see it as a path towards the creation of concentration camps. Bravo on that incredible leap of paranoia.
    What is terrifyingly ironic here, is how you guys pretty much prove this thesis by coming to the conclusion that this kind of research will result in the persecution of Conservatives. You actually do “go through the world more attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli—and then they adopt tough, defensive and aversive ideologies to match that perceived reality.”

  16. Meh. I bet this machine really only detects IQ. Less than 85? Definitely a liberal.

  19. John, perhaps you should have googled the author of the study that suggests that Liberals have a higher IQ. Satoshi Kanazawa has a chequered history of coming to poorly substantiated conclusions. In his own words
    “The PPVT is properly a measure of verbal intelligence, not general intelligence.”
    There are several types of intelligence, including verbal, spatial perception, mathematic and written language. He did not administer a broad spectrum general IQ test to his test group but rather chose one facet of intelligence only and extrapolated that to obtain general intelligence. Also his study confines itself to early adulthood only. I don’t know about you but I’m now a lot wiser than I was in my 20s.
    Read for yourself…
    http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation