Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
CrowEpistemologist

Republicans are dumber than Democrats...

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Check out this great survey on American's views on evolution.

 

The key findings are this:

 

1. Only 43% of Republicans say they believe in evolution vs. 67% of Democrats.

 

2. After Obama got elected, 11% less Republicans (from 54% to 43%) believed in evolution.

 

In a blog posting today, Paul Krugman states that this shows evidence of tribal behavior. That this is people "going with the flow" and accepting (overtly anyhow) all sorts of religious nonsense and perhaps even religion in general for the sole purpose of being identified as a Republican. One only need to think of recently recently minted Ayn Rand detractor Paul Ryan as an example of a willful lobotomy in order to get with his party.

 

Another explanation--and one which I think must at least partially be the case--is that many of the dumb-dumbs switched parties as the Republicans have become their party. (It's hard to tell based on the numbers presented in the summary).

 

The survey, by the way, is encouraging: 68% of young people believe in evolution compared to 49% of old people. That's a good trend to see, and bodes well for the future. (Politically it means that the Republicans have yet another "Hispanic problem" in placing all of their bets on the wrong side of a demographic trend).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, evolutionary biology is a topic pretty far removed from most people's lives. I would bet that most of the people who declare themselves believers in evolution, also have little or not clue what it is. Crow included.

Not to mention that it's not a political issue, so it makes no difference to me which party's supporters believe in what.

Meanwhile, here's a political issue that's been in everyone's face for the past 150 years:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans

That says it all. Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to hang with people who believe the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth once a day.  Endless entertainment.

 

In today's day and age one cannot "believe" in evolution or not, one is either ignorant of it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect. Don't ever change, Nicky.

 

The point seems to be this:

The average voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of science isn't a threat to my rights.  The same voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of politics can be such a threat if they support the wrong system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point seems to be this:

The average voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of science isn't a threat to my rights.  The same voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of politics can be such a threat if they support the wrong system.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight; I have no interest in defending either party, or trying to figure out which one is less irrational on average. That doesn't seem like a great use of my time.

But I do want to say that evidence of irreason in the Republican party -- even if we're talking about religious attitudes to evolution -- makes me afraid of their having political power. (Same goes for the Democrats and their typical beliefs.) While one's belief in evolution may not be "political," per se, I do not trust a person who cannot tell fact from fantasy, and who does not embrace reason generally, to be able to make sound political decisions. Politics ultimately rests upon both Metaphysics, Ethics, and Epistemology, after all, and I do not find Christian positions with respect to those philosophical areas to generally be compatible with a proper defense of either rights or Capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry about anyone who identifies his/her self as either a Republican or a Democrat. Anyone who can't think independently of these two collectives may provide entertaining conversation, but I wouldn't expect they can explain the miserable performance of their associates. As for Darwinian evolution, I've seen some terrific videos and read a couple of great articles on a-genesis, (life from no life) but I'd never claim to be an authority on the subject. It simply makes more sense than the Biblical-Genesis theory, therefore I would answer a poll in support of the theory of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I think the first real mistake is identifying as a Republican or Democrat.

 

  Still it has been plenty clear to me that the Christian right is filled with ignorant people who don't care about the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point seems to be this:

The average voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of science isn't a threat to my rights.  The same voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of politics can be such a threat if they support the wrong system.  

 

LOL. You ought to try reading Ayn Rand someday...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, evolutionary biology is a topic pretty far removed from most people's lives. I would bet that most of the people who declare themselves believers in evolution, also have little or not clue what it is. Crow included.

Not to mention that it's not a political issue, so it makes no difference to me which party's supporters believe in what.

 

It doesn't concern you that in either case, tribalism seems all too common? Republicans often politicize what shouldn't be politicized. Yeah, it's non-political, but that's because you're rational about it. Plenty of Republicans would make evolution political by controlling it in schools. This is threatening. It also doesn't bode well when many members of a self-defined groups hold not only wrong beliefs, but beliefs on subjects that are easier to grasp than government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another study that got a lot of attention recently found that people who identify themselves as tea-partiers (not Republicans generally or conservatives generally) are better-informed about science than people who don't.

 

In any case, creationism is no stupider than global warning, and the people who fell for that are, I gather, mostly Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't concern you that in either case, tribalism seems all too common?

Tribalism is a specific thing. And it's not religious people joining the same political party because they agree with each other. This is partisanship, spurred by common religious beliefs. It's natural for religious people to associate with each other.

As far as whether religion, the cause of that partisanship, concerns me or not, sure. But I'm not gonna try to have a balanced conversation on the role of religion in society, in an arrogant, out of touch with reality, talking point repeating, troll, "blah, dey are dumb, look at how dumb, blaaaaaah" thread. There are threads for that conversation, this isn't one of them.

The only point worth making, in this thread, is that Crow is wrong, and that Democrats are in fact even stupider and more uninformed than Republicans.

Republicans often politicize what shouldn't be politicized. Yeah, it's non-political, but that's because you're rational about it. Plenty of Republicans would make evolution political by controlling it in schools.

I agree, public schools are a huge problem. A political problem, which exists because a majority of Democrats and independents, and 17% of Republicans, are illiterate enough as far as politics, economics and history goes to not realize that socialism might not be the best of ideas. Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point worth making, in this thread, is that Crow is wrong, and that Democrats are in fact even stupider and more uninformed than Republicans.

 

 

Illiterate is supposedly reading Ayn Rand and completely missing the role of epistemology and metaphysical beliefs on politics. Concluding that a widespread belief that an ark once contained all of the animals in the world has nothing to do with political outcomes is, well, hilarious. I have an odd sense of humor though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point worth making, in this thread, is that Crow is wrong, and that Democrats are in fact even stupider and more uninformed than Republicans.

I think their support of socialism tilts the stupid balance well in favor of Dems, but just in case, here's some more facts in support of that proposition:

1. far more Dems than Repubs support CO2 emission limits as the means of preventing AGW.

2. more Dems than Repubs believe in reincarnation, ghosts, spirits, homeopathic medicine, and the list of new age bullshit goes on and on and on.

3. far more Dems than Rebubs have a hysterical fear of GM plants

4. more Dems (including one Sen. Barack Obama) entertain the idea of vaccines causing Autism:

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included." -Barack Obama, 2008

5. Probably most importantly, Dems in power are far more likely to use the precautionary principle (an un-scientific, irrational, deeply destructive approach to government policy) than Repubs (point nr. 4 is a prime example of this).

By using this approach, Dems have shut down or ground to a slow crawl most industries. But yeah, let's all worry about Republicans bias against evolution. Because what could be more important than making sure no one believes something wrong, no matter how inconsequential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky's right.

 

Unfortunately, in a future Republican presidential primary debate, the lefty moderator will probably ask, "Who doesn't believe in evolution," and everybody will probably raise their hands.

 

[side note: Unforunately, the party has been so co-opted by the massive voting block of evangelicals that if a candidate doesn't raise his hand, he'll probably lose the primaries in states where you have to be a registered Republican to vote.

 

And unfortunately, at that moment in the debate, with all hands raised and millions watching, and even a mind as great as Crow's concluding the Dems are therefore smarter: millions of lesser minds are sure to be lead to the same erroneous conclusion.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tribalism is a specific thing. And it's not religious people joining the same political party because they agree with each other. This is partisanship, spurred by common religious beliefs. It's natural for religious people to associate with each other.

 

It's pointless to argue who is dumber, both parties have a lot of stupid members, even if stupid about different things. Rationality displays itself in more ways than politics - and if I want a rational society, I should know what ways society is irrational. Republicans seem to be irrational about basic things, though. In any case, I do mean tribalism. Republicans and Democrats have a hive-mind of beliefs, not just agreement. Organized religion by nature creates tribalism, and besides, political parties create tribalism too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still pretending that the Republicans and Democrats are different from each other?

 

Come one.  The only the difference is a few concretes and the excuse to use government force against others. And frankly the line is starting blur there. 

 

Although it's good to see Krugman give an answer that is based on more collectivist thinking.  He continue to expose himself at an amazing speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controversial psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa says Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives.

He also says black women are not attractive. I didn't even have to google that, that's how famously dumb that man is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky's right.

 

Unfortunately, in a future Republican presidential primary debate, the lefty moderator will probably ask, "Who doesn't believe in evolution," and everybody will probably raise their hands.

 

[side note: Unforunately, the party has been so co-opted by the massive voting block of evangelicals that if a candidate doesn't raise his hand, he'll probably lose the primaries in states where you have to be a registered Republican to vote.

 

And unfortunately, at that moment in the debate, with all hands raised and millions watching, and even a mind as great as Crow's concluding the Dems are therefore smarter: millions of lesser minds are sure to be lead to the same erroneous conclusion.

Ever since evolution became an issue, both Dem and Repub candidates have been very carefully skirting the issue. To the best of my knowledge, no recent candidate on either side is on the record rejecting the Theory of Evolution.

The of course all had "questions" about it, and none of them unequivocally dismissed creationism or even intelligent design (that includes Democrats and Republicans), but none of them came out against the Theory of Evolution, recently. I say recently, because there is one President who did take that extra step, and unequivocally rejected evolution in favor of creationism. That would be Jimmy Carter, the dumbest President in the history of the United States.

http://www.icr.org/article/presidential-support-for-creationism/

So what makes you think that the next Republican President will blow his chances of getting elected by rejecting the Theory of Evolution?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point seems to be this:

The average voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of science isn't a threat to my rights.  The same voter's understanding and opinion of a theory of politics can be such a threat if they support the wrong system.  

 

Do you assume I have not or do not read her material?

Well, if I may, without the rude attitude if I can, because I understand where Crow is coming from. Usually, objectivists like to criticize other libertarians on the grounds that they have a too "thin" a conception of liberty, that is, that any set of values and principles can be embraced by anyone, as long as it is non-aggressive (see for example the horrible Craig Biddle article in TOS.) Instead, they advance a "thick" conception of liberty, that is, that libertarians should be committed to additional values other than simply non-aggression, which for objectivists ranges from ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. So it is unusual to see objectivists defending Republicans on the ground that, hey, if they aren't a threat to my rights, then who cares what they think.

 

I'm guessing the snark comes in particularly because usually these objectivists are busy condemning all libertarians, themselves excluded, as evil, immoral, scum, etc. and worse than socialism.

 

Let us abstract from the Republican and Democrat parties. Let's say there was a Free Market Party candidate, who stands for liberty and non-aggression, he doesn't want to coerce anyone, but he is a racist, and wants freedom so that he can privately discriminate, and will galvanize others to do the same. Should we just say, hey, he isn't for violating rights, so it makes no difference? No, precisely on grounds of libertarian thickness, this kind of candidate would be rejected by various thick libertarians, not least of which the leading group is objectivists. Now that is not to say that suppose the only alternative to racist Free Market Party guy is Socialist party, who will do lots of coercing, but they are against racial oppression, then in that case things are a bit harder, but still, on other grounds I think we have reason not to support modern electoral politics at all, but that's another story.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still pretending that the Republicans and Democrats are different from each other?

 

Come one.  The only the difference is a few concretes and the excuse to use government force against others. And frankly the line is starting blur there. 

 

Although it's good to see Krugman give an answer that is based on more collectivist thinking.  He continue to expose himself at an amazing speed. 

 

What about his answer was "collectivist thinking"? I didn't find his answer complete since I think there's a tendency to dumb people to shift to the party that makes the most sense to their prehistoric superstitions, and hence it wouldn't solely be the "tribal effect". Clearly the answer is some combination.

 

But what about that analysis is "collectivist thinking"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

So it is unusual to see objectivists defending Republicans on the ground that, hey, if they aren't a threat to my rights, then who cares what they think.

 

 

Insofar as it's inconceivable that massive political change is going to happen even within a few decades, it's idiotic to even focus on politics as such. I see the demopublicans as equals, politically.

 

Change will come from a reintroduction of reason to our culture.

 

Upholding Noah's Ark as the unquestioned truth is not simply a misinformed scientific theory (like say GW), it's a transparent and obvious rejection of reason. One believes in GW because one has been given evidence and/or is trusting those they understand to have evidence. Right or wrong, at least its on the right track.

 

A Christian, on the other hand, rejects the entire notion of evidence as invalid.

 

So yes, it's sad to me to see Objectivists attack what few allies they still have in our culture and collaborate with their deepest enemies in exchange for an apparent surface-level alliance of values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Both sides of the same counterfeit coin"(roughly) AR. Mystics and skeptics. One bunch 'knows' by Divine Intercession and the other sneer at that and state (with certainty) that you can't know anything for certain.

Collectivism and tribalism isn't a foregone conclusion with mystics - but it sure as hell is with skeptics.

Evidently my fairly benign experiences of Christians differ from all yours, but I estimate that skeptics are the same all over the world. Big Statists,

anti-conceptualists, all. Don't be fooled by their 'scientism'. This is only another god-authority to them, a simple substitute, like the State. They are not so smart at all, I think, but come across as sophisticated intelligentsia with ideas parroted from all the cool sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if I may, without the rude attitude if I can, because I understand where Crow is coming from. Usually, objectivists like to criticize other libertarians on the grounds that they have a too "thin" a conception of liberty,

 

I think we can stop you right here.  My post and this thread doesn't address Objectivist attitudes towards libertarians.  It addresses a poll that says Republicans reject the theory of evolution more than Democrats.  My original point stands.  If some politician (it doesn't matter what his party is) comes out and says "I'm very skeptical of theory of evolution" then my reaction is "yes that's a dumb thing to think but what is his platform?".  If he openly endorses a dangerous ideology like socialism on the other hand then I wouldn't consider voting for him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×