Left-Wingers more intelligent and empathetic than Right Wingers.

[Spudz]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Let's put it another way; is it wise to make the pursuit of wealth the object of one's life?

Wealth is a by-product of someone's contribution to society, under free-market conditions

The more one contributes to society, the wealthier they become... Obviously, that doesn't necessarily mean its wise, but it certainly doesn't mean its not wise either!

[Cato]

Wealth is a by-product of someone's contribution to society, under free-market conditions

The more one contributes to society, the wealthier they become... Obviously, that doesn't necessarily mean its wise, but it certainly doesn't mean its not wise either!

It's 'a' by-product - not the only one.

[feargach]

Wealth is a by-product of someone's contribution to society, under free-market conditions

The more one contributes to society, the wealthier they become

So Paris Hilton...

I guess her contribution to society must have been amazing, given her net worth on the day she was born. Apart from a grainy video and some unsuccessful reality TV, I'm not aware of any contribution, though.

[chriskavo]

A very interesting study by the Royal Society has suggested that political affiliation might be more down to nature than to nurture. The study found that left-wing people tend to be more sociable and less afraid of the new, while right wing people tend to give increased time to those things they find offensive - thus they will bang on much more about their gripes, and with more vehemence, than left-wing people do.



Interestingly...


Socialists and conservatives may be born not made | Carole Jahme | Science | guardian.co.uk

Meanwhile (and yes, I know it's the Daily Mail I quote, but the study is real), kids who score high for intelligence grow up to be lefties...


Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online



I say nothing, I merely bring to your attention...

Nutting knew dare.

[feargach]

... but, but, but I thought selfish people are supposed to be right-wingers.

selfish people wouldn't vote to give tax cuts to strangers. The majority of right-wing voters are not wealthy. Voting to further enrich people you don't know whilst starving the hospital you depend on: I think of a lot of words for such voting, but selfish isn't one of them.

The finding is that they're a bit on the slow side, and not very warm towards others.

[Spudz]

selfish people wouldn't vote to give tax cuts to strangers. The majority of right-wing voters are not wealthy. Voting to further enrich people you don't know whilst starving the hospital you depend on: I think of a lot of words for such voting, but selfish isn't one of them.

The finding is that they're a bit on the slow side, and not very warm towards others.

You're basing your 'point' on an assumption which makes no sense.

Right-wing voters believe in low taxes and a slim State, they don't want a nanny State meddling in their private affairs, they want to be in control of their own lives.


Left-wing voters want to pay high taxes in exchange for entitlements. Basically, left-wing voters believe a bloated State knows best, which is absurd since its been proven beyond a shadow of doubt the State wastes tax-payers money on cronyism, high salaries, quangos, golden handshakes, market-intervention, etc, etc.. Furthermore, a bloated State isn't able to adapt quickly enough during the business cycle (increase and decrease of the credit supply), thus during the down turn the State increase taxes on the private/public sector instead of cutting back spending in the public sector because the political class are scared sh!tless of well organised unions... Anyone with an ounce of knowledge knows right well the State can't tax its way out of a recession because the State would kill its host (private sector). Besides, the velocity of money travels much faster in the private sector than the public sector, so why should people hand over their hard earned money hand over fist to the State? It's stupid.

So there you have it; we can either have a society dictated by an inefficient State or a society run by and for the people.

Either way I don't care since I'm a freeman

[Spudz]

So Paris Hilton...

I guess her contribution to society must have been amazing, given her net worth on the day she was born. Apart from a grainy video and some unsuccessful reality TV, I'm not aware of any contribution, though.

That doesn't disprove my point though...

Wealth is definitely a by-product of someone's contribution to society, under free-market conditions

why would you care if someone decides to donate their wealth to someone else?

[Prester Jim]

My apologies
I forgot that Sinn Fein is also belongs to left

So beyond a joke you have no proof?
Disappointing.

[hiker]

A very interesting study by the Royal Society has suggested that political affiliation might be more down to nature than to nurture. The study found that left-wing people tend to be more sociable and less afraid of the new, while right wing people tend to give increased time to those things they find offensive - thus they will bang on much more about their gripes, and with more vehemence, than left-wing people do.

I say nothing, I merely bring to your attention...

I heard a phrase the other day.

If you didn't voted Left in your twenties, you were heartless...

If your were still voting Left in your fifties, you're brainless...

I say nothing, I merely bring to your attention...

[yobosayo]

No, that's the issue we are having. There is no way such a correlation could be drawn from the study. There are too many extra variables that are unaccounted for
and not recorded in the studies so it would be an erroneous extrapolation to make.
This has nothing to do with voting patterns/socioeconomic status or educational attainment at all.

Here is the Abstract from the paper

Socioeconomic status and the level of educational attainment of the participants and their parents were biased from the study.

The findings are based exclusively on the cognitive abilities of the participants. The paper and its conclusions are here if you wish to read them - Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

Some of us did read the piece.

As an initial matter, what is the opposite of "schools should teach children to obey authority"? That "schools should teach children to disobey authority?" So what were some agreeing with?

Next, who defines what it means to be "conservative"? The humans who concluded their paper by stating that they did not "identify" but instead "exposed"? Some say much by their choice of word.

Lastly, a comment to a piece on another website:

Of course, as a smart liberal, I’m initially skeptical of any study that offers a too-convenient conclusion. I’m willing to accept appropriate evidence, but my reaction is the same as the quote you didn’t include:

“My speculation is that it’s not as simple as their model presents it,” Nosek said. “I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where ‘People I don’t know are threats’ and ‘The world is a dangerous place’. … Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful.”

Almost forgot, but for my fellow US Repubs, pay some no mind:

Republicans are 40 per cent more likely to have good sex, claims survey | Mail Online

Always knew that the Dems were horribly frigid souls. Unlike Nikki:

People like me probably up the stats: I'm a conservative female who gets a minimum of four or five climaxes, every time... 40% of the time sounds terrible! What are those people doing, exactly?!

- Nikki, Boise, USA, 03/2/2012 06:39

I don't know, Nikki, but apparently there is something horribly wrong with those people (you'd have to consider yourself an abject failure if you can't get her off at least a single time). The survey otherwise puts the whole lefty "free love" movement in context, as in the 40% who can are still trying to find some fellow lefty who isn't one of the 60% who can't. Also seems a sufficient explanation for why the Dems are so fond of throwing the ad hominem label around (i.e., simply lashing out owing to their profound sexual repression). That said, to avoid the label of, not empathetic, here, my lefty Dem friends, this might help:



The Republican motto...sit back and get yourself relaxed...

And this usually sets the mood as well:

Enigma - Principles Of Lust - YouTube

Well and truly lastly, do me a favor, my lefty Dem friends, don't tell the Gregorian monks that we're using their inspiration to get our rocks off (as that wouldn't be empathetic).