But there is a way to measure the intellect and ideological slant of people who publish writings, it turns out. This method is called the Retiel Technique for generating ”Siegel-Spaeth ideology scores (normally used to estimate the ideological position of judges)”:
”For this study, 200 law review articles were randomly selected from a pool of 30 student-edited law reviews in the WESTLAW JLR database. Content-analysis software was used to generate Siegel-Spaeth ideology scores (normally used to estimate the ideological position of judges), and the Retiel technique was used to provide an estimate Stanford-Benet score for the author of each article. Standard techniques were applied to determine the statistical significance of the resulting correlations.”The findings were conclusive: there is a negative correlation between intelligence and being “Progressive”. In fact, the findings were a linear progression, with more Progressive being linearly correlated with less intelligence, according to the test results.
”The results do not confirm the standard hypothesis. Siegel-Spaeth ideology scores that indicate "progressive" ideology were negatively correlated with the Stanford-Benet estimates. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (-0.61) provides strong evidence of a negative relationship between progressive ideology and intelligence. This Pearson's R value included a small group of anomolous data points. 7 of the 200 articles had outlying Siegel-Spaeth scores; in layman's terms, these articles had scores that indicated extreme left-wing political ideology; these same articles had very high mean Stanford-Benet scores. If these outliers are excluded from the sample, the Pearson's R value decreases from -0.61 to -0.89 (a result that approaches linearity).”The reason that the populations of certain institutions are heavily-to-completely Leftist is not natural selection, unless natural selection for these jobs is selecting the lesser intelligences. And perhaps that is the case, because the degree of non-dogmatic, non-PC thinking is minimal in these institutions. They deny absolutes and stick absolutely to the same agenda without deviation. Deviation in thought results in banishment – and that is the selection procedure.
Here we have evidence; if the Left is evidence-based, then they will admit to their error and endeavor to fix the imbalance of intellect in their institutions. Will they?
15 comments:
And then there are papers that show conservatives are dumber than liberals.
And the shrillness goes on...
I would love to see the debate elevated higher than this kind of crap.
The sketchiness of intelligence evaluation, in the first place, aside, the hodgepodge of beliefs that can be placed under either the liberal or conservative aegis makes such studies rather suspect.
If what makes a conservative the opposition to an ever growing state authoritarianism and a corroding libertarian amoral individualism- then I'm a conservative.
However, if what makes a liberal the opposition to a monopolized market in which the ever increasing power of a self-aggrandizing elite propound the "virtue" of the "free" market while throttling the middle class- then I'm a liberal.
I just don't what other people mean by these terms
The problem is, reality has an extreme liberal bias. Someone should tell reality to watch Fox News more.
Martin,
I think this was a direct response prompted by the Leftist assertions that they are more intelligent, therefore self-selecting, in the face of their constant demands for "diversity".
I have to admit, though, that the article you reference at Time is pretty funny, and did the service of dismantling the argument that Leftists are more intelligent. I didn't expect that from Time.
Combining two old adages, "A young man who is not Leftist has no heart; an old man who is not conservative has no brain".
Ginx,
If reality is evolution, then it is brutally non-Liberal. If reality is Liberal, then where does that leave evolution?
If reality were Liberal, children would form into collectives rather than fight over toys. If reality were Liberal, governments would create wealth and dispense it equally to their citizens, who would never receive consequences for their actions, being victims of society. This could go on and on.
Come on, try it out:
If reality were Liberal, then...[fill in the blank].
"I would love to see the debate elevated higher than this kind of crap."
The irony of someone linking to an article that propagates this "crap" just broke my irony meter this morning :)
Let's elevate the debate. What should the focal point of discussion be?
Russell, what do you have for us?
You're asking, in all seriousness, to elevate the level of discussion of what amounts to school ground taunting?
If basic principles are at odds, what type of discussion do you expect?
You are assuming I have a problem with the that; I'd expect the leopard to change his spots before the nature of the discourse to change.
What we are seeing is basic human nature, and as a Christian, I see the fallen nature of such.
It's a symptom, not a cause.
Chris, can you see the humor in someone gripping about the divisive nature of Stan's post by linking to an article that is merely more gas on the topic?
I found it highly amusing.
Russell,
My point was that the left does it as well. I linked to an example of the same kind of nonsense.
I hunger for the days of Aquinas, when an opponent was first required to recite his opponent's view back to him until he was satisfied it was correctly represented.
Nowadays its all about beating up on a caricature of your opponent.
I see your points, M & R.
Time to come clean. There is no Retiel Method. This whole thing is a hoax.
A hoax? But, but I define my world view through random blogs and posts!
Well played, sir, well played :)
Bullhorn, you seem troubled bro, you let your frustrations speak for you. It's such a shame your posts never amount to anything worth discussing at length. So much wasted potential, which you spend engaged in an angry sort of mental masturbation. Not the most elegant coping mechanism, chosen more for feeling than practical function, but I suspect you're not well versed with any alternatives. Might I recommend a visit to a licensed therapist? It would be a good first step to treating your intellectual impotence.
Russell,
I got hoaxed too, but I let it ride for awhile after I found out... it was too much fun.
Ah Bullhorn, geared up for another session of self satisfaction I see.
Don't fret overmuch in keeping me informed of your progress, the real proof of your improvement will be obvious in your absence.
My interest in the blog is based on the philosophical arguments presented, I may agree or not, but I never leave with the impression that those who actually participate in discussion here, versus those simply trolling for the "lulz" or some fleeting moment of ego stroking bliss, are the ones lacking a proper functioning collection of neurons. While I give you credit for accepting the possibility you possess some mental inadequacy by sparring here (among the your fellow impotent intellects), I urge caution in self diagnosis and again encourage you to seek professional guidance.
Post a Comment