Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Are conservatives functionally illiterate?

Posted 6 years ago on May 21, 2012, 5:02 p.m. EST by francismjenkins (3713)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. ... What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values--that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire.


Maybe not illiterate, but apparently pretty close :)



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

At one time scientists contrived evidence attempting to disparage the intelligence of black people and other races (other than white).

When will you all stop this bigoted waste of time?

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Maybe I deserve the hit given the disparaging title, but this isn't a contrived study. I mean, we really are long past the days where a scientist could get away with lying about his research or data or how he crunched the numbers or whatever (much less lying for the sole purpose of disparaging a large group of people). Below the somewhat inflammatory headline lies a much more profound idea. There may be a link between IQ and altruism.

[-] 2 points by CarlosFenito (36) 6 years ago

"I mean, we really are long past the days where a scientist could get away with lying about his research or data or how he crunched the numbers or whatever"

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil Jones


You're adorable.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Funny ....

“The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.”


I guess scientists will probably need a fucktard translator for their email.

[-] 2 points by CarlosFenito (36) 6 years ago

They will if they are emailing other pseudo-scentists who seek to fit the evidence to their predetermined conclusions.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

How weak and unfortunate conservo-minds are. It's sort of sad that so many Americans are just so fucking stupid.

[-] 1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 6 years ago

Makes you wonder why conservatives give much more to charity than liberals.


Liberals need to publish these little "we're superior" studies, it makes them feel better about themselves.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Funny, an excerpt from your link:

"Americans who believe in “income redistribution” give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks."

I wonder what would happen if that group were divided further. Say we also broke up the group according to education level and income. Not that this is a very easy distinction to make. I mean, Americans hold a wide range of views on this subject. Most Americans tend to agree that some sort of social safety net needs to exist (which is at least a weak form of income redistribution). So there's gradation on the scale, and where does the researcher make the cut off?

If you look at the Kanazawa study, it defines "liberal" in a very specific way, which winds up confining it (to a large degree) to the upper end of the IQ scale (so obviously these are two completely different definitions of liberal, although I'm not sure Brooks even uses the term liberal in making his assertions). It's not a newsflash to learn the religious tend to give more to charity compared to the nonreligious (especially considering that much of those donations are filtered through churches). Atheists tend to contribute to society by INVENTING EVERYTHING :)

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Further, the far greater "redistribution" of wealth has been to the top 1% from the rest of us 99%. Yet the greedy bastards and their brainwashed flunkies whine about welfare to the poor! Let's talk about rich and corporate welfare!

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 6 years ago

So everything can be interpreted to fit the desired outcome. You feel comfortable in saying that atheists INVENT EVERYTHING so actual generosity isn't really necessary. Wow.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

No, but inventing things is hard work (not a lot of time for bake sales). I'm sure the average secular scientist is just as likely to donate to the red cross during a crisis, if they're sitting in front of the TV when one of those ads come on (they're just not sitting in front of the TV as often).

And yes, scientific discovery has saved tens of millions of lives over the past century or so (and I'm sure that's an understatement), so from a utilitarian standpoint ... that intellectual capital has been extremely valuable (assuming our objective is the betterment of mankind). And also, most scientists aren't getting rich (you're much more likely to make money if you do something like find dirt cheap crap made in China that no one needs, and sell it on an infomercial).

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 6 years ago

If a conservative said that christians INVENTED EVERYTHING would you think he was a raving idiot?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Because it would be a ridiculous claim, whereas scientists and great inventors are in fact very often secular.

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 6 years ago

henry ford-protestant steve jobs-zen buddhism (still religious) Thomas Edison-Deist (believes in some type of god)

These are just three famous inventors whose religion i was aware of. Claiming that atheists invented everything is a broad generalization that has nothing to do with intelligence. Furthermore believing that liberals have a higher IQ than conservatives, only further the left right paradigm both ideologies trap you in close mindedness, stop worrying about who is smarter conservatives or liberal and learn to work together.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Thomas Edison:

"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."

"I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States."

"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk."


Yeah, a real fundy Christian :)

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 6 years ago

no one said he was christian he is a deist not an atheist you said atheists invented everything.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Edison thought that nature could be viewed as a supreme being, but not in a deistic (or obviously not theistic) way, and his views probably can't even be described as pantheism. Deism still held to the idea of a god, a creator, and they believed in the idea of eternal reward and punishment. Edison didn't believe in any of these things, and his characterization of nature as a god like thing, is not inconsistent with atheist thought. It's appreciating the majesty of nature, but not worshiping it as a deity. Theists are so desperate for validation, they cling to anything that looks even remotely like theism (and gloss over the nuance when convenient, although maybe not consciously).

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 6 years ago

ill give you that, regardless claiming that atheists invent everything is a generalization that shouldn't be made, also this post is just furthering the left right paradigm and is somewhat hate mongering towards conservatives.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Cons are hateful and destructive to humanity and the world.

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 6 years ago

thats a generalization..yes there are conservatives that are destructive to the world, there are also liberals who are destructive to the world. Also why should one hate monger a certain group of people because of their political philosophies?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

It's a generalization that just so happens to be generally correct. Con policies favor the rich and corporate 1% at the expense of the rest of the world's 99%. What's a Con done for the people lately? We should recognize that Cons ~ especially their demented political philosophies ~ in our government are a hazard to our well being.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Shut your idiotic Con BS pseudo reasoning up. You make the case against your dumb-ass cult!!

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

You forgot another common denominator, mashed potatoes. They all ate them so clearly there must be a factor involved.

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 6 years ago

Don't you feel the least bit silly making the statement; "atheists INVENTED EVERYTHING"? Are you really that shallow? Do you have any proof that atheists INVENTED EVERYTHING or did you use that phrase in the sense of a school yard taunt, ie; my daddy is stronger than your daddy?

So far we've determined that liberals are cheapskates and that you have the critical thinking skills of a child in a schoolyard. I must admit, you have made an indelible impression on me. Evermore when a liberal is making a fool of himself I will chuckle to myself and remember when it comes to liberal stupidity and hubris; atheists INVENTED EVERYTHING.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Awww, you just don't like thinking you guys are a bunch of driveling white trash fucktards. It's okay though, you can change your ways. First, stop have sex with relatives. Second, playing with snakes will not get you into heaven (heaven doesn't exist silly). Third, everyone does not need a pick up truck. Fourth, overalls are not stylish.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Dude, and here I was being kind .... that was just the short list after all :)

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

That's a trick question! A Con is already a raving idiot, not matter what stupid thing they say.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

That's easy, GUILT! Cons know they screw the world with their greedy policies so they make amends for their sins, with a little charity, for forgiveness.

Liberals advocate policies that lift people from the need for charity. Because we know that being rich in a poor country is rotten and stupid.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

Long past?

How about this fairly recent study:


Or this one:


Scientists seem quite willing to fake or provide one-sided data to further their agenda or just maintain the funding stream.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Whatever helps you think you're not an intellectual midget.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

Human conflict is made easy when we convince ourselves that our opponents are in some way less human. Pejoratives are a grand way to start.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Indeed, right wing conservotards are barely human :)

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago


[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 6 years ago

"So are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant."

If you click on the "READ MORE" posted at the bottom of the page francis linked to- Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html#ixzz1vcSlmBkc

This wasn't a STUDY. It is a PAPER written by Kanazawa using one "study" where adolescents were asked to SELF IDENTIFY whether or not they viewed themselves as liberal, very liberal, conservative, very conservative etc, and one SURVEY to support his hypothesis. Surveys-are NOT scientific studies, hence the term survey.

Read the actual surveys and reports. They demonstrate that while many of the TEENS said they were "liberal", when they were asked to answer questions about specific social issues they often responded with CONSERVATIVE viewpoints.

[-] 2 points by Ector (3) 6 years ago

A lot of these studies are not exactly useful and most of them don’t even seem to use the time tested scientific method. I am sure using my own personal biases I can prove those who lean left have a chemical imbalance that causes A-moral behavior. However most of us know our own personal biases are based upon life experiences and are usually far from the actual truth. Our experiences are just a microcosm of the total kinds of experiences that life has to offer and none of us ever really see the whole picture.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

obviously not

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 6 years ago

There are a number of well documented and publicized flaws in this study - so I wouldn't hang your hat on it just yet.

First of all, as you pointed out - liberalism is equated to helping genetically unrelated strangers and conservatism with more likely to assist those you know. How can you put any weight in a study that has these definitions? It over simplified two complex ideologies. Besides, studies have shown that conservatives are more generous to charities than liberals. Doesn't that establish care for people you don't know?

The researcher also makes claims about IQ, but only measures verbal intelligence.

The study was also of primarily young people. Smarter kids go to college and are then exposed to and influenced greatly by liberal ideology. It takes a number of years to break yourself free of the what was forced on you in college, and to start having your own opinions (this is not science, only my observation).

It's a cute little study, interesting to discuss- but I wouldn't call it science.

[-] 2 points by CarlosFenito (36) 6 years ago

Any predetermined conclusion that I agree with is scientific!

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I think actually much of his work was done on teenagers. Also, I do think a standardized IQ test was used. Nevertheless, these distinctions are not as abstract as you seem to be implying. There are various statistical games, and survey techniques, which are used to measure altruism (and as you say, altruism towards more than those you identify as belonging within your group, is considered anti-evolutionary in a sense, and it's a behavioral attribute held by a minority of people).

Quite frankly, I hope this study is wrong, because the implications are sort of discouraging.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 6 years ago

It wasn't an IQ test - it was PPVT - peabody picture vocabulary test. But that is actually a minor detail.

I don't think that you can tie "anti-evolutionary" behaviors to a political party. What you are inferring is that one group is more evolved than other based on the fact that a liberal is allegedly more concerned about people they don't know. But like I said before, conservatives give more to charities, therefore maybe they are the more evolved. Dating ugly chicks is also anti-evolutionary...hmm..maybe you are on to something with these liberals.. ;-)

Humans reached a point (I believe) where evolution has come to a screeching halt. Natural selection does not apply. We know longer "thin the herd,' and as a whole, we don't select our mates based on any positive survival traits. Once again, this is just my opinion...no science involved.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

No, not saying more or less evolved at all. This approximate distribution of IQ probably existed for a very long time (although IQ also tends to increase over time). What anti-evolutionary means is simply a tendency to behave contrary to evolutionary trends, like tribalism (but there's always a scattered distribution, and you could even put two complete idiots together, and give birth to a genius).

[-] 1 points by PR1 (120) 6 years ago

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8486) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago


[-] 1 points by elf3 (3900) 6 years ago

I think that people who were able to cooperate in societies formed more intelligent societies faster. This requires, compassion, understanding, sharing and cooperation. Human beings evolved past survival of the fittest mentality knowing that to keep them all alive meant they all had a greater chance of survival. I think that survival of the fittest is only thriving now, because the power of a few has grown so large due to globalization and corporate consolidation. If you look at the things these companies do around the world clearly compassion is not part of their thought process. Look at companies like Bechtel, Monsanto, Black Water. Time to drive them out but we need a collective to do it and now they've become so powerful - I fear it won't be possible.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

The "short answer", here and in the link is a bit misleading.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

The answer is YES! Of course, why else would they fight against their own best interest.

They don't think, they believe.




[-] 0 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

Almost, all poor hispanics and blacks vote democrat. In fact most poor people do regardless of race. Are these people the most intelligent people in America? No, but they do vote democrat. Smart people are conservative. Sorry liberals are the dummies

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

You confuse intelligence with knowledge / education... No surprise, your a conservative moron who only knows what he was told.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

Excuse Mr high IQ liberal, you made a spelling mistake; it should be 'you are' or 'you're' not 'your'. look who the moron is! it is you!

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

That's the best you can do ? A common spelling mistake...

BTW, you should have used a" , "instead of a" ; " and you didn't capitalize " It " in your last sentence.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

perhaps you are right. i make no pretensions of being a good writer, especially in this forum. but your mistake is really classic stupid.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

So what ( you're ) saying is that it's OK for you to make a mistake because you're not a good "writer" but if some one else does then they are a moron...

Typical way of thinking for your kind.

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

no you all said that you were smarter being 'liberals' yet you made very very stupid mistakes. Sorry if the truth hurts sonny.

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 6 years ago

you are both morons, you are arguing about stupid spelling mistakes, grow up. What does your political ideology have to do with your intelligence? who cares lets learn from each other (and i don't mean grammar lessons)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

grammar becomes important when communication breaks down

[-] 1 points by hoot (313) 6 years ago

sure you're right it does. however i think breaking the left right paradigm is more important than grammar lessons. arguing about who has a bigger brain liberals or conservatives is stupid. life isn't a who has a bigger dick contest. we need to accept people regardless of their ideologies.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

when someone says that they are smarter than others, then makes elementary level spelling mistakes, it is pertinent to the political discussion. But you are right, this whole thing about conservatives or liberals being a grouping that can be categorized as stupid is silly science.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

Yes, and you made grammatical errors in your first comment. You wrote, "vote democrat." It should have been written, "vote for Democratic candidates," or, "vote for Democrats." Since Democrat is a proper name, it should be capitalized.

And, no, I'm not a liberal or a conservative; I am an anarchist.

[-] 1 points by Alliandrina (40) 6 years ago

You know can say "Vote Democrat" and you can say "Vote Republican". And sure you can capitalize them. You can also say vote for Democrats, but I am not sure that you should capitalize 'democratic'. Democratic is an adjective a democracry- nothing really to do with Democrats. Unless you assume that just because Democrats is close to the word Democracy they must be and mean the same thing.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

Democratic is an adjective, when capitalized, which describes something pertaining to the Democratic Party (the proper name): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

A Democrat would be a single member of the Democratic Party, while Democrats would be more than a single member of the Democratic Party.

Finally, no, I don't know that I can say, "Vote Democrat." I would say either, "Vote for (a) Democrat(s)," or "vote Democratic." The latter would be using the adjective as a noun to signify the Democratic Party.

[-] -3 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

Yes, i am a horrible writer, but i don't capitalize 'democrat' as they are not worth the effort of a shift key (lol). Unfortunately for Mr tr289, his or her mistake was something a high school drop should have known.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

Intelligence does not make you rich in America. Being opportunistic and having a total disregard for your fellow man is what makes you rich here in the states. In fact, I'd say the lack of self worth is what compels people to garner the admiration of their fellow man through the act of wealth generation. Those who don't evaluate the social cues given through media, are the ones who blindly do what is expected of them, IE, become successful. Those who don't need the constant admiration of their peers, are happy just being who they are and getting by with what they have are the ones who are smart enough not to be led by the nose by social norms. I rather be working class and have much free time for myself, than work my self into an early grave. There is a reason why depression and fatigue seems to be a common ailment here in the States. Most everyone is too obsessed with climbing the affluency ladder.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

While there is nothing wrong with not wanting to be successful, there is also nothing wrong with wanting to be successful. You have to be intelligent to become wealthy on your own (with the exception of most entertainment people who tend to be dumb). Edison, Ford, Jobs, Franklin, Boeing and other entrepreneurs where smart and driven. There are some bad business men and women, but not as many as bad government officials and representatives.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I think you are going to have to provide me with a study that backs up your claim that politicians are more corrupt than business leaders, especially since it takes two to tango. Corruption dictates that one person has to do a favor for another person so if there was not a private sector person asking for a hand out, then there would not be a corrupted politician giving out favors.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

I said 'bad' government. You said corrupt. Bad would include bad decisions done by government. One bad government decision was to ban Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina. Other is to make trade deals with China and Mexico, tax corporate profits higher than other industrial countries. Oh yes and stopping the Keystone pipeline from Canada. Government can do more damage than business ca.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Yet, scientific research tells us otherwise (btw, liberal does not mean democrat).

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Addition to that comment.

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/ Adjective:

Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

A person of liberal views.

generous - bounteous - lavish - bountiful - free

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Right, and on that count ... many democrats aren't "liberal" (democrats just serve some special interest they favor). Don't get me wrong, democrats are far more likely to be liberal compared to republicans, but still, I'm not even sure we can say most democrats are liberal.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I care not for party's - I care for individuals.

There are monsters in both of the main stream party's.

I look for individuals that display honor and a respect for the Constitution and the government it outlines - Of The People By The People FOR THE PEOPLE. There are those in government still kinda supporting the Constitution/People.

There are others waving their hands and jumping up and down saying kick me to the curb kick me kick me and then there are the sly one's who are trying to keep a low profile and draw no attention - you can identify their allegiance in their voting record.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Nice link I will have to look into how to use it. Thanks Matt.

People a nice demonstration of voting record. Who is for who is against shows party affiliation.

Weigh the subject and your feelings about it and then look at who agrees with your assessment.


[-] 0 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

So you believed it when scientist said blacks had low iq's. They were scientist and they did their research. Boy, i'm surprise that you are such a racist.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Well, the inflammatory title of my OP notwithstanding, your statement cannot be technically correct (since racial classifications are not made on the basis of IQ) :)

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

Just google with the following key words 'scientist','black', 'inferior' and see the rubbish junk that some scientist put out. You will believe the 'scientist' that find that conservative's are stupid because it fits your twisted world view. Look in the mirror, and stupid will be looking right back at you.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

It's a released study, subject to peer review, so any conservative scientist on earth can try to pick it apart (oh wait, conservative scientist, sort of an oxymoron ... although there must be a few at least).

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 6 years ago


A list of scientists, modern and founding scientists who believe(d) in God and other conservative ideologies. Site includes quotes and bibliography.

  1. Albert EINSTEIN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  2. Max PLANCK – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  3. Erwin SCHROEDINGER – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  4. Werner HEISENBERG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  5. Robert MILLIKAN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  6. Charles TOWNES – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  7. Arthur SCHAWLOW – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  8. William PHILLIPS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  9. William BRAGG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  10. Guglielmo MARCONI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  11. Arthur COMPTON – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  12. Arno PENZIAS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  13. Nevill MOTT – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  14. Isidor Isaac RABI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  15. Abdus SALAM – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  16. Antony HEWISH – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  17. Joseph H. TAYLOR, Jr. – Nobel Laureate in Physics
  18. Alexis CARREL – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
  19. John ECCLES – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
  20. Joseph MURRAY – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
  21. Ernst CHAIN – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
  22. George WALD – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
  23. Ronald ROSS – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
  24. Derek BARTON – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  25. Christian ANFINSEN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  26. Walter KOHN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
  27. Richard SMALLEY – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry


  1. Isaac NEWTON – founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus
  2. Galileo GALILEI – founder of Experimental Physics
  3. Nicolaus COPERNICUS – founder of Heliocentric Cosmology
  4. Johannes KEPLER – founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics
  5. Francis BACON – founder of the scientific inductive method
  6. Rene DESCARTES – founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy
  7. Blaise PASCAL – founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics, and the Theory of Probabilities
  8. Michael FARADAY – founder of Electronics and Electro-magnetics
  9. James Clerk MAXWELL – founder of Statistical Thermodynamics
  10. Lord KELVIN – founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics
  11. Robert BOYLE – founder of Modern Chemistry
  12. William HARVEY – founder of Modern Medicine
  13. John RAY – founder of Modern Biology and Natural History
  14. Gottfried Wilhelm LEIBNIZ – German mathematician and philosopher, founder of Infinitesimal Calculus
  15. Charles DARWIN – founder of the Theory of Evolution
  16. Ernst HAECKEL – German biologist, the most influential evolutionist in continental Europe
  17. Thomas H. HUXLEY – English biologist and evolutionist, famous as “Darwin’s bulldog”
  18. Joseph J. THOMSON – Nobel Laureate in Physics, discoverer of the electron, founder of atomic physics
  19. Louis PASTEUR – founder of Microbiology and Immunology
  20. Wernher von BRAUN – rocket engineer, founder of Astronautics
  21. Francis COLLINS – Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute

These are just the Nobel Prize winning ones.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

With the exception of Collins, all the modern scientists listed were all atheists or agnostics, you driveling fucktard. Don't you have a mechanical bull to ride or some shit? Maybe a banjo to go and try to play, or some moonshine to drink (while having sex with relatives)? Hit that g-spot daddy, and pass me the ethanol :)

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 6 years ago

Please see listed quotes and bibliography from site. If you can provide proven quotes from each scientist that says otherwise I'd love to see them.

It's funny. Conservative writers say that when you confront a liberal with facts that call their "personal assertions" into question they usually respond with name calling, childish behavior, bullying, and insults rather than objective, rational, reason and constructive dialogue. Looks like they are right on THAT.

(Thank you for providing evidence of your own IQ and maturity level here. It helps establishing the credibility of your posts so much easier.)

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Oh please, conservatives are the people who like lynching other human beings, having sex with relatives, etc. There is no discussion with savage barbarians, and that's what you people are, primitive savages.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 6 years ago

Again with your empirical evidence and superior intellect? I simply cannot hope to compete against such an onslaught of truth.

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

thank you. Your list was excellent.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 6 years ago

Even Kanasawa admits (in his conclusion) that his "hypothesis" requires further study and "empirical evidence" would have to be collected in order to prove or disprove his theory. http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

"Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear".

Translation: You're stupid.

There have also been studies that have shown that conservatives lack empathy.

Translation: You're sociopathic.

Final Analysis: You're a scared and stupid sociopath.

Check yourself. Get some help.



[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

Just like scientist incorrectly said in the recent past that black's brains were inferior, you are falling for junk science. Most of the astronauts were conservatives as well as most of our famous presidents.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

That's two logical fallacies in one sentance. Argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority. You do know what a logical fallacy is don't you?

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

yes i do know what a logical fallacy is , but i don't know what a 'sentance' is. You may have meant 'sentence', but then you are so smart, being a liberal and all.....

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Thanks for the correction. I think you did know what a 'sentance' was. You were smart and used context cues. That's very good.

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

you are welcome,unfortunately you took the risk of calling yourself smart, smart people don't make stupid mistakes especially ones that the spell check tool on this web site catches and underlines for you.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 6 years ago

Cubs101, your a bigot, but your probably not intelligent enough to realize this. We laugh at you as you wade into this argument sharing your ignorance and generalizations which are used widely by people just like you.

Thanks for making the point that conservatives really are stupid.

We, the liberals, laugh at you since you probably don't even understand what I just told you. Wake up, if you can. Otherwise, just don't waste your time. Your reasoning is severely flawed.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

You are too stupid to see the irony of your text.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

please enlighten me

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

You aren't being clear, to what are you referring?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


You are too stupid to see the irony of your text.

[-] 1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

Matt, well, in the above text from Puzzlin, he or she, call me a bigot, but in the same text calls all conservatives stupid. That is an example of bigotry. def: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Wow - I am shocked and amazed!

Did you look that up all by yourself?

Or did you have it memorized because you have had it told to you so often?

Impressive either way.

Did your fingers burn as you typed?

[-] 0 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

so you now understand why i said 'the irony of your text'. that's good, i taught a mentally disabled liberal something today.

[-] 0 points by danzer (-51) 6 years ago

the thing about libs/dems, they're tolerant as long as you agree with them.

[-] 0 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

danzer, you are a smart guy, but according to these occupy clowns you don't exist as there are no smart conservatives.

[-] 0 points by danzer (-51) 6 years ago

Thet exist in their own fantasy world. They exist as long as the promoters of ows let them exist. They are nothing on their own. They are funded and promoted by george soros, who also owns 0bama. They think that they are doing something "important". They are being used and don't even know it.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

that could be true, i think its simpler than that, i think that they are just young idealistic, brainwashed (by liberal college professors) kids whose brains are still developing or have been damaged by drugs. Just my opinion.

[-] -2 points by danzer (-51) 6 years ago

not all of them are young. there are hold overs from the anti - vietnam years. the followers of bill ayers, the weathermen, the SDS .

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

LOL - U R funny. Too bad you are not aware how funny U R.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I wanted to break it down nice and simple for you Sweetheart.

Don't be afraid. It's ok. Everything's going to be alright There are people that can help you. Reach out for help. Don't be scared. Let the nice people help you.


[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

If all conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, then why are liberals so often wrong? Obama is smart, but he doesn't know how to lead of be the president of this greatest nation on earth. So maybe smart is the new stupid. Oh ok i get it now. Your humour needs some work.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Pres. Obama doesn't know how to lead, and liberals are so often wrong - do you have any scientific evidence to back this up? Or is it your opinion?

Maybe that's part of your problem Sweetie. You can't distinguish between fact and fiction, or opinions. I think that's another trait of a sociopath.

[-] -1 points by CarlosFenito (36) 6 years ago

I guess if you think of "leadership" as in "Failing to nationalize GM", "Starting a bombing campaign in Libya", or "Signing the NDAA", then O-bomb-ya has plenty of leadership skills.

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

like i said,sweetie, smart is the new stupid. isn't all that you are saying opinion ? Even doctors won't diagnose over the phone and here you are make diagnostics on an ows forums.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

What I'm saying has scientific evidence. Conservatives are scared, stupid and lack empathy.

I'm not equipped to make a true medical diagnosis. Most anyone reading that should be able to tell quite easily that I was just breaking it down, with a little touch of humor. Not an actual diagnosis silly! I'm sorry you didn't get that. Let me be clear, it was not meant to be an actual medical diagnosis.

That's why I gave you the link. So you can get some real medical help.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

In addition to the comment:

con·serv·a·tive    [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA


1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4. ( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I think he's gone. Maybe he got scared.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Not likely.

It got banned.

Or it got a migraine.

Or it is off doing a silent down vote on good contributors to sooth it's nerves.

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

don't trip over yourself trying to backpedal. If you still believe the broad unscientific study that says conservatives are stupid and scared and lack empathy, then i believe that you are that one that needs help. Maybe you can go to a liberal doctor, you know the ones that smoke pot, and got their medical degree in Trinidad.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

What backpeddling? I was trying to explain my post to you.

Not only do I believe these studies, but it's also my experience that conservatives are scared, stupid and sociopathic. Especially the current crop. 20-30 years ago, they weren't so bad maybe. But the sociopathy especially, has really set in the past decade or so.

The liberal doctor comment, another logical fallacy - Argumentum ad hominem.

How come you can't have a simple conversation without injecting so many logical fallacies?



[-] 1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

you seem to have learned a new phase that you want to show off today. That's good, and your mother must be very proud of you.
Could you please give me some examples of conservatives who are scared, stupid and sociopaths? Now all three conditions (scared, stupid and sociopathic conservatives) must all be true in order for your statement to be true as you used the 'and' operator.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

Romney wants to send us all tho the oil mines

says it will save us

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

unworthy of any comment.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

it's as much as I know

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 6 years ago

Her mother has other things on her mind.... ask Shooz....

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

My new phrase today - you inspire me.

Examples of conservatives that are scared stupid and sociopathic - Mitt Romney, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. Pretty much the entire Republican leadership and most all the rest of the Republicans in Congress.

Conservatives are scared of same sex marriage. If you don't believe in marrying someone of the same sex, then marry someone of the opposite sex. Conservatives are stupid because they believe wealthy people are job creators. Conservatives are sociopaths because they want to give $265M tax assistance to millionaires and decimate social programs for the needy.

And here's a link the the original published article that says conservatives are stupid. Because someone around here thought you might like to see it.


[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

that is your opinion as i see no evidence of any of them being scared, stupid or sociopaths. Your reasons listed above wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny; it looks like you are, shall we say, not smart.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Nope, nope, you're wrong. Top marginal tax rates were as high as 90%. Check the IRS records yourself. Of course no one paid 90%. The effective rates they paid were 60-70%, just like I said. You do know the difference between a marginal rate and effective rate, right? Hint: The difference is the loopholes.

"For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963. For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981."

If you do some research on your own, you will find that most of this period effective rates were between 60-70%.

It's a fact. Tax rates today are the lowest they've been in like a hundred years. Also, tax revenue as a % of GDP is at historic lows and has been for quite some time.



I agree that Keyensian theories or demand side principles, shouldn't always be applied. But the evidence is that demand is the problem.

See Figure D. http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/

I believe the facts. So far you have not supported any of your opinions or shown any facts otherwise. I think you're operating on flawed notions and kneejerk responses. You seem to be stuck on the notion that same sex marriage is ok with conservatives. It's not, they're afraid of it. You seem stuck on the notion that the wealthy are job creators, when I have explained why this is not true. You seem stuck on the notion that the Romney/Ryan budget isn't completely sociopathic. When it absolutely is.

The dark side?? Ad hominem emotionally charged response.

What I think is 'dark' and dangerous is the high levels of wealth inequality. And 50% of the population at or near the poverty level. And you do know that middle class wages have been stagnant for 30 years right? Wealth inequality leads to political inequality leads to failed nation states. Do you think this is a bright scenario?




If you don't like my so called rubbish - do your own research. Cubby Wubby Bear.

[-] -2 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

you've got too much time on your hands. you must be unemployed.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Whether or not I'm employed doesn't matter.

You are still unable to make a coherent, logical, or factual point. It seems I know a bit more than you about the effects of 30 years of neo-liberal economic policies, our historical tax rates, the effects it has had on producing a dangerously high level of wealth inequality, and the current House Republican budget plan (neo-liberal policy on steriods) that will surely be debated further after the election.

Perhaps you should try to educate yourself a little further on these these things. So that maybe you can make a better informed decision in the election.


[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

And another thing - I get the impression that you have a problem with government services and programs. And paying taxes and progressive tax rates.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Are you scared of government? Are you scared to pay higher taxes? What are you afraid of exactly?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

So you don't think that same sex marriage is a problem. You should care though since banning it is a goal of the Republican party and it could involve tossing out the 14th Amendment.

The wealthy are only 'potential' job creators. I already explained this. It's dependent on demand. No demand, no job creation. How would you propose that unemployment be addressed, jobs be created, if not driven by demand? Or maybe you don't believe that 50% of the population living at or near the poverty line is a problem? Be careful - this relates to empathy. : )

"Government has to take away by taxing to create jobs". So? The government taxes for lots of different things. Why would taxes for the sake of job creation to invest in our country and stimulate the economy be any less valid than taxes for the sake of defense or any other budget item? There is a return on government investment programs both in terms of strengthening society and a multiple of increased revenues.

Mine not rubbish. Your's rubbish Sweet Potato. The wealthy pay the most in taxes, of course Silly Billy - can you say blood from a rock? Lets not forget, the wealthy are paying the lowest tax rates in history since the Gilded Age (you know, that time when wealth inequality was at dangerously high levels, kind of like it is today, which preceded the Great Depression). After which top effective tax rates were 60-70%. Up until Pres. Kennedy, when they were lowered somewhat , and then drastically reduced under Reagan and further reduced by Bush. To the lowest rates in modern history.

Apparently you are not very well informed about the Romney/Ryan budget plan and the affect it will have on social programs. It absolutely is a plan (not a 'plant'). Do some homework. I don't mind holding your hand sometimes. But I think you need to stretch your capabilities a bit.

You have not backed up your opinion of how these things are not examples of scared, stupid and sociopathic behaviors.

What possible reason should conservatives be against same sex marriage - if not scared?

What possible reason for the mantra that wealthy people are the job creators, for not recognizing/completely leaving out the demand side of the principles of supply and demand - if not stupidity?

What possible reason for decimating social programs for the needy while giving $265M tax assistance to millionaires - if not sociopathy?

Come on Cubby Wubby Bear. Give me something more than ad hominems. : )

[-] -1 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

if you believe in Keynesian economics, that's fine. But it doesn't always work. Please don't tell me that if i read your rubbish articles and theories that i will happily go over to the dark side (i.e. socialism, communism, liberalism). Check the IRS records effective taxes where never 60-70% in America, never. There were so many tax loops back then no one actually paid that. You can believe what you want, in the end history will prove you wrong as it has Obama-- the worse president in recent history.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

It's a fact that banning same sex marriage is a Republican platform issue. It's a fact that Republicans widely support supply side/trickle down economic policies based on the reasoning that the wealthy are job creators. It's a fact that House Republicans overwhelmingly (nearly unanimous, minus 10 votes) voted for the Romney/Ryan budget plan.

  1. Same sex marriage - if conservatives are not scared of this, then why are they against it? The most common conservative theme is that it will erode family values and it will cause some kind of breakdown of society. Extending civil rights strengthens society. ie: the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause. If not scared - what then?

  2. The conservative mantra that corporations and the wealthy are job creators is stupid because this overstates their role and power in the economy and distorts their purpose. To the degree that they are the supplier, their purpose is to meet demand. Not create jobs. No business creates a job for the sake of creating a job. Corporations and the wealthy are only 'potential' job creators. If and when there is demand. No demand in the underlying economy = no job creation.

  3. The Romney/Ryan budget plan is sociopathic because it lacks empathy. Do you think giving $265M tax assistance to millionaires while decimating social programs for the needy is empathetic? Perhaps you feel badly for millionaires? Why? Perhaps you believe that wealthy people are job creators? If yes, then go back to item 2.

Support your opinion that these are not examples of scared, stupid and sociopathic behaviors.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Sounds like the entire (R)epelican't party platform is a conspiracy theory based on pseudo science.

Though you did leave off the fact they they also push creationism in education.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

Same sex marriage - if conservatives are not scared of this, then why are they against it? The most common conservative theme is that it will erode family values and it will cause some kind of breakdown of society. Extending civil rights strengthens society. ie: the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause. If not scared - what then?

because it is a non-fiscal issue to the government

[-] 0 points by ClaraSprings (91) 6 years ago

You rock girl! Your game is tight.

[-] -3 points by Cubs101 (-49) 6 years ago

do you really believe the rubbish that you write?

  1. Gay marriage who really cares about? let them marry each other then shut up. we have more pressing issues to worry about.
  2. if corporations and the wealthy don't create jobs, then who does? Government? No. Government has to take away by taxing to 'create' jobs. You obviously don't have a job.
  3. what rubbish, the wealthy pay almost all of the taxes now, what else do you want from them? And there are no plants to decimate any social programs. total rubbish.
[-] 1 points by Alliandrina (40) 6 years ago

Probably would make a better impact if the links were to primary sources, such as the actual study, rather than opinion pieces about the studies.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

This good?


[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

"Functionally illiterate" is accurate. There are other studies that are more persuasive of the same conclusion but I am not going to go to the trouble of finding them. In any case, it will not produce any beneficial change.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Maybe not the best idea for a headline (I blame Mr. Sam Adams :)), and obviously illiterate is an exaggeration. This study really points to something deeper (and certainly more worthy of discussion compared to partisan bickering). The implication is, there's a link between IQ and altruism.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

The key is the definition of "functionally". I really don't think it is IQ. There is a book, "Pictures of the Mind" neurophysiologists mapping the regions and what is active in a certain circumstance and if I recall there really is a wiring difference which seems to correlate with propensity to fear or distrust. That leads to all of this paranoia and excessive need for self protection and military machines. That is what exists, but they don't know what causes it More research required, as they say.

Doesn't look like anybody's fault, unless it is childhood upbringing. But it probably means arguing is a waste of time and that is confirmed in my experience.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Biochemistry has a profound impact on our impulses and even our thoughts. Example, I read a study that measured irrational pattern seeking, and the study traced it to brain dopamine levels. They did the study using religious and secular test subjects. They put them in front a computer screen, ran a program that just generated random gibberish on the screen, and asked both groups to try to identify things like words, faces, and so on. The religious group was far more likely to find words and shapes and faces that weren't there. But then they gave the secular group a drug that increases dopamine levels, and what do you know, suddenly they're finding faces in scattered electronic gibberish.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

Very interesting. I hadn't heard that one. Here is a funny one on me. I am color blind and a psychologist gave me a Rohrschach Ink Blot test. I said, "Do you want just the first thing I see or everything I see?" He said, "Oh you see more than one thing?" "Sure, this is this and this over here is that and ... And I suppose if these were were in color".. He said, "Oh I have a set of those." So we did those. He said, "This is amazing, you are with out doubt the most creative person I have ever tested."

Now you have just told me this, and I find that I should have had a career as a guru, or a swami or a Baptist preacher. Ruined my day, is what you have done.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

free education for all

I don't find this study useful