Question about Reps and Dems...

[sleuth]

I was just curious whether there have been any studies shown on the average intelligence of Reps/Cons. and Dems/Lib.... perhaps by IQ or performance in schools or something...

I mean... most of us identify as Republicans or Conservatives, and we pretty much think we're smarter than most Libs out there... I was just wondering if anyone was aware of any studies to back it up and if you could post a link to the results.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I mean... most of us identify as Republicans or Conservatives, and we pretty much think we're smarter than most Libs out there...

Don't most partisans think they're smarter than their opposition? Or at least, aren't they convinced that they're right and their opposition is wrong?

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think the IQs will vary by a whole lot. While Democrats may be more "intellectual" than Republicans, Rs have significantly more common sense.

For example:

Democrats fall into two categories: the elitist intellectuals who sit around and discuss things in theory, but don't know a whole lot about real life; AND the complete opposite end of the spectrum, the ghetto trash, welfare queens and criminals who want something for nothing and know the aforementioned theorists want to give it to them.

Republicans run the gamut from wealthy business owners to working class stiffs. They know more about real life because they actually LIVE it.

Democrats are the ones that want to keep working at failing programs, putting more effort into things that aren't working because they can't admit they were wrong.

Republicans say, "If what you're doing isn't working, it's time to do something else."

 

[Toxick]

Re: Re: Question about Reps and Dems...

Originally posted by Tonio
Don't most partisans think they're smarter than their opposition?

Of course. Everyone likes to think that they're above average. That being the case, anyone who disagrees with them on a particular issue has not thought it through as carefully as they have, or are lacking in the gray-matter department.


This is why I have long stated that when everyone realizes that I am right, the world will be a much better place.


To answer the original question, I have seen 'studies' which say liberals are typically more intelligent and educated, and I have seen just as many studies that say conservatives are more intelligent and educated.


I have seen very smart people on both sides of the aisle, and I have seen people dumber than a box of hammers on both sides of the aisle. The question tries to draw a correlation between intelligence and idealogy when there is none.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
They know more about real life because they actually LIVE it.

Interesting observation. Would you suggest that cities (where most Dems live) don't offer "real life" as most people understand it? I think one could make a good case for that.

Here's my theory as to why Dems are in the city and Reps are in the country:

The wall-to-wall-people environment of the city produces a mid-level variety of cabin fever. People get fed up with other people being around constantly, so on an unconsious level, they want a paternalistic government to step in and control things.

Conversly, living in a frontier setting can lead to a mindset that goes way beyond a healthy sense of self-reliance and into antisocial paranoia. These people learn to mistrust any authority greater than the local sheriff. Alaska is a good place for that mindset, where they view G.W. Bush as too liberal.

 

[Tonio]

Re: Re: Re: Question about Reps and Dems...

Originally posted by Toxick
This is why I have long stated that when everyone realizes that I am right, the world will be a much better place.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Tonio
Interesting observation. Would you suggest that cities (where most Dems live) don't offer "real life" as most people understand it? I think one could make a good case for that.

Here's my theory as to why Dems are in the city and Reps are in the country:

The wall-to-wall-people environment of the city produces a mid-level variety of cabin fever. People get fed up with other people being around constantly, so on an unconsious level, they want a paternalistic government to step in and control things.

Conversly, living in a frontier setting can lead to a mindset that goes way beyond a healthy sense of self-reliance and into antisocial paranoia. These people learn to mistrust any authority greater than the local sheriff. Alaska is a good place for that mindset, where they view G.W. Bush as too liberal.

That's a very interesting theory Tonio. I like it.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Tonio
The wall-to-wall-people environment of the city produces a mid-level variety of cabin fever. People get fed up with other people being around constantly, so on an unconsious level, they want a paternalistic government to step in and control things.

Conversly, living in a frontier setting can lead to a mindset that goes way beyond a healthy sense of self-reliance and into antisocial paranoia. These people learn to mistrust any authority greater than the local sheriff. Alaska is a good place for that mindset, where they view G.W. Bush as too liberal.

That is interesting.

Is there any documented evidence that urban areas are more Lib/Dem and rural is the opposite?

I'm sure it's true, but numbers would be nice.


Along with your observation above, there are a couple other liberal/conservative dichotomies explained by their respective urban/rural settings.

Cities are polluted crap tanks where the only clean breath of air you can get is in a building loaded with air-filtration devices. So they believe there is no clear air, and the environment is crumbling around their ears.

Rural areas are clean and fresh air is in abundance. So they believe that all these threats to the envirnment are merely the prouducts of a demented imagination.



Urban areas are stuffed full of minorities who live in slums. Therefore all minorities are the country are victims of THE MAN and are forced to eat and sleep in their own defication.

In Rural areas, minorities live in relative harmony with their white neighbors, so all this talk about racism is a fanatical holdover from an earlier era, and is way overblown by the media and liberal democrats who thrive on conflict.



The only fauna in a city are dogs and cats living in domeciles with their human benefactors. Therefore animals are precious and scarce and should be protected from humans who are driving them to the point of extictions.

In rural areas, we know that If we didn't eat them, they would overrun us.

Related: Due to the noted lack of wildlife in cities, the only reason to own a gun in a city is to kill humans. This is bad, especially since they're killing each other in droves as it is.

In the country, a gun is usually a tool to help get food and provide stress relief. Plus they're COOL!



I was going to make a whole list of these, but I gotta get back to work.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Toxick
That is interesting.

Is there any documented evidence that urban areas are more Lib/Dem and rural is the opposite?

I'm sure it's true, but numbers would be nice.

Ever look at a voting map?
NYC, LA, DC - Dem
Rest of country - Rep

 

[ylexot]

Here's a good site:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

 

[SamSpade]

I think one of the differences between urbanites voting Democrat, and rural (and suburban) types voting Republican is that it suits their wallet. Democrats support measures that benefit people who live in the city, and not as much in the countryside. As the expression goes, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.

It's mostly dollars, not ideology. Take all of the people, mix 'em up and redistribute where they live - they'll more or less vote their wallet, period.