Why are smart people left wing?

Why are smart people left wing?

Other urls found in this thread:

medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html
mpcdot.com/forums/topic/56-the-stupidity-of-intelligence/
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#7a9d09d53fba
unvis.it/forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#7a9d09d53fba
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Cause you have to be really fucking "smart" to have 2 conflicting opinions in 1 brain.

Because smart people lack common sense

Inb4 300 replies

You people are shitting up this board

So in other words smart people are actually dumb?

Because the media lied to you.

>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness

>tfw too intelligint to be consistent

Dumb normies are right wing, smart normies are left wing. Dumb autists are left wing, smart autists are right wing. Smart normies turn right wing if they spend enough time talking to smart autists.

they know that if they speak out they will get shunned by society

i suspect many show their true colours when no one is watching in the voting booth

There are smart people on both sides. Left wing people are just open to new ideas and are creative. Because of the novelty, you might notice them more than the conservatives.

medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

mpcdot.com/forums/topic/56-the-stupidity-of-intelligence/

tl;dr
>In short, a high IQ is very effective for solving novel problems (in engineering, math, language, and so on) and will therefore tend to be employed in other domains. However, a cognitive strategy that is useful for dealing with novelties in a narrow or closed system is an impediment when confronting longstanding social and psychological challenges that are too complex for this approach and for which mankind has evolved solutions over thousands of years of practice. The result is that a high IQ elite may not only err but err systematically, and by doing so bring about catastrophic social policy.

It's why intellectuals have generally tended to endorse socialism counter to the real world evidence of its repeated failings

Educated doesn't equal smart

Dude you answered OP's post perfectly. Sometimes you guys are so fucking profound it is not even funny. No sarcasm. I fucking love /pol.

Those academics typically aren't economists, they may as well be laymen when it comes to which economic system works best

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#7a9d09d53fba

Most economists support democrats despite the field overwhelmingly supporting capitalism over any other system

Archived it
unvis.it/forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#7a9d09d53fba

Because, academia and the media decide who is considered smart on the public stage.

Fair point, I wasn't really talking about the economics of it so much as that genuinely-intelligent people seem to believe that they can use their intelligence to solve all of society's problems, often with catastrophic results

There is a saying, usually said in martial arts, that one "knows enough to get in trouble."

Intelligence is a concept we don't have categorized. Remember, the IQ metric is a social science, it's garbage based in subjectivity. Many other claims of intelligence have shoddy bases, such as degree ownership. Most degree owners, particularly bachelor's degree owners simply demonstrate a willingness to jump through hoops or do as they are told. Furthermore, most STEM majors I have met have a poor grasp on logic and linguistic philosophy, a very sad and ironic reality. Start an argument on the /sci/ board if you don't believe me, you'll quickly encounter fallacious reasoning.

Most of the people I've met in life where I've been legitimately impressed by their intelligence don't care about politics, or if they do they care about them similar to how someone else might care about a sports team.

Smart people assume their ability to understand things, and to control things. The moderately intelligent routinely underestimate chaotic systems.

It's why Sup Forums swung an election despite the average poster being largely retarded. They also are not, by virtue of their intelligence, any more resistant to basic human failings. Namely, ego, echo chambers, confirmation bias, and other fun things.

You might also ask why it is that smart people often fail at relationships. Chaotic systems without clear cut lines from cause to effect, where there are innumerable feedback loops, are like cancer to the intelligent. In situations where understanding the system is extremely difficult, if not impossible, heuristics and "rules of thumb" are more effective than the most complex theories.

And this is reflected in the successes AND failings of different ideologies. You might consider it a sort of cross-disciplinary Dunning-Kreuger effect. Basically a smart person is extremely smart at a given category. People respect him or her. They are(correctly) confident in their ability to reason, and their intelligence. Then they try to apply their intelligence to things that they are not smart at, because they believe their intelligence is transferrable. While some intelligence can be transferred between topics, much of it isn't.

Take a look at the history of science. Look at the great minds. And look at their *failings*. Being intelligent doesn't mean shit if you lose sight of your failings because of it.

smart people hang around (((smart people))). they graduate from elite schools that are taught by (((smart people))) and live within the same bubbles.

I have an IQ 2 standard deviations above average and I've always been right wing. Libertarian, then Ron Paul style Republican, now Trump supporter mostly for his views on grabbing pussy and trolling libtards.

the "smart" people in the public eye are the ones seated in kike-run universities that push the approved agenda

Because people either say fuck it or tell the other people what to do. The smarter thing is the first thing

That is because we are capable of seeing the larger context of political and social issues. Meanwhile, simpletons always play to identity politics, victim complexes and other low-hanging fruit, all designed to appeal to emotions, to distract us from the real problems in life. Traditionally, political ideologies have been presented on a straight line but I think it's more of a circle which explains why far-right and far-left proponents share so many of the same tactics and grievances.

>Chaotic systems without clear cut lines from cause to effect, where there are innumerable feedback loops, are like cancer to the intelligent.
I don't believe this for a second. This is what I mean when I say "intelligence is a concept we don't have categorized."

I consider someone who is incapable of handling dynamic systems to be lacking in an area of intelligence. Perhaps they are good at copying the routines of a static system, but I don't believe this reflects overall "intelligence", which is why I can't take any metrics such as IQ seriously(other than it's subjective bases). I am of the opinion that many people who had significant impacts in science and technology throughout history as well as impacts upon history itself through leadership were skilled in handling or surveying dynamic systems, and that people who are skilled with static systems have mostly pulled the deadweight and done the busy work.

In my experience libs have higher intelligence, but cons have higher wisdom.

This question could also be phrased, "Why are wise people right wing?"

Usually because they allow empathy to overpower logic in their thought patterns.

>being """educated""" = smart

This meme is so bad, of course lefties came up with it

Only dumbness people, have the need to try to convince others of their intelligence.

You can come out of university with 50 masters degrees for all I care.

But if you suffer from mass amounts of cognitive dissonance, you're probably a dumb cunt.

Y all dey smatees b lef wing an no speaka pidgin?

That's a lot of opinions.

They're not.

"Educated" people are left wing because college is an indoctrination system.

(((Smart)))

They are considered "smart" because they are able to remember well and quote famous people. However they lack essence, which is information acquired on their own, they do not question anything, and are dependent on others to progress. They critisize, but doesn't do better. They are like zombies, and they are unaware that their mind is in a sleep-like state.

>I'm smart cause I told myself I am

My grandfather actually explained to me how political correctness and Marxism were pushed into mainstream universities in the 1950's and 60's.

Yes, I hate to say it but these people were all literally Jews.

Quite literally abunch of socialist Marxist Jews fled Germany and infested Columbia.

Pt. 1
>Gramsci's cultural Marxism began to reach throughout society when Frankfurt University's Institute for Marxism -- renamed the Institute for Social Research and informally called the Frankfurt School -- fled Nazi Germany, took up temporary residence at Columbia University in 1933, and then, during World War II, began using Gramsci-derived "critical theory" to "deconstruct" American society. German-born philosopher-writer Herbert Marcuse and other Marxists carried cultural Marxism beyond Columbia, and progressives adopted the disease as a weapon of "change" to be deployed within the education system

That's all we've got because there isn't any hard science on the matter. Nothing but personal experience.

>In the mid-1950s, Marcuse drove political correctness to new depths, proclaiming it unacceptable to criticize any manner of sexual behavior. Marcuse's Eros and Civilization urged people to engage in "perversions" to soften the sting of capitalism's alleged enslavement. The new and improved political correctness became a darling of progressive education schools, rounded out the arsenal aimed at mainstream America, and ushered in early-childhood sex education that facilitates premature and unhealthy sexual experimentation.

>Since the 1960s, Gramsci's ghost has been creeping throughout education schools on the backs of the rabid academic herd. A list of ideological progeny reads like a "Who's Who" of collectivist ideologues: Pentagon bomber William Ayers, anti-homework and anti-competition preacher Alfie Kohn, America-hater Noam Chomsky, communist Van Jones, and progressive Bible-thumper George Lakoff, to name a few. Education, social studies, and literature curricula burst with gibberish on social, environmental, and climate justice as well as multiculturalism, diversity, moral relativism, and moral equivalence -- all derived in some way from cultural Marxism.

FPBP,

Because they've been told they're smart by their parents their entire lives.

And now that they see their own logical hypocrisy they become insane.

Dude, it's not 2005 anymore

And the reason their parents thought that is because of the steady indoctrination process you are seeing of Marxism into mainstream colleges.

What we are seeing with these trans kids and wanting to teach trans values in elementary schools is abhorrently Marxist.

They want to lie about slavery, gender, economics and history to the children. That's the next phase.

They're average, not smart. On a continuum, leftists are clustered around the center, while right-wingers are all over the map.

From my experience:

People who think they are smart: liberals

People who actually are smart: liberatarians

Spoiler

They aren't

Stop watching TV you retarded fag

because they're aware society is far from perfect and it needs changes.
I've never met a smart socialist though

...

Eh. I sort of base my view on established research. Dunning Kruger is pretty much verifiable, and multiple intelligence theory is pretty well established as well. We're not exactly great at measuring intelligence, but certain categories(like mathematical/logical) are very easy to measure.

We can see by studies that there are different types of intelligence, and even if we can't measure them well we can see enough to know they are not necessarily related.

So I sort of reject your statement. You're right there is no truly hard science on the topic, but there's a lot of soft science which has passed the reproduceability test.

Can I get a source for that? I wouldn't doubt it. I've seen it suggested elsewhere, but I would like to have a solid source for future citation.

This.

>but there's a lot of soft science which has passed the reproduceability test.
This statement is an oxymoron.

Confirmation bias

The intellectual core of the right wing (see Buckley, George Will) doesn't appeal to a wide audience, so the right wing must approach political rhetoric from a disingenuous angle. It is filled with logical fallacies intolerable to intelligent people.

If liberals are smarter than republicans why don't they win every election then?

Are republicans left wing?

Holy fuck how did I miss this response? /thread

because they dont live life

This is just you projecting you retards.
In your mind, you're the ""smart"" normie who spent enough time talking to ""smart"" autists (Sup Forums). It's not profound at all

Fuck off cuck. I'm an autist who is smart in some ways and dumb as a bag of rocks in other ways. The shoe fits. I literally cannot think of an example that contradicts it.

The argument is, and ALWAYS has been: Acceptance vs. Authority.

We're gonna get BOTH. Fuck yeah!

>smart

McCarthy was right

Care to elaborate? Every idea leftists have is abstract as fuck. Never any real plans. Just anti this or anti that. It's like every one has the mental capacity of a stoner and they're proud of what they consider deep thoughts. The people who are actually progressing in life are laughing at the progressive party as we pass by.

>Be left wing or we will fire you from major corporations, scream at you like a child throwing a tantrum, send goons in black clothes to punch you in the face, and ban you from major academic institutions
>Wow all these smart people are saying they're "left wing"

Rebememr dem edumacations r jutz a skam by dem jew niggas liek OBAMA LOL

You goddamn right Cleetus

The dems have gone so far left that the right is slightly left wing - trump used to be dem, heaps of obama voters are 'right wing' now and voted for trump

if smart is a modern term for the mentally ill than you're bang on

>Carbon taxes
>Universal healthcare
>Drug legalisation
Pro tip: Sweeping statements about diverse populations are literally never correct.

Universal healthcare is an inherently dysgenic concept.

they know their smart enough to gain influence over people, and they don't want to work, so they advocate for higher taxes and more gov control

The stereotype that people from the south have absolutely no concept of a sophisticated well thought out argument is a ridiculous assumption you ambiguous scrotum sucker.

You don't have to be genetically perfect to contribute to society.

>all this mental gymnastics ITT
face it if you were smart, you wouldn't be a rural and suburban retard

...

>pick one and only one

No, but as the average genetic quality of people declines the society as a whole declines. Dumber workers, more need for healthcare per person, stuff like that.

Leftists are smart enough to identify problems that need fixing, but can't separate their emotions enough to come up with correct solutions. Right wingers can identify the problem and fix it correctly, but lack the emotion needed for effective advocacy, so they just look bad and their ideas never come to fruition.

90% of people are still apolitical and just vote for whoever their parents voted for, though.

whatever affect it would have its obviously pretty weak

"Genetic perfection" is irrelevant and only exists subjectively. I'm simply pointing out that universal healthcare slows selective development in a gene pool, as do most socialist policies, since you seemed to pretend it's inherently a good concept.

How can average IQ increase if it's always 100 by definition?

really causes one to ponder...

>Subjectively defined areas of intelligence collected using subjectively designed testing on subjective amounts of a population selected subjectively results in objective information
I will never see the IQ metric, or any part of social science, as anything more than pseudoscience.

How is a dollar a dollar if inflation exists?

Retard.

Sure. you can be very good at chemistry and be a complete moron in economy.

Reminds me of that map everyone posts where the global mean is 85, and people start doing mental gymnastics when you point out that this contradicts the metric.

They aren't, if you look at IQ statistics the smartest people are right wing

Because smart people go to university, and universities are now hives for dangerous Marxist ideologues. Basically you're smart enough to have been indoctrinated, but not quite smart enough to recognise it.

College doesn't teach logic anymore. Critical theory replaced Socrates. Try to argue facts with a libtard and they will resort to infintile, ridiculous behavior 99% of the time

>inflation of IQ
>1 IQ point in 2017 is worth less than 1 IQ point in 1910
gotcha

Show me those statistics

If republicans are "right wing" (whatever that means), then see here
The stats are obviously affected by the fact that blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

...

Test modern day populations on older tests

New tests are produced regularly so certain countries IQ remains at 100

This is a really bad attitude to have. Lifetimes of insanely intelligent people have been spent in the social sciences, you should honestly look into these things further if you're making statements like this.

I'd doubt a single philosophy course on earth fails to mention Socrates.

Also why wouldn't critical theory be taught? Philosophy isn't a science there are many paradigms through which questions can be answered and the world examined.

>Also why wouldn't critical theory be taught?

I know right?

It's almost like (((Universities))) are intentionally programming mindless drones to repeat meaningless mantras like "diversity is our strength" when challenged

heh that post was dumb now that I try to justify it

If there's smart people on the progressive side it has nothing to do with their intelligence, it just means that they aren't satisfied with the direction the institutions are currently taking. It's an ethical matter it isn't rational and has nothing to do with IQ.

But yeah it's normal you see it that way, the left isn't as clearly defined as the right since it clusters all the subgroups which aren't satisfied with the current direction of the institutions, even if socialists are overrepresented there's no core to tie all the subgroups together other than "it's shit we want something else". That's also why they always eat themselves because there's as many "something else" as there are people, and they always want something that has never been tried yet

>Lifetimes of insanely intelligent people have been spent in the social sciences
This is an argument from authority, and an empty one at that. Why do you expect me to take you seriously with such fallacy? Their lives were wasted.